I think trust system default should be set at 3

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: rugrats on January 14, 2015, 10:13:37 PM

Quote from: EFS on October 21, 2014, 10:15:39 AM

I think Default Trust should be removed completely. It's not accurate and it misleads new members.

And it creates a more-equal-than-the-rest hierarchical superclass, followed by all the usual social byproducts (cronyism, nepotism, abuse, grovelling, outcasts).

I agree with this conclusion as I have personally experienced the results of this on about every level possible, as you described.

BadBear

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1128

I find level 3 to be much more inaccurate overall.

rugrats

sr. member

Activity: 700

Merit: 250

DGbet.fun - Crypto Sportsbook

Quote from: EFS on October 21, 2014, 10:15:39 AM

I think Default Trust should be removed completely. It's not accurate and it misleads new members.

And it creates a more-equal-than-the-rest hierarchical superclass, followed by all the usual social byproducts (cronyism, nepotism, abuse, grovelling, outcasts).

Xian01

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1067

Christian Antkow

I think DefaultTrust should be something users need to opt-in to, with a depth of 1.

New users should have a blank default trust list as a basic tenet to never inherently trust anyone on Bitcointalk.

truthstalker

full member

Activity: 136

Merit: 100

With the new forum in development is it going to be using the same system as the current deffault trust?

dogie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1185

dogiecoin.com

I'd be interested to see what list level 3 creates. Potentially there could be a difference in weighting between levels 0-2 and 3?

expert4knowledge

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 1000

The All-in-One Cryptocurrency Exchange

I strongly disagree with assigning default trust 3, If they define it as 3, since it opens the way for some cheaters at the 1st, furthermore after some time 3 makes a sense like current 0.

zhangxiaoh

newbie

Activity: 50

Merit: 0

I feel if its set to by default to 3 the user can really see how active in trading/trusted he is by all members who gave said user a trust rating. Not just a select few who were put on it in the beginning. As well as the inactives.

EternalWingsofGod

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Quote from: the joint on October 29, 2014, 04:19:15 PM

Quote from: hilariousandco on October 29, 2014, 08:12:01 AM

But them being inactive doesn't invalidate all their previous feedbacks. Some people who were marked as scammers could then be neutralised or even become green trusted. With regards to the negative left by Luke on bipolarbob, it was arguably a valid warning at the time, but it seems that his deals have been confirmed to be legit so it probably should be removed, but that's obviously up to him. Has anyone asked him to reconsider the feedback?

I would naturally be suspicious of any strong account that goes offline for any significant period of time and suddenly reappears. Accordingly, I would no longer trust them by default.

That makes a lot of sense
A time function for trust seems like a good idea since a constant history of good lending is used to determine a credit score in finance.
Why wouldn't it be the same for trust a good reputation is built up with time and consistency after all.
(Sort of like Ebay lol)

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: hilariousandco on October 29, 2014, 08:12:01 AM

But them being inactive doesn't invalidate all their previous feedbacks. Some people who were marked as scammers could then be neutralised or even become green trusted. With regards to the negative left by Luke on bipolarbob, it was arguably a valid warning at the time, but it seems that his deals have been confirmed to be legit so it probably should be removed, but that's obviously up to him. Has anyone asked him to reconsider the feedback?

But a strong account that goes AWOL for a year and then returns is likely hacked or stolen. And, if the account actually was abandoned for a year, then it could imply that the account isn't very important or strong after all, or at least that its owner doesn't seem to think so. Additionally, the more that time goes on, you could argue that feedback isn't as applicable anymore as it's possible to imagine all sorts of things that could happen to a person to change they way they behave towards others. I would naturally be suspicious of any strong account that goes offline for any significant period of time and suddenly reappears. Accordingly, I would no longer trust them by default.

marcotheminer

legendary

Activity: 2072

Merit: 1049

┴puoʎǝq ʞool┴

Quote from: EFS on October 22, 2014, 07:32:10 AM

Luke Jr.'s that rating is totally BS, that's one of the thousand reasons why Default Trust should be removed. The best resolution is removing Default Trust system and give people time to arrange their own Trust List. Newbies shouldn't trade before knowing how things work here.

How is it "total BS"? Some of his points make sense actually. Just because someone is giving away free items doesn't mean they should be 'trusted' or even on the other hand, untrusted.

Quote from: Luke-Jr on August 30, 2014, 11:30:37 PM

Quote from: ssateneth on August 30, 2014, 10:38:00 PM

He also paid me from the same address to confirm it was his: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9768004/proof/proof4.jpg

This proves absolutely nothing at all.

Quote from: ssateneth on August 30, 2014, 10:38:00 PM

But guys, PLEASE, remember to exercise caution with "too good to be true" deals. While BPB's case really is true, it's very atypical, and people should exercise caution and do their research before making a decision when trading on similar "too good to be true" deals.

pirateat80 was "really true" too... until it wasn't.

Where's the proof he isn't:
1) Scamming people with different nicks, to pay for those gift cards
2) Being paid off by scammers who take advantage of those he predisposes to making foolish decisions

Even if he isn't doing any of those things, he's de facto teaching people to make foolish decisions and become scammer bait.
IMO that makes him at least partly at fault for scams resulting, whether he was directly involved or not.

hilariousandco

global moderator

Activity: 4046

Merit: 2732

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

But them being inactive doesn't invalidate all their previous feedbacks. Some people who were marked as scammers could then be neutralised or even become green trusted. With regards to the negative left by Luke on bipolarbob, it was arguably a valid warning at the time, but it seems that his deals have been confirmed to be legit so it probably should be removed, but that's obviously up to him. Has anyone asked him to reconsider the feedback?

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: EFS on October 22, 2014, 07:32:10 AM

Luke Jr.'s that rating is totally BS, that's one of the thousand reasons why Default Trust should be removed. The best resolution is removing Default Trust system and give people time to arrange their own Trust List. Newbies shouldn't trade before knowing how things work here.

I don't think Default Trust should be removed, but I do think that users on the default trust list should be automatically removed from that list if their amount meets certain criteria, e.g. not being active at least once during a 365-day period, etc.

hilariousandco

global moderator

Activity: 4046

Merit: 2732

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on October 29, 2014, 07:25:21 AM

Quote from: hilariousandco on October 22, 2014, 02:56:01 AM

Quote from: Maidak on October 19, 2014, 03:11:53 PM

Any objections or questions on my topic keep it constructive. I believe 3 so I see a users entire rep and not from this 'default' list

You can set it to level three yourself. I don't think this is a good idea having it as default though. It would be far too easy to become trusted then and people like Tradefortress would become default trusted not to mention loads of other scammers appearing green trusted too.

Firstly, I wouldn't appear green trusted with defaulttrust level 3.

Secondly, just because Inputs.io was hacked previously doesn't mean my trust ratings are any sort of unreliable

1) I didn't say you would, but your feedback left for others would show as trusted.

2) Mark Karpales would probably say the same thing, but nobody believes or trusts him, and I don't think your feedback being un/reliable is for you to decide but others.

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

Quote from: hilariousandco on October 22, 2014, 02:56:01 AM

Quote from: Maidak on October 19, 2014, 03:11:53 PM

Any objections or questions on my topic keep it constructive. I believe 3 so I see a users entire rep and not from this 'default' list

You can set it to level three yourself. I don't think this is a good idea having it as default though. It would be far too easy to become trusted then and people like Tradefortress would become default trusted not to mention loads of other scammers appearing green trusted too.

Firstly, I wouldn't appear green trusted with defaulttrust level 3.

Secondly, just because Inputs.io was hacked previously doesn't mean my trust ratings are any sort of unreliable

freedomno1

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1094

Learning the troll avoidance button :)

Quote from: EFS on October 21, 2014, 10:15:39 AM

I think Default Trust should be removed completely. It's not accurate and it misleads new members.

Would support this I think at depth level 3 TF is still effective in the trust system so it messes with a lot of things
Puts a lot of scam ratings on people.

Hmm perhaps kill default trust and rebuild a new index or somehow force it to be a constant stream
Oldest trust weighs less newer trust more with the average growing over time.

Newer has more weight since it represents maintenance older less because things can change, in time a baseline is built though so a person will prove trust by having both old and newer trust relationships.

Not sure how it would weight though some problems would be X trusts Y but is not trusted by any but X etc.

ondratra

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Imho there would be no gain in default 3. I have 0 trust since the beginning and don't complain.
Trust level is only guidance - doesn't reflect reality.

stellar69

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

I believe that 1 should be default trust. People should be encouraged and should be made educated enough to make their own trust list.
3 will include a lot of members whom you wouldnt want to be in your trust list.

EFS

staff

Activity: 3976

Merit: 2260

Crypto Swap Exchange

Luke Jr.'s that rating is totally BS, that's one of the thousand reasons why Default Trust should be removed. The best resolution is removing Default Trust system and give people time to arrange their own Trust List. Newbies shouldn't trade before knowing how things work here.

laverre

sr. member

Activity: 262

Merit: 250

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on October 22, 2014, 07:09:04 AM

Quote from: laverre on October 22, 2014, 06:44:10 AM

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on October 22, 2014, 06:21:08 AM

Quote from: laverre on October 22, 2014, 06:14:01 AM

This trust systems sucks and it should be deleted.
Some trolls and wannabe cops who came in early can easily destroy reputation of new users and nobody can do anything about that Angry

Almost all of them will help the user, if the -ve trust was made for no reason. If you find any -ve trust which were put for no reasons, you can make a thread about it. If it is a person in DefaultTrust list, he can be removed from it. Thus, that -ve trust will not be shown is Trust scores unless a user add him/her to his DefaultTrust list(very very rare). What you said is just a misunderstanding. Roll Eyes

~~MZ~~

Like this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=343899
"too good to be true" lol wtf is that reason? He has no evidents about that he is scamming or going to never scam anyone... He is just leaving negtive feedback "jsut in case". Maybe he just is fucking rich and want share his money with us?

And then those ponzi owners who says it is a game, not investment, gets negative feedback, wtf? Theards about gambling are not allowed?
I unerstand that they leave negative feedback if ponzi owner claims to give 200% return in 24 hours from "guaranteed investment" or some other bs but if they admit that it is a ponzi gambling game they could aswell give negative feedback for Stunna and all casino owners...

Luke Jr. told in his point of view and he didn't trust BitPolarBob. His -ve trust doesn't mean he is a scammer. Roll Eyes

Yes, new ponzi owners get -ve feedback because ponzi has no guarantee and he may scam people. If he is running that ponzi for a long time, then he can ask the users who put it to remove. Casinos are in outside internet too. So that can't be compared to ponzi schemes and gambling involves risk. And also, unlike ponzi, money can be withdrawn from casinos. Please understand the differneces.

~~MZ~~

"and he may scam people"
You may scam someone aswell... Where is your negative feedback?

"unlike ponzi, money can be withdrawn from casino"
They are onchain games like satoshidice, you send coins to the game address and if you win you get more back and if you lose you don't get.
Having offchain ponzi would be even more risky for players so I am not sure where your gettin at with that.

"Luke Jr. told in his point of view and he didn't trust BitPolarBob. His -ve trust doesn't mean he is a scammer. "
That is my point. They can left negative feedback and have no evidents about that is not trustworthy.
And if someone ask reason they can just say "I can feel it with my eigth sense" or anythin they want.
And yes it won't mean he is scammer but if someone has an red trust under his name many ppl won't trust them.

Topic: I think trust system default should be set at 3 (Read 2942 times)