I don't hate you.
As far as I know, you've not scammed anyone. I'm not sure if you'd be proper to be on DT1, because of your poor understanding of what is scamming. But to be on DT? Of course: you're unlikely to scam others.

When DT1's are expected to only add people they're personally vouching 100%, or near that, the DT list gains a status it shouldn't have. I am arguing that DT should only be used as a list of people unlikely to scam. Or in other words, DT should be diluted a lot and the status of it should be decreased. Something about this:

1) People are supposed to make their own trust lists. Having a default trust list, people often choose to not alter their own trust list to be able to see the trust score and "trusted feedback" as others likely see it.
2) The perceived trustworthiness is not always matching reality. Big scammers have been on DT. In any case, DT1 is the view of theymos and DT2's are the view of DT1's. More DT'ers, more views, more decentralization, less (perceived) authority and trust for the correctness of DT. This would be good as it encourages people to make their own lists. It would still protect people from getting scammed (at least small scams) and the list would "heal" itself a lot quicker than it does currently.
3) Diluting the status of DT to a list of just unlikely-to-scam users, people are encouraged to make their own trust lists. There should not be any other qualifications to get on the DT.
4) DT users, especially DT1's, are getting a lot of heat, because there are so little of them. Also due to the same reason, they can't verify and dig in to all the stuff happening. This enables small scale wrongdoing as curators have much bigger stuff to do.
5) Con men always know their ways in to whatever list. If it only takes "good judgement" for few years and posting sensible stuff for a couple years, they'll do exactly that if the gained reward is worth it. We've seen this happening in the scene. Because of this, there's no point in even trying to build an universal list of super trusted users (which is what DT is trying to be currently). If everyone made their own lists, con men wouldn't have a clear target.
6) Having a public "highly trusted" status being on DT, it only boosts the effect of the scams they can pull. Now what are the upsides of having people with such status?

3 hours until the auction ends. Current highest bid is 0.02 BTC.

Winner is greenplastic. Congrats!

I dunno if any of that or this is on topic anymore, but... you sound like you're about to burn out. Also, you're talking about assumptions and prejudice and such and how others are not spending time researching issues/cases. You need to be self-critical, as I've seen you fail at that and you seem to not acknowledge it. It's easy to go through 100 threads a day and bark something "smart" in each of them without deeply thinking about anything. Many in these forums do that and I really don't know what good does it do.

Current highest bid of 0.02 BTC by greenplastic.

A bit over 1 day to go!

This nicely highlights the problem of DT. People treat it as an authoritative thing.


In my opinion, that sort of way to use DT is wrong, because it's too constraining, paints a wrong view of the DT list and encourages people to not make their own lists.


I want DT to be gone or be changed. I can help with the latter, but would prefer the former.

I PM'd you, because my PM is not related or relevant to this thread. But whatever, now that you're implying that I want to play unfairly -- whatever that means --, here's the PM I sent you, so others can read it too. (As anyone can see, this message I sent to The Pharmacist is not related to this thread at all and his implication of me "playing non-fair game" is a narrative pushed by him, who knows why.) Also you can see that I did not say that The Pharmacist is derailing, even though he claims/implies so.


Now let's stick to the topic.

Vendor bids are a common practice around the world. Ebays and such have made people think that all auctions are "get stuff for cheap" forced sale auctions, while in reality such "no reserve" auctions are always stated to be as such -- except here in bitcointalk. I did a vendor bid once, got taught the bitcointalk way of auctioning and have done all my auctions without any complaints since that.
And yes, DT should be abolished. Not because Vod misuses it, but because it gives Vod's opinion/misuse/whatever way too much power. Apply this to every DT user.

Theymos asked for specific suggestions to DT1. My non-specific suggestion would be to add loads of new DT1 members so the status of DT would get diluted heavily. And you know my opinion of the whole DT thing..

Here's my specific suggestion: Add me to DT1.

Why?

If DT exists, I would want it to be a list of people who are unlikely to scam others, and nothing more. My DT2 additions would not be ultimately trusted people, but just people that I feel are trustworthy enough to be unlikely scammers. I've been in this scene for years and have seen many kinds of scammers and people in general, also having moderated bitcoin IRC channels for years and recently bitcoin subreddit too.

So in other words, I would want to decrease the "legitimacy" of the DT list as an "elite, highly trusted people" list. This would encourage people to make their own lists. I would be adding loads people I've got to know over the years, and I am sure that many do not find them trustworthy to e.g. do trades, even though I do. It should merely be a list of people unlikely to scam others, and that's how I would treat it.

Additionally, add bunch of current DT2 members to DT1 so the DT1 gets "diluted" as it should.

Edit:
Some of my thoughts related to DT: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5080581.msg48502686#msg48502686

He's not holding the domain.


This is how it should be, but in practice hasn't been like that for years.


I agree. Sadly, DT1 members do not agree with us. I've talked recently with few DT1 members (who I could contact, several of them are unresponsive or inactive) and how they describe DT is very far from your view.


I disagree. DT should be a list of people who are unlikely to scam others. Nothing else. It should not be used as some "ultimately trusted people" -list, as that's as real as unicorns. There have been plenty of scammers in DT. And I can tell you that scammers know their way in to that list, no matter how curated or small you want to keep it. So DT, if it has to exist, should merely act as a list of people unlikely to scam others. People should in general form their own trust networks, so I find the whole DT list largely unneeded.


Untrue. Negatives are largely based on pure opinions and incompetence. E.g. look at my trust rating received from SaltySpitoon (a DT1 member). He rated me red, because I did a vendor bid on my auction ~3 years ago. I had not stated that the auction was without reserve, as it was not without reserve. (E.g. the U.S. law states that auctions are by default with reserve and all no reserve is a special rule.) So I did this vendor bid, which is a sort of a concealed reserve price. SaltySpitoon is lying that I didn't honor the auction. I didn't back then know about the Bitcointalk auction standard, which is quite vague and not specified anywhere, but is something one just has to know. I didn't know back then that vendor bids are not cool in here. They're very commonly done in my country. In any case, vendor bids are not scamming, unethical or anything like that. So this rating by SaltySpitoon is wrecking my trust score and is listed in "trusted rating" page for all the people who trust DT, and it's based on SaltySpitoon's incompetent opinion. It's unfair, unjust and shows incredibly bad judgement, but there's nothing anyone can do about it except theymos. Nobody will go against a DT1 member publicly, Believe me, cliques and what not exist around DT.


Agree. And when negatives are used poorly, like they are... There have been various cases where DT members are misusing or abusing the system to boost their ego or whatever. In even more cases, the negative and positive ratings are given without proper basis. E.g. Vod rated me because I told him privately that I don't specifically trust him. Ego got hurt and shows.


This also highlights one of the issues about DT: people have very different views about what it should be. And people in DT positions have different views too, and use them according to their own view. This makes it a bad thing.

DT list should be removed completely. Right now it's acting as a "elite", "trusted people" list while that's only the perception of it. Reality may be totally different. There have been very nasty scammers on the DT list, even on DT1. It took a long time until the worst ones got removed. There are still untrustworthy people who do their shit only occasionally, so they are not removed. My point is that it's not a list I would suggest trusting. It has objectively not worked very well at protecting big scams from happening. It has and is only working to protect newbies from getting scammed in some ridiculous way. So it should be used for that purpose only. Best would be to remove the DT completely -- it would encourage people to make their own lists just like trust networks are supposed to work. Of course there's some steep curve in the beginning, but isn't there always?

Also, DT1's who have added people to DT2 may have been completely inactive for years, so who will remove them? Curating is not working properly and it's in the hands of a couple people. Not good.


I asked to be included in the DT list. I've been here for years, and around the scene for years. I've also traded a lot, and so on. I've also acted as "a judge" on various cases as I've moderated e.g. Bitcoin IRC channels for years.

I received mainly three kinds of responses from DT members:
1) Adding anyone who has a negative from some other DT is not possible without insane drama. This is where DT has evolved. There are tons of drama always around and obviously some people (DT1) get the heat.
2) I don't post enough positive or negative feedbacks. (one of this came from someone who is a lot less active regarding feedbacks than me, so I wonder this a little...)
3) I've rated positively someone they don't like. (and the person I have rated positively has dozens of positive ratings from various other people too, also from people on DT)


I think this is the best option. They will anyway rely on using DT (with the current system) and this is a step forward where there's no real DT, but still something (individual) that acts as such. Also new users would need to pick the users themselves, so they'd acknowledge it at that very point that they have chosen those "trusted" users themselves, and nobody did it for them.


Here's mine: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5081293.new#new

Exactly. And if someone wants to scam in auctions (especially higher valuable), much more elaborate tactics, like bought established accounts will be used. There have been quite shady cases where auction shilling has conducted, in one form or another. These cases should not be forgotten so easily, because they obviously know what they did and what for. I.e. it's not an accident when someone hypes up or encourages others to bid on some auction when the person is concealed to be the seller too.

A good practice for the bidder is to establish some sort of level of knowledge of ballpark proper prices of the auctioned items and then bid accordingly.

Maybe auctioneer stating publicly whether a newbie/suspicious bid is accepted or not, and/or if it needs some private stuff before bid gets accepted, would be a good practice. This would make it clear for other participants and auctioneer could e.g. vouch/clear the legitimacy of a bid this way.

But as mentioned, shill/newbie bidding can be pretty hard to spot as accounts get traded etc..

Current highest bid is 0.01 BTC by praine.

It seems quite obvious to me that the copied content was from Cryptopia, even without "quotes" or "reference" even though it should've been noted that the author was Cryptopia. E.g. that "We will provide..." obviously hints that it's a copy paste from some announcement by Cryptopia. Or in other words, I don't see that anyone really took this content to be written by the banned user, as it is obvious that it's Cryptopia's announcement. Not something that plagiarism is...

Also AFAIK it's allowed to create an alt account to appeal for the ban, which is not considered as ban evasion itself.

75. Anduck

Thank you.

What should I apologize for? For calling his logical skills bad? SaltySpitoon coming out of nowhere to red-rate me to wreck my account trust score, as he admitted ("now you don't need to worry about Vod"). His rating states that I don't honor my auctions. I've honored all auctions I've ever held. I've never scammed anyone. He is lying and is the one who should apologize to me.


Why should I reduce my feedback to neutral? Vod blackmailed/threatened me, misuses the DT system to "solve" his personal problems with me (which wouldn't be problems at all if he didn't illogically misunderstand me in the first place), lies about me and so on, and is not seeking to clear any of this in any way. He is clearly incapable of using the trust system fairly, and so is SaltySpitoon. I would not trade with Vod due to dishonest behavior, and suggest everyone else to not trade with him either.


This is exactly why DT list should be removed completely. The view of peoples trust they in practice portray to people is not accurate, as you can see. This would only be solved by removing DT list.


I agree this is a boring and annoying topic. I am not "screaming" that everyone else is wrong. It's sad how people have commented in this thread without even glancing at the sources, e.g. where Vod threatens me. They just apparently automatically side with Vod, because Vod has been "so good" for the forum so far etc. And I don't even disagree with that, Vod has done an alright job as I see it, but it in no way corrects his wrongdoing against me.

But again, this and other problems -- as you know DT has caused tons of problems and drama -- are only fixed by removing DT completely. It's absolutely unfair that some single opinion/person is capable of wrecking someones portrayed default view of trust for good. You, OgNasty, should know about these things too.


Good advice.

I hope that theymos removes DT list and lets trust system evolve and work as a true trust network. Authorities like the DT list members (as they in practice are for majority of the users) are only causing noise and drama, and their opinions very often do not portray a truthful view of persons trustworthiness. There should not be such DT thing at all, it should've been removed a long time ago when it started evolving this bad way. It's time to act on this.

Bump. Auction restarted. Starting price 0 BTC, minimum bids 0.002 BTC. Ends on December 8th 22:00 GMT.

Basis is that there are various auction standards in the world, no matter if you believe it or not, and it looks like you don't believe it.  This is what I argue to you. You disagree, mock me, and argue back (quite poorly). Auction expert that I linked is describing that auctioneer bidding on the item acts solely as a reserve auction. You're arguing that reserve auctions are unethical and scam, and that the source for that information is not to be trusted, but instead we should trust your vague "pages of legal documents", incompetency and prejudice? Also you can't even tell me who is getting scammed and how, what is the unethical/wrong thing etc. when auctioneer bids on the auction. This should tell something. Hint: poor judgement!

Also, as my quote shows, you're strawman-arguing against me, which is simply pathetic itself and also because you brought your DT1 position in to the play as well. You'll maybe understand years later why people don't go against you publicly, or even talk with you publicly. You've now shown to have quite bad judgement skills and logical skills of a bird. This is obvious to many, but I promise you hardly anyone will say it aloud to you. You can wonder why.

Also, the double standards in your behavior -- another view to illogical behavior: you feel that it's perfectly fine for someone to change auction rules and you feel that it's total scam for auctioneer to bid on his auction. I can argue you why changing auction rules mid-auction is untrustworthy and what sort of things can happen when that is done. You on the other hand obviously cannot argue why auctioneer bidding on the auction is untrustworthy. Maybe others understand this even when you don't.


You're obviously rating me to wreck my account further, as you admit. Your position and my position are not equal, as you know. You're power tripping here quite heavily, or you have logical skills of a bird.


I hope theymos acts on the problems of DT and removes it completely.

This is the reason for your negative trust. You seriously, truly think that I might suddenly introduce hidden terms or breach my own auction? I've never changed my auction rules in any way.
This is one auction case, where I bid on my own auction, clearly and transparently, auction event from ~3 years ago, where I learned from the community feedback the auction standard of Bitcointalk doesn't include auctioneers bids. Since that auction, I've always held auctions without any complaints.

He, SaltySpitoon, obviously doesn't know and refuses to educate himself about common auction standards of the world, dismissing expert opinions as "some wordpress page". Facts go against his prejudice. Sees the action of auctioneer bidding as scamming, even though it's a common practice around the world, even in the States. Wrecking accounts trust score based on things like that tells me about severe bird-brained logic, as obviously prejudice and refusal to learn controls the person's choices.


It's not a "he said she said" case. There's no ambiguity. It was a blackmail/threatening attempt of "you either remove your rating or I red-rate and wreck your account". Of course Vod said the words making the threat, making it a "he said she said" case? Bird brains at work again.


It works exactly like that with reserve auctions. One doesn't need to sell the item to the highest bidder unless the auction is without reserve, or the reserve is known and met. It doesn't matter what your opinion or prejudice is. Facts are facts, but apparently prejudice and opinions override facts in your logic. My auction did not state "no reserve" or "with reserve". At least in the U.S. law, auctions are by default "with reserve". It's about the auction standard how it is, too. All in all, your rating to me shows your poor judgement.


Let's hope that theymos removes DT list. It only brings sorrow to people.