Click Trust then trust setting then scroll down and Hierarchical view.
You will see who added whom.
Topic: Quickseller escrowing for himself - page 25. (Read 33647 times)
How can you tell? Is there a way of viewing people's trust lists?
add a user to your trust list and you'll be able to see it clear as day. you'll have to exclude DT and remove other users.
Can you give more details? Where do I see it? I've added users to my trust list before and not noticed their trust list appear anywhere.
Edit: oh, are you saying I should wipe out my whole trust list other than 2 entries, just keeping in the person I want to examine, and ~DefaultTrust?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full - or under trust settings scroll to the bottom and click on "Hierarchical view"
Since you were dealing with QS, you *did* send first; he may have pretended to send first, but was really only sending to himself?
Now this reminds me of the movie Interstellar...
Kind of offtopic, but kind of related:
People often appear in the Just-Dice chat asking if I have CLAM for sale for BTC. I often do. Instead of telling them "send X btc to address Y" I'll use the built-in escrow system. It will tell them the amount and address, and hold my CLAMs in escrow until they send the BTC. In a sense I'm escrowing my own deal since I own JD and by extension its escrow system. But there's no fee, they are willing to send first anyway, and I don't think anyone has the expectation that JD is a neutral third party.
How can you tell? Is there a way of viewing people's trust lists?
add a user to your trust list and you'll be able to see it clear as day. you'll have to exclude DT and remove other users.
Can you give more details? Where do I see it? I've added users to my trust list before and not noticed their trust list appear anywhere.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust
tried to use that with your name (exluded DT) and found that you have trusted 23 users and excluded QS. if that's wrong then I must be wrong.
Now this reminds me of the movie Interstellar...
just stay in the background, man.
How can you tell? Is there a way of viewing people's trust lists?
add a user to your trust list and you'll be able to see it clear as day. you'll have to exclude DT and remove other users.
Can you give more details? Where do I see it? I've added users to my trust list before and not noticed their trust list appear anywhere.
Edit: oh, are you saying I should wipe out my whole trust list other than 2 entries, just keeping in the person I want to examine, and ~DefaultTrust?
Since you were dealing with QS, you *did* send first; he may have pretended to send first, but was really only sending to himself?
Now this reminds me of the movie Interstellar...
How can you tell? Is there a way of viewing people's trust lists?
add a user to your trust list and you'll be able to see it clear as day. you'll have to exclude DT and remove other users.
disclaimer
I'm not posting from the wrong acc or anything.
BadBear would know if QS was banned.
BadBear would probably remove QS from DT if QS lied about being banned - but that is just my thoughts.
Look asshole, do you think it would be fair to have my personal information published and my name slandered by enemies that I have made on the forum? When the reason I have made such enemies is because I prevented them from being able to steal from others? BadBear would probably remove QS from DT if QS lied about being banned - but that is just my thoughts.
If you think this is fair then please PM me your new/updated contact information so I can update what is below:
Vod:
(please note that most people would present this information in a much harsher way).
Do you think it is fair that I should have to risk my money on the potential that someone else will run away while acting as escrow, when I have built up my own reputation to a level in which others are willing to risk their money on me, if I want to protect my own identity? This is not unheard of and has happened before. If you think this is fair, then why don't you repay shdvb the $400 that was stolen from him by maidak, the $5,000 that was stolen fromandresmm91, and the $10,000 that he apparently stole from someone on OTC? Maidak was previously one of the most reputable people on the forum until it was revealed that he stole all this money.
There is no reason why I should have to risk my money like that just so I can protect my privacy.
That's quite the response. Vod was talking about whether BB was covering for you, and your reply was very angry and totally unrelated to his point. It also appears to be an admission that you were in fact escrowing for one of your own alts.
BB has removed QS from his trust list.
How can you tell? Is there a way of viewing people's trust lists?
If i had known i was dealing with you QS i would have sent 1st and not incurred the fee.
Since you were dealing with QS, you *did* send first; he may have pretended to send first, but was really only sending to himself?
goose20, ask for the 0.018btc in escrow fees back. QS says he will return it since he didn't provide the third party services he charged for.
e4d796d34072ce590a6cf41e728a3b5e93b06e9c23a2ae5c397ad8f5752607ed sent 0.018BTC to 15SSSmXELHg4szZNzW71oKmBrpqvq9kTHZ which is the address he posted. It has four confirmations. If he wants the transaction to get more confirmations, then asking me is not going do very much good
goose20, ask for the 0.018btc in escrow fees back. QS says he will return it since he didn't provide the third party services he charged for.
There is no reason why I should have to risk my money like that just so I can protect my privacy.
Even if this was a reasonable stance (consider me Switzerland)... Did you have to charge others $ for it?
Where are those miners available directly from the manufacturer? Now you are spreading lies.
Not to mention if you factor in shipping mine are still cheaper.
I've learned that when people deflect, they are usually in the wrong.
Price: $340 (1.414BTC)/each
Price you are charging 1.515BTC/each
They are not available as you claim and I offer free shipping. They do not.
Nice try deflecting.
The issue here is you charging money for providing a 3rd party service which was not a 3rd party service. Now that you have admitted it, I await the backlash from those who have left you positive trust.
However even if "my alt" were to have paid for any escrow fee that I charged, the negotiation process would have worked in a way that would have allowed them to receive a higher starting price (or pay a lower starting price).
There is no difference between saying "I will sell 2 BTC @bitstamp+1%, and I will pay the escrow fee" and saying "I will sell 2 BTC @Bitstamp and you pay the escrow fee"
15SSSmXELHg4szZNzW71oKmBrpqvq9kTHZ
For our last deal thanks - for the principal of the matter.
If i had known i was dealing with you QS i would have sent 1st and not incurred the fee.
My 2 cents - i look at the intention, i do not think there was ever the intention to scam nor would a scam ever have happened. I believe your intentions were true but in your attempts to provide a 'service' to this community it's all got a bit too twisted. When you had the choice between several escrows and you choose yourself...well that's the choice you made. You should have done per previous deal where you choose 3rd party (TC).
Cheers
There is no reason why I should have to risk my money like that just so I can protect my privacy.
Even if this was a reasonable stance (consider me Switzerland)... Did you have to charge others $ for it?
Where are those miners available directly from the manufacturer? Now you are spreading lies.
Not to mention if you factor in shipping mine are still cheaper.
I've learned that when people deflect, they are usually in the wrong.
Price: $340 (1.414BTC)/each
Price you are charging 1.515BTC/each
They are not available as you claim and I offer free shipping. They do not.
Nice try deflecting.
The issue here is you charging money for providing a 3rd party service which was not a 3rd party service. Now that you have admitted it, I await the backlash from those who have left you positive trust.
However even if "my alt" were to have paid for any escrow fee that I charged, the negotiation process would have worked in a way that would have allowed them to receive a higher starting price (or pay a lower starting price).
There is no difference between saying "I will sell 2 BTC @bitstamp+1%, and I will pay the escrow fee" and saying "I will sell 2 BTC @Bitstamp and you pay the escrow fee"
15SSSmXELHg4szZNzW71oKmBrpqvq9kTHZ
For our last deal thanks - for the principal of the matter.
If i had known i was dealing with you QS i would have sent 1st and not incurred the fee.
My 2 cents - i look at the intention, i do not think there was ever the intention to scam nor would a scam ever have happened. I believe your intentions were true but in your attempts to provide a 'service' to this community it's all got a bit too twisted. When you had the choice between several escrows and you choose yourself...well that's the choice you made. You should have done per previous deal where you choose 3rd party (TC).
Cheers
Edit: fee has been returned.
BadBear would know if QS was banned.
BadBear would probably remove QS from DT if QS lied about being banned - but that is just my thoughts.
BadBear would probably remove QS from DT if QS lied about being banned - but that is just my thoughts.
If BadBear knows that QS has been banned, why his ban has not been extended due to ban evasion
One way or another things are strange, either QS faked his ban or the forum rules are not being enforced to him;
You guys can ask BadBear though, he seems to be online atm https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12351145
P.S: If you actually are a real person panther, nevermind that statement
. BadBear would know if QS was banned.
BadBear would probably remove QS from DT if QS lied about being banned - but that is just my thoughts.
BadBear would probably remove QS from DT if QS lied about being banned - but that is just my thoughts.
If BadBear knows that QS has been banned, why his ban has not been extended due to ban evasion
One way or another things are strange, either QS faked his ban or the forum rules are not being enforced to him;
I doubt whether Quickseller's "justification" holds. This kind of behavior is certainly unprofessional and not trustworthy to say the least.
Trusted members of the community are expected to hold some basic things and respect it.
I have no idea who is who's alt, but what if something happens like:
1. I make an agreement with X, and an escrow Y who is actually an alt of X, which no one is aware of (No one is aware of who is who's alt around here, so it is a completely possible speculation)
2. After I send say 1BTC to escrow, I get no reply.
3. Game over.
I start a scam accusation, I will be dealing with the escrow and the seller, both of them who are supposedly independent agrees that I have not paid 1BTC to anyone. If I am, say a jr. member (easy target), how many would be on my side arguing against say, Quickseller?
I doubt anyone is going to use escrow if this kind of behavior is taken as "fine" in the community
The concept of escrow lies in two principles:
1. The expected independence of the escrow from both buyer and seller.
2. Being a third-party.
IMO, fee charged (and the invalid trust feedback he shouldn't have received from the other party) is less important, but just that is significant enough.
Trusted members of the community are expected to hold some basic things and respect it.
I have no idea who is who's alt, but what if something happens like:
1. I make an agreement with X, and an escrow Y who is actually an alt of X, which no one is aware of (No one is aware of who is who's alt around here, so it is a completely possible speculation)
2. After I send say 1BTC to escrow, I get no reply.
3. Game over.
I start a scam accusation, I will be dealing with the escrow and the seller, both of them who are supposedly independent agrees that I have not paid 1BTC to anyone. If I am, say a jr. member (easy target), how many would be on my side arguing against say, Quickseller?
I doubt anyone is going to use escrow if this kind of behavior is taken as "fine" in the community
The concept of escrow lies in two principles:
1. The expected independence of the escrow from both buyer and seller.
2. Being a third-party.
IMO, fee charged (and the invalid trust feedback he shouldn't have received from the other party) is less important, but just that is significant enough.
[/quote]Please point out the lie. Do you have an escrow agreement that says explicitly that I am not either the buyer nor the seller?
[/quote]
Do you hear yourself? Can a Judge sit on a case he is involved in? Or can a referee, ref a match whilst playing for one side?
Man I am dissapointed in you. Always held you in high regards until now. The least you can do is own up, and salvage what is left of your rep. My 2 cents.
When someone requests the use of escrow, they are wanting to use someone who they trust is not going to scam them.
Oh the irony!
I guess QS doesn't consider stealing an extra few percentage points for doing nothing to be scamming.
Even though you have no agreement to my above point, I have previously stated that I would be willing to refund any escrow fee that anyone has paid if they request such, so even your nullified point is moot.
If the other party is comfortable sending first in a direct trade (as would be indicated by the other party trusting me with escrow), then there is no difference in having them trust me as escrow. The other party accepting me as escrow means they trust me more then if they were to do a direct trade.
Of course the other party is going to be comfortable and trusting. You have been outright lying to them, telling them whatever they want to hear.
The key to being a good escrow is honesty and openness. You should not be doing any escrow, period.
Thats a pretty poor argument.
I think when most people request the use of Escrow they expect an independent and trusted 3rd party.
But you dont use the the person you are trading with to act as the Escrow for that transaction otherwise it renders the purpose of Escrow useless.
When someone requests the use of escrow, they are wanting to use someone who they trust is not going to scam them.
Oh the irony!
I guess QS doesn't consider stealing an extra few percentage points for doing nothing to be scamming.
If this happened with someone else, QS already marked him scammer. But now it's happened with her so now she defending herself by twisting words.
no one can stop a trusted escrow from going "rogue" - I understand Quickseller's input. An escrow can always escrow own trades with socks.
is that ethical? no
is it cheating? yes
your trust is on the line.
apart from that, I don't know why people still use bitcointalk escrows. there are great services like bitrated.com that require less trust and most escrows work for free until a dispute rises.
is that ethical? no
is it cheating? yes
your trust is on the line.
apart from that, I don't know why people still use bitcointalk escrows. there are great services like bitrated.com that require less trust and most escrows work for free until a dispute rises.
Jump to: