Topic: Quickseller, trust abuse, innacurate negative ratings, unprofesional escrow... - page 12. (Read 16227 times)

If you take control of an account prior to receiving payment then the identity of the account will leak to the buyer then the buyer could publish the identity of the account which would cause damage to the seller. It would also be that there could be a large amount of time that the escrow is in control of the account and it the account was immediately previously involved in something malicious then it may look like the escrow was behind the malicious activity.

Another risk to the escrow would be that the account could get banned while in possession of the escrow and there would be a question of if the escrow did something to get the account banned or if it was the behavior of the seller.

A third risk to the escrow is what happens when the buyer takes a long time to pay. If the escrow is taking possession of the account first then there is an argument to pay the seller directly so there could be a delay in payment then the account would eventually get returned to the seller. If the buyer does not receive notification that the account is returned to the seller then the seller could end up with both payment and the account   

If the buyer were to pay first then funds would be safe for the buyer in the event that the seller is unable to deliver. The escrow would be in control of the private key associated with the escrow address so he can refund the buyer in the event the seller cannot deliver.


I am saying that ponzis were able to more easily deflect questions about their ability to be trusted and let them say that everyone that's runs a ponzi has negative trust and is not a reflection on them specifically. 

Um... why is that? At the end it would be the most secure way to do it.

An escrow could simply let buyer and seller make their rules and point out risks. If the seller is fine with showing the account to the buyer then its up to them. The escrow only gives additional security if wished.

If the buyer wants to be more sure then the seller could give the link to the profile and put some text in it so the escrow knows he controls it. That would prevent giving some fake profile link.

Though the most secure way would to give the login details and change it to temporary ones. Of course the escrow then needs to check if there are ways to gain access again. For example through email. This has to be changed too of course.

If the seller fears he can find out if the pass is changed then the escrow only changes the password after the coins came in. Though those things have to be cleared beforehand. Trade starts only after buyer, seller and escrow agree on terms. Which means terms have to be on the table first.

At the end the escrow holds both items and he KNOWS that the trade will be secure.


Um... is that your reason you stopped? Because you suddenly feared that your coins might be stuck too long? If true then this sounds very weak for an explaination.

And as long as you dont speak with escrow and seller that you need everything be done fast, you will have waiting times with practically every escrow. Thats part of the deal for getting security or you speak about that point beforehand. But not when everything is already running. That doesnt sound like a valid reason to be honest.


Um... im happy you are no judge as profession. I mean the defendant doesnt want to speak... he must be guilty. I really dont think it makes sense to leave the trust system for people that decide someone might scam. Who are they to judge before anything happened? If i would have done so i would have marked many persons red and i dont know of anyone who actually scammed later.

Trust system protects against scammers who clearly offer things everyone can see are scam attempts. But going out of a deal is not enough to justify knowing he is a scammer. Quickseller not even claimed that. But the red color says he is now. I think only a handful would check where the red actually came from.


I disagree. Seeing a red trust lets me leave fast since im very sure that established members checked things and found he is not trustworthy. Thats something i cant see for worhipper.

And you negrepped ponzi persons and they found more persons to be scammed because of that? I cant believe that and everyone who invested then deserves being scammed.

Screw that guy. never liked him anyway

I might as well just incorporate quickseller into the "dogie abuse of members" thread - they seem to be the same person anyway....

Either that or they're twins 

Why? No one locked the dogie scam thread when quickseller swooped in and trashed people there.

I am sure we're all big boys and girls that allows people to comment quite naturally to the similarities in both people.

Irregardless worhiper is primed to make a few more posts to see if his logic might sink in... again I'd say just negative rep back and walk away nothing is going to change.

I have a feeling this thread is going to be the next 'dogie hate thread' but for quickseller. We might even get some action from tecshare, who knows?

Someone lock it please.

Who is Quickseller trying to be a carbon copy of Dogie or something. Welcome to the ignore list and I will be sure to warn anyone off that asks me about your services or sales. Run don't walk away from this unprofessional person.

Cripes the same sort of drag it out when a simple solution where you COMPROMISE would be sufficient to make everyone happy.

I can see why this guy defends Dogie they are brothers or something.

Worhiper it is obvious no matter how hard you try to make a logical argument this guy is never going to be swayed. Cut your losses neg rep him back for being a douchebag and move on.

Maybe a neutral is more appropriate?

Like I said semantics.

The fact that I was acting as escrow did not influence the negative, although it did give me quick access to the fact/evidence that you backed out of a trade. If I was made aware of a similar situation with another escrow, and was shown proof then I would most likely leave a similar negative feedback.

The fact that my opinion is that people should avoid doing business with you means that I should give a negative. If I was saying that people should avoid dealing with you without escrow then a neutral would maybe be appropriate but probably not   

It's not accurate but of course you're not willing to admit that. Let me breack this down for ya so you can no longer play it dumb...




We didnt't agree on anything.


Quite obviously, I didn't want you to be handling my transactions given how unprofesional you are. Look at you, giving negative trust rating to people that don't appreciate your "service"... It's sad that you were given that power.


How hypocritical huh? I asked you to honor the original terms me and the other party had already agreed upon and hired you to secure a transaction with.


You are claiming that I asked you to change the password of the account before receiving money, I didn't.

Good, post some neutral feedback then since this is a personal opinion.

You argueing semantics. The trust rating is factually accurate.

Negative trust is usually appropriate. The only exception to this rule would be when there is some change of circumstances that are reasonably out of any ones control and reasonably were not anticipated.

Edit: the vast majority of the I hate Vod/quickseller/tomatocage threads are made by scammers.

So backing out of a deal is worthy of a negative trust review now?

If that's the case, how is your rating accurate then? You never agreed with me, I never agreed with you. But somehow you keep saying that conditions were met and we had an agreement.

(Note, due to his anger control problems, I've still got Quicktemper on ignore, so I'm only replying because you quoted him.)

In my opinion the main issue here is that someone has been given too much responsibilty.  On the one hand, he should be quite allowed to put willy-nilly feedback reflective of whatever opinions he has into your feedback list.  The issue comes in that now he's a "protector of the new users".  The fact that he admits this in my opinion shows that the trust system is broken.  It's hard to see how quickseller's opinion on whether he wants to do business with you should amount to red letters that say "trade with extreme caution".

I can see two fixes, but I doubt either will be implemented:

1) Reduce Default Trust drastically (default depth of 1, perhaps, or trim the list down to just a handful of people, or both) or else eliminate it altogether.
2) Change the red letter "Warning: trade with extreme caution" to something more reflective of simple opinons.  "Note: this users is untrusted by a few important people", or something like that.

If either of these things were implemented, we would see a lot less Vod threads and feedback abuse threads in the Meta section and it's hard to see how it would make the forum anything but better and calmer.

i was responding to the post above mine.

My negative feedback is accurate. All your conditions were met. You backed out of the deal.

Non of the above justfies you leaving misleading and unjustified negative trust ratings to users.

Default trust is designed to protect new users as they do not know who is appropriate to trust for things like escrow and sending first. Once users get more experienced they should be able to make a custom trust list.

Although if default trust works the way it should then people will not need to make huge changes to their trust list for the most part, especially if they are not very active in the marketplace sections.

Even if someone has negative trust, it doesn't mean that people will pay attention to it. I made the mistake of giving every ponzi negative trust during the last ponzi craze and as a result the ponzi operators were able to distract questions about why they should be trusted with others' money (in large amounts) which resulted in the ponzi operators being able to scam for more.

This would be all right and good if it weren't for the "default trust" list which, in my opinion, makes those on it too powerful to be operating on "oh i find that guy a little suspicious".  When/if someone on default trust decides you're a little suspicious, everyone who hasn't looked very carefuly into some obscure facts about the Meta of this forum basicaly thinks you got caught stealing or something: "Warning: trade with extreme caution".

I think that if they removed the default trust list on new accounts so that people actually had to build their own trust network with their own experiences then we wouldn't have so many of these threads.  It would merely be a matter of (in this case) Quickseller and worshiper-_- have decided not to work together.

Some of you guys are kind of missing the point. I didn't scam anyone nor could scam anyone with my interaction with quickseller even if I wanted to. That's what escrow is for in the end of the story.

If quickseller thinks I'm not good to deal with, he can add a personal comment. You can't justtify his inaccurate negative rating by saying that I might scam someone in the future, because this way you justify any innacurate kind of trust rating.

I declined to continue using his service, he gave me negative trust. Even if you take just that, it seems like a very personal case, he shouldn't abuse his power in the trust list to solve personal issues like that.

Yup, it's assumption that he can be a scammer but the negative feedback was for shady behavior which isn't good when doing a deal.

There is no rule saying buyer should accept escrow's terms but you are missing the point. worhiper_-_ wants to put both seller and escrow to risk.

1. He wants escrow to check the details:

1.a: Escrow asks seller link to give the profile, seller gives a fake link and escrow is at risk.
1.b: Escrow asks seller to give username and password, seller gives and escrow checks it without changing password. Seller change password and tells escrow did it. Escrow is at risk.

1.c: Escrow asks seller to give username and password, escrow change it and look details. Buyer looks at log, find username and cancel the deal. Seller is at risk.

^^^ This is why worhiper_-_'s term is shady.

Safer term:

1. Escrow asks to fund the address and buyer funds it.
2. Wait for 1 confirmation(to protect from double spend), escrow asks account credentials, change password and look details.
3. Release Bitcoins to seller and account to buyer.

^^^ This is Quickseller's terms.

Leaving negative feedback for the shady behavior by worhiper_-_ is okay.

The trust system's main function is to prevent scams from happening, not to punish them. If everyone leaves a trust feedback only after a scam happens then the scams would not be prevented. People can leave a negative feedback if they "strongly believe that this person is a scammer" as stated in the corresponding screen. Of course you have to really believe that, so the user must have had a fishy or suspicious behavior but of course the trust system must work on assumptions, otherwise it would be useless.

What we must discuss here is whether or not OP's behavior was shady enough to assume he may have had scammy intentions, not whether the trust system must work on assumptions.