Topic: If someone pass away, will their Trust feedback still exist permanently ? (Read 649 times)

bigpunhomes Claims to be xetsr's cousin and that xetsr has been killed.

xetsr gave out plenty of trust wall feedback that went along the lines of "probably (a) hacked account" or similar.  Some may be correct, others are probably guess work.  Who's going to sit down and trawl though all these posts and determine if they are correct or not simply because xetsr (and Zepher, the example given above) have died?

Im sorry for what happened to Zepher, really!

But im not here to try to remove this flag or feedback, i'm here because im truly sorry that some good man passed, regardless of his red feedback, he did his job very good!

My account was not sold, i tried to find older addresses but they were from other exchanges/websites that i don't have private key, bummer.

So many things i did that can prove that im Rux, but like everything in this world, its hard to prove when someone does not want to hear about it, stating that accounts were sold because signature campaigns, and they dont want to check if my account was used in any of signature campaigns... because it was not used for that shady thing.

When it comes to proving im RUX, by some old BTC addresses, that proves nothing because if account was sold, same way seller can send private keys to buyer so this has no standing point.

So i wanted to make video call with DT team with my entire family, entire community, over 500-600members that knows me as Rux, minimum of 100 community members knows me in real life as Rux, but no... they want signed btc adress that is part of history... i don't know about you guys, but i changed so many wallets and addresses that is to much to keep track from 2013.

My posting gap was indeed there because i opened my own forum to teach people about blockchain tech in my local language, then i realized that my account on btctalk is part of crypto history and i have been flagged as sold account.

Again, sorry for loss of smart and proud Bitcointalk member!

Trust Flag difference and their meanings are difficult to differentiate for users, like Trust and feedbacks as well as Flags. There are not many users actually understand differences between those terms.

Trust plays as first impression when someone look at others' account, so it always has its role.

For already solved cases, and don't show intention to repeat it again for long period, neg should be removed or replaced as neutral one.

It's difficult topic. Maybe now it's not a big problem, but eventually it will turn into big issue and solution for it is needed. IMO, distrusting people who passed away to remove them from DT isn't an option - they tagged lot of scammers and abusers and there may be just few feedbacks which are needed to remove. Another thing - trust isn't moderated, so I doubt that theymos want to remove such trust feedbacks manually.

Can you at least prove that your account wasn't sold? Maybe you can sign a message from old bitcoin address to prove that you're original owner of account? If not, this trust feedback is still valid.
And FYI, Zepher left you trust feedback, not a trust flag, this is two different things.

I just looked thru that thread and it sure does look like your account was sold.  The possibility is there with the posting gap that Zepher pointed out and you did offer it for sale.  Zepher's negative sure looks valid to me, and having known Zepher quite well I believe he would leave the negative if he was still around. 

i got red flag for beeing dumb and joked about selling my account... man that was stupid :/

Zepher gave me red flag, and after his death suchmoon gave me same red flag.

After many convincing, suchmoon removed red flag, bcuse my account was not sold.

But what do in my case, when i got red flag from person who is dead?

Please advise

Rux.

Therefore, I think manually replace negative feedbacks to neutral ones are good solution for those rare cases.
Remove original feedbacks sounds shady, somehow. A user who had scam accusations / neg tags in the past might potentially do this again; so neutral feedback as slight warning is enough, I think. They don't deserve neg tags if their cases solved, but a pure profile page sounds unfair, somehow.
Negative feedbacks that already solved and confirmed by 'victims' or someone who tagged negatively, or well massively confirmed by community

But positive feedback will get affected though right? Because it is not possible to trust give positive feedback without knowing that person in deep.

I too agree that some sort of moderation needed when a person in DT network not anymore but theymos already mentioned he is not going to trust anyone.

Please write something on-topic, I don't think you should spam here as one of way to get your post quota.
Zepher passed away in late of February this year (the Zepher Memorial Thread made on February 25, 2019, around 5 months and a half ago. I think if there are criteria to excludes DT members, 1 or 2, 6 months is a long period enough to activate exclusive criteria.
Additionally, I don't see issues with exclusion for inactive DT members. In most cases, I observe that when one DT members leave negative feedback, there are some other DT members leave on those red tagged accounts too. So, excludes inactive DT members don't cause serious issues, because scammers will still get neg tags from some of other DT members.

I would like to excuse myself for a moment of time.

I Hereby, Request confirmation if Satoshi Nakamoto is Still Existing Since Hes original account  is not active a long long time ago? i do believe also that theymos is the representative of satoshi's  missing presence.



I may sound fool but, Satoshi's existence dead or alive  is quite interesting than any other individual in this forum. (except to the admins)

+100 Trust to Satoshi if i could.

I think it is why for rare cases like Zepher, whom passed away, and have solid evidence of death, negative feedback on cases already solved should be manually handled (with replacement of neutral or remove of original negative feedback). Only admin can 'hack' into Zepher account and manually replace his feedback.
If Hal Finney thread edited by admin, it means we always have special cases for manual handlings.

---

Debate might occur on cases that have not been confirmed as real deaths, not 'fake' ones, like forum treasure hold by paraipan , whom still have not yet confirmed actually passed away or not.

The risk is letting scammers who are only tagged by one person off the hook. Maybe the DT2-requirement should be that a user has been active in the past 6 months or 1 year? On the other hand, it's up to active DT1 members to keep a responsible Trust list.
If anything is going to change, I'd much rather see a requirement of 2 DT1 inclustions instead of 1 to become DT2, that limits the number of "Trust selfscratchers".

Over time they likely will and it's not been that long in Zepher's case, but there's also the debate of should feedback from trusted users be excluded because they're no longer active or have died? Imagine if you have a lot of feedback from users who have left the forum for whatever reasons. You could go from being pretty trusted to having little no feedback. You could make the argument that any active member would continue to get feedback from others but not always, especially if you don't do that many trades as you used to and that's why admin intervention may be better in certain cases to remove a specific feedback that's causing an issue, but maybe theymos still doesn't want to get involved in that.


Maybe make the DT2 one with a longer duration. 30 days is ok for DT1 but 30 days for DT2 would seem a little short in my opinion. It's probably not that uncommon for less active users to leave the forum for a month or so.

Not everyone is going to revise their trust list which we are seeing from Zepher's case.

How about this?
It's one of the criteria of DT1 selection. Theymos can use something like this for someone being in DT2 too. Point is if someone is not active for certain amount of time then despite being in the trust list of DT1, the user will lose their DT2 status.

This way their feedback will not reflect as trusted anymore unless they fill up the criteria again.

I think these sorts of cases will be very rare, but they will probably work themselves out. As vod said, exclusions can be made for people who are no longer active, but maybe even theymos could step in with the rare cases where someone has died and the issue has been resolved and the feedback can be removed by him if it's silly removing someone just for one feedback, but like I said, it can still be done by current default trust members if the community deems it important enough.


People can be forgiven. DT members are added and removed and that can affect a user positively or negatively.

As you say, trust ratings aren't moderated. There are plenty of examples of far worse trust ratings and trust abuse than an old negative for a now resolved scam accusation, as in your example. Now of these have been moderated. For example:

Feedback sent by game-protect
Feedback sent by Buzzlieve1992

In the case of Zepher, there is even an old negative on a previously hacked account which has now been recovered: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/swingfirst-147307.

Given that theymos has recently tried to decentralize default trust as much as possible, by changing from a hand-picked DT1 to a voting system, I can't see him reversing that by single handedly picking and choosing which trust ratings are allowed and which are not. As Vod has said above, over time accounts which are no longer active will automatically be removed from DT1, and will likely slowly drift out of DT2.

Trust feedback is like been cursed upon forever. Undoing it requires the person present. That's why its always advice to be good in all your dealings to avoid been marked upon negatively

Talk about trust both positive and negative.
However, in my opinion the trust remains attached to the account profile, even though the person holding the account has died,
So, it cannot be deleted other than the person concerned, the holder.

You remember the history of paraipan, now he is dead.
However, (trust) in the profile still exists.

Well, even though that person died trust still exists.
Unless he has been banned permanently, maybe the admin can delete it.

As time goes on this might become a bigger concern, but for now it's still an isolated incident. With the new system it's probably something that will work itself out as newer members wouldn't have a reason to include Zepher, and might even decide to exclude. You can already see some members leaving counters for that feedback. Flags would be the same as they need to have more people supporting it that countering it.

Their DT1 invitation will time out, and other DT1 members will no longer include them in DT2.