Topic: Replacing DefaultTrust - page 2. (Read 16276 times)

I like the idea of a randomized trust list, but seeing my name is on here makes me worried I'd get random people requesting I remove someone because they just got scammed or because one of the people on my list sold their account or something. I'd feel horrible about that.

Additionally, ngzhang is almost universally-hated on here, but I considered him one of the better contributors to the Bitcoin ecosystem, especially early on with his FPGAs, and it was pretty easy for me to see the problem with Avalon's batch 2 trade-ins lay precisely with BitSyncom and NOT xiangfu or ngzhang.

The first thing I did when I found out about the new Trust system was to remove DefaultTrust and just set up my own. I assumed everyone else did the same. Through my trades it added various layers of the "DefaultTrust" back in, but at least then there were clear indications of why it was added.

I think there's two users of the Trust system, people like me, that just have ratings of actual trades done and scammers they have caught themselves and folks that use it to actually point out and filter potential scammers even though they have never traded with them or verified they are bonifide scammers on their own. Maybe the problem is that I'm using it wrong and what we really need is basically just a scammer-detector system like what the other folks are using it for?

I agree with users giving -ve trust feedback to Cloud Mining and Ponzi operators and promoters. I'm also not agreeing with your justification of them being biased because some of them may own shares of one cloud miner. If all (or at least enough) Cloud Mining and Ponzi operators and promoters give -ve trust feedback to rival Cloud Mining and Ponzi operators and promoters, since newbies and other users arewill be made aware they should exercise extreme caution when dealing with ALL them. Moreover, I know my trust setting to be appropriate to me since while I use DefaultTrust I also "modified" it with some addition of people their judgement I trust and also some (more than the addition, of course) exclusion of people their judgement I cannot trust (e.g. known scammers, Ponzi operators, etc.).
My reply to you was not to be personal since I have no interest in discreting you; but, instead it was directed to point out the flaw of your idea since such re-opening of theymos' poll can easily be hijacked by trust abusers' sockpuppet accounts to win their desidered outcome. Moreover, since the Poll was aimed to have active forum members opinion of modifing the Trust system people who were committed to forum were able to say their opinion and even discuss it in this thread. Probably at the time you weren't committed enough to catch the Poll time frame; but this is IMHO not a valid reason to ask for the Poll be reopened. It's like someone who on Election Day not having reached the legal age for voting yet and after him/her being old enough to vote asking to have vote recast since he was not able to take part in it.

P.S. Have you got no better idea to prove me wrong than accusing me of trolling only because I have as scores of people here a paid signature? Poor boy....
P.P.S. Oh shit! You will not reply any more to me? What a pity. However, You don't need being worried about my signature advertising since you're going to be added to my Ignore list soon.

Yah... I'm under target of a LOT of people because I got someone removed from DefaulTrust blessing with proper proofs. Read: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/requesting-theymos-to-remove-canaryinthemine-from-defaulttrust-888960 ...Moreover, I am not in -ve as you are showing, because the person who left me -ve is not blessed by DefaultTrust. You are seeing it because of your trust settings. You can also create a 100 sock puppet and leave -ve on me... that does not matter unless you have the DefaultTrust blessing. I kicked the hornet's nest and I know there will be some sting. The point here is you could not come up with a logical reply to my point and hence trying make things personal. Shows your depth indeed.

p.s. Unless you remove your signature, for which you get paid for trolling, do not expect any more reply from me.

Time to grow more sockpuppets to alter poll results and force theymos' hand? You seems to have the most to gain from such an outcome and you seems to already have an habit to create accounts for such purposes.

You are putting a word on my mouth which I never stated. Read my post again. If I remember correctly, YES was leading for 4 days. NO led only for a day and the poll was closed. I just wanted time. Never said it was rigged.

Active people here already expressed their views. If you cannot deal with the fact a majority expressed their preference to keep the actual Trust system instead of expensive and time consuming one which will be no better or at least equal to the actual one, You have no right to cry havoc hinting the admin rigged the pool!

I'm not saying that the poll was rigged. But, can you deny that the poll got very short time span to reflect any substantial opinion ? It started on Januray 5, 2015 and ended on January 10, 2015. Only 5 days to take public opinion about whether DefaultTrust is here to stay or not ? Even the YES was leading initially. NO was leading on the last day and the poll was closed !!! I would request theymos to re-open the poll and keep it running for at least a month.

I agree with your first statement. You may have missed about 'how to put a negative trust feedback' or I didn't read correctly.


You can throw your ideas as long as it is on-topic.

P.S. When putting negative feedback, no scammer would help in 'mutual-agreed-trust-system'. So how can we do that in your idea?

   -MZ

There will always be those who figure out ways to abuse the system. At least this would cut down on people posting negative trust when when it's not really deserved.

Just one idea - thought I'd throw it out there.

Strato

I don't think that would be a good idea. A user can use his/her sockpuppet account and do the things including posting a TXID. It's not that hard and this would do for successful trades, so there should be an option for failed/defaulted trades.

   -MZ

Here is an idea:

Add a new section for Trust called Transaction Verified: And Relegate all other trust to collapsed sections elsewhere. 

Transaction Verified Trust would require both parties to accept a single instance trust transaction.

Example: 

- Stratobitz wants to buy a GPU Card from MemberBitCoin.

- In order for the transaction to be logged as "Verified" and count toward 'Meaninful' Trust: The Seller Must first Send the Buyer a Transaction Request which states the price, terms, etc.

- The Buyer must then Accept this in order for 'Verified Trust' to be posted from the seller to his account, as well as for him to be able to also post 'Verified Trust' to the seller in return.

- Simply put, they must agree to do business.  Payment amounts could be pre defined and the TXID added afterward as an optional item.

- This would cut down considerably on people who abuse the Trust system.

I am personally on the Default Trust 2 List, which I am thankful for but also understand it comes with responsibilities. Anyone on Level 2 can simply post a bashing comment and its logged as Visible Trusted Feedback.

If you view my trust you will see that I am careful what I post. However I know there are many users, well known active users in fact, that will not hesitate to post a scathing comment to someones account simply out of suspicion. This would be at least hampered by the above concept, where if its simply a "Guy is a scammer Im Angry and don't like the way he types" type of posting, its logged as a non-verified non-transaction Trust Post which is collapsed by default.

Just my Two Cents.

Strato

I hope that you realize that you just said in your above post that was quoted by dogie that the opinions that disagree with you were manipulating the poll while the people who agreed with your opinion were acting honestly.
More of the above

---

Sure the current trust system is not perfect, however it is something that works the vast majority of the time. It is a system that has generally stopped scammers in their tracks once it was discovered they were trying to scam, or were actually scamming. The number of scams that were on the forum have gone significantly down since the current system was implemented.

The failed logic is: "The system has issues, therefore it cannot remain!"

Here's some statements for you to dispute:

1) The forum is better off with the current trust system than without.
2) The forum will be worse if the trust system is changed for the worse.
3) The community in general will not refuse a change for the better.

The trust system is the worst form of trust management, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. I challenge you to come up with a system that is a significant improvement over what is in place now. To be judged by the bitcointalk community.

Not at all, in fact its quite the opposite. Myself as an example. I dont care how the system gets fixed, It can be removed, modified, set where the user has to determine their default list, turned upside down, or covered in frosting served with a cherry. The fact is that something needs to change with the current system as it has been proven time and again that it does not work and has turned this forum into an MMORPG where trust rating equals virtual points and a game to be collected. Mabye users dont approve of the method that theymos provided to fix it, that could very well be legitimate and i can see their argument. the fault is that the system should be left alone and that no changes are needed. 90% of people who want to agree to that extent are the ones who benefit from doing business with CITM and who have spent hundreds of hours gaming the system.

Please do not try and twist words and join the communion of unholy trust farmers in doing so. I personally have nothing against you and still consider you a valuable contributor to the real bitcoin community with your setup and trouble shooting threads. They have even helped me get set up in my recent purchase of a small mining farm. It would be a serious shame to see you join the dark side of totalitarian opinionists who think that their semantics are law and spend hundreds of hours gaming the trust system.

If you cant agree that something needs to change with the trust system as it is, no matter if it is what theymos suggested, other solutions, or done away with completely, just that something needs to change than maybe i had you wrong and you are not the intelligent professional that i thought you to be and that would be my own misjudgment. I am only human and i have misjudged people before, but i really would like to think that i am not wrong in this instance.

I've said this in another thread, the problem with surveys is people are only willing to accept votes that validate their own opinions as valid - the others are just fakes or shills, right?

Theymos, i think this is almost a must if you expect this forum to continue to have any credibility in the future. Regardless of how many alt accounts are used to vote against it. This is about one of the only ways this place will survive with any credibility.

Yes according to me , the list should be changed.

Based on the poll, decision's being split pretty evenly. There are some faults with default trust though, but it's more about the user than the system. Namely, how people are so used to giving negative that they don't bother basing their assumptions on a neutral feedback for lack of proof. Either way, improvement would be nice.

Banning would mean buyers would be risking it and that will drastically reduce the market. Putting up a simple warning in trade areas that accounts may have been bought would be an enough warning. That argument is a poor attempt to keep it going.

I'll give you that, that it would in fact simply push the bartering of accounts into other forums such as reddit, irc, etc.  I guess my point was simply that most major social services forbid this activity with good reason. You can't sell Twitter accounts; or Facebook accounts; at least not publicly. But it does happen.

Strato