Topic: bitcointalk trust system very stupid - page 3. (Read 4379 times)

well done, well done.

If you don't give somebody a hard time when they fuck with you then everyone will fuck with you.. Sorry, it's just standard protocol..

15jyg-udz is my polo account that I use for pretty much everything..


Asking qustions about dust transactions..

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13567583

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13461728

Coinbase for my first sig campaign earnings..

Eddie, it's not my fault you take accounts as collateral.  I think the whole lemding section should get nuked, but that's just me.   As to the rest, methink thou doth protest too much.

Changed my mind about the red tag, removed it.  You are trusted otherwise with deals you've done,  and we'll see how your current loan request goes.  Still don't support your account selling, but a wee voice in my head is telling me to look past it in this case. 

just a shot in the dark, ill ask for signed messages with those:

15jYgRVym33hQyHBXiq1sjFdQLgLaU4udZ
1HKnuXP3RZDLjHPuDcj4EzaDtEH94FMbgB
1HHyZDSTZf1Xc8yhtS3jFeNu9NnbCWv6hQ  
114uF5PUbG6Gqf5hvaiJhmd68AYkeorJ2G  
17t9jJkx1XoVXXVR5kBkF34Dv14rQkzFHH
1HimeaBzh2HkneyNpWsFWhN3raWNiyaJnk
18gbWnuj3aVXokBb4jr6s7uP9yaSuFJaij
14HBf3NqJhfj8Y7gXto2rE4potaLbpjTp4
1JVMphzLjBVijh6wgnV4UaUWCcoWicEcx6

later busy atm. gnahahaha

This is the original and only owner of eddie13

1PdgT8CBVictLmD2B7vDq2RoKerizmbe5Y

HwSoDI9OlMFdZjYY6c46515v7vdUgwea1dWleCTNVH1/dR9hHLtNHZpqS5sa5Ktbxfs2/NFBXmilZ5DE/yeOmjA=

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13087124

I have bought zero accounts..

BTW I have no problem at all with what you do..

Please dont wake me up... we had this before: Yes i accepted accounts as collateral, i changed my terms on it and didnt grant a loan for a while. Yes, i also sold at least one account from a defaulted loan to cover my loss. Unless most others, i try to keep an eye on an acc if i sell it.

As stated before: If you dont agree with me or think i am a scammer feel fre to -ve me. Please leave a reference and a proper message so people wont laugh about you. Once in a while i print all my -ve's and put them on my wall. Everytime i need to cheer up ill look at it. If people dont like what i do, they are free to do so.

hey eddie13, bought that acc?

EDIT: Yes i purchased ruggedman_dans acc when it became worthless and gave it back to its owner without making profit, what exactly did you do to solve the situation? Ah yeah: nothing

I agree that farming accounts and buying/selling accounts if you are dealing with accounts in specific for profit is somewhat untrustworthy because the high likelihood of them being used for nefarious purposes..

I am not in the account dealing business, I am in the lending business.. Basically providing liquidity to this forum's economy..

I have taken a few accounts collateral, without escrow, on my own trust, and never scammed a single one or even came close.. So some would say that I am trusted with holding a small amount of value that belongs to someone else and I will return it when it is time..
Sometimes defaults happen..


To me this reads like he would rather trust me to keep this "scammers wet dream" account rather than for me to put it in someone elses hands..

So I own this "scammers wet dream", it is in good standing because I don't scam, and he want's me to keep it so the account can't be used to scam because he knows if I have it it won't scam because I don't scam..

But he doesn't trust me (see red trust), because I don't want to keep/have a "scammers wet dream"..


Ok buddie, don't change it, leave it right exactly like it is..

Sorry, it looked like you were gunning for DT to me, if you aren't then I don't mind it being there.. It actually almost reads like a compliment to me and if it's staying in untrusted then cool..

Just some character, you do any amount of any sort of anything around here and your going to wind up with a few red marks.. 


Hey Pharmacist, to be more efficient in your approach why don't you take a little stroll over to the lending section and tag all the lenders that accept accounts as collateral. Any that have been in business for any amount of time have surely sold an account or two.. Probably more than me..

You got one on whywefight there? Nope you don't.. Better get him, he's close by, right in this thread..

He even has + DT for "User bought a person's 'lost' account"...

"put up this forum account for collateral"
"my account as collateral for loan"

There's your proof!! Tag him!!

This will be like watching shark week!! Get your tag on a Great white!!

I'll help some more

epicrate
DarkStar_
zazarb
knightkon
marcotheminer
Quickseller

That should keep you busy for a bit..

I'm not saying it's "black and white", in fact I used the word "gray" in the post you quoted. I don't see a problem with someone considering account sales a "bad thing" and posting neg trust for that, and I don't see a problem if someone DOESN'T think that way. I can then choose which of those users I want to be included in my trust network. That's how you control it. Build your own trust list and ignore the dramas.


You need to get on with Chapter 3. It's taking too long, we're Netflix binge generation, come on.


Do you have any proof of this happening? Sounds like something DT1 members would want to look into. I think you should post it as a new thread in Meta.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/if-someone-from-default-trust-is-abusing-hisher-trust-822764

It's surely has high chance for happening, right ?
People always being greed. (Not for now, maybe later or happening on the future)

Is DT system been enforcing a double set of rules - big fat yes.
Do i think it's fully uncontrolled - no, i don't.

The main thing about it is that in practice that what u wrote above isn't working - it isn't being done. And if it's needed to open up a reputation thread each time
DT member does something.. we could write about it every day.

One more VERY important problem is use of multiple alt-accounts that are on DT. For a single person to have more than one account on DT should never be allowed.
There is no legit sense or purpose where that could be used for anything good.

Like I said before, people in the DT network are much less likely to receive a negative rating from a non-scammer, out of fear of receiving a retaliation negative rating, regardless of if they played a part in a scam or not.

Just look at all the people who tag everyone who even posts in a ponzi thread, then when Dooglus actually gives material support to a ponzi, they all look the other way. Or how Dooglus helped multiple multimillion dollar scams, yet still has no negative feedback that really counts.

Theymos is there to control DT1, the collective of DT1 controls and selects DT2 (via includes and excludes), and so on, all the way down to DT4 (or even further to DTXYZ).
If there was a major problem, a thread in Reputation could be started, gathering either the attention of the one including the person, or enough others to exclude the person.
Yes, the trust system isn't perfect, it's merely the best we have, but saying DT is fully uncontrolled is wrong.

We're talking about a group of users here, they don't have to be of the same opinion on everything.
You'll find a great deal of users with very different individual opinions on DT, and it's good this way.
DT doesn't function as a uni-opinion device, it doesn't have to.

I am a bit confused here -



So, one of you is saying that account sales are a bad thing , and untrustworthy, while many DT members like mexxer above say that they are "very trusted members",
even thou they were selling accounts.

I took him just as an example, there are a bunch of DT members that were selling accounts.

tl:dr cases

How is trust rating fair when someone on DT can give negative for account selling and his vote counts, and someone who's not on DT can't negg DT member and have his vote to count.
Who is there to control DT members ?  - No one is. Why the double standards ?


A lot of you make valid cases, and in theory it all sounds good, but in reality things are not black and white as you would think.

Account sales is a gray area at best and trust is not supposed to enforce forum rules anyway. If anything the trust system covers areas not covered by forum rules.


A user posting a neg trust for a "discouraged" behavior is fine as far as the trust system is concerned.

However asking a DT member to neg someone just because you don't like them or their opinion would be likely frowned upon. Even more puzzling is the fact that you haven't negged The Pharmacist yourself.

Regardless of whether something is or isn't within the rules doesn't change whether this act is seen as trustworthy or untrustworthy. Scamming isn't against the rules of the forum, does that mean that scammers should not be tagged?
In addition, The Pharmacist isn't on the DT network; his feedbacks do not hold much weight on your profile. I don't understand why people get so pissy about Untrusted feedback.

Selling accounts is untrustworthy by nature, signature spamming isn't as much. Considering it is the trust system, it makes sense that people would tag you for doing something untrustworthy.

same I want to say to you, STFU if you cannot understand and bear with forum rules. Its clearly mentioned that selling/buying forum accounts is legal then why you tagged eddie ? Shall I ask a DT member to tag you, since you tag others because they did something you did not like while you are doign something ( signature spamming ) which is not loved by a majority. So you deserve a negative trust, right ?

You cant rely on the feedback alone, you also also need to check trade history by looking at his past transactions through posts. Not everyone here leaves a positive or a negative feedback. That's why this trust system can help people like you and me as a guide but everyone needs to cooperate by using it when needed and using it properly.

That is what I understood from your situation. However, I'm saying that you can't expect some sort of trust system to prevent everyone from scams and potential scam attempts. There are some people in DT that have worked hard on fighting scammers.

What would that accomplish? They could just create another account and try again.

I guess there are cases in which one proves to be trustworthy (e.g. they don't run away with upfront payments or when they hold a lot of items). However, I do agree with you. Doing trades should not make one trustworthy by default.

I did not see the negative feedback. The + and - were at 0 before I posted. I admit I should have checked past threads. The admins should also delete scammer accounts.