perhaps a complete definition of trust is needed. any takers?
it seems like there are at least two different definitions being used and if any progress is to be made, then agreeing on the terms may be beneficial.
Topic: Bitcoin Forums should eliminate 'Scammer' ratings and 'Trust' ratings (Read 3845 times)
November 07, 2013, 01:20:50 PM
November 07, 2013, 01:11:17 PM
agreed trust shouldn't be part of the equation. Please send me your bitcoins here :
165sBm8mohPjjF1oxmXNbK36kgc9SpPD23
I'll give it to you back plus a bonus.
A no-need-to-trust-me fellow,
I don't trust you. 165sBm8mohPjjF1oxmXNbK36kgc9SpPD23
I'll give it to you back plus a bonus.
A no-need-to-trust-me fellow,
November 07, 2013, 01:10:02 PM
agreed trust shouldn't be part of the equation. Please send me your bitcoins here :
165sBm8mohPjjF1oxmXNbK36kgc9SpPD23
I'll give it to you back plus a bonus.
A no-need-to-trust-me fellow,
165sBm8mohPjjF1oxmXNbK36kgc9SpPD23
I'll give it to you back plus a bonus.
A no-need-to-trust-me fellow,
November 02, 2013, 09:27:41 PM
Sure, behaving honorably in the past doesn't preclude the possibility of scamming in the future. All other things being equal though, i'd still bet on someone who hasn't scammed before than an established scammer.
True, but you're more likely to get scammed BIG by someone who was previously trusted, because you simply wouldn't trust someone for a lot of money without some reputational background. A good con artist knows to build a reputation before the big score.
Listen to you all background checking everywhere has no sense. If background checking was good enough, probably con artist would never be a good one.
November 01, 2013, 03:50:55 PM
If you feel that scam tags might be undeserved and you want to rehab the poor innocent luser with some high BTC transactions, go nuts.
November 01, 2013, 11:15:41 AM
Even if you feel that the scammer labels/negative trust have 50/50 chance of being rigged, you should still avoid trading with tagged users if non-tagged users are available. Not necessarily fair, simply statistically sound.
*There are possible scenarios in which this doesn't hold true, but those are pretty contrived.
*There are possible scenarios in which this doesn't hold true, but those are pretty contrived.
Well, despite the unreliable criteria used to determine those 'scammer tags' you can at least be fairly certain if someone has one of those tags, it's probably deserved. I suppose they at least have some historic value.
November 01, 2013, 10:06:06 AM
Sure, behaving honorably in the past doesn't preclude the possibility of scamming in the future. All other things being equal though, i'd still bet on someone who hasn't scammed before than an established scammer.
True, but you're more likely to get scammed BIG by someone who was previously trusted, because you simply wouldn't trust someone for a lot of money without some reputational background. A good con artist knows to build a reputation before the big score.
You do have a point -- if we have cops, we become less vigilant in protecting ourselves. I simply don't see it as a strong argument for getting rid of cops altogether.
Even if you feel that the scammer labels/negative trust have 50/50 chance of being rigged, you should still avoid trading with tagged users if non-tagged users are available. Not necessarily fair, simply statistically sound.
*There are possible scenarios in which this doesn't hold true, but those are pretty contrived.
November 01, 2013, 09:38:07 AM
Sure, behaving honorably in the past doesn't preclude the possibility of scamming in the future. All other things being equal though, i'd still bet on someone who hasn't scammed before than an established scammer.
True, but you're more likely to get scammed BIG by someone who was previously trusted, because you simply wouldn't trust someone for a lot of money without some reputational background. A good con artist knows to build a reputation before the big score.
October 30, 2013, 01:10:45 PM
You need collateral because you don't trust me without my trust ratings.
i would agree that i need collateral because i dont trust you, however, im not looking to trust you, and even if i were, trust ratings and scammer tags only have some correlation with previously documented behavior, but they do not have a causal relationship to future behavior.
economic incentives do have a causal relationship to future behavior.
Causation is simply correlation with a good backstory, so correlation is better than nothing.
Sure, behaving honorably in the past doesn't preclude the possibility of scamming in the future. All other things being equal though, i'd still bet on someone who hasn't scammed before than an established scammer.
October 28, 2013, 01:05:51 PM
correct. my mistake.
that is what I was intending.
in the case of scammer tags and trust ratings the user must trust bitcoin talks approval of the scammer tag and the people making the ratings.
my understanding is that the scammer tags are no longer in use, and a distributed evaluation in the form of trust ratings are less easily corruptible.
I think the trust ratings are a step in the right direction, but they might be a little misleading. I think it would be easily perceived as a probability that a user is a scammer or probability that a user is not a scammer. this is definitely not the case.
it should be viewed as reputational currency. how much RC do they stand to lose if they scam, and compare that to the actual gains of a scam. this calculation is nearly impossible to calculate. at least with the current rating system.
that is what I was intending.
in the case of scammer tags and trust ratings the user must trust bitcoin talks approval of the scammer tag and the people making the ratings.
my understanding is that the scammer tags are no longer in use, and a distributed evaluation in the form of trust ratings are less easily corruptible.
I think the trust ratings are a step in the right direction, but they might be a little misleading. I think it would be easily perceived as a probability that a user is a scammer or probability that a user is not a scammer. this is definitely not the case.
it should be viewed as reputational currency. how much RC do they stand to lose if they scam, and compare that to the actual gains of a scam. this calculation is nearly impossible to calculate. at least with the current rating system.
I believe that scammer tag should stay forever, does not matter if it is happened only once. That way people will think twice before scam. Also, I want to know if the party scammed even once. No need to have "Not a scammer" tag, cause it does not mean anything. Yesterday was not a scammer - today is.
October 28, 2013, 12:50:46 PM
correct. my mistake.
that is what I was intending.
in the case of scammer tags and trust ratings the user must trust bitcoin talks approval of the scammer tag and the people making the ratings.
my understanding is that the scammer tags are no longer in use, and a distributed evaluation in the form of trust ratings are less easily corruptible.
I think the trust ratings are a step in the right direction, but they might be a little misleading. I think it would be easily perceived as a probability that a user is a scammer or probability that a user is not a scammer. this is definitely not the case.
it should be viewed as reputational currency. how much RC do they stand to lose if they scam, and compare that to the actual gains of a scam. this calculation is nearly impossible to calculate. at least with the current rating system.
that is what I was intending.
in the case of scammer tags and trust ratings the user must trust bitcoin talks approval of the scammer tag and the people making the ratings.
my understanding is that the scammer tags are no longer in use, and a distributed evaluation in the form of trust ratings are less easily corruptible.
I think the trust ratings are a step in the right direction, but they might be a little misleading. I think it would be easily perceived as a probability that a user is a scammer or probability that a user is not a scammer. this is definitely not the case.
it should be viewed as reputational currency. how much RC do they stand to lose if they scam, and compare that to the actual gains of a scam. this calculation is nearly impossible to calculate. at least with the current rating system.
October 27, 2013, 11:43:34 PM
One of the reasons people use bitcoin or any crypto currency is to eliminate the need to trust the other party.
Starting from a flawed premise. The stated purpose of Bitcoin is to allow transactions without a TRUSTED THIRD PARTY. Most transactions involve trust of the counterparty. Even if it is a cash for BTC trade in person in a public place you need to trust the other party isn't going to hit you over the head with a crowbar and take both the BTC and cash.
October 27, 2013, 06:00:15 PM
Please keep these tags and always show the trust rating. You might also want to add a TROLL tag, as it is impossible to stand certain sub-forums around here. People might stop replying to trolls if they are clearly tagged as such.
Can you define a troll? Cause what some people call a troll, other people call a smart person. In my case people call me a troll and some people call me a very smart visionary of the future of bitcoins
You can't tag something that has a very loose definition.The same applies to the scammer and trust ratings. The scammer might have had personal issues that caused him to be marked as a scammer, but maybe he was a very honest person. Since you are creating situations, I'm feeling free to create them too. The trust rating may be applied among a group of friends, creating the illusion that a person is trusted by the whole community. You can't tag something that goes beyond what you can evaluate here, uhm ?
Here is an actual troll: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/asicsrus-140852
No cause a scammer can always talk to the lender and try to work out a payment plan or even better give up an item of the value they are trying to seek. If they have issues and don't communicate them, then they should be a scammer, they took money and due to the situation they couldn't pay. A troll is someone who voices an opinion and is labeled that cause people don't like him for that opinion very different things here.
It could be that the supposed scammer just lost internet connection, for whatever reason. A troll can be clearly labeled, just like a scammer supposedly can.
October 27, 2013, 04:32:41 PM
Trust ratings are important, but I'm not convinced the ones on BCT are worth anything. The "scammer" tag seems reserved only for people who rip off the people who run the site. You can rip off anyone else with impunity, as I've found, and no matter how blatant the scam (basically a MoneyPak trader who NEVER delivered and was a pure ripoff), they don't get a scammer tag.
Scammer tags are no longer "awarded" since the introduction of the trust ratings which serves as a replacement for the scammer tags, and people can now rely on their own due diligence and the judgement of people within their trust lists. Theymos now also doesn't need to spend time on looking through the evidence and deciding whether someone deserves a tag or not, which could have eventually become dull with more scam artists flooding the forums this spring.
October 27, 2013, 03:11:39 PM
Trust ratings are important, but I'm not convinced the ones on BCT are worth anything. The "scammer" tag seems reserved only for people who rip off the people who run the site. You can rip off anyone else with impunity, as I've found, and no matter how blatant the scam (basically a MoneyPak trader who NEVER delivered and was a pure ripoff), they don't get a scammer tag.
October 27, 2013, 02:18:52 PM
Please keep these tags and always show the trust rating. You might also want to add a TROLL tag, as it is impossible to stand certain sub-forums around here. People might stop replying to trolls if they are clearly tagged as such.
Can you define a troll? Cause what some people call a troll, other people call a smart person. In my case people call me a troll and some people call me a very smart visionary of the future of bitcoins
You can't tag something that has a very loose definition.The same applies to the scammer and trust ratings. The scammer might have had personal issues that caused him to be marked as a scammer, but maybe he was a very honest person. Since you are creating situations, I'm feeling free to create them too. The trust rating may be applied among a group of friends, creating the illusion that a person is trusted by the whole community. You can't tag something that goes beyond what you can evaluate here, uhm ?
Here is an actual troll: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/asicsrus-140852
October 27, 2013, 02:02:53 PM
Please keep these tags and always show the trust rating. You might also want to add a TROLL tag, as it is impossible to stand certain sub-forums around here. People might stop replying to trolls if they are clearly tagged as such.
Can you define a troll? Cause what some people call a troll, other people call a smart person. In my case people call me a troll and some people call me a very smart visionary of the future of bitcoins
You can't tag something that has a very loose definition. October 27, 2013, 01:52:35 PM
Please keep these tags and always show the trust rating. You might also want to add a TROLL tag, as it is impossible to stand certain sub-forums around here. People might stop replying to trolls if they are clearly tagged as such.
October 26, 2013, 06:39:09 PM
Okay if you want people to scam you for your money, then you ignore the rating and trade with everyone (incl. the ones with a scammer tag).
I know that I wanna have the lowest possible risk when trading.
+1I know that I wanna have the lowest possible risk when trading.
Exactly, if you think that scam tag is not good - just do not pay attention on this tag and trade like it is not there.
October 22, 2013, 09:41:43 AM
It's designed to remove the need to put all your trust in banks and governments. People never started using Bitcoins thinking they can just freely send it around in trades and never get scammed. Something has to be there to encourage trading with the right person. In this case, scammer and trust ratings. I think it's a good idea.
Jump to: