Pages:
Author

Topic: Can we regulate the trust system ? (Read 1426 times)

member
Activity: 518
Merit: 21
December 29, 2018, 12:10:55 PM
#74
Well I have nothing to worry about it because I am not gone trading here and will not going to scam other users as well. I have seen that there are many scammers out here so probably the best thing to do is not to trust anyone even to those who act as escrow service might scam one users one day depending on the need of that user. It will come to a time that they will be tempted to do it also.
hero member
Activity: 1190
Merit: 525
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
December 29, 2018, 11:47:35 AM
#73
These threads become worthless too fast with a lot of posts trying to change the focus of the conversation.

Better to make a document with valid points justifying the need for changes, with suggestions about what can be done, with the signature of unsatisfied people and forward to the forum's owner.
legendary
Activity: 1511
Merit: 1072
quack
December 26, 2018, 10:00:49 PM
#72
~ words

You already have at least two lengthy threads on the subject. Derailing another one and hoping for a different result seems quite dumb.

I replied to Vod. Not going to sit silently when Vod (or anyone) continues to spread shit about me (or others), thank you.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
December 26, 2018, 09:56:11 PM
#71
~ words

You already have at least two lengthy threads on the subject. Derailing another one and hoping for a different result seems quite dumb.
sr. member
Activity: 742
Merit: 395
I am alive but in hibernation.
December 26, 2018, 09:44:10 PM
#70
Great, I can finally get double the amount of "Lauda gang" complaint threads. Roll Eyes

Do not worry, whatever the system in place,people will always complain.



Image Source

I will simply say if we can create the system  that DT feedback will be applicable only if it supported by 2 other DTs.
That will make the system even more inefficient to the point where I bet DT members would stop tagging anyone.  What am I supposed to do when I find an account seller and want to tag him--drop a PM to another DT member to request that he cosign my negative trust?  Wait for a response and if the answer is no, then move on to another DT member?  What if I get scammed myself?  Am I then not allowed to leave a neg unless I have approval from someone else on DT?

You are still free to leave -ve and I like LoyceV suggestion that not every account (at least high ranked account) should be destroyed by single -ve or some personal issues with DT member.
It is also ok to leave soft warning as suchmoon suggested but I think it will not solve the purpose because a -ve rating will still be negative, does not matter how it displayed but if first negative rating changed to " ? ? ? " then it might serve as warning and everybody should be cautioned.

My personal belief is that when you are trading with someone then you need to check every feedback (trusted + untrusted) to make up your mind but unfortunately people are just guided by trusted feedback only. DT are human and can err in some case but why everybody is putting a blind eye to that feedback and making a de facto  standard.This is the reason I suggested 3 people cannot be wrong at same time.

Anyways in my belief, when you trade , you are supposed to use escrow and protect yourself and the responsibility to protect you from scam does not lie at DT at all.


That's a problem with signature campaigns, not with the trust system.
the problem is indeed with the trust system.

I believe the root cause of the problem is account value. Most of users in bitcointalk set some value of account in their mind based on the ranking of the account. That's why you see thread like if you are legendary/Hero or green trusted account I will go first (completely ignoring escrow) or will not deal with -ve trust account or below Member ranking. Moment you get -ve trust from DT the value of account change to zero and you lose many of the trade/earning opportunities exist in this forum.
legendary
Activity: 1511
Merit: 1072
quack
December 26, 2018, 08:08:36 PM
#69
Vod told me that he doesn't see anything untrustworthy in what I did in that auction.

I distrust you both for scamming in your auction and your continued bullshit.  

Haha. You said ("I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy") that you don't see anything untrustworthy in how the auction went. Right after certain private messages on the same day, your opinion 'suddenly' changed. These are publicly verifiable facts, not bullshit. You seem upset that I don't simply forget your wrongdoing.

How about that quote which attribution you faked? How about that blackmailing attempt? You are a true scumbag.

I've not scammed anyone. You're trying to trash my reputation by relying on people not verifying what you claim.
legendary
Activity: 2100
Merit: 1167
MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG
December 26, 2018, 06:05:00 PM
#68
but what happens when a DT member goes out of his way and tag someone for saying "lemon"? what if no other DT member give a counter tag to the lemon tag?

In these cases, the affected user opens a thread, and there is usually a lengthy discussion that either results in:

1 - removal of the red tag
2 - addition of more red tags
3 - countering of the red tag with a positive tag

If a DT member is found to be constantly leaving inappropriate feedback which the rest of the community disagree with, then they will likely be removed from DT before long. In cases like Anduck's and mdayonliner's, don't be fooled in to thinking that they are victims of some "rogue" DT member. Given their continued vocality the majority of DT members are well aware of their situations and have actively chosen to either reinforce the red tag or to not counter it.

theymos also agrees that the DT system is not perfect (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48500915), and he is very interested in any ways to improve it. In the short term, I think there is a very strong argument to be made for a handful more DT1 members, and by extension many more DT2 members, to keep things as decentralized as possible.

Can we please not derail yet another thread in to Anduck's mdayonliner's personal beef.


I believe if a system allows to the unfair treatment of 1 individual it needs review and additional measures to fix that that it failed to protect previously.

Some people just take it and do not have the will, capacity or personality to face what it takes to get fair treatment.

Trust is to warn me about getting scammed out of money not about their preference for lemons. Bring the criteria or scrap.
Or maybe change the red message to say " click to find out peoples opinion of lemons"

Scammers get red trust. Others can just keep differences of opinion and petty arguments to themselves.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18748
December 26, 2018, 03:53:48 PM
#67
but what happens when a DT member goes out of his way and tag someone for saying "lemon"? what if no other DT member give a counter tag to the lemon tag?

In these cases, the affected user opens a thread, and there is usually a lengthy discussion that either results in:

1 - removal of the red tag
2 - addition of more red tags
3 - countering of the red tag with a positive tag

If a DT member is found to be constantly leaving inappropriate feedback which the rest of the community disagree with, then they will likely be removed from DT before long. In cases like Anduck's and mdayonliner's, don't be fooled in to thinking that they are victims of some "rogue" DT member. Given their continued vocality the majority of DT members are well aware of their situations and have actively chosen to either reinforce the red tag or to not counter it.

theymos also agrees that the DT system is not perfect (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48500915), and he is very interested in any ways to improve it. In the short term, I think there is a very strong argument to be made for a handful more DT1 members, and by extension many more DT2 members, to keep things as decentralized as possible.

Can we please not derail yet another thread in to Anduck's mdayonliner's personal beef.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
December 26, 2018, 03:01:13 PM
#66
Non of these would not happen if I did not have the highlighted warning....
"Warning: Trade with extreme caution!"

The warning means I stole or scammed more than a penny! Did I scam a penny from anyone here? I did not and I don't think I will ever.

It simply means someone does not trust you - no where does it say you scammed.

Not trusting you for promoting a ponzi is a valid reason to leave negative trust - regardless of when and where it happened.  Such actions show your trustworthiness the same as going out and taking money from a blind person.

Vod told me that he doesn't see anything untrustworthy in what I did in that auction.

I distrust you both for scamming in your auction and your continued bullshit. 
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1427
December 26, 2018, 02:03:43 PM
#65
Like I said before when the crime is not obvious and you can not prove it then leave a warning. Can hilariousandco prove it that I was going to walk away with the 20BTC? S/he can't because the event never happened. A user may make a mistake, give them a chance. Warn for the first time. S/he may not realize the dept of the wrongdoing/wrong-practice. Warn them! If needed then warn them for the 2nd and third too. Leave a neutral feedback as the prove of the warning. Do it for the 2nd and third time too. If they don't listen THAN go for action. If a single tag from DT can destroy someones accounts then DTs should be very careful before tagging an account. A harsh tag is injustice for the member.
Roll Eyes Your reasoning is that of 12 year old... This forum isn't a kindergarten.. You're acting as if DT is getting paid for doing this. They're not. You really think they have the patience to give some 2/3/4 chances? I know i wouldn't..

I personally don't actually see any reason for them to justify their ratings to anyone up to a certain degree. If they're inherently wrong, someone else on DT will probably correct them on it.
 


Non of these would not happen if I did not have the highlighted warning....

I again wouldn't be so quick to blame the red tag for all of your issues. If anyone else was making such a stigma about "leaving the forum", only to then come back to make a deal that doesn't really make sense, well, he probably would've received the same replies, even w/out a red trust.


Do you think it's any less wrong if posted outside this forum?
I did not promote any ponzi in and outside the forum while I am a member of the forum. I left promoting those business long before joining this forum because I was sick and tired of their terms.
And where does Followbitcoin.today fit in then? What's that? You don't classify that as a ponzi? -- Sidenote: You didn't answer his question...  Undecided


Anyway, your entire character at this point is becoming an esoteric issue which i can no longer keep up with. Ah well.
hero member
Activity: 1190
Merit: 525
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
December 26, 2018, 01:10:46 PM
#64
I will simply say if we can create the system  that DT feedback will be applicable only if it supported by 2 other DTs.

In this case at least we can stop/minimize the abuse in which people are tagged for saying "lemon".  I guess 3 people will not be having hatred for lemon simultaneously.

Same goes  for +ve feedback too, where people get +ve for doing a $10-20 trade, at least  you need to be trusted by at least by 3 people to get the +ve rating.

Since many of the DTs are inactive, we need to expand this network but at same time it need to be make sure that a single DT rating should not impact an individual.

This would give even more power to this DT structure.

Maybe, but if a DT feedback's pattern becomes too evident (like several dubious rates applied by a same DT minor group), it will be easier to spot who is acting in cartel, the exposure is higher than supporting partner DT's feedbacks only with words. Higher exposure is good, because it's harder to be omitted and trivialized.

Anyway, even with high exposure, if no one complains and express their opinion, nothing will be done and the abuses will continue.

It's not a definitive solution, but an improvement...
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
December 26, 2018, 12:23:54 PM
#63
- Read some of the reply from AdolfinWolf on the topic. It was like I wanted to trade paypal £ because I know paypal is reversible and I am determined that I will do that once I will get the BTC. It's like he is reading my mind and throwing out even made up shit like paypal still do charge back even after 180 days.

Adolf's post is factual. You don't like another user's post and you're trying to make it sound like it's a trust system issue. It's not.

For a confirmed crime like loan default, not posting products you paid for, reversing paypal once got the BTC etc etc keep the current warning text "Warning: Trade with extreme caution!"

A second DT rating would trigger the stronger message. My suggestion was just a small adjustment to the current positive/negative/red/green/orange/question mark scheme. I don't want to overcomplicate it with subjective details like what is a crime?
copper member
Activity: 630
Merit: 420
We are Bitcoin!
December 26, 2018, 11:57:41 AM
#62
There are a lot of members who've been tagged just for making scammy offers.  Vod, for example, tags a lot of people who ask for loans with no collateral.  I tag account sellers primarily.  Neither of us have been directly scammed by the members we've tagged; it's a warning to others that the tagged member might not be trustworthy.

If I create a brand new account and if my first post is to offer a $100k escrow service or even the 10th or 20th post is to offer a $100k deals then there is something wrong. Since Vod was used for example then I have noticed most of Vod's tags are for a brand new account asking for no collateral loan. I am always saying when the crime is obvious then tag the user.

That's demonstrably untrue--look at how many merits you've gotten.
I said some members think red tagged members should not ranked up. By the way, I do feel the impact. I used to receive merits from the boards which shows trust rating but after getting the red tag I am not receiving much from those boards.

Do you think it's any less wrong if posted outside this forum?
I did not promote any ponzi in and outside the forum while I am a member of the forum. I left promoting those business long before joining this forum because I was sick and tired of their terms.


That's why you need to read the ratings and/or use custom trust lists
I am saying the same thing like the other member that custom trust list is not solving the problem. Feedback from DTs are visible to everyone and forum member's count the DT feedback only.

Warning: click to check user's feedback
May be this is a good idea (not red though, red looks scary, may be some other color) when the tag is not for a proven crime like troll, offering shady service, account selling, asking for no collateral loan from a brand new account etc etc.

For a confirmed crime like loan default, not posting products you paid for, reversing paypal once got the BTC etc etc keep the current warning text "Warning: Trade with extreme caution!"
legendary
Activity: 2394
Merit: 6581
be constructive or S.T.F.U
December 26, 2018, 11:03:36 AM
#61
Isn't it obvious DT won't always agree? There are clear red and clear green cases, but in between there's going to be differences of opinion at some level.

okay you have just summarized the whole issue in a very nice short statement which i couldn't do due to the lack of writing skills Grin.

i do not think anybody will debate over the "clear" red and green cases. but what's up with the gray ?

if you tag someone for being a scammer, not a single DT member will counter it and say " no allow this guy to scam others". it's  pretty obvious !

but what happens when a DT member goes out of his way and tag someone for saying "lemon"? what if no other DT member give a counter tag to the lemon tag?

who can accuse the lemon hater DT member of "abusing" the trust system when there is not a single rule that says "you can't tag someone for using the word lemon?

the tagged person will have his profile painted in red, he won't be able to make any deals with any sort of flexibility, he will be kicked out of any signature campaign even if he gets a counter rating "since most camp mangers clearly say that if you have a negative rating from a DT member you won't get paid".

who will protect say "me" from you giving me a random negative trust because i use this smiley  Grin way too often ?

for all i know no are not breaking any rules for doing so !.



legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
December 26, 2018, 10:50:06 AM
#60
as someone who is a DT and their feedback appears by default to every member there has to be a set of rules, if the DT is not happy with the rule and wan't to use the trust system the way they want then they get removed from DT and can still tag people for saying "apple" if they want.

I'm still not following the logic here, sorry. There are already tools in place to remove people from DT. You can use those to remove specific members if you think they shouldn't be there.

Or if the existing tools are not good enough you can suggest improvements to theymos, who's already considering changes to how DT works.

Either or both of the above make much more sense to me than trying to force everyone into compliance with rigid rules, which would essentially create another hierarchy (mods able to override DT) and lots of new complaints. I mean I would be in favor of it if we could just add a rule "scams are not allowed" and have a feasible way to enforce it with zero-tolerance but we can't and we don't.

even if we are never going to have any rules, i hope that the reasonable DT members will stand against those irrational tags when they see them. like that DT member who stood up for cryptohunter when he was given a red tag for being a "troll" and gave cryptohunter a positive one because he thought that being a troll does not qualify you for a negative trust of which i am sure that 99% of members would agree to that . i am by no means defending the "way" that cryptohunter went about the "gang" and all the exaggerations ,but it was sad to see only a few DTs disagreed to that and actually only 1 took an action while a few others supported that irrational feedback.

That's already happening and only 1 counter rating is needed (multiple would make the target have "+" trust, which is probably not a good thing). I don't recall any recent incident where a reasonable counter rating was not posted but if you have any examples please bring them up.
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
December 26, 2018, 10:48:47 AM
#59
I think this is too limited. If you have to wait for a DT-member to be scammed before a scammer can be tagged, many innocent Newbies will be scammed too, while doing a small deal to work on a long con doesn't mean someone can be trusted either.
As an example, look at the red trust I left. Before I was on DT, it was mainly for users who cheated my giveaways, or (the first one) a non-paying faucet). After I was put on DT (around March this year), I've tagged a couple dozen users, and none of them scammed me. Since scams aren't moderated, DT is the only protection this forum has.

Maybe i failed to give a proper explanation. the point here is not that a DT member himself has to be scammed, the accusation it self has to be based on a scam action. so if a newbie gets scammed by xyz  and you tag that xyz member for scamming, it is a very valid tag. this goes for all trading related matters, call it scam/cheat/ponzi/rip-off it does not matter. as long as it's not " this guy is stupid/troll , so i gave him a negative trust because i can".
This is still missing the point. I'll give an example: I tagged Boplewww for posting this. As far as I know, nobody got scammed by this user. I don't think anybody would doubt this tag, it's just an example of what I consider more useful than waiting for an actual scam to happen.

LOL, ok that solves my dilemma of whether I should add a counter rating for you. I don't know what else I can do for you when you're so belligerent.

Quote
~it was sad to see only a few DTs disagreed to that and actually only 1 took an action while a few others supported that irrational feedback.
Isn't it obvious DT won't always agree? There are clear red and clear green cases, but in between there's going to be differences of opinion at some level.
sr. member
Activity: 938
Merit: 452
Check your coin privilege
December 26, 2018, 10:42:29 AM
#58

---

That's why you need to read the ratings and/or use custom trust lists.

If you don't like the trust system, set your own trust list. I still haven't done it, because I prefer to see users as most people see them. But feel free to start promoting custom trust lists, if enough people agree, DT will become less powerful.

It's a good idea but a shame that so many people promote custom trust lists to solve a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.

If the majority agrees that DT is a select group of people that might not reflect the true list of actual most trusted people in the forum, then doesn't keeping DT as it is make it even more of a problem? Custom lists might look like they're solving the problem, but they're really not because the majority of the forum uses default trust. So in the end you're going to be living in your own echo chamber by removing default trust from your list, because you're completely oblivious to how everyone else actually sees you.

I'd say it depends on the situation. I've received some positive trust for being helpful. I don't think that's "worse" than someone who receives positive trust  after a few small trades with DT-members. In fact, it took me many years to get this (and I appreciate the appreciation), while it's quite easy to gain trust by doing a few trades.

This can easily be fixed if the risked amount is also taken into account (Why is it there in the first place if it's not?). In my opinion, someone with a few trades is more trusted than someone who posts all day on the forums, because at the end of the day, someone who had money risked through their hands means that they're not tempted to scam at least that much. Of course, account rank also comes into play, because a legendary hero wouldn't scam someone off a few dozen bucks simply because their account is worth more through sig campaigns.

Actually, using just 3 variables :
1. Account rank
2. Account current trust
3. Amount risked

I can come up with a system that won't depend on a centralized default trust, and at the same time gets updated in real time depending on member's trust over time :



If any of these 3 members get negative trust, then all their network is going to have less trust points because that person becomes shady.
If User 1 has biased vendetta against User 2, because there's a risked amount variable then baseless claims will have little effect.
This can't be spammed using multiple accounts because newbie ranks and risked amounts are too little to matter.

So in the end the only issue becomes actually verifying that the trust, risked amounts, and if the trades actually happened. Which wouldn't be a hard task because you'd only need to check people with a suspiciously high amount of trust.

This cliché of me pitching up ideas is getting rather old, is btctalk hiring? Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 2394
Merit: 6581
be constructive or S.T.F.U
December 26, 2018, 10:30:15 AM
#57
I think this is too limited. If you have to wait for a DT-member to be scammed before a scammer can be tagged, many innocent Newbies will be scammed too, while doing a small deal to work on a long con doesn't mean someone can be trusted either.
As an example, look at the red trust I left. Before I was on DT, it was mainly for users who cheated my giveaways, or (the first one) a non-paying faucet). After I was put on DT (around March this year), I've tagged a couple dozen users, and none of them scammed me. Since scams aren't moderated, DT is the only protection this forum has.

Maybe i failed to give a proper explanation. the point here is not that a DT member himself has to be scammed, the accusation it self has to be based on a scam action. so if a newbie gets scammed by xyz  and you tag that xyz member for scamming, it is a very valid tag. this goes for all trading related matters, call it scam/cheat/ponzi/rip-off it does not matter. as long as it's not " this guy is stupid/troll , so i gave him a negative trust because i can".

Quote
If you don't like the trust system, set your own trust list. I still haven't done it, because I prefer to see users as most people see them. But feel free to start promoting custom trust lists, if enough people agree, DT will become less powerful.

i discused this with suchmoon but i will explain it again,  the trust custom lists is only good for my own use, it does not reflect how other members view my profile. since you are a DT member then you are on everybody's list by default, if you were to tag me now, even if i would exclude you from my list, everyone else by default will see your tag on my profile.
so the trust custom list does not serve any propose on this matter.
--------------------------------------------------

even if we are never going to have any rules, i hope that the reasonable DT members will stand against those irrational tags when they see them. like that DT member who stood up for cryptohunter when he was given a red tag for being a "troll" and gave cryptohunter a positive one because he thought that being a troll does not qualify you for a negative trust of which i am sure that 99% of members would agree to that . i am by no means defending the "way" that cryptohunter went about the "gang" and all the exaggerations ,but it was sad to see only a few DTs disagreed to that and actually only 1 took an action while a few others supported that irrational feedback.



  

full member
Activity: 686
Merit: 125
December 26, 2018, 10:16:17 AM
#56

You must be in the list of the unluckiest guy here in bitcointalk.org though there are many users here like you that are being red tag due to a suspected activity that will probably lead to scam. Most of the members here had really matter about the trust rating even in bounty campaigns. We know that it is only a trust and should not be a part of the criteria for bounty hunting. So sad that a negative trust rating is always displays below your name when you make a post or a reply.
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
December 26, 2018, 09:56:44 AM
#55
First: in general, most of the users who complain about the trust system, are the ones who got tagged. I agree with the large majority of all red DT-tags.
You're talking about the few that are debated. In general, I think the DT system serves a purpose, and some "collateral damage" can't be avoided.

I think every  DT member uses the trust system they way they "see fit"
This goes for all users, not only DT.

1- positive > you had a successful trade/trades with this guy, you send them money first, they kept their end of the deal and sent the goods > trustful.
2- negative >  this person scammed you , by either not sending you the money/goods he promised to, or they arrived in bad shape > can't be trusted
I think this is too limited. If you have to wait for a DT-member to be scammed before a scammer can be tagged, many innocent Newbies will be scammed too, while doing a small deal to work on a long con doesn't mean someone can be trusted either.
As an example, look at the red trust I left. Before I was on DT, it was mainly for users who cheated my giveaways, or (the first one) a non-paying faucet). After I was put on DT (around March this year), I've tagged a couple dozen users, and none of them scammed me. Since scams aren't moderated, DT is the only protection this forum has.


If you don't like the trust system, set your own trust list. I still haven't done it, because I prefer to see users as most people see them. But feel free to start promoting custom trust lists, if enough people agree, DT will become less powerful.


How about opening a board opened to only DT members, or also staff members. And when a member is considering tagging a members (positive or negative), the issue is brought to the board and the entire active DT members can brainstorm and decide if it's what leaving a feedback.
I've tagged several spamming scammers while waiting for them to be nuked. Spam relies on large numbers, and without a quick warning, they will eventually make victims. Delaying those warnings doesn't do the community any good.

If it is going to be "regulated" (which I doubt it is going to happen any time soon), any tag without a reference should be concidered as neutral even if it comes from a DT member or simply any tag must come with reference..
I've only received positive DT-trust without reference link, and about half my "untrusted" feedback doesn't have a link either. Basically, those are opinions, and it's up to the reader to decide whether or not he trusts the source.
I try to always (exception: the very first feedback I left) create a reference link.

~ it need to be make sure that a single DT rating should not impact an individual.
I would agree, if this is only valid for high-ranking accounts. A Newbie scammer should be red at first tag because he can and probably will just create another account, a Legendary has much more to lose.
Pages:
Jump to: