I thought about a threshold before an account is shown red. So if a user only angered one member on default trust and only that user rated him negatuve then he is not instantly red. Which raises his chance to overcome that red rating with green ratings.

If that red rating is genuine then it would be pretty easy and fast to get other users rate him negative too. By creating a spam accusation thread. Spambusters are very fast on rating then.

The advantage would be that you would need to have more than one peoples judgement to push someone in the negative. It would be a little bit like swarm intelligence. A community court of some kind.

Well, I think alot of complaints could have prevented that way.

Digging IS the single most effective way to get more clamusers. And in fact I believe these guys will most probably check out justdice and even buy some more clams. Iam, for example, was buying a lot more clams after i found i could dig some coins. So digging is essential to the clam network, in my opinion. Of course potential digs are less the more time goes by. Maybe a bit advertising about the possibility to dig would help to get more digging and Iam pretty sure it will help the price going up too.

Honestly, i think without digging clam will die relatively fast. There simply is no new fresh energy flowing in anymore then. Where should it come from than from people being excited about the possibility to earn free money and check out clams? I mean checking out a new altcoin is pretty time consuming. When you have an reward to do so then wou might do it. If there is no reward at all then why should someone seeing clam from the outside have an interest into checking it out? Because of just-dice? Well, why think about exchanging your bitcoins into a potential risky altcoin when you simply can play on primedice?

No really... without digging clams will lose ALOT of his charme. And i think it will go down pretty fast then too.

Yes... it starts of taking the side of someone who is treated unfair by other members, maybe harrassed or similar things. There are some people on the forum who have an army of altaccounts and it seems, ALOT of time. They seem to have nothing other to do than turning other persons lives to hell. Checking out users that speak against them, searching errors they can use against them and harrassing even them then on threads.

And it ends with people who saved their money from being scammed away by using an escrow and they do not get the idea to tip the escrow for saving their money. I mean that outcome is even better than the deal being successfull.

Guess it is simply a case of not having thought about that.

Maybe signatures are only deleted and the users can put them back in to at least get paid for the open timeframe?

Yeah, speaking about it, it might be interesting for signature campaign owners to know if someone was banned, too.

Yes the trust system is one of the hot topics of critics on the forum. Mostly because of people feeling treated unfair for being rated negatively by people on default trust.

There are suggestions in the room to force people to build their own trust list but somehow I believe that will only lead to newbies not care about adding someone. They would simply see no ratings at all anymore. And forcing them to do so would mean that they would add the same people that are on default trust now, just to get this point done and being able to use the forum.

Bootstrapping would mean an initial trust list, if Iam not wrong, which still would bring critics because people would say newbies will see the ratings from these people the same way like it is with default trust now.

To be honest, I was on the forum for years without touching the trust list because the default trust ratings were a relatively good rating most of the time. At least when the negative trust is a high number it is pretty sure someone is a scammer and that it is not only someone was angered by another person.

I really don't know how this could potentially be solved since if it is not automatic then it would be manual to some extent. And i doubt many would want to do the work checking rating and users out.

There are no alternative trust systems out there where one could learn from i guess. Otherwise it would have been suggested already.

Only realized it now, you have -104 or so because of my trust list.

And yes I agree you still have a lot of respect.


I think that doesn't really matter. There were alot who claimed you give everyone red trust that criticized you so that fact? might be no wonder.


I know, but your evaluating was not seldom of a kind that a big majority disagreed with you and you still held onto your rating because you, for example, felt that someone would have wanted to scam.


I think the "for the most part" was the problem. I had the feeling of you being stubborn often enough as long as the victim could not provide proof against your rating. Which of course was impossible when you rated on a feeling that someonew wanted to scam only, so no scam happened at all at that time.

But let's not make this thread into a quickseller discussion. I think I wrote all points I think on that point already. Yes I agree with you doing good work as spambuster, only your rating technique is somewhat destructive at times.

Yeah, I realized now. I thought that someone who is on default trust one and is giving a green trust to someone that this person will automatically be leveled to default trust 2, even when he is not in the trustlist. Though it seems that is divided luckily.


Yeah, I made some errors by deleting old trust rating so consolidate them back then led to them losing some points.

But i may revise that point. I added it to not clutter the trust ratings with too many ratings though I only would need to give another rating when the trusted amount is considerably higher. Or something like that.


I think he would still show up red, only his given red would show up again too. I only think going against all these red trust rating will break hell lose. I would not want to be in the persons position who does this. I saw what happened when all those, who felt being treated unfair by QS, saw finally the chance to kill his red trust. It was a mess.

Ah ok, then all normal trust feedback is handled the same way like anyones on default trust 2. The thread sounded a bit like you gave normal trust ratings to members you traded with and that they now automatically were on default trust 2 now that you are on def trust 1.

Good that this is divided.

Hope you remember your passwords then. Or at least the password to your password manager.

Would be pretty unfortunate when bitcoin price is at $5k a bitcoin and you can't access them.

Hi everyone. So it seems the issuer needs to stop the ICO. I received two payments into the escrow address and it looks like both transactions followed a verification method.

So when both investors could contact me then i most probably can refund them instantly.

I know that it is only accepted because forbidding account trades has proven to be not working and instead had disadvantages. Allowing it at least allows mods to follow the messages going around in the forum system.

Though when it is allowed then it's in the best interest of the community to try to hinder scammers on their work. Which means a banned account should be recognizeable. Staff and moderators did already much to help on that front so i think it might be only natural to provide a bit more security there.

Ah thanks for the explaination and thanks Blazed on adding me again. I did not see me added on the list i downloaded some hours ago.

In fact i had thought that theymos was default trust 0 and everyone on default trust one got his trust from theymos. It would make sense since someone had to add them. Though as admin you don't really need to use the trust system for that i guess. Only backend change.

So the list can't tell you who is default trust 1 since there is no notice about the level. You only can judge from ratings when you know someone is default trust x.

I had to laugh because you are so consistent on holding on your account even though it looks pretty unlikely getting the red trust away.

I agree you are a good spambuster but you might remember that i at least once spoke against your red trust. I think you gave red trust way too freely. Red trust can practically destroy an account and it seems to me the complaints about your ratings were not only from scammers but from people who genuinely felt their feeling of justice hurt.

Can happen easily.

A way to not give wrong trust too.

Anyway, what is the difference between you giving green trust to a user the normal way and you putting a user into your trust settings? Is it the same basically? If so then you have to be really cautious now. Though i think you already found out.

Well, it looks like a lot of work to me.

I tend to think that with the current trust we have three levels of how members should vote. First is untrusted and trusted from someone on default trust 2. Their trust ratings does not really mean much since they only show up on untrusted feedback and very few check there.

Next is default trust 2. Which means you have to be a lot more cautious who you trust now since your trust shows up for everyone. Your trust means you can trust this person and you show this to everyone. So it is not a thing of "a trade went well" anymore. You need to think of the person of someone you somehow got the impression of that you can trust him.

Being switched to default trust meant that i had to deal with that since i received a whole thread of complaints about it. So i created a new trust policy for me as escrow:

* No trust rating to account sellers, buyers or the account traded generally. Because i cant tell if the buyer is using the bought account from now on or if he will sell it shortly after. And i cant tell if a seller is selling the seller account shortly after too.
* No trust rating at all to escrowed amounts worth <$50.
* Deals where i was escrow should not get green trust since there is no risk involved to buyer and seller. So i can give a neutral trust (see trust options, neutral is a comment only and doesnt affect the rating) to them when rule 2 does not apply. I will state the escrowed amount as risked btc and mention that it is the escrowed amount.
* Exceptions of the above rules are possible if i trust a person really. Have the impression that he showed he is a honest guy or something like that.
* I will only give one trust rating and try to put all ratings in one rating.

Guess you have a lot more responsibility on that level.

Edited a part out. It seems like the normal trust rating are handled the same like with on default trust 2. Only the trust list is putting someone on default trust 2.

I downloaded that file but how do i read it?

For example I see that theymos has phantastisch on trust. And phantastisch has me trusted. Does that mean Iam on default trust level 2 now again?

You sure your wife wouldn't like your grandma then? And you look into the mirror asking yourself who the old man behind the glass is?

When you are unlucky your wife married some other person in the meanwhile, though when you love her you might wish that to her instead wasting her life waiting years and worrying about you.

Dunno, something better to avoid.

I suggest just-dice.com for you. The owner dooglus is very trustworthy. You have to invest clams, though that is a plus because clams earn more clams when you own them. So you will earn from gamblers and from staking (form of mining).

You only have to watch out for the bitcoin-clam-price.

I'm surprised that it might have become a pay service. The whaleclub always joked about having high entry levels but the joke was that everyone could take part. And now they want to charge?

Back then the blog was a random following of blog posts predicting the price. I wonder what they did to think of charging.

Ah ok. Only was wondering because you mentioned that traders would decide on one chain. But yes, both chains would be the best outcome.


Though that might only stay that way until next diff update. And the transactions will become less and less because coins moving from certain addresses are not existent there, so many transactions will be not valid.


I think so too. I await the losing coin to collaps pretty fast. Though both chain's bitcoins would lose alot of value anyway upfront. Just from people going out to watch what is happening.