Topic: Please remove Chaang Noi (Goat) or BadBear from default trust list (Read 10265 times)

Why not just scrap the default trust list all together.
Go back to the old system were if someone scammed they go red. That list can be maintained by the mods. Surely a couple of mods wll be happy to maintain the list.

At the moment I don't see an advantage... for e.g. back in the pirate days... pirate would of had 10000000000+ feedback points... then he does his little scam and everyone is farked over... even though he was so incredibly trusted; however in the end it would of made no difference because everyone would of gotten screwed over.

Alternatively.... Make a system were you can only add trust if both parties agree... So Alice enters a deal with Bob... Bob agree's... Now Alice can make up any lie she wants.... and Bob does not have to agree and can call Alice a lying bitch... but the beauty is both Bob and Alice entered into an agreement to be able to add feedback for each other.... So regardless of the outcome they both agree'd to to be able to add feedback.
Right now anyone can add anyhing they want abou anyone... Its the same reason WoT didn't work... you can basically just add anything to anyone, even if neither party was in a business relationship.

Theymos, I'm not sure if you have done any analsysis.. but if so... has the rating system made a positive difference ??
Half the time a newbie comes on.. they don't know the rules... they ask for money... and get made 'red'. Now quite possibly they were going to scam... quite possibly indeed... but on the other hand you don't know that...

Another option which would reduce so much spam.... don't allow newbies to post up in the loans or securities section!!!!!

I just think its so flawed. Someone could do 50 0.05BTC trades equalling.. what like $100... high roller!!!
Where as in 2012 me for example (and MANY others) were borrowing and lending out 1000's of BTC... Even though BTC might of been $5 each... 1000's of them at a time could equal a shit load... I know in my example... Foggyb was lending me $1000's of BTCs at a time.. and I would pay him back 10% interest on time every time... but maybe I only did it 10 times to a single person..... so perhaps I borrowed $20k and paid back $20K plus interest... who is more trusted... me who borrowed $20k+ and repaid.. or someone who borrows 0.05BTC 50 times from different people ??

Thanks for reading

The people listed on DefaultTrust are something like moderators in charge of maintaining the default trust network (because I don't want to do it myself). A default trust depth of 2 is necessary to make that work:
- Depth 0: DefaultTrust
- Depth 1: "trust moderators"
- Depth 2: people in the default trust network

If you significantly modify your trust list, then a depth of 1 would probably be most appropriate. Depth 2 trusts people who are trusted by people who are trusted by people you trust, which in practice tends to be too much if you have your own trust list.

Some of the problems with the Trust system are caused by it not being a real web of trust. Trust spreads too far and too quickly. I know how to fix this, but it's difficult to implement, especially in an efficient way. This is on the requirements for the new forum software.

I agree that having things centralized like this is imperfect, but I don't know of any better solution. Making the default trust list blank would make the whole system nearly useless because it would take months for new users to notice that the feature exists and figure out how to use it. Perhaps after users reach a certain activity level the forum should make them define a trust list if they've ever posted in the sections that use Trust.


If you use DefaultTrust with depth 2, then ratings like those are bugs in the default trust network and you should post about it in Meta. Someone will be removed from the default trust network to fix it.

My point exactly. Anyway, lets just ignore the elephant in the room and make out its not there.

Perhaps if we just ignore it it will go away 

Thank you for the clarification

Hmmmm yeah you're right, good point. It would be more central which would defeat the purpose.
Getting rid of the system all together wouldn't be so bad..

The main problem I think is people making other people go 'red' for personal reasons. Not sure if Goat had the power to do it, think he did... he would fit perfectly in this scenario. i.e He doesn't like you due to some stupid personal issue, maybe you didn't roll the red carpet out for him, or you looked at him the wrong way, then bam... 'red'.

That is probably the best option. Although the issue then would be it would centralise the system to much.

Little off topic.. but... who reckons the default trust list should be changed from 2 deep to 1
Would solve a lot of issues..

In certain threads you can't reply or give opinion in fear of some tard who is a few levels deep from giving you neg rating... generally to protect some one or them selves from people commenting.... 

I removed him like, 9 months ago. Here's a reference for that, and I posted later on in that thread about why. I don't recall ever getting any pm's from you.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4265231

I PM'd BadBear about this a couple months ago, and by the lack of his reply I'm assuming that he is uninterested in auditing his Trust list.

Since we are all necroing threads here.  Why are banned people ie Goat still part of trust system at all?

Goat wasn't on default trust, he was on mine for a little while. And no he didn't pay for it, don't be so quick to believe something you read just because it supports your beliefs. 

Gravedig moar. I do believe the Trust system has flaws which do need to be fixed ASAP, though. The idea behind the Trust System is quite good and well thought-out, but when it comes to how DefaultTrust is managed (100% centralized, as a matter of fact) and the actual execution of the system, it falls apart.

So if you dont understand it, what chance do newbs have?

And as for goat being on the DefaultTrust list, I mean wtf? And If I read this right, he paid to be on it? LOL

Wow, this whole 'trust system' should be renamed 'abuse system', because that is how its commonly used. Everyone on this board would agree, (except for an elect few who seem to have enough buddies to make sure they all pat each on the back and give each other positive trust), the whole thing is farcical. Theymos said he would 'trial' this system & kudos for making the effort, but it has failed, and failed miserably. As a result, reps are inaccurate to a large degree, and as such are meaningless & misleading, except to those that dont understand the system and accept ratings at face value.

Its about time the whole 'trust system' was removed. It has failed to achieve its goal, and contrary to its aims, is a broken mess that is not to be trusted.

You have still not addressed why you think these laws don't apply to bitcoin?  Instead you use a gold as a strawman argument when you know there are specific laws governing gold and even in the US there are legal tender laws blocking the use of gold as a currency.

Goat you have still not addressed the specific law reference that I provided.

If it's a face saving issue and you don't want to be seen as "wrong" I can understand that and I can also see your side of the argument.

I'm sure that if one wanted to (or was forced to do so) one could challenge the position of the BoT in court and the court may agree that Bitcoin should not be considered "money" or a "replacement of money", in which case the BoT would have no authority to restrict it.

Given that this has not yet been tested in court it's not 100% clear it the BoT claims would hold up, as such you may not be wrong, in the future someone may make this legal challenge and win and your position would have been validated.  But until that time your negative trust in unwarranted.

Hey Goat, I'm still waiting for an answer to this:


Now, I have proven that you are a LIAR twice.

Why would I be "trolling", I'm here with a specific purpose, and that it to show that your negative trust is incorrect.  You continue to ignore the specific applicable laws that I have shown, instead make statements with absolutely no evidence to back them up, you can't even seem show me one single legitimate real world example and yet I'm the one that is trolling?

If this is case then you must be able to show at least one business that is legally buying/selling bitcoins in Thailand, and a business that is legally buying/selling gold without any permits?

It's illegal to start a gold shop without a license in Thailand, yes.

There are specific laws governing the buying/selling of gold, and you need a permit to do it (operate a business buying/selling gold). *

* Edit: although I have no first hand knowledge of this only what I have been told/read, and research this further if needed (though it is a tangent)
An example of article talking about Gold shop requiring to registered with BoT:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/7500-gold-shops-must-be-registered-Commerce-30217019.html

There is no law saying "You cannot keep a 3 year old in a basement and poke them with a stick", does that mean that it's legal to do that?  No, because there are laws again "Child Abuse" that those action would fall under.

Is there a law saying "You cannot smash someones car window with a hammer"? No, so is it legal to go around smashing peoples windows with a hammer?  No, because that would fall under "Property Damage" laws etc...

In the same way that bitcoin would fall under that laws that I have referenced in my previous post, because it would either be classified as "money" which is restricted under the first law, or it would be classified as a substitution for money which would be restricted under second law.