Topic: Tracking the Trust System's Stupid Shit - page 9. (Read 3310 times)

Logically because if you use escrow there is high possibility that quacky will scam you for escrow fees.

Maybe he is trying to run ponzi scheme?

Escrow scammer talks about trust system and something about marketplace. Again.  

Well, I don't trust your example for some reasons.

Its not broken, because even though your tagged you still have a long history here. I would lend you micro/trivial amounts of btc. I would even trade with no escrow with QS even though he is -9999, the trust score really doesnt mean anything


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50276979

Edit: ^That doesnt look good

Checklist for scam:

Seeking no collateral loan
posting cut off screenshots
Promising returns with little to no risk
cant explain fully, but will explain to the "right" person

The trust system is not perfect  , but what is broken is you getting a positive feedback for "Great trade!" And a few positives for renting a few DT's signature spaces, when there are other members who have traded hundreds of thousands of   dollars on forum but have not had a planed/random deal with a DT member.

The trust system is far from perfect, but i worry more about meanginless and misleading  positive feedback , i mentioned this before, you do not deserve a positive score, if you do , then what do others who repay their loans on time should get? There has to be something that differincnates you from more truthwothy members, maybe the current score is a bit too much, but it is much more reasonable than being  positive.

Bump

This is why you should never be a merit source.
You simply do not have the capacity to recognise valuable information.

If a system is broken and this is demonstrated clearly based on the observable mechanisms upon which it is formed and the implications of those mechanisms, then there is NO POINT saying well you only mentioned it after the broken system failed you. As if that is some kind of rebuttal and reason to discredit the valuable information that could lead to the system being improved or fixed.

It is quite obvious most people will only realise something is fucked/broken when its failure has impact upon them personally. They may have no reason to notice before that.

Your post is largely a net negative contribution that I class as a faux rebuttal. Most of this crap gets a stack of merit too hence why that misleading dirt is net negative also.

We sold out free speech here to stop some ico spammers and account farmers.

Correct, the debacle is what prompted me to make this post. Does that mean all is fine? No..


Where are you getting "consistently" from? I've repaid 2 late loans in full with additional interest. Late repayments HAPPEN believe it or not.

And see? More assumptions.. "I doubt you tell them": of course I fucking tell them, I'm the borrower I have some expectations and even more so if I don't see myself being able to repay on time.


I repaid TWO loans late. Both in the VERY recent past. If you need a novel on which circumstances/events led to having to extend repayment AND give extra: sorry you won't be getting that for at least a couple more years.

Lousy attitude to lender? I like to think they would both disagree. As for lousy attitude towards community: there's a reason for my attitude to be perceived that way by the negative trust places .

Not pay a penalty? The penalty is already late interest.

I realize exactly where I went wrong: I asked for too many loans (frowned upon) and I asked for too much at once (frowned upon by non-trusting members, which is completely fine). Then, following the accusations/scammer tagging that followed: I didn't reply as nicely as I should have (in some people's minds, so I apologise to those I offended..). Should those things render my account into a scammer's? I don't think so.


I agree that it does function "mostly as expected" but it still relies heavily on personal opinions (and often un-involved ones).


I think that the current situation IS a misunderstanding, made worse by me trying to explain myself (people see that as "weaselling" out and "making excuses" but no - I'm just stating facts, and exactly what happened between my lenders and I).

---

Here's another good example:


Photobook was tagged as a scammer for asking for this loan. I loaned her (we chatted outside of bitcointalk, agreed on a loan amount/repayment date/repayment amount and I let her provide all the verification she was ready to provide) and she repaid fully as agreed.

This was the trust placed (not an attack of any kind against the placer - some would argue it was semi-understandable at the time, though I would call it too hastily placed):



It's an example of prematurely/hastily placed negative trust.

The major problem with the trust system is the selection process for those who are on DT has nothing to do with who actually uses the trust system in a meaningful way (eg, they don't participate in the marketplace in a meaningful way). As a result, the DT system is not one of self governance, but is rather something closer to a dictatorship, in that those who make the rules are entirely unrelated to those who are bound by the rules, and those who are bound by the rules have zero input in the rules.

Those who are in DT are also not selected by those who have ever been active in the marketplace.

IMO, the best way to structure the DT system is to have several people who own, or have owned large bitcoin related businesses who have people on their trust list they are willing to trust their businesses' reputation on in regards to giving fair ratings, and otherwise acting fairly within the trust system. When there is a rating dispute, if someone is not acting in good faith, or otherwise is acting fairly, their sponsor(s) should be called out publicly.

The best and most appropriate people to run the trust system is those who are wanting to protect their (potential) customers.

Looking at the first 3 pages of the digital goods section, it looks like nearly all of the threads are scam attempts, or attempts to do something illegal. The services sub is made up almost entirely of signature campaigns, the currency exchange sub has few active threads of people conducting legitimate business, and very few loans are ever made in the lending sub.

It's too bad that people's are realizing that trust system has broken just after they got tag. Why OP had not discussed it when you were not got tag? Same question to all whoever made similar thread previously.

I am not saying that current trust system is 100% accurate. But my question is why realize now. Perhaps some DT members or I have left wrong feedback's, it could be solve by constructive discussions. But people's start open multiple thread and start question about full trust system. This isn't really decent way for discussion.

OP got tag due to multiple loan and he didn't return on time. There isn't just single case. However OP have repaid loan and it's fine, but just repaid after got tag and ask to remove feedback's after paid isn't appropriate in my opinions. At least few days a warning should reflect on OP profile, so that others lenders will be aware his paste behaviour.

There are 2 possibilities.

1. you don't have a clue how the systems of control function
2. you are pretending not to have a clue how the systems of control function.

Let me qualify those statements for you.

You clearly have no understanding of the impact of merit and red trust.  Or pretending not to.

Solution - go find my most important thread of the year here on meta which will baby step you through WHY there can be NO denial or even DEBATE over the way the systems of control operate and how free speech is crushed/vulnerable.

I was trying to give you a hints, but I will not baby step you through it all over again here now. Go read.
If you deny that Merit/DT crushes/renders vulnerable free speech after reading what I have just told you to read come back and say WHY you don't accept an accurate description of how the systems of control observably work.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-most-important-thread-you-can-contribute-to-this-yearno-kidding-5088852

educate yourself.

As for your last statement, well I really have no idea how it relates to any of the last points that I have made.  I mean for number 4 just take a look around the rep board or pay some attention to some of the complaints made in meta. 5,6, are simply observable fact and a statement/challenge.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you I am simply telling you how things observably operate. Please do not speculate on my motives for blindly lashing out presenting the truth.

I'm focusing on most users, unlike you who are focusing on your particular case.
The system is far from perfect but you're not helping if you just criticize instead of suggesting specific changes to improve it. Of course just removing it completely is not an option as that would cause a lot of scams.

People can still write whatever they want, with or without the trust system. Users with negative trust (like you) can still post and discuss.

Yes, ideally. However the truth is most users don't do that, especially newbies. People with positive trust are less likely to scam than people with negative trust. Of course that's not absolute and, ideally, users should still do their homework.

Post you specific suggestions instead of just blindly attacking the system to get rid of your negative trust.


Update: If you ever post suggestions instead of just attacking the system I'll make sure to read. Until then I'll just avoid wasting my time.

 I think you are focusing on the instances where it is useful and missing the greater and more far reaching/dangerous issues.

Things are a LOT more complex than you may realise.

To find the REAL net gain of the DT system/merit you must take all possible influences it has over the board and its members.
You are not considering
1. The implications for free speech (HUGE)
2. The false sense of security and positive or neutral score can render
3. The fact that people should study a persons entire history here before trading not just be lazy and rely on a misleading score.
4. The damage to accounts that are not scammers but got red trust via abuse.
5. The incentive and reward to abuse it.
6. The possible benefits of a different policing system

DT/Merit is misleading, VERY dangerous for an open discussion forum, and it's whack a mole success is limited really.

We could go into a deep debate on each point. I am up for that. Just find my thread of the year here in meta and post on it. I will respond.

It's just like with merits - everything is up to person who give you positive or negative trust. I think the system works, but of course there are some exceptions when a person simply mean to the other one. 

The utility of the trust system is quite obvious. I'm not sure if your question is real.
Without any trust system at all, scammers could keep scamming without restrictions, without even using a new account. Without any trust the only thing newbies would see is rank, so a scammer can get a Legendary account and scam a lot of users.
Without any default trust list at all, users would need to set up their own list. This makes perfect sense for experienced users who know whom to trust. But newbies don't know anybody so they would either add anyone to their list (randomly or Legendaries assuming that means the user can be trusted) or nobody. At least a list of suggestions of trusted users is required.

In fact, default trust should be shown even to non-registered users. I hope theymos does that soon.

Can you list the pros and cons that you factored into this final statement, because that seems quite doubtful bordering on ludicrous.

You can not possibly allow the formations of sub admin level control systems that are wide open to being gamed, provide reward for gaming them and allow them to crush free speech unanswered.

I'm interested in hearing you out anyway.

You are all focusing on TRUST too much the REAL issue that is stopping the TRUST system from being decentralised is the broken and cycled merit system which is now apparently the TRUST system too.

Bring in some REAL decentralisation (by enabling a few people outside of the observable GANG) and watch these people get kept in line. However, letting them move the key requirements to something THEY control was a terrible error of judgement.

I mean if DT's are not willing to keep to Theymos proposal of red trust being reserved for Scammers or those STRONGLY likely to scam then what is the point of it? I think theymos creates these decentralised systems that sadly rely on people NOT acting selfishly and all doing what he says even when he never backs it up with action. Well, that is never going to work.

The only hope is that as TIME drags on, more and more people will reach the 250 shitty cycled junk merits key positions and they will eventually through mass of numbers stop colluding as one bunch so successfully and efficiently. EVENTUALLY DT's  will be kept in line to the point they will get red trusted or perhaps removed. I don't think that will be that useful and whilst we wait free speech is crushed and we are far far far from an optimal environment here.

You could not have a worse start to it all (it is infested with scum that have no care of observable wrongdoing, abuse and gaming it to the max) if it EVER does manage to be more net positive than the net negative aspects and tensions it creates.

Better to have one single entity that sets some clear criteria and kicks abusers off than this drawn out experiment with the board.  

Merit is always doomed sadly. To make that some kind of objective, fair and reliable metric is impossible because people simply do not have the same capacity to recognise the TRUE value of a post. Just keep that for preventing bots and account farmers.

Meta is basically 6 groups

1. those that know the systems are broken but pretend they are not so they can keep gaming them and retaining the rewards.

2. those that know the systems are broken but think if they keep feltching the abusers of those systems long enough they will get to abuse them too.

3. those that know the systems are broken but too scared to speak up against the abusers or want to ass kiss theymos because he is the warden of the forum and that he may be offended if the attempts to decentralise control don't work out that well.

4. me - who wants to fair and transparent system for all posters, whom are free to say what they want as long as they bring a sensible reasonable supporting case for it.  An environment where just because your views are unpopular they will not be cause to see your account ruined, your paid2post opportunities taken away and your ability to trade crushed.

5. Theymos, who wants to see if it is possible to decentralise control of an anonymous posting forum in a way that prevents net negative behaviour without having serious net negative side effects. Who himself is surrounded by tainted feedback from those 1st 3 groups.

6. Those that have no real clue.

Someone smart here once told me....  I hate those that kiss my ass the most, they are the first ones to turn on you.

I think you have a point regarding the increased amount of people on default trust. I would increase the minimum required to have light and dark green trust.
I'm not sure about requiring 2 negatives instead of one to make a profile red too. An option would be to make it red right away (in case a scammer in action was spotted) but make it neutral again after a while if no other trusted negative is left.

The system is definitely not perfect but it's much better than no system at all or no default trust list at all.

I wouldn't say its broken as we have the Reputation board ( and Scam accusation) to talk about the negative trust that has been given to you. I have been hanging out on those threads for a while now and to tell you the truth a lot of negative trust that has been given wrongly to members has been either removed or changed to neutral. Mostly misunderstandings as well as the problem being fixed is the most common way you get your negative trust be removed in your trust summary.

It's not my fault I'm the worst merit abuser. There are just so many others who are far better at it than I am.

There's just a few bad eggs in the default trust system.  It's functioning mostly as expected.  In time I am sure we will see more improvements.

Ha, well I knew you could not fail to recognise your actions were being accurately described.

I had a feeling it wouldn't take long for cryptohunter to show up in this thread.

You're talking about me, right? That's good. I was beginning to think you'd lost interest in me.