Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 106. (Read 86349 times)

I’ve spent some time in the local language sections and I am struggling to find members who are active with trust who I would feel comfortable adding to my list, after the Russian debacle I do feel that the foreign language guys do deserve representation on DT-2 but it is hard with language  and cultural  differences to identify reliable candidates, does anyone here know of decent members who I should be adding?

I think what he wants is to not be the one to decide.  He's putting systems in place so that the community can be the decider of what we want from the trust system.

I understand this point of view, believe me but we need to know what theymos wants from the new trust system if he wants a bigger network with all trustworthy people on it or if he wants only who is very active and "works" for the community.

I believe that the function of the DT2 is exposing the scammers and leave feedbacks, would be something like forum police, so if you see that person does not have the habit of exposing scammers the best thing you can do is not add that person. Add people who are active exposing scammers, of course you should choose people who have ethics.

So I spoked to them and I removed them to my trust list, there is no point to include them if you are going to exclude them, but I will probably add them back soon or later when/if they will start to use the feedback system in a better way.
Also, I'm updating my normal trust list and exclusion list.

This is a perfect example of the arbitrary enforcement of rules around here. If there is not a clearly defined set of rules, then even people who want to cooperate have no idea what they can and can't be doing. If there is no rule of "law" so to speak, then those in charge systematically debase their own authority. For some people apparently chaos is opportunity though...

I don't think that's valid anymore. The current system scores all ratings equally but the fake amount stands out to other users looking at it.

Excluding someone from the trust list has nothing to do with someone being a scammer. You don't understand the basics, so please stop suggesting nonsense.

Dead user accounts with green trust pose a security risk; removing the rating is trivial if the transaction isn't really significant/rating isn't important.


Yes. I'd really prefer not to have a trust list with several hundred excluded users.

Of course 50 risked BTC amount is not real but if you look at the 2013's post https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2221664 :
"If you want to make a rating stronger, increase "Risked BTC". 50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating."

I followed the rules and put 50 risked BTC to give a stronger rating. Other risked BTC amounts are 100% real!

I never thought about inserting reference link, it never was on top of my mind when I sent feedbacks, I'll surely care about it from now on.
Anyway, some are "I trust this user" feedback, so doesn't need reference link and some are feedback I sent to user who sent me feedback with reference link

Also the risked amounts don't seem to be credible.

Why?  It's true a lot of your feedbacks don't have reference links, but you have a pretty solid trust page and a lot of people vouching for you.  Just be careful in the future when you're sending feedback to include a reference link and to not hand them out to just anyone.  I haven't seen your trust list, but this is the whole point of the new trust system, i.e., to have more DT members and more 'diversity' in the list.

I was looking at the entirety of his trust page, including feedback he got.  And yes, I agree about the risked amounts.  Truthfulness aside, that amount doesn't affect the 'strength' of the feedback, right?  I tend to not even look at the amount unless I've done a deal for a specific amount and am leaving a feedback.  Micio clearly doesn't seem to be a scammer and in fact looks to be pretty trusted.  I'm not sure the lack of reference links ought to impact that, but that's just my opinion.  I don't know anything about him or what the Italian section is like.  The members there seem to trust him a lot, and that counts for something.  

Edit:
OK, so it does make the rating stronger.  I thought I might have seen that somewhere, but never saw it in action I guess.

Trust ratings should have references. This helps other users to verify the validity of your ratings and your judgement overall. It's not a problem if a few are missing. It doesn't look good when there is not a single one. Perhaps you can revise the ratings or if you want to get off DT for now - you can always come back later when your sent trust ratings look more solid.

Keep in mind that nobody can really order you what to do so I'm just advising you how you could avoid an exclusion (which might be difficult to remove in the future) and instead earn a more credible inclusion. I feel like I need to add this disclaimer due to all this drama lately.


I think you're overreacting. Despite some contentious issues, there has been a lot of reasonable discussion as to what constitutes a good trust list. Exclusions have their uses but there is also value in getting to know the newer members and helping them understand the unfortunately clunky trust system instead of just excluding them.

You are now on DT1. You are more responsible from DT2. If you were on DT2 then it was not fact who is on your trust list. Those peoples are trusted to you then you can leave positive feedback to them. But those people's feedback's is trusted and valuable to you then include them on your trust list. For example, I have added you on my list, means I trust your feedback's that you are sending.

And you should guide them whoever on your trust list due to you are on DT1. It's extremely depend on you who will be on your trust list. I just asked to revise once again, you may ask them to revise their feedback to avoid any exclusion. Because I have seen last few days lot of DT 2 has been excluded.
Just explain them about DT network and guide them. I don't think you should remove them immediately, just give them chance to refresh their feedback.


Why should extend our exclusion list if we can solve issue by discussion. Is it better just kick out some one without any explanation? I don't think so. Those are new they can learn from here and they can motivate themselves.  

Thank you for your suggestion, I appreciate the commitment but I don't want to remove any feedbacks (even if the accounts are old and inactive). These are proofs that trade went well and some users could get irritated. I think I'm using the feedback system as it should be used: send feedbacks after trades and send feedback to users I really trust. There's no reason to remove feedbacks. Anyway, if any of the users in my list or in my sent feedback list do something wrong I'll be ready to remove them or leave a negative feedback. I feel responsible for my DT list and feedback list.

I want to continue with my line of thought so it's better to be removed from DT for the moment, I don't want to bother you and any other DT member so I'm asking coinlocket$ to remove me from the list.

I gather when you state DT, you mean only DT1. As a DT2 member, the only effect my list has is with the selection of valid DT1 candidates (Like everyone with more that 10 merits has on the forum) and if anyone cares to set their trust depth to 3 or 4.(Which is not recommended.)

@lauda @Coolcryptovator if I'm not wrong I also added them on my trust list before entering on DT1 so I guess their DT2 rating is also unexpected for them.

I'm still understanding what to do since I was not expected to join the dt1, my feedback was prior to my dt1 rank, so their dt2 ranks is a surprise for them, but those are good people so, on one hand, I understand why I should remove them (low feedback activity) but on the other hand I trust those people.
I probably remove them in a few hours and re-add them on near future when they will be more active for forum even if till last week we got members on dt2 inactive for years and one with red trust.

By what law are the last 2 users you discussed with coinlocket$ scammers?

Unless you're saying you can single handedly judge every user on this forum objectively? Why dont we all just use your own curated list then? Make it around 10 users and call it DefaultTrust! Oh wait...

That is nonsense and doesn't work. If you are non-DT you can set your list to full of scammers if you wish, nobody should care. if you are DT, you affect everyone and thus are responsible for keeping a proper list. If you don't, then you should be willing to accept the consequences. Your post didn't need breaking down as it is just not worth it.

I'm not directly affected by who and who's not on the DT list, but stalking comments here really makes me wonder if any solution is ever going to work at all if everyone keeps monitoring everyone.

Are you all seriously going through everyones include/exclude list judging the people they added, calling them out on it, and expecting them to change it?

Others brigading and openly claims against other peoples judgements to get them excluded by other users.

Like I said I personally am not concerned with any of the above, but what the fuck js up with all this drama and gossip?

Isn't this whole system designed to generate a trust list from a (not yet) large pool of people? If this keeps up then in no time we're going to have a corroborating group of people, and if that group is ever bigger than half of the full DT1, then we're back to square one.

My point is : mind your own business, Set your own DT list. You can promote it, explain why you included/excluded this and that, argue with people on your own time.

But stop witch hunting people just because you disagree with their list choices. Theres a much better solution : Use your own damn vote to exclude them. If YOU dont agree with what they did, it doesnt mean you have to incite other users to do so too. Thats the goal of trust lists. If you start judging every lost on a micro-scale, its 100% bound to be subjective to each members opinion. But if all members agree to include one member (of course without collaborating or working on some mafia trust ring), you can then trust that that member is objectively trusted by the network.

A better way to steer this threas would be to discuss ratings on a much more macro scale. Stop judging every users list, and try to come up with guidelines that will make everyones list more objective and will help create a better network. Of course I say guidelines, because thats what they are. Someone not following them might have his own reasons, but if his own reasons happen to go in the completely opposite direction of everyone then he will quickly see himself excluded from DT.. Thats how networks work.

Just my 2 cents. You can send yours to 1KingZeeW97uLvngcUA3R6QJx18Fn78ddb