Topic: ..., (Read 3120 times)

Though i think it's rare that an admin or a moderator is giving red trust. They mostly don't have so much time to investigate scams.

The next thing would be that someone might become a moderator who is not liked so much. I mean did you read all the attacks against badbear and other moderators? There are a lot who don't like them. And this could be worse with a more controversial user becoming an admin or moderator. We would be at where we are now.

Make it something like only the admins are in level one trust list, and whoever are in their list to level 2. I personally don't want it extended to so many people around.

You don't get any style points for being an asshole.  You are the one talking about "me", "I", etc.  I'm just trying to follow your reasoning.

You can continue to try to describe increasingly complex and unlikely scenarios in which you say it becomes easier to scam than it is currently, but we all know exactly why you argue against a change: it would mean that you would lose power.  You've been fighting like a rabid dog to increase your power around here for quite a while now, what you're planning to do with this power in the long game, we don't know yet.  I find that people who are desperately hungry for power should be "trade with extreme caution" people, to say the least.

I encourage a robust system in which people take responsibility for themselves and not one with only a few central points of failure.

Even when you could bug a user so bad that, at some point, he will setup his personal list of persons he trust, you most probably need to provide something as a guideline. For example most trusted persons on the forum.

Following from that you would have nothing won since the same persons would be on trust again since newbies don't know who to trust.

If newbies don't do that initial setup then they will fall every scam pretty easy.

And another thing is that the red trusts that are rated are often only single individuals. Comparing that to having even 10 users on your personal trust list would mean that a lot of scammers would stay unmarked since the amount of users on default trust, being able to mark a scammer, should be way higher.

Which means risk

Saying that... i don't think many can deal with default trust good. I recently saw someone on default trust giving red trust for... "Reviving an 2 year old thread". Unbelieveable i think. What a scammer, what damage.

Don't understand that behaviour. The thread is deleted already by the way, the rating remains...

I'll agree with tspacepilot on his point that the way default trust is implemented it's used by nearly everybody. IMO there's should me more encouragement and guidance for members to either edit the basic list or form their own. Even if you're on your own network that you've carefully formed, you can't easily get away from default trust since everyone else would be using it. That's unless you're on top of the list where forming your own worthy list is encouraged.

I fixed your quote to more accurately the name of the scammer. 

Depth 1 would be far too small of a trust network. However depth one would mean that TSP1...TSP100 would be in A's trust network.

Your trust network is the tool that you use to conduct due diligence. If you say to use escrow, then how will someone know who is advisable to use as escrow? You would use your trust network, you could easily have the trust ratings from TSP1...TSP100 reflect that B2 was acting as escrow for large trades. Then you use account B3 (with neutral trust) trade with user A for a large trade and scam user A (to fulfill your requirement to use escrow, however it might as well be A trading with B2).

B1 = B2 = B3 = TSP1...TSP100

I'm not trying to be dense, but I don't see this at all.  First of all, are you user B?  How many people are in your scenario?  It looks like three people:

A, B, QS

You say:

1) A trusts B1.
2) QS trusts QS1...QS100
3) QS1...QS100 trusts B2.
4) B1 trusts QS1...QS100
5) B2 tries to scam A

How does that help?  A trusted B1.  If A has trust-depth=1 then A still only trusts B1 no matter what other shenanigans QS and B are trying.

It looks like you're trying to set up a chain of trusts with:

A -> B1 -> QS1...QS100 -> B2

But it seems like A would need trust depth of 3 for this to even be a chance.  And even then, who says that user A is going to trust anyone in his trust list without doing escrow or due-dillegence?  I think you're grasping at straws here.

A scammer who farms trust

Hard to explain right now, here is a simpler version:

Member A does a few mini transactions with Member B and receives trust.
Member A continues to trade with others and receives more positive feedback.
While this is happening, Member A also leaves positive feedback to his alts, mixed in with legit feedback for trades done, making them appear more legit.
Member B and others start to trust not only Member A but also his trust ratings (not a good idea but it happens ALL the time around here).
Member B gets scammed by an alt of Member A, not knowing it was an alt of someone they have trusted. They made the mistake of trusting another member because someone they trusted left that member positive feedback several times. Member B also has left positive feedback for other legit members Member A has dealt with, making the feedback Member A left his alt appear normal and trustworthy.

Long term con. Just what can happen with the default list now. No different.

I've been buying and selling here for awhile now and know how some new and older members think. So think again before you say members don't trust others members because of positive feedback left. I know this for a FACT, as I get messages basically saying "I see you have trust from so and so, i can send first, send me your address?". I also get messages from others asking basically why they shouldn't trust members I have traded with and left positive feedback.

I'm a little tired so the above might not have come out right. You can see what I'm trying to say though. Something needs to change but what you suggested won't work IMO.

Who's user B?

Unless they're not interested in trust, maybe they don't trade and they don't want to be pulled into the drama.  The point of a decentralized network is that users are advised to take their fate into their own hands, to be responsible for themselves and to construct relationships based on experience.  Particular characteristics of the topology of such a network is an empirical question, and given the weakenesses and central points of failure in the current pyramid of standard trust, it's time to take a close look at how to encourage people to start using the tools that the forum gives them.

Nope, user A would need to have trust from people in user B's trust list.

The more decentralized the trust system gets, the higher depth users would be advised to keep their trust settings at in order to have a sufficiently large trust network.

If I wanted to scam user A, then User B would only need to use Account B1 to trade with user A, ask to be put in their trust list, then put 100 of my own alts in my own trust list, give Account B2 positive trust from those 100 accounts that are in account B1's trust list, then attempt a large deal with user A from Account B2. Significantly easier to scam then with the current trust system

I don't think so; but maybe I'm misunderstanding you.  I imagine that very few people would have their trust depth set so deep that someone trusting their alts and trusting their alts and so on would make any difference.  Keep in mind that there's a difference between positive/negative feedback and being on a trust list.  

Furthermore, I suggest that if the trust system weren't so centralized, there would be less of a such thing as "enough trust to scam" in general.  In order to have "enough trust to scam" user A, you'd have to actually b on user A's trust list (or th trust list of someone user A trusts, depending on A's depth).  But getting onto any particular users' trust list wouldn't be very easy because there's no central "trust bank" that's going to make you look good in everyone's eyes (as there is now).  Do you see this?

Switching to a better system is one thing that could be done.   We have all these nice tools for making a decentralized trust system, what's missing is the education to know how to use them.  

Have you see this?  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/replacing-defaulttrust-914641

It's not perfect but it shows that Theymos is looking for ways to get people to take a more active approach towards managing their trust lists.

You absolutely should not add someone to your trust list only because you have traded with them in the past. You should add someone to your trust list because you trust their opinions and because you are confident they will maintain a list of others who have solid opinions.

What happens all too often is that when people do small trades, they will be able to get the people they are trading with to add them to their trust network. We saw this many times with a number of scammers, moreia had several accounts (TheGambler, moreia, and spoodermen) that still are on several people's trust list, and the same is true for puzzel.me. When you get one account onto the trust network of someone who is on many other's trust networks, then you would be able to get all of your alt accounts into a large number of other's trust network. This would allow you to give trust to your various alt accounts and make them all look reputable when in fact they have never been involved in any trades.

There is also the issue of who new users of the community should have on their trust list. New users would have no idea who is reputable and who is not without some kind of default trust list, and any kind of score system that is completely decentralized would be easily manipulatable (see my above examples, plus the fact that the shills who were previously attacking dogie all are on a large number of account's trust lists, only that they all belong to the same group of people). This would result in trust farming scammers to be able to easily appear reputable when they are not.

A completely decentralized trust system would also be much more vulnerable to the long con. People like maidak would be able to make their alt account appear reputable after they have pulled off a large scam which would allow them continue to scam after their most trusted account has negative trust. It should be noted that users will not update their trust list anywhere nearly as often as they update their trust (it is not quite as visible), and that maidak is still on many user's trust lists.

and you then can leave trust to your other accounts and repeat until a few of those accounts have enough trust to scam, no? Just like what default trust list members can do now.....

I'll admit the system is fucked but there is not much that can be done. Either way, the system is going to get manipulated. Not trying to argue that default trust is better, I'm just saying what you suggested can be manipulated just as easy if not easier giving time.

Sweet!  The eyeroll smiley, now your point is truly proven.


worhiper_-_, you're right that the software allows you to have your own trust network, the real issue is the standard trust list which ends up seen by everyone as the de facto truth.  Presumably, we didn't get all these fancy features for setting up individual trust lists just so that they should be ignored.

Ideas and suggestions are great and all, But I believe bitcointalk.org has one of the fanciest reputation systems when it comes to forums software. If you remember the old scammer tag, that was the real centralised system.

Even though I've been burned in the past, I like the system. You can have your own trust network and if you're added to the list of a high ranking member your list might be part of the default.

[jk]I'd say that it's a very anarchocapitalist trust system[/jk]

oh, I don't know.... maybe the same way the people you're complaining about got on to default trust? only it would be MUCH easier.  

Account farm. Couple of legit deals, more then likely small / mini trades, get trust, add trust from that account to your other. Repeat. See what I'm saying?

This has been offered up before, but it's just a red-herring.  Getting rid of default trust <-> standard trust doesn't mean that all ratings are equal, it means that each user decides who to trust and who not to trust.  If you make 100 accounts and trust spam with them, how are you going to get those 100s of accounts onto anyone's trust list?

The idea isn't that every feedback has equal weight for everyone across the board, the idea is that each individual decides how to weigh the feedback from each person they encounter.

Note: this was already answered upthread, if we have to keep rehashing the same failed arguments, the conversation just doesn't go anywhere...

The problem with having all trust ratings equal would be trust spamming. Although a user may be very reputable, if all trust ratings from all accounts were worth the same amount, someone could ruin their reputation with just a few, brand new accounts. Having all trust ratings equal doesn't make sense to me, I think the system works fairly well right now but obviously there will always be some problems with whatever trust system is implemented.

It is odd.  The idea of the trust settings was that people should decide for themselves who's feedback to value, unfortunately, an implementation error has led to a special few who are encharged with 'looking out for the rest of us'.  Some of them dont' really seem to want this responsibility, others have fought like wolverines to try to get it.  I have sympathy for the former group and distrust for the latter.
 

Not that I don't appreciate satire, but that sort of non-sequitur sorta just killed the discussion.  Thanks.  Clearly there are earthly options which improve on the status-quo.  Hopefully we can try out some of them soon.