Quote from: redsn0w on January 02, 2015, 01:35:54 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on January 02, 2015, 01:31:57 PM

Quote from: hilariousandco on January 02, 2015, 01:26:29 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on January 02, 2015, 01:18:23 PM

I would say a negative trust is much more appropiate. His lack of a willingness to accept personal responsibility in this situation shows that he is not willing to cover any mistakes that he makes. He implied that he was not going to reimburse the lender for his loan (Moreia would almost certainly not repay his loan if his collateral is gone). P

I dunno. Negative seems too harsh so neutral would be more appropriate, but BadBear removed his feedback and Redsnow did the right thing by ceasing his escrow services anyway.

this demonstrates that if he gives an address to send payment to that he doesn't control he will treat it as if payment was not received. If I am sending first to him and he makes this kind of mistake then I am out however much I just sent.

This is essentially what happened with shbcv (?) in the currency exchange section when he gave someone an incorrect address and the person who sent funds to be out 14 btc

I've never told to the users "repay to this address" , I've only took the account in collateral and all the information were in the main thread. My mistake was to quote ( and don't hide the email address , or better change it) the post with the repayment address.

*Your is not a valid example*

Now I'm waiting the conclusion of the loan and I will give back the account to moreia , @Quickseller can you please remove the negative feedback :

I admitted my first mistake and I will not provide anymore my escrow service here.

you did not tell anyone to repay to a specific address but in other cases you do tell people to send funds to a specific address (like in signature campaigns and in actual trades).

Let me ask you this: if I were selling you 10 btc for $3,300 and I send 10 btc to an address that you tell me to send to but mistakenly the address belongs to someone else would you still give me the $3,300 even though you effectively have not received any Bitcoin?

Quote from: hilariousandco on January 02, 2015, 01:47:06 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on January 02, 2015, 01:31:57 PM

this demonstrates that if he gives an address to send payment to that he doesn't control he will treat it as if payment was not received. If I am sending first to him and he makes this kind of mistake then I am out however much I just sent.

This is essentially what happened with segvec in the currency exchange section when he gave someone an incorrect address and the person who sent funds to be out 14 btc

Edit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=896143.0

It's comparable and you can draw comparisons but it's a different case. Also, segvec is probably lying though he should've paid back for his error either way and so should redsnow had it come to that. Luckily this situation got sorted so no one was out of pocket but it could've been worse and redsnow was lucky in that respect and has gotton off lightly and relatively unscathed.

yes he was probably lying about giving an incorrect address but it doesn't matter. The only reason this situation was resolved was because badbear bailed him out. It is because of BadBear that both parties wil not face a total loss. I don't think it is appropriate for his reputation to be unscathed in this case