Topic: Quickseller escrowing for himself - page 15. (Read 33647 times)

Let's use a not-so-obvious example to explain what I mean:

Let's say I'm selling 0.1 BTC for 28.3 dollars (note at the moment 283 is the average between BTC/USD and BTC/CAD). I send 0.1 BTC and you send 28.3 USD to the escrow. We didn't specify the currency and for some reason I think it's obvious it's USD because I charge a fee and you think it's obvious it's CAD because you charge a fee (neither wants to scam, we just disagree). If you are the escrow yourself then the escrow would also find it obvious it's CAD and he could just complete the deal.

I may start a scam accusation against both you and the escrow (which I don't know are the same person) and I may win or I may not. Only if I win the escrow risks his reputation and I may get the money back in an attempt of the escrow to keep his reputation. If I lose I just lose. And very probably I wouldn't even bother starting a scam accusation because of the small amount and because I'm aware it was my fault too for not specifying the currency on time.

If a real third party would have been used then he wouldn't be biased and I could trust much more his judgment. It's possible he decides it's CAD too; but he may also decide it's USD or he may not know and make an average or cancel the deal completely.

I'm just saying a real third party can act neutrally without any bias. If it's a neutral third party I'd feel much more comfortable trusting him. And I repeat I do not think this behavior deserves a trusted negative feedback, but I do prefer to use an escrow that never does this.

You think that's me? That's not me. I don't have any alts other than an account called "Just Dice" that posted once asking to be freed from newbie jail.

Coinonomous uses too many commas, just, like, I do. But I don't think I ever would say "dead nuts crazy". That's just weird.

I don't launder money, and I don't think it's possible to "shill against" anything, only for it:

  shill: noun. an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.

Maybe you should take a break for a while and calm down.


See what I mean? You're replying without reading.

I think you should at least take my argument into consideration, however I obviously cannot force you to change your mine.

LAMO

Thank you and I do everything I do from my heart.

My heart of hearts does stand behind this.


If it happens, then so be it.

I'll take it like a man, I will not complain and I will continue to use Bitcointalk for trading ect.

Remember remember the 8th of September!

If you feel leaving negative trust is the right thing to do, then negative trust away. If you honestly strongly feel negative trust is appropriate then I applaud you for staking your reputation on this issue. I have done the same thing in the past, stood my ground and maintained my position. You are right, there are not many people who are willing to leave a controversial rating.

With that being said, I do not think your conclusion is accurate, as I would not have escrowed my own deal if there was any doubt in my mind that doing so was not a scam. I do think that those who leave negative trust will end up removed from DT, although I do not have any direct control over this (I can make an argument for as much, and in the past those who do make these kinds of decisions have concurred with my opinions).

You seem to have the missed the point---or you have it bass-ackwards.

If you're escrowing your own deal you're offering hidden risk to the other party.  You've done yourself a favor, not a disadvantage.  As Ecua correctly says, the point of a third party is to negotiate any issues from a neutral point of view.  He correctly emphasizes that misunderstandings can arise even if everyone is operating in good faith.  If you escrow your own deal and your trading partner doesn't know you're doing this, then when you sort out a misunderstanding in your own favor, you've pulled the wool over your trading partner's eyes and gotten paid to do it.

I'm not sure what to tell you then. That it's my alt and I was escrowing for myself? Is that what you were expecting to hear?

Everyone else is "scared" of being removed off the trust system for calling out untrustworthy people... not me sir.

The free cookies for being on DT aren't worth letting you do what you are doing.

Edit:  The "you what you are doing" is aimed at Quickseller.  Not Vod in way, shape or form.

You are correct, there are possibilities to have miscommunication issues. This is a risk that is being taken when escrowing your own deals. However this possibility of this happening is the same as if there is a direct trade between two parties.

If you and I are trading, and you are selling 1 BTC for 240 dollars, then what is the difference between you sending me 1BTC, and me sending you CAD$240 from QS, verses me sending you CAD$240 from an alt? Even if the fact that what currency is being used is not documented properly (an escrow agreement should do this), it is still a scam in both instances. If this would be done as a direct trade, then it would be possible to weasel your way out of it, however if you were acting as an escrow, then your reputation as an escrow would be damaged because you did not properly gather all of the facts prior to advising that it is safe to send money

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/is-escrowing-for-yourself-using-a-secret-alt-ok-1174622

I don't have a "case". I make sales daily on cryptothrift or here now. I was stating that I suffered from Quicksellers feedback abuse. You pull the same shit. Assumptions among friends shouldn't lead to trust ratings, but sadly you all seem to do it.

You bought a hero account to buy gain trust. You posting here will not help your case, but only make things worse.

Not that I really care, but just out of curiosity, what were you expecting?

Quickseller fucked me over and destroyed my reputation and sales for the longest time; with no evidence, and admitted it was his assumption.

You deserve every bit of this. Learn to keep your hands off the keyboard.. you claim to be leaving the forum but all I've seen is you logging between alts. Not everyone is a loudmouth on the forums.. Better know it isn't just me who's digging. Your not even close to as anonymous as you think.

Somebody as active as TC will get new positive feedback to overwrite the negative feedback soon enough.  

I think the system needs to be changed so that one negative feedback cannot cause "? ? ?".  I understand it is meant to be a warning sign like "careful - this account may be recently hacked or something" but it shouldn't stay "? ? ?" forever - maybe a one week period?

A lot of red being tossed around in here. Thinking a thread needs to be opened in Meta to discuss this escrowing for yourself business, especially as a member of DT.

Why would you not be surprised? do you believe that you are more trustworthy in comparison to him? And that any negative trust you get shouldn't be visible without searching?

To be fair if you agree to use someone as escrow it means you trust him enough to be willing to send first to him. Therefore the risk it not significantly (if at all) increased.

However it's not transparent at all. If any problem arises (and I mean non-intentional problems due to miscommunication, not necessarily a scam attempt) then the escrow (who is an alt of the other party) can't act neutral, he just can't. If the 2 persons who are dealing forget to agree what to do on an specific circumstance each of them may think differently; I've seen cases when they assume completely different things as obvious. A neutral third party could solve this but in this case there's no third party to do it.

As a result I don't think that's a scammy behavior completely (so I don't think it's enough for a trusted negative feedback) but I'd absolutely prefer to use someone else's services as escrow.


And on TC's profile too. It's quite strange to see someone on DT level one with a trusted (by default) negative feedback. I'm curious to see what happens too.

Because of groupthink and a mob mentality. It is easier for someone to agree with what everyone else is saying verses to say something that is unpopular, and to strongly argue their point (potentially from multiple views). 

so as someone else asked, why the double standard? leave neg on one but not the other. I'm sure others are wondering the same thing.

sorry about starting to get off topic now.