Topic: QUICKSELLER Vs. LEGENDSTER, LIVE NOW on Pay Per View, ROUND 1 - page 5. (Read 10417 times)

From the looks of it, he did accept the deal, although if you read further down then you will see that BigBitz said that he was not going to remove his negative trust against KoS.

Also, it appears to be disputed that KoS only agreed to repay 2 BTC and not 4 BTC

Look in all honesty I actually think that's a pretty fair agreement and I don't see why BigBitz doesn't take it rather than just refusing it...other than you kind of appearing to have shady morals after flat-out stating you didn't have any responsibility to send it back. Eh, I don't know. I would just take it.

I've offered many times to pay him back the USD version of the BTC he sent me. He knew personally that I never kept BTC in BTC form for long, always converted to USD. At the time BTC was $125, many times I offered him the sum of $250, even at one point to get it done, $275 converted to BTC at time of agreement in exchange for dropping the scammer label and stop badmouthing me. He refused multiple times.

At this point I've given up with the situation and moved on. I am slowly building up the reputation of specifically one of my alt accounts thru successful trading while also staying under the radar. Hopefully I will become trusted again and back in the escrow biz where you guys all are. And no people not to scam but graciously accept the escrow tips that I was earning before when I used to escrow all the time under KOS.

I'm sure you remember the time that there were about 10 or so posts in the meta, most of wich were reports about inaccurate feedback you had left. Badbear removed you from his trust list shortly after some specific topics started gaining traction and receiving responses from more prominent members.

Want me to provide 'evidence' of you going on huge rants to defend said inaccurate ratings? Well you kind of do this nearly every time, but here's one still:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/quicksellers-feedback-on-my-account-1065347

As of what I refer to a 'deal' between you and Tomatocage, yes I was talking about the escrow. I'm aware that he offers escrow services openly. I just find it a bit odd that you went in an escrow transaction with him shortly after being removed from default trust and next thing we know is him having you added in his trust list.

KoS - If you paid BigBitz back I think over time you could actually repair your reputation some. Will you ever be highly trusted...probably not, but people would at least deal with you. Try sending him the coins and rebuilding yourself here. Everyone loves a good come back story!

Step 1 - Pay back Bitz (he is good people)

Step 2 - Drop the QS thing and move on

Step 3 - Slowly build up some trust and be nice here

Do you care to point out these threads and/or posts that back up these statements?Are you sure about this? Again please point out specific posts made by me. What specific unreasonable decisions have I made?

What deal was this? If you are referring to a deal that TC is escrowing then I would point out that there are plenty of people that TC has escrowed for. If you are referring to some other deal then why don't you provide some kind of evidence of this?

Again true why would this not be a concern of Tomatocage?

While this kind of argument would probably eventually give good cause to have KoS's name "cleared" assuming that BigBiz is unable to give a good counter argument, posts like this would be good reason to say that KoS should not be trusted. Although it is likely that KoS did not actually possess information to carry out his threat, KoS did make a specific threat against Vod and if a court would conclude that KoS had actually written that post (eg his account was not hacked ect) then he would likely be convicted of either the MD or federal equivalent of NC GS 14-227.1. While the fact that KoS's account could have been "hacked" could be a defense to such a criminal charge, it is the community accepted practice to hold people accountable when damage is caused as a result of such a hack. (Also it is all but certain that KoS's account was not hacked as of when the above post was made, especially considering that such threats have been made at other times by KoS and there has been no claim of such a hack).

Furthermore, it is the generally accepted practice to consider the lack of returning excess funds that are not owed to you when asked to be a scam.

This is just one example of how KoS should not be trusted

Edit: apparently this thread is another example as to why KoS should not be trusted (he received several negative ratings with a reference to that thread).

I also pointed out other reasons as to why KoS should not be trusted here even if it is decided the loan incident is concluded to not be a scam.

https://github.com/TheBitcoinFoundation/legal/blob/master/White%20Papers/White%20Paper%20-%20Receipt%20of%20BTC%20From%20Unknown%20Person.mdown

This is the primary cause of most of these disputes in my opinion. There are no official rules for how to use the trust system anywhere on the site. I understand the idea of wanting people to define what is and is not acceptable for themselves, but at the same time if there are no limits at all defined then there is total confusion and subjective application of these unspoken and unwritten rules. Under this system no one is ever sure if they are abusing the trust or not. In addition this means often users will be punished overly harshly in some cases, and in others clear abuse will be ignored. The way it operates now these "rules" are 100% subjective and open to selective enforcement.

What i dont get is why anyone would listen to anything you say since you are nothing than a trash scammer, you actually admited it already, are you enjoying wasting your time in this forum making pointless accusations? Are you feeling better? I suggest you to find another hobby you lowlife scammer. No one gives a shit about anything you say.

Quickseller was removed from the default trust after receiving numerous valid accusations of leaving inaccurate feedback. Him going on huge rants to defend unreasonable decisions only made things worse and created a lot of drama in the forum. Sure whatever, he spends half his day here and negs people that are likely scammer. But he has proven to be extremely irresponsible when in the default trust.

I really can't get why Tomatocage thinks that keeping Quickseller in default trust is a good idea. I know that there was a deal between Quickseller and him going on, but if it's just for trusting him personally, he also has to consider that by adding him in his trust list he puts him in default trust again. A list from wich Quickseller was removed for causing chaos because of his irresponsible actions.

Butthurt about the trust he left? No sir. I'm -32: -5 / +0 I could give a care less about the feedback quickseller gave.

Simply he sells accounts. He has a conflict of interest here. He also "helps" the community by advertising himself and negative repping those who go against him. He has marked multiple signature campaign managers which can only help his case for becoming a manager himself. He also sells accounts so him negative repping accounts creates a desire for these accounts for people to get accounts without red. He also insists upon others to use escrow and tried to force him escrow post to be stickied in which ironically oh look he also offers escrow! What a coincidence!

The dude also is a year old account here. There are people who have been here 4 years more deserving of him by far of the prestigious honor of being on default trust. He sure as heck don't deserve it.

Can you point out any trust abuse that quickseller has done? I mean i know you are butthurt because he left you a trust, wich is neutral so you shouldnt be that butthurt but yeah i would to see some of those cases where quickseller is "abusing" the trust system.

The strangest thing about you is that you justify robbing someone because of a mistake they made. If I leave my door open by accident when I go out, do you now suddenly have the right to enter my home and rob me?

KoS, if someone meant to gave you $100 as payment for a bike but accidentally gave you two $100 notes, are you telling me you'd refuse to give back the second $100 note when they noticed? You wouldn't refuse, would you, when you're face to face with them? Of course not. That'd be ridiculous. That's what you did here though, and no matter what you spout about trying to "resolve" the issue, you should have just returned the damned 2 BTC in the first place.

However, on-topic: I don't think QS is *that* bad. Sure he's not the purest giver of trust out of everyone on DefaultTrust but he definitely shouldn't be getting shouted at just for being added to DefaultTrust. If he goes over-the-top the community will take action anyway.

1st, okay so yes you pointed it out, if extra was sent and I didn't send it back, that makes me a dick but not a scammer. Contractually I followed all things. So godforbid it wasnt a gift and godforbid he accidently sent 2 BTC then Im just a dick. Honestly, after these 2 years I wish you would change it to what it is, that im a untrustworthy asshole and not a scammer. I dont scam, I follow my agreements. We work with an irreversible currency. Life lesson learned if you accidently send 2 BTC twice. I mean hell I accidently sent 0.20 BTC to someone instead of a different BTC address after I traded with that person and never got it back. You don't see me blasting for years on end that guy for not returning my funds do you? Nope. It was a hard lesson learned.

The account was going to be unbanned in a couple days. At this time, the ban hammers had only just began and people had only just THEN started caring about accounts being banned. Over a year ago, accounts being sold was completely frowned upon. A couple months later when it started happening constantly, no one cared about banning or if the account was hacked. One or two accounts bought then got banned or found to be stolen accounts which created a huge cry for now signing addresses and all that. So no, me selling an account as it came off banned was not something shady because at the time, only YOU quickseller were asking about it and I already hated you at that point.

I don't send stolen funds to SHVB or whatever his name is, if you look at my accounts I flame the guy for ALWAYS butting into other peoples' sell or buy threads with his BS company. He is an unethical business person and I try to troll him from time to time to make it appear that hes a serial scammer and people should avoid. If I say I sent him stolen funds and he accepted it might come across as someone who takes too huge of risk to being trusted which is why I made the post. Also to give the guy a bad feeling inside that possibly he might lose $. I just want him to squirm, hes a dick.

There is one person on this forum, I'd have to look up his name, who I've bought BTC via PayPal from, roughly $500 in total (about $100 each time) in the past year or so. He was a victim of Vod and felt sympathy for me. I never chargedback that payment.

Interestingly enough, I actually had a situation where a guy Mike from Just Dice sold me $400 of BTC for PayPal. I had bought $200 worth twice from him before and he owned a reputable business but yet this time tried to scam me. Anyways, I tried charging it back via PayPal I lost the case. Called his local police and got them involved and finally he decided to refund me 90% of my money. Mike4tattoos or whatever was his name, hes still a moderator in Just-Dice to this day.

Funny thing is, I messaged Tomatocage with my concerns about why Quickseller should not be on default trust and his response was:
"You sound like BadBear." Whatever that means or represents.

Most likely, tomatocage has only seen the tip of the iceberg.  For people who haven't been on the receiving end of a smear-attack by quickseller, it might look at first like he's merely pointing out scammers and potential scammers and the people complaining about him are merely sore about his finding them.  However, once you have to start vouching for his actions, it's another story altogether.  Presumably, something like this is why he didn't last long on badbear's list.  Tomatocage is only just now having to deal with all the QS drama and lies and trickery and cetera.

Here's another possibility though, QS is obviously power-hungry and it's pretty sure that he didn't like getting removed from default trust.  TC giving him another chance but warning him to hold himself together, etc may actually affect his behavior.  Ie, if he stops doing so much abuse, perhaps he'll stay on TC's list and that will be that.  That wouldn't be an altogether bad outcome.  While it's certainly dissapointing that someone can claw their way to the top through lies and scandals and smear campaigns, if, once they get their, they straighten out their act, I guess that's better than not straightening out.

Logical and plenty of evidence to support that assessment.

Wonder why it is not a concern for Tomatocage?

I don't hate you. When you created the thread calling me out for supposedly claiming you were KoS in retaliation for criticizing me (which was untrue BTW) I gave you good advice to get help with your problems. I also have never trolled you or encouraged people not to do business with you (you always were accepting escrow so there would be no point). I even tried to meditate a resolution when you had created a thread trying to dox Vod.

To say that the extra 2 BTC that you received was a "gift" is complete bs and you know it. Any honest trader would have returned the overpayment. Any trader that would neglect to send such an overpayment should not be trusted, and it would be a general good idea to avoid doing business with them.

To say that you have traded honestly since the BigBiz incident is not entirely accurate either. Back in December, you tried to auction a banned account while neglecting to disclose the fact that it was banned.

I can also say that you tried to sell stolen PayPal funds to shdvb, although you later claimed that you were just joking (I do have my doubts about it being a joke though).

Yes, that why I said "kind of" but there is a difference between having some personal rules to manage the users in you trust and asking people in your list to enforce your rules if they want to stay here... There are user who were negative trusted by others than Tomatocage who aren't anymore because of him asking them to clean theirs list...
If Tomatocage wasn't in defaulttrust, would QuickSellet and Vod have reviewed theirs feedbacks ?