Topic: Marketplace trust - page 9. (Read 83249 times)

Ignore it or ask him to remove it. Trust isn't moderated and feedbacks are really removed but if it's from a newbie and is unbacked without a source then most will just ignore it.

Hello
Who is moderating trust feedbacks please?
A brand new user (only 1 post) wrote insults on my trust page and on the trust page of 2 other people (okinawa and xavier59)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1071670

What could we do?

I think it would be a good idea to not allow Brand new and newbie users to send feedbacks.

A loan is another possibility. I haven't surveyed the Loaning section in quite some time so I'm not sure how many active loaners would accept an account as collateral but I'm sure there's probably still a small portion that will do so. I know that a loan would probably give the account-holder an amount less than what they will get if they sold/scammed but it's still probably a significant amount.


True, but have you seen the types of posts that pass for constructive in some campaigns? There's a lot of spam out there: agreement posts, reiteration posts, "lock the thread" posts, missing information posts, etc.
There are also users that post redundant information (I might be a bit of an example since I tend to wander and use some rhetoric occasionally) on threads just so it will appear to be constructive, spanning multiple lines. Other offenders may post about subjects to which they have no knowledge of. e.g. mining, bitcoin dynamics, economics, technical details.

---

These usually allow a spammer to reach ROI quickly. As for scammers, they'll build the account up and then collapse it. Or alternatively, scam a newbie - new additions to the forum may ignorantly trust the rank system, thinking it to be proportional to the level of trust. Scammers and spammers can exist on the same account concurrently. They probably all follow the same methodology: join a signature campaign, post garbage and then see what they want to do afterward. (Continue or scam)

In regards to your point about using accounts as collateral for loans, accounts have value, and therefore will allow a lender of a defaulted loan to recover losses if a borrower is unable to pay -- this results in loans being made that will probably not otherwise be made, which helps the economy and community. I have made loans, secured by accounts to a decent number of people who I believe legitimately fell on hard times, and legitimately were unable to repay what was owed, so I ended up selling their account to recover (sometimes only a portion of) the loan. I also have made a no-collateral loan to someone who I believe fell on hard times (eg not someone who took out the loan with the intention of not repaying me on time), and although I was lucky and eventually was repaid, the repayment was several months late, and I think I was lucky in that I ended up getting anything at all out of the loan.


But to my more broad of a point, the ultimate reason why someone will sell their account is because they have some need for money. If someone is in need of money, has a valuable account, but is unable to sell it, then there is a chance they may use their valuable account to try to scam someone.

I would also point out that when someone buys an account they are investing money into that account. If someone who buys an account and starts to scam/spam, and does not recover their initial investment, they will lose money, so they have incentives not to do this. So those who are actively leaving negative trust against accounts solely for the reason that the account is sold are pushing down the prices of accounts, which lowers the thresholds needed for a scammer to profit off of buying an account, which makes it easier for scammers to make money via scamming, which increases the number of scams. 

Please, enlighten me on what these account-sellers would lose out on if they were unable to sell the account. Now, I understand there are defaulted loans but as we all know: caveat emptor. The loan provider takes the risk and accepts it when they extend their hand to any user. The way I would personally worry about loans is that if I am unlikely to give a no-collateral loan to a user, then I'm equally unlikely to give a loan to a user who provides their account as collateral.

---

I am unable to think of any other circumstance in which account sales are at least somewhat reasonable however if you have any clever ideas then I'm all for it.

I think you are looking at the situation the wrong way.

I think you should ask yourself "who is selling their account(s)?" and "what would happen if these people were unable to sell their account?"

Then just leave the accounts alone. Would you be fine selling these accounts to anybody? Because after all, that's what you're doing. You're opening up an opportunity for spammers and scammers to jump in and deprecate the forum more.

---

Most of the time, it'll be a spammer and I can't stand seeing all the "agree" posts, or 5 different "lock the thread" posts after a question's been answered. Fuck all that.

I don't care if you are quitting the forum. Don't sell accounts.

---

And this kind of thing doesn't need a warning, just like copy&pasting. You should KNOW that it is not right to do this. Use that big evolved brain of yours.

You may be right but you should not be so easy to scare people

2. Yes long long bitcointalk
Because I'm making anime videos on youtube so i have left the bitcoin subcoin job
And that's why I thought it was a crime to sell accounts?

Whoa! Let me stop you right there. Account sales are usually not good for the community and thus people may be inclined to think of you in an unsavory manner. You are given negative trust by people who do not trust you. I would not trust someone who sells their account.

Reason: Who would be buying accounts?

a) spammers
b) scammers

---

Spam is a cancer upon this forum perpetuated by shitty signature campaigns. Loan defaults, currency exchange, service and goods' scams will come from bought accounts since they are disposable and most of the time trustworthy enough for newbies to fall for the ploys.

---

Also, nice post history gap. August 09, 2016 to May 12, 2017 hmm? https://archive.is/XLkVr

Could this be a stupid system?
I tried to sell my account, 2 separate people took private messages to get the account
But I did not know that the agent wanted to make his own account of another account was a fraudster, this man then said he gave a hero I do not know.
I did not accept that I wanted a reliable vehicle to be recognized.
I did not sell my account then - Fraud - Trust gave me 2 accounts

It's so easy to scold you, this guy is not cheating on me, so I can not sell my accounts
This account has polluted my name, Reliable fire. Is there no cure for this?

If you didn't modify your settings, then you should see it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust. DT1 trust list:


theymoses trust list:

Is there a list of default / theymos trusts?

Hello!)
Never paid attention to this trust
Now I had to take part in ICO and did not miss
But really want to, like a coin)
Tell me please how to get to administrators by trust

Your rating was 0. None of the users that have left you positive ratings are part of the default trust system (depth 1 and 2), therefore their ratings don't affect you score unless you have a custom list (which seems to be the case here).

This is not going to help you. Anyhow, why did you wait so long before posting this?

---

Maybe it should be split off into a separate thread.

Of course if your name is Gregory Maxwell you are allowed to abuse this system.


So I happened to tell this young promising programmer, that not all of his actions are 31337 and especially that the libsecp256k1 is also not that Lichtgestalt as which it is presented. Some technical arguments were exchanged until he started to call me a thief.

Now - he might have found it insulting me telling him he can't program, still I do believe that calling someone a thief with no basis whatsoever is a different category. So in my 1st rage I threatened to send some lawyers his way, but after some sleep and thought I figured out de-escalating matters would be better and said we'll solve issues like "real men" on the next Bitcoin conference where we'll meet.

*BAM* -> negative rating "Wallet thief, threatening violence..." etc.

My nice 37+ rating (earned over 2-3 years) turned orange -1 without having ever had business with that "man" immediately.

I didn't mind much, because as I found out - everyone can give here everyone else any rating for any reason "e.g. if you have the letter 'z' in your nick" ... Which is funny and makes the system totally moot. (And I still can't believe false accusations are ok in this forum)

Unless

you have a positive rating such as I had. Because as I happen to buy some digital goods from time to time (namely AWS codes), I never had problems with trust to have newbies go 1st. Today, the newbie told me I do have "caution trading".

To sum up:

Gregory Maxwell is shit
Bitcointalk.org trust system is shit
Whoever invented it thought shit
Whoever has a different opinion about it than me now is also shit.


  - Ok, I'm overdoing it there a little bit and while I am a little bit pissed about it, I just can't get myself to take it seriously. Shit.



Rico

Me adding him to my list wont matter because he's in DT, so whatever I do other people still going to see my red tag.
However 2PMs sent to him already and no action, maybe it's because he thinks that his opinion could be considered as fact, or knows no one cares about me if I'm tagged red wrongfully.
I thought being a DT member comes with heavy responsibility.
And lastly I think flaw is more accurate than bug, my apology.

You have a creative usage of the word "bug" here.  Here's the way this is supposed to work, if you don't like/trust the feedback given by 'yahoo62278', you should remove him from your trust list (ie, write "~yahoo62278" in your trust list).  If other people agree with you that yahoo62278 isn't leaving trustworthy feedback, they'll remove him too.

Well I'v found a bug where it says you can get red tagged by not accepting campaign manager decisions and being a pain in the a**.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=851646

Lol, 'no official meaning'.  As if QS pronouncing something as "official" would give it "official meaning".  Always playing the king.  In case QS is truly ignorant about what is meant by "DT1" and "DT2", let's go ahead and define it like this:

DT1 is the list of people trusted by "Default Trust".
DT2 is the list of people trusted by someone on DT1.

Given this information, I imagine even Quickseller could guess what would be meant by a "made up word like" DT3, although, unless he pronounces it, he certainly won't consider such a meaning to be "official".  lmao

Suggested reading: Trust Vocabulary.

This will help reduce confusion when posting about the trust system and/or who is in the default trust network.

"dT1" and "DT2" are made up words and have no official meaning