Topic: LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system - page 6. (Read 13701 times)

Rewriting it could indeed avoid confusion.

Say we make a trade: You send me $200 in Bitcoin, and after that I send you $200 on the Lightning Network. You trusted me, I didn't scam you. I didn't have to trust you, so you couldn't have scammed me. Does that mean I'd trust you if I'd send first? Maybe, but not based on this deal. So based on this hypothetical trade, I don't think you'd deserve positive feedback.

You were excluded by miau in the week you made your first Trust list, not when you wiped it (2 weeks later). It's up to them whether or not to review their exclusions, I usually don't bother to PM users about their exclusions.

It is clear to me that here we are specifically talking about whether the feedback is well placed, not whether we like him or he is a good guy.

In this case I think I have a good reason to give him positive feedback but maybe I will have to change it because it is not well explained. And if you see it as given lightly, surely others do too.

Actually, with xhomerx10 there was something more like a deal than with the others. He made me the avatar without asking for anything in return, but when he finished I sent him a tip.

So, the relevant question is:

If I can trust that he is going to do a job for free, won't it be logical to trust him also if we make a previous economic deal?

Surely for you to make an avatar will be something easy, but for me it is not. Before contacting him I was trying to edit and I got some changes, but not what I wanted. When I contacted him, I asked him if he charged anything for making the avatars and he told me that he didn't, and that he made them for WO gang members, and in some cases for other members as well.

I told him that I occasionally wrote in the WO and he agreed to do it for me. When he finished, I thought I would send him a tip, and when I received the outstanding payment from Lightlord, I did.

I really appreciate it when a person who doesn't know me at all offers to do work for me for free. And if tomorrow, let's say I have a website and I want him to design the cover. He tells me he's going to charge me $100.

If he did the job when he didn't know me at all and for free, I won't trust him to do it for me if I pay him?

I think so, and that's why I left the feedback.

Another doubt I have is regarding neutral feedbacks, I have seen that people leave neutral feedback, even when there has been monetary exchange and you also mentioned something about it in another post. I don't quite understand it, isn't trust feedback supposed to be precisely for that? If you make exchanges with money involved, and they go well, I understand that the feedback should be positive.

Something else: I've seen my updated trust list in Loyce.club and 1miau still distrust my list but I think he distrusted it when my dog deleted all people that was in my previous list. People like 1miau are supposed to review this? Or maybe if I see it's been a while I can send him a PM to see if he wants to check the new list?


As the saying goes: "the opportunity makes the thief".

As you go up in quantity, no matter who you make deals with, it is wise to take security measures. I could probably get a non-collateralized loan for $200 on the forum, but if I ask for $20,000, I will likely be asked to leave some kind of collateral such as a shitcoin as collateral, no matter how good a reputation I may have.

This one strikes me as odd:
It doesn't make sense to me to trust someone in a deal that hasn't happened yet, just because he made an avatar. For the record: I have no reason not to trust xhomerx10.

I usually click "Trust list" to jump from one user's Trust list to another (within the same week).

I never got to add some (long planned) design to loyce.club, so it's still mainly about raw data. Maybe [overview] LoyceV's useful data on Bitcointalk helps a bit.

---

---

For $200, sure, but for larger amounts: being a scam fighter doesn't mean much. I've seen "scam fighters" turn into scammers the moment they had the chance. There's one in particular I have in mind, I think he defaulted on a several Bitcoin loan, but I can't remember his name (and I searched for a long time).

I've been reviewing feedbacks and I think I'm going to leave them as they are. The negative ones I have clear, and the positive ones, although they are more subjective and not related to having traded, are to people I would trust to make a deal with.

For example, I have two positive feedbacks to Rikafip and lovesmayfamilis for being scam and spam fighters. To me that fact gives me confidence if I were to trade money with them. I wouldn't put all my net worth blindly in their hands but if I had to do a small deal, let's say exchange $100-200 Bitcoin for some shitcoin with lovesmayfamilis I would send him the money first with my eyes closed. The same as for xhomerx10, JayJuanGee etc.

What do you think about it?

Btw, I visited loyce.club to see if the trust had been updated (I see it hasn't yet) but I have to tell you that I find it a bit difficult to navigate. Once you go into the folder, can you search for users with any command or do you have to go through them one by one until you find the one you want?

I don't know if you have somewhere an explanation about loyce.club for dummies. Are they ftp files?

Fixed

I guess it's similar to including Zepher who is no longer with us. Their posts are relevant therefore there is no need to remove their name as they are still relevant.  I'll have a bit more of a look as you suggest.

BTW Tor browser is currently giving me an error: Secure Connection Failed for your site.

That makes more sense than adding a long list without really checking their feedbacks.

The maximum is around 30,000, my guess is it's limited by the forum time-out (just like the Ignore list can't be viewed anymore when it gets too long).

What do you think about having a short custom trust list? At the moment I have 4 people and no one excluded, but no hurry, little by little I can add more and also put excluded. I guess there is no minimum and maximum, I don't remember reading anything about it.

If someone on my Trust list gets banned, I'd probably review their Sent feedback before taking a decision.
The last time I saw banned DT2-members (DyslexicZombei and funnychain) was 1.5 months ago. Those users are still included by Dabs, so they'll be on DT2 again once either examplens or nutildah drops off DT1. The second user (funnychain) doesn't have any Sent feedback.
Dabs included many users who shouldn't be on DT2, but left him positive feedback. I'd call that Trust Selfscratching: his Trust ratings go from (Trust: +9 / =0 / -0) to (Trust: +39 / =0 / -0) depending on whether or not he's on DT1. Dabs is included by theymos, which is interesting since theymos recommends this:

If excluded DT1-members include banned users it doesn't really matter: excluded DT1-members can only "vote" for DT1, not for DT2.

Is their feedback still accurate?

I'm bad at hypothetical Seriously though: it depends on the feedback they've left.

I was just wondering what your thoughts are of DT1 users (regardless of whether or not they are plus or minus) who DT trust a user who has been banned for quite some time?

In the scenario I'm thinking of, a user in the past DT trusted another user, but over time that user is now banned.

Said DT1 user does from time to time modify their DT trust list, so it's not like they picked some random users and then years later have forgotten what they did.

Hypothetically speaking...

Well, it depends: If you traded with someone, does that mean you trust him? If you didn't risk anything, neutral feedback may be the better choice. But if you do trust him, leave positive feedback.

I've received several positive feedbacks from (by now) DT-members, many of those have nothing to do with trades. Obviously it's subjective, but those feedbacks are a lot harder to "earn" than for instance trading 0.1 BTC for a shitcoin.

It never hurts to check if old feedback is still appropriate.

I like to say I'm quite conservative: I barely change my Trust list, and most changes were to exclude someone instead of including them.

---

---

I'm also quite conservative with positive feedback. There are many users by now who I'd trust in a trade though, but I never went on a positive feedback spree.

Hi LoyceV.

After rereading the thread, this time all the pages, I have a couple of questions.

A) As for leaving feedback, I understand that it is mainly to be used if 1) you have traded with someone or if 2) you would trust someone to trade, even if you have not traded yet. This second part is more subjective and can be based on his behavior in the forum. 1) is straightforward, for example, you can leave a feedback: "I traded 0,1 BTC for x Eth, trade went smoothly".

But don't you think that leaving feedback because you would hypothetically trust to make a trade with someone (2) is more subjective and may result in people leaving feedback simply because they like the other person, for example? (Although if they like the other person, it is normal that they would trust him to make at least some small deal but I hope you get the idea).

seems to me that I will have to rethink and maybe delete or modify some feedbacks I had left.

B) As for building the trust list, how do you do it? I mean, I think it's clear what needs to be done, but how often do you add or remove people? Do you do it as it comes? If you see someone leave feedback that catches your attention, you go and look at their trust list and then decide whether to include or exclude them from yours?

I'm afraid i'm still new. I recently became a member. I'm sorry if i made a mistake there or either offended you. Although i did not create my own, it is still useful and helpful. I'm not gonna deny it, it's still fact. I'm actually reading it for furthermore knowledge that i can use someday. I'm might not be creating now for some reasons but i will eventually someday. I can always looked back at your thread and follow the instructions if i am gonna create it. I hope you'll understand. Thank you.

I would believe you if you would have created your own Trust list. Unfortunately, you didn't.

This topic is the summary.

The Twitter generation isn't my target audience here. Theymos made a complicated Trust system, I can't do it justice by summarizing in 140 characters.

I have to say that it's quite long and very detailed. I can see that you put so much effort in this thread and it was amazing how you did it. The long text doesn't really matter that much as i have patience in reading. I am thankful for the useful detailed information you shared.

It really helps but still you could have made it shorter like a summary because i bet others would skip reading because of it's long texts. Thinking that it was tiring. Not all people likes reading some hate reading long texts but regardless of that, i still appreciate you work.  You put a lot of hardwork.

Add "DefaultTrust" to the list:

Train your dog

A little help needed.

My dog has a Bitcointalk account and had started a personalized trust list. Since he can't operate the keyboard very well with his paws, he doesn't know how, but he ended up deleting everything. So now he has an empty trust list.
 
Can he put the original DT back somehow? Or does he simply need to create his own customized list now? Like adding the members one by one.

Both. Read this.

Of course it happens. I'm sure you can find countless topics about it.

If I can chime in, I don't think there's any specific rule on generating a trust list, but there are accepted guides, one of which is the one suggested by LoyceV. It has also been sort of endorsed by the admin, so you would not go wrong by it;

I don't think Loyce has created other guides besides this, I stand to be corrected though.

LoyceV, is this an official rule or is this a suggestion from you to fix an abused system?
Actually I don't know if anyone abused this system before so that they can form a strong network and continue to get a place to be DT1 or DT2 among fellow [friends]. I mean it's not because they left accurate feedback, but because they know each other or are countrymen.