It’s disappointing to see you take this approach instead of helping resolve the issue or supporting my efforts to warn others about Strainsburys. By dismissing my experience and derailing these threads, you’re not only making this process more difficult for me but also undermining the purpose of this platform—to share honest feedback and protect others from bad actors.

If you truly believe in accountability and fairness, I encourage you to use your influence to help me resolve this matter. If not, I’d ask that you reflect on whether your actions here are fair or productive. Your repeated interference suggests you care about something—perhaps your own reputation—but your behavior here only highlights a lack of integrity.

If you’re unwilling to learn or contribute constructively, I’d appreciate it if you left me alone so I can focus on sharing my experience with those who might benefit from it.

It’s unfortunate that instead of engaging constructively, you’ve chosen to resort to insults and condescension. Calling someone 'thick as mince' doesn’t strengthen your argument; it only reflects poorly on you and undermines any credibility you might have had in this discussion.

To address your points: Yes, I traded offsite, and I’ve acknowledged that. However, that doesn’t excuse the seller’s behavior or negate the fact that they took my money and failed to deliver. The purpose of my posts is to warn others about my experience, especially since Strainsburys has rebranded and claimed to have improved. Whether or not others use escrow is irrelevant to my right to share my story.

Regarding the Bitcoin value: The increase highlights the scale of the loss, but my grievance has always been about the seller taking my funds and not delivering what I paid for. Your attempt to dismiss this as 'farcical' only shows a lack of understanding or empathy for the situation.

If you believe my posts are against the rules, you’re welcome to report them rather than continuing this unproductive back-and-forth. Otherwise, I’d suggest reflecting on whether your comments here are helping anyone or just making things harder for someone who has already been wronged.

It’s disappointing that instead of focusing on the real issue here—the seller’s failure to deliver what was paid for—you’ve chosen to make baseless accusations about my intentions and actions. Let me be clear: my goal is to warn others about Strainsburys and encourage them to take responsibility for their past behavior. That’s not a 'personal vendetta'; it’s holding them accountable.

Yes, I ordered off-site, and I’ve acknowledged that. But that doesn’t excuse Strainsburys for taking my Bitcoin and failing to deliver. If anything, their refusal to make amends now, despite being aware of the situation, speaks volumes about their priorities.

As for your claims about alt accounts and rule-breaking, I’m simply trying to share my experience in good faith. If you genuinely believe I’ve violated any rules, feel free to report me rather than continuing this unproductive back-and-forth. Otherwise, I’d appreciate it if you focused on contributing constructively or left me to share my story with those who might benefit from it.

This isn’t about legal technicalities or hiding behind rules—it’s about ethics and accountability. Both myself and Strainsburys know that I sent them 0.01147597 BTC and that they failed to deliver the order. Whether the transaction was off-site or not, the fact remains: they accepted payment and didn’t fulfill their end of the deal. If I were the vendor, I’d consider that enough reason to make amends.

To address your point about the Bitcoin value: I’m not claiming a refund based on its current fiat value but on the original amount of Bitcoin I paid. Imagine if someone paid in GBP and was refunded in USD at a fluctuated rate—it would be absurd to expect them to accept less than what they paid. The same principle applies here.

This is a matter of conscience, not sanctimoniousness. My intention is to promote an ethical discussion, not to troll or seek sympathy. Strainsburys has had ample opportunity to resolve this issue but has chosen not to, which raises questions about their integrity under 'v2.' If you believe in fairness and accountability, consider speaking to them on my behalf or supporting a boycott until they address unresolved issues like mine. If not, I’d ask that we avoid dismissive comments and focus on constructive dialogue.

Ah, the saga of 'Tony the Weed Guy' continues! If you think he’s bad, let me tell you about 'Bobby the Bud,' who not only sells you what he claims is 'top-shelf Cali' but also has a knack for mixing in a bag of lawn clippings with artificial flavorings. You’d think you’re getting premium product, but instead, you might as well be munching on a salad! Thankfully, if you buy through LB escrow, you're protected from most of their treacherous ways.

But here’s the kicker: I recently heard about someone whose friend, Sarah, got scammed by Bobby after buying what she thought was a great deal. Instead of supporting Sarah and acknowledging that maybe Bobby isn’t as trustworthy as he seems, her other friends cut ties with her, blaming her for not outsourcing her trust to escrow. Fast forward a couple of weeks, and sellers start complaining about money not being paid from the escrow address. Suddenly, it goes silent, and the same posts keep looping as if an AI has taken over. Just when buyers start to notice something's off, the order cancellation feature disappears!

New buyers who haven’t checked Reddit keep buying, oblivious to the chaos unfolding behind the scenes. Eventually, Sarah's friends realize that escrow isn’t all it’s cracked up to be; it’s just another entity holding multiple people's money and not much different from trusting someone else. In the end, they make up over their shared experiences—who knew trust could be so complicated?


Escrow provides both real protection from the seller and added risk from the escrow provider. However, the real issue here is how her 'friends' treated her during this situation. It raises important questions about our values in these transactions.

So let’s talk about this: Do you only support trustworthy people and businesses? Or do you not care what they do to others as long as it doesn’t happen to you?

I only support trustworthy people/businesses.

I don’t care what they do to others as long as it doesn’t happen to me.

I understand your point about eBay transactions, but the comparison isn’t quite fair. When you buy from a seller on a platform like eBay, you’re protected by specific seller responsibilities and buyer protections. If an item doesn’t arrive, eBay steps in to help resolve the issue. In my case, I’m raising awareness about a seller who didn’t deliver after accepting payment, which reflects a lack of accountability.

Just like with eBay, it’s essential for sellers to honor their commitments, regardless of whether the transaction occurs on Biggy or another platform. This isn’t just about me; it’s about ensuring that all buyers can trust sellers to fulfill their promises. Everyone deserves to know they’re dealing with trustworthy individuals.

This isn’t about unrealistic expectations or legal loopholes—it’s about ethics and accountability. Strainsburys knows I sent them 0.01147597 BTC and failed to deliver the product. Regardless of whether it was an off-site transaction, the moral obligation to fulfill an agreement remains. If I were in their position, I wouldn’t need rules or legal pressure to do what’s right.

As for your suggestion that I should simply call myself 'stupid' and move on, that approach doesn’t help anyone. Sharing my experience isn’t about seeking sympathy—it’s about promoting ethical behavior in all transactions, even those outside of formal protections like escrow. Let’s not hide behind pharisaic arguments or legalese when the real issue is a matter of conscience.

I would still be pursuing this refund for the same amount of Bitcoin I paid, regardless of whether its value had gone up or down. Requesting a refund based on fiat value is as unreasonable as asking someone who paid in GBP to accept a refund in GBP but at a fluctuated rate determined by the current price of the product in USD. The value change is relevant to me because this was my only savings account, but my claim has always been for the original Bitcoin amount, not its current fiat equivalent.

Finally, Regarding dismissive comments like 'what world are you in?' or 'you must be high,' I find it more constructive to engage in meaningful dialogue rather than resorting to insults. If you disagree with my perspective, I welcome a reasoned discussion instead of personal jabs. If you believe my posts are unhelpful, feel free to disengage, but if you’re willing to contribute meaningfully, I welcome ethical discussion over sanctimoniousness.

I assure you, I’m very much real! 😄 But I appreciate the comparison—ChatGPT does have some great insights! My goal here is to share my experience and raise awareness about accountability among sellers. It’s important for all of us to discuss these issues openly, whether it sounds like a bot or not!

Thank you for your reply. I’d like to clarify a few points to ensure there’s no misunderstanding.

First, I mentioned the £GBP value of the Bitcoin I sent (0.01147597 BTC) to make the financial impact relatable and avoid requiring readers to calculate conversions. However, my expectation is not based on the current fiat value but on the original amount of Bitcoin I sent. Just as it would be absurd for someone who paid in GBP to be refunded in USD based on fluctuating exchange rates, I expect the same amount of Bitcoin refunded regardless of its current value.

Second, while I understand that escrow exists for protection, this situation occurred off-site. That doesn’t negate the seller’s responsibility to fulfill their end of the agreement. My goal here isn’t to misuse this platform but to raise awareness about Strainsburys’ behavior and encourage them to make amends. They’ve had ample opportunity to resolve this but have chosen not to, which reflects poorly on their claims of improvement under 'v2.'

Lastly, I appreciate your acknowledgment that raising awareness is important. As for what the community can do: If you believe Strainsburys should take responsibility, consider speaking to them on my behalf or boycotting their services until they address unresolved issues like mine. If not, I respect your perspective but would ask that you refrain from dismissing my efforts or derailing these discussions.

Taking them to court might be a valid suggestion in some cases, but let's be realistic: this was an off-site transaction involving Bitcoin, and pursuing legal action for such matters is often impractical, especially given the nature of the transaction.

However, if I did go that legal route, it would be far more damaging for Strainsburys than for me. The potential legal and reputational consequences would significantly outweigh any minor inconvenience to myself.

This isn't about legal enforcement—it's about ethics. Strainsburys knows I sent them 0.01147597 BTC and that they didn't deliver what I paid for. If they had any integrity, they wouldn't need a court order to make things right. My goal here is to raise awareness and promote accountability, not to seek legal recourse for an issue that could easily be resolved if they chose to act responsibly.

I appreciate the satire—haven't tried broccoli from Strainsburys, but I liked the humor! Just like you said, this isn't Yelp; you get a cut of the profits. My focus is on raising awareness in our community, even if it isn't profitable. If anything, you and Polly are the larping trolls, getting me to repeat myself so much that few will read all this. Accountability matters regardless of where the transaction took place.

As for your point about it being all on me, I know that, but you did ask, 'What would you like the community of Biggy to do for you?' It’s about encouraging accountability in these transactions. We all have a role to play in supporting trustworthy sellers and holding them accountable for their actions.