In situations like TECSHARE's, you can (if you trust TECSHARE and disagree with Vod) post an additional positive rating responding to whatever Vod said. This will counteract Vod's negative rating.
Topic: bitcointalk trust system very stupid (Read 4436 times)
What exactly does it take to get green or black + numbers under your name?
I am confused on this point..
And I didn't know that negatives were that much more powerful. I thought the power was from how good the trust of the person that left the trust plus a modifier where risked BTC increased that power..
I am confused on this point..
And I didn't know that negatives were that much more powerful. I thought the power was from how good the trust of the person that left the trust plus a modifier where risked BTC increased that power..
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/minor-trust-score-algorithm-change-1066857
What exactly does it take to get green or black + numbers under your name?
I am confused on this point..
And I didn't know that negatives were that much more powerful. I thought the power was from how good the trust of the person that left the trust plus a modifier where risked BTC increased that power..
I am confused on this point..
And I didn't know that negatives were that much more powerful. I thought the power was from how good the trust of the person that left the trust plus a modifier where risked BTC increased that power..
Instead of Vod having to completely removecryptodevil from his trust couldn't Vod or another DT member just add positive trust to whoever cryptodevil negged to counteract his trust score that they disagree with?
I think so..
I think so..
As has been stated, I cannot remove anyone from DT. I am on DT level 2, courtesy of Dooglus, so anyone I add would be on DT3, which isn't considered by default.
Also, one negative is a lot more powerful than one positive.
This is what any negged person would say.
But I have to say, it is a little broken. Let's say Cryptodevil. I don't have anything against him, but his reputation is controversial. If he negs someone and refused to remove it, people will go to Vod to remove him from DT. But Vod will reason that cryptodevil has Done more good than harm, and un-negging one person is not worth giving hundreds of scammers back their trust.
There are better systems than a cascading one.
But I have to say, it is a little broken. Let's say Cryptodevil. I don't have anything against him, but his reputation is controversial. If he negs someone and refused to remove it, people will go to Vod to remove him from DT. But Vod will reason that cryptodevil has Done more good than harm, and un-negging one person is not worth giving hundreds of scammers back their trust.
There are better systems than a cascading one.
Instead of Vod having to completely removecryptodevil from his trust couldn't Vod or another DT member just add positive trust to whoever cryptodevil negged to counteract his trust score that they disagree with?
I think so..
This is what any negged person would say.
But I have to say, it is a little broken. Let's say Cryptodevil. I don't have anything against him, but his reputation is controversial. If he negs someone and refused to remove it, people will go to Vod to remove him from DT. But Vod will reason that cryptodevil has Done more good than harm, and un-negging one person is not worth giving hundreds of scammers back their trust.
There are better systems than a cascading one.
But I have to say, it is a little broken. Let's say Cryptodevil. I don't have anything against him, but his reputation is controversial. If he negs someone and refused to remove it, people will go to Vod to remove him from DT. But Vod will reason that cryptodevil has Done more good than harm, and un-negging one person is not worth giving hundreds of scammers back their trust.
There are better systems than a cascading one.
Vod can't remove cryptodevil from DT. However ANYONE can remove cryptodevil or suchmoon or whoever from their OWN trust list, that's how the this system should be used and I don't think that part is broken. Also you can add The Pharmacist just to spite him ;-).
Just keep in mind that DT or custom lists only change the red and green colors that you see. It doesn't make people more or less trustworthy, so basically what Salty said above - everyone should do their homework.
Maybe that's how it was meant to be used , but it sure is not how it currently is (or will be, i'm sure). Trust (feedback) is generally judged by default settings,
and you can't just say that people should include and exclude people however they want, because that just creates a mess and confusion (for 99% of members here atleast)
It is obvious that default trust settings are the way to go, but not as they are now, because every now and then DT is being abused, and there is no will to fix that.
I guess many perceive it as means to an end, because there's a lot of good work done as well.
I would add option to this trust system, enabling hero members and above, to be able to post at least neutral feedback to DT members as upper (trusted feedback).
Like i said, there is no easy fix for it, but this would atleast give us little guys a chance to be heard.
When simply posting something that will be seen as un trusted feedback to other members , people automatically assume exactly that - that it's untrusted and therefor invalid (fake/ungrounded)
I disagree. You're saying that using an existing function (custom trust lists) is too confusing and that DT is being abused but you're offering a new function ("trusted" feedback based on rank) that is much more prone to abuse. Instead of excluding one or two DT members whom you disagree with you would allow thousands of other users to elevate the "trustworthiness" of their feedback based entirely on how long ago they registered on the forum? Sorry, no.
I'm not saying the trust system can't be improved and perhaps there are some simple tweaks possible, e.g. changing the wording on the trust page or even replacing "trust" with a more appropriate word. If someone finds the system confusing then more education is needed, not dumbing it down to increase the false sense of safety.
This is what any negged person would say.
But I have to say, it is a little broken. Let's say Cryptodevil. I don't have anything against him, but his reputation is controversial. If he negs someone and refused to remove it, people will go to Vod to remove him from DT. But Vod will reason that cryptodevil has Done more good than harm, and un-negging one person is not worth giving hundreds of scammers back their trust.
There are better systems than a cascading one.
But I have to say, it is a little broken. Let's say Cryptodevil. I don't have anything against him, but his reputation is controversial. If he negs someone and refused to remove it, people will go to Vod to remove him from DT. But Vod will reason that cryptodevil has Done more good than harm, and un-negging one person is not worth giving hundreds of scammers back their trust.
There are better systems than a cascading one.
Vod can't remove cryptodevil from DT. However ANYONE can remove cryptodevil or suchmoon or whoever from their OWN trust list, that's how the this system should be used and I don't think that part is broken. Also you can add The Pharmacist just to spite him ;-).
Just keep in mind that DT or custom lists only change the red and green colors that you see. It doesn't make people more or less trustworthy, so basically what Salty said above - everyone should do their homework.
Maybe that's how it was meant to be used , but it sure is not how it currently is (or will be, i'm sure). Trust (feedback) is generally judged by default settings,
and you can't just say that people should include and exclude people however they want, because that just creates a mess and confusion (for 99% of members here atleast)
It is obvious that default trust settings are the way to go, but not as they are now, because every now and then DT is being abused, and there is no will to fix that.
I guess many perceive it as means to an end, because there's a lot of good work done as well.
I would add option to this trust system, enabling hero members and above, to be able to post at least neutral feedback to DT members as upper (trusted feedback).
Like i said, there is no easy fix for it, but this would atleast give us little guys a chance to be heard.
When simply posting something that will be seen as un trusted feedback to other members , people automatically assume exactly that - that it's untrusted and therefor invalid (fake/ungrounded)
This is what any negged person would say.
But I have to say, it is a little broken. Let's say Cryptodevil. I don't have anything against him, but his reputation is controversial. If he negs someone and refused to remove it, people will go to Vod to remove him from DT. But Vod will reason that cryptodevil has Done more good than harm, and un-negging one person is not worth giving hundreds of scammers back their trust.
There are better systems than a cascading one.
But I have to say, it is a little broken. Let's say Cryptodevil. I don't have anything against him, but his reputation is controversial. If he negs someone and refused to remove it, people will go to Vod to remove him from DT. But Vod will reason that cryptodevil has Done more good than harm, and un-negging one person is not worth giving hundreds of scammers back their trust.
There are better systems than a cascading one.
Vod can't remove cryptodevil from DT. However ANYONE can remove cryptodevil or suchmoon or whoever from their OWN trust list, that's how the this system should be used and I don't think that part is broken. Also you can add The Pharmacist just to spite him ;-).
Just keep in mind that DT or custom lists only change the red and green colors that you see. It doesn't make people more or less trustworthy, so basically what Salty said above - everyone should do their homework.
i think bitcointalk trust system very stupid..everyone can send randomly negative trust..trust system very ridiculous...
Trust ratings left by people on DT level 1 are the only one's that matter & they don't tend to leave negative ratings unless deserved.
Sure sometimes a few people will get burnt, possibly unfairly but it's a system that has mostly worked & stops scammers.
... not contributing to the community one bit since they are not DT members
There is a chance they may be placed into DT later on, when their feedback will matter.
I don't believe that's even close to reality. From what i observe, you can spot people trying to get on DT from miles away. They only deal with upper DT members,
and participate in deals with such members just in order to get on DT. That's just how i feel about this..
Sometimes i get the feeling that it's a closed circle of only so few people, i doubt that's how it should look like , if we want to have remotely fair system.
DT members will say it's fair as it is, because it favors them, but i don't think it is, at all.
Isn't that entirely their problem though? A foolproof system doesn't exist. Something where someone can easily pay without caution is outside of the realm of reality. Even given the absolute best possible forum trust system that we could ever possibly attain, blindly trusting anything is a bad move. All we can do is provide some tools that might help people form their own opinions. You can't call something bad because its purpose doesn't fit your expectations. You could call it bad if it is misleading people into false expectations, but I've seen more often than not that is a personal problem and not a system problem.
My only arguments against the trust system are as I said before, it would be more appropriately named a feedback system rather than trust system. I would say a basic "how to" would be useful as well, but that wouldn't really work, as people are free to interpret feedback any way they want. I described how I personally interpret it, but it might work perfectly for others in another way.
Yes, that is problem itself and it is better that we call it feedback system, also in many online websites such as merchant, freelancer,..if you want to have feedback you must pay a fee, if here they consider some similar mechanism, it may help prevent fake feedback or minimize it at least. My only arguments against the trust system are as I said before, it would be more appropriately named a feedback system rather than trust system. I would say a basic "how to" would be useful as well, but that wouldn't really work, as people are free to interpret feedback any way they want. I described how I personally interpret it, but it might work perfectly for others in another way.
This is what any negged person would say.
But I have to say, it is a little broken. Let's say Cryptodevil. I don't have anything against him, but his reputation is controversial. If he negs someone and refused to remove it, people will go to Vod to remove him from DT. But Vod will reason that cryptodevil has Done more good than harm, and un-negging one person is not worth giving hundreds of scammers back their trust.
There are better systems than a cascading one.
But I have to say, it is a little broken. Let's say Cryptodevil. I don't have anything against him, but his reputation is controversial. If he negs someone and refused to remove it, people will go to Vod to remove him from DT. But Vod will reason that cryptodevil has Done more good than harm, and un-negging one person is not worth giving hundreds of scammers back their trust.
There are better systems than a cascading one.
... not contributing to the community one bit since they are not DT members
There is a chance they may be placed into DT later on, when their feedback will matter.
... not contributing to the community one bit since they are not DT members
There is a chance they may be placed into DT later on, when their feedback will matter.
I think that the so called "Crusaders" need to be dealt a hand of reality and not just give trust when they think it is just and needed. This just makes them look like morons and not contributing to the community one bit since they are not DT members this just affects them when they want to branch out into other faucets in the bitcointalk forum community.
So fucking deal me a hand of reality, because I'm one of the ones who thinks account sales are bullshit and my trust comments reflect this. You may not be referring to me specifically, but I'm in the same category. Do I care one whit whether you or anyone else thinks I look like a fool. Absolutely not. You and all the other account-selling and otherwise butthurt whiners can go gargle a tubesteak. This forum is full of shady people, and apparently a lot of people who don't realize their actions have consequences that they 1) May not foresee, or 2) Don't care about. Supporting ponzis and dealing in bitcointalk accounts are two of these things, and then there's also trafficking in stolen gift cards and all that.If you don't like that there are people who are willing to stand up against that stuff, FUCK YOU.
Agreed. I do my best to call out any potential scams and mark the accounts with neg trust. There are a lot of us who have been here for years and can spot the normal things that scammers do/try to do right off the bat, and I think it is our duty to warn others when we see it.
Keep up the good work and keep marking anything scammy as such.
I think that the so called "Crusaders" need to be dealt a hand of reality and not just give trust when they think it is just and needed. This just makes them look like morons and not contributing to the community one bit since they are not DT members this just affects them when they want to branch out into other faucets in the bitcointalk forum community.
So fucking deal me a hand of reality, because I'm one of the ones who thinks account sales are bullshit and my trust comments reflect this. You may not be referring to me specifically, but I'm in the same category. Do I care one whit whether you or anyone else thinks I look like a fool. Absolutely not. You and all the other account-selling and otherwise butthurt whiners can go gargle a tubesteak. This forum is full of shady people, and apparently a lot of people who don't realize their actions have consequences that they 1) May not foresee, or 2) Don't care about. Supporting ponzis and dealing in bitcointalk accounts are two of these things, and then there's also trafficking in stolen gift cards and all that.If you don't like that there are people who are willing to stand up against that stuff, FUCK YOU.
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.
The problem is that some people expect a system that they can easily pay without cautions and do not worry about the payment. But they must ensure that they are not putting a high money in risk and pay in small payments. They use escrow and know that even in real life you cannot ensure someone is trustworthy completely. 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.
Isn't that entirely their problem though? A foolproof system doesn't exist. Something where someone can easily pay without caution is outside of the realm of reality. Even given the absolute best possible forum trust system that we could ever possibly attain, blindly trusting anything is a bad move. All we can do is provide some tools that might help people form their own opinions. You can't call something bad because its purpose doesn't fit your expectations. You could call it bad if it is misleading people into false expectations, but I've seen more often than not that is a personal problem and not a system problem.
My only arguments against the trust system are as I said before, it would be more appropriately named a feedback system rather than trust system. I would say a basic "how to" would be useful as well, but that wouldn't really work, as people are free to interpret feedback any way they want. I described how I personally interpret it, but it might work perfectly for others in another way.
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.
The problem is that some people expect a system that they can easily pay without cautions and do not worry about the payment. But they must ensure that they are not putting a high money in risk and pay in small payments. They use escrow and know that even in real life you cannot ensure someone is trustworthy completely. 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.
I think that the so called "Crusaders" need to be dealt a hand of reality and not just give trust when they think it is just and needed. This just makes them look like morons and not contributing to the community one bit since they are not DT members this just affects them when they want to branch out into other faucets in the bitcointalk forum community.
The trust system is good, really. It keeps folks in line, those who have negative trust find it difficult to scam people and those who don't, are careful to avoid it.
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.
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.
i think bitcointalk trust system very stupid..everyone can send randomly negative trust..trust system very ridiculous...
Why you say so.Do you have any bad experience with trust system? 
And I think you are stupid for not knowing that none of those feedbacks count unless they are from DT, which you can be only if you are a very trusted member of the community.
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.
OP was a troll trying to get reactions from some users
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.
I'll admit.. It's not too shabby..
OP was a troll trying to get reactions from some users
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Anyway, one thing that I might add or suggest will be same with electronicash
Trust system is pretty fine i just think reference should at least be required. This will help users check what is behind the red/green trust.
Because if we don't see a reference some especially me would just assume his alt gave the green.
Because if we don't see a reference some especially me would just assume his alt gave the green.
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.
Don't trust anyone but yourself.
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
Those feedbacks still carry no weight, though. But like you said, it should be taken seriously since it is linked with solid references.like feedback given by those with a lot a trades in this forum but not in the DT list.
So, did you mean feedbacks that were given by "a lot of trades" member should be trusted, "mindlessly"? not everyone can give trust . only people who have a high rank
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.not everyone can give trust . only people who have a high rank
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
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 rankso 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 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.
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 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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
....
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.
....
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.
....
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)
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.
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.
....
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.
....
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.
....
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)
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.
Coinbase for my first sig campaign earnings..
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.Bitcoin address: 1JVMphzLjBVijh6wgnV4UaUWCcoWicEcx6
Also, double posts...
hey eddie13, bought that acc?
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..
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
Asking qustions about dust transactions..
Couldn't someone have just imported the 1HKnuXP3RZDLjHPuDcj4EzaDtEH94FMbgB into there wallet and then used it as an input in there next transaction they were going to make anyway therefore it paying 7740 sat of the 10,00 sat miner fee that they were going to have to pay to send any BTC anyway?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13567583
an hour or 2
Sounds great...
Send the DOGE here DPYYXub8hNQnp6YEfR4P42v9QeEMEafJaL to my polo account and I'll send your .02BTC to your addy 114uF5PUbG6Gqf5hvaiJhmd68AYkeorJ2G as soon as the doge finishes confirming to my account..
You only want it for an hour or 2 but lets make it within a week repayment so you can pay back any time you like within a week to stay on the safe side for ya.
your repayment amount will be .022BTC @ 10% to 15jYgRVym33hQyHBXiq1sjFdQLgLaU4udZ and when you do that I'll send your DOGE back to whatever address you want me to.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13461728
The rules are simple:
2. In "Your account tab" copy deposit address from field "Deposit with BTC".
3. Post your address in this topic.
4. After that, 0.0001 BTC will be credited to your account.
Giveaway ended.
14HBf3NqJhfj8Y7gXto2rE4potaLbpjTp4
Coinbase for my first sig campaign earnings..
I would be very grateful if you would let me join your signature campaign.
Name: eddie13
Post count: 63
Rank: Jr. Member
Bitcoin address: 1JVMphzLjBVijh6wgnV4UaUWCcoWicEcx6
Thank you very much
Name: eddie13
Post count: 63
Rank: Jr. Member
Bitcoin address: 1JVMphzLjBVijh6wgnV4UaUWCcoWicEcx6
Thank you very much
well done, well done.
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, methinks thou doth protest too much.
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..
hey eddie13, bought that acc?
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..
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. gnahahahaAsking qustions about dust transactions..
Couldn't someone have just imported the 1HKnuXP3RZDLjHPuDcj4EzaDtEH94FMbgB into there wallet and then used it as an input in there next transaction they were going to make anyway therefore it paying 7740 sat of the 10,00 sat miner fee that they were going to have to pay to send any BTC anyway?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13567583
an hour or 2
Sounds great...
Send the DOGE here DPYYXub8hNQnp6YEfR4P42v9QeEMEafJaL to my polo account and I'll send your .02BTC to your addy 114uF5PUbG6Gqf5hvaiJhmd68AYkeorJ2G as soon as the doge finishes confirming to my account..
You only want it for an hour or 2 but lets make it within a week repayment so you can pay back any time you like within a week to stay on the safe side for ya.
your repayment amount will be .022BTC @ 10% to 15jYgRVym33hQyHBXiq1sjFdQLgLaU4udZ and when you do that I'll send your DOGE back to whatever address you want me to.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13461728
The rules are simple:
2. In "Your account tab" copy deposit address from field "Deposit with BTC".
3. Post your address in this topic.
4. After that, 0.0001 BTC will be credited to your account.
Giveaway ended.
14HBf3NqJhfj8Y7gXto2rE4potaLbpjTp4
Coinbase for my first sig campaign earnings..
I would be very grateful if you would let me join your signature campaign.
Name: eddie13
Post count: 63
Rank: Jr. Member
Bitcoin address: 1JVMphzLjBVijh6wgnV4UaUWCcoWicEcx6
Thank you very much
Name: eddie13
Post count: 63
Rank: Jr. Member
Bitcoin address: 1JVMphzLjBVijh6wgnV4UaUWCcoWicEcx6
Thank you very much
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.
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.
hey eddie13, bought that acc?
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..
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 hey eddie13, bought that acc?
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
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
you deal in accounts so I don't pity or feel sorry for you
Selling accounts is untrustworthy by nature
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..
Quote from: The Pharmacist
You are selling an account which is probably a scammers wet dream. Shame on you. Selling accounts is promoting a whole buffet of corrupt activities on the forum.
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 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.
And I think you are stupid for not knowing that none of those feedbacks count unless they are from DT, which you can be only if you are a very trusted member of the community.
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.
while account trades are tolerated here, they are strongly discouraged
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You need to get on with Chapter 3. It's taking too long, we're Netflix binge generation, come on.
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.
There is no legit sense or purpose where that could be used for anything good.
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.
....
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.
....
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.
....
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)
Who is there to control DT members ? - No one is. Why the double standards ?
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.
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.
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.
Who is there to control DT members ? - No one is. Why the double standards ?
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.
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.
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.
And I think you are stupid for not knowing that none of those feedbacks count unless they are from DT, which you can be only if you are a very trusted member of the community.
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.
while account trades are tolerated here, they are strongly discouraged
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.
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.
I agree it's broken, but I accept it's what exists and that it's not my forum. OP, start your own forum if the trust system is so bad you can't stand it. Otherwise STFU, because people more intelligent than you have been arguing about this same issue since the system came into existence, and it apparently does no good. So whining about it without offering an alternative is definitely just going to fall on deaf ears.
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 ?
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.
while account trades are tolerated here, they are strongly discouraged
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.
Its clearly mentioned that selling/buying forum accounts is legal then why you tagged eddie ?
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.
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 ?
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. I agree it's broken, but I accept it's what exists and that it's not my forum. OP, start your own forum if the trust system is so bad you can't stand it. Otherwise STFU, because people more intelligent than you have been arguing about this same issue since the system came into existence, and it apparently does no good. So whining about it without offering an alternative is definitely just going to fall on deaf ears.
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 ?
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.
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. 
I did not see the negative feedback. The + and - were at 0 before I posted. I admit I should have checked past threads.
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.The admins should also delete scammer accounts.
What would that accomplish? They could just create another account and try again.What does trading have to do with trustworthiness? If I keep my word that makes me trustworthy. I don't need to do a trade just to boost my credibility.
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. The Trust system is needed. I was just scammed out of a gift card here because the Trust was not showing. If anything the system should be better. Scammer https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/embroiderymate-709833
No. You've dealt with a person who isn't trusted and has had a lot of untrusted negative feedback. You can't expect some sort of perfect trust system that can prevent every type of scam. We've seen this with people that have a decent positive trust rating eventually scamming (e.g. Bogus escrow scam).In addition, most people who are unfamiliar with it will simply see someone marked in red and automatically assume that the person is a scammer without reading the comments in their trust feedback score.
One can't blame anyone else, for the lack of knowledge regarding the trust system, but themselves.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.
I agree it's broken, but I accept it's what exists and that it's not my forum. OP, start your own forum if the trust system is so bad you can't stand it. Otherwise STFU, because people more intelligent than you have been arguing about this same issue since the system came into existence, and it apparently does no good. So whining about it without offering an alternative is definitely just going to fall on deaf ears.
Speaking of...
If you ever make default trust, which it seems your really gunning for, you should remove this shit you left on me or change it to neutral without an extended conversation and/or a bunch of drama.. You shouldn't do that to a guy for conducting honest lending business..
I agree it's broken, but I accept it's what exists and that it's not my forum. OP, start your own forum if the trust system is so bad you can't stand it. Otherwise STFU, because people more intelligent than you have been arguing about this same issue since the system came into existence, and it apparently does no good. So whining about it without offering an alternative is definitely just going to fall on deaf ears.
Speaking of...
If you ever make default trust, which it seems your really gunning for, you should remove this shit you left on me or change it to neutral without an extended conversation and/or a bunch of drama.. You shouldn't do that to a guy for conducting honest lending business..
I agree it's broken, but I accept it's what exists and that it's not my forum. OP, start your own forum if the trust system is so bad you can't stand it. Otherwise STFU, because people more intelligent than you have been arguing about this same issue since the system came into existence, and it apparently does no good. So whining about it without offering an alternative is definitely just going to fall on deaf ears.
unless they are from DT which you can be only if you are a very trusted member of the community.
Also not true. There are several people in the DT network that have zero trading history. What does trading have to do with trustworthiness?
If I keep my word that makes me trustworthy. I don't need to do a trade just to boost my credibility.
The trust system is far from perfect, and has a lot of flaws.
One major problem with the "DT system" is that people in the DT network are much more likely to receive positive trust for "being trustworthy" then those outside of the DT network (with the hope of receiving a positive rating in return), are much more likely to receive fake negative trust from scammers (and as a result this makes it much more difficult to tell when someone in the DT network has actually scammed a scammer or not), and are much less likely to receive negative trust, even if they scam someone.
And I think you are stupid for not knowing that none of those feedbacks count unless they are from DT,
This is not true. Anyone can see every feedback, and every feedback has the potential to show up by default in the future. Any erroneous feedback can also potentially be relied upon when deciding to trade with someone or not. unless they are from DT which you can be only if you are a very trusted member of the community.
Also not true. There are several people in the DT network that have zero trading history. One major problem with the "DT system" is that people in the DT network are much more likely to receive positive trust for "being trustworthy" then those outside of the DT network (with the hope of receiving a positive rating in return), are much more likely to receive fake negative trust from scammers (and as a result this makes it much more difficult to tell when someone in the DT network has actually scammed a scammer or not), and are much less likely to receive negative trust, even if they scam someone.
The Trust system is needed. I was just scammed out of a gift card here because the Trust was not showing. If anything the system should be better. Scammer https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/embroiderymate-709833
No. You've dealt with a person who isn't trusted and has had a lot of untrusted negative feedback. You can't expect some sort of perfect trust system that can prevent every type of scam. We've seen this with people that have a decent positive trust rating eventually scamming (e.g. Bogus escrow scam).In addition, most people who are unfamiliar with it will simply see someone marked in red and automatically assume that the person is a scammer without reading the comments in their trust feedback score.
One can't blame anyone else, for the lack of knowledge regarding the trust system, but themselves.
I like the trust system it can give you some more info about the person who offer something on this forum. It's also a fast warning for other people if there is a red tag under someone his name. Also people who offer quality services and are good sellers can be easy recognized. The only things that could happen is that a account is hacked or sold so always be careful and use escrow when you buy or sell something.
It is not a perfect system...not by a long shot. In addition, most people who are unfamiliar with it will simply see someone marked in red and automatically assume that the person is a scammer without reading the comments in their trust feedback score. However, for those who understand it, it's not so bad.
The Trust system is needed. I was just scammed out of a gift card here because the Trust was not showing. If anything the system should be better.
Scammer https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/embroiderymate-709833
Scammer https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/embroiderymate-709833
i think bitcointalk trust system very stupid..everyone can send randomly negative trust..trust system very ridiculous...
which one is your real account?
i think bitcointalk trust system very stupid..everyone can send randomly negative trust..trust system very ridiculous...
Learn how trust system works and if you understand it you won't need to create threads like this. You just made yourself a clown here, crying over a thing that you don't really understand
Trust system is pretty fine i just think reference should at least be required. This will help users check what is behind the red/green trust.
Because if we don't see a reference some especially me would just assume his alt gave the green.
Because if we don't see a reference some especially me would just assume his alt gave the green.
i think bitcointalk trust system very stupid..everyone can send randomly negative trust..trust system very ridiculous...
There is a comment and a reference link. You are expected to read that before dealing with the person. May be you are not aware that some trusted people have lot of red untrusted feedbacks? It doesn't make them any less trusted.
Quote
Untrusted feedback
These ratings are from people who are not in your trust network. They may be totally inaccurate.
These ratings are from people who are not in your trust network. They may be totally inaccurate.
Wrong. The trust system is pretty decent and there isn't a better alternative (at least not proposed here). It seems highly likely that you do not properly understand the trust system either.
And I think you are stupid
This could have been left out though.and I think you are stupid...
Telling people that are trying to help you that they're stupid isn't a smart move.
i dont have alt accounts... i think trust system must be changed..not correct working
Sounds like the OP is a little butt hurt to me, post from you normal account next time and stop hiding behind alt accounts.
Ps: This should have been posted in the "meta" section.
Ps: This should have been posted in the "meta" section.
And I think you are stupid for not knowing that none of those feedbacks count unless they are from DT, which you can be only if you are a very trusted member of the community.
i think bitcointalk trust system very stupid..everyone can send randomly negative trust..trust system very ridiculous...
Jump to: