Topic: Quickseller receives 20BTC, does not do work, keeps $ **not disputed!** - page 4. (Read 3513 times)

You forget that Quickseller's definition of "proof" follows the same rules as his definition of "scam": inconsistent, different depending on whether we are talking about him or everybody else, and modifiable as and when he desires.

Realistically, it has been proven via blockchain that you took 20btc.
You did not return the coin and you did not do the work.

Please provide the proof you returned the coin, as you are known to lie.  :/

Shown? It was just you saying things, nothing was really "shown".

It would be most appropriate to remove the "not disputed" tag in the title of the thread, as this is not accurate.

Realistically, it would be appropriate to add a [resolved] tag as this has been shown to be unsubstantiated and false. 

Is that alia?

whatever went down with TF, there's no way he would sue quickseller. that payment to quickseller tied TF to a cloud mining exit scam, so TF be like




to be fair, this is from the same paragraph:

there is a difference between a) the buyer being defrauded entirely and b) the buyer being defrauded out of an escrow fee he intended to pay anyway. that wikipedia article is about the former, not the latter.

Riiiiiiiiight. I'll just leave this here:

"In the bogus escrow scam, a scammer sets itself up as the recipient of money or goods and then requests the use of an escrow service which is self-operated."

Don't even try to provide proof of anything you say. We can't handle the truth.

Is there anyone he really scammed besides TF?? I don’t see anything coming from that or the self-escrow stuff, legally. But maybe there’s some other threads you can link me to. (sorry to go off topic)

I have not scammer anyone, ever. This includes TF, I followed through on the terms of my agreement with TF, as modified (the terms of which were proposed by him), and he was happy at the conclusion of out transaction.

Quickseller kept the coin.  He is simply lying again.

The reason he will not sue me is also a lie - if he reveals his identity, he will be hit with multiple lawsuits for all the scamming he has done ...  :/

Being an idiot, I can see only a word salad with some thinly-veiled threats sprinkled in ("would make Vod look bad"). Also quite noticeable is a distinct lack of proof for the refund, but that's not unusual with Quicksy.

Okay fine.

Yes I received 20 BTC from TF for the purpose of pursuing civil litigation for a defamation lawsuit against Vod. It was worth about $4,500 at the time (our agreement was based on the USD of the BTC received). The agreement was that I would return any amount unspent after 6 months (I think that was the timeframe) to a specific address.

For reasons I prefer not to state publicly, during the course of due diligence about the situation, certain information was discovered and I told TF that even though I believe someone in Vod's position should be held accountable for his actions, pursuing civil litigation would be against public policy. TF responded by saying that he has other projects/priorities he would rather use the BTC for, and I asked for a signed message requesting the return of the BTC he wanted returned, with a stipulation that sending said amount of BTC to him would absolve further obligations of me to return any BTC to the above mentioned address within the signed message, he provided said signed message, and I promptly returned the BTC.

The specific reason I do not want to state publicly would not affect my reputation, and would make Vod look bad....although I don't particularly like Vod, I think this is the right thing to do.  Given sufficient pressure from those whose opinions I value (and Vod), I may change course. I would give particular weight to Vods pressure because it involves him personally. I will give no weight to what idiots like o_e_l_e_o and suchmoon have to say.


Although I previously opted not to pursue litigation regarding defamation in the past, I continue to reserve all rights. Five thousand dollars is not that much to me anymore, and if it really means all that much to Vod, spending that much on a defamation lawsuit against him would not particularly burden me. 

Why haven't you shared your sources and/or evidence with a trusted member who could corroborate your story?

Surely this should be very easy for Quickseller to dispel this by simply denying that he received 20BTC. However he has failed to do this. Why do you think Quickseller would not quickly deny that he received 20BTC?

Well, I guess others can interpret the lack of a denial/dispute themselves.

tl/dr: no denial of any kind of receiving 20BTC , the evidence currently presented would be easy to refute, however Quickseller chooses to not do this, likely out of fear he will be proven to be a liar.

---

Better not forget to list my sources:

Fixed Bozo...

Does it warrant a response now?   

You are mistaken. In the thread I made exposing Lauda's pill addiction, I made it very clear what evidence I had, and I made no promise to break my promises of confidentiality by outing sources, who would no doubt be retaliated against shortly thereafter.

I also made it very clear that, even if my sources were to be named, evidence against Lauda would still be hearsay. I pointed out that those types of chat logs cannot be verified.

The evidence I presented was my word that I was personally told by someone I believe to be credible that he has good reason to believe that Lauda has a pill problem (I forget the specifics, they are in the other thread). You can decide to believe me, or you can decide that I am someone who should not be trusted, or you can decide that my judgment is diffident, and therefore even though you believe I am telling the truth about receiving this information, you do not find my evidence credible.


The title to this thread very clearly states I received $200k, which is a baseless accusation that does not warrant a response.



I would disagree with that. There have been many threads opened by people who have received a negative rating by lauda who opened threads attempting to discuss said rating that were met with trolling. Surely you believe in a person's right to defend themselves, and their actions?

I would say that lauda is the subject to attacks because he is a bad person. He is a criminal. He tries to take money/property that does not belong to him. He takes strong affirmative steps to silence his critics. He has endorsed and advertised for companies that are very clearly scam attempts. The list goes on....

It is relevant because it very much gives him a way to argue he was not lying regardless of the outcome. Also, he did not say he will not deny the allegation and subsequently change his mind. He said he will not respond after an implicit denial (and a very weak one at that), which would give credibility to a denial of lauda that he was in any way denying that he has a pill problem. 

Why no action is being taken on this scammer?

I think i should give you merit for that because what you have said was very realistic. Either Am I wants quickseller out of the league. Oh wait I almost forgot upon watching your profile. It seems that you really Idolize him alot. Mind if I would like to ask if you and him uses the same lipstick?


by the way nice lyrics mate what's the beat anyways. "Togs tack togs togs tack"


Sorry, I just couldn't helped it.


Now back to the topic, I petty quickseller alot for receiving such a decent amount by doing nothing.  

I'd actually love to see that happen, because my opinion is that scammers should be banned--like most respectable forums.  When he started taking two sides of escrow deals, and especially not disclosing that fact, he crossed over into true scammer territory.   Then he lied and devolved into a kindergartner trying to convince mom he didn't raid the cookie jar, all the while with a chocolate-slobbered mouth, fingers, and a crumb trail leading to his My Little Pony themed bedroom.

This forum has a nice little contingent of intelligent and honest members, and it is these people I enjoy communicating with.  And then there's QS who thinks he's John Nash at a simpleton clan's family reunion.  You know.  People who think a great escrow can be the same dishonest fuck you're doing a deal with.  Well it ain't like that. 

I think most of us see through QS's elephantine discourses, designed to baffle those who don't know any better--fortunately we do. 

And that red trust score speaks for itself.