Topic: Replacing DefaultTrust (Read 16276 times)

hell no.

How about you get on the default trust list by buying +ved more than 10 times by someone who has more activity points thank you?

I don't think you've shown how this is true.  I can imagine a very helpful and useful trust network where users add those who they want to add and remove who they want to remove and those without anyone on their trust lists are simply not participating.  How is this "utterly useless"?  It seems like an ideal system which aids those who want aid and leaves out those who want left out without creating a central point of failure for those who want to game the system.

There is no default trust in eBay. Every user has same weigh on feedbacks. You need to be directly in part of the trade to leave feedback, different than Bitcointalk.

Feedback buying and account buying/selling on eBay is actually quite common.  On eBay the feedback number displayed next to your username is a total of your buying/selling feedback, so buying stuff increases it. So many sellers will list ebooks for sale for $0.01. Other sellers then buy $10 worth these ebooks to get 1,000 feedback or so to prop up their reputation. IMO the eBay feedback system does have some advantages over the system here but it wouldn't work here and it still has widespread manipulation and is favorable for sellers (for example eBay lets high trust high volume sellers delete a set number of feedback per year to remove fake feedback) .

It is very easy to fake trades here, and many scammers give themselves fake trust feedback. This is somewhat mitigated on eBay because it cost money to engage in a trade (you need to pay the eBay fees), although that is not to say that all eBay trades are legitimate.

You disagree simply because you obviously don't understand the trust system, at all.
People on DefaultTrust have no "rating" whatsoever from being on DefaultTrust.
I.e., if you were on DefaultTrust but had no positive feedback from anyone, your trust rating would be 0. Zero.
You don't profit from being on DefaultTrust yourself. People whom you trust profit from it.

Of course not. Default trust isn't trust by default; people on the default trust become trusted as they spend time on the community doing trustable things. No one here registers and finds themselves with +4 DT trust ratings.

I disagree. Ebay users have earned their trust ratings through selling and buying transactions.  they were not given their ratings by default.

This discussion is almost year old and default trust still dominate the forum. Those with default trust are "gods" here... Joke

You're 100% mistaken.
There is a default trust list with Ebay.
It encompasses all users of Ebay.

If it weren't for a default seed of trust, any trust network would be utterly useless.

The reasons why we can't just include all users in the default trust seed of bitcointalk are obvious and have been discussed at length.

"Default Trust"    Why?

How about Earned trust?     I have  based all my transactions on established "Earned" feedback from buyers and sellers. I scrutinize all the feedback.

I could care less if a "Default trust" user has posted on a persons trust rating that he or she is credible UNLESS that person has done business with them.

Take Ebay for Example there is no Default trust list.....Your worthiness is based upon your successful transactions not because the creator says these people should be trusted.
I have placed trust in people with 0 Feedback by doing business with them and have also Denied doing business with a so call "Trusted" member.

there are many that have been or on the Default trust list that i would not trust a dime with.

My ratings have been based on transactions with other users.....Not by a user that some claim i should trust.

That's not right.  This proposal was to force each newbie account to choose someone to trust in order to bootstrap the trust system.  You're right that if it had gone into effect, the notion of "default trust" wouldn't exist, or at least not as we understand it.  But there wasn't going to be a vote for users, the beauty of this proposal was that people wouldn't just have the matching trust lists by default which most people have at the moment.

I'm sure that if the proposal had gone into effect then there would be no DT right now, and you would be voting for the users instead.

theymos decided not to replace it (for now). read the colorful quote above.

Too long topic to read full, I would just find out , or this proposal (to 30 users will be suggested)
already have effect, or just stayed proposal?
regards
-zz

Thanks, galbros, this thread is really relevant to recent issues re the trust system and it's not one that I had seen previously.  One thing this really brings home to me is that it seems like theymos definitely would have preferred a more distributed trust network---one in which people are actively adding and removing people based on their own experiences.  The current system gives us the tools to add and remove people, but because a vast majority of people do not add or remove or modify, they're really little point in doing so yourself.  Default trust has become "standard trust" and like-it-or-not, changing your own settings away from the standard just makes you out of the loop.

It's a little bit of a critical mass problem, in my opinion.  I think something like this proposal would be very valuable, I especally like the part of confronting a user with their own trust setting and forcing them to actively choose something/someone.  Having chosen, they'll be more aware that they can revist those choices.  The part about offering the "top 30" might have been problematic in this proposal, but I really see value in trying to get the wonderful personalization tools of the trust system more active.

Sorry to necro this thread. 

However, given the large number of recent posts and complaints about the trust system, default trust, and how people who are trusted sometimes behave I thought it might be useful to remind people that theymos has considered alternatives and it was a pretty evenly split vote on moving to something new. 

For those of you who are unhappy, you may want to outline your alternative and see if you can get some agreement on an alternative as theymos is clearly not determined that the current system continue no matter what.  His proposal here may be a useful starting point for your thinking.

Good Luck!

Theymos clearly stated that the poll verdict does not mean anything over here as it seems that the votes are split fairly evenly. Hence, I think, there is no point in arguing that the idea is tabled because NO won the poll.

I suppose that when you started doing so, You were already an established member here or at least knowledgeable enough to be able to not needing decentralized trust networks to assist you when dealing with other forum members. I'm not in DefaultTrust but I've realized when i was a junior member that, while useful in giving me a feedback on someone new, I cannot blindy trust it and so I started adding my own exclusion to it by prefixing known scammers, ponzi operators & other people that i cannot trust with a tilde (~) before their usernames. Sometime I also add a few people i trust to my own trust list. I try to do my best to keep my trust list update but I suppose that until I reach Legendary status I cannot have a trust list complete enough to avoid having DefaultTrust included in it.


I don't think you are wrong, since the two behaviour can co-exist between the same user. Feedbacks can be given both if you were actually scammed or if you STRONGLY believed that the person is a scammer.

Of course you have to base your feedback on evidence you have link in the reference field. If you follow such rules I think your feedback maybe legit and can be verified allowing other members to independently consider if following such advice or not. I think feedback without a reference link should not be given and if they are they should not trusted due to the impossibility to be independently verified by others. Also if a user give such unverifiable trust feedbacks you could prefix his username with a tilde (~) in your own trust list to exclude his feedbacks.