Topic: overwhelming consensus excludes Lauda, remains in DT2, went in2 buz w sold act - page 33. (Read 11909 times)

Until such time, there is this simple workaround[1]:

At least a few DT seats would have to be changed for this to work. As for that type of case, I don't remember a single one in quite some time.

Unless he is permanently banned, he will not stop. Although, it's quite petty that he believes this changes anything at all for me. This affects everyone else. But hey, if you like scams then I guess that's a win.

---

[1] My recommendation. Most people who should look better, look better. Most people who shouldn't, don't.

Happy Valentines Lauda...      Lov u Sweety..

Keep the system we currently have. 99% of people who get tagged with negative feedback deserve it, but of course when it happens to them they kick up a fuss about. I'm all for people disputing any feedback received but anybody who was abusing it would likely be removed from DT pretty fast but this rarely happens.


Anyone can do a few trades or make themselves out to be trustworthy and that's what QS was doing. It wouldn't surprise me if he was just here for the long con from the start but I certainly don't trust him because of his behaviour and due to how he's conducted himself since his fall from grace (which was entirely his own fault due to his fragile ego and pathetic grudges). His level of butthurt borders on mental illness and it's clear he won't stop until he feels like he gets his revenge and comeuppance and this thread is further proof of it.

QS and his ego every morning:

So what do you suggest? Remove the Trust system completely? There needs to be some sort of mutual consensus system so that newbies who come here know whom to listen to - being new and unexperienced. Over time they will gain experience but every new person here needs guidance. True scammers will always lurk here and everyone should be careful themselves - because the Trust is subjective


It still bugs me that those people even listen to someone like QS. It only makes them more towards the untrustworthy scale. Someone needs to judge the way they decide (the DT). Simply because QS has/had successful trades with them does not make QS their "Close trusty pal" - and other references against QS suggest something totally different.

Whatever you do people will just complain about it. I don't think I've ever seen a feedback system that really works fairly and is always just abused by scammers.


Scammers and unscrupulous people make the most amount of noise once they're busted because you've taken away their source of income. QS has probably been badgering the people who have just excluded Lauda for quite some time until they acquiesced to his demands.

I only read the first post but this is a long list of accusations. Also, pill addiction? I do not want to mock anyone's vulnerabilities, I hope this person manages the get over the addiction.

Please don't. The current DT-System is doing well.

great idea - much better than what we have now.. so when are you rolling it out?

The trust system in bitcointalk has become a joke now. It was a joke few years back when I first came here when I was not aware of many things and used to lurk around trying to gain knowledge from everyone and getting to know the forum and how things work here.

It never improved in any manner or so during this period and now we have a number of people - who even though people try to defame them, they are actually fighting the scammers, account sellers, ICO shills bumpers and whatnot - they are the ones who get excluded from Trust lists of "so-called" trusted people.

Considering this forum to be the biggest discussion site for the crypto community we need to have a strong ground on what is right and what is wrong and act accordingly. People will come to this forum because they want to know about crypto and while we are trying to get everybody know about scammers and how they could get scammed here and/or get involved unknowingly in criminal activity - it is our forum members who are in a "power-war" among themselves. Although this is seen in every forum/community there need to be mutual understanding between people which is definitely lacking here.

But thats just my opinion.

---

BTW why did QS make this thread? Just curious Theymos could have made it. Or some other "reputable" member of the forum too or even a NeutralTrust Member. I can see where this bandwagon is going ultimately.

We have that here, although the list is somewhat flawed given the collusion(s) in the trust system.

Ebay killed my consideration for any trust system. I go by my own impressions of a member by reading his posting history if I need to consider "trust". It might be easier to have a list of apprved escrow members for financial transactions.

The main/only issue[1] that I see with it right now is:

Sounds good/less intrusive.

---

[1] Although I'm not sure about the long term impact that it will have on fighting scams and other shady behavior. I mean, if the system gets slowly gamed (as mentioned above) this situation eventually gets more and more enforced. The more often someone shows up on there, the more likely it is that they are going to get included by someone else and the cycle repeats.
Additionally you should make it so that it does not show the people that you have already in your list (to avoid somewhat newer members from getting confused).

Currently it's the same as I described here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/replacing-defaulttrust-914641 . That's from 2015, so maybe it could be improved. Also, instead of hard-forcing people to set trust as I described there, I think I'd instead have the trust link be red on every person, saying something like "Warning: you need to set your trust!".

compare the number of DT-1 members and the number of DT-2 Members.. its the simplest way to re-jig a dated system that needs a change to fight the spam, farming & scams. Who better to be part of the new system than the guys that are actually tagging people now.

Another example that I forgot to mention here is MemoryDealers. As a DT2 you can not neg. rate him because: a) You'd get excluded (by HostFat). b) You'd get neg. rated after he gets included. If anyone really deserved a negative rating for consistent shady behavior, then it is him.

Most of them just do nothing at all (at least not if it doesn't financially benefit them).

Which boils down to the same point again : Why would I trust some random people as part of my Default-Trust-List ? I'm afraid that you aren't getting the point conveyed by theymos.Goal is to alter the 'centralised ' nature of  the trust network regardless of iteration they follow in the list..

its simple, replace the current DT-1 members with the DT-2 members.. then allow the system to do what it is supposed to do, just because the people you set 4 years ago were the right people for the job then doesn't mean they are the right guys to fight the scammers now.

Right, we’re all Quickseller alts. Everyone who ever said anything ill of you.

Everyone was, thus this post.

Most of the people value the forum because of how trusted user's from DT are.
Maybe add another feature to the trust system(like an orange rating) for less serious accusations.
After the removal of lauda, DT looks perfect like before.