Quote from: michaeladair on January 06, 2015, 12:57:21 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on January 06, 2015, 12:56:12 AM

Quote from: BadBear on January 06, 2015, 12:48:25 AM

I removed my negative because redsn0w said he would no longer act as escrow, so I didn't see it as necessary. I have seen reports/posts that this is not the case, but haven't had time to look into it.

He is still holding funds for a signature campaign , just paid out to participants today and there is no mention of him returning funds to the owner of the site nor that he is going to resign. Per the OP of the campaign he is holding funds in 1GkgLFg9YVyvLzKbsipzJJjy5r33mpv4ki and per the blockchain there is ~.46 BTC in the address.

Let the ones that are being hurt by the person to be giving out negative trust. Not an outsider.
I know that sounds a little Hypocritical, but my point still stands.

That is not how the trust system works. The other parties involved may not be high profile enough of users for what they claim to matter. Look at Vod's untrusted feedback. How many times has he scammed according to his untrusted feedback - probably 20......how many times has he actually scammed - probably zero.

Quote from: michaeladair on January 06, 2015, 01:03:20 AM

I realized what I did was threatening, but when I asked Redsn0w about the situation he said you ignored his messages and didn't reply. So I took the matters into my hands because I thought you'd listen to an outside source. Sorry if you felt insecure about the threat, I'm sorry....

I didn't feel insecure about your threat. I knew that any feedback left under that basis would not be taken seriously. In my eyes, anyone who leaves negative trust for "trust abuse" (which is essentially what you were claiming) should not have any of their trust reports relied upon

Quote from: redsn0w on January 06, 2015, 12:58:32 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on January 06, 2015, 12:56:12 AM

He is still holding funds for a signature campaign , just paid out to participants today and there is no mention of him returning funds to the owner of the site nor that he is going to resign. Per the OP of the campaign he is holding funds in 1GkgLFg9YVyvLzKbsipzJJjy5r33mpv4ki and per the blockchain there is ~.46 BTC in the address.

Read the post above yours ...

Yes and also for the FINDCoin project , but before my mistake not after.The transparency is the first thing , I didn't make nothing wrong it was only the mistake (generated by me) that "ruined" me.

You have funds for two different escrow projects in a single address? Are both parties you are holding money for aware of this? Are the participants in your signature campaign aware of this? If there are no funds in the escrow address to cover signature payments (the only money left is for the FINDCoin project) then participants would keep their signature up under the impression you have enough money to pay when you really do not