Quote from: teeGUMES on September 02, 2018, 11:44:59 PM

Quote from: suchmoon on September 02, 2018, 11:36:26 PM

Quote from: teeGUMES on September 02, 2018, 11:05:41 PM

I don't see where it doesn't say that all funds go directly to me in case of dispute either. You play on a lot of slides too when you were young suchmoon?

Why would it go to you? In case of a dispute the escrow decides if the product has been delivered and the funds go to the seller, or not and the funds go to the buyer (the latter is what happened here). Is that another one of those Merriam-Webster things that you don't want to accept?

I can do ad hominems with the best of them so perhaps let's take it easy with the playground insults.

What funds? The amount that some anonymous 'aliased' escrow promises you is the number? "Just trust me guys".

I'm done here anyways. With your voice actually meaning something here I figured you'd act a little different. Transparency is one of the biggest things in order to establish trust.. especially with the ol "not your keys not your bitcoin". In this case the investors don't even get to see the public key side which is what bitcoin and public decentralized ledgers are used for.

My questions raised have never been whether or not I believe there is theft or fraud happening here, it's been solely about transparency and answers for the less fortunate. The few that have this power have remained silent or continue to talk circles. If this does not raise red flags for you then I'm sorry and I hope the best for you in life.

Unfortunately, Suchmoon is known to take the side of those who is in a greater position of power. It is her way to gain power herself.

Obviously it is ridiculous to say that transparency is not required because it was not expressly agreed to ahead of time.

Another term that was very cleary broken was that Lauda, Blazed and Minerjones would keep the bitcoin at a specific address, however the bitcoin was moved out of the escrow address very early on.

Quote