Topic: Quickseller escrowing for himself - page 27. (Read 33671 times)

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.

This is not me rejecting others who I trust, this is me protecting myself by having my trading partner trust someone they willingly trust with their money.

The overall price of a good that two consenting parties agree to will always factor in any escrow costs (or lack thereof)

The overall deal that anyone got when dealing with me was one they were happy with. This is little different then you charging more for miners then is available directly from the manufacturer

Are you actually admitting it? 

Even if this was a reasonable stance (consider me Switzerland)...  Did you have to charge others $ for it?

Why am I an asshole now?  I'm the only one giving you the benefit of the doubt here.     I actually believe you were banned (and not lying about it) because otherwise I'm sure BB would say something - he wouldn't have someone in his trust list who lies about being banned.



All you are doing is harassing the old black woman that lives there - one that happens to share my first initial.  Good on you QS.  Burn one of your few friends.    

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?

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.  

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.

I think I get your point.  But to be fair to me, I haven't really set any criteria which count as a "positive" to start with.  It's not like I set thresholds and said, people with these metrics are alts.  What I did was create a model of the language of quickseller, and tested that model as a predictor of other account's texts.  I then released these results.  The results are merely descriptive.  They put a direct number on how similar a particular set of texts is to the model of quickseller.  They don't say "if you're this similar, you must be an alt".  That last part is something I purposely left for other people to judge for themselves.

Maybe this will help clarify things: the model is a collection of all of the 1, 2 and 3 word phrases that quickseller has used along with their frequencies across his .5 million words.  It's a pretty big model.  The perplexity numbers I published are nothing but direct evaluations of the postings of other accounts as they relate to the model of quickseller.  To put this in more layman's terms: if I used the same 1 2 and 3 word phrases at the same relative frequencies as quickseller, then my posts would get a very low perplexity score when we use the model of quickseller to predict them.  It turns out that I don't do this, and neither does dooglus, and neither does hillariousandco.  So far, these are the only corpora I've checked.

I hope this explanation helps.  I fell like the way you're calling it my "script" makes it sound like I may have done something mysterious.  I'll I've done is publish some concrete descriptive statistics about the words of 6 particular bitcoin talk accounts.  What you take away from this is up to you.


Maybe, given the explanation above, and the fact that I've provided all the code you'll need to replicate my work, you could start calling it "the information that tsp presented" or "tsp's experimental results".  I feel like calling it my "script" or "algorithm" is a bit of a misuderstanding.

I would like it if we have all these discussions relating to QS in a single thread. I think even Quickseller wouldn't want so many threads discussing him, lol.

On the other hand, that is not exactly off-topic. One of the speculated reasons is QS faked the ban so that Panthers52 couldn't be QS since he was active during the ban period. which makes it on-topic.




To be frank, I am not interested in leaving any negative trust feedback to anyone without proving him/her guilty.
I have no reasonable evidence to support that, and it remains a speculation.

Doing so would be adopting Quickseller's methods. which is what I am arguing against.

Edit: He was NOT banned.
He faked it using an alt with a username that would mislead people. And pretended to be ban evading while he wasn't.

This thread hasn't been derailed. It's all about TSP's script, QS, Panthers, their shady or alleged shady activity.

He asked why he would fake a ban, still on topic. I'm sure that question has to do with QS and the panthers account which is what this thread is about lol

Someone actually confirmed he wasn't banned? If so, have to admit this just got much more interesting.

Maybe you should start a new thread about it, as that discussion will again derail the discussion IMO  .

I still have not been given a reasonable explanation on why Quickseller faked a ban.

sending first with an additional escrow-fee

just removed tomatocage from my trustlist because of this:

in case someones interested my new trust list looks like this:
jgarzik
Pieter Wuille
Luke-Jr
gmaxwell
smooth
TECSHARE
-ck
~smoothie
Vod
John (John K.)
~Tomatocage
DeathAndTaxes
BadBear
Blazr
DannyHamilton
rpietila
~nubbins
fluffypony
DefaultTrust
tspacepilot
~Quickseller

(yes i know it contains DefaultTrust. I am using Level 1 and it is by intent)

which displays QS as: Trust: 0: -1 / +13

I agree too. Escrow is supposed to be an independent third-party.

I agree with this. If someone uses their alt, no protection is offered. Same as sending first, right? If they wanted to send first or trusted the buyer or seller they would have just done so and no escrow would have been needed.

That depends.

Taking money for the express purpose of protecting goods, and then offering no protection at all could be considered ripping people off.  Why was that extra money paid if it wasn't needed?

I did go a little far there, I'll edit that. Like I mentioned before though, that script could easily flag someone wrong and you know how people are very quick to call scam around here. People should use their heads, but it would be much easier for them to believe what a script is telling them. Just like how some blindly follow those with trust, no questions asked. Two very different things but you get what's I'm trying to say?

At the moment, you've done very little to test it out so how do you know that's not a false positive? QS or someone else will just bring this up later.

escrowing for himself, but he didnt rip anyone off right?

also would be curious what my corpus score is

That's why I said most. I never said anything about giving feedback to other alts or anything you mentioned above, that's just wrong for someone to do. IMO if caught, they should be labeled a scammer unless there is a VERY good reason. I could only think of one reason, but scammers would also use that so it doesn't matter.