Taken from the master-p scam accusation thread as to not go off topic.
Or, you know, actually know your trading partners well enough to know when something is not right...
Unbelievable how quickly people forget that Bitcoin was designed to enable PERSON TO PERSON transactions. Then everyone demands it be like every other system with mommy and daddy telling you things will be ok, dictating to everyone what they can and can't do. Then we are back where we started. Take some personal responsibility.
This incident with Master-P never would have happened if you had not demanded someone else take responsibility for your personal liabilities. When you do this you are basically saying that you have no faith in your own ability to make sound judgements and do research, and or you are too lazy. Then you wag your finger at everyone else when things don't work out. You people need to look in the mirror.
So you trade only with persons you know IRL since at least 2 years?
Person to person transactions, as you say, doesn't change the fact that you can be scammed, in any way. If I want to buy something, I have no guarantee whatsoever that it will be sent unless I know really well the seller and trust him. But to trust him, I need to have made at least a few deals with him.
Trust is built, built on what? On successfull exchanges. And I don't see the link between "your own ability to make sound judgements" and business trust. You're saying we should make researches on everyone we trade with? Fair enough, and how do you do when it's a first trade for someone? Imagine someone wanting to sell a 700$ worth miner, but he's not a legendary trusted member and never made a trade here, he's still a newbie. So how do you do your "own judgement" TECSHARE here? Or you tell him "nah bro, can't deal with you, wait for 2 or 3 years and when I'll know you better then maybe.
Not saying escrow is perfect, but you can't say it's just because "people are too lazy to do there own research".
Where exactly did I say P2P transactions means you can't be scammed, or that I know any of these people in real life? There are no guarantees with anything in life, especially with Bitcoin, and the exact problem is people are searching for guarantees that can't exist. This is just pushing off your personal liability and responsibility to some one else so you can act like an incompetent child rather than an adult who makes educated choices for themselves, and have only themselves to blame if things don't work out. The fundamental problem here is lack of personal responsibility, then crying when some one else fucks it up. If you take responsibility for your own trades you don't have to worry about anyone else screwing up but yourself.
So you trade only with persons you know IRL since at least 2 years?
Person to person transactions, as you say, doesn't change the fact that you can be scammed, in any way. If I want to buy something, I have no guarantee whatsoever that it will be sent unless I know really well the seller and trust him. But to trust him, I need to have made at least a few deals with him.
Trust is built, built on what? On successfull exchanges. And I don't see the link between "your own ability to make sound judgements" and business trust. You're saying we should make researches on everyone we trade with? Fair enough, and how do you do when it's a first trade for someone? Imagine someone wanting to sell a 700$ worth miner, but he's not a legendary trusted member and never made a trade here, he's still a newbie. So how do you do your "own judgement" TECSHARE here? Or you tell him "nah bro, can't deal with you, wait for 2 or 3 years and when I'll know you better then maybe.
Not saying escrow is perfect, but you can't say it's just because "people are too lazy to do there own research".
+1 this ^^^.
TECSHARE's point seems to imply that taking any form of insurance to mitigate risk means you become a nanny state zombie. In practice, just how do you do 'research' and make sound judgements when dealing in irreversible currency with an internet anon?
Also, the list of people scammed by supposed 'trusted friends' is never ending.
Insurance is not the same thing as putting responsibility for your assets in the hands of a 3rd party. As far as the point about the "nanny state" you are correct, this is exactly the kind of sentiment that breeds loss of freedom and totalitarianism. Absolute freedom and absolute security are mutually exclusive. This is an ancient con game, and it always starts with people giving up personal responsibility for their actions and expecting some "nanny" to fix it all for them when things go wrong. You are so unsure of your own judgement and so afraid of getting ripped off, you don't realize the nanny is the biggest threat, and you run willingly into her arms just to have some one lie to you and tell you it will be ok no matter what, and give you that guarantee you so desire at any cost. As far as your "never ending list of trusted friends", if you keep getting ripped off, perhaps you should stop using the trust system and find out who is actually trustworthy with research. BTW, its called Google.