Topic: "Trust" system is shit !!! "Trust me !!!" (Read 2522 times)

No, but we should learn basic respect for others.  :/

I would be against any change in your account, just based on your immaturity. 

Lauda and The Pharmacist are not mods.

i think after quite a while the mods can forgive me my once confussion and remove the distrust from my account,

we arent born with perfect information awareness.

Yep you missed the trust rating I gave to that person . I wanted to nab him and he actually exposed himself . His account was banned my moderator himself . If I had 30 or 50 accounts it is COMMON SENSE that I were not so sad about this account only .


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-will-pray-for-you-literally-4632723

http://archive.is/bd8Zv
http://archive.is/LOdFT

If you understand why OP of THIS thread was given 5 merits, please let me know !

So why the hell you bring up the discussion now? not at the time you got scammed? Because obviously you will have a lot of evidence when it is fresh and new and it would backed up all of your statement here even it is only a discussion.


Good saying that "trust is a myth" by someone who just got scammed because he trust the "trust system" which is contradictive right?

I know that consumer is a king in a business, but a business needs a ground rule, especially on payment system. I never heard an obese man who always eat at McD regularly can pay their meal in the end of the month because the policy is clear, you pay you eat no matter who you are. The trust system indeed need a fix, but in your scam case (which i dont believe at all) you are against your own "trust is a myth" word and you clearly do not have a payment policy for your customer, so you can not blame the trust system all alone.



Gotcha !

I agree forums needs a better way (maybe for conflict of interest) but how can you tell the archive stuffs are a lie?
I can see this on your profile: https://archive.is/wUeEd#55%
And if I go there I can read this message, how can be a lie?
Did I missing something?

If you think like that you are likely to be the next guy on my morons list . Mark my words : Trust is a myth . Anyone can back stab you at any moment when that person feels it is good . You have missed my thread , I have handled thousands of dollars and delivered to people asking for "TIME" effective service scamming not a single person . I do not need to prove it , good people watch it on daily basis .

If you think it is so then the "archive" stuff is also false as I was also storytelling there . This forum needs better system first .

Indeed, however for some people a red is a red and a green is a green, doesn't matter the references, they rely blindly on what the official trust system shows them. This change would turn the system just a little more "didactic", what I think it's valid.

But for those who have their own judgement/opinion about the different presented situations it wouldn't make any difference.

The trust system is not perfect but it is the only form of moderation we have against the scammers since the scam is not moderated by the moderators of the forum.
I can agree that it is not perfect but atleast it is useful in part and solves some problems for some users because you can quickly get feedback on a person through a simple click.

For example you have -8 -3+0, a good reason to put you on my ignore list.

Translation: everything is fine except for the things that say I'm untrustworthy. Don't pay attention to those.

---

Your explanation for refuting the very first trusted piece of feedback was also so utterly lackluster. Without any evidence, your storytelling is just superfluous.

Yes, but not what you proposed. Anything that involves moderators will always be turned down since "they have too much work" though there's an absence of active mods.

This is good. Do this. It's already like this for positive-trust members (??? -> -1)

Well ofcourse everything is fine other than morons statements like Lauda, Pharmacist and ibminer . Well why not ? My statement doesn't need any proof as it can happen with anyone . You know nothing about http://archive.is/j7AEM so better stay away from that crap.

Here comes another one .
Perfect statement for you @vphasitha01 . You speak like a bumpkin . If I were scamming people, I wouldn't have been here wasting my time with you morons .

Sometimes scammers didn't like to see their trust wall, until they get scammed

Dear @marlboroza,
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience" - George Carlin

Looking at proofs...
Verifying proofs....reading Lauda's reference opinion....reading ibminer's reference opinion....reading The Pharmacist's reference opinion...

Nah, everything is just fine with your trust wall, especially this part http://archive.is/j7AEM. There you go, now go and find 6 other opinions and see if someone will counter negative feedback 

Strange that on a forum called Bitcoin Forum also known as Bitcointalk.

I went on a car forum and it was like déjà vu  of what you were saying. Just car cultists. They had a motorcycle section as well but they seemed to be mainly interested in cars.





Looks like some people already suspect that.

A green trust guy lol . Yes, I have more than 50 alts, wait not 50 more than 1 crore alts now that sounds good ? Stupid people like you say anything without any single proof : do you have even a single instance where I have scammed someone ? No ? Please get lost !


I agree and I declare that I have had none of those characteristics .


I think this is far better idea to call at least 10 DT members to verify the basis on which a person is negative tagged .

Well I am not reporting anything and it is just a discussion . You are unable to understand that this is not the only case , there may be thousands like mine . Every system has flaws but this system is very ill featured giving no chance to red guys . Every single person on this earth deserves a chance .

The thing is, every system that is implemented in  in real world and in this forum, has flaws that can be used by evil people to gain something from innocent people. You can not trust the system blindly, and should make a priority for your self before you deal with anything in the closed system.


Although until now there is no difference of the trust, you can always look up to their trust page and see the reference of the trust. It would give you a glimpse of how they gain the trust.

Something like this would be good. But I would change a little: If you receive one negative feedback (from a DT member, obviously) you will have an orange mark (automatically); then to turn the mark red, the DT member will have to find another DT members to corroborate his feedback. It avoids persecution and situations like that where one person has enough power to destroy someone's reputation totally (what is the maxim of the centralization), generating controversies and inconsistencies.

And of course, a difference between the trust traders receive for making deals and trust people receive for being admired by others. This is a good point to think about...

A far better idea would be to only allow members who have at least XX merit above their "Default" merit which was assigned to them to vote, this should keep things pretty fair.


"Damned if we do! Damned if we don't!" - Hilariousetc

That page I linked is outdated, it would be a fairly decent idea if theymos updates the list with all the DT members, and ask from users above a specific rank(preferably limited only to Full member and above to avoid too much abuse) who they trust, and the ratings of others to be based on that. By doing so the level of hierarchy would be avoided and there'll be no more "bullying" by DT1 members, but "bullying" by DT members will continue to exist. 

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.

You know what I see here? Looks like you feel like you were shit on and now you cannot earn a load of money from campaigns.

Your activity is barely over 500 making you a low hero member at best as far as activity goes. Most ppl do not hit legendary til near 1000 activity, although it was possible to hit Legendary in the 700s I believe.

The 500 rules have nothing to do with the fact that before doing a shady activity, you didn't take the time to read the forum and actually see what may or may not be legal. According to number 1 above you engaged in offering to trade merit with a user. What legitimate reason would you have for doing this? The only thing that comes to mind is shady activity. You wanted to cheat a system that was set in place to try and push users to make better posts so that you and your buddy could earn more money. Why shouldn't that be viewed as shady?

Users earn merits based mostly on quality posts they have made. It doesn't matter if you have negative trust or not, you can still earn merit and make legendary rank at some point. If you're only worried about having a clean profile so you can earn more bitcoin, then you're likely not doing much to help the forum anyways.(I could be wrong, I haven't looked at your post history)

Now on your point of getting neg trust because someone doesn't like you, I don't agree with tagging someone because I don't like them. I get retaliatory tags from ppl I have tagged with bs reasons why they don't trust me all the time. Users should be able to appeal to the admins on their trust ratings from certain people. The reference should show proof if negging someone or something.

The problem with asking admins to overrule a users rating is it centralizes the forum and makes the default trust system worthless. They would also get a billion messages from idiots who deserved the neg and waste a ton of time on worthless reports.

Sometimes I feel like this damn place is full of 12 year olds who just can't fucking get along. Some of you need to grow up

i heard the cryptosection in redit has become big

Hey hey, the new forum is coming out in 3018^TM. Have high hopes. 

I think for last 2 years, no DT1 member has been added. Only people have been removed. DeaDTerra was one, and escrow.ms was two, that I vaguely recall.

You'll get used to it. Don't be surprised if people call you mod/dev/admin/god/satoshi.   

Trust system is supposed to make individuals look trustworthy, that's why people get added to DT, and that's why the ratings are visible. New members have no clue on how this system works, so if they see someone trustworthy, then they'll most likely trade with them. Newbies even deal with scammers and other fake newbies, and end up getting scammed, so dealing with a trusted member would make more sense. We know who to deal with and who not to deal with, after being here for months if not years.

This forum has complicated internals. For example, account sales isn't against the rules, but you get a scammer tag if you are revealed to be buying accounts. Most people don't even know the rules. Not all new members come here and search for things like: "Why do people get red trust?" "Why is account sales discouraged?" Things like this should be pinned in the spam-fest Discussion boards.

jes it is shit it permanently punishes users for mistakes they didnt knew about the absurd 500 sites long forums rules and bitcoin sects inquisition.

also critical point of view is being punished

just look at my mistrust.

1. i got mistrust because i wanted to trade merit with someone else to support each other, otherwise this forums consits only of gay bitcoin sectists that constantly merit each other

2. i got mistrust because someone from the bitcoin sect didn't like me personally and just wanted to punish me somehow, because he had mod powers he punished me

without that i would have been a legendary member of this forum already, with my high merit my over 4k posts, my project development and my high activity.

but i am optimistic that this forum will die together with bitcoin its cult, its sect, bitcoin gold and bitcoin cash, and we will get a more diversified and best of all "decentralised" cryptoindustry in the future and we all can continue on redit the post bitcoin cryptocurrency economy

@CoolWave jes positive trust people are also huge scammers, because

1. postive trust is tendenciously powered on the bitcoin sectists, that merit each other, and put positive trust to each other, distrusting everyone that is not a obeying bitcoin fanatic.

2. bitcoin cultists with positive trusts are no humanist people that care for others, remember everyone who was able to create an anonymous pow cryptcurrency knowing the huge pow waste and damages to also working banking systems in the world hesitated to create one, the bitcoin cult, still created one because the people here are also special, regarding their economic point of view.

i give you merit for this topic

regards

Every system has a flaws and I'm sure that 100% of it are not secure, it just follows the process how systematic approach (step-by-step) into our forum. It doesn't mean you have the good identity, you can be considered as one of the kings here in the forum, No. Even the higher-ups have some suspicious things, not all of them but there are possibilities that they have some. You can relate it to your government system, even though you have a good president in your country if there are corrupt officials and the system is broken af, it's non-sense.

If you want to solve your case, there are some good people/DTs will help you to recover your money, just post your case with eligible evidences.

Oooooo made the experienced list.

---

Anyone who relies on the trust system is making a flawed assessment of their situation. I look at it for what it was originally intended( I assume), assessing the person I'm trading with. I will generally still use escrow regardless but it's always there as a supplementary tool.

Most people also often fail in using it properly by reviewing untrusted feedback. I usually disregard most that font have a proper reference.

I personally don't get involved in the I fighting of DT members, usually just grab some popcorn and enjoy the show. I also rarely find those feedbacks carry much weight, except in getting people excluded from signature campaigns

Soon? I doubt it will ever happen just like migrating completely to the new forum.

Well, that's what happens if you give control over to an individual/group of individuals. Either way, I don't really want to complain. I have catered my trust-settings to trust like 2 people and don't even judge anybody by the random DT ratings left on their profile.

We are relying on it because replacing default trust isn't going to happen soon.

And yeah, the Trust System here sucks balls, its not the system but some *people* that caused it to be bad. They make the system be so bad. A lot of people have ego issues here, on a forum. So if you call "X" DT member, a dog, you might get tagged for that  . Some people act as if its decentralized, but its more centralized than it being decentralized. Wonder how many people are pissed at me for saying this. Don't deal with any body based on their trust, it might not be the best idea for you.

Just quoting a few replies from the experienced members,


I wonder why are we ever relying on a broken system so much that we think it's the only cure for all the problems on the forum. I shouldn't complain though, for I don't have a better alternative to suggest.

This forum's trust doesn't offer 100% guaranteed trustworthy of any user, it only shows facts/deals. You can see reference/comments on any user's profile if he has given any trust and judge yourself what to do. Forum can't offer 100% guarantee, requirement of KYC documents, as you say, will be shittiest action because no forum in this world does this and now in situation where bitcoin is for anonimity, it's a shame.
Can you link the profile of that person you had a deal?

You might just have contradicted what you are saying in your OP, him being tagged with what he did you means that the trust system still works as he paid for the consequences even if the transaction was a "small amount". Remember trading/transacting with a trusted member does not mean you can always be comfortable or carefree with him, you can always add your own precautionary measures (e.g. escrow) when you want to trade with him. Trust system might have its flaws but I am glad that it is here because it is useful in identifying the scammers and preventing the shitposters in joining most of the signature campaigns.

Do you really think that moderators have the time to be leaving everybody trust? How would they know which deals people were involved in, and hence deserving of trust, or will people need to post a trust application thread for every successful deal or transaction? Moderators have to deal with the hordes of bots, shitposters and trolls here on this forum, I really don't think such a minor feature of the forum should be handled by the moderators. If anything, there should just be more DT members, allowing trust to be spread more efficiently, rather than having the select few who interact with DT members be seen as trustworthy.

I would like to shared my thoughts about this case. While reading this whole thread, I feeled like it's someone having red trust got scammed by green trusted hypothetical member ( since OP didn't provide any evidence for what and by whom he got scammed). Then suddenly he is getting angried with the trust system and even started a thread by questioning the trust system, but not starting a thread under scam accusation. I think OP is now feeling the bitterness of getting scammed. Imagine what would be the feeling of other members when they realized that they got scammed by you. (I don't know you scammed or not, but I expressed based on what your trust exhibit to other members)

"The man who sows wrong thoughts and deeds and prays that God will bless him is in the position of a farmer who, having sown tares, asks God to bring forth for him a harvest of wheat". - James Allen

To be honest, I'm also believed that current system to be tweaked, but until then this "trust" is a good indication for others to get a idea about who you're going to deal with. It's not giving you the licence or seal of verified to deal with others. Do your business with your own risk and there is no system that can be implemented having zero scammed policy. Because it depends on person to person. A person is always labelled as trusted until he/she scammed another person, and how the hell are we  knowing any perticular member is a scammer or not by looking only at his/her posting behavior in the forum.

It's not me who uses it. It is other idiots who abuse it .

Not justified . Well there are lots of examples all over the forum if you look for it .


Disagree . No limitation would mean negative tagging on the basis of doubt or stupid researches

Sorry but if you can't use the trust system properly, it's hard to give your complaint any weight. You should have left the user with negative feedback, then opened a scam accusation with proof. Doing this would have likely resulted in the account having an up to date negative.

The trust system isn't perfect but is a good tool if used properly. It in no way removes your need to perform due diligence.
You need to look for a consistent pattern not just 1 trade, even recently. Some people try to trade with DT members just for a green feedback. Same as a few trades several years old.  I also suggest people look into untrusted feedback.

Then there is also escrow. So really to trade in this forum we have the tools necessary to trade safely.

Anyone, reading this thread, would ask only one thing after reading this sentence of yours, and that is "Who was he??" and if you answer that question with
Of course it does. Maybe not all the time, as Jet Cash said already, that if a green trusted account can be sold, then obviously the trust system is going to be abused, but that doesn't happen very often. And the trust system is the only reason for thousands of users leaving the forum because they were negative tagged for spamming or something and felt they cannot continue this anymore with the red sign on their profile.


I don't agree with that. Introduction of Merit System is itself a very big example of what you are saying is wrong.


No. Moderators are already too burdened with the reports and all. They should not be burdened with managing the trust issues as well.


Anyone doing anything suspicious or is involved in anything that can harm the forum or its users deserve a negative trust, and there should be no limitations to that.


That shitty negative look on your profile is a warning for others, and that is what the trust system does - it warns people to be careful if a profile is red tagged. Besides, if you don't want your profile to look shitty, you should simply stay away from anything that can cause that to happen. Just have a clean record and no one would ever touch your profile or spoil it. Simple as that.


I don't really understand how that would work for trust system.

A member with a green trust doesn't mean you can trust him blindly. The system isn't designed to work like this. It's just a parameter that you can use to make your own opinion. There are not a lot of people here that you can trust without any worry (green, purple, or rainbow trust doesn't matter). Maybe a dozen... Personally, I see 6 or 7 members who I know I can send money and come back in a month, I know they won't disappear. However, I know there are members with no shame to scam you for 5 bucks lol.

If only the moderators handled the trust system members would start yelling about centralization or whatever excuse looks good to give the opportunity to complain

Now this is what I call a waste of post . Whatever you have posted is pure shit . Read before you say something . Those guys are just ass lickers of corrupt people .

Lol, bullshit. You are outraged enough at getting scammed by a green trust member to post about it here, but can't remember who that member was? 

It seems much more likely that what you are really butthurt over is getting negged for offering a paid ICO bumping service. See: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24494659

That's not a solution kid .I don't know if LBTC was ever hacked . A strong protection can be added . The "Worst" part about red trust is that , it becomes dead hard to get your dignity back . While a mod can at least be communicated to .

I definitely do not want to "pass" ponzies, I have already indicated that a warning message could be allotted to such users instead of those irritating negative tags .

This ofcourse should be verified if a guy is supportive to the forum or not . Definitely I've got that and that too because of stupid reasons or business rivalry . Those who were helped know what I mean to them .

The trust system is meaningless when green trusted accounts can be sold, and the trust is transferred to the new owner.

A Positive Trust is given when someone made an honest act or someone made a good transaction and etc. to a particular member which shows that the person who gave +Trust trusts the one who received it, but doesn't mean that the person who received Positive Trust won't do something stupid. That's why it is still much better to just "don't trust anyone" except if that member is a very reputable and trusted by a lot of members.

Trust system were really working fine as it is right now but the problem is there are bunch of people who were abusing it just the same with the Merit System.

So you were scammed a few months ago? Why did you just posted it today? You should have reported it here or in Scam Accusation right after you were scammed. I'm just wondering why it's already months too late before you came up to this topic. Additional bad news is you forgot the guy's username as it's a long time ago.
Oh boy, you're mistaken.
Edit.
Well, that's right. I'm just about to add but you really are hundreds of steps before me 

Green trust doesn't mean he will never scam. You should checked reason of green trust. I can trust anybody for specific reason. Same also for DT. Nobody forcing you to deal with green trust. It's depend on you how trustworthy for you.


This is allowed by forum. That rule was before implement of merit system. Now should be  ban account sale officially. Although it can be trade outside of forum, it doesn't mean forum should allow it. If forum ban trade account that means if some one catch his account will ban permanently.

Adding KYC to this forum would really destroy purpose/ideology this forum was once build on.

Furthermore, the forum as of right now can barely recover hacked accounts that have signed messages that prove ownership.

I really wouldn't be so sure that this would drastically improve with KYC. I honestly only see downsides. People hacking my/other accounts and misusing their name/doxxing them, extorting them, the forum's database could could get hacked, the list goes on and on.

Well it is not something happen in a daily basis, where the "trusted members" do some scamming. The best thing to know before you look into a trust is you should understand that trust is not moderated by the forum, so any green trusts still mean it can do some scam to you while the red trust (especially if the reason for the red is the account did the scam before) members have a big chance to scam you.

Although i am sorry to hear that you got scammed, it is hard to believe that the scam from your case ever happen unless you have some proof to prove it, even it is only a small amount.

To be honest I have forgotten his profile as he scammed for even a small amount and I was quite surprised of how he could spoil his trust for such small amount . Do not worry, as far as I remember he was negative tagged later . If mods can verify your ID, or you want to upload your ID like LBTC then you could be tagged with "verified" mark . Your account might get hacked anytime who knows and your positive trust could be misused . The "hack" may even be not real . However, a verified can be contacted in case of "false hack" situation .

I'd be interested in seeing the profile too.  Maybe it is a situation that can be addressed before another user is effected.

I'd agree that the trust system could potentially be abused rather easily. I know instances where people indeed were able to simply buy DT1/DT2 trust for a couple bucks.
(See the email service of TBZ as a prime example of that.)

But, i don't see any other system that could work, and i think that this system is pretty self-evolving, (In the last couple of months, i have yet to see any (imo) unjustified positive feedback.)


Totally disagree. Moderators already have a hefty workload, and they shouldn't be the ones to judge, for obvious reasons.

Disagree. You want to give ponzi promoters a pass? Or the people that are promoting autobuy links?

The system in most cases becomes rather useless if we have to wait until the ""crime/scam" has already happend.

There are definitely flaws in the trust system, but if we had to do deals in order to leave trust, DT members wouldn't be able to tag shady members and those who are trying to scam.

By the way, who scammed you?  I'd be interested in seeing his profile.  I also got scammed by a green-trusted member, but I was asking for it since it was a loan I didn't ask for collateral for, and I kind of blindly assumed his green trust had more weight than it did.  With all the account sales going on, you never know who you're really dealing with or if their trust page means anything.

I disagree that mods should be the ones leaving all the trust--not that it's even an option.  It's been discussed and discarded before.

Few months back I had traded with a positive trust guy and he turned out to be a scammer . Now the question is Does this forum's "trust" system really offers what it seems to ? To be honest I would say that owners of this forum are not doing good job .

Accrding to me , Trust should only be handles by moderator of any particular section . Trust should be strictly limited to trading and the negative rating should only show up when a scam has been done . A warning will be enough rather than shitty negative look which spoils your profile . Infact trust system should be like LBTC, which asks for your ID .