Oh and I just recalled read a while ago that placing someone on Ignore holds weight with the trust list as well, but where that explanation is I'm not sure.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211858.0 Marketplace trust

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1066857.0 Minor trust score algorithm change

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1184040.0 Setting up your own trust list

Hey thanks, those are indeed the droids links I've been looking for.


Nah, when I play Doctor's and Nurses, I like to make house calls. 

...until those on the Default Trust are outted as scammers like Quickseller and Tomatocage (the former has been removed from DT, the later hasn't).

Some links that I have

Why do some users have green text in their trust and others (like me) have not? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174606.0

I have a proposal to vary the trust system that is used here. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1183190.0

Paying for Negative Trust {0.001 BTC}  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174480.0

I've misplaced the actual discussions on Trust (which was cough upgraded about two months ago and people cough splutter like it, it seems.

If you remove the word DefaultTrust from your list of trusted, then only those you have given good or bad trust to will show up that way...

(put a tilda in front of DefaultTrust ie ~DefaultTrust and see what happens...) You can change those settings back and forth and only you will see the end results.

I 'm still unsure how a person gets on the DT... (had recent events not occurred, I would have said something flip just then about having had the DT's at times, but I digress) ... but be very very careful how you hand out trust, especially negative trust for it shall comeback to bight you ... hard. Really, really hard.

Tomatocage is one of the users on what's called the Default Trust where they arbitrarily give out negative feedback, in the past he and Quickseller would also attach "use escrow" and then offer themselves up as the escrow agent without revealing that they are both the buyer and the escrow.

Tomatocage today has worded his negative feedback very carefully to imply the OP is trying something on (ie PayPal scam) without using the term "use escrow" no doubt another newbie will come on and suggest escrow and months later we'll find out that it was another Alt of Tomatocage.

Since Quickseller was outted as an escrow scammer persons on the DT and others have posted advice in the form of replies to the OP's instead of arbitrarily giving the OP negative feedback / trust without a chance to respond (ie using terms "I will remove if they ...")

You can add Tomatocage to you list of untrustworthy in the trust --> Trust Settings --> then put ~Tomatocage in your Trust list (as untrustworthy by adding the tilda "~" before his name..

Hi Newbie,

I'll take 0.022 BTC into 1NewbiesXGxBmULNZNso1ZaY3Rcjq7rniG for $5 USD via PayPal thanks. (Priced via http://preev.com/ )

You can go first. Send me a DM with your PP email when the funds have gone through (verified here https://blockchain.info/address/1NewbiesXGxBmULNZNso1ZaY3Rcjq7rniG ). Thanks.

*edit* nearly eleven hours later and no reply, deal is off the table.

I'm trying to build on the Trust system that's in place already, I'd like to know that if someone had  12: -0 / +3  [3] that they'd be more trustworthy than  4: -0 / +1  [2] by comparison even though the first one is at trust level three

Hi again,

I wasn't advocating for five levels as such, I just wanted to give an example of what it'd look like.  Regardless of whether a user has the DT and two levels of trust or a user defined variation, the level numbers are actually going to be there.

I do like the [1] suggestion


Sorry about the colours, there's a limited palate to choose from in the change colour drop down box.

I've got an idea to modify the trust indications which I've proposed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1183190.0

I have a proposal to vary the trust system that is used here.

People can have all kinds of trusts which are shown differently for each person; X doesn't trust Y so any trusts that Y gave out don't show up on X's trust list.

A recent glance over the various trust's as they stand on my trust indicator shows examples such as:

• Trust:    128: -0 / +16
• Trust:    10: -0 / +1
• Trust:    0: -0 / +0
• Trust:    0: -1 / +4
• Trust:    : -1 / +25
• Trust:    -112: -7 / +16

In each case I can gage how trusted someone is with the dark green / lime green / black / orange / red indices, however none of these show me if a user is on the default trust list, is a level one, two three what ever level of trust.

Three person's can each have

• Trust:    0: -0 / +0
• Trust:    0: -0 / +0
• Trust:    0: -0 / +0

but in each case, one is a newbie with no trust from any one the second I have had a tiff with and so have manually placed them as untrusted in the trust box and the third is on the default trust list.

So, what I propose is this:  The oblique (or forward slash) colour be modified to indicate visually if a person is on the default trust list, has been manually added to the untrusted list or is level zero, one, two, three up to (say) a trust level five.

Everyone starts as a newbie with black as <zero> if you never transact with anyone else, you keep your black oblique.


Trust:    0: -0 / +0

The person I have placed on my untrusted list manually eg ~UserXNameHere gets a different colour (say) purple

Trust:    0: -0 / +0

While someone on the default trust gets another colour again, say brown

Trust:    0: -0 / +0

which would then give our three users distinct markers

• Trust:    0: -0 / +0
• Trust:    0: -0 / +0
• Trust:    0: -0 / +0

Then it would simply be a matter of assigning another colour again to each of the five trust levels

• Trust:    0: -0 / +0 - blue - trust level 1
• Trust:    0: -0 / +0 - teal - trust level 2
• Trust:    0: -0 / +0 - beige - trust level 3
• Trust:    0: -0 / +0 - maroon - trust level 4
• Trust:    0: -0 / +0 - pink - trust level 5

You could go to ten trust levels, but who's going to trust someone that obscure...?

Another variation would be to reverse the direction of the Oblique if someone is on the default trust

 Trust:    0: -0 \ +0

The above could also be used to indicate someone was once on the DT but is no longer on DT list, or could have their oblique greyed

 Trust:    0: -0 / +0 (just pretend it's grey people)

Apologies if I've posted to the wrong forum, I'll shift if someone suggests a better spot for it.

Anyways, thanks for reading.

I'm leaning towards d4 to make the Rook earn its keep.

I don't know why they're talking about how they're going to eventually surrender, my suggestion for a4 hasn't changed.

I had a someone a while ago showing me a um, split sig (or was it multiple sig?) for BitCoin and it was creating wallet addresses starting with a "3" ... The second line each start with a different letter, so I'm unsure if split keys  and part private keys for other coins have more than one prefix?

Check the wallet address I sent you, it may take me till December, but hopefully I'll get there.

It looks a little bit like that doesn't it?

Well Troll... I take it you haven't read about Vanity wallets or part private keys that are added or multiplied together to create a vanity wallet?

So you're backing out of the deal we've been discussing via PM then?  Thanks for the advice.

I've been repeatedly turned down by both Newbies and Jr Memebers for not being trusted enough so I wouldn't take it to heart. (Check out my trust that I've left for others BTW).

Last but by no means the least for now:


The first seven prime numbers...

Seven being the largest single digit prime number.