Quote from: Keyser Soze on September 14, 2015, 09:49:34 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on September 11, 2015, 11:00:29 PM

You have still failed to explain why that matters. If it was known that Daniel is the person you are trading with then you would have sent first to Daniel without escrow.

I don't know how it could have been more clear.

Quote from: Keyser Soze on September 11, 2015, 10:48:26 PM

In both scenarios Alice is expecting the escrow to resolve the dispute as a third party. Alice has no reason to suspect the escrow has any bias towards Alice or Bob.
In scenario 1, Charlie is able to act without bias because he is an independent party.
In scenario 2, Daniel is unable to act without bias because he is also acting as a party to the trade.

Scenario 1 will always be more favorable for Alice compared to scenario 2 since there is no bias. Also, by definition, Daniel is not an escrow to the trade since he is not a third party.

As I stated previously, it is misleading and disingenuous to act as if you were providing an escrow service when you really are not.

Don't bother debating. I tried that.

If a person wants to avoid logic, facts, rationality, and honesty,
there's no way to force them into it.