Topic: "Trust" system is shit !!! "Trust me !!!" - page 2. (Read 2522 times)

No. I think he means getting a list of every DT1 and DT2 members (like this provided you have default settings) and voting who deserves to remain in the list. Ideally it doesn't sound like a crazy idea, but it would be extremely difficult to avoid abuse (creating or buying accounts to vote) and keep it objective. The voting should be either moderated or limited to trusted users, losing the whole idea behind voting. However I do think DT1 members should be much more open to suggestion about modifying their DT2 list and theymos about the DT1 list.

God Damnit! Another Trust Thread. To all geniuses out there! We know 'Trust system' has it's flaws, it's not perfect! nobody claimed it was perfect! But it's what keeping this sinking ship afloat. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. What irritates me the most is people crying about 'trust' being an issue don't propose a solution to the 'problem'. @Coolwave Do you have any revolutionary ideas to "decentralize trust"? I will be more than happy to hear about them. You will be the next 'Satoshi' if you can successfully decentralize trust.

You mean something like this? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;suggest

There was poll for this back in 2015, and people wanted to keep the Default Trust, but at that time, DT was used for its original purpose. Now we see people getting tagged for things like, He called me a ".....".You never had positive trust, your Trust Depth might have been set at 4. 2 is the Default Trust, where the ratings only by DT members are visible, and not the ratings given out by Non-DT members.

Agreed that the "trust" system on this forum is all but pointless.

With a couple clicks through a profile and post history, its easy to decipher between who is trustworthy and who is not. 

Take my "trust," for example, where I have been responsible for paying thousands of dollars out to forum members who have participated in a Campaign.

Some person I don't even know decides to tag me for "negative trust" for something I did more than 4 years ago.

Now, my "positive trust" become red negative.  Big deal; if anyone wants to really investigate into my character and history, I suggest ignoring the "trust" color/number and doing your own research.

Giving power only to moderators would make the system even more centralized. This is why trust is not moderated.

This is somehow how it works when someone posts on Scam accusations, except more users have the power to tag instead of just moderators.

I see the advantage on your several suggested levels and colors. But maybe it could become too confusing to use.

How about an overhaul to the trust system?

What I think of: members would submit evidence/reference of whatever they are accusing another member of for moderators to look in to and decide whether the member deserves to be tagged or not (more like how 'Report to moderator' works). It would go down like this:

1. Negative Trust: if evidence is verified as true, accused members will be tagged with a red trust (exactly like what it is right now). This will be primarily for scammers, Ponzi, HYIP or Pyramid schemes' creators and promoters, known alternatives of scammers and even wanna-be scammers (if evidence is solid);

2. Slightly Negative Trust: if evidence cannot be verified or hardly present, but moderators can see that the accused member is showing attitude or doing actions which sustain the evidence (i.e., a member who is explicitly attacking, flaming or accusing other members for no obvious reasons—I think this forum has a fair share of those). This will also be for account sellers and buyers, verified shills, members suspected of being scammers (no solid evidence), Trust abusers, Merit and Trust traders, etc.;

3. Neutral Trust: would stay the same as it is;

4. Slightly Positive Trust: trusted members giving their trust to other members (for good actions like doing something good for the forum or the members themselves, trying hard to clean this forum from scammers and spammers, or trusting with no evidence, etc.), moderators won't need to look much in to this;

5. Positive Trust: this will be for honest, reputable traders (whether it be currency exchange, physical or digital goods, etc.), bounty managers, services providers, moderators, etc. This still needs evidence to be provided and approved in order to be tagged.

Notes:
I know this will still annoy butt-hurt people like CoolWave and KingScorpio as it gives MOAR POWAAA to "corrupted" moderators, and we will see increased numbers of threads like this one. 
I know this will add a ton of work for the already busy moderators, so expanding the moderation team a little could help.
I know Trust abusers will find a way to manipulate the system. However, this might stop members from tagging each other unfairly.
I also know that this isn't perfect (nothing really is?), and would need suggestions and changes from other trusted members.   

It is funny how you scammers are always talking about how trust system should work. Besides, OP is exactly what people are fighting against - payed ICO bump service, shilling for scam projects, spamming forum, bumping threads with nonsense, misleading investors etc.
Who will vote?

You and your alt account army?
Shitposters with 50+ accounts?
Quacky and his alt account army?

 

I too believe that the trust system is not completely accurate because the trust ratings are given by the people and making mistake is just common with the people,so if you want to trade you need to be careful and also need to see the untrusted feedbacks as well it may replicate the real face of that person too.But the trust system is helping the people to stay away from scammers at most of the time but there are other reason also the negative trust given to the people other than scam attack but this trust system is what we have.

Do you have any other better idea than the current trust system?

The trust system can be as good as the people who monitor it. If they are understaffed, then scammers will in way to abuse the trust system. It's not bad  or good on its own.

You can tell people all you want because you think that you are the right person here. If you want to blame a system then play by a system. Say, will your report to the police be investigated if there is no single proof and you even said that you do not know the name of the scammer?

Not anyone is stupid and humbug and willing to trade a small amount with a positive trust guy without any precaution, especially on internet. Gosh. I am not defending the trust system, but you are completely wrong if you want to raise an awareness into trust system, by attacking it without any proof.

I consider your statement as a humbug and stupid as there are too many similar cases . Not providing proof doesn't mean I was not scammed . And the word you have used is foolish on its own as anyone will do a small trade with a +ve trust guy & this was not my problem if it was a bought account .

I believe every system has its flaws, including this forum's trust system, but this OP got scammed/fooled by the person who were using a hole in this system, not by the system itself, there is a big difference on it i guess.

And the important thing is, it is not a good thing to be fighting over a statement that is not 100% true. I will not believe in someone who said " i got scammed by a green person, but i forget the name" and not giving any proof of the incident , because it can be a made up story. It is the same if i am saying " i saw an UFO last night but i am alone and forget to record the event" to you guys right now.

this forum is doomed to become the community of the bitcoin miner cult.

I still trust the green members more than the red ones (With an exception of a few)..... Just sayin'.

No offence taken - not my site. 

Nice marketing (No offence)


@yahoo

Yes, you are wrong . If someone wants to go for good activities, it is a community's responsibility to promote that person . A clean profile is not necessary to earn bitcoin . To earn bitcoin from campaigns, you MUST post quality posts and this forces an individual to dig deep into blockchain stuffs making them more active and more worthy thus contributing to this forum . I have seen you tracking some people right after their post mentioning that at least they should create a post that makes sense . So my point is , those guys are still earning rather than those who deserve it !


Agree . One might do this for personal benefits and I am sure that very less people will pay any merit to people like us as there is no profit . However , I do not oppose merit system as the sole reason is to make some quality post .

@kingscorpio

I agree . You could have been warned by the negative taggers first instead of this negative tagging shit which just spoils everything .

@Kakarot01
I think there shoud be a voting system for DT members to survive each month .

The future!

https://blockchaintalk.org/

@all

you see the merit on yahoo62278 last post up here (2 post above this one) by Steamtyme

this is exactly what i mean with the "brotherly" mod clique that overthrows each other with merit and trust for just garbage work in this forum.

you can never compete with that behavior as a single person against their created system so its better to not take their garbage system serious in the first place as it is naturally bigotted same was historically with the banking cartels, that constantly supported each other but secretly scammed the people, its why bitcoin was then created now it is becomming the same.

but help will come, this forum and bitcoin will be replaced and cryptoindustry will become decentralised from bitcoin soon enough.

Do you truly surmise that arbitrators have room schedule-wise to leave everyone trust? How might they know which bargains individuals were engaged with, and consequently meriting trust, or will individuals need to post a trust application string for each fruitful arrangement or exchange? Mediators need to manage the crowds of bots and trolls here on this gathering, I truly don't think such a minor element of the discussion ought to be dealt with by the arbitrators. On the off chance that anything, there should simply be more DT individuals, enabling trust to be spread all the more productively, as opposed to having the chosen few who communicate with DT individuals be viewed as reliable.