Topic: Quickseller, trust abuse, innacurate negative ratings, unprofesional escrow... - page 13. (Read 16227 times)

Given that we already know all worhiper wanted to know was that an account matching the given description existed, it would be possible to do this just with a link to the profile. If he also wanted to confirm that the account is owned by the seller, then that's possible in several ways.

Most popular way is to sign a message with an address posted in the account. Other way would be to change any custom info in the account (like signature, description, address or even avatar) with something the escrower provides.

And you CAN verify this:

Without logging in an account.

That's just an ASSUMPTION that he can be a scammer but here there is no proof of him scamming anyone. If one has to assume anyone as a cheat, nobody would be doing any transaction with any member out here. That's what's wrong with the trust system that it works on an assumption and one does not need a solid PROOF/EVIDENCE that the person is a scammer. It shouldn't work on assumptions.

If one isn't happy with the escrow's terms, he has a RIGHT to backout. There is no rule here which states that he/she should accept his terms else he is a SCAMMER.

@alani123: Could you tell a possible safer way to do #1? You can't, without changing password. Escrow will either have to trust seller or escrow will have to risk his/her service to make it possible which an escrow won't or mustn't do.

@worhiper_-_: Your terms put escrow and/or buyer in risk. Quickseller came up with usual terms which all good escrow do to protect buyer and seller. I can't see a valid point in this.

AFAIK he left a negative feedback because your terms were shady and when Quickseller came up with good and safer terms, you cancelled the deal which most scammers do.

Because I don't know quickseller's policies and how he handles such situations. I wouldn't want my money stuck with him for too long. It's happened before with other trusted escrowers. And to be honest, as we speak a large chunk of my bitcoins is sitting with an escrower of this forum because a seller hasn't been online for some days.

I had told him that I didn't like his practices and that I was likely to not accept this transaction because of that.


I was angry at what quickseller did, lost all interest at allowing him to handle my transactions. I didn't really think about it much mostly because of my anger. If I remember right, I must have sent that message saying I refuse the transaction before I even read my inbox but that doesn't really have much to do.

The seller sent quickseller the account disregarding his terms. Quickseller didn't ask him to do this. I wasn't expecting him to do this after quickseller sent his own version of terms, he still did it out of good will but the damage had already been done.



If quickseller refused the transaction I wouldn't have received a negative trust rating.

I do agree that there was a lack of comunication. I would have handled this calmly, but I already said that I was just too angry at this point. Right now I'm thinking that this was a large misunderstanding, but probably quickseller doesn't feel that way.

The problem is the seller could lie (i.e. give a fake profile link that he doesn't own) if the escrow just gets a link and to the actual credentials. You as the buyer could have accepted the risk but that wouldn't make much sense. May I ask why you didn't want to fund the escrow first? It was impossible for the seller to get your coins if the account wasn't real, you would have safely received the BTC back.

Anyhow you didn't want the escrow to change the account's password but he did and he sent you this PM right?

You wanted to confirm the details of the account and you got it. And not only that but also the fact the account was really owned by the seller (which wouldn't have been possible just looking at the profile as you asked).

Can you explain why you refused to continue the deal at this point?

Personally I do think OP's behavior was shady but I also think there was a lack of communication. I would have refused escrowing if OP continues asking for confirmation of the account before funding the escrow (which can't be confirmed without changing the password) and I would have explained the seller the risk. Possibly I would have added a neutral feedback, but I consider a negative one to be too harsh.

I think that you're still missing an important part. worhiper_-_ asked for quickseller to come into contact with the seller prior to asking the escrow to be funded. All that he was asking was for him to verify that the account mentioned existed and wasn't in fact a fictional creation of the seller.

worhiper_-_ even mentioned how this would be possible without quickseller receiving or even changing the password of the account. Quickseller was never asked to receive the account before receiving funding, only asked to review if it matches the description.

Of course, what you describe makes no sense, but that wasn't the case. I get that worhiper wanted something like this:

1. Quickseller to contact the seller privately, just see the profile of the account and confirm that it matches the description
2. send worhiper an address for him to fund the escrow
3. get the account
4. deliver the account/release the funds


worhiper message quickseller after he received quickseller's terms giving him a way he thought was ok to do this without the need to receive the account prior to funding. If wohiper was satisfied with this why not follow it? It wouldn't cause any harm.

I already mentioned it in my post.


Without changing password, Quickseller will be in danger if seller changes password and tell Quickseller did it.


Seller can give fake link.


Your fact were harming both seller and escrow. I escrow according to the same terms like Quickseller and I am fairly certain others do the same too.

NO NO NO! You obviously didn't bother to read the most important parts here. I asked him to verify that the account fits the seller's description. Not obtain it and change the password...

And even sent him a message saying this can be done just by looking at a link of the profile.

But just the fact that he changed the terms is unexceptable for an escrow. If he thaught my terms were not good enough it would be better to not accept the deal and cause no harm.

From what I understood:

Terms if worhiper_-_ :

#1: Seller gives account to escrow, escrow change password and confirm account details.
#2: Buyer sends Bitcoin to escrow.
#3: Escrow releases.

Terms of Quickseller:

#1: Buyer sends Bitcoin to escrow.
#2: Seller sends account credentials to escrow, escrow change password and verify account details.
#3: Escrow releases.

Can't you see a problem in worhiper_-_'s terms? His terms put escrow and seller into risk and it is shady. IMHO Quickseller should stay with his decision as is now.

Playing the personal insult card? Shame on you, you also have a signature, do you realise how hypocritical you are right now? I'm actually not getting my signature payment because of you btw.


The first message you ever received from me was a message with terms I and the seller had to agree upon. He messaged us both confirming that he agrees. AFTER that you copy paste your standard escrow message that you didn't bother to personalise enough so it would fit the set terms. So please stop wielding that lie around. As soon as I received your terms, I messaged you saying that I don't agree. Next thing I did was to back out from the deal. No money involved, no fraud. Most inmportantly, NO AGREEMENT.

IF you think that the scam in my part was wasting your time, I'd gladly pay your fee although we didn't complete the transaction.

I also indicated how the transfer would take place in the original terms. When is the important part actually, because I wanted to send funds after verification if quickseller didn't like that, he could simply say no.

Obvisously I didn't get what I wanted. You see, the only term that I actually cared about what for the escrow to check the account before I send in money. This was obvisously changed in his terms without alerting anyone prior. I didn't agree to his terms and finally backed of this deal because he was the middleman and I didn't like that.

Him pointing out that the other party had already sent him the digital goods has nothing to do with all this. Because even the other party had to disregard quickseller's terms to do this. What's the point of using him as an escrow if he can't even honor the set terms? He was the one making the transaction "risky" not me.

The seller was actually forced to breack quickseller's terms in order to honor our original agreement but you don't see quickseller making a mention to that. Because he doens't want to admit that he actually made the transaction harder to complete.

Even though he had received the goods, which happened to my surprise, after I had told him that I didn't like him imposing his own terms, I backed off the deal because of course I wouldn't want such an unprofesional middleman to be handling my transactions.

Again, I see no terms changed. The OP got everything he wanted, and when the escrow tries to conduct the exchange itself in a safe manner for all parties involved, it's suddenly a problem? Yeah that's shady. Especially when he can't come up with a better reason than he did. All of a sudden he doesn't trust QS? Doesn't want his money tied up?

Not buying it.

Mind my ignorant response because it still isn't sinking in with me.
Could you do an ELI5 (Explain like I'm 5 version) of two parties not agreeing on terms is scamming?

(Sorry for going around in circles here)

What terms were changed?




He verified it all, gave him an address, buyer then backed out after...what exactly? The only thing quickseller dictated was how the actual transfer would take place, which is his job as escrow.

I fully respect everyone's right to protect themselves and set their own terms.  Nevertheless, if I ask you to do business with me on my terms, and you say "no I need you to use my terms".  Then when I walk away am I doing something shady?  Maybe so, in that you might consider anyone who doesn't accept your terms to be shady, but really think it's going quite over the top to go on an put a permant marker on someone for simply saying "no that's not what I'm in for".

I've read too many threads in the last week where Quickseller jumps all over over somone and calls them an idiot if they disagree with him.  This obviously affects my opinion here too.  If I knew him to be a calm and levelheaded person then I'd think, wow he must have had great cause to mark woshiper with negative trust.  However, as I've seen his quick temper flare before, I tend to think that worshiper may be telling the truth here.

In any case, I realy think this speaks to some of the brokenness of the Default trust network.  People join a bitcoin forum to learn about bitcoins, only a small subset are going to read through the details of Meta and how a trust system works. Yet the majority are going to be influnced by "Trust: +3" in green or "Trust: -3 Trade with extreme caution!".  In my opinion, default trust should be either removed (people who want to participate in the trust network can start adding people to their trust lists) or else pruned back severly to only perhaps Theymos and one or two of the Staff.  I think this would help reduce a lot of drama over big personalities who end up doing a good trade with one of the blessed (level 1s on default trust) and then end up in default trust themselves on level2 and go around willy nilly dropping red tags on people.

Firstly, an escrow's job is to protect all parties involved, including themselves.

Quickseller had already verified the account statistics, seller was ready, all necessary terms had been met. The buyer was waffling for unknown reasons. For Quickseller to take control of the account first is an unnecessary risk for the seller, and also a risk for himself as a reputable escrow.

Sure there's a risk that the seller doesn't actually control the account, but that's the whole purpose of the escrow. The reasons the OP gives for not wanting to fund the escrow address are shady at best (he basically says he doesn't trust quickseller, then why is he using him as escrow?).

Taking control of the account first is a risk that should be avoided, any good escrow will know this.

Just more evidence the right move here is to avoid this broker as you run the risk of this sort of foul treatment should things go sideways. Clearly he is not willing to resolve the issue with the OP and just come to an understanding and agree to disagree. Sometimes just walking away is the best course of action. Looks like the OP did the right thing.


Seems to me that people are on the ball regarding this failed sale.


Added this to my list.

Oh yah, you must be right here.  It has to be the case that I am an idiot and I didn't read and so is everyone else who disagrees with you.  You know you're dealing with a fragile ego when "you didn't read and I hate you" is the automatic reply to someone who disagrees with you.


And look, another idiot!  Quickseller is surrounded by idiots.  What can he do?

(I know what I can do, 2nd time this hothead calls me an idiot this week, 5th time I've heard this guy calling other people he disagrees with idiots just recently---I just used the ignore button so that I don't have to read any more "constructive" replies from this guy who accuses everyone else of "spamming their signature".)

Good luck Quickseller, see ya in the funny papers.

If you bothered to read the entire thread, instead of just spamming your signature with shit posts, you would see that the OP did have his conditions met. The issue is not that any money was lost, the issue is that he was trying to steal information (either that or he was hoping that I would not respond quickly and the seller would agree to not use escrow - and when I did respond quickly, he wanted to use some flimsy excuse not to use my escrow services with the hope that the seller would agree to trade without escrow).

The terms that he originally sent did not specifically state that the account details must be validated prior to him funding escrow. The terms stated that if I would be able to confirm the account details as described then I should send an escrow address.

I have explained numerous times why the specific way the OP wanted to trade to go would not protect both parties.

As I mentioned a number of times above, the OP's scammy request was fulfilled yet he still did not go through with the trade. Even after the OP made this thread the seller made numerous attempts to get the deal closed but declined to do so. Looking at the security log, I can say with a good amount of confidence that the account did not have a chance of ownership after the deal was canceled.

A more accurate version of the events would be as follows:
1 - All parties reach an agreement as to the terms of the trade
2 - The OP changes the terms of the trade that remove protection of both the escrow and the other party he is trading with
3 - The changed terms were fulfilled
4 - The OP backs out of the trade.

You are an idiot. Your scenario could not be farther from what any party claims to have happened. You are clearly trying to distort facts because you are upset that I caught you trying to borrow more bitcoin then what you thought the collateral was worth