Topic: Quickseller escrowing for himself - page 6. (Read 33647 times)

The only reason for QS to buy coins from two different accounts is to build trust, yes.

Ok now that QS and Panthers are same person and I think QS has admitted it , then just answer me something.

Pathers and you both buy coins from blazedout419 , now why u buy from different accounts , to buy trust, isn't it ?

panthers

http://prntscr.com/8frtvw

QS

http://prntscr.com/8fru6h

Now if you were really making the trades because you were buying coins and not buying trust then why you not did the trades with a single account ?

I disagree. If someone were to trust markj113 to escrow a deal for a $100 widget, then what logical reason would the same person not trust markj113 to ship the exact same $100 widget after sending the same $100 to markj113? The risk of markj113 running away with the coins is exactly the same.

But there person you traded with did not trust you or wish to trade with you on a 1:1 basis hence their request for the a 3rd party Escrow.

They were trying to implement a safety measure should the trade go wrong so by you faking a 3rd party Escrow you circumvented the buyers wishes.

Right. And there is no reason why someone would not trust you to engage in a 1:1 transaction if they would trust you to act as escrow.
A economically rational person would be willing to pay at least an amount more that is equal to the escrow fee in a 1:1 trade because this cost is no longer associated with the trade. Just because neither party trusts eachother sufficiently to send money/goods first does not change the value of which either party is willing to pay for such goods/services.

Escrowing your own trade is NOT ESCROW it just becomes a straight 1:1 transaction.

Why cant you grasp that simple concept quickseller, why should someone pay an "Escrow" fee for zero protection and zero impartiality!


Take a step back and have a think, either you are wrong or everyone else in this 30 page thread is wrong.  There are no "ethical" arguments for using a sock puppet account to fake a 3rd party Escrow provider.

Dood, if you receive 1 more negative trust or someone remove 1 more positive trust of you you will get a "warning: trade with extreme caution"

Time to stop to dig yourself and maybe take a break from the forum

So because I am defending my actions with ethical arguments that neither you nor anyone else is even attempting to counter (they are instead making vague statements about definitions, and saying "escrow"), I should receive negative trust? This is instead of changing my story every post I make about the situation. I hope you realize how backwards this sounds.

Okay, if you and/or the community thinks that self escrowing is not okay, then why was there no outcry when it happened months ago? New users should know that asking for a loan without collateral is not okay because a) there is a sticky warning advising not to request such loans and b) because it happens often and the public result is that the new users receive negative ratings. On the other hand, escrowing for ones self happens out in the open with zero public outcry (there is more then one person engaging in this practice, however I am not going to call anyone out on this for obvious reasons).

Furthermore, if the appropriate disclosures are made (as I have since done), then whose business is it to say that others are not able to engage in a consensual transaction, that in reality, is going to overwhelmingly result in all parties involved saying they are happy with the transaction. This is exactly what a free market is, the ability for market participants to be able to make informed decisions as to how and what they wish to trade.

I did not scam anyone any amount of money. I earned $12 in ways that some people claimed were questionable, and as a result, I refunded the $12 and promptly changed my practices. None of the parties who were refunded the money in question felt that there was any kind of scam and as a result your statement is libel. You should retract it immediately.

I believe that tspacepilot fraudulently withdrew ~.5 BTC because that was the amount that was claimed he withdrew, and he made no serious attempt to dispute this amount with the exception of a vague statement of "I dispute the amount" (or something along those lines) that was coupled with his claims that his actions outside of bitcointalk had not business being included in his bitcointalk marketplace trust profile (which ironically now includes a reputation loan that took place outside of bitcointalk).

You can hardly say that tspacepilot was bullied. I left a negative trust rating against him, and he opened up multiple threads attacking me personally, while making no attempt to attack and/or counter any facts that I had advised him that I had relied upon to make the conclusion that I believed he is a scammer. This continued to the point that he was told by a forum administrator that he was not allowed to continue to make additional threads about me because he has made too many. I even went to offering a bounty for someone to attempt to explain how he is innocent, however neither he nor anyone else even attempt to claim such bounty.

Escrowing for yourself isn't okay because by definition an escrow is a neutral third party.  
It's been logically explained to you by numerous people.  TC isn't right for doing it either
but he's not going on trying to justify it.  

The more you argue it, the more I'm tempted to leave negative feedback.  I haven't done so thus
far because I thought the offense was minor and DT removal was good enough, but your attitude
makes me not trust your judgement.

You still don't get it.

Escrowing for yourself out in the open isn't what you did. You escrowed for yourself in secret.

I see the difference. But it's ironic that you think it's OK for you to scam $12 from your victims when it's apparently not OK for tsp to accidentally earn a similar amount from coinchat with a bot. What makes you think the amount in question is 0.5 BTC?

I'm not related to tsp in any way. I'm sticking up for him because you're bullying him.

You deleted the part where I called you out for lying about the number of accounts you left negative trust from:

No. He stole ~.5BTC. He refused to repay any of the stolen money. When confronted about the theft, he started intimidating the person who confronted him instead of countering any of the relevant facts. Both at the time of the uncovering of the original theft and now, the person who tspacepilot stole from says that he is a scammer.

On the other hand, I quickly repaid those who asked for their money back. The people who dealt with me said they did not feel that my business practices were any kind of a scam. Do you see the difference?
Why exactly do you bring up karma? You aren't related to tsp in any way are you? I cannot see any other reason why someone would be sticking up for someone so strongly if it was otherwise.

He was specifically aware that Panthers52 and QS were the same person long before he opened this thread. It was far from obvious as of that point in time.

ROFL
95% of bitcointalk are trolls, scammers and shitposters now?
just not sharing your opinion and trying to convince you that a dictionary is more trustworthy than you makes you think that?

@TBZ - I am sorry if my actions are something that you do not approve of. I repeat this same statement to anyone else who does not approve of my actions. I am not going to repeat my arguments as to why I believe that escrowing for yourself is okay because I have echo'ed them many times across multiple threads and for the most part they have mostly been ignored. There have also been no logical and/or factual arguments that counter any of my arguments, but rather nothing but trolls, scammers and shit posters who in no way address my arguments.

At the end of the day, what I did was a result of my witnessing of similar activity by one of the most, if not the most trusted and respected member of the community doing what was essentially the exact same thing out in the open and without consequence. I had posted in the thread where this was happening out in the open multiple times, so it is difficult to say that I was unaware of the situation.

If there are no rules regarding how people can and cannot conduct their own business, then how can you argue that someone who is conducting business in similar ways to one of the most trusted people in the community in the open months after he had done so is in the wrong?

Didn't you leave multiple negative trust ratings for tsp over less than $12 that his bot earned on coinchat?

Karma is a bitch, eh?


A single rating? You left multiple ratings against him.


No tip was needed. You were clearly the same person. I don't think you could have made it much more obvious.

Quoting my posts from the now-locked poll topic...

If you're referring to my positive trust for tsp, first of all, it was more about negating Wardrick's bad judgement more than anything else.  Second of all, a person is only as trustworthy as their last interaction.

Anyway, I didn't neg you, so not sure why you're trying to convince me of something.  Not interested in a debate here.