Weird. Checked the link and you're right - no recent posts. Bitcointalk hacked?


1. Use burner accounts when there's a chance the things you say/do might upset someone.
2. Buy a trusted account to use as your main one.

Don't know what else to say, place has gone to the dogs lately.

For the sake of this conversation, let's allow that the ability to remove past negative trust is a good thing. That's not what I'm addressing here. I'm talking about the ability to remove *positive* trust ratings once a person has been shown to be a scammer.
Would you be good with disallowing removal of prior *positive* ratings?


Not sure why it's relevant. I'm for leaving *all* the ratings in place. If you've been more liberal with your ratings in the past, I'd like to be able to form my own opinion regarding your current ratings. For instance, if you've trusted all the scammers on this forum, and later removed that trust & replaced it with negatives, I would, at best, find your judgement to be suspect. I would most certainly rather know than not - knowledge is power, and all that. The trust system, like bitcoin, is a trust ledger, and one which can be edited at any point is pretty worthless.



Not sure how to interpret that as a reply to my question. Sure, someone who has traded honestly over time should be considered more trustworthy. How would not being able to edit the past feedback affect this?
And how would inability to delete ratings be instrumental in "trust farming"?
Seems nonsensical, explain?

Not sure what you're saying, so I'll try question/answer format. (Agree/Disagree)

1. If Andy is leaving positive trust to scammers, only to change it to negative once the scammers have been caught, I'd like to know this.
2. If Andy could not delete the ratings he left at a later date, he's likely to put more thought in the ones he does leave.
3. Inability to delete ratings, days after posting them, may reduce some forms of trust abuse, without creating possibilities for new ones.
4. A positive rating, left at an earlier date, counts less toward the trust score than a more recent, negative rating. This eliminates the need for deletion if the rated user turns out to be a scammer.

Sarthak: I too believe that bad people can become good, though I'd like to make the decision myself, rather than leaving it up to the forum.  Further, I'm not concerned with bad feedback being removed. I'm talking about *positive* feedback being removed.

chaosknight: To delete a positive rating, the user who left it has to do so. If same user simply leaves a negative rating, his positive one can no longer be exploited. See above.

Seems to actually throw the trust into negative. As a test, I've left you two trusts - one positive, one negative (will delete if you want):

this is the result:

So it all works out. leaving a negative after a positive labels you as untrusted.


I guess I still haven't made my self clear. I *want* to be able to read the comments, see all the trust left by a user, not just the most recent edit.
If I am leaving positive trust to scammers, only to change it to negative once the scammers have been caught, wouldn't you like to know this?
Would you not question my judgement more, knowing this?

Haven't looked at how the rating numbers are calculated, but presumably leaving a negative feedback nulls the positive feedback left by the same user?


Not being able to change/delete positive trust at a later date would discourage such trust spam/abuse. Would surely eliminate most of the "trust loan" spam.
Seems like a good idea?

Not sure if I made myself clear. Sure, people make mistakes and should be able to correct them. This could be done by adding a negative rating on top of the original, positive one. That would allow me to gauge the credibility of the rater.
For instance, if a user leaves positive ratings to scammers, only adding negative ones once the scam has been completed, I can discount his ratings. If same user does it on regular basis, I'd suspect his complicity in the scams.
See my point?

chmod755: Just trying to figure out if the system could be simply improved. An unamended record of ratings left by a user seems like an easy fix.

What's the reasoning behind allowing old trust ratings to be removed/altered?
This effectively erases the trust history, letting users change their ratings once an account has been spent (used in a scam & no longer valuable).

Consider this scenario:

1. Being a trusted member, I lend my trust to a scammer.
2. The scammer scams, as scammers do.
3. Upon the completion of a scam, I remove my trust rating, changing it from positive to negative.
4.
5. PROFIT.

Take this account, for instance: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=20968


A hero member, all feedback bad. What's to say it wasn't all good before, perhaps from the same users? Any way to check?
*Not suggesting that in this instance ratings were changed after the fact, just using it to illustrate a hypothetical.