Topic: Quickseller escrowing for himself - page 20. (Read 33647 times)

Is it a fact extraKrispy is an alt of tomatocage? Where's the proof? The linked thread doesn't suggest that.

Edit: I've been pointed out here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10358524

Indeed extraKrispy seems to be an alt account of tomatocage. I must say I'm disappointed at TC. While I don't think acting as escrow for himself is exactly scam I do think it's wrong. The same (or even more) applies to leaving a positive feedback to his own alt, especially from a DT account. The minimum TC could do is remove that feedback and stop doing that.

Since this seems to be a common practice I decided to remove the neutral feedback I had left on QS' profile just because I won't leave feedback everywhere.

if extraKrispy is really an alt of tomatocage he as has given himself a positive trust rating...
imho thats more worse than just escrowing himself...

well...bitcointalk trust system is way more fucked than i thought!

Why the double standard?

Tomatocage did the same thing with his alt extraKrispy but he has seen as one of the most trustworthy people here

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/sold-200-btc-bitstamp-5-793183

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=257307

I'm not saying I don't trust tomatocage but what's the deal with double standards and witch hunts?

Theymos is the end all.  He decides who goes into level 1.  Those people decide who go to level 2, etc.  If you cannot trust the Administrator, why are you here?

I don't fear leaving negative feedback.  QS said he is leaving the community.  He did a lot of good work here so there is no need to stab him in the back as he leaves.

I did say I'll revist this the end of the week.  If he is going to hang around and continue to try and scam (even under his alts) negative trust WILL have to be left.

So is it true, there is some kind of high command system in Bitcointalk. Where they decide who will be in default and who will not. Someone from high command can abuse whole system and make Bitcointalk trust system joke.

Since when you are fearing giving negative feedback.

Quickseller is threatening that anyone who leaves him negative trust will be excluded from DT.  Not sure if that is true or not (high level alts?) but I think people are erring on the side caution until all the shit is exposed.

Funny enough if a random did what quickseller has done until now he would have gotten hundreds of negative ratings easily, yet quickseller has no negative not even neutral from a dt member.

So QS outright lied about being banned (for what reasons I don't know).  I don't see how anyone can trust a word of what he types anymore.

Qs banned posted a message signed with qs pgp proving that he is qs

If you have evidence that I am an alt of QS then please post it here. Please do not attempt to spread FUD. Lots of people have met me here in RL meetups and know who I am. I promise you I am not QS nor am I a close friend or anything, I have stated such many times and nobody has provided any evidence otherwise, so please don't try to mislead people.

It is mostly tspacepilot I am concerned about. He is the one who pulled a scam and weaseled his way out. I'd just like some clarification from BB on a couple of things is all.

You seem very concerned about Quickseller buddy. Relax it's not your issue is it?

@BadBear I'm kind of confused right now, my understanding is that you removed QS for faking a ban and not for the escrow issue, or was it because of both?

How do you know it wasn't someone else behind the "qs banned" and "panthers52" accounts?

I heard from a few people that someone might have been bruteforcing default router passwords of bitcoin users to use their IP as a proxy. Do you know anything about this? it has happened to many Bitcoin nodes and  the leaked DB here is a suspected source as it appears the hackers have knowledge of things that are likely in the DB. Maybe IP evidence isn't so useful, I hope your accusations aren't based solely on that.

I can handle reports related to my posts. I have a vast and very complete knowledge of forum rules and policies, precedents related to them, and am probably best equipped to do it. But I don't, because there would be an inherent bias and conflict of interest, whether I see it or not. It's just the proper way to do it, and helps to put others at ease (though odds are nobody would ever know). Everyone is biased to some extent, it's best to minimize it as much as possible. If for nothing else, than for public perception.


Indeed. Edited my post to clarify.
 

You can do what you want, but you brought me into it, and I can't risk my reputation and the trust I've built up over the years. Being trustworthy, credible, and reliable as an admin is too important, more than any one person, including me (as a person). With that in mind, no the ends don't justify the means, I wouldn't lie to cover up my personal information either.

Whether the deception resulted in monetary gain is irrelevant. It's the betrayal of trust that matters. It's very hard to gain that back once it's lost, if not impossible.

Like I said, I'm sorry about the situation your in, but it's a situation of your own making. Tangled web, deceit, etc.

I dont. I understand that you are protective about your privacy, so are many here. Some have more to fear others less. NO amount of scam busting puts you in a position where its ok to do shady things. Try if you can and see your actions in this thread as if they where someone elses. Would you consider that person trustworthy?

It depends how you define a scam.
An escrow isn't an escrow unless it is a third party, by definition.
That's fact.
You can Caveat Emptor, you can Bitcoin is Different, you can whatever, but that is a fact. A trading counterparty that pretends, thru an alias, to also be a third party escrow, is a liar indulging in deception for their own benefit.

If one party withholds information relevant to a financial transaction so that they benefit and the counterparty doesn't, is that a scam?
If one party lies by omission, offering to use an "escrow" which is not an escrow at all because it is them in disguise, is that a scam?

You could probably answer no, they aren't scams because nobody lost anything.

Is the attitude necessary to not only behave like that, but to also continually attempt to justify doing it when caught out, indicative of anything?
Yes it is.
Would I trust with someone with that attitude?
Would I fuck.
I'd count my fingers after shaking hands with them.

Very strong Point indeed !!
xyz can do nothing , instead he can throw some heavy amount to DOX the Guy. I also assume this type of scenario is quite possible.

There is apparently a 13 page thread about a "probable alt" of quicklseller.
I obviously have made a number of enemies during my tenure here. The primary reason for this is because I have cost a lot of people (who were trying to steal/scam) a lot of money (that they were trying to steal/scam). I think I also have the reputation of being someone who is able to stop a scam in it's tracks. Naturally, this would mean that there would be great value to someone who was planni(ng a scam in the future.

I cannot speak for you, and I cannot speak for TC (nor anyone else in similar positions), however I somewhat assume you are in a better situation then I am. However if I were to get approached by someone who was planning on executing a scam in the future and were to receive a message saying they would say that QS is "John Smith" who lives at "123 main street" and that person is a Pedo (or some other 100% BS) then I would most likely vouch for them. That is something that I am simply not willing to risk, unfortunately.

With the above being said, I have received reports from NDNHC that he is receiving requests from newbies via PM (I have no idea if this is true or not) who are asking him to make (obviously fake/BS) scam accusations against me. Granted this information was not told to me until after the alleged indiscretion. However it is no secret that scammer, and scammer hopeful's would love to get their hands on personal information of those who might call them out as scammers in the future.

I would not be surprised if "random newbies" were to approach the accounts that Panthers52 had goods shipped to, with allegations that Panthers52 scammed them (without or with bogus proof obviously), and asking for personal information so legal action can be taken, ect. Do you think it would be entirely unreasonable for someone to fall for that kind of ruse?

With all that being said, do you think that the "ends might justify the means" in this situation? Maybe such deception was to avoid a situation that would result in a scam that is discovered be endorsed because of a (successful) extortion attempt.

Additionally, such no deception resulted in not (attempted or actual) financial gain (see above RE: the escrow fee).

I think it is probably fair to say, that if either you, theymos, or TC were to accidentally leak what could result in their/your personal information being disclosed, that any of you would take steps to prevent such information from appearing credible.

I can say with great certainty that you absolutely do not  want your personal information disclosed to the public

Your (or TC) probably should, especially the later considering how much commerce he (claims to) engage in.

Alright, apparently people keep posting stuff about me here and I don't really like that. Yes, I've left both QuickSeller and Panthers52 a positive trust rating. Why? Because I did successful business with them without using escrow. I didn't even know that Panthers52 was an alt of QuickSeller and would have never guessed that. Panthers52 paid extra so that the coin got here before I went on vacation, I call that good business and I don't see how that could ever be considered as buying trust (yes, I'm talking to you Hazelnut). Kialara does the same for my group buys, he pays extra so that the package arrives quickly and I can distribute them in a timely manner. Does he also buy trust because of that? Don't be ridiculous. Anyway, I will not remove my trust feedback as I don't see how the current situation has anything to do with those ratings. If you have a problem with that, go ahead and complain, but as long as I don't see a very good reason to remove them, I won't.

However, I do not approve of this behaviour. If someone escrow your transactions, that person should be someone that you don't know and that isn't you. This is an opinion I've stated quite a few times in my signature overview thread (in which sed, and others, did harass me to remove the small paid advertisement I had in the OP to compensate for the time I put into it, but that is off-topic here).

I have nothing else to add to this discussion and I would prefer to be left out of this. Thank you.

If you and I are doing a direct trade, and I send money directly to you (without escrow), and the goods never arrive to my address, and you are unable to provide any kind of proof that you sent the items, don't you think it would be expected of you to return such money (and learn your lesson to next time keep better documentation)?

I can't speak for anyone else, however if I was selling something to someone and a similar to the above situation were to occur (including others that I may not have been described but would still be my fault), then I would certainly refund the buyer. I can even say that a situation similar to this even occurred that resulted in a partial refund to someone I sold a miner to (you can check my trusted feedback).

If I am able to act this way in a direct trade, then why would I not be able to act this way when acting as an escrow?  

edit: see my previous post regarding the fee

PQ (alt of QR) agrees to sell something to xyz (a jr. member) using QR as escrow. xyz sents the payment to QR.
Both of them denies receiving the payment. What can xyz do?

Even if xyz starts a scam accusation, he is not likely to succeed arguing against PQ and QR, who will be seen as independent persons with at least one of them of good repute.

And as BadBear pointed out, escrow will very likely always be siding with PQ.