Trim or eliminate "default trust"

[tspacepilot]

Can I ask you one thing? If ACCTseller is an alt of quickseller .... Why did he leave a negative trust also from his alt account? It doesn't have any sense or an I wrong? I only want to ask that thing publicly.

Thanks for the attention.

The trust left by ACCTseller was the result of something that should not result in a trade with caution tag, but is still something that others should be warned about - leaving such trust is a third option above leaving negative/neutral trust from your default trust account. The negative I left for scamming TF is because tspacepilot clearly scammed and an actual scam is more then enough of a reason to cause someone to have a trade with caution tag

He did this because at the time it was not completely public that the two accounts were alts of each other and he was on a personal vendetta to smear me as he stated using the ACCTSeller.  He made the mistake of abusing the trust system in this way and eventually he'll end up having to account for it.  For the moment, badbear is out of town and there's nothing we can do.  Please don't derail this thread into a quickseller complaint thread, there are plenty of those and while I admit he seems to be among the most self-righteous, abusive and problematic of the "trust-rangers", this is not really about him in particular but about the general problems in the system.

[1715081764]

1715081764

[1715081764]

1715081764

[1715081764]

1715081764

[TheButterZone]

Like theymos said, feel free to suggest a new system which can replace current trust system. If anybody can come up with a better system, I will support it. Saying "remove DefaultTrust" isn't enough. Come with a better idea...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.msg11150053#msg11150053

[Quickseller]

Seems like every time I turn around there's some issue with default trust.

Maybe all the humans on there should be replaced with versions of that AI that just got released from Swiss police custody, which engage in transactions where they can verify if trust was broken. For example, a PayPal default trust bot sells BTC-equivalent Bitcointalk tokens, ensures the buyer doesn't chargeback for 1 year, positive or neg trust for the risked BTC if they do or don't. A software default trust bot publishes unique coding tasks (that can't be plagiarized) for BTC-equivalent Bitcointalk tokens in various programming languages, then validates the code. Leaves neg trust if code is invalid/errors, removes neg trust if tokens are returned.

Any other ideas?

How would this account for the fact that certain human judgment is necessary when trying to look at if something is a scam or not. The trust system is not a trade feedback system, but is a trust system. This would also not account for the fact that it is not possible to for a computer to know for sure if a trade was successful or not (e.g. buying bitcoin for cash in mail, mailing some physical good to a buyer, etc). It would also not account for things like people who are clearly engaging in trades for no reasons other then to get additional feedback (e.g. clear trust farming)

[TheButterZone]

Seems like every time I turn around there's some issue with default trust.

Maybe all the humans on there should be replaced with versions of that AI that just got released from Swiss police custody, which engage in transactions where they can verify if trust was broken. For example, a PayPal default trust bot sells BTC-equivalent Bitcointalk tokens, ensures the buyer doesn't chargeback for 1 year, positive or neg trust for the risked BTC if they do or don't. A software default trust bot publishes unique coding tasks (that can't be plagiarized) for BTC-equivalent Bitcointalk tokens in various programming languages, then validates the code. Leaves neg trust if code is invalid/errors, removes neg trust if tokens are returned.

Any other ideas?

How would this account for the fact that certain human judgment is necessary when trying to look at if something is a scam or not. The trust system is not a trade feedback system, but is a trust system. This would also not account for the fact that it is not possible to for a computer to know for sure if a trade was successful or not (e.g. buying bitcoin for cash in mail, mailing some physical good to a buyer, etc). It would also not account for things like people who are clearly engaging in trades for no reasons other then to get additional feedback (e.g. clear trust farming)

The bolded bit sounds an awful lot like what your "opponents" have been saying; humans lacking both innate judgement and ability to judge even who should and shouldn't be "trust rangers" - as no human is omnipercipient - still get scammed.

I left off those examples because it would have taken me too long at the time to rough sketch the bot code. However, there a number of virtual mailboxes that operate off http://about.usps.com/forms/ps1583.pdf - a method that could conceivably be used to verify physical item receipt via the bot running a counterfeit check on the scanned bills and object recognition of physical goods shot from the proper perspective. Ultimate disposal of the cash or goods would probably have to be done by the agent in exchange for service credit or conversion to an ACH payment into the bot's account, which I suppose would be used to buy BTC and/or pay for more goods/gigs, or the bot's own hosting fees.

Trust farming could be screened for by having alternate bot usernames or human investigators retest anyone who gets trusted by the default trust bots.

[Quickseller]

Seems like every time I turn around there's some issue with default trust.

Maybe all the humans on there should be replaced with versions of that AI that just got released from Swiss police custody, which engage in transactions where they can verify if trust was broken. For example, a PayPal default trust bot sells BTC-equivalent Bitcointalk tokens, ensures the buyer doesn't chargeback for 1 year, positive or neg trust for the risked BTC if they do or don't. A software default trust bot publishes unique coding tasks (that can't be plagiarized) for BTC-equivalent Bitcointalk tokens in various programming languages, then validates the code. Leaves neg trust if code is invalid/errors, removes neg trust if tokens are returned.

Any other ideas?

How would this account for the fact that certain human judgment is necessary when trying to look at if something is a scam or not. The trust system is not a trade feedback system, but is a trust system. This would also not account for the fact that it is not possible to for a computer to know for sure if a trade was successful or not (e.g. buying bitcoin for cash in mail, mailing some physical good to a buyer, etc). It would also not account for things like people who are clearly engaging in trades for no reasons other then to get additional feedback (e.g. clear trust farming)

I left off those examples because it would have taken me too long at the time to rough sketch the bot code. However, there a number of virtual mailboxes that operate off http://about.usps.com/forms/ps1583.pdf - a method that could conceivably be used to verify physical item receipt via the bot running a counterfeit check on the scanned bills and object recognition of physical goods shot from the proper perspective. Ultimate disposal of the cash or goods would probably have to be done by the agent in exchange for service credit or conversion to an ACH payment into the bot's account, which I suppose would be used to buy BTC and/or pay for more goods/gigs, or the bot's own hosting fees.

Trust farming could be screened for by having alternate bot usernames or human investigators retest anyone who gets trusted by the default trust bots.

Well it sounds like your system would be a good trade feedback system. Although it would not do anything to prevent scams from happening in the first place. For example if a user is offering a too good to be true offer then how is an unexperienced user suppose to know that it is probably a scam? I know that tomatocage often screens people's actual willingness to accept escrow with newbie accounts and flags them with his own account when they show signs of not accepting escrow (e.g. they stop responding). What about people who make statements that they are desperate for money then all of a sudden start to sell something very expensive? What about face-to-face deals and other deals not done within the forum?

[TheButterZone]

Well it sounds like your system would be a good trade feedback system. Although it would not do anything to prevent scams from happening in the first place. For example if a user is offering a too good to be true offer then how is an unexperienced user suppose to know that it is probably a scam? I know that tomatocage often screens people's actual willingness to accept escrow with newbie accounts and flags them with his own account when they show signs of not accepting escrow (e.g. they stop responding). What about people who make statements that they are desperate for money then all of a sudden start to sell something very expensive? What about face-to-face deals and other deals not done within the forum?

Again, the bolded.

Too good to be true offers are received by everyone with email on a periodic basis - advance fee fraud. And in postal mail - other types of fraud. And via the phone. And everyone behind a door that strangers can easily get to, who parks their vehicle in public, or who can communicate with any other human being in any fashion whatsoever. If you don't go through life with the mindset of "trust no one, verify everyone", you will get scammed.

Nothing can prevent scams (on bitcointalk) from happening in the first place other than pre-post/pre-edit moderating all contact methods out of posts and eliminating the private message system, links to instant messengers, etc.

The most favorable description of default trust is "the good" - but logically, you cannot simultaneously have "the perfect" you described in bold: the good but flawed system is mutually exclusive of the perfect system.

It seems that those who illogically defend default trust the most, while hypocritically making "the perfect" the enemy of their "good", must be the ones who come up with

a better system...idea

that ACTUALLY prevent(s) scams from happening in the first place.

ETA: Let's draw an analogy, though I'm not a master at it: you are stranded on a desert island with a laptop, satellite internet, and a cup, but do not call for rescue. You scoop up seawater with your cup and drink it. You do not drink any other water or liquid. You post on the internet that you're feeling worse by the day, describing your symptoms. People ask "what are you drinking?" - you tell them only unprocessed seawater. People tell you that you can't do that without eventually killing yourself. You tell them "but there's all the water I'd ever need to drink right here from the ocean! Screw you guys!" and throw your laptop into the ocean. Rather than heading inland to search for fresh water, moisture-rich foods, you die of extreme salt intake.

Economic suicide is happening everywhere, irrespective of "good" systems. At least TRY to be perfect, even if it's rarely possible to be.

[smoothie]

It is pretty simple, don't be a scammer, liar, thief, and you should have no problems.

Saying one thing in a message then going back on it is essentially lying especially when trading.

Most people that are complaining about the trust system simply have a hard time staying on the honest side of the fence. They have their own agenda of wheeling and dealing to their benefit.

Just be open and honest and upfront.

Seems to be a challenge for a lot of people here though.

I'm a huge troll sometimes but the funny thing is I am the most honest person likely on the forum and in person. I don't have any hidden agenda and everything is out in the open.

Scammers usually will hide behind a veil.

Simple as that.

 

[SaltySpitoon]

It is quite possible that I don't see the entire picture here.  But from what I can tell, the forum moderators are wanting to grrow some sort of organic network of trust where they don't have to moderate it, it basically self regulates based on participation of many people and their activities.  However, I think that one thing that's getting in the way of that is that not many people actually participate, ie, they just see a trust warning on some people and take that as ground truth.  Then we have a lot of drama because others are working to be trust-rangers, jumping through all kinds of hoops and loops in order to be known as scam-busters who keep the boards safe from the bad guys.  But a small collection of trust-rangers isn't the same thing as that large, organic, unmoderated trust system that saltyspittoon mentioned upthread.

Several folks have said that if trust were opt-in rather than opt-out that that would be dangerous---it would remove using trust system as a crutch certainly, but they say that even the crutch is better than nothing before you know how to walk.

However, there seems to be near universal agreement that the actual text of the warning could be changed to both a) be more informative about the actual state of affairs and b) be more inviting to learn how to use the trust system for yourself.

Theymos, lets have "negative trust" warning changed to: "This person has received negative feedback from someone in your trust network."   That message is far more reflective of the actual situation and provides an invitation to figure out exactly who is in your trust network and why.

Correct, the staff that are on default trust have better things to do than get involved in Default trust stuff. I can't speak for everyone on default trust, but I can speak for a few staff members/admins here when I say, its a pain in the ass for us. We don't need to manipulate trust, while I disagree that people should trust forum staff just for being staff, that is how it is. I can't control how people think, but whenever I'm trading with people, I'm the one who has to insist on using escrow, so people aren't pressured into sending to me first. Theymos is one of the most trusted people in the bitcoin scene, if he wanted to abuse people's trust, he could have done it far more easily than with the trust system.

Everyone knows the trust system has issues, it is just currently the best system there is. Ears are wide open, and hopefully these types of discussions yield a better result, but it always comes down to a few factors that mess up propositions. It can't be decentralized, because then it is decided by those who have the most accounts. We don't want it ruled by a small group of people like it is now, but you can't trust the majority. feedback can't be moderated by anyone, or its useless. But without any type of moderation its subject to spam. We shouldn't be tagging people frivilously, but we shouldn't wait until after a scam happens to tag someone.  The system needs rules so people aren't confused, but then the system isn't flexible enough to adapt, also who sets the rules?

In any case, I agree with the bolded.

*edit*
and as a side note, in response to the Tecshare MZ conversation that I dont feel like quoting, as a Global Moderator I don't have any special say on anything as far as default trust goes. I'm on default trust because I'm quite neutral and Theymos trusted me enough to give me a shot on it. I feel I do a pretty decent job at addressing all of the heated trust debates as a relatively neutral party. Vod isn't on my trust list, so his actions don't concern me in the slightest. Tecshare wasn't removed from default trust for lying or being untrustworthy, he was removed for losing his temper and being vindictive. Default trust isn't 100% about who is trustworthy, its about who leaves accurate feedback for others. The most trustworthy person in the world who leaves shoddy feedback will be removed.

PS. The Butter Zone, I like your idea but I dont think its very feasible. It sounds like a feature Ebay will spend half a billion dollars developing in the year 2057.

[Quickseller]

Removal, no

Trim, yes

I think it is pretty clear that you just want the people who keep tagging all of your accounts and all of your HYIP's off of default trust so it will be easier for you to scam 

The thing is that people throughout the community trust and respect me enough so that regardless of my status on default trust that they will listen when I say that I think you are running a particular scam so default trust or not, the "investments" that flow into your HYIP's will screech to a halt once I out them as being run by you   

[TECSHARE]

Tecshare wasn't removed from default trust for lying or being untrustworthy, he was removed for losing his temper and being vindictive. Default trust isn't 100% about who is trustworthy, its about who leaves accurate feedback for others. The most trustworthy person in the world who leaves shoddy feedback will be removed.

You are right, why should I be upset when my reports continually go ignored and some one is harassing me in the only area I am allowed to post items for sale. Rules are only to be used as cudgels to enforce upon others, not to protect them, that's no fun. I offered a compromise that would make us both whole again, but he did nothing but escalate the entire time.

If it was true that people who leave shoddy feedback would be removed, why is it that VOD is still there? Some how him negative rating me for "lying" about him is acceptable, but me leaving a negative rating for some one harassing me in my own OP's is stifling free speech? He has made a long term pattern of exhibiting this behavior, but there is always an excuse as to why it is ok... for him.

You mistake me being agitated with losing my temper and being vindictive. Perhaps if there were official rules posted for the trust system some where on the forum none of this would have happened to begin with, but if the rules were posted they might apply to EVERYONE, and we can't have that.

[SaltySpitoon]

Tecshare wasn't removed from default trust for lying or being untrustworthy, he was removed for losing his temper and being vindictive. Default trust isn't 100% about who is trustworthy, its about who leaves accurate feedback for others. The most trustworthy person in the world who leaves shoddy feedback will be removed.

You are right, why should I be upset when my reports continually go ignored and some one is harassing me in the only area I am allowed to post items for sale. Rules are only to be used as cudgels to enforce upon others, not to protect them, that's no fun. I offered a compromise that would make us both whole again, but he did nothing but escalate the entire time.

If it was true that people who leave shoddy feedback would be removed, why is it that VOD is still there? Some how him negative rating me for "lying" about him is acceptable, but me leaving a negative rating for some one harassing me in my own OP's is stifling free speech? He has made a long term pattern of exhibiting this behavior, but there is always an excuse as to why it is ok... for him.

You mistake me being agitated with losing my temper and being vindictive. Perhaps if there were official rules posted for the trust system some where on the forum none of this would have happened to begin with, but if the rules were posted they might apply to EVERYONE, and we can't have that.

Yeah, its too bad that someone didn't get to your reports in a timely fashion, make whatever excuses you wish, you still over reacted in my opinion. You would have to talk to Tomatocage about why Vod is on his trust list, as he is the only one who can answer that. I don't have any say with what Tomatocage or anyone else on default trust does with their lists.  I dont know if his negative rating for you is acceptable, and its not for me to judge, because I haven't chosen to add Vod to my trust list so its not my concern. Steadfast rules cause people to seek loopholes. For the same reason forum moderation is left up to the judgment of collective individuals. We can set guidelines, but if we set rules then the system becomes ineffective. Think about Paypal's or Ebay's rules. Because of their policies, representitives are forced to make decisions that are insane. They are willing to give up rational judgement in order to follow those rules, "Oh you have proof you completed this transaction? Oh, well we don't have protocol for this type of transaction, so the other party wins by default, sorry you are boned". As far as trust system rules, the community dictates them. Thats part of the reason I can't say whether or not Vod's feedback for you is fair, I can't say whether its ok for people to leave feedback for those they haven't traded with, etc. The feedback system is regulated by the community, so that it can adapt as new issues arise. The discussions in meta and generally accepted practices set what is Ok for people to do.

[TheButterZone]

PS. The Butter Zone, I like your idea but I dont think its very feasible. It sounds like a feature Ebay will spend half a billion dollars developing in the year 2057.

I wonder if those guys who coded the AI bot that got "arrested" by Swiss police will be happy to be paid half a billion, or mad that they had to wait until 2057 to be paid when they could have my ideas coded in a year. Unless I'm overestimating their abilities and they're about to have criminal charges filed against them because their bot was barely doing anything itself.

[SaltySpitoon]

PS. The Butter Zone, I like your idea but I dont think its very feasible. It sounds like a feature Ebay will spend half a billion dollars developing in the year 2057.

I wonder if those guys who coded the AI bot that got "arrested" by Swiss police will be happy to be paid half a billion, or mad that they had to wait until 2057 to be paid when they could have my ideas coded in a year. Unless I'm overestimating their abilities and they're about to have criminal charges filed against them because their bot was barely doing anything itself.

I'm talking about the entirety of the system you proposed including the anti fraud scanning features and such.

[TECSHARE]

Yeah, its too bad that someone didn't get to your reports in a timely fashion, make whatever excuses you wish, you still over reacted in my opinion. You would have to talk to Tomatocage about why Vod is on his trust list, as he is the only one who can answer that. I don't have any say with what Tomatocage or anyone else on default trust does with their lists.  I dont know if his negative rating for you is acceptable, and its not for me to judge, because I haven't chosen to add Vod to my trust list so its not my concern. Steadfast rules cause people to seek loopholes. For the same reason forum moderation is left up to the judgment of collective individuals. We can set guidelines, but if we set rules then the system becomes ineffective. Think about Paypal's or Ebay's rules. Because of their policies, representitives are forced to make decisions that are insane. They are willing to give up rational judgement in order to follow those rules, "Oh you have proof you completed this transaction? Oh, well we don't have protocol for this type of transaction, so the other party wins by default, sorry you are boned". As far as trust system rules, the community dictates them. Thats part of the reason I can't say whether or not Vod's feedback for you is fair, I can't say whether its ok for people to leave feedback for those they haven't traded with, etc. The feedback system is regulated by the community, so that it can adapt as new issues arise. The discussions in meta and generally accepted practices set what is Ok for people to do.

I see. So we shouldn't have rules because there might be loopholes. Solid logic. They have a word for places without rule of law, its called a dictatorship. I see how you excuse yourself from the situation by claiming no involvement in him being on the trust list, but that still doesn't absolve you of your statements that any abuse of the default trust will be dealt with, because clearly it isn't the case. As far as guidelines, no one put any guidelines for how to deal with the default trust either. How exactly are people expected to follow rules that are unwritten? Do you really expect everyone on the default trust list to review all of the dispute cases that come forward? I am not talking about anything like eBay or Paypal, I am talking about a clear set of official rules everyone can understand so people don't just have to GUESS what is and is not ok.  You aren't seeking a restorative form of justice but rather a punitive one which harms everyone involved instead of allowing people to fix their own problems.

It is convenient that you can just absolve yourself of involvement, when in reality you could exclude Vod from your trust list, along with one other person on the default trust list, and he would no longer have the ability to abuse his position on the default trust. You have a brain and the ability to review the situation, as well as act upon it, but you refuse to. This is what I am talking about when I describe preferential treatment. There is always an excuse when it is inconvenient. If it makes you look good then it is justice. If it is inconvenient, ignore its existence. This is fundamentally what is wrong with the system in place here currently. It becomes a popularity contest, not rule of law.

[alani123]

I think it is pretty clear that you just want the people who keep tagging all of your accounts and all of your HYIP's off of default trust so it will be easier for you to scam 

The thing is that people throughout the community trust and respect me enough so that regardless of my status on default trust that they will listen when I say that I think you are running a particular scam so default trust or not, the "investments" that flow into your HYIP's will screech to a halt once I out them as being run by you   

It's pretty odd that you mix reasoning with attacking a person's past.

Anyway, what's wrong with default trust is that it gives people no reason to create their own trust list. Theymos has said it before that we shouldn't value it that much, but how the hell are we going to ignore it if it's placed into everyone's account by default. Would it be that hard for the administration to try and teach people and newcomers how to modify their own trust list? If they did that effectively we wouldn't need a default trust list.

[erikalui]

Removal, no

Trim, yes

I think it is pretty clear that you just want the people who keep tagging all of your accounts and all of your HYIP's off of default trust so it will be easier for you to scam 

The thing is that people throughout the community trust and respect me enough so that regardless of my status on default trust that they will listen when I say that I think you are running a particular scam so default trust or not, the "investments" that flow into your HYIP's will screech to a halt once I out them as being run by you   

Isn't cryptosplit a scammer and runs a scam website? I can't see any feedback from you. Why? Is it because you worked as an escrow for him?

You worked as an escrow inspite of knowing that it was an investment/scam site? Scammers profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=503558

[SaltySpitoon]

Yeah, its too bad that someone didn't get to your reports in a timely fashion, make whatever excuses you wish, you still over reacted in my opinion. You would have to talk to Tomatocage about why Vod is on his trust list, as he is the only one who can answer that. I don't have any say with what Tomatocage or anyone else on default trust does with their lists.  I dont know if his negative rating for you is acceptable, and its not for me to judge, because I haven't chosen to add Vod to my trust list so its not my concern. Steadfast rules cause people to seek loopholes. For the same reason forum moderation is left up to the judgment of collective individuals. We can set guidelines, but if we set rules then the system becomes ineffective. Think about Paypal's or Ebay's rules. Because of their policies, representitives are forced to make decisions that are insane. They are willing to give up rational judgement in order to follow those rules, "Oh you have proof you completed this transaction? Oh, well we don't have protocol for this type of transaction, so the other party wins by default, sorry you are boned". As far as trust system rules, the community dictates them. Thats part of the reason I can't say whether or not Vod's feedback for you is fair, I can't say whether its ok for people to leave feedback for those they haven't traded with, etc. The feedback system is regulated by the community, so that it can adapt as new issues arise. The discussions in meta and generally accepted practices set what is Ok for people to do.

I see. So we shouldn't have rules because there might be loopholes. Solid logic. They have a word for places without rule of law, its called a dictatorship. I see how you excuse yourself from the situation by claiming no involvement in him being on the trust list, but that still doesn't absolve you of your statements that any abuse of the default trust will be dealt with, because clearly it isn't the case. As far as guidelines, no one put any guidelines for how to deal with the default trust either. How exactly are people expected to follow rules that are unwritten? Do you really expect everyone on the default trust list to review all of the dispute cases that come forward? I am not talking about anything like eBay or Paypal, I am talking about a clear set of official rules everyone can understand so people don't just have to GUESS what is and is not ok.  You aren't seeking a restorative form of justice but rather a punitive one which harms everyone involved instead of allowing people to fix their own problems.

It is convenient that you can just absolve yourself of involvement, when in reality you could exclude Vod from your trust list, along with one other person on the default trust list, and he would no longer have the ability to abuse his position on the default trust. You have a brain and the ability to review the situation, as well as act upon it, but you refuse to. This is what I am talking about when I describe preferential treatment. There is always an excuse when it is inconvenient. If it makes you look good then it is justice. If it is inconvenient, ignore its existence. This is fundamentally what is wrong with the system in place here currently. It becomes a popularity contest, not rule of law.

There are guidelines, solid rules cause issues. I personally don't agree with what Vod does sometimes, but I don't disagree with what he does all the time. I don't feel the need to exclude him nor do I feel the need to add him to my trust list. I could name you a handful of "rules" to default trust, but others might disagree. Its not my place to set rules, and it's not Theymos' place to set rules. Set your own rules, get people to agree, and those are the rules. Talk hypocrisy, you don't think it's fair that one person thinks differently than another person? I must exclude Vod because you want me to? You inherited your default trust position from me. I no longer wished to stake my reputation on the fact that you would make rational decisions, so I removed you from my trust list. Tomatocage is willing to stake his reputation on Vod, and that's his choice. Lets force people to make decisions based on what I think and not what the general consensus is. That's not a very non dictorial approach either. You keep trying to equate different branches of default trust, but each human rationalizes things differently. Perhaps Tomatocage is more patient than I? But regardless, just as Default trust inherits its rules from the community, it also inherits its meaning and trust from the community. If people disagree with Vod and Tomatocage refuses to cut him, Tomatocage looses his trust in the community making his branch worthless. Default trust only means as much as the community as a whole makes it.

In my opinion people are using the trust system wrong, but who am I to tell everyone that they are doing it wrong? I'm responsible only for myself, if you don't like how it works, make your own trust list and get others to use it. "Default" by definition does imply that it is automatically opted in until you change it yourself. Stop fighting default trust and as a community make an attempt to replace it yourself, it is designed to be used however you want to use it.

[Twipple]

Removal, no

Trim, yes

I think it is pretty clear that you just want the people who keep tagging all of your accounts and all of your HYIP's off of default trust so it will be easier for you to scam  

The thing is that people throughout the community trust and respect me enough so that regardless of my status on default trust that they will listen when I say that I think you are running a particular scam so default trust or not, the "investments" that flow into your HYIP's will screech to a halt once I out them as being run by you    

Isn't cryptosplit a scammer and runs a scam website? I can't see any feedback from you. Why? Is it because you worked as an escrow for him?

You worked as an escrow inspite of knowing that it was an investment/scam site? Scammers profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=503558

Not a surprise. There was another profile here pagalwana, who received a negative trust for being an alt of a scammer, he even had the exact same case like me, where the account was sold, and even after initially giving him a negative trust, Quickseller removed it after escrowing the deal to sell the account, where he was paid some fees for it.

[erikalui]

Not a surprise. There was another profile here pagalwana, who received a negative trust for being an alt of a scammer, he even had the exact same case like me, where the account was sold, and even after initially giving him a negative trust, Quickseller removed it after escrowing the deal to sell the account, where he was paid some fees for it.

Do you mean that cryptosplit's account was sold too?

The case you are talking about is fine IMHO as the person who bought the account does not deserve the negative trust of pagalwana. But in Cryptosplit's case, it seems odd as he is a scammer and has the negative ratings of Badbear as well but not of Quickseller. I want to know why because may be he escrowed the deal and according to him Cryptosplit is honest  

I'm sorry as I don't know your case. I haven't read about it yet.

[TheButterZone]

PS. The Butter Zone, I like your idea but I dont think its very feasible. It sounds like a feature Ebay will spend half a billion dollars developing in the year 2057.

I wonder if those guys who coded the AI bot that got "arrested" by Swiss police will be happy to be paid half a billion, or mad that they had to wait until 2057 to be paid when they could have my ideas coded in a year. Unless I'm overestimating their abilities and they're about to have criminal charges filed against them because their bot was barely doing anything itself.

I'm talking about the entirety of the system you proposed including the anti fraud scanning features and such.

From what I've read, the optical recognition stuff I described already exists for counterfeit detection (NEC, et al), so no need to wait until 2057.