I certainly think it would be a good idea.

So, hello again folks.  Anyone who looks through my recent post history will see that over the last few weeks I've disagreed with quickseller both over content and over how he addresses me (and others).  He not only got removed from my personal trust list but he also made my ignore list for a while.  Well, whaddya know, about 24 hours after he leaves the signature ad campaign I'm in, his alt, ACCTSeller appears and begins to troll me.  ACCTSeller trolls me for about 24 hours (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=357263;sa=showPosts).  He starts by saying that the stuff I say sucks, I ask why he's trolling me and he goes on.

He finds, guess what, some negative feedback from the (in)famous tradefortress from about 2.5 years ago.  He posts in the ask tf thread trying to get help to dig up dirt on me.  I say to him in that thread, if you want to know more, there's a thread in meta from about 2.5 years ago.   Well, he finds it and here's where I think he's made a crucial mistake.  He switches back over to his account on default trust and repeats tradefortresses negative feedback about me.  So, of course, my campaign manager says to me "hey you have negative trust now, what happened".  I say, well, this dude is trolling me, regurgitating the lies of a known scammer in order to get me kicked off this campaign for some kind of personal vendetta.  Of course campaign manager says, well, I have no choice, default trust is default trust.

So, here I am (and I sorta figured this was coming because I've been challenging the tyranny of default trust in other threads https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.0, I kinda knew that someone on default trust would eventually take it out on me; interestingly, I predicted that ACCTSeller would use his alt quickseller to neg-rep me for nothing, if he was ballsy enough https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.msg11140144#msg11140144), asking you guys why Quickseller's rehashing of 3 year old lies from tradefortress has any bearing on my ability to use this forum today.  I guess one thing I can do is get some of the folks I have worked with over the past few years to speak up about how I've never done anything untrustworthy and was even very helpful.  But in the end, I don't think I'll have much recourse.  Probably history will vindicate me, as it did with tradefortress (his lies were never removed, but eventually he was removed; I supposed the same will happened eventually with Quickseller).

Maybe I can leave you all with this question: is Quickseller's usage of default trust for some kind of personal vendetta considered enough of an abuse to have him removed from default-trust?  How bout the fact that as of now he's essentially echoing the lies of someone who was removed from default trust for good reason?  Certainly someone who is uncritically echoing tradefortresses removed opinions shouldn't be on default trust anymore than tradefortress.

Oh, I didn't realize it until you just pointed it out.  It looks like Quickseller's trollfest on me is still continuing.  He's been trolling me with his alt ACCTSeller for the last 24 hours.  He managed to dig up a thread from 3 years ago where tradefortress (known scammer, possibly one of the largest scammers in bitcoin history) accuses me of defrauding him (I never did, discussed at length about 3 years ago).  Of course, tradefortress has been removed from default trust but it seems that Quickseller's now trying to bring back his ghost by echoing tradeforetress's lies about me.

EDIT: Quickseller probably isn't going to be on default trust for very much longer if he keeps this up (regurgitating opinions of tradefortress for personal vendetta) I'm pretty sure that most reasonably people have already added ~Quickseller to their trust lists (just check out Meta).  I guess I can take this up with Theymos and the mods if it's going to cause an issue for my work with you guys here.

To be completely honest, I cannot provide you with exactly the scenario you request.  But this comes in part from the subjectivity of many of these qualities.

1) "Scamming": one person's "scam" is another person's business.  Vod considers anyone selling MSCorp stuff to be scamming, but many people consider that an honest day's work (I'm personally ambivalent on this one, I just use it as an example of the interpretive nature of "scamming").

2) "providing evidence": why should one have to prove one's innocence in the face of subjective accusations.  For example, upthread ACCTSeller decided that since I'm suggesting that the trust system be "weakened" I must be an alt of a "scammer" or in some way be up to no good and he therefore neg-reps me (btw, no problem, he's not on default trust, no one will see his trolling feedback).  If he were on default trust, why would I have to "prove" or "provide evidence" that my criticisms of the trust system aren't "a scam".  And how could I ever do so, given the subjective nature of "scam".

So, I don't have (3) or (4) since, as I said above, I don't have a perfect example to feed you.

In general, in this thread, I see people saying "yes, the default-trusters are a kinda unregulated police" and others saying "nah, they are helpful".  I think that I want to acknowledge some truth in both sides, yet I still think the forum could be a better, more drama-free place if we could do something to reign in things a bit.  As I said earlier, even changing the text from a big red "WARNING...CAUTION" to a yellow "This person has received negative feedback from someone on your trust list" would be a big improvement, I think.  Especially because using the phrase "your trust list" would hopefully invite people to ask themselves "my trust list?  I have a trust list?"  and then go ahead and figure out how to use the trust list properly for themselves, if default trust is going to continue to be an opt-out system.

You'll get to liking them eventually, I'd wager.  Ring games are great for when you're relaxing and not wanting to play fast---when you've got time.  In a ring game you just be patient and watch until your moment comes.  No raising of blinds so no rush to get ahead, just slow and fun.

Wow, just curious about the connection here.  This guy found many addresses and so he has satoshi-spammed them?  What was the point of the scam?

Is it that when you close the wallet file and reopen then you need to reply the blockchain from the wallet's born-on date?  Just trying to see if I follow.

I have a question:

I just checked the spreadsheet and it looks like the rates per post seem to be more varying than before.  Mine is just what I signed up for so I've got no complaints, but I notice that many of the people's rates are bolded and different.  Is this related to bonuses?  Just curious.

Assuming the mods are going to allow this insane necro bump, surely you realize that anyone looking at your post history would take into account that you are on some kind of anti-tspacepilot bender.   The real qustion is why?

Oh great!  I gave you one back.  So in some sense, this is how the trust system should work: you are an alt of quickseller who want to troll me mercilessly without making quickseller account look bad and I wouldn't want to do business with an asshole who has nothing better to do than troll me on a bitcoin forum.  So, we neg-rep each other and that's that.  People who put me on their trust network will get my negative feedback for you and vice versa.

This is clearly an ideal usage of the trust system.  If you were ballsy enough to pull this move as quickseller then this situation would be exemplifying the problems with the default trust system which I highlight in my OP: people on default-trust can decide to neg-rep asymmetically those who aren't on it based on any whim they choose.

Have a nice-life *seller, I hope you get a new hobby (from trolling me) soon.  It's kinda annoying.

Because I've got better things to do than look back through 3 years of posts on bitcointalk just to help you troll me.  (Don't you?)

I was almost tempted to reply to your thoughts here, but given the fact that you're currently on a troll tspacepilot kick (see his last posts, everyone), I think I'm just gonna leave this as is.  But hey, ACCTSeller, sounds like you ought to give me negative trust for this, right?  What's holding you back?

Fun that ACCTseller is doing everything he can to troll me on every possible thread.  If you've really got sherlock skills, you'll find the long-ass thread on Meta where me, tradefortress, saltyspitoon and others hash it all out (approximately 2.5 years ago, I'd guess)

ACCTseller ignored!  Problem solved.

(not going to reply to this trolling bullshit in this thread, it's off topic, if he continues this we should report it to the mods)


ndnhc, you've always been nothing but respectful, so I don't want to belabor this, nevertheless, I think its worth noting (as we discussed at the time) that those 45 posts in 24 hours were 20ish posts one evening and another 20ish the next morning (in my timezone).  All good though, I'm just telling superhitch that in my opinion, it's best not to read too much into the ratings.

You are probably right in principle.  But in practice I suppose that very of quickseller's potential customers spend much time reading through these kinds of threads on meta.

I guess I think it's kinda a bad idea.  The more you limit which posts you pay for the less competitive your campaign is (remember "da best campaign"?).  Secondarily, why wouldn't dadice want to advertize in these sections.  In Meta you often have very intelligent discussions going about the forum itself and how it should be run, how it is run.  There are a lot of old-school bitcoiners in that section.  Surely dadice wants them to come gambling.

Similarly, beginners and help can be a great place where the dadice message can be associated with positivity and contructiveness.  When someone is stuck on a technical detail, and someone else answers them with dadice signature, I would think that would be a valuable association for dadice.

I think that erikalui is really doing a good job emphasizing the asymmetry of trust ratings in the current system.  Default trusters (for the most part) are putting out ratings for everyone.  Everyone else's ratings are for your own consumption only.  Erikalui   says that the trust system should be moderated.  I don't know if I agree about that.  I think the reason that it's unmoderated is that in principle, everyone is supposed to manage their own trust list.  However, in principle, this is not the case, and that's why I think that default trust should be removed or significantly trimmed down.

Blazedout says that without enabling default trust for new members, people will be scammed.  I have to admit, my main reply to this is along the lines of "isn't this the internet?"  Ie, it's the wild west and buyer beware obviously.  Right?  If someone is going to give their money away without looking into the situation then don't they simply deserve to learn that lesson the hard way so that they won't do it again?

LaudaM appreciates the suggestion to change the color and the warning text.  I think this would be valuable because it would more accurately reflect the situation of having been dinged by a default-truster.  If you got dinged by vod for selling microsoft products, certainly "Warning: trade with extreme caution" is an overblown characterization of the event.  IMO, "This user has received negative feedback from someone in your trust list" would more appropriately characterize (a) the fact that it was a negative feedback from someone, nothing more/nothing less and (b) that it is in your own power to decide who is in your trust list and fix that as you see fit.

I understand.  Thanks for straightening me out on this.

Yes, thanks.  I should have said "campaign managers" rather than mods.  I was just calling attention to the fact.


Got it.  Thanks!

This is exactly the echo that we hear each time from those on default trust who are having their ratings disputed "I have the right to a rate as I please".  
  However, as I point out in the OP, and as blazedout (above) acknowleges, there is a division between those whos ratings are just for themselves (most of us) and the gods whos ratings are for everyone (the default-trust <=2 group).


Yes, I acknowledge this in my OP.  It seems you didn't catch some of the subtlety?  I'm not asking how the trust system works.  I won't rehash my OP, just please look more carefully.





You may be right that things are better than before, but I still read a lot of drama in Meta which seems completely like bluster from two parties with an assymetrical power relation.  Ie, no one was scammed, no one was harmed except the reputation of one of the parties.

What about the solutions I propose?  You say there's no perfect solution but you didn't address how my solutions wouldn't work or be an improvement.