Was there a reason why the trust system was changed?
Nothing has changed as far as I know.
Topic: @theymos: How does this trust score work, then? (Read 1546 times)
Nothing has changed as far as I know.
Was there a reason why the trust system was changed?
Up to this day, I still don't fully understand how overall trust score is calculated. Some people's feedback are more weighted than others, like BiPolarBob's example in here, which doesn't make sense.
Even though I've given out quite a few loans, I actually agree with this. The ONLY time trust should be given is when someone had the opportunity to scam, but did not. This should not only apply to loans, but also for all transactions. For example, if someone sends payment first for physical goods, then he doesn't have the opportunity to screw someone over, so therefore doesn't deserve trust added.
I feel kind of against reputation being given to someone who provides a loan though, unless they took collateral without escrow. The person receiving the coins actually has an incentive to scam so it isn't really worth trust imho.
Even though I've given out quite a few loans, I actually agree with this. The ONLY time trust should be given is when someone had the opportunity to scam, but did not. This should not only apply to loans, but also for all transactions. For example, if someone sends payment first for physical goods, then he doesn't have the opportunity to screw someone over, so therefore doesn't deserve trust added.
I feel kind of against reputation being given to someone who provides a loan though, unless they took collateral without escrow. The person receiving the coins actually has an incentive to scam so it isn't really worth trust imho.
IMHO, if nothing was risked or the loan was multiple micro (to build rep) then I don't think it should have much weight. Also other sites (LBC, rig rentals, etc.) that have built in escrow and/or other protections, those I really don't consider as little/nothing was risked.
What about negative trust spammers? For example I recently got negative trust from a guy who just made a new account to spam ratings.
IMO spamming the trust system with comments (positive or negative) should earn you a permanent ban.
IMO spamming the trust system with comments (positive or negative) should earn you a permanent ban.
If you've repaid a loan I can obviously understand that as it was a risk. Unless someone provided collateral in which case just leave the feedback as 0 BTC risked. However I still strongly disagree with someone who loans BTC receiving feedback in return.
global moderator
Activity: 3990
Merit: 2717
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
I think giving feedback for money loaned / repaid is justified, but most people just seem to use micro loans as a way to build feedback whether their intent is nefarious or legit.
I feel kind of against reputation being given to someone who provides a loan though, unless they took collateral without escrow. The person receiving the coins actually has an incentive to scam so it isn't really worth trust imho.
Unfortunately my chances of a 'green' trust have been hindered quite aggressively by Kouye's unreferenced and not legitimate negative trust. Guess I shall build up from below the bottom 
Well what do you know, Im green!
I doubt his feedback will hinder you much at the moment as he's not on the trusted list, but if he gets put on there it will do. Have you asked him to reconsider the decision?
Yes a few times in the distant past with no avail. Currently he is AFK for quite some time.
global moderator
Activity: 3990
Merit: 2717
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
I doubt his feedback will hinder you much at the moment as he's not on the trusted list, but if he gets put on there it will do. Have you asked him to reconsider the decision?
Unfortunately my chances of a 'green' trust have been hindered quite aggressively by Kouye's unreferenced and not legitimate negative trust. Guess I shall build up from below the bottom
To me, it is called "Trust" not "Scam count". I use it whenever someone shows me they are untrustworthy. Scamming or even a white lie.
The system views negative ratings as saying, "this user scammed me and no one should trust him ever." People don't need to view negative ratings this way, and I don't think that it's dishonest to give someone negative trust even if you weren't scammed, but that's how the system views it. There probably should be a neutral or less strong negative rating type, but such a thing doesn't exist now. The best thing you can do at the moment to achieve that sort of effect is create another account that isn't trusted by anyone and use that.
With this in mind, I think that it is correct for someone to be labeled as high-risk if they receive many positive ratings for only one month and then they start getting scam accusations. This pattern is very common for scammers: build up your reputation with a few good trades and then start scamming people.
With this in mind, I think that it is correct for someone to be labeled as high-risk if they receive many positive ratings for only one month and then they start getting scam accusations. This pattern is very common for scammers: build up your reputation with a few good trades and then start scamming people.
Ew, it assumes a negative rating is a scam? :/
I find it extremely strange that Luke's negative trust cancelled out 9 POSITIVE TRUSTS, some from people with a higher trust rating than him who are on level 1 of DefaultTrust, AND managed to bring the guy down to -5 trust points. Last time I checked negative reputations decrease trust by 0.5-4 points.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/bipolarbob-343899
I'm just trying to figure out how you can have a trust score like that and be -5 overall. It's really surprising to me. I'm aware the overall status of a person shouldn't affect how powerful their trust is, but this is ridiculous.
The formula for trust score can be found in https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/suggestions-for-computing-trust-scores-337207.
Currently, trust scores are calculated in this way:
This kind of sucks. Any suggestions on how to improve it? I'd prefer to avoid looping through all of a user's ratings because this is much slower than just using aggregates and single-row queries, but this server can probably handle it if necessary.
Code:
scam_reports = total unique users who report scamming
reports = total positive ratings
btc = total BTC from positive ratings
unique_reports = total unique users who posted positive ratings
oldest = timestamp of the oldest positive trust rating
latest_scam = timestamp of the latest scam rating
scam_multiplier = 1
# recent scam = bigger negative score
if(current_time - latest_scam < 7 days)
scam_multiplier += 1.5
# new member = bigger negative score
if(current_time - oldest < 60 days)
scam_multiplier += 3
months = months since oldest
total = reports + btc/50 # 50 BTC = 1 report
# long-term con men
if(total > 0 && scam_reports > 4)
scam_multiplier += (scam_reports / total) * 50
# Approximately limit the number of points each person can contribute each month
subtotal = min(2*unique_reports * months, total)
# Newer users have smaller point limits
limited_total = min(subtotal, 10*months) / 10
score = min((limited_total * months - scam_reports * scam_multiplier), 150)
This kind of sucks. Any suggestions on how to improve it? I'd prefer to avoid looping through all of a user's ratings because this is much slower than just using aggregates and single-row queries, but this server can probably handle it if necessary.
I find it extremely strange that Luke's negative trust cancelled out 9 POSITIVE TRUSTS, some from people with a higher trust rating than him who are on level 1 of DefaultTrust, AND managed to bring the guy down to -5 trust points. Last time I checked negative reputations decrease trust by 0.5-4 points.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/bipolarbob-343899
I'm just trying to figure out how you can have a trust score like that and be -5 overall. It's really surprising to me. I'm aware the overall status of a person shouldn't affect how powerful their trust is, but this is ridiculous.
Jump to: