You are right that is not what Bitcoin is about. However Bitcoin is also not about determining who is appropriate who can be trusted. The question if a node will accept a Bitcoin transaction is very black and white while if someone is trustworthy is extremely subjective. There is really no criteria that can determine if someone has scammed in the past and good judgement really needs to be used.
I can say that I was a supporter of the default trust system long before I was a part of the default trust network. I can also say that the default trust system was able to protect me from a number of scams when I was a newer user.
Prior to the default trust system there was the scammer tag system which was even more centralized and was reactive instead of the proactive system that is in place today.
What would you propose using instead of the current system in place currently?
What? Of course bitcoin is about determining who is appropriate to be trusted. That's exactly what it's about. It's about giving the power back to the user to trust those they wish to trust and not be forced to trust those they don't wish to trust. Bitcoin does not say "You will only connect to these trusted nodes unless you configure otherwise." it says "You will connect to everyone and decide who you wish to exclude."
No. Bitcoin is a decentralized system where people do not need to trust a third party in order to send money to the third party. Either you need to trust the third party, or the third party needs to trust you if you are to send money to the third party.
It does not say "You will process only these transactions that you agree with and trust."
It says "You will process all transactions unless you choose to exclude them."
No. The Bitcoin protocol says that a node will process all transactions unless the transaction is invalid. This means that even if a scam transaction is valid, it will be included in the next block (assuming that the pool's tx policy allows such transaction to be included based on it's tx policy, the size of the tx fee and the size of the tx). The fact that a tx is potentially part of a scam will not at all be considered when deciding if a tx will be accepted/confirmed or not.
If the default trust system protected you from a number of scams as a newer user, that's on you. I simply don't understand (and I admit that perhaps I am in the minority here) why people can't spot a scam.
Lack of experience. The fact that, for all intensive purposes Bitcoin transactions cannot be reversed, and that for all intensive purposes, that Bitcoin transactions are anonymous changes the landscape in which scams happen. If I were to accept a check from someone after personally checking their ID (in person) then I most likely could take them to court and/or press criminal charges then the check turns out to be somehow fraudulent, while the same cannot be said with bitcoin deals.
Or barring being able to spot a scam, why they don't take precautions to prevent being scammed, such as using escrow.
In order to use escrow, you need to know who is trustworthy enough to trust them with your money. Without a good trust system to allow me to make this determination then using escrow is worthless. As mentioned previously, in a decentralized system, the scammers will appear trustworthy, so scammers would simply start offering escrow services and would steal money via escrow.
If you were naive enough to get scammed here by these amatuer scams, then you have much larger problems.
A good number of the scams are here are far from amateur. A good number of them are pretty advanced and take a good amount of research to detect.
Being protected by little tin gods on a forum is only going to further your vulnerability elsewhere, as you will become reliant on the nanny system to protect you. If what you say is true, Bitcointalk DefaultTrust has done you far more harm than good. But that is a different argument we can have elsewhere if you want.
As mentioned above, it is primarily the lack of experience that allows people to get scammed.
Piggybacking on my previous example of accepting a check from someone, if I were to sell my car and accept a check from someone, then after the check bounces for whatever reason, then I could have the title reversed back into my name after proving that I never received payment and could report the car as being stolen.
The prior system was a joke as well... the scammer tag was unevenly applied and was completely arbitrary. The "new" trust system is equally a joke, just a larger one. But let me state it again, since it seems to have been lost. I am not saying we should remove the trust system. I am saying we should remove DefaultTrust as new user enforced trusted entity. It should be removed. Everything else can remain in place and it will function MUCH better for everyone involved.
The use of a system where everyone's trust ratings are equally untrusted would be much worse. It would be impossible to tell which ratings are legitimate and whose are not.
One look at the DefaultTrust network, especially at depth 2 reveals what a sham the whole system is. Many of those in tier 2 use the system as a weapon and give negative feedback that has nothing to do with trust or no trust. Heck, a fair portion of those in or previously in tier 1 have done the same thing. Tell me, how are those people any more trustworthy than a random person on the internet? The answer is, they aren't. They should not be trusted by default.
I disagree. People who engage in this kind of practice tend to get removed from the default trust network pretty quickly. There are plenty of examples of people getting removed quickly after engaging in this kind of activity. There are also a lot of examples of people
claiming abuse when there is really none that results in people not being removed - these people are almost universally scammers.
That is the point I am making. I am not saying get rid of the trust system, I'm not even saying get rid of DefaultTrust. I am saying stop making DefaultTrust enforced by default. Make it "SuggestedTrust" or something similar that a user can add if they so desire, but the trust list should be empty by default - meaning you don't trust anyone.
There is nothing that forces anyone to use it at all. However without it there would be nothing that would allow newer users from knowing who can be trusted and who should not be.
As a side point, and perhaps I should post this elsewhere... but what the hell. It's easy enough to get a green rating, you just seek out someone in tier 1 or 2 and do a few small trades with them. Bingo, green rating. But that's the rub - you have to trade with those in tier 1 or 2. If you just go about your business on the forum without explicitly seeking out tier 1 or 2 members (or run across them by accident), any ratings you get are irrelevant and meaningless. So again, we are back to the men in the ivory tower deciding who is trustworthy and who isn't. As long as you don't piss off the people in tier 1 and 2, you will remain neutral. If you seek to appease them, they will bestow some green upon you.
The people who freely give out positive ratings when nothing is risked for a single trade should be removed from the default trust network. If someone were to engage in this kind of practice then they will not be reputable and their ratings will not be taken seriously.
What a shitty system.
You are welcome to have your opinion.
@tspacepilot - stop shilling to try to get your negative trust removed - you are a scammer even though you are very good at lying your way out of taking responsibility 
Show Posts
