I'm sorry if this came off as an attack thread, it isn't, I actually don't think you had any malicious intentions when you added all these people to your list. As I said in the first post, you probably added these people as you did business with them, which is understandable.

The reason I made this thread instead of PMing you is because you had already removed people from your list, so I assumed you were aware of the fact you were now at depth 1 and had made a decision to keep it as is. No one doubts that you are trustworthy and deserve to be at depth 1, I just disagreed with the degree of trust you were placing in a large number of relatively unproven people, and most people agree with me here. There is added responsibility at the level of default trust you are at, and people who are fine to keep on your list normally should face more scrutiny once their ratings count at depth 2. Making this thread accomplished this, and I don't think it has hurt your reputation, since everyone understands that you had no bad intentions.

It appears that philipma1957 was recently added at default trust depth 1, resulting in users in his trust list being added to depth 2. The problem with this is that his trust list seems to be entirely composed of users who have left him positive feedback, resulting in 44 trusted positive feedback and only 5 untrusted feedback, a pretty abnormal ratio. In addition to the fact that this manipulates his trust rating to look higher than it should be, there is also the problem that many of these users have no business being at default trust depth 2, just for completing one transaction with philip. Here are a few of the best examples:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=331147
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=130725
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=155793
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=125012
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=364659

There are many more accounts like these in his trust list that I did not bother posting, if you don't believe me, go take a look at the rest of his trust list. I understand that he probably created his trust list before being added to default trust, so I held off on posting this for a few days in case he didn't know he was now at depth 1. I believe he has removed 2 users since then, which means he has noticed but decided not to prune the majority of the list. I don't think he should continue to be at depth 1 if he refuses to be more selective with his trust list, and I think others will agree with me on this.

You should not be offering to escrow a transaction that you are not able to cover if something goes wrong. Do you have any proof of funds to reimburse your customers in case there is a mistake on your end?

You should use it for this instead

a. User ID in www.cloudmining.website: 3734
b. Bitcointalk.org User Name: MadZ
c. Bitcointalk.org Total Post Count: 260
d. Bitcoin Address: 1Khe56BLQTn9MnRiLiKKMfsdKJ4AgGep7S

Akka revealed his email in this post, they probably got it from there.

More people should give negative trust for this, Vod has just been the only one who does it most of the time. Good to see others doing the same.

You were saying?

You can do more than if you do not have their ID. ID does not guarantee trustworthiness, but given the choice between ID and no ID, ID is obviously preferable and can mean something.

I hope you understand that this is a bad reason to buy coins and will probably result in you receiving negative trust.

While I dislike the proposed system, I will explain why you are not in the top 50 under the example theymos posted, and there is a legitimate reason for it. People gain points on that list by being added to someone's trust list manually. Since you are at depth 1, few people have had any reason to add you to their personal trust lists, so you have a very low score. As you can see, many users who are high up in the top 50, such as Maidak, simpey, and BigBitz are not in default trust at all. The reason they are so high on this list at the moment is because a lot of people have manually added them to their own trust lists, since they are trusted traders but not in default trust. Their scores would be much lower if they were in default trust, since people would have no reason to manually add them. All trust lists would be reset if the new system was put in place, and you would almost certainly be in the top 10 once you are no longer automatically in people's trust lists.

3% daily interested is unsustainable, I don't know why people are investing in such an obvious ponzi scheme just because it puts in more effort than most. Learn from history, pirate offered 7% weekly, much less than this, and that was a scam.

It has been less than two weeks since you received negative trust, not a month. I would close this thread and PM him (like his signature says to do) when a full month has passed. This thread has only hurt your chances of having it removed, since you ignored his instructions.

There are two main reasons why I think Default Trust is the better alternative. First of all, it is fairly transparent, and this provides for accountability. The trust lists of everyone at depth 1 are public, which has historically kept Default Trust mostly comprised of reputable members. This is not the case with the "suggested trust" list under the new system. People are added onto this list based on the trust lists of everyone over full member. These lists are entirely private and anonymous, unlike direct positive/negative feedback, which I think is dangerous. It would be fairly easy to manipulate the "suggested trust" list as an individual, and even easier as a group. One could essentially buy their way onto the "suggested trust" list by purchasing or creating a decent number of accounts and adding themselves to the accounts' trust lists/negatively trusting other accounts to lower their comparable trust values. People complain that Default Trust is an "old boys network", this will be even more true under the proposed system. It will be very easy for a group of high activity accounts to trust one another and solidify their places in the trust network without actually earning them. Activity has nothing to do with trading and should not be the basis for the underlying trust values accounts hold, which this system seems to suggest it should.

The other issue I see is how difficult it is to actually build one's own trust network from scratch. This isn't an issue to most people debating over the two systems, since we already have a good idea of who we do and do not trust on the forums, regardless of which system is used. This isn't true of a new user. Take a look at someone like Vod's trust without anyone on your trust list (everyone's feedback is untrusted and they are at +0/-0) and no knowledge of the users' histories who have left him trust. I would not add Vod to my personal trust list if I was a new user, since the majority of his feedback is negative, and I have no reason to believe that his positive feedback carries a lot of weight. Obviously, Vod is a very trustworthy user, but you wouldn't know that if you didn't have a history on the forums.

My point here is that Default Trust gives a new user a good starting point about who to trust and who not to trust, while this new system asks them to pick their own "Default Trust" pretty much at random, since they will probably have little reason to pick one name over another. After a few months here, most people have decided in their own minds who they trust and who they don't, whether they have bothered to edit their trust list or not. Forcing people to edit their trust list (which is what the proposed system essentially does) will hurt new users and change nothing for longtime users, so why make this change?

This. Default Trust might not be perfect, but I don't believe the proposed changes would be an improvement.

I would like to buy some keys from you if you are willing to use escrow.

I hope you realize that the interest rates offered by this HYIP are unsustainable in the long run. It is inevitable that it will collapse, and you are very naive to give positive trust after withdrawing a small deposit. I think you should remove your trust rating, since having positive trust from a default trusted account will inspire false confidence in investors and cause people to lose more money than they otherwise would have.

How much are you selling it for?

One of the problems I see with this is how liable it is to be manipulated by purchased accounts, given how numerous they are. It appears that it would be quite easy to add or remove someone from the suggested list with 10 or so accounts with decent activity, if someone wished to do so. It seems to be much more exploitable than the current system, since many people will assume that anyone in the suggested list should be trusted. Also, since trust lists are not public, it will be much harder to tell if someone is manipulating the system than it is right now.

There is no need to find an escrow that deals specifically with steam items, since the escrow never has to actually hold them. The buyer sends BTC to the escrow, which the escrow releases to the seller once the buyer confirms that the seller has sent them the keys.