Topic: DefaultTrust is BAD. Very bad. - page 4. (Read 12879 times)

I don't make anything from having positive trust.  In the past I escrowed a couple deals for a few dimes, but that's not worth it to me anymore.

I'm not paid at all - I volunteer all my time on here.

Reality contradicts you.
TradeFortress did just that.
pirate40 basically did the same, even if that's before this system AFAIK.
Once you reach a certain theresold of money you can steal, if you're a thief you will steal it, and that's just that.

(first, "now" it is not zero for every account, because there is DefaultTrust)

And... that would be fine.

Unless you plan to physically send a guy to every user's home to check what he is doing, you can't prevent someone from hurting themselves.
You can warn them, though.

But this is not about 0 vs. -1 base trust, this is about removing this insane DefaultTrust, after it has been shown so eloquently and spectacularly how it is dead wrong.

But the current default trust people gain financially from said trust so it's not likely they will just drop it and exchange it for a bright red warning sign.

Ha!  Like you haven't been doing that anyways?

Funny man you are.

You clearly still have not comprehended that a failure to return an investment does not indicate the deliberate intentions stealing or scamming does imply.

If we are going to have a judgment system, it needs to be based on cold hard facts, not opinions.  And I really don't see why there's a hierarchy of trusted users, what makes their opinion any more valid than anyone else as to hide the rest?

Regardless, all systems fail.

People would soon ignore the "Trade with extreme caution!" if they saw it on every account.  It would no different than everyone having zero trust, like it is now.

With DefaultTrust:
- some scammers will be labeled as trustworthy, free to scam people
- people denuncing them will be labeled as scammers

Without DefaultTrust, and -1 base trust:
- everyone is "untrusted, trade with extreme caution" by default, so you should always be wary (as you actually should)
- if you actually really trust someone, you add him and you inherit his trust list

I fail to see how you are missing that yet

And then what dank?  We have to follow you around to every thread you post in Newbies, warning people you have stolen close to $10,000?  Too much work.

Yes there is, it's very simple.  You post your feelings in the thread you assume they are scamming people in.  This gives the person you're accusing a fair chance to explain their side and their legitimacy.  This way, people get both sides of the story and can form an educated opinion on the matter.

The thing is, you guys are trying to implement a system that will stop scammers, which will never happen, it's impossible without an upbringing in moral responsibility and compassion of the individual.  Only a shift in consciousness can prevent negative intentions from being executed, only love for one another as the brothers and sisters that we are.  As it is used today it has prevented free trade from taking place on this community by creating FUD in those who see a warning sign next to anybodies name.

That's exactly what we are saying.
BTW it's a fact: I did check TradeFortress' trust, and noticed that many people who gave him a negative feedback got one back from him, and since he was in DefaultTrust they were basically marked as scammers when what they actually did was quite the opposite.
And that's why I posted this thread instead of giving him a negative feedback.

I'm not saying that theymos was actively an accomplice, but he was likely social-engineered/blackmailed into putting him in DefaultTrust, and this is the result.
The least he could do is putting an and to this INSANE system, since it only benefits the scammers.

(hint: actually if he wanted to do something more, unless I'm mistaken this forum holds a huge amount of unspent BTC from "donations"... how huge is that pile?)

Are you saying that as a fact or a possibility?  If you were intimidated to leave negative trust for fear of retaliation isn't that about as good an indicator as any that it's not working?

Yes there is: having a base trust of -1 instead of 0 towards everyone.
After all, you shouldn't trust random people.
Then, if you manually chose to trust someone, well, it's your own action instead of a default.

I understand where you are coming from, but I think the benefits far outweigh the negatives.  Maybe limit DefaultTrust to those who have done a lot of business on the forum?  That wouldn't have helped in TF's case however.

There is no better way to warn newbies of ongoing scammers than the current trust system.

I'd remove DefaultTrust?

Interesting point.

If you could turn back time, how would you change the system so that wouldn't happen?  I believe most of the people that left him positive feedback had traded with him already.

Worked great for TradeFortress.
Guess he won't scam anymore...

Doesn't work for two reasons:

1. how many BTC I have or invest is my own business, I'd rather leave no feedback than being "forced" to state how much (privacy, remember?)

2. enforcing would be a huge waste of resources. I do mean huge.

One that works well.

You scammed.  People noticed.  Now you can't scam again.

As it stands, it's largely a judgement system.

A potentially better alternative to handling trust is to force it to use risked BTC, right now many people just give random feel good trust based on nothing of true value.  If trust required risked BTC, and proof of risked BTC in the event of a dispute it would be much more manageable by admins, this includes the standard "default" trust list.  Members such as those in several above squabbles would have no trust or negative trust instead of positive trust from this system.

Trusting someone just because you think they are an internet hero is a waste of trust flags, conversly administering negative trust just because you "don't trust that person" is also a waste of trust flags, and administering + or - trust as reward/vengeance for valid trust issued is also a waste of trust.

If BTC risked was required, with proof in the event of a dispute then the overall trust system would be more helpful in general and much more clear/concise... it's not foolproof but it is still better than the current system....  admins should not get default trust status, theymos could take patient 0 of trusted status and people that have had direct and provable BTC exchanges with him in a positive manner could expand the default trust list organically but he should be the only patient 0 of default trust and risked BTC proof should be required to get on the default list, the non-default list would use risked BTC proof in case of dispute.