While I agree with several of your conclusions here, and you bring up very good points about there being no limiting factor on frivolous negative ratings, I think your solution is lacking and is only adding more complication to an already over complicated system. The system needs to be simplified, not added to. My suggestion is to have a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before leaving a negative rating. This solves the primary issue of there being no limiting factor to false or frivolous negative ratings with minimal effort, creates a simpler system, and less counter productive side effects.
standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws just means that people need to be smart enough to not leave certain bits of evidence behind while doing what they are doing. Not being able to leave someone feedback on a technicality doesn't seem fantastic either. In addition, untrustworthy behavior is incredibly subjective, so who will decide what warrants negative feedback? If someone leaves a frivolous negative because they believe you are untrustworthy on the grounds that you bought your account for example. A fair number of people might find that significant and would rather it not be covered up because it isn't breaking any laws, agreements, and no theft was involved. What is your point even? If they are smart enough to erase their trail completely then you aren't catching them anyway. Again, what evidence is available would be submitted for public review. Neutral ratings could serve as warnings with the thread referenced. I agree "untrustworthy behavior is incredibly subjective", which is why I am arguing for an OBJECTIVE standard of evidence before negative rating. Account sellers could again be neutral rated with a reference thread. This is not covering it up. This is defining a very objective line so that the community can focus on fraud, not absolutely everything being perceived as subjectively "untrustworthy". The negative trust factory farmers would just have to find a way to get their dopamine hits elsewhere rather than from dropping negative ratings on people assembly line style and fellating themselves over the moderate amount of authority it gives them. |
|
|
|
marlboroza is a liar who likes to twist facts for the benefit of those who he is allied with. I would not take him seriously. He is intent on smearing and attacking anyone who is willing to speak out against any of his friends. Your post goes here. Is some one upset their little smear fest is not working as planned? Is someone upset that they are not on DT? You guys really need to work out a new dig, that one is just about 5 years old by now. You are right though, what business does some one with nearly a decade of trade history and being entrusted with large sums of money have any business being on the default trust? It is not like I worked hard to build a reputation just to have it used against me as a tool for retribution. No, the Politburo are only allowed permit users to keep their hard earned reputation. I should smarten up and start "policing" the forum like you then I can shoot to the top in a few months! Much easier! Why work when you can just steam roll over a bunch of people by leaving negative ratings assembly line style rising to the top at their expense? Not everyone hallucinates what they want to see like you Vod. Most people expect claims to be able to be substantiated
Look at Techy claiming without substance that I hallucinate, and then commenting on how people won't believe it.  It is hard to follow these discussions. Too many things are taken out of context and there are too many misquotes, and I noticed some people are answering their own questions! No one legitimately thinks I am a puppet.
You seem to be insinuating we are all the same person using the term "they" as if we are one collective entity rather than individuals that independently
Maybe I should use "he/she" instead of "they" when quoting TECSHARE? I don't want him/her to jump to conclusions like that. I see several questions, but they are all about other people. I don't have responsibility for anyone but myself, so I am not required to answer for them.
Seems he/she/it created clone of this thread to not talk about it. You are staring to sound a lot like Vod. Yes people often start unmoderated threads to not talk about he thread topic, unlike when people create moderated threads about a thread topic who clearly want to discuss the entire issue. Did you go to the Vod school of Insane Clown Mental Gymnastics? |
|
|
|
My suggestion is to have a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before leaving a negative rating. This solves the primary issue of there being no limiting factor to false or frivolous negative ratings with minimal effort, creates a simpler system, and less counter productive side effects.
Forgive me if you've already answered this, but should this be implemented what would make people follow these rules? Would someone have to sift through every negative rating left and verify that each one is valid according to them? I have, several times. I will however explain again. Just as currently with any normal scam accusation a thread is posted. It is considered a general requirement to have some kind of substantiation when these claims are presented. What I am advocating for is that we follow this model and require AT LEAST a base standard of presenting SOME tangible evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. As is the standard now for scam accusations, the evidence would be submitted for public review. After the prerequisite of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws has been met, a general consensus would be reached much as it is now during public discussion whether negative ratings would be merited, and users would be free to make that decision individually. Really it is very similar to the way it works now, only the standard of evidence of the objectively predefined offenses would serve not only as a limiting factor for issuing false ratings, it would again mandate accountability on those rating to substantiate their claims using objective standards of evidence. Anyone refusing to follow the standard of presenting evidence under objective standards would then find their own reputation suffering. This would, depending on the system in use result in exclusions, or negative ratings. If Theymos were to mandate this standard of evidence, it would then be a form a "terms of use" agreement, and those violating those terms would then be subject to negative ratings themselves. He nor the staff actually has to enforce anything, the simple act of setting the standard for the terms of use of the trust system would be sufficient, then the rest would be a matter of public review in the appropriate subforums. |
|
|
|
Legally speaking though in most countries it is equivalent though. You are the one who wanted to play lawyer here. While I don't agree with the premise of this thread itself, he does have a point regarding standards for abandoned funds.
Is it though? In most european countries it is not. It is handled with like physical property. Maybe gold or physical money would be the closest comparison. Then again my understanding is if you leave a banknote with a friend and then disappear, you don't have to turn this bank note to the state. Buy maybe I misunderstood the lawyer talk. Please enlighten me TecShare & Quicksie. Even physical gold for example has additional requirements in most countries such as KYC and AML restrictions. This is not something required for all property, but property which is equivalent or near equivalent to currency funds. You can't just pick and choose the aspects of the law you like and abandon the rest, that is not how it works. |
|
|
|
Ability to include someone in your trust list as "Ratings Only" I've thought of this option, and I do think it can be helpful. It would be nice if we could add a custom depth to each of inclusions, but like o_e_l_e_o mentioned, it would add complexity to an already complex system. Maybe a custom depth setting can be implemented as an option, and not a requirement. Well yea, you don't ever need to use any particular feature. "Trade with Extreme Caution" warning This is one of the philosophical debates about the current system; is it a "trader" rating or a "trust" rating? Should it be limited to those who've completed trades with one another, or is more than that? It's my opinion that the trust system is designed to be more general and broad, and therefore more useful than merely a "trade" rating. There are many attempted scams that don't necessarily involve a trade of goods or an exchange of currency. And anyone could simply start trading in rinky-dink transactions that amount to only a few dollars and still earn a high trade rating. If it was limited to only trades, then every one who dealt with CanaryInTheMine would like a trusted individual. We know that's not necessarily the case. My understanding of the intention behind the current implementation of the trust system is it is intended to not be limited to those who you have personally traded with. If trust ratings were limited to trades, a scammer could simply never trade with someone on DT (or never scam someone on DT, but trade with them), and no warning would ever show, which on its face would be a bad thing. This proposal is trying to solve the problem that a single person can effectively torpedo a person's reputation without any real recourse, even if many others on DT disagree. It effectively takes three people to override a single negative rating, and this number grows exponentially as each additional negative rating is given. There is a small group of people who frequently leave negative ratings together, that effectively cannot be overridden -- when 4 people leave a negative rating, it will take 17 positive ratings for for person to show as having not negative trust, and when 5 people leave a negative rating, 33 people will need to leave a positive rating. The above group of people tends to leave very controversial ratings with impunity and without consequence, and this results in this group of people collecting additional support from others because they fear themselves being targeted by this group, and do not want to lose their reputation for arbitrary reasons (or for the underlying reason of opposing/pushing back against this group of people). This particular proposal removes the ability to label someone a scammer for an arbitrary reason. If there is pushback to someone being labeled a scammer, it will take many people labeling the person a scammer, and if there is enough pushback, the person will effectively not be labeled a scammer. I don't think someone needs to have actually scammed to be labeled a scammer, and it is sometimes appropriate to label someone a scammer if they are showing "red flags", however it is my belief it should be pretty clear cut if someone is being labeled a scammer. In any case, everyone will be free to review the text (and references) of trust ratings and come to their own conclusion if it is safe to trade with someone or not. -snip-
Remove the ability to exclude a person from your trust network:
This feature sounds good on its face, but is actually harmful to the trust system and the community.
As an example, SaltySpitoon has BayAreaCoins on his trust list. if BAC leaves controversial ratings, he is unwilling to remove after a public discussion, if the rating is controversial, SaltySpitoon should remove BAC from his trust list. If BAC is unwilling to do this, a decision should be made to either accept the controversial rating, or to remove SaltySpitoon from your trust list. This will force people to be accountable for who they have on their trust lists.
-snip-
I'm not seeing your example there, isn't that the accountability we are talking about? If BAC leaves controversial ratings, it would reflect poorly on me as me lending my trust in his ratings. As a result, I should remove him from my list, or others will doubt my ability to be a judge of ratings and exclude me. That is a feature we want correct? Not many people know how to determine who has included who on their trust list. I am not referring to BAC, but under the old implementation of DT, you had at least one person who not only left many controversial ratings, but also refused to even defend his ratings, and chose to instead troll anyone who tried to defend themselves (which, BTW sent a clear message to others to not even try to defend themselves), and you were in no way held accountable. You were not the only one, Blazed had many people on his trust list who left many controversial ratings, and I am not aware of him being held accountable in any way. Both you and Blazed either ignored the problems, or pretended they didn't exist, and never engaged in any substantial discussion on the ratings of those in question. Going back further, CITM had a trust list that many people found very controversial for many months, if not over a year, and to my knowledge he did not encounter any problems in conducting business, and was only removed from DT1 when he left an indefensible negative rating for Dogie, who was able to concisely defend himself -- I have my doubts that the rating in question would have even mattered had it not been for dogies contributions to the forum. So no, I don't think having someone on your trust list who leaves controversial ratings will reflect poorly enough on you to resemble anything close to you being held accountable. As for the ratings only part, if BAC has someone on his trust list that I think is too volatile to be on DT, the process starts again, the individual gets pressured, BAC would get pressured, and then I'd get pressured in that order if nothing is done about it. In that case, I could exclude that person and it'd be settled.
In this example, everyone who has BAC on their trust list would need to exclude the volatile person, which is not ideal because not everyone will notice the problem right away. A better example of this is probably Blazed, who as mentioned above, had many people on his trust list who had no business being anywhere near DT. I consider him to be generally trustworthy, have successfully trusted him with $x,000 in the past, and would probably be willing to trust him with $xx,000 if we were engaging in a trade that I believed to be mutually beneficial for the both of us. His ratings were similarly good. His trust list was not, nearly his entire list was compromised of people who I don't want in my trust network, and as such I eventually excluded him, knowing how the trust system worked and how to use it. While I agree with several of your conclusions here, and you bring up very good points about there being no limiting factor on frivolous negative ratings, I think your solution is lacking and is only adding more complication to an already over complicated system. The system needs to be simplified, not added to. My suggestion is to have a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before leaving a negative rating. This solves the primary issue of there being no limiting factor to false or frivolous negative ratings with minimal effort, creates a simpler system, and less counter productive side effects. |
|
|
|
If anyone has more detailed information on their grievances or the industries to be privatized I would appreciate the information. Right now I am pretty much just chocking this up to standard low level South American style Communist terrorism. |
|
|
|
|
The USA got to be this powerful because it is more of an idea and an ideology than it is a nation. Part of that ideology includes the preservation of basic rights and sovereignty. While the USA might be able to just steam roll everyone and take their shit now, eventually a bigger fish would manifest, and no one would shed a tear because they would be losing fair and square at a game of might makes right, a game that they had started. The overall ideology is more resilient than might makes right could ever be.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not money. And a wallet is hardly a bank account.
Legally speaking though in most countries it is equivalent though. You are the one who wanted to play lawyer here. While I don't agree with the premise of this thread itself, he does have a point regarding standards for abandoned funds. |
|
|
|
I don't see me quoting anyone there
No worries - others can.  I literally didn't quote anyone there. Not everyone hallucinates what they want to see like you Vod. Most people expect claims to be able to be substantiated, but in Vod land your imagination is proof enough. No worries... people can make up their own mind. Of course they can. Everyone can see with perfect clarity that after repeated requests for you to quote me, you are unable to. Pretending it is a fact that need not be substantiated is all you got. |
|
|
|
I left you a neutral tag with a Reference link, I'll remove it in a few months or however long it takes to stop showing you've changed your password and email. (let me know if I forget)
BPIP never forgets, or will anyone else that has an agenda with him. It would be really cool is users can add a Note to BPIP, which in this case could point to the signed message. Vod does not belong in control of anything even remotely security related. |
|
|
|
I abused the trust system? unsubstantiated I was unable to verify you were a liar? unsubstantiated I was forced to remove a rating? unsubstantiated I am trying to confuse and distract? unsubstantiated etc etc Tell us more, Mr. encyclopedia. Well staff agreed you were abusing the trust system and excluded you as a result. I would say that is pretty solid substantiation. Your argument now is that I didn't substantiate, that you didn't substantiate your claims? Do you put your brain into a blender every morning to get this kind of flawless logic? My lies can be substantiated right now! All you have to do is quote what I lied about in your original rating. Prove me wrong. In this case, proving a negative is not possible, and this is the only way you can "win" an argument is by setting an impossible standard. You enjoy your semantic gymnastics though and pretend what you are saying makes any sense if you like. Anyone with basic abilities for simple logic can see what you are doing here. Your mentally ill clown dance of distraction and confusion is evident to see for anyone who bothers to read this thread where you spend about a dozen pages in a desperate attempt to distract from your inability to substantiate your claims. |
|
|
|
What people deserve is a useless metric. What is relevant is what is enforceable and logistically possible. I would remind you that ATTEMPTING a crime is still a crime, and if you can produce solid evidence of this attempt I have no issues with that.
Absolutely. Someone who tries to scam deserves negative trust and even (real) legal punishment. However I do take issue with the 4 lane highway of a subjective loophole that is just based on opinions and beliefs allowing for abuse of this system.
I would agree to that too. Something people always ignore is that too many frivolous ratings creates signal noise and allows actual fraud to be buried in the din. Not only that, no one ever addresses the security threat of users having the ability to extort trusted users with false ratings in order to force compliance and silence.
Again. I agree. I'm not sure if this is addressed to me. Read my previous post. I don't see how you'd think I disagree with this. In the end if you are saying we are going to prevent scamming with negative ratings, that is just horse shit.
No, it's not. Just because I try and use negative trust to reduce scamming and you think it should be used to punish it only doesn't mean what I'm saying is horse shit. The fact someone disagrees with you doesn't make that opinion shit. Negative ratings are simply a reaction AFTER THE FACT, and any attempt to leave preventative negative ratings without evidence is not only a fools errand, it creates tons of signal noise allowing real cons to blend in, opens numerous avenues for other abuses, and creates endless conflict that is destructive to the overall community cohesiveness here.
If it's abuse, then yes. If there are clear signals a user is trying to scam but not definitely proof then that negative trust can reduce scam. Any preventative warnings can be solved with warning threads and neutral ratings.
Not always. For example, a lot of non-registered users have been scammed by new accounts creating locked and/or self-moderated threads with links to auto-buy sites. Of course, they didn't deliver anything after being paid. Those non-registered users didn't see any warning threads or neutral ratings. That situation was improved a lot after the warning theymos added to threads created by users with negative trust. But of course that warning is shown only if those brand new users have negative trust. Clear scamming signals are there: they are brand new accounts, they lock and self-moderate their threads, they post links to auto-buy links, most of the times (but not always) they get feedback from other brand new accounts (posted on a locked thread). But there's no absolute proof they are trying to scam. Leaving negative trust to them did prevent a lot of scams. Before, more than half of threads on that section were of that kind and there were a lot of " I wish I read this warning thread sooner" posts here, posted by newbies after registering. Now only a few threads of that kind are posted, a scammer who used that method (with brand new accounts) has said he's leaving the site and no more " I wish I read this warning thread sooner" posts have been seen. So it's absurd to deny leaving preventing negative trust is usefull. The problem is trust should not be abused under that excuse. The trust system can either be a warning or a penalty, not both at the same time, and there is no denying it is detrimental to a user's ability to trade when they receive negative ratings.
Yes, it can be both. And yes, it's more difficult to trade for someone with negative trust. That's exactly why scamming can be reduced with preventive negative trust. My statements were generalized and not necessarily directed at you personally. The concept that preventative negative ratings will stop scamming is horse shit because it doesn't work, and is furthermore counterproductive as I explained not just because it is an opinion I don't agree with. You agree that over utilization of negative ratings is an issue. Your solution to this issue boils down to: "The problem is trust should not be abused under that excuse." This is not a solution, this is kind of like just asking and hoping people will do the right thing. That is not good enough. There needs to be a simple form of due process here such as requiring a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating. You gave an example of when a negative rating could serve as a warning to "prevent" a scam. There are a couple problems with your logic here. First of all when I say the rating needs to be used as either a penalty or a warning but not both, this is not just my opinion, it is a logistical fact, one that you already ceded. If there are TOO MANY negative ratings, people begin to ignore them totally and then they ALL become worthless. In this scenario you don't get your cake or get to eat it too, you get nothing but conflict, confusion, and more fraud. This is why I say it must be one or the other, but not both, because there is no limiting factor on leaving false or frivolous ratings, and as a result that signal noise will dominate. The second problem with your logic of negative ratings preventing fraud before it happens is that fraud is like a flow of water. You never really stop it, you can only put up barriers to entry. Much like hacking, there is no such thing as an "unhackable" system, but only such high barriers to entry that it is not worth trying. This in mind all you are doing is redirecting that fraud to other methodologies, which is great, but you are totally ignoring the side effects of this specific strategy which are counterproductive. The cost of creating the barrier to entry needs to be a factor in the equation as well. Furthermore is the real issue that people can abuse this one little feature by locking/using self moderated threads, or that people are not spending the time to do their own due diligence before trading? Do you really think that people who don't even bother reading trust ratings (neutral ratings) can be protected from their own lax attitudes? Again, at what cost are you attempting to save these fools from themselves? New users need to be taught to review a users trust history before trading, and training them to rely only on green and red numbers is literally just feeding them into a wood chipper of fraud by building false confidence in a flawed system. If they are not taught this then that flow of fraud will just redirect to another vector to fleece people with lax attitudes making your preventative ratings totally useless in the end anyway. I am using logic and reason, much of which you agree with to demonstrate that preventative negative ratings are overall counter productive. Your argument largely consists of, "but no it does prevent scams, trust me". Again, even if this was correct, the counterproductive effects of this are far more detrimental than the benefits. |
|
|
|
-snip-
With higher frequencies you can generate almost any lower frequency you want. 5G is way up in the 80 Ghz range.
-snip-
I might be missing something, but who said 5G would be 80Ghz? Anything in the EHF spectrum starting around 20Ghz isn't suitable for data transmission, as it starts to get interfered with by the atmosphere. *Edit* Found it, here is the study that everyone seems to be referencing that proved that you could use EHF for 5G: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ielx7/25/7469422/07434656.pdf?tp=&arnumber=7434656&isnumber=7469422Still reading through it, notably the loss portion of it. I'm not sure how much loss is permitted where a signal can still transmit all of the data that would be required. Gut reaction is still that high frequency 5G bands are being reserved just in case, and that it isn't very feasible. I think the confusion revolves around the transmission system. Most radio signals are omnidirectional, 5G is a highly directional beam which probably has better transmission quality compared to classic transmission methods. I think this may be where the confusion is coming from. |
|
|
|
I don't know much about other guys that has rule America government and I know little about their performance but Trump will ever remain one of the greatest president Americans ever produced and internationally, outside the trade war with China and other European countries I think he has done very well. Yah great guy, could of made 2000 self sustaining farms with his golf trip money and fed billions for the next 100 years. So the working class does not need to worry about food. And you could feed 100 starving Africans selling that fancy computer you are on. What is your point? Also, Huffington post? Canadian edition no less? LOL! |
|
|
|
|
So what is this about? Are they angry they can't simply flood into our country unimpeded any more?
|
|
|
|
This is why I advocate for a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for leaving a negative rating.
So you think only people who have already scammed deserve negative trust? I strongly disagree. I think trust should be used to make things harder for people who are trying to scam too. Unfortunately that is subjective, but I don't see a better option. What people deserve is a useless metric. What is relevant is what is enforceable and logistically possible. I would remind you that ATTEMPTING a crime is still a crime, and if you can produce solid evidence of this attempt I have no issues with that. However I do take issue with the 4 lane highway of a subjective loophole that is just based on opinions and beliefs allowing for abuse of this system. Something people always ignore is that too many frivolous ratings creates signal noise and allows actual fraud to be buried in the din. Not only that, no one ever addresses the security threat of users having the ability to extort trusted users with false ratings in order to force compliance and silence. In the end if you are saying we are going to prevent scamming with negative ratings, that is just horse shit. Negative ratings are simply a reaction AFTER THE FACT, and any attempt to leave preventative negative ratings without evidence is not only a fools errand, it creates tons of signal noise allowing real cons to blend in, opens numerous avenues for other abuses, and creates endless conflict that is destructive to the overall community cohesiveness here. Any preventative warnings can be solved with warning threads and neutral ratings. The trust system can either be a warning or a penalty, not both at the same time, and there is no denying it is detrimental to a user's ability to trade when they receive negative ratings. |
|
|
|
I am letting your own words speak for you Vod. There are pages upon pages of you desperately struggling to avoid substantiating your accusations in a pathetic attempt to avoid responsibility for your abusive behavior. Ok, where did I say I'm abusive? How many pages did I say it in? Can you show me my own words, or just add a lot of filler? Is this what you call being clever Vod? You abused the trust system. You claim I "lied about" you, but after dozens of pages of people asking you to substantiate that claim you were simply unable to. You were forced to remove your rating after former staff Badbear removed you from his trust list over it. This is your favorite tactic, accusing your opponent of what you are guilty of and mimicking their words in a constant desperate effort to create low grade confusion and distraction from the real damning evidence of your own misbehavior. You are like a small retarded child stealing cookies, and when you ask them "hey did you steal those cookies?" they reply in a desperate and transparent attempt to hide their crimes "NO YOU STOLE THE COOKIES!" |
|
|
|
I am very sorry you got robbed, however if you just got robbed twice in one day just perhaps you should modify YOUR OWN behavior and do some due diligence and learn how things work around here before placing responsibility for your lax attitude on the rest of the forum. A fool and his money will soon be parted. Maybe you should stop being a fool.
Exactly how is the OP "blaming the whole fourm?" I show that he is taking responsibility for his gullibility. I am done with this bitcoin peer to peer exchange thing - I know nothing can be done now so I am just writing this topic to warn any newbies like me who is so gullible to be scammed twice a day.
"Stop these scammers from scamming again" The forum doesn't stop scammers, nor could they even if they tried. This statement implicitly puts responsibility for the problem on others rather than himself. He then goes on to say how he is "done with this Bitcoin peer to peer exchange thing" as if the flaw is in the system or the forum rather than his own lax behavior. New users need to learn that the forum is not going to protect you and you need to do the due diligence to protect yourself. I am sorry if this harsh reality got your panties in a twist, but again if we are actually trying to help these people they need some "tough love" and not a changing of their pampers every time they do something dumb then blame everyone else. If he had spent 5 minutes reading thru the forum first this could have been prevented. |
|
|
|
I don't see me quoting anyone there
No worries - others can. I literally didn't quote anyone there. Not everyone hallucinates what they want to see like you Vod. Most people expect claims to be able to be substantiated, but in Vod land your imagination is proof enough. |
|
|
|
|
You are setting a good example doing the due diligence to explain your actions rather than just lording over people from atop the hill poo pooing any challenges to your actions. Well done.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
