Topic: Three perfectly good examples of how the trust system is flawed (Read 1801 times)

Anyone's account can be bought, hacked or otherwise used for evil.  Escrow saves the day.  The trust system is better than no system at all.  It's a worthwhile mechanism and accounts that go bad can always be adjusted.

thank you salmon!!!
if so,
the best choose it is to set default trust at 4..

and i have just done it!!!

thanks!!

With a trust depth of 0, you only trust feedback by DefaultTrust and yourself.
With a trust depth of 1, you also trust feedback by people who are trusted by those in depth 0 (eg. Tomatocage is trusted by DefaultTrust)
With a trust depth of 2, you also trust feedback by people who are trusted by those in depth 1 (eg. tysat is trusted by Tomatocage)
And so on.

hi legendster.
i try to set to 4 an a lot of users come out...

but i se who more of them are repeated in more depth level!!

can you explain plz how trust depth levels work?

thank you very much!!!

Trust me it'll be a problem and will likely cause more issues than it solves. People complaim about default trust now and 'moderation' of it when there is none so having a group in charge would be worse. What happens if the 'tribunal' turns into a clique and are biased towards certain members? Even juries aren't perfect and can be swayed or even bought easily enough.

CoinHoarder
   -89: -5 / +12(12)
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!


Lazlo
   -11: -2 / +0(0)
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!



Yankee (BitInstant)
-51: -5 / +22(22)
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!


So why dont you start by setting your Trust Settings to max depth at 4 first and then try to run your mouth ? or fingers ..

If there was a tribunal of 3-7, including senior members, I don't see it being a problem. People complain that the legal system is corrupt etc etc, there will always be accusations.

One thing that will never be able to be prevented is the long con, people build up valuable trust, and then for one reason or another, they throw out their trust for a one time payment. I dont know, I have varying opinions of the Charlie Shrem scam accusation. On one hand, its understandable on both sides, how the payment schedule wasn't locked in and is open to interpretation, and also Charlie's current situation may leave him far more important things to do rather than sell coins to settle the debt. But, then again as a businessman he probably should have taken a better path on settling the debt.

Is coinhoarder on default trust, or did he just get positive feedback from trusted members? Those are two completely different things. I've dealt with scammers and left them positive feedback before, however I would always use escrow in that case, and make sure that is shown in my feedback ex. Risked BTC 0 comment: Did a 2 BTC trade with this person, used X as escrow, everything went well. At that point, if people just look at the green +1 rather than the comment, theres nothing to be done about that.

And I have no idea about the Lazlo case, so no input on that.

If the point of this thread is to point out that the current trust system is suseptible to long cons, there is no prevention system for that. If its about getting people to maintain their trust better, I'm in agreement with you. There were a lot of designs set up in the current trust system that involved individuals taking options available and using them differently, but a lot of people just stick with the defaults. Hopefully something is changed in the new system that sort of pushes people towards customizing their lists and maintaining them on occasion.

I don't blame theymos for keeping Depth 1 i.e. those directly trusted by DefaultTrust to quite a small list of users. It's very easily abused and grants someone quite a lot of power to manipulate the trust system to their advantage. Perhaps he could use a script to quickly list those with a large trust list and a good trust rating, and then review them in order to see whether the person manages their trust list well? Just a thought.

People will still complain that the trust system is being moderated especially after a decision doesn't go their way. Also, what happens when/if staff get it wrong?

I think there are a lot of members who can meet those criteriae. The problem is they don't do any trades so they do not have the opportunity to gain green trust in the first place. There are those who have green trust and meet none of the above criteriae. Sadly, there is no simple solution.

Since moderators are already being paid for mod work, which is traditionally volunteer-based only, maybe award some of the ad coins to trust maintainers.

It's difficult to find people who meet all the following criteria.

• Can be trusted to make the right decision
• Care enough to do it
• Have the time to look into these cases

Lots of people meet one or two, rarely all three.

maybe we can read something about theymos new trust system algo?

i have searched in
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=167.0
"new forum sftware"
but i found nothing!

 

Trust is opinionated.  Do you expect everyone to agree with you?  It's problematic enough that a sizable number of people believe trust only applies to business transactions whereas others believe the trust system applies more generally.

Unless you're the type of person who is willing to trust a person *solely* because of what others think, then I don't see what harm comes from the trust system. 

Let me ask you this:  If the trust system were completely removed right now, do to think it would be easier or harder (or the same) to trust someone? Is the information yielded by the trust system useful, wasteful, or a hindrance?

The trust system here is flawed and mods knows it. So now, Theymos is suggesting a new system. There will never be a perfect system and the biggest problem here is trusted members not periodically reviewing the trust they gave out.

It was necessary for KingOfSports to sell his account.  Come February, it would be proven his "guarantee" and word are worth nothing.

Good riddance to bad scum.

You're saying the system is flawed because people got a lot of rep and scammed (or scammed and weren't instantly marked red).

Well, unfortunately...that's a problem with all reputation systems. It's up to the speediness of the community to respond, and the prevalence of scam accusations. Charlie Shrem was probably an exception to that, but that's probably because it seemed like it was being paid off so no-one wanted to leave him negative trust just yet.

I've left them all negative trust. Talking about it does wonders to fix these "flaws", they help the community to know when some bad people are getting around uncaught!

On the note of scam catching, I've got a lot more free time now and plan to get back into Bitcointalk properly. So I'll try and help out with that.

The trust system isn't necessarily flawed, it just requires people who are trusted to be diligent and many are just busy or lazy. I have been following that Yankee thread for awhile and have actually been meaning to leave him negative feedback until he sorts things out since it appears he has no real intention of repaying his debt. I should have done it before, but just never got around to it.

Really, if I were barack I would send a quick PM to each of the trusted people who gave Charlie positive feedback and ask them to remove it until the issue is cleared up.

The other cases I haven't read into, so I can't comment on.

I posted in goods and it got moved to digital goods which hardly anyone looks at.

I would argue you guys need to find out who is always on the forums, who is always calling people out in the lending or commenting in the scam accusations section and who appears to be trustworthy. The people deemed default trusted are the big companies, the big users, the members who DONT have time to be reading into scam accusations that don't pertain to them. Thus, scammers are slow to be negative repped (Tomatocage can only do so much). You need more people who can do or almost offer a bounty, like who reports the most proven scammers or who can do what Tomatocage does with him. User KWH has done some in the past but he stopped.

Vod is too critical with his judgements and mocks users. He isn't the example you want to follow. Tomatocage is, he leaves negative feedback (hell one of my negative feedback is from him) however I have sent him at least 50 users, links and the scam accusations against them for him to review because I always was on the forum and always wanted scammers quickly to be "red flagged". Its hard to say but honestly some sort of motivation might figure into how scammers can be seen and negative repped by the default trusted.

I also would suggest time be a small factor in the trust system and the overall rating. That way if someone scams recent but a year ago was the most trustworthy person ever, it doesn't take a ton of time for that person to show up as red overall.

I'll check this thread tomorrow. For now, time to sleep.