Topic: Negative user in default trust 1 (Read 1542 times)

Actually, when you rely on a centralized target for trust-scams like DefaultTrust, that's what makes it hard to evaluate.  If you manage this for yourself, you automatically are more skeptical of everything, which makes you safer.
Oh, like you did to me, "FunFunnyFan"    (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=519804) aka Panthers52 aka ACCTSeller, aka ....

There's no reason why "a lot of trolls/scammers/non-reputable people" will be included if you don't include them.  When you take DefaultTrust at face value, you're adopting blindly and wholesale the main target of such confidence scams as you were trying to pull around here with your shenanigans last year.  When you manage your own trust list, you add the people that you've had experience with, so, as usual, you seem to be perverting logic and turning reason on its head.  The only real question is why.  The best current answer is that you're planning or already managing a new crop of alts and trying to work your way back into position to pull off whatever exit scam you were planning with this account.

The problem with excluding DefaultTrust, (and to an even greater extent, having zero trust list) is that it is very difficult to tell whose trust ratings you should trust and whose you should not.

If everyone has a rating of "0" then it is very difficult to tell the fake trust ratings from the real ones. It would not be difficult to create a bunch of newbie accounts and give a bunch of positive trust ratings to yourself and this would be difficult to detect without any kind of trust list. The same is true for negative trust, as scammers often give retaliatory negative trust, and often troll other user's trust profiles, which makes it even more difficult to decide that you should use caution when there are scam reports on someone's trust profile.

Using a custom trust list is also very difficult. When you create your own trust network, there will be a lot of trolls/scammers/non-reputable people that will get included in your trust network, and you will need to be very active in using exclusions. As a general rule, you need to be fairly active to determine whose trust ratings you should ignore, so custom trust lists would be very difficult for the casual user.

Even if you were to adopt the trust networks of any one of any of the Level 1 Default trust users (the people who are trusted by DT directly), you would likely have a number of people in your trust network who probably should not be there. With only a small number of exceptions, there are not any(many) people in the DT network who should not be there.

Noobs here still trade with massively negative trusted users here and pay the price for it. If they can't put two and two together and come to the conclusion that big red words saying 'DO NOT TRUST THIS USER' means that they should perhaps not follow through with their deal, what on earth makes you think they're going to bother to look at a user's post/transaction history to come to their own conclusion?

I can't say I much agree with this. I envision scams skyrocketing should the trust system be removed due to the reason above.

I do understand this, thank you for the suggestions though.  As I said, this is a little experiment.  Nothing in my doings on bitcointalk is set in stone.

You should / could add the accounts whose feedback you value to your trust list and still go to check feedback manually before making a deal. This gives you the benefit of having some quick indication if someone is trusted or not. The critical thing is to understand that the feedback is just a tool to help you determine if someone can be trusted or not.

People who go blindly on a trust score are just waiting to get scammed (in general, not just on this forum) because they're too naive to check who they're dealing with.

Well I have done a few small deals with people, but I don't feel the need to see green or red under their avatar--all of that I can check manually.  There are definitely people on DT that I trust the feedback of, but I've come to believe that the trust system here as it exists at present is pretty damn broken.  All the negative trust I've gotten is from people I've never done deals with--they just didn't like some of my comments and there are no reference links or anything.  The fact that this is possible is just shitty.  And yes, I know untrusted feedback doesn't change your score.  Positive trusted feedback doesn't change your score either, at least that other people can see.

I tend to think that that's the right way to start out.  Who knows, maybe you'll find someone who's feedback you trust and add them.  In anycase, the centralization of trust around the default trust list has let to mountains of scams around here.  The best thing that people can do to alleviate that is to remove default trust and build their own lists and teach others to do the same.

I removed everyone from my trust list including DT.  Not going to add anyone to it but I'll still leave feedback for people I do deals with or scammers and so forth. 

So instead of forcing noobs to do their own due diligence we are potentially misleading them using a flawed trust system, convincing them to participate in transactions they might not otherwise take part in without the trust system telling theme these people are reputable when they are not? When are you people going to admit this top down trust system is worse than having none at all? I fear this day will come shortly after no one comes here any longer anyway because the forum is infested with fraud from the top down.

Sounds reasonable enough.
The trust system is a "shortcut" to evaluate people.
If you can and are willing to do your own due diligence, go ahead.
You'll be much less likely to be mislead by others' people's opinions.

I'm thinking of taking the extreme skeptical approach and taking everyone, including DT, off my trust list.  That way no one will have green or red trust under their avatar and I can evaluate each person individually without any bias up front.  Or does that sound completely retarded?

It's not clear to me if this newbie account is just one of the typical people who trolls dooglus and is trying to get more attention or if the person is merely ignorant.  In any case, there's just no such thing as "an overall rating".  Everyone's rating is different for each person, you can be red/green/orange, it just depends on what you want in your trust list.

Default trust should be viewed as role model with no trusted red feedback on their profile.

Go to your trust settings, scroll down, select "hierarchial view"
You will see the users grouped to the respective lists they are in.

where can you see who has who in their trust lists?

He is not fully untrustworthy, and he has contributed hugely to the bitcoin community, so why not keep him trusted? One negative rep from BayAreaCoins because he gave him inside information doesn't mean anything, because BAC also gave him a positive rep (according to my memory)

tomatocage and badbear still have escrow.ms in their trust list. both are not very active these days. badbear did log in just few hours ago though. but I don't think he noticed.

The fuck is happening with the DT 1 people around here..


And who have Escrow.ms still in there trust list? i can see him in DT 2

Nah, this is why the trust system doesn't work....  you should not believe that all the users that are in the default trust are trustworthy.

Lol no, its on your ignorance if you don't find adding only the people you trust on your trust list, waste of your precious time

It is not a suggestion, It was force to all users to believe them they are trusted.