Bitcoin Forum

Call me Zed.

The trust system here on Bitcointalk is severely broken.

Any user may give another user a bad trust rating. For example, here, a user was left a negative trust rating purely for a personal argument:

"Shits on anyone who doesn't agree with him. Not smart enough to argue a point so he calls names. Possible Tourette patient."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=367278 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=367278)

A while ago (http://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/1tqkxw/dogecoin_founder_falsely_given_negative/), the creator of Dogecoin was left negative trust on this very forum.

It is not uncommon for users to be extorted out of their Bitcoin because of this very system. [1] (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=783992.0;wap)

A senior member's high yield investment business came to a tragic end when he suffered from negative trust despite no evidence that he stole any Bitcoin at all, but rather, because they "thought" he was going to steal them (See: Minority Report).
Also see: BTC-Backers (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=824055)

The system is not just limited to flaws in negative trust either. There are many examples of positive trust ratings being uselessly given out, when no trade was carried out at all. Consider this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=30747) profile, the "trusted feedback" is full of ratings like these:

"Vod has the ability to spot scammers from their first post, making the forum a better place"
"Scam Buster! Good guy for the community"
"Very trustworthy, helps prevent people from being scammed."
"The neighborhood scam-buster. :)"

Don't get me wrong, it's probably a very good thing that he's a "scam buster", but it makes no sense to leave that as trade feedback. Such usage of the trust system just makes the "Risked BTC Amount" column ineffectual.

Although i agree with points you bring up i just wanted to point out in the situation that you brought up relating to Vod. Users don't have to have made a trade to trust someone. For example i trust Satoshi yet i have never dealt with him. Would i trust him with my btc probably. That is why you (should) see feedback that is not based on a trade having no risked amount.

So i wouldn't look at the trust system as one that is only meant for trade feedback (although that is probably the intent) but one that is used as a feedback system.

I agree with that, but because of the DefaultTrust system, not for the reasons you give.
Any system where TradeFortress was flagged to all new users as being someone they should trust was clearly broken.


One single negative feedback brought a scheme to a 'tragic end'?
They 'thought' he was going to steal them because that is what HYIPs do, take people's money.
And when the owner deletes all negative discussions from the thread, that is only going to heighten that impression.

The trust system is working perfectly in this rare instance, because BTCBackers is a scam. Niothor already admitted its a HYIP, which is a Ponzi, which is a scam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-yield_investment_program

I don't believe people should be trusted by default.  I also don't believe that trust must reflect one's business ethics.  Instead, I regard the trust system as more general, and there are lots of reasons to not trust someone even in the absence of definitive proof.

That being said, I'd like to clarify a few things.  First, I don't think this means people should go around just dishing out feedback frivolously.   If you do, and people recognize that it's frivolous, then this may have negative social consequences on your image.  Wouldn't you be less likely to trust someone that goes around spreading baseless, negative accusations?  Second, if your account is significantly affected by these frivolous accusations, then it's more likely that your account is itself insignificant if it hasn't developed some resilience to negative feedback from random users, or it may also be a sign that you find yourself in the midst of drama more often then others (which leads us to ask the question, "Why?").

I've been fortunate not to get rocked by negative feedback despite that the majority of my posts are argumentative (more fun to disagree and debate a point than to simply agree with it and clutter up a thread, IMO), and I only recently handed out my first negative trust that had nothing to do with a business interaction of any kind.  I was simply so disgusted by the individual's moral character that I no longer trust him.  I fully admit that this is my opinion.

All of my negative feedback comes from 2 known scammers.

So I wear my negative feedback badge with honor.

The trust system is what you make of it. If you read everyone's feedback and then make your own decision on it rather than blindly trusting people, it's useful; if you disagree with it, or believe it's inaccurate, then you can disable it. Personally, I think it's useful, as (in most cases, but not all) incorrect or biased ratings are easy to spot and ignore.

I agree but not enough people engage in this practice. Its all too easy to just dismiss somebody based on the glaring red mark beneath their name. I didn't bother to understand how the trust system worked until I got negative trust for trolling from a default trust member.

Its useless. I have caught one hacked account owner and have generally been helpful, and I have got one point of negative trust.

Don't trust the trust :D

But yes, the system was made to allow people to make people they trust clearly visible on the forum, and this is good.
The bad thing is that there's "default trust" that makes some people privileged, so if such person gives you negative feedback you become "red" to everybody on the forum, and this is bad.

You are supposed to build your own trust network...so just remove default trust if you do not like it. People get so fired up about the default list, but it is so simple to just remove it and build your own.

I would say that would be even more dangerous for people who do not trade a lot, especially for people who are new to the community as they would not know who to trust. The default trust system somewhat solves that issue by having a set of people who are already "trusted"

I would say that the default trust system trusts too many people and does not distrust enough people. I would argue that it should be easier for a scammer to get red trust and more difficult for a person to have their trust show up as gren

Well I make it a point to negative rate people who deserve it to try and help out. I really do not think a perfect system can be put into place either way. No matter what people will think the ratings are biased or will not agree with each other...human nature.

A HYIP isn't inherently a scam, just something extremely likely and imminently to turn into a scam. Someone with a large pile of cash could legitimately run a HYIP until the money ran out [or he forced all current investors to cash out at 1:1 before] without resorting to scamming.