Bitcoin Forum

Title. Currently, two levels is extremely restrictive. Only very select few get to choose who is in and who is out. With a third trust level being added, it'll balance things out. The amount of people on default DT will go from ~50 to 300+ (If I'm not mistaken)

That, and for other reasons :)

Let's discuss!

An even better idea is to ~default trust, and to make your own trust list. I've seen way too much bullshit from DT members to take that list seriously.

I've added users I've done deals with to my list along with some others that I'd trust.  I've tagged scumbag account dealers and excluded others who I wouldn't trust with a ten cent loan.  I have a hatd time trusting people just because others do.  That's my 2 cents.

Edit: this is a good topic IMO, and it shows you care about the forum.  My guess is that this thread won't draw in the shitposters who only exist here to make money, who don't read, and don't give a shit about the trust system or this forum.

I'll need to test this out, but does excluding a user from your trust list do anything for the people who have you on their trust list? It would be cool to not only share their trusted people, but also their excluded people. I'm not sure how it works with conflicting entries, though.

EDIT - I've had you on my trust list for a while, and I can only see the people you've trusted in hierarchical view. So I guess it doesn't transfer over.

I've thought about that, but I tend to think that it'd be better to make it broader rather than deeper. I've been thinking recently about revisiting my proposal to force people to create unique trust lists (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914641.0).


Exclusions do propagate; the rules are here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=851380.msg9473940#msg9473940).

Unnecessary complicated IMO and you're forcing people to pick users they may know nothing about or may not trust.  This is especially confusing for noobs.  Default trust is a ridiculous idea,  period.  Trust scores aren't, however, to the extent that they're not abused--which they frequently are.  This system that's in place is a joke.

Edit:  But it's your ^^ forum, not mine.  I'll make do with what's in place.   :)

We need Satoshi's vision here guys :D we need BIG Wu to fork us a new forum. since anyone with a red tag is treated like an excon it is unfair to let just one person decides to label people, we need juries to decide.
If a single DT member tags someone their color should be yellow instead of red until all the members of jury verify that the tag was legit.

I like the idea but I would like to add some details. Let's take for example that a DT member had tagged the account then that member will be painted red though there is no solid proof to prove the negative review given that it is purely a speculation since it has no grounds then that is where the jury will review the case and will have the power to either remove the given rating or make it a more solid review to the user. The question is: who will comprise the jury?

Also, jury shouldn't act all high of course hence we needed an official set of rules as how should a trust be given especially for DT members. There is this DT member who is giving red trust for a speculation and when he is asked to remove the said rating since he has no basis, he said that he should be the one to prove. Isn't it the other way around? You shouldn't give a feedback with a heresay. The feedback should have a basis and not just a gut feeling. In connection with this official set of rules regarding trust ratings, the decision of the jury will revolve there whether to deem the case with basis or not since there is no problem as long as it has a proof then that would be the end of the argument but with a trust rating with no ground then that is where the conflict and unrighteousness begins.

No, that move would be quite difficult. The current Depth 3 is unmaintained, thus there is a ton of people there whose ratings shouldn't be visible by default. Maybe if the lists of DT2 members were purged intentionally before such a change, it could make the transition *less painful*.

New DT1 members? Makes sense following the few removals that you did.

Could be implemented but only for users who have been here for over a year or two since that is the time when people know who should be trusted or not by just observing and seeing some stuff done by other people. Also, it truly allows for a "decentralized" trust system where everyone has their own trusted people and you are not restricted into "trusting" those people who has the most greens in their profile.



Couldn't agree more. The DT kind of like forces people to believe that these guys are the only "good" guys in this forum and the rest are just there trying to scam you.

But a lot of 'em are cool on my watch, except for some truly exceptional human beings.

Many DT members are trying to put each other down recently.All those with dark green trusts are replaced by ???.
At the end of the day,the member with more 'pull' towards a DT1 member  gets added to the list.I have't seen a new member added to the DT1/DT2 since forever.Soon I realised one shouldn't take the DT list seriously hence replace the default with my custom list of members.

My problem is that there are only 13 default DT1 members. From what I can tell, these users are added by forum Admins, and mostly consist of mods and long-standing members (Some of which I wouldn't say are very active).

Furthermore, upon these 13 users does the responsibility rest of pretty much announcing users that everyone should mutually trust. It's quite big.

Currently yes, there are quite a lot of DT2 users giving out trust willy-nilly for the smallest of trades. A reset wouldn't be a bad idea I think.

My thinking is that it is practically impossible to get to DT1. So let's assume you're on DT2. This means that anyone that you trust will yes, get positive trust, but will not be get to share their trust network. It's such a trivial thing, but I think that just 13 people having such a large responsibility can't really be very efficient. We should have more of the community take part in this rather than this VERY select few.

Create your own trustlist. That might be hard for noobs but if you want to trade on here its worth the research. my depth is set to 0

From all the suggestions I have read, I will agree with this in other to give anyone tagged a fair hearing and also a second chance however, there should be exclusion of some outright red for example for someone who came with the intention to scam then I don't think a jury is needed for that but there are some other peculiar cases that needs to be adjudicated upon but the problem is who are those that will make up the list, is the trusted members that won't want to go against each other for the fear of being tagged or who? Also, what will be the time frame, who will this position be paid? among other important questions to be answered for effective implementation.

I agree with you. There are cases of both: 1) Inactive DT1 members. 2) Unkempt DT1 lists (among other problems). I think what he meant with "broader" was more DT1 members.

"Will-nilly for the smallest of trades"? Give examples.

Since there is no exact *criteria* nor *application form* for DT1, the chances are that you are never going to get it, correct.

Not only is it impossible to get into DT1, those there aren't really doing active trading, so it's likely one will never get to DT2, either.


I don't have any examples of people adding others to St, but I come across them from time to time, we're purple give trust for a small trade, for like a $10 good it something less than 0.1 BTC.

You could say that my trust from zvs was also given pretty carelessly, I paid a couple of bucks for Portal 2.

I beg to differ. Even though there haven't been that many DT2 additions, there have been some in the past year or two. Again, the problems stem from: 1) DT1 members that aren't active/don't actively maintain their list. 2) Members that only care about themselves.

Well, that's what the *risked BTC* part of the rating is for. Is it not?

Mine too. If you want to do business in this forum, don't trust DT1 or DT2 too much. Even if they handled thousands of trades in this forum alone, how can one be sure that they won't screw up when their next trade comes?


Most DT1 members earned their greens doing auctions and trades here, so yep, if you are a small-time trader I don't think you can earn DT1 status, not in this kind of system we have currently.

Which is more visible and what do people doing trades on the forum look at first, the amount traded, which is a small, hard to see figure buried deep within a person's trust page, or their score that's right next to every single one of their posts, when viewed in a trading board?

Did I claim the "risked BTC" part was more visible? I don't recall doing this. That's obvious considering the general education and intelligence of the average user of this forum nowadays. Plenty have no idea what they are doing and just jump into spamming due to lack moderation, which is an issue that takes more priority over this in my view.

I wouldn't be against that, I'd support it tbh. I think the only people who'd oppose it would be untrustworthy people any way.

Why? Would it land you in DT3?

There is absolutely no logical coherence between not wanting this change and being untrustworthy.

To this, I actually believe that enabling DT3 as default could add more potential problems regarding trust cycles (similar to the DeaDTerra case) and farming. It enables users to have much more accessibility to gaining trust which, albeit can be good and bad, would usually end up being the latter.

---

Ergo, my belief is to keep trust the way it is in its restrictive model and prevent any scam overflow.

I would agree with theymos that a greater number of people need to be trusted by DefaultTrust, and more people need to be trusted by those people. Having a third level of users' trust ratings show up by default would result in more drams and in too many people having the ability to add users to whose ratings show up by default, which opens up the trust system for more abuse by scammers, and others with ulterior motives.

In addition to the above, I believe the current trust system has lost credibility and needs to be reevaluated. More specifically, those who are trusted by DefaultTrust needs a serious reevaluation (although the trust system in general should probably be reevaluated). I believe it is a serious problem when someone can attempt to extort others (when the facts allowing someone to reasonably conclude extortion was attempted are not in dispute), and remain in the default trust network. Similarly (although less of an issue), when someone engages in repetitive behavior that would result in multiple negative ratings, is defended, given positive trust, and remains in the default trust network is concerning. It is difficult to take the trust system seriously when multiple people give (negative) ratings for reasons inconsistent with how ratings are described ( "Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.", and "Positive - You trust this person or had a successful trade."), no community input in taken into consideration when giving these ratings beyond a small group of friends, and public disputes regarding these ratings are met with what can only be described as trolling. To a much lesser extent, it is not good when someone is allowed to leave (and keep up) ratings they know to be false and remain in the default trust network.

Removing one or two people from being trusted directly by DefaultTrust would address the majority of the above concerns.

I would argue that there should be something put into place that holds the "sponsor(s)" of a user's ratings accountable when a user either turns out to be a scammer, or when a user's rating(s) are disputed. When someone is added to your trust list, you are explicitly endorsing their trust ratings (and one could argue their overall behavior as well), so it should be public when someone is disputing a rating left by someone you are causing to show up by default.