Topic: The only way I can handle the new trust system. (Read 276 times)

@trofo, me and mdayonliner did this.

It serves as a nice way to awknowledge and amount of money owed and its probably useful to other traders (they can request to check you have more than that for example if they feel the need).

---

The risked btc part I don't see why it was removed. Sure a 100btc transaction in '11 was lower dollar value today and less risky however a trust rating with an appropriate date would give you an idea of how much was risked. I suppose the message that goes along with the feedback can account for something though.

Very well put together JetCash. This is exactly how I feel about and use trust system. Just never tried to express myself so eloquently. There is only one significant difference and that is that I am obviously not a part of DT1 and therefore nobody is bothering me to take trust actions on their behalf.

I am playing sport predictions pools here in the forum and making direct bets with other users and trust system is a nice way for me to keep track of past dealings. I just made a bet with trusted member (I believe he can be trusted/and he always honored his bets in the past to the best of my knowledge). The winner will be known in about one year. Would it be appropriate if I put the reference to the bet as neutral trust entry as a way to remind myself about the bet? When the bet concludes I would hopefully change the trust ranting to the positive.

You are using the trust system in the way how theymos want.

Demanding someone to leave feedback is actually against the trust system and theymos recognize that problem and wanted to make the system more decentralized so nullified the trustscore and allow everyone to react to the system.

Since I became a DT1 I have received a few PMs from members asking me to advantage or disadvantage other members or themselves. This isn't something that I'm prepared to do, and I make my own decisions about merit and trust. Good heavens, I even gave Quickseller a couple of merits recently. I still feel that the trust system should be about trading, and my inclusion of members in my trust list is based on that.

I've only traded with one person, and that was a couple of purchases of Bitcoin. The transactions were extremely smooth and efficient, and I've left suitable trust entries. The deals were arranged via PMs, and unfortunately that does not allow for a reference entry, and the removal of the risked amount entry diminishes the value of the report in my opinion. I have made  some other positive entries, and these are based on my interactions with those members over the four year period of my membership here. Although I haven't entered into any trades with these members, my instincts are that they would enter into a trade with me in an honest and efficient manner. I have no evidence to support this though. I have no untrusted entries, as I have never been scammed here. There are many members that I wouldn't trust, and who appear to have been involved in various possible frauds, but I haven't researched any of these, and therefore I do not feel that I should create a public report. At a personal level, I wouldn't enter into a trade with them, and I wouldn't support their ventures, so I am unlikely to obtain any evidence of fraud.

I don't want to enter into the political infighting that seems to be on the increase, and if I feel uncomfortable with a member, then I can always add him to my ignore list. I would be grateful if people would not try to draw me into their personal battles, and I am unlikely to read lists of threads that support such conflicts. My approach may not be fully compatible with the new trust/reputation rankings, but unfortunately it is the only way I can handle the new system, which I confess that I don't understand fully.