Dear forum mods,
The trust system, designed to help each person build out a network of trust (similar, I think, in some sense, to a PGP web of trust) has got a fatal flaw. I'd like to propose some solutions.
The flaw is in the conjunction of the default trust list AND giant red keep-away warnings that appear if someone has received negative feedback from someone on your trust list. New accounts inherit a default web-of-trust and only a small percentage of them ever learn what this means. The trust ratings of people on the default-trust (depth <=2) are therefore given an inordinate amount of power. I've seen situation after situation in which there is no scam, there is nothing illegal, there is no real wrongdoing except that two people decided not to get along and because one of them is in this enshrined class of people (default-trust depth <= 2) the other one walks away with a red "KEEP AWAY" tag tattooed on their account. When debate begins on meta (as it inevitably does), the person who got tagged cries "ABUSE" and the person who did the tagging says "trust is unmoderated, of course i'm allowed to untrust you if I wish". And certainly if default-trust <= 2 weren't such a powerful class, this would be all there was to the story.
So, to summarize:
1) people on default-trust <=2 aren't able to use their trust in a normal way
a) everyone who doesn't dig into the "meta" of this forum reads their ratings as ground truth
b) they have to defend the righteousnes of what should be simply their opinion
2) people who have a negative experience with someone on a default trust list have no real recourse
a) mutual negative trust is asymmetric (one person ends up with a GIANT RED WARNING, the other with a gripe buried somewhere in the "untrusted feedback section)
b) other option is to simply plead and beg, which sometimes works sometimes doesn't
3) some people on default trust even make a hobby of marking red on people who haven't ever traded with them but with whom they simply disagree (see, for example, Vod vs MSCorp Key Sellers; or Quickseller vs. people who refuse to do business with him (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/quickseller-trust-abuse-innacurate-negative-ratings-unprofesional-escrow-1023038, inter alia))
Several fixes seem to jump out, none would be difficult to implement, some of these suggestions are not mutually exclusive:
1) Remove the "default trust" list altogether. Or set it up as an "opt in" rather than an "opt out". This would restore the trust system to what it probably is intended to do, allow people to build their own trust networks based on experience.
2) Trim default trust significantly:
a) set to depth<=1 or
b) set level 1 default trust to only 1 or two people
3) Replace large red "Warning trade with extreme caution!" warning with softer, yellow "This person has received negative feedback from someone in your trust list." Even just this latter fix would help calm the hype, imo.
Ok, that's the end of my story. I've just seen far too many unsubstantial gripes between forum members, one of which is on default trust, and the other not, and it leads to pages and pages of unecessary pleading/begging/apologizing/accusing etc when all that really needed to happen was the two people just decide not to trade together. And I think these changes would help mitigate this issue.
