Bitcoin Forum

Person A on DefaultTrust (level 1 or level 2) leaves a -ve feedback on person B. Person B points out that the reason he is entitled with -ve trust is also owned up by others. Person A flat out denies to leave -ve trust to anyone else.

Is it justified for these people to sit on DefaultTrust if they hand out different judgement for same activity ?

******************************The Real Scenario***********************************

I promote a website called www.CloudMining.website, which does not show their mining address but paying for last nine months now. Hence, few people claim that it is a Ponzi and I should not promote. I did not listen to them and kept promoting as I myself am invested there and getting paid regularly. As a result, they tagged me as scammer and some went to the extent that I am the owner. I did not care about them as they are not in DefaultTrust.

Now, I have found that CryptoDevil, an user who is under Dooglus in DefaultTrust, has marked me as scammer for the same reason said before. I told them, either remove my feedback or marke everyone in Bit-X sig campaign as scammer. They plain denies to do so.

Now, what Bit-X is doing and why is that same as www.CloudMining.website ? Bit-X has vouch from BitFury that they have 1 Phs with them. They never show their mining address. They never show how much they are selling. This is exactly what Hashie did. Hashie got vouch from AsicMiner to gain trust, then oversold and then vanished. This is as good as buying trust. At that time as well, many Hashie supporters left -ve feedback to kill competition. They are no more in DefaultTrust, because after the fall of AM hash, their DefaultTrust sponsor CanaryInTheMine has been removed from DefaultTrust. But, they did the damage they were supposed to do using the power of DefaultTrust.

In this scenario, is it justified for CryptoDevil is giving advantage to Bit-X promoters by giving -ve trust on me and other www.CloudMining.website. Even after pointing out the Bit-X issue, why are they behaving in a selective manner ? Following is what CryptoDevil said...


So, to promote www.CloudMining.website, you need evidence. To promote Bit-X, you need none ? Why CryptoDevil will be in DefaultTrust after handing out such a judgement ?

I dont mind people having different opinions. I mind only when they sit in the DefaultTrust.

It's allowed as DT members set their own rules. Some being responsible, some are careless and leave ratings for personal reasons. It's best to contact the person who has such irresponsible members on their trust list to exclude them stating valid reasons else you can also open a thread in Meta and share the reasons why the rating is not justified.

Nothing is unusual when it comes to trust feedbacks, since it is unregulated, and often abused.
There is tho some reason why some action may seam like double standard when they in fact are not, and in the end imho it all comes down to just how much
effect the trust left on the account will have. But if there's some obvious scamming going on, then there should be no difference as to who the user in question is or what his trust shows.

cheers

It is allowed as there are no rules regarding the DT list and the ratings in general.

Whether its justified or not is hard to say without details, the way you present it its biased. You give us no reason for the bias so its impossible for us to judge this.

Id also add that person B is doing to common "oh, but others do it" distraction. Which usually indicates that the rating is justified, but they just feel singled out. If you think someone should get a negative rating but has not one yet, its a good idea to open a thread in scam accusations with as much proof as you can.

Oh and person A might be seen as someone giving biased feedback which might result in people giving it less weight over time.

What happens when Person A and his DefaultTrust sponsor sings in the same tone ? When challenged, the response is coming something like this...


I do understand that it is not possible to tag every wrongdoers. But here is a few things to understand. Person B does not believe that certain activity is wrongdoing, whereas Person A and his DefaultTrust sponsor thinks otherwise. In this case, Person B is not asking to remove his feedback, rather pointing out other who are doing the same thing and asking them to be -ve trusted as well. But, Person A (DT level 2) and his DefaultTrust sponsor (DT level 1) is denying to do so.

In my opinion, this only shows that they are not even sure of what they are accusing of. That is why they dont want to target the stronger group (which includes many DT level 2 people) and toying around the comparatively weaker one.

I don't really agree with the trust system in its current form any way. It's like a dictatorship, nobody or nothing manages it, they can basically do what they want & if you get 1 negative trust from somebody on Default Trust your account is useless & your name ruined.

I don't know what the solution is but maybe there are too many posters in Default Trust. Perhaps it should be more strictly managed as to how many & who is put on it.

It's but obvious that the case is lost before being heard. However, voicing your opinion in Meta can put pressure on the DT member to recheck his/her ratings or/else leave similar ratings on others pointed out by person B. Leaving inaccurate ratings/ratings for personal issues over a period of time can lead to both the members being off DT trust list.

Also, if the rating left on person B isn't for a personal issue, the DT member may take into account the other cases stated by person B while the final decision is up to that DT member only.

Without giving a specific example its hard for us to help really.

The tragedy is, as soon as I give out the specific example, the case wont be discussed on the basis of rationality any more, as it is taking place right now. People will then start weighing out how they are benefited by which side and will then take side accordingly.

Well its up to you of course. Though discussion will only ever be discussion and won't actually help change anything.

Short answer: yes. It's up to anyone, be he on DefaultTrust or not, to use the trust system precisely the way he considers most useful.

Long answer, you're being accused of promoting a ponzi scheme with shill accounts. If this is true, you deserve negative trust. I haven't checked.
Others would definitely deserve the same level of negative trust as you, but you can't expect someone to give negative trust to someone else based on your judgement. Specifically, why would someone who considers you to be worthy of negative trust listen to your advice regarding the trustworthiness of others?

Every situation is different. You might have come across someone's radar for whatever reason and your scam was uncovered, while someone else's scam might not have been noticed by that person.

If you feel that someone else is scamming but does not have a warning to others (negative trust) then you should open a scam accusation against them, and if your evidence is valid, and the conclusion is that they scammed then they will likely get a negative rating.

If you feel that you were unjustly given a negative rating for whatever reason then you should first try to work it out with the person who gave you the negative rating privately and if that fails then you should open a thread in meta with your specific grievances, although you will need to document why you were not scamming.

This may or may not be the case. If you can provide evidence for that, I'd be interested to see it.
Names is what we need, "genug um den heißen Brei rumgeredet" ;)

The whole Default trust thing seems kinda bullshit to me, while I do find it funny to see some blatant scam artists getting all uppity about being called out I also find it discouraging that people on this forum are adopting a more mob like mentality they seem to think that people with default trust or high trust are immune from mistakes and fingerpointing so immediately side with them over looking at facts.

There's this thing called due process people, I think even Anarchists should follow it simply by not jumping to conclusions even in an unofficial capacity.

This why I stated in OP - Person B points out that the reason he is entitled with -ve trust is also owned up by others. Person A flat out denies to leave -ve trust to anyone else.

There was no scam accusation thread against Person B either.

The reason Person A calling out something a scam, is in fact dicey. According to person B - someone is not providing some proof does not make it a scam. According to person A, it is a scam. But, even when Person B is pointing out that others are not providing proof either, Person A is denying to leave them -ve feedback.

I am neither calling the activity in question as sane nor a scam as it is debatable. My issue is the discripancy that some DT members are enjoying. I repeat, it is not possible for any DT member to find out and negate all the scam. But, even after pointing out, why they are shying away ? That means they are not strong on their ground when the opponent is powerful.

Sounds like the dadice discussion to me.


Yes, but the answer is - again - depends. It depends on the details and you try to provide none in order to make this a general discussion. This is especially true because its as you say a "dicey" rating in the first place. It might very well boil down to a gut feeling.

If we e.g. take the "dadice does not provide a signed cold storrage address" issue and the negative feedback I left them for it. If the understanding of my feedback is that they are scamming because they dont provide a cold storrage address you got it wrong and there is no reason to neg rep others on this ground. The common example for this is PrimeDice. Dadice did not get a negative rating from me strictly because the did not sign a cold storrage address, but because of the way they handled the question why they did not. You also cant compare it do PrimeDice because PD does not target investors. I know this is an example and you dont want to discuss an example, but as you can see a rating is often more complex than the single sentence that represents it. I also dont want this thread to derail into that discussion again. So please understand it as an example that a rating that appears simple might not be.


Towards eachother? That is to be expected and IMHO its one of the healthy aspects of the system. Different people do different ratings because they see things differently. The trust system provides you as the one using it do judge whether you want to engage with a user or not with a multitude of different opinions about said user (or not because they dont have any ratings). If there would be just a single opinion it would not be as helpful as several opinions are.


Point out what? How do you expect to get an answer if you dont say what you are refering to. This whole discussion is pointless if you keep an example in your head and want to just dictate how things are to be seen. No two cases are the same and pointing towards someone else who "does it also" is never a good argument in a defense. Its a pittyful attempt off a distraction. Even if we assume that there are two identical cases and one gets a negative rating while the other does not, the default trust list is no ones police force. If there is a thread in the proper section with proper evidence Im sure more than enough people will read about it and consider a rating. There is no need for A to do it all alone, if its such a clear case there should not be an issue. Whether or not there was such a thread for B does not matter either, some things come up and get noticed others need a thread.


Whatever thats supposed to mean.

There's no requirement for anyone to "judge" everybody. If I leave negative feedback for you but don't leave any feedback for someone doing the exact same thing as you, is that wrong somehow? Maybe I just didn't happen upon the someone else yet. I can't be expected to label everyone - there are just too many of them.

Well being on the trust list and having a bit of positive score I have always taken that into consideration when leaving feedback. I think with the current system (not perfect, but not too bad) we have a responsibility when leaving either positive or negative feedback. Posting a public dispute here in meta is definitely the best action you can take if you feel you got shafted. When you look at the number of ratings that happen per day and the amount of issues - the system works fairly well. OP you need to explain in detail the dispute or there is no way we can give you an opinion.

No one asked person A or his DT sponsor to judge "everybody" either.

As long as person A or his DT sponsor leave -ve to those pointed out by person B, there is nothing wrong. But, when they flat out denies it, this is definitely wrong. It only means that they are making the path clear for one business by negating the other using the DT advantage.

Person B already pointed out to that someone else, but person A and his DT sponsor denies any responsibility to leave -ve to them. Even after pointing out the same thing is being done by others, when person A and his DT sponsor deny to hand out the same judgement, they are not expected to sit in the DT either.

Would be interested in the ultimate outcome of this thread. Has the issue been resolved or it is still pending ?

I expect the outcome will be that OP makes new sockpuppet accounts and it'll be business as usual.

OP updated with dispute details.

It seems thread owner has updated the situation in opening post and you are involved in it.

let's talk about the trust. it's not about your signature, but about your shilling if I understand it correctly.


^ is that correct? It's one thing to get paid for a signature but a complete negative turn if you come up with socks to promote the ponzi.

The whole premise of OP's argument is faulty.
It's just an extension of the standard Ponzi promoter's argument that any critics are shills for the "competition".

Long ago a few accounts (most probably owned by the same person) were promoting AM hash in CMW's thread. Me and a few others opposed this. Most of us who did it aggressively was tagged as shill by one of those accounts. As that account was not in DefaultTrust, I did not bother. Now, this DefaultTrust guy has left me the same feedback copying from that report. This is rediculous. There is absolutely no proof to support this shilling allegation.

I beg to disagree with you, though I disagree with OP as well. Probable Ponzis or their promoters, i.e. when the Ponzi has not yet fallen, should not be marked -ve, because this only give advantage to the Ponzis having hold of DefaultTrust (level 1 & 2) accounts. Theymos has introduced neutral trust for this and that should be used for probable Ponzis or their promoters. Otherwise, the whole concept of neutral trust become falacy.

I don't understand what you are saying really. If I see a scheme being touted on here which makes me "strongly believe that this person is a scammer" then leaving negative trust is appropriate. Why should that person's trust rating, Default or otherwise, affect that decision? 


I can't speak for Theymos and his reasoning.
Neutral trust is what it says: neutral comment. Why should I or anyone leave a neutral comment on someone whose actions are believed to be untrustworthy?

Because DefaultTrust people are supposed to hand out judgement that would be seen by the rest of the forum by default. So, from natural logic, it needs to be handed to everyone doing the same thing, in the same way. Ponzis in disguise only turn out to scam, when they fail. When you are labelling a running program as Ponzi, relying on your "strong believe" and NOT labelling another one because of "no evidence", then you are acrually showing discriminatory nature, which is not supposed to be coming from people on DefaultTrust.

Because it is believed to be untrustworthy, not proven. Right now, you can leave any feedback, because you are not on DT. But, once you'll be on DT, you need to revise those feedback and be sure that you are not being partial to anyone, i.e. giving -ve to one but not to another for the same thing, which is the case in this thread, as I "strongly believe".

A ponzi scam is a scam from the beginning, they don't "suddenly scam" when they can't pay. Their model is designed to scam from the start.


Read the description of the trust options:

https://i.imgur.com/BohSB7P.png

Why should this apply differently for different people? If someone is promoting an obvious ponzi scam, they should get marked negative for that.

My opinion is that one shouldn't be marked -ve right away if in case they are promoting an obvious ponzi scam. They might not know what they are promoting though, so giving them -ve straight would be too rude and too judgmental. The case would be different if the user in question would promote the thread annoyingly and suspiciously, that's when they should receive -ve trust.

There is no point leaving negative feedback only after the Ponzi has run off with the money.

The time for warnings is before they run off, when the warning can actually do some good.

Yes. You are right. The warning should come before they run away. But, there is a catch. How do you decide a Ponzi? When you or your descendents are marking someone as a Ponzi, there must be some criteria that they are not satisfying and hence they are marked as a Ponzi. But, when the same criteria is not met by others, if you either turn them a blind eye or give them a benefit of doubt, you are not justifying your position in DefaultTrust. This is how you are simply allowing some business (possible Ponzis) to suck more while clearing their competition (possible Ponzis).

Please note that, previously CITM was also removed from DT for doing such partiality. It took time and a massive million dollar scam by his beloved FriedCat, but it did happen. Now, I see him crying on reddit that this forum is a BS etc. I do respect you for your contribution in this forum or as in bitcoin and I do seriously hope, you give a second thought to your judgement procedure.

Dooglus has been involved in multiple multi-million dollar scams that were perpetrated with the assistance of dooglus's positive trust ratings, and no one in their right mind would have trust those who were behind the scams if it were not for dooglus's positive ratings and endorsements. Add giving out reputation loans and extortion to the mix in addition to the fact that dooglus personally profited from each of the multi-million dollar scams to the tune of 35 BTC from each scam and you have someone who is a much worse candidate to be on Default Trust then CITM ever was. At least Fred Cat had a long history of doing business honestly....the scammers that were possible because of dooglus did not even have accounts that reached full member status...

If this is not enough to get theymos to remove dooglus from default trust then I can't imagine what would.