Topic: PSA: How to remove cancer from the trust list (Read 3022 times)

Keep it up and I am going to laugh when I see you posting under a newbie account 'Techshare-banned" whining about getting banned LOL


~BCX~

Excluding him from my trust does not remove his fraudulent rating from my trust page, nor does it check his abusive behavior using his position on the default trust. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/vod-should-be-removed-from-default-trust-for-systematic-abuse-of-his-position-915823

The real cancer aren't who is in the default trust, but the scammer and dishonest person. They should get fu*k out from this forum, because bitcoin is not for them. TECSHARE if you don't trust him put '~' before his username , simple ?

We have been through this with Vod already repeatedly. He abuses his position on the default trust, he modifies his ratings under public pressure, then a few weeks later he is doing it again and replacing those modified ratings with negatives again. He has already demonstrated complete disregard for the default trust over and over. Hes had second, third, fourth, fifth, and so on, chances. Vod needs to be far away from any position of authority.

Yes. I think that the trust ratings based on this bias should maybe be neutral, but other than that most of his trust ratings are pretty good. Controversial should be neutral though.

Maybe tone it down with the controversial ratings and you'll probably stay in his list. The recent events brought enough turmoil in the forum, I'm sure you wouldn't want to cause something aimilar again given that it would risk your position in the trust list.

He is not removing me over this event.  He may remove me in the future though, who knows?

Default trust as designed is for newbies, no one should be relying on it. When Theymos made the system, he wasn't betting on people being too lazy to create their own trust networks, it was assumed that default trust would be just that, a default setting that would be customized and then become decentralized. When the scammer tag was done away with, the idea was that people would use default trust until newbies had enough experience seeing how things work here to make their own trust lists. I would still argue that the trust system has been a net positive, yet modifications do need to be made to the system in itself to make up for people's lack of willingness to think for themselves. As it is, the system is centralized around Theymos, most reasonably so as the operator of the site, he would have the best motivation to keep the site running. I'm sure Theymos would be thrilled to death if he could remove himself from the role, but as of yet no proposal has been made that is free of major flaws.

Vod is on the second level of default trust, if his being there is a "cancer" its not the system, its in Tomatocage's judgement. Flaws in the system would be if there was issue with Theymos' judgement on who should be in the first level of default trust. In one of the other 30 threads on the subject matter I made a note of saying that to a reasonable extent, I side with Vod's point of view on the matter, I personally think his application of negative trust was apt, perhaps a neutral would be more appropriate but that's not for me to decide. That conversation then turned into "well maybe he should change his wording to be a little bit more clear" and I had no desire to start arguing semantics. It is completely reasonable to make the information known to potential buyers that MSDN keys violate Microsoft's TOS, and that any report of it would invalidate the keys leaving the buyers high and dry. That is reasonable enough in my opinon.

Anyway, there has been a dialog open about changes to the trust system for months now and people's participation is encouraged, if you feel so strongly, devise a new trust system that is without as many flaws as possible, submit the idea, and if it is the solution we have all been waiting for, it will be implemented.

Full Disclosure: I am on default trust, but I care very little opinion on the politics of it all, as I use it as intended for people able to think for themselves. If Theymos said tomorrow that the trust system is desolved and things are going back to market anarchy, that wouldn't effect me in the slightest. People would complain about scammers getting away with scams like they did in the olden days though. I do however think something needs to be in place to protect new members. If you have been here for a year and fall for the obvious signs of a scammer, I dont feel bad for you in the slightest. Someone who has been here 5 days on the other hand, something needs to be in place so we aren't throwing them to the very obvious, not so clever sharks.

Bahahahah. Does this kind of shit happen often in the altcoin section? If so then I need to make my way over there more often

I'm sure you do a fine job and take your position responsibly. But not everyone does, and in fact a lot of people in the DefaultTrust don't or worse yet, they are active scammers. This is no different than luke-jr cutting out Satoshidice transactions from the gentoo distro, except in reverse. He is deciding what users should and should not accept as transactions, whereas Theymos i deciding who and who not to trust. In either event, the user can choose to change that, but the default should be nothing at all.

What is ironic is that for a system (bitcoin) that is built around decentralization and trustless systems, making a trusted, centralized "list" that all users are force-ably "opted-in" to, instead of having to manually select it themselves is, how you say, "absurd," "hypocritical?"  

Fair point. However, I just want to make it clear that I don't know Theymos IRL. In fact, I'm not even sure how I got into the DefaultTrust group. I made this account to talk smack to Smoothie back in the Solidcoin drama days (not that I was a big Solidcoin supporter; I just liked playing devil's advocate). I could be as foul-mouthed and as much of a dick as I wanted to without tarnishing the rep of my actual account. Then at some point this account actually had better rep than my main and my ratings on others actually had a huge impact, and that's when I realized I had better get my shit together and start being more impartial and be more considerate of other peoples situations. Not every brand-new account asking for a loan is a scammer. Not every person selling MSDN invites is out to take your money and run. So if you get a negative rating from me and you don't agree with it, just shoot me a PM and I'll give it a second look, it's not that big a deal. I don't get a huge power trip out of flagging people... unless it's an actual scammer.

Anyway, I'm not even sure where I was going with this.

But the point is, we have seen:

A) The "trusted people" abuse that power numerous times. So they aren't really trusted, are they?
B) The default trust list is not based off of people who are trustworthy, they are based off of Theymos friends and acquaintances.

Neither of those two scenarios is worthy of putting any trust in. A user should not have any trusted people listed in his list by default. He (or she) should have people in there based on their dealings with them. If they do a trade or something, when they leave feedback, have it ask if they want to be put into the trust list. They could also put someone in there manually... but having DeafultTrust in the trust list is a bad idea, no matter how you slice it. It just sets up everyone for failure, as we have ample evidence for at this point.

Yes this is correct but for the average user who doesn't know the community very well and doesn't know any trusted people, defaulttrust is still the best option. If I was maybe a hero member, meaning I would know many of the people here, I would probably start making my own trust list but I am still using defaulttrust, with the exception of some users.

He used his power to intrusively alter software on machines using gentoo without the permission of the owners.

Isn't intrusive software malware? By definition, yes. Maybe according to your moral standards it isn't. But you see, not everyone likes the hierarchy withinthe bitcoin community that Luke-Jr has repeatedly taken advantage of.

Also:


Yeah right, if a developer with access to software updates took advantage of his position by pushing whatever unwanted changes to your machine through a software update tell me if you think that it's going to feel right.

I'll take the bait.

Is refusing to relay certain transactions hostile? intrusive? no. It's certainly not a virus, worm, trojan horse. Nor does it spy on you or hold your computer for ransom. I'm saying what luke-jr did was right, but there's no need to overblow everything.

If you have "DefaultTrust" in your list, you've still got cancer in there. The only good trust list is one you build up yourself. Trusting others to determine your own level of trust is a sure fire recipe for heartache.

haha, that's funny

You'd expect that a global moderator in the biggest bitcoin forum would be familiar with the definition of malware...

https://i.imgur.com/ulu7iH8.png?1

Not only Satoshidice, MAstercoin and Counterparty as well.

Misleading much? His distribution of bitcoind ignored satoshidice transactions. That's very far from malware.