If he wanted to win the auction then obviously he was willing to pay BTC63, no? He's still not forcing anybody to pay money they would not be willing to pay. This is equivalent to refusing a price in a bargain, something perfectly reasonable.
I don't see any problem in what Garr did, however I am disappointed he didn't warn people he was doing this. However, that's still not something worthy of a scammer tag.
Right, except they weren't bargaining. They were in a binding auction, and last time I checked, an auction doesn't automatically get advanced to the maximum amount that a bidder is "willing to pay".
If Gar255 hadn't of called it an auction, rather, a
multi-person multi-account bargain that functions rather like an auction would you agree that what he did isn't morally incorrect?
FYP
If Garr255 hadn't of called it an auction, rather, a
multi-person multi-account multi-person bargain that functions rather like an auction would you agree that what he did isn't morally incorrect?
It's a multiperson BARGAIN. He's allowed to change the price to whatever he wishes. The buying must make the decision to either buy or drop the at the current price Garr255 is offering.
It's ridiculous people think the mere fact that Garr255 is setting a price to something
he is selling is morally wrong. Garr255 can do whatever he pleases with the price of what he is selling (As long as he commits to a buy). What's morally wrong of Garr's actions is the decision to keep this price manipulator
anonymous. Had he revealed the
existence and admitted to the
use of the account
before beginning the "auction", his actions would be completely free of any moral fault.