The trust system is being abused. | Bitcointalksearch.org

pandher

legendary

Activity: 952

Merit: 1000

Stagnation is Death

Quote from: EndlessStory on May 13, 2014, 01:05:33 PM

If talking about "Risked BTC" there could be a system for this. Like there could be "trade invitation" where you could send a trade invite to other member with form of bitcoin amount to be traded, and only If other person accepts the invitation and one of those two person scams, "BTC risked" feedback could be left. And for other things like trolling and other there could be other trust system. Like on many forums there are market feedbacks and just normal feedbacks.

This idea of a trade invitation system is good

EndlessStory

member

Activity: 66

Merit: 10

If talking about "Risked BTC" there could be a system for this. Like there could be "trade invitation" where you could send a trade invite to other member with form of bitcoin amount to be traded, and only If other person accepts the invitation and one of those two person scams, "BTC risked" feedback could be left. And for other things like trolling and other there could be other trust system. Like on many forums there are market feedbacks and just normal feedbacks.

Tomatocage

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1222

brb keeping up with the Kardashians

No sweat man...sometimes I'm a little trigger happy with the negative ratings Undecided

NxtChg

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Simcoin Developer

Quote from: Tomatocage on May 10, 2014, 11:59:32 AM

Acknowledged. I would still rather investors be warned, but in your case I think you've put some honest effort into this. I'll remove my neg rating with this account, but I will create a new account (whose ratings won't turn you red automatically) and re apply the cautionary trust. Thanks for your understanding.

Fair enough. I am glad you turned out to be a reasonable person

I removed my rating for you too. After all, trying to warn people about scams is a noble goal, however ineffective it might be in practice.

Tomatocage

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1222

brb keeping up with the Kardashians

Acknowledged. I would still rather investors be warned, but in your case I think you've put some honest effort into this. I'll remove my neg rating with this account, but I will create a new account (whose ratings won't turn you red automatically) and re apply the cautionary trust. Thanks for your understanding.

NxtChg

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Simcoin Developer

Quote from: Tomatocage on May 10, 2014, 11:54:13 AM

I have adjusted the message to mite accurately reflect the rating. If anything is being abused, it's the use of the IPO distro model for new coin chains to enrich yourself quickly. If you wanted your coin to be taken seriously, you would have skipped the IPO model all together and taken the route that other HIGHLY successful chains have which did not use an IPO (ie. Litecoin, Peercoin, Primecoin, Namecoin, and oh I dunno...Bitcoin). For someone claiming to not be a new member, you should have realized this.

Since this is a PoS coin, taking a road of PoW coins was not an option.

Tomatocage

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1222

brb keeping up with the Kardashians

I have adjusted the message to more accurately reflect the rating. If anything is being abused, it's the use of the IPO distro model for new coin chains to enrich yourself quickly. If you wanted your coin to be taken seriously, you would have skipped the IPO model all together and taken the route that other HIGHLY successful chains have which did not use an IPO (ie. Litecoin, Peercoin, Primecoin, Namecoin, and oh I dunno...Bitcoin). For someone claiming to not be a new member, you should have realized this.

NotLambchop

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 254

Quote from: NxtChg on May 10, 2014, 08:17:12 AM

...
This system is supposed to be based on facts...

What made you think that?

NxtChg

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Simcoin Developer

Quote from: hilariousandco on May 10, 2014, 10:19:10 AM

Maybe, and I agree getting 'red trust' is alarming and oftentimes doesn't fit the crime, but with your suggestion people will just exploit that by creating numerous accounts to up/downvote certain members and we're back to square one. Like I said, no system is going to be fair and always open to abuse.

I agree. But the system without the big, red warning will have a more appropriate "weight" to what it actually is - a gameable, advisory rating, not a fact.

hilariousandco

global moderator

Activity: 3850

Merit: 2643

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: NxtChg on May 10, 2014, 10:07:16 AM

Quote from: hilariousandco on May 10, 2014, 09:59:49 AM

Why wouldn't the karma option be abused in exactly the same way? The current system isn't perfect and is open to abuse, but I think almost any other system will be as well.

It will. But it won't give users a big scary warning for no reasons.

It will be just an advice: you can see it and think "hm, 150 users are against, only 10 for, something's fishy".

Not a big scary warning on the very first negative feedback!

Maybe, and I agree getting 'red trust' is alarming and oftentimes doesn't fit the crime, but with your suggestion people will just exploit that by creating numerous accounts to up/downvote certain members and we're back to square one. Like I said, no system is going to be fair and always open to abuse.

NxtChg

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Simcoin Developer

Quote from: hilariousandco on May 10, 2014, 09:59:49 AM

Why wouldn't the karma option be abused in exactly the same way? The current system isn't perfect and is open to abuse, but I think almost any other system will be as well.

It will. But it won't give users a big scary warning for no reasons.

It will be just an advice: you can see it and think "hm, 150 users are against, only 10 for, something's fishy".

Not a big scary warning on the very first negative feedback!

hilariousandco

global moderator

Activity: 3850

Merit: 2643

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: NxtChg on May 10, 2014, 09:56:16 AM

Quote from: BadBear on May 10, 2014, 09:45:07 AM

There is fact checking, users are fully capable of doing that on their own as long as they have access to all the information. If we start removing feedback based on our opinions, or our interpretation of the facts, then they no longer have access to all the information, only the information we decide they should have, which isn't right.

I agree with you.

But the forum software makes a judgement in a form of a scary, red warning and there is no fact-checking involved. It just does this automatically.

How can this be justifiable?

If there was a simple "Karma: +5/-14" display instead, with a link to read all the feedback so users could form their own opinion - that would be fair.

The current system is not.

Why wouldn't the karma option be abused in exactly the same way? The current system isn't perfect and is open to abuse, but I think almost any other system will be as well.

NxtChg

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Simcoin Developer

Quote from: BadBear on May 10, 2014, 09:45:07 AM

There is fact checking, users are fully capable of doing that on their own as long as they have access to all the information. If we start removing feedback based on our opinions, or our interpretation of the facts, then they no longer have access to all the information, only the information we decide they should have, which isn't right.

I agree with you.

But the forum software makes a judgement in a form of a scary, red warning and there is no fact-checking involved. It just does this automatically.

How can this be justifiable?

If there was a simple "Karma: +5/-14" display instead, with a link to read all the feedback so users could form their own opinion - that would be fair.

The current system is not.

BadBear

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1127

There is fact checking, users are fully capable of doing that on their own as long as they have access to all the information. If we start removing feedback based on our opinions, or our interpretation of the facts, then they no longer have access to all the information, only the information we decide they should have, which isn't right.

NxtChg

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Simcoin Developer

Quote from: BadBear on May 10, 2014, 09:19:16 AM

Having an elite few with the ability to arbitrarily decide which feedback should be left/removed isn't the way towards an honest system. No it isn't perfect, but having it be moderated by a select few would make it worthless. The only reason you disagree is because in this instance it would benefit you, but you need to look at the bigger picture.

That's understandable if you don't have enough resources to do proper fact-checking.

But in that case the trust system becomes worthless, because it's so easily abused.

It should be replaced by a simple Karma ratio (+ vs -) then, not a big red warning on a first negative feedback!

The warning says "Trade with extreme caution!".

How can you justify making such a bold, panicky claim if no fact-checking is involved?

BadBear

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1127

Quote from: NxtChg on May 10, 2014, 08:45:51 AM

Quote from: BadBear on May 10, 2014, 08:40:43 AM

but you'd rather be lazy and have someone else do it for you

I'd rather see moderators make an effort to create a honest system, which is based on facts.

Having an elite few with the ability to arbitrarily decide which feedback should be left/removed isn't the way towards an honest system. No it isn't perfect, but having it be moderated by a select few would make it worthless. The only reason you disagree is because in this instance it would benefit you, but you need to look at the bigger picture.

NxtChg

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Simcoin Developer

Quote from: BadBear on May 10, 2014, 08:40:43 AM

but you'd rather be lazy and have someone else do it for you

I'd rather see moderators make an effort to create a honest system, which is based on facts.

BadBear

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1127

Quote from: NxtChg on May 10, 2014, 08:05:09 AM

How can somebody post a negative rating without any proof with "BTC risked" being zero?

In real life we can sue for libel. What about here?

How can you clear your name?

This guy:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/tomatocage-37522

gave me a negative rating with 0 BTC risked and description "Another new account + IPO scammer."

This is not "another new account". And I am not an IPO scammer. All the money are still in there and all promises are being kept.

I would kindly ask mods to look into this.

This IS real life, but you'd rather be lazy and have someone else do it for you. No we aren't going to get involved.

NxtChg

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Simcoin Developer

Quote from: NLNico on May 10, 2014, 08:29:43 AM

Well, no. I can guarantee you that many people are too naive to see even very obvious scams. A big red warning can prevent scams.

It can also scare people off. For no reason. Just because somebody posted it. With zero proof. Probably, because he has some hidden motives, like deterring other investors from joining.

How is that not abuse?

So is it Ok if I just go on a spree, giving negative ratings to all users here, just because I can?

NLNico

legendary

Activity: 1876

Merit: 1289

DiceSites.com owner

Quote from: NxtChg on May 10, 2014, 08:17:12 AM

Well, people have their own brains, they can judge what's "likely to be a scam".

Well, no. I can guarantee you that many people are too naive to see even very obvious scams. A big red warning can prevent scams.

That being said, I don't know your specific situation since I don't really follow IPOs and alt coins etc. So I am not calling you a scammer, just saying that there can be good reasons to add negative trust to someone while they didn't risk BTC (yet).

Topic: The trust system is being abused. (Read 1237 times)