Topic: DT and trust lists, curious what everyone else thinks on the subject (Read 785 times)

As a newbie & lower ranks, all I did was argue about shitcoins with people 

I remember being slammed with a negative trust by a scamcoin developer who had somehow landed on DT. Yes I was a ferocious troll (also temp banned for that early on) and used to say nasty things to all sorts of people. Then I got them to remove it after a while, I forget how, but the trust system was a much more exclusive club back then.

I didn't join my 1st sig campaign until 2018 and didn't do many trades so I never really cared about the trust system until that point, which was around the time theymos "democratized" it.

Technically, that's incorrect. "Not being scared" is not on the list of DT1 criteria. But I get what you're saying, and that's easy to say from a position with many inclusions, but I remember how scary Bitcointalk was as a Newbie.

Who in their right mind wants to be part of this:
There's so much drama on a forum that's supposed to be about Bitcoin.

Absolutely you are right. They added those so that they are eligible for DT list. Many of these are arse-lickers. They don't care about the forum. On the other hand you will also find some users who have some low rank members or members they do not like in their exclusion list.

You are scared to do the right thing then you are not eligible to be in DT list. You are an opportunist, selfish and only think about yourself.

I do remember about the ignore list page, I had a problem at the time (which to my knowledge was never fixed and if memory serves correct I asked theymos to manually reset it for me) but that is a separate issue from the trust list. There is no problem at all, the page for the trust list opens fine without any lagging to the point if you open your trust list it should be no faster for page load time than what I am getting when I open trust with nearly 3000 names.

This was tested by a troll. It looks like the limit is just over 30,000. The real "record", by far, is held by JollyGood with 2936 exclusions. And that's not counting the users with zero posts (after they got Nuked).

I should have continued reading before hitting "Post". I'm curious: if you count the tildes in your Trust list, you'll know how many Nuked accounts you're excluding.

In the case of @Lightlord, i came across a thread by Poker Player some time ago about Lightlord's behavior in handling his campaign and i immediately went to his profile to check his trust feedbacks and saw that you and some other DT members have already given him a negative trust for his strange behavior towards his campaign participants and i also saw the neutral tag of @yahoo62278 and the negative tag of @suchmoon which stated clearly that ''anyone who joins his campaign will be at risks of payment delays for weeks and months'' so with such feedbacks from this reputable DT members should have given anyone who wants to join any of Lightlord's campaign the awareness of what they are to face while joining any of his campaigns so i believe a lot of his campaign participants have seen these feedbacks and are willing and ready to take the risk that's the major reason why they were unable to call him out when he couldn't pay campaign participants and moreover, i learnt in the past that if he delays payments for weeks that he usually pays all outstanding debts when he returns so people were literally waiting for a feedback from him with the believe that he will make payments when he returns even though it's not a good habit or practice for someone of his caliber who have been in this forum for a very long time now.

How do you even open your trust settings page? Does it not lag like the ignore list page?

This is probably another part of the forum that needs a full (if not partial) overhaul. Regarding DT2, the pertinent questions are why that large number and if it is not necessary why is it there? Many members would probably agree with DT rotations but members need to be active enough to have some degree of credibility otherwise it defeats the object. As for DT1, considering the size of the forum that number might be appropriate but no harm if theymos would consider restructuring the whole DT system or ask for a debate on it.

At the moment the distrusted accounts on my trust list is 2936 

Feedback should be reserved for successful deals and failed deals.

Respectfully speaking, all of those positive feedbacks about "good community member" and neutrals about "bad poster" will not do us any good. If you ask me, it should only be those feedbacks pertaining to deals that are shown in the trust score, because that is what matters the most.


They should not be purged - many historical feedbacks will be hidden if that happens.

Right now its 95 accounts on DT1 and 594 accounts on DT2, which yeah, is a lot, but I'd say less than half of DT2 is regularly active.

"The elites don't want you to know this, but your trust list can hold an infinite number of distrusted accounts. I have over 200 distrusted accounts in my list."

The disaster is that half the users in the lottery and on DT2 have no clue what the heck they're doing IMO.

The old system with 12 DT1 and a handful of DT2 was better, but of course had its flaws. Overall though, most that were in DT were pretty trusted. The people in DT had a clue and weren't scared to death to use the system correctly. Now we have 100 eligible for DT1 each month and all their inclusions which ends up being likely over 1000 users in DT1 or DT2. Of those 1000 (just a random number could be way more), 500 are scared to death that any ~ gets them disqualified from campaigns or gets them tagged by the person they put the ~ on. They're just using the system to add people, get +trust, and be accepted into campaigns easier. I don't agree with that at all.

Oh, I've certainly seen DT members abuse their positions for various reasons but because other DT members can keep abusers in check, any corruption of power (absolute or not) is--or should be--corrected by the system.

The way it is now, I have to wonder how many members on the list should really be trusted by default.  Maybe it's working out better than the old way, but way back when I was first put on DT2 it was a big deal to add any new members, and their trustworthiness and overall reputation were scrutinized before their DT1 "sponsor" included them on their trust list.  Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic; the rotating system has been in place for quite a while and there haven't been any disasters that I know of.

I kinda like the rotating thing. It doesn't correlate with any sort of democrat process, and we don't know for sure how "random" the selection is, but it prevents any single account from becoming too firmly entrenched in DT1. And you know what they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we've seen that more than a few times around here (not mentioning any names, you'll have to use your imagination).

Yep, that's why lightlord didn't get any neutral or negative feedback when he demonstrated that his campaign participants' needs were as low on his priority list as they could get.  People were meekly complaining in the Bitvest thread, but it was obvious that they were too intimidated to show any real irritation or to call lightlord out on his inaction.

If someone is on DT and sees a situation like that (and cares enough about it), they ought to use their power, i.e., the heavier weight of their feedback, to send a message.  But if they don't, it's not like they shouldn't be on the default trust list; it's never been a requirement for those members to be scam hunters or forum police or anything of the sort.  Some choose to be, others don't.  That's how it's been ever since I've been a member here.

The DT system ain't what it used to be, though.  I could look at the list now and I probably wouldn't even recognize half the usernames.  When Theymos changed it to be the rotating thing that it is, I tuned out and lost respect for it--and I'd always been skeptical as to its validity to begin with. 

As to DT members not excluding anyone on their trust lists, I think that might have to do with some of them lacking balls enough to take a stand against someone's actions because of fear of retaliation.  It used to be that most DT members had tons of retaliatory feedback, and they didn't give a shit.  Again, because of the rotating system there are a bunch of members who probably shouldn't even be on DT and who want to keep their trust page clean.  Ah, it's a bunch of crap anyway.  Theymos really should change the whole thing back to the way it used to be.

You can't force people to add or exclude anyone from their trust list.
Some people are using DT system for their own personal benefit, not for improving overall bitcointalk forum.
I decided to mostly stay away from DT drama, and trust list is a very controversial subject that is often used in a wrong way.

My understanding of "judgement" is a bit wider. Managers can have a lot of discretion in how they run campaigns, so if I don't trust someone's judgement to the point of "~" then I probably don't trust their ability to properly manage a signature campaign, even if I don't believe they would outright scam/steal/etc.


Not sure if you're agreeing with me here or disagreeing LOL, but my point was that trust lists should not be affected by signature campaigns in any way, shape, or form. Whether users are self-censoring their trust lists to avoid pissing off campaign managers, or managers are thin skinned, or managers perhaps farming trust - all of that is terrible, but almost certainly happening to some extent.

Saying that and showing that are 2 different things. Feel free to show your proof. If true it is sort of walking the line of ethically correct/wrong.

There is a manager who has more priority for users who have custom trust list. This indirectly indicates that "put me in your trust list".

I use an approximately similar methodology.

Only that I think that maybe the distrust list is more important, just for the reasons that yahoo62278 mentions in the first post. Fear of adding someone to the distrust list due to possible "retaliation".

I'm still not sure what to do with users who have been inactive for a long time, whether to keep them on the trust list or remove them. Some of them left a lot of feedback and did a lot of good things to clean the forum and prevent scams, but it's been a long time since their last activity. For example Lauda or TMAN

As long as you trust the campaign manager, I don't really see a reason not to join. Unless you're expecting a tag because of the campaign manager's bad judgement on others.

If someone excludes a campaign manager from his Trust lists and applies for a campaign, it shows he doesn't care about potential financial consequences. Even better if the campaign manager still accepts him (assuming he qualifies), to show his skin is thick enough to separate the exclusion from business.

It's still a good point though (other than the scamming part). If you don't trust someone's judgement, why would you apply to join a campaign managed by that someone?

I'd say anyone who thinks that way ("will this affect my signature earnings if I make this exclusion") shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the trust system but reality is probably the opposite - most of the trust lists are likely built on various backscratchings and bootlickings.

Thanks for a detailed response.

Most people are afraid to exercise their DT power although there are people who uses it to bully others just as you said without proper and adequate evidence to prove that such person deserved to be detrusted. DT like you already mentioned is to fight for the forum but then would someone who have a minor vote go detrust someone who has a higher vote, for example; a DT2 detrusting a DT1 which the DT2 has only 1 vote and do you think what would be the opposite reaction to the DT1 member?
To me I think there would be a retaliation on the more superior member even though he doesn't immediately react to your actions but I know  definitely he would surely detrust such user with any slight mistake and then the person is off from DT power except such person has more votes to come back again to DT.

Reasons why I add someone to my trust list:

 - They are an established member of the community, who:
 - Hasn't scammed anybody
 - Has a trust list that I agree at least 70% with, and
 - Has written several (at least 10 or so) valuable*, referenced feedbacks (positive or negative)

Reasons why I distrust someone on my trust list:

 - They are padding their trust list by including accounts that left them positive feedback.
 - They are on DT because someone else added them to pad their trust rating.
 - They are coordinating manipulation of the trust system with other accounts.
 - I suspect they have secret alt accounts.
 - Their trust feedback is mostly unreferenced.
 - Some of their feedback is outdated, no longer correct, or flat out wrong.
 - They have justified negative trust.


* valuable means it provides a clear indication as to why a user may or may not be trustworthy


The newest account I have in my trusted list is almost 5 years old... I think an account needs at least 3-4 years of regular activity before I can even begin to gauge if they should be on DT.

Let's say that I have learned many things from your discussion. Many people have made many comments here, but from the comments, everyone's attitudes have come out. I think I have learned a good aspect of this.

The point you bring up is really important because there is nothing that can happen like this. When a campaign manager is managing a campaign, people in that campaign don't want to open up because if they open up then they might get kicked out of the campaign, but I don't know if that's happened. If this is the case then I think it will not be correct as there may be false growth which needs to be corrected. Whoever he is, he has to admit his mistake.

No, a member should not be on DT if they are clueless. Some have ended up on DT by virtue of a default and should not be there. Some members in the list are well into the minus/negative figure, nevertheless they are still DT. Being DT should mean at last adding some names to trust and distrust. No matter how much others might agree or disagree with it, at least they are demonstrating being active in taking a stand.

As for the trust list itself, there are a wide array of reasons and rationales for members adding and removing people from their trust list as well as adding a tilde ~ and a huge part of it has to be opinion. If one member concludes one thing and another concludes another, they are entitled to their opinion.

We all know and understand there is no one single formula to apply, we all take it in our stride as we see fit. It is true (as already mentioned), some members will not tag others in fear of retaliation but that should not stop DT or any other member from taking action they feel is correct.

What do you think this thread is about? Am I not reputable enough? Speak openly about anything you want on the trust system, I want opinions from everyone. The assholes, the scared to deaths, the high society, the losers, the everyone's. You can have an opinion without mentioning names if you're scared for whatever reason. You can PM me as well and share your fears I guess, although that will defeat the purpose.

I'll definitely reiterate that if you live in fear on this forum, you need to not be interested in DT as you will not use it correctly.

This topic is very dangerous and if the truth is told, we might speak against some people so let's be on the low key. For what we discovered here, small mistake by a newbie a tag is given so don't feel that security in the forum and the forum became a "survival of the fittest". There is no value and respect in the DT system again like before. There was a prestige in becoming a DT member but I don't think it is still there. Because some users disorganized the system by abusing the system. Though I am not a DT member but we are see things in the forum.

Personally I don't know much about the DT system, I don't know how to use the trust system yet but I know that it is not hard to use it if I want to. They system is not encouraging others to join. There was a time the people see the DT system as a "CARTEl" because of the ways things were done. To be a DT member was prestigious addition to a member in the forum but it is no more.

Yahoo tou really spoke well. DT would have allowed the citizens in this community to speak their minds in this board so that from there many things would have been corrected but they scared the citizens to speak because they the newbies and the weak minded users are afraid to speak because they don't know where the red tag or the neutral tag would come. So foe that they have to be muted and distance themselves in this board. I know some of the DT members in this forum that are not making any comment in this board probably they don't like how things are done. That is a personal reason though.

As I said if really this issue is to be discussed massively, drama will be created so let it be like this and let build the system for all. Though punishment will still be given to those who came to scam, deceive and other severe offence and the punishment are differences.

If really we want to make things right. A reputable member should create a thread for people to come and speak their mind about the system and correct some things then everything will be alright. That is my suggestion.

That was the reply to Plaguedeath's comment.

I totally get what yahoo62278 is trying to point out. These trust lists and distrust lists are closely tied to trust feedback (whether it’s positive, neutral, or negative). Without trust from others elevating you to DT1, your feedback doesn’t hold much weight for most users.  So, if someone on DT1 is known for giving out “inaccurate feedback” that can damage another member’s reputation,  it reflects poorly on the entire DT network and undermines its purpose.

Honestly, that can be even more detrimental than scamming, as it can ripple through and affect the whole forum.

Isn’t the main role of DT to prevent or reduce scams? Feedback should ideally be reserved for actual cases of scams or clear violations. Inaccurate feedback risks unjustly labeling someone as untrustworthy, weakening the integrity of the system.

No i'm talking about ~ users. The list is empty but they trust 30 or so users. They are only half participating and only participating in what benefits them.

Bottom line, if you're here only to make money and scared to death to tell someone fuck off, you shouldn't even care about DT. Just go on about your day and earn your money without the politics.

You are definitely  confusing trust or distrust lists with negative, positive and neutral tags. Is that what the OP meant?

That would make it impossible to exclude abusers.

What part of List the users who you trust to have good trust ratings and good trust lists is not clear?

I was talking about it in general. I was just trying to understand what is in their mind who has only trust inclusion and no exclusion. As LoyceV already mentioned, people fear retaliatory exclusion. Some of them just don't want to get a DT exclusion by giving them a ~. I do not have a trust list and I rely on default trust. So, I am not in that category that you were talking about.

Apart from that, a lot of people do not really understand the purpose of Feedback and the DT voting system. Even OG forum members often use them incorrectly. Either they do not understand it well, or just using it incorrectly by knowing it.

Leaving inaccurate feedback is essentially the same as scamming, as it abuses the power entrusted to a DT member. A DT feedback can be crucial for an account, influencing how others perceive them, even if it's just a neutral tag. This feedback system should be objective and not driven by personal feelings, or it risks compromising the freedom of speech.

The trust system is complex because there are no clear-cut rules for who gets included on a user’s trust or distrust list. It often becomes personal, leading to biases based on whether we know or dislike the user. Personally, if I were to make a judgment and add someone to my distrust list, and they happened to run a signature campaign, I wouldn’t join it as a way to stand by my principles.

Having my trust list means that I completely trust the people who are on it. This list cannot be created instantly; it takes time to analyze not only the posts of people we trust but all their behavior on the forum. Get to know these people. In the same way, it is always better to put a tilde in your list of people who are difficult to trust than to draw emotionally negative tags.
I do not see anything reprehensible if someone does not trust someone; probably this person will have reasons for mistrust. It is difficult to be good for everyone, so many people, so many opinions. Even in ordinary life, we have people with the same views and avoid those who are different from us.

This is a problem... maybe trust lists should be closed , then nobody would be able to see them. Certainly people would behave much differently and DT would be very different.

If you are only using the trust list for what benefits you, then you are not using the system correctly. You are not looking out for the best interests of the forum, and you probably don't need to be in the DT lottery. You should just empty your lists and not care about DT or trust. Least that's how I feel. Participate fully or not at all.

Look yahoo, even though some of you consider the forum earnings as pocket money, there are a lot of people who make their living with their signature income. Most of them care about every single step. This forum is full of good people, while there are some cowards. Let's say I do not trust your judgment for some reason, but I kept it inside but never dared to ~ you.

If you are another DT1 with a lot of people supporting you, and suddenly a Full Member, or a senior member distrusts your judgment, you may not say anything right now, but most people won't just forget that and move on. Some people do not want to create chaos or have a disagreement with people who have DT power. Even though the admin suggests using the feedback system for trade-related issues, the forum members often end up using it for simple disagreement.

Some people do not even agree with how the current DT system is working. A couple of OG forum members cleaned their trust list several times because of that. This DT system creates forum drama every other week. Some people find it disturbing. I feel like, a lot of people ignore the reputation board.

If a member like Ratimov could be destroyed just because of some disagreement and anger issue, then a lot like this is possible. Some just want to live their life and stay away from the drama and try to be friends with everyone.

Now, what's the correlation between distrust and scam? read.


Imagine a campaign manager run the campaign smoothly without any scam, but this user leave inaccurate feedback.

This mean the manager isn't scammer, but he deserved to be included in distrust list. What's wrong to participate in his campaign when he's not a scammer?

Excluding someone from your Trust list often ends up in a retaliatory exclusion.

I think Plaguedeath meant excluding the campaign manager from his Trust list.
For the sake of discussion:

If you distrust a campaign manager, why would you join a campaign he manages?

 If you distrust him, it is because you think he will scam you or someone else.

Joining a campaign of someone you distrust makes no sense

No one know, I'm just sharing my feeling.

I mean, you can imagine if you're want to work under someone company, will you being honest with anything during interview? I doubt that, we were taught to sugarcoat or improvising even lying in order to looks good in front of our employers in order be hired.

Regardless the campaign managers get hurt or not if they got distrusted, I don't know, but as the participants, people will try to looks good in front of the managers.

If a campaign manager doesn't accept you into a campaign any longer because you distrusted them, they are abusing their power. I would be curious to see if you have evidence of this happening or if this is just a fear you have?

Because people are scared including myself even though I've distrusted some users.

Most people will do like this, if they see someone is doing good, they will include them on their list. But, if there's a high ranked user especially campaign manager doing something controversial or they think it's bad for the forum, they will choose to silent instead of distrust them.

Why I mentioned campaign manager? because it might hurt the campaign manager's feeling and cause them to get less chance to be accepted in campaign. You could say you don't care with rust list while accepting campaign participant, but people will still play safe.

Distrusting high ranked user when you're still growing is like killing yourself, instead of getting backup from other high ranked user, they might choose to silent too because they're scared.

When I think DT I think users that protect the community from scams/scammers, helps new users, contributes in a positive way to the forum, helps keep the forum clean basically. I know that there are different reasons for people wanting to be on DT. Some just want the prestige, some want to bully others, some want to keep the forum clean, etc.

Trust List are another question spot for me. I know everyone is able to do with their lists what they want and I am not policing that or anything, I just find it curious when I look at someone's trust list and I see they trust a load of people and distrust 0. Seems kind of odd if you ask me, kinda like a person is just trying to get some backscratch action and has no intention or care about the bad side of the forum. They are just looking to boost that trust. Am I wrong? Should a person be on DT if they are clueless because that's kinda what it looks like to me.

I'm not mentioning any names as I would like to see some opinions on the matter. I have more about the trust list but I feel like if I continue with the next part I may single out some people and that's not my intention. LoyceV has a guide for trust system people should read.

Trust guide

LoyceV useful guides