Topic: Trim or eliminate "default trust" - page 3. (Read 6174 times)

He did this because at the time it was not completely public that the two accounts were alts of each other and he was on a personal vendetta to smear me as he stated using the ACCTSeller.  He made the mistake of abusing the trust system in this way and eventually he'll end up having to account for it.  For the moment, badbear is out of town and there's nothing we can do.  Please don't derail this thread into a quickseller complaint thread, there are plenty of those and while I admit he seems to be among the most self-righteous, abusive and problematic of the "trust-rangers", this is not really about him in particular but about the general problems in the system.

Only some of them are hyperparanoid. See scam accusations, service discussion, r/bitcoin and probably articles too. People are still being scammed.


I don't know how I did it. I still think I didn't. Anyway, I will try not to.


Like theymos said, feel free to suggest a new system which can replace current trust system. If anybody can come up with a better system, I will support it. Saying "remove DefaultTrust" isn't enough. Come with a better idea...

What people should do and what people actually do in reality are two very different things. People almost always superficially review a person and will move on to the next trader at the slightest question of impropriety. The Bitcoin community is a hyperparanoid environment because of the constant barrage of scammers.

I would appreciate it if you did not try to dictate to me what my own motivations are, I can do that for myself thanks. The default trust is a broken system, and it causes more harm than good. The same goes for Vod.

The trust left by ACCTseller was the result of something that should not result in a trade with caution tag, but is still something that others should be warned about - leaving such trust is a third option above leaving negative/neutral trust from your default trust account. The negative I left for scamming TF is because tspacepilot clearly scammed and an actual scam is more then enough of a reason to cause someone to have a trade with caution tag

Can I ask you one thing? If ACCTseller is an alt of quickseller .... Why did he leave a negative trust also from his alt account? It doesn't have any sense or an I wrong? I only want to ask that thing publicly.

Thanks for the attention.

Saying again, this forum and trust system is centralized not decentralized.

Trust system is designed to help others. People shouldn't judge people by looking trust rating but by looking trust feedback and reference. Trust feedback is necessary to know who to trust and who not to. Your saying tells you want to get into default trust list. I don't know why though. You still are trusted and can do trades. Just 1 trusted negative feedback doesn't make you scammer. People still trust you but somehow, your goal is to make Vod remove from default trust list like you stated in your thread or perhaps, to get rid of this system.


Many noobs to Bitcointalk made many mistakes. Everytime, we may next noob won't do this but they do. You have been much longer than me and I am pretty sure you have seen these. Most of the persons in this forum doesn't have an answer to "who". They only have a username, which is not enough to trust a person. If they want to decied who to trust and who not to, there should be feedback about the person. They need some support. They will sooner or later studies this and will have the ability which they didn't have with which they can trade. Experience is way superior than knowledge. That's the difference here.


Nope. We will have to make our own judgement, anyways. Trust system plays a role in judging.

I agree. The default trust list just creates a false sense of security and a feeling that they don't need to research their trading partner because there are red and green numbers. In reality all it does is create a protected class within this illusion of scam prevention.

What Xian01 says is more or less exactly what I argue for in the OP.  I know that MZ thinks that default trust is saving the world, one noobie at a time, and this is almost certainly how the trust-rangers our there feel about themselves, but I'm not so convinced.  First, if someone is willing to give all their money away without looking into who/why/where etc don't they simply deserve to learn that lesson so that they can be safer in the future?  Isn't it the case that any protection they gain from the trust rangers is just temporary and delusional---ie, sooner or later they're going to have to start figuring out the world for themselves, right?  I mean just because people are noobies to bitcointalk doesn't mean they aren't rational, self-controlling adults with the sense to decide who and who to not give money to.  The idea that noobies are somehow incapable in a way that the rest of us aren't seems spurious to me.

If this were true, why would Theymos add a feature such as exclusions allowing him and the highest ranking members in trust ratings to negate anyone adding some one to the default trust list whom he unilaterally chooses? They like to say they don't moderate trust and and don't get involved, but they clearly chose to over and over to get involved again in a very selectively applied way. Then they claim they are acting in an individuals capacity and not as a staff or vice-versa to absolve themselves of interference they claim doesn't happen.

The trust system was supposedly meant to rate ones trading behavior to demonstrate who trades honestly. Over time it degraded into a weird political/popularity contest, then into mob rule. Does a trust system designed to bring honest traders to the top of the trust rankings need to have yet another way to give those at the top even more ability to exclude people to settle petty vendettas? They claim there is not enough people participating, but they make the standards so inclusive and nepotistical that only a select few are able to have any effect on the system. I have been trading here for over 3 years and have been trusted with thousands of dollars and have always fulfill my agreements with hundreds of traders, many of which I personally introduced to this forum. Yet according to Theymo's standards his system that supposedly ranks honest traders, I should not have a say. Theymos doesn't want a decentralized system, he wants to sit on top of the list and rule by decree.

What do you need trust for anyways?? Like what can you do with trust here in this forum?? The only issue i see people complaining about is on the lending part of the forum wich is where most of the red trust comes from, as long as you use a collateral no one is gonna give a shit if you have red or green trust

We can't enforce this on newbies. Newbies don't know who to trust and who shouldn't. So default trust list is needed. When they understand more about this trust sytem, they will change their trust list. We shouldn't enforce them to change because there are many people who don't want to change and people who don't care. Persons who know about trust system, alter their trust list.

* Here, Newbies refers to both noobs to Bitcointalk and noobs to trust system.

...I don't trust anyone that trusts Luke-Jr...

I would suggest having any sort of Default Trust list something that should be Opt-In (read: They have to press a button or select a checkbox in their account preferences to enable Default Trust listings for their account)

Ideally, each user should start with a blank trust list, and build it up themselves over time based on their own experiences here on the forums.

Not sure why no one brought up the fact that the whole thing's conceptually flawed. This "organic network" is grown from the seed which is the default trust, and can't be anything other than continuation of the breed. You plant apple seeds, you're going to get nothing but apple trees. True fact.

+1. Changing trust network to trust list is better. We may have to face threads in Meta about trust network even if they know about trust list. I also suggest to put a small link near it which have a breif explanation about trust system.*

* Borrowed from Marco's post.

It is quite possible that I don't see the entire picture here.  But from what I can tell, the forum moderators are wanting to grrow some sort of organic network of trust where they don't have to moderate it, it basically self regulates based on participation of many people and their activities.  However, I think that one thing that's getting in the way of that is that not many people actually participate, ie, they just see a trust warning on some people and take that as ground truth.  Then we have a lot of drama because others are working to be trust-rangers, jumping through all kinds of hoops and loops in order to be known as scam-busters who keep the boards safe from the bad guys.  But a small collection of trust-rangers isn't the same thing as that large, organic, unmoderated trust system that saltyspittoon mentioned upthread.

Several folks have said that if trust were opt-in rather than opt-out that that would be dangerous---it would remove using trust system as a crutch certainly, but they say that even the crutch is better than nothing before you know how to walk.

However, there seems to be near universal agreement that the actual text of the warning could be changed to both a) be more informative about the actual state of affairs and b) be more inviting to learn how to use the trust system for yourself.

Theymos, lets have "negative trust" warning changed to: "This person has received negative feedback from someone in your trust network."   That message is far more reflective of the actual situation and provides an invitation to figure out exactly who is in your trust network and why.

Thank you! Done but quoted instead of moving. Didn't know off topic was meant only for me.

I really don't see why some people defend default trust so much. Clearly, there are some people benefiting from its existence but defending it is just hypocritical. There could be a better system and we all know it. It's sad that the entire forum has to use such a shitty system because some 'prominent' community member jump on to defend it whenever someone points out how bad it is.

You are way off topic. Move your reply here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11182411

2) You said staff is protecting Vod and even created a thread about staff's selective enforcement conspiracy things. How can we agree with this conclusion? How can theymos benefits from these conspiracies? Don't tell me it's money because he can earned more and there is no money involved in these feedback. Your words are false. Furthermore, how are staffs protecting Vod when he is in trust list of Tomatocage.
 I am hoping you are joking about SaltySpitoon. He is a Global Moderator. There is no "higher" staff than Global Moderator. He has more than "very little" power. SaltySpitoon is a neutral diplomat. I haven't seen him making a biased statement/opinion. Furthermore, it wasn't an opinion, it was a statement.
 "Matter of debate"? You said a false things without even discussing. Obviously, the post you made against staff is not in a "discussing" or "debating" style, it is made on your feelings and your conclusion. So whatever you conclude aren't false? You are spreading disinformation but I am wishing it to be a misinformation. Hope this wish can be fulfilled.

3) I looked meaning of "abusive" but it isn't fitting here. According to *your version* of abuse, aren't you being an abuser? You started this anti-Vod war when you were removed from default trust list. Till that day, staffs are ok & DefaultTrust is ok. From that day forth, DefaultTrust is bad.


You can if you aren't telling a lie. Partial yes. It is still not allowed.

Edit: TECSHARE has made some changes. So replying.


BS comes from everyones' mouth. It is clear "users who done once" is about you. Feedback you left and feedback Vod left starts from same end but reach at different place. There is slight difference in them.

"people who have built up reputations" is also you. Nobody silenced you for good things you did. You still can. Sadly, you are still going for makeup conspiracy theories. Bitcointalk is centralized and hence, trust system. This centralized power doesn't give Vod special status.

2) Just because people do not agree with my conclusions does not make me a liar. What a childish way to look at the world. By that standard you are a liar because I don't agree with you calling me a liar and it would be acceptable for me to negative rate you. SaltySpitoon is not the god of Bitcointalk. He does not speak for everyone even if he had the ability to know everything. His opinion does not negate my opinion and magically some how make it a lie. Furthermore Saltyspitoon is just a mod, he has very little power to do anything on the forum, so he can hardly speak for higher level staff either. The statements I made are a matter of debate. Declaring them untrue doesn't magically make them not true or a lie.

2b) No. "Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." This is the standard for leaving a negative rating. Saying something that upsets Vod is not equivalent to scamming.

3) It was changed to a neutral after lots of public pressure. I called him out later on his abusive behavior regarding MSDN key sellers, as a direct result he changed the rating again back to a negative knowing people would not bother to look a second time. Proof is here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10890378

Are you trying to tell me that I am not allowed to be critical of anyone if they call me a liar and they are on the default trust list? Is that what you mean by "you continued what you did earlier"? Since when is it acceptable to negative rate people from the position of the default trust list because you don't like what people are saying? It is amazing how much free speech is protected around here... until some one says some thing one of their buddies don't like. No matter how many BS excuses come out of Vod's mouth, he left me a negative rating for pointing out his abusive behavior in an attempt to intimidate me into silence, something other users were removed from the default trust list for for doing ONCE, he however has done it over and over again to many people.

The trust system has failed and is nothing more than a way to write off new users as "socks" or "scammers" and extort people who have built up reputations into silence from a centralized position of power.