Bitcoin Forum

I still see users, including high ranking accounts, who use the Trust system incorrectly. For the Trust system to be properly functioning while being decentralized, it's crucial that as many users as possible understand the difference between "feedback" and "Trust lists". Confusingly, the forum uses the word "Trust" for both.

Once you fully understand the system, it's important to start using it:

• Did you do a trade in which you risked funds? Leave feedback!
• Did you see users who left accurate Trust feedback on many accounts? Add them to your Trust list!

Anyone can leave feedback, and anyone can customize their Trust list!

But first, keep reading, so you're sure you know the difference.

Since this is a beginners guide, I'll only cover the most important parts. I can't cover all details here, but even without knowing all the details, many people can improve how they use the Trust system.

I created TrustTestUser (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2692993) to aid in creating screenshots and links. Please don't consider this as leaving positive feedback to my alt, I don't intend to use this account for anything else.

---

---

Don't confuse your Trust list with feedback
Trust feedback: leave feedback to people you trust or don't trust. Or leave neutral comments.
Trust list: a list of people who's judgement on others you trust (username) or don't trust (~username).

---

---

Trust feedback
Trust feedback (Positive/Neutral/Negative) can be used to express your opinion about someone's trustworthiness. In other words: would you trust or have you trusted this user with your money?

Where to find it: Click on a username to go to the user's profile (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2692993), then click Trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2692993) to see their Trust summary (depending on the board it can also be shown under the username).
After clicking it, you're on the user's Trust summary (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2692993). Read the description per Type carefully:
      https://loyce.club/other/trust/newfeedback.png
Note that the description for Positive, Neutral and Negative is different than it was 4 months ago: it was changed when Trust Flags were introduced.

Positive (shown as +1)

• If you made a small deal with someone, that doesn't deserve positive feedback.
• If you made a deal in which you risked a substantial amount of money with someone, and all went well, that deserves positive feedback.
• If someone is a nice guy (or girl), that doesn't deserve positive feedback.
• If you believe someone can be trusted, even when you didn't trade with him, that too deserves positive feedback.

Neutral (shown as =1)

• Use Neutral feedback for anything that doesn't mean someone can or can't be trusted. This can be good feedback, for instance when someone helped you out.
• I think Neutral Feedback is currently undervalued on Bitcointalk. It's a great tool to de-escalate without drastic consequences. Please use it when appropriate.

Negative (shown as -1)

• If you believe someone is a scammer, or someone is likely to scam, that deserves negative feedback. Please provide evidence.
• If you really hate someone and he's a terrible troll, that does not deserve negative feedback.

The result after receiving feedback once for each Type:
      https://loyce.club/other/trust/oneofeach.png

Comments
Write a clear description. Keep it as short as possible without leaving things out. If your comment gets too long, create a topic in Reputation (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=129.0) or Scam Accusations (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0) to refer to.
Try to be objective. If you stick to the facts, people are more likely to take your feedback seriously than if you resort to name calling.

Use Reference links
A Reference link provides more background information about the Feedback. This is very helpful for others to assess whether or not your judgement was correct.
You can use a Webpage archive (https://archive.is/) to preserve evidence when needed for your Reference link.

Be the bigger man!
With great power comes great responsibility (source unknown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_great_power_comes_great_responsibility#Origin_and_source)). Especially when you're on DefaultTrust (or if you want to be on DefaultTrust in the future), you shouldn't (ab)use that power by leaving (negative) feedback when someone does something you don't like. Your Sent feedback is what others use to judge your judgement.
If someone on the internet is mean to you: boo fucking hoo (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=boo%20fucking%20hoo)! Use the Ignore button, and forget about them.

Delete feedback
You can delete feedback by visiting the user's Trust summary (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2692993). Any feedback left by you has a link to (Delete (http://)) it:
      https://loyce.club/other/trust/trustsummary.png
Please delete feedback when it's no longer appropriate. You can for instance replace old negative feedback by new neutral feedback when the situation justifies it. If the situation is the other way around, I suggest to leave the old neutral feedback, and add new negative feedback.

Do's and Don'ts

• Don't leave positive feedback for your own alt account (use neutral comments for this).
• Don't leave negative feedback when someone violates the forum rules (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0). Instead, use Report to moderator (http://) for rule violations.
• Do leave mutual neutral feedback if you want to show which alt account(s) belong to you.
• Don't leave (negative) feedback based on retaliation.
• Don't leave (positive) feedback just because someone left it to you.

These are mere guidelines
Trust isn't moderated, but how you use it is your "business card" to the community. Use the above as guidelines only. It's meant to give you a general idea of what I consider good behaviour. It's also wise to ask yourself before leaving feedback: "Does my feedback make Bitcointalk a better place? And if it's negative: is it worth destroying someone's account and reputation over this?". Consider using Neutral feedback if neither Positive nor Negative is justified.

Trust Flags
I won't cover Trust Flags (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344.0) in details here (for now). The most important thing for creating, Supporting or Opposing Trust Flags is to read very carefully what it says before clicking. If something is incorrect, don't Support it!

---

---

Trust list
You should add users who left accurate feedback and have good Trust lists to your Trust list, and you should exclude users who leave inaccurate feedback.
This means your Trust list should be based on how you value the users' judgement on others, and it should not be based on whether or not you Trust those users (with money) or traded with them.
I encourage anyone to create their own custom Trust list (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust)! But before you do, please continue reading so you understand the implications.

Where to find it: Click on any user's profile (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile), then click Trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2692993), and click Trust settings (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust).
I recommend to keep DefaultTrust on the list so that you see feedback based on DT1 and DT2 members by default.
You can include any user by adding their name to your Trust list. And you can exclude any user by adding their name with a "~" in front of it. When you're done, click Update. Example:
      https://loyce.club/other/trust/trustlist.png
In the above example, you can see I have excluded cryptohunter, and included guitarplinker and NLNico. DefaultTrust is still on my Trust list too.
Unless you know what you're doing, you should leave the Trust depth at 2.

Implications of making a Trust list
Adding users to your Trust list has large recursive implications because the users you trust directly (Depth 0) make you trust the ones they trust (Depth 1), and the users they trust (Depth 2) (see details beyond beginner level (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124527.0)).
Once you have a custom Trust list, you'll see different Trust scores than users without a custom Trust list. You can always add ;dt to any URL to view the forum as if you didn't set a custom Trust list (see this example (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2692993;dt)).

Public record
Note that all Trust lists are public: theymos publishes (https://bitcointalk.org/trust.txt.xz) a weekly list, which I use for my Trust list viewer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5102296.0).  I keep historic records (currently 38 weekly snapshots). You can use this tool, to assess which users you deem worthy to include on your own Trust list.
I don't censor data: your choices will remain visible even after you change it, so choose wisely.

Do's and Don'ts

• Don't add users to your Trust list because they've added you!
• Don't exclude users from your Trust list based on retaliation. It's okay to trust someone's judgement, even when he doesn't trust yours.
• Don't add someone to your Trust list because you had a trade with them. Even if you trust them with money, that doesn't mean you should trust their judgement on others. I think this is the most common mistake made on Trust lists!
• It's okay to include your alt-account on your own Trust list. This means you trust the feedback you left from that account. Example:
  
  Quote
  hilariousandco (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=397737) Trusts these users' judgement:
  7. hilariousetc (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=397737) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=397737)  +3 / =1 / -0) (1725 Merit earned (https://loyce.club/Merit/history/397737.html)) (Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2019-10-05_Sat_17.00h/397737.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=hilariousetc))
• Don't include your main account from your alt account(s). This could influence DT1-voting, and although that's not part of this guide, it's bad (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5128907.0).

---

---

DefaultTrust
DefaultTrust (or DT) has several Trust depth levels, and is set to depth 2 for anyone who didn't change it. This means that feedback left by all DT1 and DT2 members is by default shown for all users. Don't worry about this for now, it's not the main concern of this topic.
Any feedback left by you, always shows as Trusted to you. But it depends on other users' Trust settings whether or not it shows as Trusted to them.

DT1 voting
Depending on certain criteria (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.0) (which fall beyond the scope of this topic), creating your own Trust makes you eligible to vote for DT1-members (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtview), and/or you can be selected for DT1 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5111508.0) yourself. Once you're on DT1, the users included on your Trust list reach DT2, which means their feedback is shown by default too. That's a big responsibility, but as long as you (and the majority of other users too) use Trust properly, the voting system should work even if you don't fully understand it.

---

No spam
If you quote the entire OP, I'll delete your post. Stay on topic.

---

Translations for local boards

• Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian): [Guide] Cara Menggunakan Sistem Trust Dengan Benar (Versi Bahasa) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192114.0)
• Deutsch (German): Anleitung für Anfänger zur korrekten Verwendung des Trust Systems ! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192157.0)
• Pyccкий (Russian): [Pyкoвoдcтвo] Cиcтeмa дoвepия (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192166.0)
• Türkçe (Turkish): ⚡ Yeni Başlayanlar İçin ⚡ Trust Sistemi Kullanım Kılavuzu (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192175.0)
• Português (Portuguese): [Guia] Como utilizar o sistema de Trust (confiança) do fórum corretamente (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192213.0)
• Pilipinas: [GABAY] sa mga baguhan para sa wastong paggamit ng Trust system [LoyceV] (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192398.0)
• Italiano (Italian): Re: [INFO] TRUST. Come funziona il sistema di feedback (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5043394.msg52756616#msg52756616)
• Français: Guide pour débutants sur l'utilisation correcte du système de Trust par LoyceV (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5194958.0)
• Hrvatski (Croatian): Vodič za pravilno korištenje Trust sustava (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5202182.0)
• العربية (Arabic): دليل للإستخدام الصحيح لنظام الثقة (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5207247.0)
• Română (Romanian): Ghidul incepatorilor pentru folosirea corecta a sistemului Trust [LoyceV] (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5216279.0)
• বাংলাদেশ (Bangladesh): ট্রাস্ট সিস্টেমের সঠিক ব্যবহার (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631891.msg53828556#msg53828556)
• Malay (Malaysia): [GUIDE] Panduan pemula untok gunekan Trust sistem yang betol oleh LoyceV (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=85430.msg54288195#msg54288195)
• Español (Spanish): Introducción y guía de para el sistema de confianza (por LoyceV) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5247206.0)
• India (Hindi): ट्रस्ट सिस्टम का उपयोग कैसे करें (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5273128.0)
• Pakistan (Urdu): لوائس وی نئے ممبران کو ٹرسٹ سسٹم کے درست استعمال کے لئے رہنمائی کرتے ہیں (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=232519.msg55910031#msg55910031)
• Polski (Polish): Instrukcje dla początkujących dotyczące prawidłowego korzystania z systemu Trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5453742.0)
• Nigeria (Naija): Beginners guide on how to use the Trust system correctly (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5475913.0)

I'd appreciate it if users translate this topic for their local boards, so we can get more users to use the Trust system the way it is designed.
If you're translating this topic, please post a link, so I can add them here.

---

---

Help me improve this topic, if anything is unclear or missing: please post it :)

Reserved

TODO:

This is beyond ridiculous. If you need a guide this long to describe something as basic as trust feedback you know that most people are not going to use it, worse yet, probably use it incorrectly and spoil it for everyone. And this doesn't even include flags.

Good job describing it tho.

It is not ridiculous at all, good guides are thorough and this is definitely a good one! And because it can be confusing for someone that is  relatively new like myself that is still trying to figure out all ins&outs of this forum, this kind of guide is needed, with each step explained.

Not the guide, the system is ridiculously complicated. The guide is great tho we shouldn't need it. It's great that you have the time and the patience, but probably less than 1 out of 1000 users will ever see this guide and even fewer will read it and a tiny fraction will understand or follow it.

Unless this thread is pinned, it will be forgotten in a week and even if it's pinned it's going to be just for one board's visitors. It needs to be added to the sites main menu, along with flag, merit, forum rules guides, whatever else is there that users are supposed to know. Even then it's mostly scammers and spammers gonna use it to their advantage. Regular users who come here to talk about crypto don't have interest for this royal court theatre.

Agreed this needs to be at least pinned (including the local boards), so users have a chance to brush up on all the minute details as they get more involved with the forum dynamics,

I'll do the Turkish translation and post the link here.

@LoyceV

Here is the Translation into German !

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192157.new#new

I have done the thread also in the Beginners section there and i guess or hope that it will helps a few new and also long time Members and Users to understand it !

Great guide by the way  8)

Turkish translation is ready LoyceV, you can find it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192175.0

I "trust" ;) it's going to clarify a lot of things for the local forums, if it can get sufficient visibility & attention in the beginners section...

Hello LoyceV.

I was careful reading your guide, as I am translating it.

Take a look here:


I know this is like a common practice here in bitcointalk, I know you are not inventing this. But I disagree with those points. Aren't they contradictory?

If you think someone is "cool", so yeah, give him a nice feedback, so everyone think he is trusted and he has a green +1 on his account. If you think someone is a troll, don't paint him red.

Shouldn't both situations have the same approuch?

IMO, both feedbacks, in those cases, should be NEUTRAL.

"Nice guy" or "I hate this troll", as neutral.
There are so many "nice guy" feedbacks with positives trusts here, as there are many "troller' with red feedbacks

Maybe you can add about "Trusted" and "Untrusted feedback". I think this is good to know how if Non-DT give Trust Feedback for a member, I appreciate  Abhiseshakana (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1878246) who gives additional info about Trusted and Untrusted feedback at Indonesian version (jump to post. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192114.msg52727752#msg52727752))

Portuguese translation: [Guia] Como utilizar o sistema de Trust (confiança) do fórum corretamente (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192213.0)

Good job, Loyce.

@masulum @Lafu @madnessteat @Vispilio @TryNinja:
Thank you for translating, 5 translations within a day means a lot!

---

---

People are already using Trust incorrectly, which is why I made this guide. The Trust system isn't perfect, but the functionality it offers can be very useful when used in the right way. One of the reasons it's so "complicated", is because theymos wants it to be decentralized. The Trust system was much simpler when theymos hand-picked all DT1-members. That system wasn't perfect either, which is why theymos changed it. In the old system, most users didn't need to understand things because they'd never reach DT1 or DT2. Now, many more people get a vote.
Most of what I wrote down is kinda trivial anyway, but different people (especially with a worldwide mixture of different cultures) have different interpretations.

If someone uses Trust incorrectly, posting a link to this topic is much easier than explaining all the details. And that's the reason (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg52711939#msg52711939) I created this topic.

---

---

I think we mean the same thing. I didn't say to give positive trust when someone is a nice guy, I said you can leave positive feedback if you believe he can be Trusted.
Example:
I left this positive feedback to micgoossens (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1067333), even though I never traded with him:
Although micgoossen is a nice guy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5189667.msg52636576#msg52636576), that's not why I left the feedback. I left it, because I believe he's true to his word.
As another example, I received neutral feedback from Devawnm367 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1713155):
I believe those two examples use the correct Type of feedback.

To take away all confusion, I've added this:

Agreed!

---

---

Good suggestion, I've added it to my TODO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191802.msg52725465#msg52725465).

I will make the Filipino translation of it, I will post the link later :)

edit: Here is the link of the translation :)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192398.msg52737619#msg52737619

As already mentioned:

---

To determine the trustworthiness of an user I'm always recommending to mention the risked amount of money directly in the trust comments (can be in USD or in BTC). While I use the reference link more as a "proof" that my feedback is valid and the deal happened, I prefer to write the risked amount also directly in the comments. That way it's very easy for potential trading partners to have a quick look on how much money the user risked for his deals.
I often come across vague descriptions where I have to search quite long on how much money was on risk and displaying that directly in the comments would help a lot to save time and still get an accurate impression of the user.

But sometimes it's a difficult question at which point the risked amount of money is "substantial", so I recommend to be a little bit more liberal here and give positive trust. Then it's important to mention the risked amount to avoid many confusions and indicate it. People should be aware that more than the risked amount of previous trades with that user might put them on risk getting scammed, so I consider that part as very important. (of course, an user can also scam you when less money is involved than in previous trades).

Before the last trust update, there was a box for "risked amount of BTC" and I'm still hoping that'll come back.


And maybe you can add a link below that part (about positive / neutral / negative feedback) to the community list collected by xtraelv, when negative trust is appropriate and when it's not:
Discussion about acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Community values. DT (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099391.msg49306851#msg49306851).

Trust FeedBack and Trust List Guide in Image. I hope with this image, member more easy to understand.

Italian Translation:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5043394.msg52756616#msg52756616

I inserted the translation as a post on the existing Trust related thread on the Italian Board.
Thread moderator is going to edit all the relevant information on the OP.

This is truly an excellent guide to the use of the Trust system, and for the first time in years I've *almost* understood how it works.
LoyceV has well done a much needed job.
But I can't but agree with what others have pointed out, that the Trust system of the forum is in itself too complicated to be widely adopted - which is leading to a quite unsolvable problem: to really work well, the Trust system should be widely used by most of the community, but it being so complicated this will likely never happen, unless a way is found to make it a bit simpler.
I'll make some attempts to start to use it.

This guide is absolutely amazing.   Hopefully forum members both old and new adhere to it.   Things have been very civil lately and it seems like drama has been kept to a minimum.  Merit left.

Is there a way to check my profile trust as  if I never used the trust list?

You mean through DT? Just add ;dt at the end of the url.

You beat me to it, it's actually included in the OP:

Thank you @LoyceV. Very useful topic.

Trust system is not known enough. Difficult to understand for new members. In fact, it is difficult for many users to understand.
So I prepared a guide in the local section before. You prepared it in more detail, so thank you.

Trust List - Trust Feedback - Trust Member (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5179926.0)

Trust Flags - DT Member Discussion Area - Trust System (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5183429.0)

Trust system works healthy if more users are active.

In the past week, these users have created a new Trust list:

It seems that french members have not seen this topic, or they think they have a perfect knowledge of the Trust system (which would surprise me), so I took the time to translate your guide into french.
It's right here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5194958.msg52838635#msg52838635).

Edit :
I realized that the title was a little too long and your name was truncated. I changed the title to " Guide pour débutants sur l'utilisation correcte du système de Trust par LoyceV"

I've updated my Personal Full Trust Depth viewer for all users (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124527.0), this is helpful to see the large recursive implications of a custom Trust list. I think most users don't recognize many of the users on their Depth 1, let alone their Depth 2.

I've been trying to think up a video to add to my list for "trust" and "feedback". I actually bumped it further back, after account recovery in my plan as I felt it deserved more time and thought than a lot of the subjects I'm trying to cover. My plan does entail so far linking to your topic for the in-depth reading on the system for people beyond my video. It works well, as I've felt we've had the same ideas, and thoughts on problems people run into confusing the 2 systems. It's probably 2 weeks away, but when I get a rough cut together, I'll PM you if that's fine to get your opinion.

Sure, go ahead :)

I made Croatian translation of your guide. Here is the link so you can add it to the local board translations

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5202182.0

Suggestion:
- Is there a way we can see 'private feedback' feature?

It can be a way to have personal private feedback for members that would not be visible to other members.
For example, if I want to create feedback to specific member that only I can see, and it should not be public.
If I decide to make it public, I would click on public button.

This isn't the right place to make forum suggestions: you can make a topic in Meta (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=24.0) if you want.

So basically you want to have a field to take notes on a profile. I don't think it's likely to be implemented, you can use neutral feedback for that (or your own notes somewhere on your computer if you want it to be private).

No. But it is possible to see which users have deleted their own posts in an effort hide their dodgy past behavior, like you have done - even way back to 10th December 2017 when Yobit created your account.

Would you like me to show you yours?

You lying trust abuser.

Edited as per request:

I believe this is a fine example of trust abuse:

https://i.postimg.cc/bYFTXsYP/Trustabuse.png (https://postimages.org/)

Source:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1064824.msg20344174#msg20344174

Calling out scammers & accounts that have been used to promote them comes at a cost, I realize that & have no problem with it, but for them to go unpunished for such blatant trust abuse is very disappointing - especially when accounts erase their posts to hide their past like dkbit98 did.

It's a shame there's no tool available to see the deleted posts when they go back so far (in the case of dkbit98 nearly two years ago) - do you know if forum admins are able to retrieve them?

Your post is off-topic, except (maybe) the part about trust abuse. Can you edit in an example of what you believe is Trust abuse so it's on-topic again?

Done. Sorry about that.

Arabic Translation: دليل للإستخدام الصحيح لنظام الثقة (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5207247.0)

VecyoL once said: Bump!

Why are looking here LoyceV

What can be done when a DT abuses their trust?
And what about trust ratings that are being given for spamming?
Isn't the trust system solely for risked money purposes where we give a rating to someone when either of us risked money or got some money from the other party as loan or through any trade? Why are other things included in trust feedbacks?

First you make an appeal to the individual involved either via PM, or by creating a reputation thread. If that goes nowhere the thread can serve as a discussion in the open about whether the offence deserves a negative. Following this you can appeal to individuals that have included them in their trust lists, to request they be removed. If that all fails there really isn't much to be done, people can tag freely as they see fit, it's up to the community whether they make DT or not.
These aren't Negative tag offences. People should if they feel it necessary tag neutral in this instance. theymos has stated spamming and such should be handled by moderators and admins.
Not entirely, it has to do with feedback about the individuals, or if you perceive them to be a risk to scam. Neutrals, probably my favorite admission is great for "personal" preference notations. Positives are handed out similar to negatives, more inline with I this user is a great resource or helpful to the community - though I would rather just see people include them in their trust list as opposed to just positive feedback for those cases.

Hope that helps.

I have been thinking for a while that it would be fun, and possibly even productively educational, to create a big online test/quiz about all of the various systems, etiquette, and history of Bitcointalk..

I have looked a few times at "free online quiz makers" but they all have too many limits on how many questions you can make and how many responses can be made etc..

I think a beginner level test would be good to include just the most pertinent and commonly useful knowledge, and then a very difficult advanced test that most users could be proud to get even 90% on for a good challenge especially if many users would be interested in submitting questions/answers multiple choice style to get a wide range of questions..

It will indeed be fun, and it will be a nice test on who really has in depth knowledge of some of the policies used in and around the forum, and also it would trigger users to find out more than they already know about the history of the forum.
I'm sure there will be a lot of high ranked users that'll be willing to assist you in this, coming up with possible questions is one way they can be of help, giving out merits to users who performed excellently is another way, etc.
I'm sure they will, it all sounds interesting, so why not. Happy new year to you mate.

Probably need someone to make a website for the quiz or find something that will work..
You have any ideas?

I'm not really good in creating a website(though I'll make enquiries)but I can also help in other ways. How about starting a new thread, you could probably get a forum user who can get this problem solved, don't you think.

If you create a topic for this, you can use Merit as an incentive for correct answers, but that means the answer will be instantly visible.

Another thing that would be good, is if more users get involved in the Flag system. Currently, there are only 2027 (http://loyce.club/trust/flags/personal/) users who Created, Supported, Opposed or are the Subject of a Flag.
It would be good if more different users take the time to pick a Flag (http://loyce.club/trust/flags/221.html), read through the Reference thread, and Support or Oppose the Flag. Currently, only very few users are active in judging Flags, which makes it quite centralized.

I have translated and posted your topic on Romanian local-board:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5216279
I'll make sure to keep it updated if there's any in the future.
Good job!

Thanks, I've added your link to the OP.

---

---

I'm proud to see 12 translations so far, I can only assume that means many users think this is valuable information to read.

The link is not working. Maybe the moderator has deleted all of Zabira's posts. I think user Zabira had posted something copy paste yesterday or the day before which is the reason.
The translation was not proper because most of the part was automated translation. I will translate and share the link with you.

I've updated the link to my archived version (http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5367/53675908.html). Zabira was Nuked indeed.

It's a risk I took when meriting a translated post from a Newbie in a language I can't read.

In another topic, theymos shared his view of the Trust system:

Hello LoyceV, sorry that I have taken a huge time than I should. It was because I was a little busy IRL, could not spend much time on PC. Have sent a PM to our thread moderator to update the thread with linking the guide.

ট্রাস্ট সিস্টেমের সঠিক ব্যবহার (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631891.msg53823504#msg53823504)

Edit- Unfortunately the post is deleted now. I do not know the reason. I will update the post once I post again.
Edit new link- ট্রাস্ট সিস্টেমের সঠিক ব্যবহার (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=631891.msg53828556#msg53828556)

The post doesn't show in modlog (https://bitcointalk.org/modlog.php). If you didn't delete it, it must have been the owner of the self-moderated thread. You should probably ask for the reason, if it gets deleted again there's no point linking it here.

Update: my mistake, I searched for the msgID in modlog, but modlog doesn't show those.

I didn't delete it.
The thread owner also didn't. He is not active in bitcointalk from Feb 11, I have posted on February 12 and post was deleted on Feb 12 too. So, he didn't delete it too. I have received delete notification at Feb 12, 09:01:05 PM.
I created a thread here- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225405.msg53827254#msg53827254
Now unlocking it.
edit- it is presented in the modlog, see the yellow one.
https://i.imgur.com/aBha9Qp.png

Hi Loyce I have a question about this item:


What's the rationale behind saying it is OK for someone to include their alt account in their trust list? If the person adding their alt account is on DT1, that automatically makes their alt DT2, which is arguably more significant of an outcome than an alt including their main account. Just want to know what the thinking behind this is.

The only reason this would be bad, is if you tag someone from both accounts. That would lead to double the negative (or positive) power, which would be Trust abuse.
As long as you only tag users from either one of the accounts, I can't think of any reason why this would be bad. You trust your alt's judgement, so you want to see your alt's ratings by default.

I use LoyceMobile (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1903546) to tag scammers, but "the easy way" without creating a proper reference topic. Most of them get Nuked anyway. LoyceMobile was on DT2 for a while (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-01-18_Sat_05.16h/1903546.html), but not anymore.
I didn't include LoyceMobile because I use it to leave positive feedback when I don't want to add DT-power to it.

I know that the risk of a (mobile) alt being compromised is larger than the main account, but if that ever happens it can quickly be excluded from DT2.

This is a great guide to understanding the trust system. But I saw a profile where there is no trust feedback but there is a trust flag.

https://i.imgur.com/i8XzX1m.jpg

I think the trust feedback and the trust flags seem to be the same. So what's the need to have this two things?
What's the differences between trust feedback and trust flags?

No, it's not same
Trust feedback is you giving feedback to an account, you can express your opinion about someone trustworthiness (already expalined by @LoyceV). Trust feedback will not show in the thread who because it's subjective trust.

And trust flags is created to "warn" people to not trade from that's user who has get flags since that's user is high risk of losing money.

You can create flags without give trust feedback or vice versa. So the best way is create both of them, trust feedback to make sure the account is scam or have bad reputation and trust flags for warn people to trade since that's account is scam or have bad reputation, it will have chance of losing money

It's all about my opinion

See Trust flags (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344.0). One of the differences is that Trust Flags show a warning (in some cases) for visitors without an account, while feedback is only visible after you login.

Hi LoyceV,

I have translated to my local board (Malaysia) here the thread [GUIDE] Panduan pemula untok gunekan Trust sistem yang betol oleh LoyceV (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=85430.msg54288195#msg54288195)

If any update on your thread, I'll keep sure to update my thread too. Thank you for the amazing explanation about Trust system, it's make me more clear about the difference and how to use it properly :)

Thanks, I've added it to the OP.

Have a doubt here if trust gives us so much of information on a account then why is it not visible like the way merits and activity is visible. Why is it so hidden?

The Trust list itself is hidden, but the result of your own Trust list is visible in every user's Trust score (just not on all boards).

As LoyceV said above, trust score is visible, just not on all boards
It's only public on boards where users are more exposed to trades with other members. One is more likely to enter into a trade in the trading discussion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=8.0) board than here in the beginner's and help section, so it's visible on the former, but not the latter.

Hello,

Thanks to OP for bringing this standard guide for Trust system where newbie like us can learn a lot about forum. How to operate and how to deal with other members.

But my question is, Do other members, especially senior and experienced member really follow this rules and respect forum's tool ?

You will understand if you see the trust rating in my profile, with Reference. I was negative tagged just for some Silly Forum mistakes, which I was not even warned

Regards

No. But those aren't rules anyway:
There are currently 593 users on DT (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5139250.msg54345131#msg54345131), the Trust system is decentralized, and they all leave feedback how they think it works best.

---

---

I'll respond in the Reference topic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5044685.0).

Seeing the latest threads on Meta, this deserves a Bump!

On a side note, the guide has been translated into Spanish (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5247206.new#new).

For all translators: I've enabled SSL on loyce.club, so all links to http://loyce.club should be replaced by https://loyce.club. Without this, the images don't work anymore. Sorry for the inconvenience!

Just have seen it today and changed it already without knowen this post you have done !
Was wondering why it dont works anymore and tested a bit with the link around and changed it to https.
Also have written in the thread of masulum and madnessteat to let them know .
For not spamming in every thread i mention the User here now they dont have changed it .

@TryNinja
@Yatsan
@fillippone
@Halab
@Rikafip
@HBKMusiK
@Little Mouse
@Despairo
@Csmiami

That is now fixed.
Sorry took longer as I have been busy IRL, and didn’t see the post until explicitly tagged by @Lafu (every tag is an haptic feedback on my skin).
Strongly recommend tagging next time you want to summon your translators.

Fixed! (I think....) Thanks Lafu for the mention, I'm not logging in much to the forum these days, and I wouldn't have seen this otherwise

You don't have negative feedback. You've joined the forum a few hours ago, and made 12 posts already. Don't post BS in my topic.

FTFY


 :D :D :D :D :D

Hello,

I have made a hindi translation to this very usefull topic in the Indian board.

 ट्रस्ट सिस्टम का उपयोग कैसे करें  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5273128.msg55116153#msg55116153)

Trust system isn't intertwined with the forum rules, they are two separate entities.

Trust system only serves as a guide for users to identify users who aren't trustworthy or are scammers. They shouldn't be used as a way for users to tag others for violation of forum rules. IMO, it's okay to tag users who are trolls and exhibit behavior that endanger the users on the forum. You will have to report the user to moderators if you believe that they are in violation of any forum rules.

Yes:

If that's your opinion, why haven't you left any feedback yet? You've been here 3.5 years, there must have been someone you've noticed, right? The same for a custom Trust list (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5102296.0): DefaultTrust can only be decentralized if many users use it.

Follow-up question: how many posts have you reported? Mods can't read everything, but if you see something that violates forum rules, you should Report it.

Agreed.

Trolling is against the rules, so I wouldn't tag someone for that (but others do). If anything, I'd leave a neutral tag for trolling. If there's a danger involved, I'd use negative.

So when a user like Vod is trolling others with lies for years, including them in your trust network would be inappropriate right?

I'm just curious because you seem to be trying to tell beginners how to use the trust network while you are supporting the inclusion of a lying troll who continues to break forum rules and abuse the trust network.  Seems like maybe you should use the trust network correctly yourself LoyceV before trying to influence others on how to use it.

Trust system is difinitely good but I think it should not be decentralized on only could be trusted people to tag red trust or to do as based on reports that will be reported in a thread to be reviewed. Just like how the plagiarism works where all the plagiarized post where being reported in a single thread for review.

Why not make it decentralized? It is subject for abuses just like what other users had claim and give negative impact on the system. If this could not be improved then I think it is better to give users that are really trusted to give red trust.

Whether or not something is trolling is in the eye of the beholder. Mods deal with that, and if you don't like someone, ignore them. I don't agree with all feedback or inclusions from most users on my Trust list, but I do agree with the large majority of their ratings. It's not perfect, but the alternative would be to have an almost empty Trust list.
(Allegedly) breaking forum rules has nothing to do with the Trust system, unless, for example, someone is posting malware.

Please keep your feud with Vod out of my thread, this has spread to a couple dozen threads already.

Do you even know what you're typing? The Trust system is decentralized because theymos doesn't want to decide on his own who can be trusted. It's up to the community to decide.

Trust list is decentralized by community.
Trust list abuses can be easily to be detected by community.

Everyone can leave feedback (positive, negative, neutral) but if one user is not a DT member, any feedback is left by that one will appear in a Untrusted feedback. If that one is a DT member, any feedback is left by the one will be show by default with positive, negative, neutral, depends on each feedback.

If you exclude a specific user from your Trust list (you distrust that guy), any feedback is left by that user will become Untrusted feedback -- You can not see it by default.

You are ok trusting users who break forum rules and you think you should be telling newbies how to use the trust system. Maybe you should stick to tables. Trust and honesty seems outside of your lane.

I don't need your approval. This is enough for me:
And this:
And this:

But hey, by all means, please write OgNasty's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system (http://). I bet those Beginners would love to read all about your feud with Vod view on the Trust system.

---

---

I've deleted a bunch of off-topic posts. See loyce.club/archive/details/topic_5191802.html (https://loyce.club/archive/details/topic_5191802_2020-10-06_Tue_07.59h.html#msg55321560) for details.
Feel free to post in LoyceV's reputation thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4826180.0).

Of course, totally within your discretion, Loyce, regarding whether or how to respond to OgNasty and the copy cat posts that he had already inspired in this thread from his recent posts.. I would agree that it was likely that it was better for you to respond to OgNasty's first post in which he proclaimed that you were "not worthy" to be giving advices on how to dish out trust, blah blah blah... so responding to those initial claims, as you did, including asserting that it was off-topic was likely a reasonable approach, but as you already know and you already mentioned earlier, in a self-moderated thread, you are completely justified to completely delete the posts of OgNasty without further explanation .... and of course, he has a right to create another thread or to bring such topic up in other threads (which he seems to have done, as you suggested).  You even pointed out your particular reputation thread in which he could "totally" (if that were to be possible?) bash you, if he were to aim for such Loyce bashenings, since that thread is not self-moderated.

Sure, you decided to attempt to respond, to provide some linked info and mostly attempt to stay on topic, so however you deal with the situation is up to you, including if you decide to delete this particular post, as well (first time that I have ever suggested deleting my own post... first time for every little thing-i-lie).   ;) ;) #nohomo...

 :D :D :D :D

Trust is decentralized hence user that get caught making claims without proof of evidence is a sort of abuse in merit system.

I think the best way to get it done right as I have read in other replies is all about chosing the right users to tag flag or red trust to users that are violating the forum rules. Of course it should be supported to something to prove the users being accused with the violations. This to avoid getting abuses in giving red trust to other users that are just giving feedback even just sort of accusations and no proof or evidences.

Why don't you participate? Create a custom Trust list (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust) and start leaving feedback when appropriate. By doing so, you can vote for DT1-members, and you can start Supporting or Opposing Trust flags (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344.0).

Just learnt something new now, indeed this is a great piece though it's too lengthy to go through. Less you are an enthusiast like me.😊 Well I suggest this should be made public like pinned per say. It's very useful. Most people on this forum barely know this.
Thank you

Please check I just translated this into our local board Pakistan in Urdu hopefully this will help many newbies for correct use of trust system.

Added!

@LoyceV, I've put a few names on my list of trust so far since the last few months. I don't expect these people to include me on their list of trust too. Now, I am wondering am I guilty if including all the current DT1 names I trust in my list of trust ?

Do you trust the users, or do you trust their judgement on others? See this part:

underlined words should not be reversed?

No. If someone is nice, that doesn't mean you can trust him. And if you don't like someone's posts, that doesn't mean he would scam you.

"...that doesn't mean he/she deserves..." you might consider an update to be crystal clear for anyone :)

I know how I can add people to my trust list, also I know little about DT1 and DT2 but I find it difficult to check people that had me to their trust list.

How can I know people that add me to their trust list?
I also read on a thread that theymos determines if someone become DT1, how is that true?

See LoyceV's Trust list viewer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5102296.0).

See DefaultTrust changes (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.0).

Wow.. this is indeed a brilliant article, at least with this now, I have been able to understand how the trust system really works, and when and how to use it. Thanks

So what does trust really cover?

When it comes to user account others are taking advantage to use the trust system to flag them. My idea was trust feedbacks are given to those who are probable scammer and fraud people and not to those users that are violating forum rules.

Please enlighten me on how could trust feedbacks be use.

Does only trust feedbacks solely use when funds are at stake or to any scenario like when you do not like the user the way he acted and then give him a trust feedback?

Great! Now start using it :)

If only you would have read my post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191802.msg52715278#msg52715278), you wouldn't have to ask this.

I've highlighted in blue the portion I want to canvas in this post.  We're up to week 135.  In week 75 (https://loyce.club/trust/2020-06-20_Sat_05.04h/181253.html) (60 weeks ago i.e. just fractionally more than one years ago) user krogoth created their DT list:


In week 135 (https://loyce.club/trust/2021-08-14_Sat_06.20h/181253.html), their DT trust list looks like this:

---

---

krogothmanhattan is the main alt of krogoth - krogoth was created Date Registered:    2013-12-06, 08:39:23 while krogothmanhattan was Date Registered:    2017-05-11, 23:39:37

From krogothmanhattan's DT trust list, we see the following:

Week 135: (https://loyce.club/trust/2021-08-14_Sat_06.20h/1000199.html)


So I guess my question concerns krogothmanhattan (DT1) voting up their main account krogoth (DT2) (or the other way around depending on which you see as the main account)


(yes, that's positive default trust feedback)

AND

a second question, if I may... How is it neither Ramelius, greenplastic nore monkeynuts picked up that two alts are bumping up their DT ranking?

I noticed that before. The Collectibles (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=217.0) board has always had their own view on the Trust system, where several DT-members give positive feedback to Newbies who used an escrow or paid first. In a way some escrows are selling positive feedback by giving just for using their service. In my opinion, and I think most users agree, that doesn't deserve positive feedback, because it doesn't mean they'd also pay when given the chance to scam someone (which is what positive feedback is all about).
So yes, I consider it incorrect use of the Trust system. But since it barely happens those users turn into scammers, I don't think it's much of a practical problem, and I certainly don't want to fight the entire Collectibles board over this.
Also: krogothmanhattan doesn't need his alt's vote to reach DT1. If that would be the case, you could ask theymos to blacklist the sockpuppets from DT1-voting (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5128907.0).
The Collectibles board is the easiest place to farm trust.

I noticed that too. Let's say I wouldn't do it, and if a less trusted user would do it, he might get tagged for Trust abuse.

It's the Collectibles board. I think many users there would argue that's the correct use of the Trust system.

User thiago007 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2879601) got even 2 green DT-feedbacks from the same person (krogothmanhattan and krogoth). Many of the green feedbacks don't even get a Reference tag.

To be clear, I don't think this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1000199) is correct use of the Trust system:

I looked further and some of the ones who have received positive trust feedback via (krogothmanhattan and krogoth) would have lower BPIP scores had they only received ten points as opposed to 20 points for their trust feedback scores.

I hadn't suggested there was "scamming" going on.  However, the scope of "buying" trust feedback isn't constrained to just the collectables market e.g. escrow, lending, currency exchange for (low value = pennies) transactions.

*edit* corrected something in this post...

All true, but what can we do? It's almost 2 years ago I wrote this:
All that's left is excluding users who's feedback we deem unworthy.

I once attempted to get a lot of collectibles' users to rethink how they were using it, but too many are stubborn, lazy or still don't understand it - I personally took flack from some of them for my trust list adjustments "Oh wow, you don't trust me anymore"? kinda silliness - Then when I explained why, they still felt like I'd dealt them a blow or something, because apparently being DT1 or DT2 makes people feel important (or something)?..   ::)

That might even seem like a noble venture if indeed those dishing out such "justice" had already attempted to reach out to those they deem "unworthy" to work collaboratively with said person towards a mutual understanding.  Otherwise, slapping others with negatives from on high can be construed as being unwarranted, or indeed bullying.

Plain and simple.

I'm talking about excluding them from your trust list, not about leaving negative feedback. I thought we'd been over the differences often enough by now.
Let me put it this way:
Trust list exclusion: decentralized voting.
Negative feedback: public shaming.

No.

No we haven't.  

Did you really misunderstand what I just wrote?  It seems you did.  

We are talking about the DT trust system.  (the subject of this thread as it happens)

What do you think we are talking about?

LoyceV, is this an official rule or is this a suggestion from you to fix an abused system?
Actually I don't know if anyone abused this system before so that they can form a strong network and continue to get a place to be DT1 or DT2 among fellow [friends]. I mean it's not because they left accurate feedback, but because they know each other or are countrymen.

If I can chime in, I don't think there's any specific rule on generating a trust list, but there are accepted guides, one of which is the one suggested by LoyceV. It has also been sort of endorsed by the admin, so you would not go wrong by it;

 I don't think Loyce has created other guides besides this, I stand to be corrected though.

Both. Read this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust).

Of course it happens. I'm sure you can find countless topics about it.

A little help needed.

My dog has a Bitcointalk account and had started a personalized trust list. Since he can't operate the keyboard very well with his paws, he doesn't know how, but he ended up deleting everything. So now he has an empty trust list.
 
Can he put the original DT back somehow? Or does he simply need to create his own customized list now? Like adding the members one by one.

Add "DefaultTrust" to the list:

Train your dog (https://interestingengineering.com/this-dog-can-actually-communicate-with-you-unlike-your-teenager) :P

I have to say that it's quite long and very detailed. I can see that you put so much effort in this thread and it was amazing how you did it. The long text doesn't really matter that much as i have patience in reading. I am thankful for the useful detailed information you shared.

It really helps but still you could have made it shorter like a summary because i bet others would skip reading because of it's long texts. Thinking that it was tiring. Not all people likes reading some hate reading long texts but regardless of that, i still appreciate you work.  You put a lot of hardwork.

I would believe you if you would have created your own Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2021-10-09_Sat_06.10h/). Unfortunately, you didn't.

This topic is the summary.

The Twitter generation isn't my target audience here. Theymos made a complicated Trust system, I can't do it justice by summarizing in 140 characters.

I'm afraid i'm still new. I recently became a member. I'm sorry if i made a mistake there or either offended you. Although i did not create my own, it is still useful and helpful. I'm not gonna deny it, it's still fact. I'm actually reading it for furthermore knowledge that i can use someday. I'm might not be creating now for some reasons but i will eventually someday. I can always looked back at your thread and follow the instructions if i am gonna create it. I hope you'll understand. Thank you.

Hi LoyceV.

After rereading the thread, this time all the pages, I have a couple of questions.

A) As for leaving feedback, I understand that it is mainly to be used if 1) you have traded with someone or if 2) you would trust someone to trade, even if you have not traded yet. This second part is more subjective and can be based on his behavior in the forum. 1) is straightforward, for example, you can leave a feedback: "I traded 0,1 BTC for x Eth, trade went smoothly".

But don't you think that leaving feedback because you would hypothetically trust to make a trade with someone (2) is more subjective and may result in people leaving feedback simply because they like the other person, for example? (Although if they like the other person, it is normal that they would trust him to make at least some small deal but I hope you get the idea).

seems to me that I will have to rethink and maybe delete or modify some feedbacks I had left.

B) As for building the trust list, how do you do it? I mean, I think it's clear what needs to be done, but how often do you add or remove people? Do you do it as it comes? If you see someone leave feedback that catches your attention, you go and look at their trust list and then decide whether to include or exclude them from yours?

Well, it depends: If you traded with someone, does that mean you trust him? If you didn't risk anything, neutral feedback may be the better choice. But if you do trust him, leave positive feedback.

I've received several positive feedbacks from (by now) DT-members, many of those have nothing to do with trades. Obviously it's subjective, but those feedbacks are a lot harder to "earn" than for instance trading 0.1 BTC for a shitcoin.

It never hurts to check if old feedback is still appropriate.

I like to say I'm quite conservative: I barely change my Trust list, and most changes were to exclude someone instead of including them.

---

---

I'm also quite conservative with positive feedback. There are many users by now who I'd trust in a trade though, but I never went on a positive feedback spree.

I was just wondering what your thoughts are of DT1 users (regardless of whether or not they are plus or minus) who DT trust a user who has been banned for quite some time?

In the scenario I'm thinking of, a user in the past DT trusted another user, but over time that user is now banned.

Said DT1 user does from time to time modify their DT trust list, so it's not like they picked some random users and then years later have forgotten what they did.

Hypothetically speaking...

If someone on my Trust list gets banned, I'd probably review their Sent feedback before taking a decision.
The last time I saw banned DT2-members (DyslexicZombei and funnychain) was 1.5 months ago (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5235038.msg57803186#msg57803186). Those users are still included by Dabs, so they'll be on DT2 again once either examplens or nutildah drops off DT1. The second user (funnychain) doesn't have any Sent feedback.
Dabs included many users who shouldn't be on DT2, but left him positive feedback. I'd call that Trust Selfscratching (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5143841.0): his Trust ratings go from (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=54791)  +9 / =0 / -0) to (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=54791)  +39 / =0 / -0) depending on whether or not he's on DT1. Dabs is included by theymos, which is interesting since theymos recommends this:

If excluded DT1-members include banned users it doesn't really matter: excluded DT1-members can only "vote" for DT1, not for DT2.

Is their feedback still accurate?

I'm bad at hypothetical :P Seriously though: it depends on the feedback they've left.

What do you think about having a short custom trust list? At the moment I have 4 people and no one excluded, but no hurry, little by little I can add more and also put excluded. I guess there is no minimum and maximum, I don't remember reading anything about it.

That makes more sense than adding a long list without really checking their feedbacks.

The maximum is around 30,000 (https://loyce.club/trust/2020-01-18_Sat_05.16h/2526482.html), my guess is it's limited by the forum time-out (just like the Ignore list can't be viewed anymore when it gets too long).

I guess it's similar to including Zepher who is no longer with us. Their posts are relevant therefore there is no need to remove their name as they are still relevant.  I'll have a bit more of a look as you suggest.

BTW Tor browser is currently giving me an error: Secure Connection Failed for your site.

Fixed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5331343.msg58176605#msg58176605) :)

I've been reviewing feedbacks and I think I'm going to leave them as they are. The negative ones I have clear, and the positive ones, although they are more subjective and not related to having traded, are to people I would trust to make a deal with.

For example, I have two positive feedbacks to Rikafip and lovesmayfamilis for being scam and spam fighters. To me that fact gives me confidence if I were to trade money with them. I wouldn't put all my net worth blindly in their hands but if I had to do a small deal, let's say exchange $100-200 Bitcoin for some shitcoin with lovesmayfamilis I would send him the money first with my eyes closed. The same as for xhomerx10, JayJuanGee etc.

What do you think about it?

Btw, I visited loyce.club to see if the trust had been updated (I see it hasn't yet) but I have to tell you that I find it a bit difficult to navigate. Once you go into the folder, can you search for users with any command or do you have to go through them one by one until you find the one you want?

I don't know if you have somewhere an explanation about loyce.club for dummies. Are they ftp files?

This one strikes me as odd:

It doesn't make sense to me to trust someone in a deal that hasn't happened yet, just because he made an avatar. For the record: I have no reason not to trust xhomerx10.

It's updated now (https://loyce.club/trust/2021-10-16_Sat_06.06h/2836461.html).
On the latest Trust list overview (https://loyce.club/trust/2021-10-16_Sat_06.06h/index.html), just use CTRL-F to find a user. Or this:
I usually click "Trust list (http://)" to jump from one user's Trust list to another (within the same week).

I never got to add some (long planned) design to loyce.club, so it's still mainly about raw data. Maybe [overview] LoyceV's useful data on Bitcointalk (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5145594.0) helps a bit.

---

---

For $200, sure, but for larger amounts: being a scam fighter doesn't mean much. I've seen "scam fighters" turn into scammers the moment they had the chance. There's one in particular I have in mind, I think he defaulted on a several Bitcoin loan, but I can't remember his name (and I searched for a long time).

It is clear to me that here we are specifically talking about whether the feedback is well placed, not whether we like him or he is a good guy.

In this case I think I have a good reason to give him positive feedback but maybe I will have to change it because it is not well explained. And if you see it as given lightly, surely others do too.

Actually, with xhomerx10 there was something more like a deal than with the others. He made me the avatar without asking for anything in return, but when he finished I sent him a tip.

So, the relevant question is:

If I can trust that he is going to do a job for free, won't it be logical to trust him also if we make a previous economic deal?

Surely for you to make an avatar will be something easy, but for me it is not. Before contacting him I was trying to edit and I got some changes, but not what I wanted. When I contacted him, I asked him if he charged anything for making the avatars and he told me that he didn't, and that he made them for WO gang members, and in some cases for other members as well.

I told him that I occasionally wrote in the WO and he agreed to do it for me. When he finished, I thought I would send him a tip, and when I received the outstanding payment from Lightlord, I did.

I really appreciate it when a person who doesn't know me at all offers to do work for me for free. And if tomorrow, let's say I have a website and I want him to design the cover. He tells me he's going to charge me $100.

If he did the job when he didn't know me at all and for free, I won't trust him to do it for me if I pay him?

I think so, and that's why I left the feedback.

Another doubt I have is regarding neutral feedbacks, I have seen that people leave neutral feedback, even when there has been monetary exchange and you also mentioned something about it in another post. I don't quite understand it, isn't trust feedback supposed to be precisely for that? If you make exchanges with money involved, and they go well, I understand that the feedback should be positive.

Something else: I've seen my updated trust list in Loyce.club and 1miau still distrust my list but I think he distrusted it when my dog deleted all people that was in my previous list. People like 1miau are supposed to review this? Or maybe if I see it's been a while I can send him a PM to see if he wants to check the new list?


As the saying goes: "the opportunity makes the thief".

As you go up in quantity, no matter who you make deals with, it is wise to take security measures. I could probably get a non-collateralized loan for $200 on the forum, but if I ask for $20,000, I will likely be asked to leave some kind of collateral such as a shitcoin as collateral, no matter how good a reputation I may have.

Rewriting it could indeed avoid confusion.

I wouldn't necessarily expect that, because of this:

Somehow "doing a job" to me feels less likely to turn into a scam than "doing an exchange". If someone is good at designing covers, it may take him a few hours, and a few hours isn't worth destroying a reputation. But if it's a trade, and someone earns $1 per hour in his normal day job, they might be tempted to run off.

I'd be comfortable asking a $200 loan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4826180.msg51266018#msg51266018) too :) I prefer to stay far away from any amount that would raise eyebrows.

Say we make a trade: You send me $200 in Bitcoin, and after that I send you $200 on the Lightning Network. You trusted me, I didn't scam you. I didn't have to trust you, so you couldn't have scammed me. Does that mean I'd trust you if I'd send first? Maybe, but not based on this deal. So based on this hypothetical trade, I don't think you'd deserve positive feedback.

You were excluded by miau in the week you made your first Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2021-09-18_Sat_07.53h/2836461.html), not when you wiped it (https://loyce.club/trust/2021-10-02_Sat_06.08h/2836461.html) (2 weeks later). It's up to them whether or not to review their exclusions, I usually don't bother to PM users about their exclusions.

Another way to see neutral feedback is as sort of "protection" against trust farm. I am sure that scammers would gladly take few hundreds of dollars loan in exchange for a positive feedback from well respected lenders so I am not surprised that they tend to give neutral instead positive feedback.

Call me paranoid, but to me bunch of those little loans look more like a trust farm attempts rather than a real need.

Hi LoyceV. This is just to say that I'm so grateful, I am learning so much thanks to your posts and also to your detailed answers to my questions that I think that I am becoming a better forum member every day partly thanks to you. I think it all started when you helped me to rank up, which gave me a boost in my self-esteem.

From now on I think I will think a lot about leaving positive feedback if it's not for a trade. In the meantime, I'll keep an eye on how others leave their feedbacks and follow up on them.


I guess it is a strategy they are trying but do you think people with experience, for example DarkStar, are going to fall into that trap?

I guess not, hence neutral feedback for those small loans makes sense, but that doesn't mean some won't try to do that. There are smart scammers around that are willing to play long game, not all are imbeciles.

Believe it or not, before becoming a role model, Mr. Robot himself was an inquisitive newbie trying to understand the intricacies of the t'system, (since then machine learning technologies have taken a big step forward). Besides, being an inveterate skeptic, even I almost believed he was human when I reread one of his threads.


This issue has been raised many times, but there are still a lot of those, ^{[even among high-ranking forum participants]} who continue to leave positive reviews without risking anything. But one thing I can say for sure, DS_ was one of the first to understand what was happening and since then he has not changed his position (if you look at the history of his feedback, you will see that he leaves positive credit tags when it comes to large amounts).

Lol. It was a learning curve indeed :)

Let's add a bit more context from my reputation thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4826180.0):
This (partially) helped me come to this recommendation:
This also made me respond to Trust abuse with neutral instead of negative feedback. To throw in another cliche: Be the change you wish to see in the world. (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/10/23/be-change/).

Since we have touched on the subtleties of the trust system, I would like to discuss a small dilemma. I'm looking for a quick tip, plus I don't feel like creating a new thread over trifles. It's about the unusual activity of one of the guys in the collectibles section.

The crux of the matter is this:



There were a lot of discussion posts in the thread, but it all boiled down to tmow that in the end this switch to insults and refused to provide evidence that he did not use an alt account in his auction (he ultimately edited his post). I am a little confused because I feel that on the one hand, the red tag is fully deserved, on the other hand, after this discussion, as a gesture of goodwill, it covered the escrow costs for future sales.

When in doubt, don't do anything. No tags needed, just let it be.

On the one hand I see doubt, and on the other hand I see it too :P

This doesn't look totally impossible:

Thank you for explaining this so thoroughly. I was confused as a newer member. I really appreciate you breaking it down so a dummy like me could understand  ;D

Hi LoyceV, I have a question to ask you and anyone else who wants to comment on the thread.

I have seen that you and two other forum members have left a neutral tag for merit abuse to naim027.

The comment from lovesmayfamilis is the harshest:


I would say it is a neutral tag of negative spirit.

So, the doubt I have is that I included naim027 in my trust list because I saw that he had included me in his and when I checked both his trust list and his distrust list I saw that they were very similar to mine. Besides I read the feedbacks that he had left, which if I remember correctly were 4 and I saw them correct. So the decision was easy to include him in my trust list.

So, I understand that these neutral tags should not affect that inclusion, especially because it seems that it was a one-time thing in the past that does not happen today and the tags are neutral.

What do you think about this?

And going further, let's imagine that in the future I find a similar case but in this case is someone that I have in my trust list but has bought merits to rank up faster, so he gets negative tags.

If his trust list is still similar to mine and his feedback is correct, should I reconsider removing him from my trust list? Part of me says yes, because if you don't trust someone you don't trust them in general, and another part of me says they are two separate things.

I would also like to know your opinion on this second, more hypothetical aspect.

I am not supposed to respond here because I shouldn't be advocating for myself. Let's put someone else shoe's on mine.


About negative tags for abusing merit, It's not a forum rule. It's about ethics. Theymos once said:


I would say it's up to you. It's all about Judgment. If you trust someone's Judgment, Include him on your trust list. If you don't trust someone's Judgment, Distrust him. Don't mix up Trust Feedback and Trust Network. Those two features are used for different purposes. The feedback system has nothing to do with your trust network system. Feedback system should be used for trading trust purposes.


There are many members with negative trust, and many DT Members distrusted them.

Take OgNasty (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-04-09_Sat_05.10h/18321.html) For example. He has 6 Negative feedback from DT members. Even having a Donator badge doesn't mean he is unlikely to scam. Let's say those six negative are legit—still, theymos trust his Judgment.

OgNasty's judgement is Trusted by:
1. theymos (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=35) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=35)  +30 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (58) 8535 Merit earned (https://loyce.club/Merit/history/35.html)) (Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-04-09_Sat_05.10h/35.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/Profile?p=theymos))

I left that neutral tag because I didn't agree with lovesmayfamilis' negative tag, and because I hoped this would stop others from adding more negative tags for something this small (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1926895.msg59662576#msg59662576). After this, lovesmayfamilis changed their tag to neutral (and removed me from their Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-04-02_Sat_05.29h/1982152.html)).

I think so too. But I also think it's better than a negative tag with the same spirit.

This isn't a good reason to include anyone. I took this part out of context to make a point for anyone who reads this.

This makes more sense.

I wouldn't worry about it.

I think it really depends on the case. Some people with negative feedback still have good Sent feedback. And some go full retaliation by tagging anyone who left them a (valid) negative tag.
For now, I wouldn't worry about hypothetical problems :)

Okay, I'll explain too. I don't think that 10 merit is already a member's level, an insignificant thing. Thus, as I wrote earlier, it is possible to advise everyone to distribute their merits to their alternatives. What's more, a lot of accounts have been downvoted for this behavior, and I've also seen a lot of accounts that lie very beautifully. I'm starting from how acted before.
Why then tag anyone at all with negative or other tags if they are more preferred for trading?
But yes, I looked at the history of naim027's account, and just as he nobly apologized for his mistake earlier today (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5373899.msg59821469#msg59821469), I also want to say that I overreacted with my assessment, and I apologize.

Just to clarify that of course if we take that sentence isolated from the context it would not be a good reason to include anyone.

What I meant to say is that what motivated me to look at his trust lists and feedbacks is to see that he had included me.

No worries, I got that. I wanted to highlight it though, since that's kinda the point of this topic. I'll add that I took that part slightly out of context.

It's really up to you to decide, as LoyceV's notes on the first page of this thread and Theymos quoted post are only recommendations. Therefore, only you can personally determine the degree of this or that slander or lie that comes from the user, especially since there is a law in the US law that criminalizes malicious slander. but as far as I know, it only applies in cases where a malicious lie has caused you personal financial damage (or may cause it in the future).

Hi @LoyceV,

Upon reading your thread and understand it correctly how to use of trust feedback and trust system, I have a question regarding the use of positive feedback. You wrote "If you believe someone can be trusted, even when you didn't trade with him, that too deserves positive feedback." I don't know what's the reason why we need to leave positive feedback when there's no money or trade involved? Even I see many people also giving you positive feedback without money or trade involved. I won't mention those names, but I will re write what does I feel it isn't a correct way to leave positive feedback (not only on your trust list).

"This user is really valuable and wrote many high quality posts, it's an asset in this forum"
"This user fighting against scammer, good scam buster"
"This user is a good guy, useful, and active in x board"
"This user is trusted with his valuable posts"
"This user is really smart about Bitcoin"

I feel those above positive feedback isn't correct, since there's nothing about money or trade involved. Why does a smart person which created many high quality posts can be trusted? it's just like trusting a hacker which know how to hack a website and stole the funds. Now talking about scam buster, a respectable person who help the forum, why we should leaving positive feedback a respectable person? I think adding his name on trust list is already enough since they're mostly leaving a negative and neutral feedback, also support or opposite a flag (forum stuffs). Someone who willing to help about forum stuffs are different with someone who willing to help in money oriented e.g. refund back the money (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5378231.msg58801111#msg58801111). Moreover trusting someone because he active in x board, knowing each other or join on a same gang/activities e.g. active in their local board are just subjective judgement and shouldn't given a positive feedback.

I didn't mean to make a conflict nor I envy didn't have any single positive feedback, but I wanted to learn more deeply and if I'm correct I would be happy to make the use of trust feedback more correctly. I know there's many more not correct use of trust feedback and trust list e.g. well known drama V vs O, but it's really complicated and I feel it's impossible to each other would revise his feedback/trust list. But for those feedback I mentioned above are still possible to be revised since these users aren't taking a feedback too seriously.

tl;dr trust feedback is used for money oriented, trust list is used for a user who leaving a correct trust feedback.

The forum's recommendation is this:
That can very well apply to long-term community members. I think a reputation of being good with thousands of hours spend on this forum means someone isn't likely to throw that all away for a quick buck.
It is much easier to get positive trust by buying something on the Collectibles board, and selling it again. Even better if you pay some of the usual escrows there, you may get 2 positive ratings for only one trade.
It's up to every forum member to decide for themselves how they value this.

Or the other way around: some of the largest amounts I've handled for others didn't result in any feedback. Not that it matters much, because it's usually with Newbies who's feedback is "Untrusted" by default.

That would be really hard to fake.

I've seen this go wrong several times: users quickly gaining a reputation and positive feedback as "scam buster", and eventually scamming when they see an opportunity.

I think this mainly happens on local boards.

This could apply to technical posts: it's good to know who's posts are generally correct, especially if a Newbie were to ask a question and gets opposing answers.

Lol. This requires a very convincing Reference link.

The good thing about feedback is that you can read it and decide on your own if it means something to you. If someone had the chance to steal $10,000 and didn't scam, I'd say he isn't likely to steal $1000 when he gets the chance. But if someone's posts on a local board are highly valued by his fellow countrymen, that doesn't tell me if he'd run off with the $1000 once given the chance.

If that's how you feel: exclude the users who left that feedback from your Trust list.

It depends: I wouldn't necessarily trust them. In fact, there are only a few users here who I'd trust with any significant amount without thinking about it.
But think about what someone has to lose. I recently received a PM from a Newbie saying he doesn't want to be conned, and I'd be an idiot to do it because my reputation is worth more. He's right. That's what gives a reputation value.

I wouldn't trust a hacker who steals. But a hacker who informs you about a vulnerability can be worth $50 000 (https://bitcointalk.org/sbounties.php).

I wouldn't do it. But some users do.

I don't think that user deserves 10 positive feedbacks for this, half of which is from DT. He got one from theymos, and in my opinion that should have been enough.

Agreed. This is one of the reasons why many local board members have so many Trust exclusions. So the "voting" system works.

Read this again:
Positive feedback can be based on your opinion. And it's up to others to decide whether or not they value your opinion.
Remember the forum's mission:

I understand, however it depends on the users itself. If I trade with a chipmixer's participant, I wouldn't think twice before send my funds to him since they're got $300/week. He wouldn't scam only for $1000, that's amount might be a peanut by him. Can a bounty hunter especially never earn any single merit and spend a lot of times to shitpost deserve a positive feedback? jk.

Yeah I also noticed that, however a reputable user wouldn't easily give a positive feedback even you've done multiply trade with him. Personally I would think when the user leave a positive feedback for low amount trade it's not really correct isn't? especially for a brand new newbie, some people might think he's safe to trade without an escrow.

To be honest this is the another problem for me.
Those users who left a wrong feedback also left so many correct feedback, it would be unfair if I just looking his single mistake but I didn't care with so many contribution he do for this forum. If he got excluded from DT network, his negative feedback to scammer will be shown in untrusted feedback. If the scammer only got a negative feedback from this user, anyone wouldn't know this scammer is a scammer since his trust will be neutral +0 / =0 / -0.

Also excluding an user isn't something easy to do, I've seen many members had a conflict because of this. Distrusting someone doesn't mean I don't like your post, I won't merit your post or I hate you, but I just don't like perspective of giving a feedback due to personal interest. Usually when A distrust B, B will distrust A too and B will search anything wrong have been done from A e.g. cheating with multiple alts, plagiarism etc.

Agreed, a feedback from theymos have a good weight.

It's even worse if they earn 2 positive feedbacks after using escrow: they had no possibility to scam, so they didn't prove they can be trusted. The Collectibles board seems to have a different view on the Trust system than the rest of the forum. I've seen users include (almost) anyone who left them positive feedback into their Trust list.

Also true. You have to weigh in all feedbacks, and if you think the total makes the forum better, don't exclude them.

This is wrong since positive feedback is to reflect someone accounts wouldn't likely to scam and could be trusted for trade without escrow, but including them on trust list would become a problem since we don't know how correct his trust feedback especially he did giving to many users. To become DT2 they only need one DT1 included on his trust list, sometimes I think the requirement to become a DT2 is quite easier rather than DT1. Perhaps to become DT2 they need at least 3 DT1 members to trust them, it's not really hard IMO and encourage more of the use trust system.

Now I'm more understand about "the forum's mission to be as free as possible" there's no such minimum requirements that deserve a positive or negative feedbacks, but it depends on each user's perspective to give it. But giving a positive positive feedback for low amount trade and didn't risking anything sound like an abuse, same as negative feedback used for personal's matter.

I don't know how it's will be possible, but I'd prefer to see a trust list without the username appeared, so one know which users trust him and distrust him (due to conflicts). Though there's a chance some users might abuse the trust list, but theymos can work more harder to reshuffle and remove the DT1 abusers 8) (Little bit of topic: I also want this happen for merit system as many users often giving merit because they got from someone who gave him before, this will encourage people to give merit for the quality, not the person)

I am not sure where to ask this question. Since this thread is about trust and feedback systems. I would like to leave my question here.

Do you believe scam busters and some specific DT members helping the forum by leaving negative feedback on bounty cheaters' accounts? 

I have seen bounty hunters do cheats on the bounty campaigns and some users hunting them as well. After they catch any bounty cheater with multiple alt accounts, they do report and DT members tag those newbie accounts. Those bounty cheater hunters are known as scam busters and sometimes they got positive feedback for this which is not correct in my opinion.

DT members tag bounty cheaters for doing cheat which is correct, but after leaving them negative feedback, those newbies create another account and come back again. So, the forum doesn't get any help from this hunting. In this case, I would say bounty managers and the Bounty organization getting help from the hunting.

Your question, if I understand is; scam bursters help the forum but bursting cheaters who would also likely be spammers. Definitely yes.
As for DT members, it's basically one of the main reasons they were added.

You would have to give an actual case of a positive feedback and discuss why it's not correct to you. A random case of a user catching and tagging bounty cheaters is kind of broad.

I'm personally of the opinion that trust feedback should be used in cases where user shows trustworthiness or hints of the opposite, tagging cheaters does not mean trustworthiness. I'll rather add such a user to my trust list as their judgement is most times accurate.

What's the problem here and your solution to it?

I think it's a waste of time to tag Newbies without any earned Merit for something they can just continue from many new accounts.

I've seen that too. If they believe someone deserves negative feedback, they should do it by themselves. That's how the Trust system becomes less centralized.

It's futile. And worse, if too many accounts get tags for something as dumb as spamming Twitter and Facebook, it could make people believe negative feedback is normal instead of a big warning.

See the problem:


I cannot suggest a solution. Because it depends on who you are and how you handle those things.

I can:

It's 1 year and 1+ months I joined this great forum. I have learnt many things in the forum, but when it comes to the issue of trust list and feedback, I didn't care to use them because I believed that;
1. Since I don't trade or offer services for now, I don't need it.
2. Since I am not a DT1 or DT2, my trust list wouldn't matter or count.
But few weeks ago, after I created  My fears about forum trust system (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5404290.msg60459431#msg60459431). I got the replies below from LoyceV and 1miau, which gave me the conviction to start using the trust system.

• Quote from: LoyceV on June 28, 2022, 10:19:22 AM
  Quote from: KingsDen on June 27, 2022, 11:17:54 PM

  I have many users here that I trust their judgement, but I don't think it's worth stressing myself about.

  That's unfortunate, because the Trust system can only be decentralized if enough people use it:
  
• Quote from: LoyceV on June 28, 2022, 01:39:49 PM
  Quote from: KingsDen on June 28, 2022, 11:49:39 AM

  I didn't know that a fellow without a feedback from DT1 or DT2 can have a stake in the trust system.

  Well, not directly. But with 10+ earned Merit, you can have a vote, and with 250+ earned Merit, you can have a big vote for DT1.
  If you use the Trust system correctly, eventually someone will include you and your feedback becomes more meaningful to others.
  
• Quote from: 1miau on June 28, 2022, 10:42:20 PM
  And when you have some time, I encourage you to read about trust because in my opinion, it's very important for the forum to get rid of abusers. The more people are using trust and creating their trust list, the better it's getting for Bitcointalk because it's getting more difficult to abuse.
  

Thanks LoyceV for the thread, though it's a beginner's guide and this night I consider myself a beginner and I have benefited by knowing the difference between trust feedback and trust list and the correct use of the trust system.

Point 2 isn't true: being on DefaultTrust means your Trust list matters to others. With or without that, your Trust list (and the feedback you leave) matter for yourself.

Go for it :) Last Saturday, your Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-07-16_Sat_05.19h/3333894.html) was still empty.

LoyceV already pointed out, why a customized trust list would even matter for you, when you are not DT1 or DT2, because it's important to your own trust network.
By adding accounts to your personal trust list, you'll see those feedbacks, no matter if those accounts are regularly DT or not.
Because you have added them as your depth 0 accounts. And these accounts are acting as DT1 for your personal trust impressions.

For example: in case you are active on the collectibles board and you have the standard DT network because you haven't set up a personalized trust list:
Customizing your DT list with accounts from the collectibles board will show you more ratings from accounts active in collectibles.
Same goes for local boards etc.

You can decide which accounts are showing a good judgement and which ones should be excluded.
By doing so, DT is getting a decentralized trust network, combining all trust lists of everyone and displaying the average, which is called DefaultTrust.

And no need to be discouraged because it's difficult to get DT2 or even DT1: everyone started without being on DT and got into DT by leaving valid feedback.  ;)
Without leaving valid feedback, there's no reason to be added to DT.

Even with your personal trust list, you can always view an account how it's looking like for standard DT: By adding ;dt

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2143453;dt
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2143453
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=459836;dt
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=459836

It's working now LoyceV, thanks much

That's great, now I have known the importance of it, I am in. This forum has been nice since I met it, so I will not fold hands without contributing. It takes nothing to be honest and bold, condemn the bad and praise the good. Thanks 1miau for the encouragement.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=3333894;dt
(This is cool)

I now have a doubt when consulting this trust list:


While scrolling down, I've seen that AnotherAlt trusts The Pharmacist's judgement.

So, I went to look, and saw that AnotherAlt has a trust list, which seems to be under construction.

According to him he has two other accounts on the forum, making three in total. Assuming he is cautious about privacy, the trust lists of the other two are not going to be exactly the same, but presumably some of the members he trusts have a boost in the DT system because he includes them in his trust list three times while he is one person.

I don't know to what extent we should consider this as acceptable. It's not completely unacceptable in my opinion but seems to me morally questionable.

Another thing is if we can not know which are the other two accounts and therefore, even if we consider that including in three trust lists the same person being you one is morally questionable.

I don't know what you think about it.

I am obviously referring to LoyceV, but I welcome comments from other forum members as well.

If we go to his trust list we can see that he distrusts JollyGood and trusts Royse777, dkbit98 and BitcoinGirl.Club, which after all the recent drama is a big lol and a half.

First, sockpuppets used for DT1-voting will be blacklisted from voting (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5128907.msg50491004#msg50491004) once discovered.

We can't know for sure indeed. So I checked his Trust inclusions (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-08-13_Sat_05.06h/3461867.html): 8 out of 10 users have more than enough inclusions to not need another "small 10 Merit vote". One user (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-08-13_Sat_05.06h/662330.html) has only 4 more votes than the required 10. That's still 3 other user's votes away from making a difference to the outcome. And there's one user with only one vote (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-08-13_Sat_05.06h/3333894.html), which means there's no sockpuppeting for sure.

I'm pretty sure there are more alt accounts that didn't confirm they're alt accounts. AnotherAlt is open about it, and I don't see much harm done here.

Well, I use Telegram Notification Bot so I already got notified that you guys were talking about me. May I join, please?


Let me correct it a little bit. I have two accounts here. One AnotherAlt, another is Crypt0S0ul (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2851213) (Which was created in 2020 but I could not post due to an IP ban. LoyceV helped me to get whitelisted). About your assumption of having another account, I created a few more accounts because all the accounts contained evil points and asked to pay some BTC, which I didn't pay. I chose the AnotherAlt account to pay evil fees because it had fewer evil fees than others. If you are talking about Privacy, why do I ask Royse not to reveal me; I work for a crypto platform and don't want to involve myself with them within this forum. I want to be an independent individual in this forum who doesn't have any responsibility for the platform here. Royse and Bitlucy owner know which platform it is. I hope he will keep it a secret.


Well, I care about forum rules and I want to follow them accordingly. I also want to follow some ethics. Cryp0S0ul (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2851213), My Main account is still in newbie rank. It doesn't have a custom trust list. Since I have earned some merits in this account, I started posting more and using this account. I use Cryp0S0ul on my mobile device and it doesn't have a Custom Trust list.


Well, I don't have a problem explaining further. On June 3rd Week, I added icopress and LoyceV to my Trust list because in my opinion, They have a good Trust list, and their Feedback seems reasonable to me. In July Last week, I added yahoo62278, Royse777, o_e_l_e_o, NotATether, and KingsDen. I found they also have an excellent Trustlist, and most Feedback seems correct except KingsDen (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=3333894). I added KingsDen because I see his Trustlist is good, but I didn't check his Feedback. Today I removed him because, in my opinion, He left some feedback that is not the correct use of the feedback system (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=3333894). In the same week, I realized JollyGood Distrust my Judgment Just because I made This (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60500779#msg60500779) and This (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60593947#msg60593947) posts, JollyGood Added me on his distrust list.


I took it as a regular thing and moved forward. Last week, I added The Pharmacist, BitcoinGirl.Club, and dkbit98. I checked all of their Trust list and Feedback, which seems pretty much correct (If I see 90% of their Feedback is correct, it seems good to me). I saw BitcoinGirl.Club created a thread and criticized JollyGood's behavior. Her arguments look good. I am still confused about Her Feedback on JollyGood. I don't think it's 100% correct. But, her posts and Judgment Convinced me to add her to my Trust list. I also saw she distrusts yahoo, which I don't. I excluded JollyGood because, in my opinion, I don't think he is using the system correctly. Not only BitcoinGirl.Club and other members criticized him for his ghost-hunting behavior and attitude.

As a result of these explanations, I am going to put you in my distrust list.  ;)

Naaaa, just joking.

Although the doubt I had when I saw your trust list, it made me learn somethinh new, such as the fact that


I may have confused you with someone else as I remember someone saying they had two other accounts.

Kind regards.

I understand that you are joking. Suppose You added someone to your Distrust list; an Average person will also add you to his distrust list. But, A Wise guy who wants to use the system accordingly won't distrust you back. About Jolly Case, I didn't add him to my distrust list just because he distrusted my judgment. I took two weeks to observe his behavior and figured out it's a regular thing he loves doing. Oh, What I am talking about? I guess you know better than me.

I was planning on creating an alt account that would clearly be connected to me because it will have some variation of my name within it, and I am planning to use it as a kind of business account.. meaning that it would be tied to a kind of work/project that I am doing and planning to do.. and I am thinking that my first post with such account (once I make it) will attempt to describe what I am going to try to do with the account that is connected with me.. might not always be me posting from it (even though I have authorized all the posts therein)... something like that... still working out the details.

Of course, for me, I would not be cross trusting or sending smerits to such account.. and I am not sure if there might be backlash or confusion.. and I am hoping to work most of that stuff out as I go.. .. but still it is a project that I am "getting around to" in terms of how it is going to be presented on the forum and through my intended alt account.

You can just leave neutral feedback in both directions: "LoyceMobile is my alt, don't deal with it, I use it on untrusted devices/locations. To reach me, talk to LoyceV only.". That confirms it's not just an imposter.

Tricky: they'd better not break plagiarism rules, or you risk taking the fall.

I am pretty sure that I would be reviewing all the posts until I get to trust anyone posting from the account.. and that sometimes my own inabilities to sufficiently delegate...   but yeah, I am not really used to using plagiarism tools.. and for sure I would not want posts that are not either original content or adequately citing the source.. so I suppose that should be part of the training process regarding citing sources properly... and in writing my response, I can see where there could end up being a danger because so many folks do like to take short-cuts.. and surely teachers these days have become experts on searching for plagiarism.

Why not have multiple UID's e.g.

• brand_Jess
• brand_Mike
• brand_Sally
• brand_Hank

to differentiate exactly who is posting ?

---

---

Well another thing would be to have them post under their own name like you seem to be suggesting Timelord, but I am thinking that if they are my agent(s), then they should post under a Nym that I am able to control and that clearly states the relationship.. otherwise it is too ambiguous, too weird, and even likely to have backlash on me, too... and maybe even harder to keep track if there were to be multiple accounts (besides starting out with one), so now, I am already getting more worried about these kinds of ideas, but I have not yet put such a thing into practice, and I am ONLY thinking about doing it and I am in the conceptual stages.. and I would think that if I clearly state the relationship and maybe even place a neutral trust explainer into my profile and into the profile of my other Nym, then that should be helpful so long as they do not do dumb shit (like Loyce mentioned) in regards to employing the short-cut allure of plagiarism.

If they can post from the account, you don't control it ;)
If they make their own account, you can leave neutral (or if you trust them even positive (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=385881)) feedback stating the relationship. If they quit, you remove (or update) the feedback.

Sharing accounts also means disclosing IP addresses (https://bitcointalk.org/myips.php) of all users.

I assume you'll need to keep track of your agents anyway. This way, at least you can distinguish who does what.

I will have to ponder on this whole topic a bit more.  I would only be starting by adding one at a time, and then if at some point there might be more than one person helping me out, then at that point I might want to consider whether it would be feasible for them to share the same account that had been established for that, or if a new account might be in order.  I think that some of it will become more clear once I write out my OP in regards to why I created such an account and the thread that I intend to create that would end up being the work of such account (and hopefully would grow and evolve with the passage of time).. I don't know how much of a teaser I should give, but it has to do with figuring out how to fund projects and then to subdivide various accounts that would be used to fund such projects.

By the way, how do you find the IP addresses?  I would have thought that ONLY admins would have been able to see that kind of information... any member can find that kind of information?

Click the link (https://bitcointalk.org/myips.php) :)

It's meant to check if your account is compromised: compromised accounts have been used to scam through PM, without changing the password so without drawing any attention to it being compromised.
See theymos' post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5150936.msg51367307#msg51367307) about it.

What's going on? Why am I called so many times 🤣?

Nice try but unfortunately this is ignored by many DT power seekers.

I am trying to imagine how big is this big lol then I will understand the half 🤣

A question which part was the drama?
JollyGood an his feedback (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407834.0)

It was not meant to create drama or I would not PM him first then wait 6 days. It was meant to be finished if he was responding the PM to satisfy me with his answer. He is running away because he does not have any answer.

Oh?  I was confused about being able to see my IP addresses from the last 30 days from the link that you provided, and initially I was thinking that when you posted that link, you were able to see the contents of the page that I saw when I clicked on the link (which was my IP addresses of the last 30 days)..   Then I realize that it was merely a link for each person to see their own IP addresses for the last 30 days and you could not see my IP addresses..  :-[ :-[

Thanks for that.  I did not realize that I could see that information about myself.

It's clear already.

I was simply amused that someone who confesses to being an alt, distrusts JollyGood and has on his trust list those clearly opposed to him, which raised some questions that have now been clarified.


I'm looking forward to hearing about this new project, JJG.

I noticed these new Trust inclusions:
I'm highlighting this example because it comes from a member of Cryptios (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5138349.0). The last user on the list created a forum patch (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5412983.0), but doesn't have a custom Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-09-17_Sat_05.07h/3486361.html) and never left any feedback (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=3486361). He's smart, and a valued member, but none of that has anything to do with the requirements to add someone to your Trust list (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust):

Maybe offtopic since I can't see Rizzrack in the DT member list.

Just out of curiosity, do you have a list of people who are in DT2 but have never left any feedback? If I'm correct, I have seen at least one DT2 member who has never sent any feedback. Would appreciate this.

And have you ever asked theymos to put this thread in factoids? I think this should be promoted to make sure everyone knows the practice of the forum trust system.

He's on DT2, but that shouldn't really matter to use the Trust system correctly.

See here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5139250.msg60953783#msg60953783) for all 539 DT2 members, then click all of their feedback and manually check it. That should take you about 15 minutes, and I can't write a script in less time. I checked a few dozen, and found a few users who who haven't sent any feedback.

Nope. Theymos knows it exists (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191802.msg53743417#msg53743417), if he wants it to be a factoid, he doesn't need me to ask him.

Next time I'll have to read the fine print more carefully :)


I'll have a second look at my trust list and make some changes where needed.

Thanks Loyce for the heads-up  !

Hello,

I'm not sure if I post this here but I just noticed the issue about Naim027 and I can't comment on any of his locked threads. I am putting it here because of what I commented in a previous post, (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191802.msg60756436#msg60756436) and it is somewhat related to the trust system.

It turns out that today when I go to check my trust list, I see that AnotherAlt had removed me from his trust list, when I didn't realize that he had included me.

When I saw in his ban appeal thread in meta that he said that a casino had scammed him by not paying him for being a moderator (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5399515.msg61090229#msg61090229), I remember thinking: "this guy is in trouble for everything he is involved in".

Now I see his confession (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5416864.msg61116237#msg61116237), after having been caught, and I am stunned.

I think theymos is not in favor of it, but I think the alts should be controlled in some way. It is good to have a couple of alts as many of you have, or even create another to say controversial things that someone wants to say without being recognized, but this to be able to create infinite alts that go building trust despite being a recognized cheaters or also create alts everywhere to question the reputation of forum members I think it should be put some limit.

By the way, I have not even read what he says in his confession. He has no credibility whatsoever.

Edit: After rereading the threads well, I think there is a second derivative of this, which yahoo62278 has brought to my attention. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5416864.msg61116437#msg61116437)

Royse777 knew that the person behind AnotherAlt was Naim027, who was ban evading.

That at the very least is going to get him a neutral tag of negative spirit from me. And I think it's more likely to be a negative tag, and I don't care about those of you who hold Royse777 in high esteem.
  

He wiped his entire Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-10-15_Sat_05.06h/3461867.html), I assume because I called him out on DT1 sockpuppet voting (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5416864.msg61117985#msg61117985).

There's no point in making a rule that can't be enforced. If sockpuppet voting (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5128907.0) gets noticed, they can get blacklisted from DT1-voting.

Since you posted in this topic, I can ask: how does knowing about ban evasion fit the requirements for negative feedback?

It fits in the overall picture, it's not just an isolated fact.

Let's recap and I'll explain why I'm going to leave him a negative tag after careful consideration.

Royse777 was a person with a great reputation on the forum, unimpeachable until a few months ago. He started promoting Bitlucy casino, which at the beginning was advertised as Bitlucy777 in which he announced that he was going to be a partner.

There began to be problems with withdrawals with what I smelled that it was going to be a scam. When we saw the problem, DireWolfM and I were the first to give Royse777 a red tag and igehh and I were the first to support Solosanz's flag in this regard.

In the end, the worst suspicions were confirmed, Bitlucy was an exit scam. This in normal conditions would have meant a total destruction of Royse777's reputation if it were not for the fact that he was a person who has distributed a lot of money in signature campaigns and for wearing his avatars. In this, another DT and I have agreed talking about it by PM.

When Royse777 gave explanations, many people who had red tagged or supported the flag started to withdraw the support, forgiving him because we understood that somehow he had been involved in the problem without bad intentions.

But, and here comes the important part, what evidence do we have that Royse777 did not play a major role in Bitlucy(777)? Only two: his word and that of AnotherAlt, that is, that of naim027, Dic3L0v3r and Crypt0S0ul. Someone who has shown that he would sell his son to the devil in order to get money, who has cheated in every possible way.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60500779#msg60500779


And then it turns out that not only does Royse777 keep it a secret that this guy is ban evading but he includes him in his project to raise 7 Bitcoin on the forum?

Sorry, if you cover up for someone we can't trust and hire him for a big project with money involved, you can't be trusted.

I do not trust Royse777 for deals or $0.01, let alone for projects where he wants to raise 7 Bitcoin.

I suggest to move lengthy discussion about specific cases to a dedicated topic on the Reputation board.

Ok LoyceV I think it is the most appropriate. The only thing I want to say about it is that I'm probably not going to get into lenghty discussions about it.

Since we are talking about the correct use of the trust system, whoever thinks that I have made an incorrect use can distrust me, or if they think that somehow I have done a trust abuse or something can leave a negative feedback on my profile. I am not the least bit concerned about these two possible consequences for doing something that the voice of my conscience tells me is the right thing to do.

Leaving this aside, I wanted to ask you about sockpuppet voting for DT1 because I don't think I understand it well. If I were to create an alt and build up the account, I guess I would end up creating a trust list. If the trust list is the same as the other, I guess it would not make sense to have it because it would be like voting twice for the same people, that I understand. Suppose that for some reason such as with one I write controversial posts on the P&S board and with the other I don't, I don't want to reveal that they are two alts of mine. And let's also suppose that one is in the Best Change signature campaign and the other in a campaign with high posting requirements in the gambling section. So they interact in different parts of the forum with different people and as a result end up having a trust list with some common members but different ones (both for trust and distrust). Would that be considered sockpuppet voting?

Correct.

I disagree. I answer Trust abuse with neutral feedback, and by excluding the user from my Trust list.

As long as you don't vote for the same users, I don't consider it sockpuppeting as far as DT1-voting is concerned. An easier solution may be to just use DefaultTrust on your alt account.

After my tag to Royse777 I was expecting that some of those who have me in their trust list would remove me from theirs and maybe some of those who don't have me would switch to distrust me.

I keep an excel with the monthly budget, one column for the planned expenses and another for what I am spending as the month progresses.

I had foreseen that there were going to be changes in the trust list with respect to me in a similar way, as the box of the utilities payment. Something that was going to happen. Although in this case I don't keep an excel with trust issues, but just so you understand the analogy: I did what I thought I should do and assumed that it would have an inevitable cost in terms of trust.

In the end, the only one who has removed me is Naim027, which was about time, and logical after the one-word feedback I left him.

Seeing that there have been no changes from trusted members in this regard I understand that many people who may have more empathy towards Royse777, although perhaps not entirely agree, do not see my tag as a reason to remove me from their trust list/distrust me.

Naim027 wiped his Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-10-22_Sat_05.08h/1187984.html), so it's not just you.

While we're on the subject of correct use, I think you can improve on this:
Scumbag
Google describes it as: "a dirty or despicable person". I'd say that's not really a reason to give someone negative feedback. Your Reference link explains it, but it's better to explain it accurately in the Comments.

I'm catching up with posts from when I was on vacation or a couple of weeks and the above was in a locked thread, so my response is here:


Four is okay, but five isn't?

Got it.

(Even @theymos doesn't trust one/some of the users on your list)

You don't seriously think "those 5" can be compared to "those 4", do you? Why are you focussing on only the negative feedback, and not on the (incorrect) feedback I mentioned?

If that's not enough, let's see what DT1-members think about them. Out of "the 5", only one user is on DT2, with Strength (0). Meanwhile, all of "the 4" are on DT2, with Strengths going from (10) to (20).

Can anyone fill me in on what went down here:

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/15/blobcc6479c2142fbf58.jpeg

a quick peruse of the reputation & meta boards doesn't seem to turn anything up.

It looks like his username was changed, in my Trust list viewer (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-11-26_Sat_05.06h/938833.html) he still goes by his old name. Thanks for posting this, otherwise my next Trust update would give errors.

Based on my understanding, I think it doesn't wrong to include a scammer or account received a lot negative feedback in trust list as long as they leave appropriate feedback, right?

But why many users are removing yogg from their trust list and some of them are put yogg in their distrust list ? BPIP. (https://bpip.org/TrustLog) It's make yogg's feedback now show as untrusted feedback and users who got negative feedback from yogg already clean now. The good thing those accounts already got banned or inactive, but what if they're active in the future and scam other user? did we need to evaluate each of yogg's feedback? but the problem is usually the reference he used is using his own local language and some of them without any reference.

Below is the list accounts were clean because yogg is removed from DT network (not full):

1. Frenklin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1963953)
2. Karmegh (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1488538)
3. anavir (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1309965)
4. pharaoh_848 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=997278)
5. Igor76200 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=267348)
6. LIBRAProject (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2631499)
7. aneprof (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2501145)
8. james7702 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2582508)
9. USlimmer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2551547)
10. 24Bit (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1970637)
11. blazgalo (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2439322)
12. candlicul (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2423855)
13. diotolriasediore (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2157349)
14. Cryptolancer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2293815)
15. BitMiner713 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2143568)
16. johny1976 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=143958)
17. Cointoli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=311797)
18. Guiller333 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2750682)
19. Yaplatu (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1016082)

Correct:

But:

Based on my own Trust list (which doesn't include yogg), I still see yogg's feedback by default. If you believe (after verifying the accuracy of the feedback) that some of it deserves to stay, you can add a negative of your own.

I checked them, and the feedback is for spam, asking loan, shitposting, retaliation feedback for shilling, advertising a "reward", fake project, ponzi spam, illegal stuff, scam, begging loan, shitposting, shitposting, account sales, spam, selling fake, missing coins from flawed script, scam without reference, shilling, being toxic.
I'd say more than half of these feedbacks shouldn't exist in their current form, and less than half of them deserve repeating.

Now I understand, there's nothing wrong for any users to give more negative feedback to scammer or user who has a risk to lost money, so it would prevent from this case where the account only got 1 negative feedback from DT member.

I think at least 5 negative feedbacks seems to be enough.

Especially in "high profile" cases, such as yogg's, many users add their own negative feedback. That's understandable, but doesn't necessarily relate to the total amount scammed. Either way, it's always good to read feedback and check reference links to apply your own judgement before trusting anyone. That applies to positive feedback as well.

thanks @LoyceV for the thread you created. I have found 2 accounts that are suspicious of Merit abuse. Services are provided in Thread Bounty. here are my findings
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3473890
Did I break the rules Mr @LoyceV, I immediately executed the account by giving a negative trust. If I break the rules, I ask for guidance in the future, do I have to post it first, then members like Legendary will execute it

https://i.postimg.cc/NFqQnVSv/Screenshot-2023-01-22-01-13-32-83-40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg

Sending 1 Merit is not a reason for negative feedback. Receiving Merit is something the user can't even prevent.

sorry in advance sir @LoyceV which I read in Thread @dbshck https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2818787.0
with the title System Rank, Activity, and Merit

Here I read in a Merit point that says "This Merit System was created to improve the quality of postings on Bitcointalk by requiring users to have a certain number of merit points to be able to rank up. Users can no longer just post large numbers of numbers or do spamming to achieve high rankings .In addition to being active (getting activity), users must also make good quality posts in order to get merit from others and be able to rise to a higher ranking.
Therefore, it is highly recommended to reward only high-quality posts."

what i found out one of the accounts has very high quality posts,
Personally I don't think it's appropriate to give that kind of thing.
I don't think Mr__ZACK abused the Merit given to M__SUFYAN
in one of the bounty campaigns : 🕵🏻‍♂️ [DETECTIVE BOUNTY] 🔵 Masa - 4,000 BUSD REWARD POOL🔵

I'm just upholding the bitcointalk forum rules that apply

You are thinking too hard about this and if you wish to pursue all the merit sharing which does not count as high quality, subjectively to you, it would take up a huge chunk of your day.

If you are right that it is merit abuse, they would not have enough to send around that matters as they have to keep generating them.
If you are wrong, you are tagging someone for a random merit transaction they considered worth it

High-quality is subjective.

- Jay -

No you're not. Mods enforce forum rules, you're not a Mod.

Read this entire topic, you'll find this:

And in another topic you'll find this:

---

---

I don't get it: did you join Bitcointalk to learn about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, or did you join Bitcointalk for the drama?

Bump!

I really wouldn't go that far... It has it's problems of it's own and it's quite antiquated IMO, even after changes over the years.... FYI This forum software is from 2009 and heavily modified SMF /smack my face hahaha... :D

The main problem is the current system is used so differently by everyone, depending on parts of the forum etc etc.  ???

That's great, but unfortunately I can't say you're using it correctly:
https://loyce.club/other/SeeBiscuit.png

Since you're posting this in my topic, this is how I think the Trust system should be used:

Try to be objective instead of subjective:

Congrats LoyceV for usurping theymos for the position of most DT-included Bitcointalk member (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtview). I guess it means that you are not only considered trustworthy but that you have a good understanding of the trust system, as well.

And congrats to me for being tied for the #13 position  :D

short info:
since this very important topic has not been translated into polish yet, i will now take care of it and try to complete a translation for the polish local section and its users in the next few days :)

edit: done!
Instrukcje dla początkujących dotyczące prawidłowego korzystania z systemu Trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5453742.0)

Hey LoyceV, I don't know if you noticed but images in the guide are not showing (at least not for me) so maybe you might wanna check it out.

There's a DDOS on my server, and I've been blocking IPs. I've excluded ip.bitcointalk.org from getting blocked, but somehow it's blocked anyway. If I flush iptables it works again, but quickly gets blocked while I don't find the IP in the blocked list. So I don't get it.
I think it's okay again. I'm slightly in over my head, this is new for me :(

Pictures now work on and off. That's just the DDOS :(

I could translate this to Swedish to the Scandinavian board, its pretty dead now. but you never now in the future, and I will have some spare time next week.

But could you copy/paste the first post to me like a code message? So I have something to start with.

Thanks in advance. / CC.

Is there anyone who reads Swedish but can't read English? For the same reason, I never bothered translating this into Dutch.

Click quote, the remove the first and last line.

I am smart today, braindead2k lol, how could I forgot the quote thing ;D

Most of us understand English yes, but some people maybe don't find this out, and the most people just come and advertise, and if they see something more maybe they want to check in the other things in the forum to.
But yeah you have right, prob not needed.

Congratulations in advance to 24k posts!  :)

If anything, Swedish board will be even dead in future. If this forum continues to become dependent on enthusiast users and forum owner won't try to use forum funds to develop new software, new UI, add new features, do some radical changes and so on, then this forum will only lose popularity. There is almost no way to attract young people on this forum after Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok.

CYBER_COWBOY got his account tagged and claims to be hacked (which I don't believe). I don't expect any translations from him, so I'll delete the last few posts in this topic next time I bump this topic.

So many people want a commercial algorithm to decide what they read, instead of making their own choices. Weird times.

NP, delete.
Yeah, that's weird for me and you but people are very positive about that feature. Absolutely everything depends on how you inspire people. If you tell people that there is a scientific research that it will grow your hair on bald head if you wash head in Cow's urine, believe me, people will do that without checking the validity of the information. This is why broscience is more popular than actual science :D
So, people find that feature cool because algorithm automatically chooses posts/topics that are in their interest. People don't have to manually look for them. That's cool, right? But we think that by doing so, they understand more about us, use us for their statistics and provide an information that at some point throws us in an informative vacuum: You only hear what you want to hear.

I suppose I should know the answer to this question, because I have been familiar with the trust system for some time, but I am not entirely clear about it, and the question is why I see hopenotlate's feedback as, apparently, he is not in DT.

I went to leave neutral feedback on a non-collateralized loan on the HedgeFx profile, as he requested, and saw the feedback left by hopenotlate on a previous loan. My first thought was that if hopenotlate is on DT I would let him write the tag on the current loan, but I just checked on bpip.org and he doesn't show up as on DT. I also checked on bpip.org only  two members who are not in DT1 have included him.

So, I am not 100% clear why I see his feedback, because I don't have on my trust list any of the two that have included him.

User hopenotlate is included by yahoo62278, who is included by suchmoon, who is included by you.
That puts suchmoon on your Depth 0, yahoo62278 on your Depth 1 and hopenotlate on your Depth 2. See Trust Depth viewer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124527.0), I haven't updated it in a while, but it shows the large recursive implications of adding someone to your Trust list.

Hello LoyceV
I created my trust list few days ago.. and I added few users whom I feels they are meant adding to my list and I do love their judgement.
Does it means is wrong for me to do that?
I didn't add them because they gave me positive feedback or I didn't add them because we intiated business dealings but I do add them based on their judgement and, I choose those people to be my mentor.
Hope is nothing wrong to do so?

No, it's up to you. For reference:

Usually, a mentor knows they're a mentor. Maybe you mean role model. Either way, it sounds weird to say about an anonymous forum account.

Role model should be the better word to replace them if that is the case.
However to me I feels they are reputable and mostly do love their judges and ways of evaluation..
Thank you for your feedback, I wasn't that fully loaded with trusting information until I was ref to this thread and I think everything is okay with me now.

It's pretty obvious GazetaBitcoin and 1miau are taking their vendetta against Ratimov out against anyone who "trusts" Ratimov or is trusted by...

https://bpip.org/TrustLog?&trusted=light_warrior&chtype=All

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2023/10/02/PLi7G.jpeg

https://loyce.club/trust/2023-09-30_Sat_05.07h/3462000.html

---

---

Sad really (not to mention untrustworthy)

You're making things up again. Excluding one user out of 100 (https://loyce.club/trust/2023-09-30_Sat_05.07h/2627711.html) doesn't mean they exclude "anyone". Besides, there's this:

---

Thanks for the context. Too much drama for me though.

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]
[LoyceV's note: I didn't break the "multiple posts in a row"-rule, Ratimov deleted his (https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6293/62932611.html) post in between mine]

Good day I want to inform you that I will like to translate this topic to my local board "naija board" pidgin language, which I checked the translation list and my country is not there. Am seeking your permission.

No need to ask for permission, that's why I posted this:

Just keep a link to the original topic in your translation.

Note:

Hello LoyceV,  here's the link of the pidgin translation of your topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5475913.0

This is a very good guide for new comers to the forum.

I have read the OP. And it answers the most questions. To my wonders..

Positive: You should only leave positive if you think the user would not scam anyone, right? But do you need to add a reference link with some kind of proof? Or is it enough to have a strong feeling?
Is it better if you do a trade with a user and first leave Neutral and when you have done more trades you can update to positive?
 
Neutral:  Other comments??? So neutral you can say what you think and want for example "BabyBandit is a idiot and I hate him" without reference link? That's fine for me because everyone have right to their opinion.

Negative: If you want to bust a scammer then should it be with reference link with solid proof and not any "maybes"? Because if you gonna accuse someone for being a scammer at least I think you should have solid proof, if you don't have proof but know it's a scammer, maybe its better to start with neutral and when you got proof's change to negative.

And last how important is a reference link? For me if you giving someone negative feedback you must leave a reference link, because if someone come and read it maybe 6 months later he should have a chance to understand why the feedback is there. Without reference link the Feedback don't tell anything at least in my opinion.
But with neutral feedback a reference link is not needed at least how I have understand it.

Also I  have swiped my Trust list and have added the people I trust and distrusted the people I don't think belong in DT in my trust list. Is that something you think is good or bad?

I hope you take my questions serious and don't see me as a "troll" because I am far away from that I just want to learn how things work, my start here was not so good I had a bad attitude against reputable members without any valid reasons, and I will stop act like that and start showing respect.

Thank you in advance and Merry Christmas.

I prefer to add Reference links with compelling evidence.

It's allowed (as anything is), but I wouldn't call it correct use of the Trust system as it's not very interesting for others. Use User Notes (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5411599.0) if you want to keep a diary.

When I tag someone with negative feedback, I want it to be convincing for others. It wouldn't be very Switzerland of me to start tagging people for "maybe".

I'd say: add it when you can. Check my Sent feedback (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=459836;page=sent;offset=0): the few without Reference link either can't have one, or don't need one.

I wouldn't worry about DT too much: just add users with good judgement.

You may like this post:

You may like this post:

You naiIed that post! I love every word in that post and stand behind every word. I love freedom and the  right to express your feelings openly.
But  i was insecure and not myself at the beginning and i took it out on others and that's wrong, now I am back to track.

Thank you Loyce for explaining in a way so it's getting easy to understand,

Best regards
BabyB

Bump well suited and now reinforced. It's always good for everyone, regardless of how long they've been on the forum and been dealing with the trust list, to reread this topic.



_{@LoyceV the OP's images are broken.} ;)