Topic: bitcointalk trust system very stupid - page 2. (Read 4379 times)

Its not perfect, but if you use it properly, it serves its purpose really well. My suggestions are to first, completely ignore the numerical score of trustworthiness. Green or Red trust means very little. Before you trade with someone, read their trusted and untrusted feedback. Ignore anything from members you don't personally trust. If there is a negative, read the description of why they got that negative. If there isn't a link attached with an explanation, take the person's words with a grain of salt. If there is a link attached, read the report and interpret it how you like. Check the date of feedback, just because someone was trustworthy in 2014 doesn't mean they haven't sold their account. If you are suspicious that someone has sold their account, ask for a signed message from a previously public btc address. If you aren't 100% completely satisfied that someone is trustworthy in your opinion, use escrow. If its not worth the other party's time to jump through a couple of hoops, then its not worth your time to potentially get scammed.

I've said it quite a few times before, if anything about the trust system is stupid, its that its called a "trust" system rather than a feedback system. Its meant to be a handy tool to help people research into who they are trading with, not whether or not they are trustworthy.

There are many online systems and in all of them mutual approval makes trust system, you may see some problems in current trust system but you cannot find any other system better than current system. Here because forum is based on bitcoin forum admins do not want to ask for identities and I think they become happy if you have a better suggestion for trust system.

Why you say so.Do you have any bad experience with trust system?

And I think you are stupid for not knowing that DT only counts for those who include them on their trust list.

Just kidding, I know you are not stupid.  Nevertheless, it's important to teach people the correct usage of the trust system.  Default trust is on your list be default so that there's no empty trust list on new accounts, users should put who they actually trust on there as soon as they have some experience with the forum.

I'll admit.. It's not too shabby..

You are right. I don't think trust system of this forum is "stupid" or whatever. This is one of the biggest forum on the internet and it has been very nicely designed and perfectly being moderated.
Very new people (like OP) feel that the trust system here is not valid, but I must say those who have been over an year or two with this forum, absolutely love the trust system and all other rules.

Yes a lot of trading volume in the collectables section, but I am not sure it is the highest volume. Yes there are a lot of high value deals in the collections section that are done without escrow, and there are very few scams attempts, let alone successful scams in the collectables section. I think part of this reason is that many of the users in the collectables section are part of a tight-knit group, and most users have the trading experience necessary to avoid falling victim to scammers. Unfortunately, the scams that are successful in the collectables section are for large amounts of money.

Although it is impossible to know with 100% certainty, I do not think anyone who frequents the collectables section engages in things like giving positive trust to themselves via alt accounts. There are however a very small number of people who frequent the collectables section that I highly suspect engage in shady behavior such as faking trading volume, and other things that would probably be frowned upon by many if uncovered. I might suggest not putting too much faith in any one person's reputation when trading.

Trust system is neither stupid nor it is perfect. This is all just based on opinion or lets say from one's perspective. Some may like it, some may not but the thing is, all of us are oblige to follow forum rules and forum rules includes the trust system.

Anyway, one thing that I might add or suggest will be same with electronicash


Maybe force users to fill up the reference area, and filter the links? Like accept only links from imgur (for screenshot proof), blockchain link? and bitcointalk links itself. I liked that to happen because I see that there are few users who leave trust feedback just because they are his/her friend, liked his/her avatar , loved his/her favorite color too, being his/her idol etc.

This forum is already dominated by self righteous people so don't expect any better with the trust system.
Don't trust anyone but yourself.

Those feedbacks still carry no weight, though. But like you said, it should be taken seriously since it is linked with solid references.

So, did you mean feedbacks that were given by "a lot of trades" member should be trusted, "mindlessly"?

Regardless if you are DT or not, if the feedback given to you by anyone is supported by a good reference or link it should be taken seriously like feedback given by those with a lot a trades in this forum but not in the DT list. Not every DT members can take a look at every transaction or posts in this forum.

If I am not mistaken, everyone can leave feedback or what you call "trust", on any profile. With that being said, no exception for the low-rank members. But if you are not a DT member, it carries no weight, though.

really very stupid?
 how about you? i think you very stupid bro  , you just member and you do not make this web . not everyone can give trust . only people who have a high rank
so if you low rank you cant give trust 

Damn, when did this thread become serious all of a sudden? OP was a troll trying to get reactions from some users

I think it is the fair to assume that the biggest trading volume in bitcointalk is within good and collectible on the market place.
In the collectible sections; you have to look very hard find a DT member abusing alt accounts and doing shady business.
Most trades in collectible are done entirely without escrow - we don't talk about selling shitty accounts or stolen gift certificate worth 0.01 BTC... physical coin trades are often 2-10 BTC, sometimes +30 BTC or higher; paid up front, without escrow, completely based on trust network and reputation.
So the trust system is not "stupid"... at least in the collectible section.

How do you propose to enforce that?

I have been here for years on end. I still don't have the slightest clue about what the ins and outs of the trust system consist of.

There appear to be so many hidden agendas, power plays, alt account madnesses and wheels within wheels that if I ever do carry out a deal on here I think I'll do it in a McDonald's with a gun hidden in my patty instead.

I did not exactly originally had in mind that option for DT abuse, but rather farmed one from various accounts, but you get the point.

- With everything said in mind, would it not be for the best, in hopes of making things more transparent and fair ; to set the rule in regards to single entity owning or controlling more than one DT account.
- Furthermore,it would also be imperative to limit replying to a topic to only one account you control - I don't think it's pretty self explanatory why.

This "scheme" will not last for long, in the example in your link, then will it not take long before "Otong" is no longer on DT.
It does not take many misstep before you are not on DT, actually even a single misstep is rarely forgiven.

doogie used to publish graphical representation of the DT network, they are real interesting:  
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/default-trust-visualisation-picture-heavy-14th-sept-1062052

It becomes very clear from the pictures if someone DT member are "isolated" in his/her own personal cluster.

You can sign from coinbase receiving addresses, not that I would care whether or not you purchased this account at any point, but if you want to proof it to wwf, go sign a message from it.

---

Also, double posts...