Topic: should luke-jr be on Default Trust? (Read 4484 times)

QuickSeller.



No, it does not. You only need Bitcoin Core/d/XT if you are solo mining.


I don't think so.

---

It might not have been a hidden feature but you did not publicly mentioned about it and ljr spamfilter for Gentoo package was definitely a default feature.


But... does that mean the user will know whatever codes are there in that file?


#1. It was not just his software. It was official Bitcoind Gentoo package.
#2. He did not made that public and even made it default.
#3. Even other core developers told it was not good to make it as a default.
#4. According to your view, any developer who don't need approval for commits, can add these things without making this public and without asking other developers.
#5. According to your view, , when we run commands to compile a source, whatever unwanted things(especially, which were not publicly mentioned) in the program won't be malware. Hmm...?

Thanks for clarifying, Luke-Jr.  I tried to emphasize that Gentoo doesn't even distribute binaries (or at least it used to not), that all software packages are makefiles and source code and that people who aren't interested in custom builds don't tend to run Gentoo.  The other point is that people who don't likem  what a package maintainers for an open-source distro are doing with that package are totally free to build the package as they like.  You can't say should "freedom" at someone as you tell them what they're not allowed to do with software they write.

Gentoo is a distro tailored to users who want to customise every niche feature of their system.
A commonly given example is optimising for your specific hardware - but that's actually not very common in practice.
More often used, is the ability to choose what functionality your software has; for example, you can build your system without the ability to share files with Windows computers, or disable all GUIs so you avoid all the overhead involved in that (such as for a server).
Gentoo users are used to and expect to investigate and customise each optional feature of everything on their system.
They are generally well-aware of how their system works, and how it all goes together.
When installing a new program, they see a list of optional features, and can easily access descriptions of what each flag does.
When upgrading, they see clearly what new options are available, and which have been removed.

My enhancements for Bitcoin Core have always shown as an optional feature keyworded "ljr".
In the most recent versions, Gentoo users are also given options for "xt" (Bitcoin XT), and independent policy settings such as RBF, CPFP, and my spamfilter.
None of this has ever been hidden, and after there was confusion the first time, I went to extra steps to ensure there was a clear document covering each and every enhancement included in the patchsets I maintain and even after confirming options, users are shown the descriptions of the options they have chosen to use.

It is NOT "the" version for linux, simply the one that you would install from the package manager for the distribution of linux called Gentoo Linux

Gentoo linux is not the biggest distro of linux used. The most commonly used one is Ubuntu or Debian.

You don't need trust someone to successfully transact with them (esp. with escrow).

But point taken.  Let's stop conflating the two, as it is leading to confusion and abuse in the form of Trust spam/crapfloods.

I propose the board raise funds (and buys adequate DDOS protection) by charging 0.1% of the transaction amount for the privilege of leaving "Transaction Success/Fraud" feedback.

We could make Popularity a separate rating, and keep it free for all the little shitlords who so desperately need to tell the world who they like and don't like.   

You're confusing "Trust" with "Transaction Success/Fraud".
You don't need to transact to trust or not trust someone.

Let's just replace the misleading, wildly inaccurate term "Trust" with the more accurate descriptor "Popularity."

I bet 1 BTC most "Trust" ratings are not based on actual transactions, but rather on whether or not the rater likes the person being rated.

Or, we could charge people to leave Trust Ratings in proportion to the alleged transaction(s) in question.  The current system of free (IE subsidized) ratings is creating too much worthless spam and crapflooding.

This is Bitcointalk, so I want to hear market-based, not centralized fiat-based, solutions here people!  

Is this only a small linux version or is it "the" version for linux based original wallets?


See Hearn and Gavin adding tainting since they like it. Would be somewhat similar i think.


Whats that conflict?


Right. I remember both fighting each other hard some time ago about who invented the software and who stole it from the other to further develop it.


Its like bitcoin-qt, only for linux. But is it "the" biggest linux version used? That would be really huge and an even bigger attack. Surely it will only work for solomining since the transactions are only checked manually by the miner.


Right. But luke-jr has a history of doing things his way. I remember him featuring a tonal coin or so. He put it into bitcoin wiki even though he fighted away all other coins from the wiki before, even litecoin. But when he thought a coin needs to be in there it was a different thing. Im not sure why he acts so. At the end he is a good coder and certainly helped a lot of people. But he seems to be somewhat hard to deal sometimes.


bfgminer needs bitcoinqt or bitcoind to mine with it, maybe he overread it or misinterpreted.

BFGMiner surely would contain this code too then.

Why is it that you are defending luke-jr so much and he doesnt even say a word. Are you actually an alt of him?

I agree on the freedom part though you miss that he is cutting down the freedom of others. You shouldnt be surprised that bitcoiners dont like that.


So? And how would you name that then if not preventing them from using bitcoin? Its obviously what luke-jr wanted and luckily he cant decide that because that software isnt used by every miner.


Yes, he has every right to do what he wants... at home... with his own miners. Though he decided that an open source software that is widely used needs to follow his rules. Which means many will use it unknowingly. Its not that he changed his private software project or his own miner software at home. Its not "his" software.

He was a developer of Bitcoind Gentoo package. I think he was maintainer too. Don't remember about that. Sorry!


Means...?


There are many people who knows command lines but don't know to read source codes. Not all people learn all languages and not many people learn the language used to write an open source program to use it.


#1. It was not just his software. It was official Bitcoind Gentoo package.
#2. He did not made that public and even made it default.
#3. Even other core developers told it was not good to make it as a default.
#4. According to your view, any developer who don't need approval for commits, can add these things without making this public and without asking other developers.


1. Official release.
2. Unofficial release.

Which release will a user who does not know about these things or does not know how to read source go for?


So... when we run commands to compile a source, whatever unwanted things in the program won't be malware. Hmm...?

I know you have a conflict of interest in this but please... don't. No offence.

---

BFGMiner - Luke-Jr
CGMiner - ckolivas(-ck)


Its Bitcoind. Bitcoin Core/d/XT or any other full nodes verifies transactions. When he blacklist certain addresses, all transactions related to it will be rejected. BFGMiner does far less than this if he add such a thing. I think it only works if the user is solo mining.


Right.


Exactly.


Majority of those blacklisted addresses were of gambling sites. He even blacklisted CouterParty. He said that they were spamming blockchain. As you know, just-above-dust payments are common in gambling and CounterParty.

He should at least make it public and make it optional.

---

Edit: Wait a minute... By looking at tspacepilot's post(see the excessive use of CPU/GPU/computer/mining), I guess he though Luke-Jr's patch was related to BFGMiner. If so, I hope he realizes, that patch was Bitcoind related. But still, I don't understand how he thinks it is related to BFGMiner when I mentioned in my previous post that it was Bitcoind.

I would name it freedom.  The freedom to do as you with with your CPU/GPU, etc.  What would you name it?  As you go on to say, this is not really true. What it does is prevent thoes "projects" from being added to a block which a particular miner will build.
People are free to say that it's not okay.  But they aren't free to stop other people from doing what they will with computers they own.Bitcoin users (people) should be free to do as they wish with their computers
I'm really not ready to argue whether blacklisting transactions from satoshi-dice or whatever was a "good" or a "bad" thing.  Overall, bitcoin is a system in which many competing incentives work together for mutual good (hopefully).  I believe that the freedom of individuals and collectives to follow any one of those incentives as they see fit is crucial for this kind of system to work correctly.  I believe that Luke-Jr has every right to run the most modded version of bitcoin mining software he wants to.  And he has the right to distribute it.  And people who run his software have every right to inform themselves about what it does.  If they decide to skip that step, the consequences are on them.

I first thought its about his cgminer of bfgminer or how his version was named. So its a node software under linux? Its still a mining software right, otherwise i would not know how he can block the transactions.

Yes, everyone can code software he wants. But it sounds like its not a software he owns, he works on it only?

Of course anyone can edit the sourcecode... when he is able to do that.

Though that all doesnt change one thing. He implemented something that in fact is censoring the network. Or how would you name it when random projects (does he not like them or what?) are blocked from being implemented into a block. That prevents that these projects can use bitcoin. Luckily not really because others will implement the blocks but at the moment it looks to me like a clear censoring. And even though he can implement it, for sure, every other person is free to say that this is not ok. Bitcoin should be free and thats it. Not arbitrarely deciding who should be able to use bitcoin.

Or is there actually a good reason for not implementing their transactions? Do they spam the network or do they anything where a sane miner would say that this is bad for the network and will hurt him?

It sounds like it exactly was his software.  What are you talking about?  You can't say that Luke-Jr was both distributing this code and not distributing this code.

In the gentoo distribution (unless things have changed significantly since I used it some 5 years ago) all software is compiled from source.  People who don't want to know anything about compilers and compiling software shouldn't be using gentoo to begin with.

If you want to run a command line daemon on a linux system you have to know something about a command line. If you want to run a distro that compiles all packages from source you ahve to know something about a compiler and source code.  To pretend that all "non-tech-saavy" people should be building linux from source without reading or knowing anything about source code is pretty outlandish.

My point still stands, luke-jr has the right to put features in the code he distributes.  If people want to use other distros or other code without those features they have every right to do so.  To install code with those features (and what's more to build it from source yourself) and then pretend that those features are some kind of "malware" is quite nuts.

Gentoo Linux Bitcoind was not Luke-Jr's software. You want everyone to be tech savvy to install Bitcoind to prevent that sorta thing? Please don't mix things.

I think we can agree to disagree on this, especially on the fact that it was properly disclosed. There was a delay from the time the code was released to the time that people started noticing the blacklist and once people started noticing, word quickly spread and the overall reception was extremely negative.
Why was it removed then?
The conclusion that the people you left negative ratings for are scammers are clearly not accurate. I could leave a negative rating against someone with a comment saying that they have an account on bitcointalk.org, but that would not make it an accurate rating.
No. I was never given any solid explanation as to which ratings are false, other then "two" were inaccurate regarding alts of scammers, and there is evidence supporting the conclusion that everyone I have given a negative rating against is supported by solid evidence they are a scammer and/or intend to scam in the future.

When you give a negative rating against someone, you are calling them a scammer. The people in question have not scammed, nor is there evidence they intend on trying to scam in the future, nor is there evidence they tried to scam in the past.

It seems that cooldgamer has since removed his negative rating against luke-jr and replaced it with a neutral rating, yet luke-jr still has a negative rating against cooldgamer........would it still be appropriate to have him remain on your trust list since this "exemption" to not being able to use negative trust for personal reasons no longer applies?

You misunderstood the relationship of authorship vs censorship.  If I write code, I have every right to write it as I please.  In these days of close-source proprietary software and people installing .exes on their windows machines without looking at the programs they're running, it's a little crazy to be going after a guy who offers open-source code for you to review at your leasure.

Quickseller is trying to smear luke-jr by throwing around these references to "malware" but it's not malware if you read the code and decided to install it on your machine.

What it boils down to is the fact that luke-jr, and anyone else, has the right to run his bitcoin nodes as he pleases and if people don't want to run their bitcoin nodes under his rules they're completely invited to write/edit/modify their own code such that their machines do as they please.  People who don't want their machines to do what luke-jr's software instructs machines to do are masters of their own fate with respect to what they install.   If they install something they din't mean to, it's not an act of censorship.

You answered your own question except the software part. He blacklisted certain addresses in Gentoo Linux Bitcoind.

 - https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2ityg2/warning_bitcoin_address_blacklists_have_been/
 - https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=524512

How can luke-jr censor bitcoin with the code? Is it related to the mining software he develops? If so i think its not fine to censor that way since the websites arent scam if im not wrong. So yes, he would try to censor bitcoin by doing so. Even though he cant, it would be a try with a small effect. And thats not ok. Its not up to him to decide what transactions should go through i think. He isnt the bitcoin police.

So i think the ratings he gave are wrong since in fact he tries to censor bitcoin.

Tell me when i misunderstood something.

+1. This is my generally position as well, now backed up by the situations with luke-jr and VOD. Can even include CYIAM in the club: Trusted as hell, member sinces Jesus walked the earth - and one drunk evening with bad judgment.

When was Default Trust introduced? Would be nice to do an analysis of what good it has done and what bad it has - and will be doing in the future. We are humans, even Default Trustees, and the bad actions will continue forever.

It helps in most cases as most pay attention to it but there's always going to be idiots who throw their money away regardless but the number would drastically increase if it wasn't there at all.

In this case we can start to remove him from our personal trust list (~Luke-Jr) and wait or better hope to a good judgment by theymos (but I do not think the things will change).



We had several case of newbie that have been scammed by someone who has a negative trust score, so the trust system helps only in certain case and the real problem will always be the 'ignorance' of such users (not the trust system itself).

It doesn't. It works very well the vast majority of the time but no feedback system is perfect or without flaws. What system would you suggest as an alternative? Remove it completely and all that would happen is gormless newbs getting scammed would increase by a ridiculous amount and it would make judging a user much more difficult.

Why don't you remove Default Trust completely? It harms more than good to this community.

Dude.

"Bug 524512 - net-p2p/bitcoind and net-p2p/bitcoin-qt: do not enable ljr use flag by default"

It was made optional after people called you out on making it the default behaviour.

Revisionist history much ?

Well everyone's posts are visible to everyone by default, so leaving a neutral rating is exactly the same as posting.

The people that should be on default trust network should leave positive and/or negative ratings only when appropriate according to generally accepted community guidelines. In other words, they shouldn't leave positive feedback excessively (although the new trust score algorithm somewhat protects against this), should only leave negative ratings when they have credible information to lead them to strongly believe that they are a scammer, and should be open to revising their negative rating upon the receipt of additional credible information that would cause them to question such a conclusion. As long as they are prompt to revisit a negative rating after the receipt of additional information, then getting a small number of ratings wrong should not be penalized.

If someone is leaving negative and/or positive ratings when it is not appropriate, then the community will not take their ratings seriously and they should not be in the default trust network.

As I previously mentioned, Luke-jr's sent ratings do not conform to the current community standards so they should not be seen by default. If he wanted to revise it to a neutral with the same comment, then I would have no problem with it, this would be no different then him posting in a thread somewhere (possibly, but not necessarily with an alt) that cooldgamer is slandering his name. He should be free to keep the ratings as a negative, however if he does then people will not find his sent ratings to be accurate and he should be removed from default trust.

I voted no, but it wasn't anything related to luke.

To me it's just a dumb idea to implement something like "Default Trust". A member's contribution needs to be evaluated on a regular basis by his/her peers, and from that come to conclusion of trust.

Nothing should be given. In fact, this controversy shows that.

Should be protected, unless you're on default trust, then you need to suck it up and deal with it. Not really fair.

I'm not a big fan of the practice, but double standards aren't good either.

I am changing my rating to a neutral.  I believe that he should not be on Default Trust, as his blacklist episode worked against the general consensus of the BTC community.  His actions worked against the general idea of decentralization (nobody wanted the blacklist), and I left feedback to represent this.  


Has anybody ever said they did want a blacklist?  We're fighting over the block size and you made an assumption as big as blocking transactions from certain sources on a network that is supposed to be completely free.

While it is a crappy attempt at censorship, it still meets the definition.  If everybody was using this blacklist, the network would block transactions from those sources.

This isn't your first time doing things without people wanting it.  You changed the definition of a paper wallet to something besides the generally agreed definition, put prayers in the blockchain, and added tonal to the BTC wiki (seriously, who uses that?)



This also seems like a good time to point out the glaring flaw in his trust.  He was at +100 for a single rating with 1,000 BTC risked.  This was for creating code.

However, the developers of armory or any of the 'lite' wallets have nothing of the type.  The general concensus is that you should be rated on the amount paid in exchange for the code, not how much that was on the system it ran on.  I'm guessing what he made was open source, so it could have been examined to see that nothing bad was in there, but instead gmaxwell didn't do so and rated him for his lax security.

This is false. It was always disclosed, and always optional.

The majority of Bitcoin users also did/do not use it.
It is not established that the majority of people using it did not want it, nor that the majority of Gentoo users do not want it.
It is also not established that the majority of people who actually understand it (as opposed to reading lies such as the first quote) do not want it.

No, they are perfectly honest and accurate.

So your ratings were false. Big difference from the ratings I gave which are true.
Your argument should be directed against lenny_ and cooldgamer, who, like you, posted false ratings.

A person's trust score is only displayed in the marketplace, reputation/scam accusations and mining sections.

Also frivolous trust ratings should not be displayed by default, and untrusted trust ratings come with a warning that they may not be accurate so people should take them with a grain of salt.

The difference is his reputation thread is not attached under his username everywhere he posts, the trust system ranking is. One could also make an argument that unless an explicit claim of fraud was being brought that any other types of complaints would not be appropriate to post in a persons reputation thread. Regardless, anyone can buy a site and promote it with the explicit purpose of slandering an individual and get it highly ranked in search engines, so this is a moot point.

What would be the difference between me posting on bitcoininformation aka Mitchełł's reputation thread that he is a scammer, and me giving him a negative rating for being a scammer without any kind of reference, after he leaves me a negative rating for defaulting on a loan that I dispute (I don't think that Mitchełł is a scammer, I actually have, and would again trust him with good amounts of money, and I have not defaulted on any loan, nor does he, to my knowledge think that I have)? The two are essentially the same.

Similarly, if I were to post on one of Mitchełł's threads where he was trying to sell something that I think he is a scammer, then I would do just as much damage to him as if I had posted on his reputation thread. In both me leaving a negative rating, and posting that I think he is a scammer, if I don't present any evidence, and if it is clear that my claim is without merit (in this case it would be considering that he is not a scammer), then I would not be taken seriously.

Both posting and leaving a negative trust rating are a form of speech, which should be equally protected by the forum and the community.

It also just so happens that trust ratings are not picked up by search engines, so anything I post will actually have a greater impact verses a trust rating, because someone searching for his forum handle would come up with results of my (frivolous) claim that I posted. I don't see any reason why something that has the possibility to do more damage should have more protection then what could cause less damage.

(The reason I choose Mitchełł for this example is because I am fairly certain that he is never going to turn scammer, and because he has a reputation thread).

Well considering that his code has been audited a number of times, by a number of people, the trust in him specifically is not highly needed for the code that is currently being used.

My understanding of the situation around his "blacklist" was that he did not disclose the "blacklist" and only removed it when he was called out on it. I think it is pretty well established that his blacklist was not something that the vast majority of bitcoin users wanted to be using, and as a result:

The definition of malware is:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malware June 23, 2015, ~1:58 AM EST
http://techterms.com/definition/malware June 23 2015, ~1:59 AM EST
I will allow anyone reading this to draw their own conclusions.

---

Back on topic, I think that the ratings referenced in the OP should certainly not be seen by default, I am not familiar with lenny_, however I certainly think that it is safe to say that cooldgamer is not a scammer, and as a result I have left a positive rating to counter luke-jr's negative rating against him.

I think it should be more then clear that at least 5 of the 9 negative ratings that he has left are questionable at best, and some would argue that those 5 negative ratings were given in bad faith. That works out to a ~55% rate of  questionable ratings. On the other hand, I was removed from BadBear's trust list after getting two alts of scammer's wrong (although no examples have ever been given to me), out of a total of 547 negative ratings left for various scammers, and the negative ratings were left, in what I would consider to be good faith (I was also removed from tomatocage's trust list after getting one negative rating wrong, also acting in good faith for the rating in question). This works out to an error rate of 0.3% which is 1/150 the "bad/questionable" rate of luke-jr.

Speak for yourself. I don't trust Theymos at all. Luke-Jr even less so.

I fail to see your logic of patronizing these forums being a sign of implicitly trusting Theymos. To wit, I patronize a lot of sites I don't entirely trust. That's just life on the internet.

Posting vs using retaliatory trust ratings are very different things and should be distinguished from each other. When one is posting in the forums, it is meant as a means of communication, and that needs to be protected. It is very easy for some one to simply claim some one is lying about them, or say something they said is untrue to try to justify harming their reputation in retaliation. This atmosphere will make sure no one ever speaks out about the abusive behavior of others and it will continue to grow unchecked. This is why in my opinion negative trust ratings should not be left for simply what people say, no matter how full of shit they are, as long as they otherwise follow the forum rules and are posting in the correct area to make the complaint. In the past there was no neutral option, so this also helped to condition people to jump right to using negative ratings, and this should stop since we have another option now.

Now as far as leaving retaliatory ratings (negative ratings left after another user left one first), I think this should be protected, even for those on the default trust, and I will tell you why. People use the reputation system as a tool here to exploit honest people into submitting to them. They spend the energy and effort building up a trustworthy reputation in an environment completely saturated with fraud, clawing out a name for themselves, then they have something to lose that can be used against them to make them either ignore abuse from others, or become complicit in it. Additionally, some people try to say that anyone who leaves retaliatory ratings is abusing the trust system, but I ask you this simple question... do you think if people know for a fact you will not retaliate with a negative rating in kind, would that not give them even more incentive to abuse the trust system to begin with knowing it will cost them nothing?

It would be analogous to saying in public that you are so against violence, that you wouldn't hit some one back even if they hit you. If some one knows you will not retaliate, and they have a reason to dislike what you say (for reasons that may or may not be valid), they will be more likely to hit you. Furthermore what is to stop a single person from using lots of accounts with reputation to do this further amplifying the problem? Retaliatory ratings should be allowed, but only if the other party did so first, and not just because of what they post. Neutral ratings are perfectly sufficient to deal with slander in threads.

In summary the difference is the forum is supposed to be for communication (even if you consider it bullshit), and the trust system should be for building a trade reputation, identifying untrustworthy individuals, and defending the reputation of ones self and other reputable individuals so we can all enjoy the benefits of an effective trust system filled with reliable information, not just bickering, which is what belongs in the forum is anywhere.

Assuming you're not trolling, yes. We implicitly trust Theymos by using this forum.

Hah!



HAH HAH !



BWAHAHAHAHAHA !!!



Wait, you're serious, right ?

All miners use at least a portion of his code, so that's not really possible. We implicitly trust him, like we implicitly trust Theymos by using the forum.

I would draw similarities between someone leaving negative trust in retaliation of receiving a negative rating and someone leaving negative trust because someone was speaking out against them via posting. I think it is pretty well established that when someone leaves a negative rating when they are spoken out against, that they do not have a place on the default trust list. I can provide a few examples of people getting removed from default trust after leaving negative ratings for these kinds of reasons, however I am fairly certain that you are familiar with them already.

If someone leaves a negative rating for no good reason, then they should be removed from default trust (if they are on it) and their trust ratings should be ignored by others. I would argue that someone leaving a negative rating does not make them a scammer (unless they ask for something of value in return for removing it, in which case they would be an extortionist - however I don't believe this to be the case in this situation). 

I think this is almost exactly the same as what happened when TBZ was previously removed from Default Trust, except the person in question has made a post about TBZ, while the person in question in this situation left a negative rating - the only real difference is what medium was used (posting verses trust).
I think this is open for debate, however some may argue that his "blacklist" was something that would have harmed Bitcoin and as a result his work should not be trusted.
Hi somewhat implied above that he is not going to do this.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

This sort of conflict has happened before. IIRC it was decided in previous cases that if you receive negative ratings for no good reason, then it's OK (but perhaps sub-optimal/petty) to send retaliatory negative ratings until the first person removes their ratings.

It's not a good idea IMO, but Luke's "blacklist" is intended to stop only certain types of spam, not to blacklist any specific people/companies. The companies affected by this can easily bypass it by using Bitcoin properly. Even if Luke was trying to blacklist all gambling or whatever (which he's not), that still wouldn't be a good reason to give him negative feedback; it doesn't make him any more likely to scam someone.

Probably his BiPolarBob feedback should be reevaluated, though, especially after all this time.

If they're worried about their reputation being "destroyed", then they shouldn't have done something to "destroy" it.
It's ironic that I'm being accused of censorship in this thread, yet the goal of this thread appears to be to censor me.

No, I don't really care.

No one has any right to call it abuse in the first place.

The difference is that you are on the default trust and have more power to destroy reputations. You want to end this debate right now? Change all your questionable negative ratings to neutral. People get warned about the users behavior and no one has any right to call it abuse. End of discussion.

Ah, I had forgotten about this. Thanks for remembering!

Guys, i have the ultimate answer to all of this, each rating from every neutral member or above counts as half a rating, therefore we wont have to make threads like this, if the masses give him negative trust, theymos will have no choice but to sink him down to layer 3 or 4

After checking his sent feedback, there must be another reason he is on default other than the feedback because that is not up to the standard that I personally would like to see someone with that sort of power over others. I would like to comment on QS but this is not about him and we have been asked not to make it about him. #

@ Luke-Jr is there any chance of you going back on what you think about the two guys mentioned and their feedback, maybe neutral until there is proof they are going to or have scammed would be a good idea?

It would be logical for him to be removed, he barely has any trust ratings sent and 50% of them are inaccurate and since quickseller who made hundreds of good ratings got removed because he supposedly made 1 or 2 errors this user definitely has to be removed but im not so sure.

I don't have any say on whether he will be removed or not, that's up to the users who put him on there but people who are found to be abusing or being reckless with their position are usually removed, but I don't know why you came to your conclusion anyway when I insinuated nothing of the sort that he should remain on dt.


Polls on here aren't definitive. Op and his 50 alts could have manipulated it for all we know. And people are removed and he may be. He also has the option to change his feedbacks and maybe he will or wont.

Needless to say the community is/has spoken, I believe theymos will remove him but have my doubts about the other guy removing him. Lets see if the communities word means anything in these situations, clearly abusing the trust system for his own reasons with unaccurate and unacceptable feedback for a long standing member. Thought default was for people who could give very accurate feedback. My vote should be obvious.

To the "negative trust is only for scammers" view: this makes it hypocritical to be bothering me specifically, since it makes the lying ratings against me a precedent "abuse" of the trust system.
In other words, the fact that I am the one being specifically attacked means this argument is just a distraction and not a real concern.
If negative trust is only for scammers, go after cooldgamer and lenny_ first.

Whether you trust him or not is your concern but you shouldn't leave feedback for that reason unless the user is showing shady behavior or is a scammer which is not true for BPB. So you should at least change it to neutral.


Meaning of 'censor' is 'examine (a book, film, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it'. So what they said can be true.

I think he should be removed from the defaultTrust's list, because his sent ratings are innacurate (too much) and he should give a good example to other users and it seems that it's not the case.


Thanks for the attention.

It seems to me an important reason for you not to give them negative trust is because they're not trusted and therefore they don't affect your own trust. The 2 users you did give negative trust are very trusted otherwise. If you hadn't given them negative trust to them you'd have negative trust given by people with dark green trust and thay would definitely affect you.

Of course maybe I'm wrong but I find it hard believing that you accept "He cant think logically" isn't a lie while you insist "Tried to censor the Bitcoin network" is.

Nobody needs to baby sit other members to know if they are trustworthy or not but when members are added to a DT system, it means that they are considered to be trustworthy and their ratings are reliable and the users who they tag as trusted or scammers are truly the same. If one holds no responsibility of their ratings, the DT system isn't the place for them then as even if they term a member as trusted with a positive feedback, the rating will be meaningless as they won't track the users whether or not the user has scammed anyone else.

P.S. You will note anderl and danielpbarron have also given me subjectively-bogus negative ratings, but since they did not lie, they do not have distrust from me for that reason alone.

I was removed from BadBear's trust list because I was wrong about two alts of scammers, although he wouldn't tell me which ones, however I went back and checked after he removed me and was able to verify that there was solid evidence against all the alts of scammers that I tagged.

I haven't spoken to tomatocage specifically about why he removed me from his list, however it was immediately after this incident, so one can conclude that it was related to that, although it was also very shortly after he was offered 2 BTC to remove me from his trust list, however he denied being aware of the offer.

I honestly doubt that luke-jr will remain on DT, as it should be pretty clear that the sent ratings are very inaccurate, were sent for personal reasons, and affect very highly trusted members of the community that otherwise have a clean trading history.

I have no action to take. I still do not trust him.

Not the censorship part.

You should take care of your own ratings. You can change that feedback to neutral or remove it now. I even send you a PM to tell you about that many weeks ago but you didn't reply. I recommend you to take an action now. "Better late than never."

I don't think feedback on cooldgamer is also good as the thing cooldgamer claimed actually happened(didn't it?).

So we are powerless pretty much, i mean look at the poll its obvious that the majority of people agree to have him removed but in the end it wont matter because he wont be removed, he can do whatever he wants with his ratings and nothing will happen. Shouldnt we have some power? Why should we trust people like him if he never really did any trades or hold btc ?

Quickseller was removed from default trust because BadBear (and later Tomatocage) decided to remove him from their personal trust list, not because admins (although BadBear is an Admin he removed him as a personal decision, not as Admin) or someone else removed him, that's not how the system works. Luke-jr will be removed if theymos and dserrano5 decide to do so.

So in other words he is still going to be on dt? I mean wasnt quickseller removed because he supposedly abused the system? Isnt this guy doing the exact same thing with almost 50% of his ratings?

I still have no reason not to distrust BPB or any of the others.
It's not my job to babysit their daily life just because I don't trust them.

I have seen many people had left feedback for Bipolar and thought he was a scammer. It was when he proved that he is genuine and trustworthy, those ratings were removed and hence luke-jr also should have removed it as there seems no reason to call him a scammer. Since Bipolar dint want to dispute, he ignored it.

I think you could argue initially the feedback was arguably justified and I was always thinking I wouldn't be surprised if he did at some point scam, but I think after a certain while the feedback should have been removed or changed to neutral as doubts were removed.

If a person is a liar, it makes them a scammer? That's just a rating left for personal issues and without any reference link as well. BipolarBob has proved to be a genuine user and has helped in donating money as well and how does he become a scammer just because he offers "too good to be true" deals. It's clearly abusing the trust system.

because trust system is just sick from the ground, similar threads like this one never ends..I hope, that this will be somehow solved on new forum, if we will had it sometimes..

What the hell are you actually talking about or trying to insinuate?

What i find a little bit funny in this kind of threads, like in the other thread about the staff guy who was promoting a scam is that badbear or hilariousandco never seem to talk here even tho they are really active on meta and post in almost every thread here but these ones. Coincidence?

I'll just leave this here.

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=524512

+static struct BlacklistEntry BlacklistedPrefixes[] = {
+    {0x946cb2e0, 0x946cb2e0, "Mastercoin"},
+    {0x06f1b600, 0x06f1b6ff, "SatoshiDice"},
+    {0x74db3700, 0x74db59ff, "BetCoin Dice"},
+    {0xc4c5d791, 0xc4c5d791, "CHBS"},  // 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T
+    {0x434e5452, 0x434e5452, "Counterparty"},
+    {0x069532d8, 0x069532da, "SatoshiBones"},
+    {0xda5dde84, 0xda5dde94, "Lucky Bit"},
+};

I honestly do not have a strong opinion either way in this. However we can look at this in two ways in the context of your sent trust.

1) Lets say that hypothetically speaking, that you were trying to censor the Bitcoin network. Your sent negative trust ratings would clearly be an effort to cover up this fact that you were trying to censor the network. This would clearly be wrong.

2) Lets say that hypothetically speaking, you were in fact not trying to censor the Bitcoin network. Your sent negative trust ratings would clearly be an effort to censor your critics. This is the situation that you claim to be true. Don't you think it might be a better idea to post facts to your defense, rather then try to shut your critics up with what can only be interpreted as intimidation?

I honestly do not know a lot about the allegation that you were trying to censor the Bitcoin network, and for a long time, despite this allegation, I had a good level of respect for you and your work for Bitcoin and for Eligius. I honestly thought that it could have been true, however it was likely an ideological decision if it was true. However my discovery of these negative ratings caused me to loose a lot of respect for you. Regardless of how frivolous the claims against you are, you should never attempt to shut up your critics with intimidation. If there is no merit to the claims against you then the facts will prove your side of the story to be true.
You are correct to say that you have the right to give negative trust to whoever you wish, however if you want your trust ratings to be relied upon throughout the rest of the community, then your ratings, especially your negative ratings, should conform to the generally accepted practices of the community as a whole. If your trust ratings do not conform to the generally accepted community standards, then you will not remain to be reputable from a trust feedback standpoint. No, there are no written rules about what the community standards are, however I don't think the trust ratings in question conform with the community standards.
They both have the right to have whomever they wish to be on their trust list. However with that being said if they have people on their trust list who give ratings that do not conform with the generally accepted community standards, then they will not remain reputable and their trust list (and ratings) should not be relied upon by default.

As I mentioned previously, I am not saying that you did or did not try to censor the Bitcoin network. I am merely saying that you are trying to censor the people who are making the claim that you did. If this claim is in fact not true, then you should provide facts to back this up.

Have you read the instructions on the trust page, it says if you believe this person is a scammer or a potential scammer, you gave him negative trust because he is supposedly a lier... Dserrano5 already proved how trusted he is lately so.

Which is a lie, just as I said in my feedback.

You also lie now, since I am not trying to censor the Bitcoin network.
Clearly you are biased since you are yourself pushing this lie.

I have the right to distrust whomever I like for whatever reasons I like.
Furthermore, I gave a clear and honest reason why I distrust these people.

In other words, you don't think theymos and dserrano5 have a right to trust whomever they like either, and want them to obey your lie-based demand not to trust me...

His feedbacks which I think is not appropriate except BPB's can be justifiable thought neutral is good IMHO.


kakobrekla - Slandering me
BiPolarBob - "Too good to be true", or at least teaches people to be scammer victims (see link)
cooldgamer - Lies about me.
lenny_ - Lies about me.


FWIW I removed him from my trust list many weeks ago. IMHO he should be removed from default trust list.

Dude is cancerous to Bitcoin IMO.

I think this is a pretty clear example of someone sending a negative rating for personal ratings, which is a generally unaccepted practice in the community

This is fairly obviously a throwaway account for somewhat obvious reasons

If anyone is curious, here is a little about me: I am not a party to this dispute, I may or may not be on level 2 Default Trust, many people have me on their trust list, I have dark green trust and I do not wish to have a negative rating from luke-jr. I also wish to maintain my reputation here on bitcointalk.org

User in question: luke-jr
Trust abuser's profile link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/luke-jr-3318
Level 1 DT users whose trust list the trust abuser is on: theymos and dserrano5
What happened: luke-jr has sent negative trust to both cooldgamer and lenny_ with a comment of:

Both of the above had sent luke-jr a negative rating being critical of what they think were him censoring bitcoin by enabling, by default settings that prevent certain transactions from confirming, notably ones from a certain gambling on-chain "website"

Regardless of if luke-jr is right or wrong in trying to censor the Bitcoin network, he is clearly trying to censor his critics with his negative trust ratings and his position on the DefaultTrust network.

As a result of the above, I believe that luke-jr should be removed from the DefaultTrust network

Regards
"should luke-jr be on DT?"

P.S. Please no comments about "quickseller" or "Vod", this is not the place for such complaints. There are plenty of other threads to complain about either of them

P.P.S. I locked the other thread and created this one in order to create a poll. The other thread can be moved to the trashcan.