Default Trust Visualisation [Picture Heavy!!!] [14th Sept]

[Vod]

I have far more bitcoin experience than you, not that it matters on iota.

Sorry, you don't.  Your account was created only a couple months ago.   

[1715159817]

1715159817

[1715159817]

1715159817

[Snagglebone]

So what does Bitcointalk do? Makes a centralized trust network and enforces it by default for anyone signing up through the DefaultTrust network.

"enforces", yeah theymos pointed me with a gun to accept DefaultTrust. Oh wait, I don't trust DefaultTrust…

Please do a favour to yourself (and others) and replace the time spent posting nonsense with time spent setting up your trust network.

Personally, I think that it is probably not a bad idea to have DefaultTurst in your trust list as it is a good starting point as to whose ratings you should trust. As you spend time in the various marketplace sections (as well as other parts of the forum), you will be able to determine who is reputable enough to have in your trust list, and add them to your trust list (even if they are already in your trust network), and will see who is leaving trust ratings that you do not believe in (and are in your trust network), and exclude them from your trust list. Over time, you will have a trust list with a lot of exclusions and a good number of people in your trust list. If you have been around long enough then you should be able to develop a trust network that results in fairly accurate trust scores.

And that's fine... you should be able to add that if you want to. What you should not have is a default setting to have it on when, as a newb, you probably don't even know it exists or how to change it. What you do know, though, is you see red and green shit on the left and assume that the forum itself has determined that that person is trustworthy or not... a newb is typically not going to know that those pretty colors are a result of arbitrary bullshit posted by a select few elite on the forum and is used as a weapon to criticize those that disagree.

If you have it off by default, then anyone who adds it is far more likely to understand what they are adding than those that don't understand the system at all, when on by default.

[Snagglebone]

I have far more bitcoin experience than you, not that it matters on iota.

Sorry, you don't.  Your account was created only a couple months ago.   

There you go again, trying to deflect your complete lack of cogent arguments with strawmen. Would you care to present a real rebuttal?

[Vod]

I have far more bitcoin experience than you, not that it matters on iota.

Sorry, you don't.  Your account was created only a couple months ago.   

There you go again, trying to deflect your complete lack of cogent arguments with strawmen. Would you care to present a real rebuttal?

I already did.  I have far more experience on this forum that you do.  I understand default trust works. 

[Quickseller]

So what does Bitcointalk do? Makes a centralized trust network and enforces it by default for anyone signing up through the DefaultTrust network.

"enforces", yeah theymos pointed me with a gun to accept DefaultTrust. Oh wait, I don't trust DefaultTrust…

Please do a favour to yourself (and others) and replace the time spent posting nonsense with time spent setting up your trust network.

Personally, I think that it is probably not a bad idea to have DefaultTurst in your trust list as it is a good starting point as to whose ratings you should trust. As you spend time in the various marketplace sections (as well as other parts of the forum), you will be able to determine who is reputable enough to have in your trust list, and add them to your trust list (even if they are already in your trust network), and will see who is leaving trust ratings that you do not believe in (and are in your trust network), and exclude them from your trust list. Over time, you will have a trust list with a lot of exclusions and a good number of people in your trust list. If you have been around long enough then you should be able to develop a trust network that results in fairly accurate trust scores.

And that's fine... you should be able to add that if you want to. What you should not have is a default setting to have it on when, as a newb, you probably don't even know it exists or how to change it. What you do know, though, is you see red and green shit on the left and assume that the forum itself has determined that that person is trustworthy or not... a newb is typically not going to know that those pretty colors are a result of arbitrary bullshit posted by a select few elite on the forum and is used as a weapon to criticize those that disagree.

If you have it off by default, then anyone who adds it is far more likely to understand what they are adding than those that don't understand the system at all, when on by default.

The new users of the forum do need to know who has traded honestly over time in the past. It is not possible for a new user to take appropriate precautions to protect themselves from getting scammed, nor do they have any reliable way to determine who can be trusted enough to rely on their trust ratings without some kind of centralized system/network.

If you are going to argue that who people should trust should be determined in a decentralized way then I would say scammers would manipulate this and exclude who is trustworthy and include fellow scammers. There are a large number of scammers who have excluded me from their trust network while they have added their alts and fellow scammers to their trust network. The fact that scammers outweigh honest people (especially when it comes to the number of accounts) means that any voting system will result in scammers appearing as trustworthy and honest people appearing as scammers.

With a pretty small number of exceptions, anyone with dark green trust next to their name is probably safe to trust a fairly large amount of money with. This is especially true if someone who is new here were to perform a small to moderate amount of due diligence regarding who they are trusting with their money.

[Snagglebone]

So what does Bitcointalk do? Makes a centralized trust network and enforces it by default for anyone signing up through the DefaultTrust network.

"enforces", yeah theymos pointed me with a gun to accept DefaultTrust. Oh wait, I don't trust DefaultTrust…

Please do a favour to yourself (and others) and replace the time spent posting nonsense with time spent setting up your trust network.

Personally, I think that it is probably not a bad idea to have DefaultTurst in your trust list as it is a good starting point as to whose ratings you should trust. As you spend time in the various marketplace sections (as well as other parts of the forum), you will be able to determine who is reputable enough to have in your trust list, and add them to your trust list (even if they are already in your trust network), and will see who is leaving trust ratings that you do not believe in (and are in your trust network), and exclude them from your trust list. Over time, you will have a trust list with a lot of exclusions and a good number of people in your trust list. If you have been around long enough then you should be able to develop a trust network that results in fairly accurate trust scores.

And that's fine... you should be able to add that if you want to. What you should not have is a default setting to have it on when, as a newb, you probably don't even know it exists or how to change it. What you do know, though, is you see red and green shit on the left and assume that the forum itself has determined that that person is trustworthy or not... a newb is typically not going to know that those pretty colors are a result of arbitrary bullshit posted by a select few elite on the forum and is used as a weapon to criticize those that disagree.

If you have it off by default, then anyone who adds it is far more likely to understand what they are adding than those that don't understand the system at all, when on by default.

The new users of the forum do need to know who has traded honestly over time in the past. It is not possible for a new user to take appropriate precautions to protect themselves from getting scammed, nor do they have any reliable way to determine who can be trusted enough to rely on their trust ratings without some kind of centralized system/network.

If you are going to argue that who people should trust should be determined in a decentralized way then I would say scammers would manipulate this and exclude who is trustworthy and include fellow scammers. There are a large number of scammers who have excluded me from their trust network while they have added their alts and fellow scammers to their trust network. The fact that scammers outweigh honest people (especially when it comes to the number of accounts) means that any voting system will result in scammers appearing as trustworthy and honest people appearing as scammers.

With a pretty small number of exceptions, anyone with dark green trust next to their name is probably safe to trust a fairly large amount of money with. This is especially true if someone who is new here were to perform a small to moderate amount of due diligence regarding who they are trusting with their money.

Right... so a few elite members get to decide who is trustworthy and who isn't. Woe be unto you if you run afoul of any of those elite crew! Yep, that's exactly what Bitcoin is meant to protect against.

DefaultTrust is no different than a central Government that will do as they please, regardless of the truth or honesty. We see it every day in Governments of the world and we see it every day in the DefaultTrust. The power of trust should not be placed in the hands of a few select men (I doubt any of them are women) in an Ivory Tower of Bitcointalk.

I do notice, however, that only those in the first two tiers of DefaultTrust are usually the ones defending it... IE - those elites are the defenders.

Smells very much like our current Governmental system.

The 1% say things are fine and everything is operating properly! Fuck everyone else! They are just a bunch of whiners and complainers! They need us to guide them, because they can't guide themselves, those rabble!

DefaultTrust works fine and everything is operating properly! Fuck everyone else! They are just a bunch of whiners and complainers! They need us to guide them, because they can't guide themselves, those newbs!

[Quickseller]

So what does Bitcointalk do? Makes a centralized trust network and enforces it by default for anyone signing up through the DefaultTrust network.

"enforces", yeah theymos pointed me with a gun to accept DefaultTrust. Oh wait, I don't trust DefaultTrust…

Please do a favour to yourself (and others) and replace the time spent posting nonsense with time spent setting up your trust network.

Personally, I think that it is probably not a bad idea to have DefaultTurst in your trust list as it is a good starting point as to whose ratings you should trust. As you spend time in the various marketplace sections (as well as other parts of the forum), you will be able to determine who is reputable enough to have in your trust list, and add them to your trust list (even if they are already in your trust network), and will see who is leaving trust ratings that you do not believe in (and are in your trust network), and exclude them from your trust list. Over time, you will have a trust list with a lot of exclusions and a good number of people in your trust list. If you have been around long enough then you should be able to develop a trust network that results in fairly accurate trust scores.

And that's fine... you should be able to add that if you want to. What you should not have is a default setting to have it on when, as a newb, you probably don't even know it exists or how to change it. What you do know, though, is you see red and green shit on the left and assume that the forum itself has determined that that person is trustworthy or not... a newb is typically not going to know that those pretty colors are a result of arbitrary bullshit posted by a select few elite on the forum and is used as a weapon to criticize those that disagree.

If you have it off by default, then anyone who adds it is far more likely to understand what they are adding than those that don't understand the system at all, when on by default.

The new users of the forum do need to know who has traded honestly over time in the past. It is not possible for a new user to take appropriate precautions to protect themselves from getting scammed, nor do they have any reliable way to determine who can be trusted enough to rely on their trust ratings without some kind of centralized system/network.

If you are going to argue that who people should trust should be determined in a decentralized way then I would say scammers would manipulate this and exclude who is trustworthy and include fellow scammers. There are a large number of scammers who have excluded me from their trust network while they have added their alts and fellow scammers to their trust network. The fact that scammers outweigh honest people (especially when it comes to the number of accounts) means that any voting system will result in scammers appearing as trustworthy and honest people appearing as scammers.

With a pretty small number of exceptions, anyone with dark green trust next to their name is probably safe to trust a fairly large amount of money with. This is especially true if someone who is new here were to perform a small to moderate amount of due diligence regarding who they are trusting with their money.

Right... so a few elite members get to decide who is trustworthy and who isn't. Woe be unto you if you run afoul of any of those elite crew! Yep, that's exactly what Bitcoin is meant to protect against.

DefaultTrust is no different than a central Government that will do as they please, regardless of the truth or honesty. We see it every day in Governments of the world and we see it every day in the DefaultTrust. The power of trust should not be placed in the hands of a few select men (I doubt any of them are women) in an Ivory Tower of Bitcointalk.

I do notice, however, that only those in the first two tiers of DefaultTrust are usually the ones defending it... IE - those elites are the defenders. Smells very much like our current Governmental system. The 1% say things are fine and everything is operating properly! Fuck everyone else! DefaultTrust works great when you're in it... Fuck everyone else!

You are right that is not what Bitcoin is about. However Bitcoin is also not about determining who is appropriate who can be trusted. The question if a node will accept a Bitcoin transaction is very black and white while if someone is trustworthy is extremely subjective. There is really no criteria that can determine if someone has scammed in the past and good judgement really needs to be used.

I can say that I was a supporter of the default trust system long before I was a part of the default trust network. I can also say that the default trust system was able to protect me from a number of scams when I was a newer user.

Prior to the default trust system there was the scammer tag system which was even more centralized and was reactive instead of the proactive system that is in place today.

What would you propose using instead of the current system in place currently?

[Vod]

If you are going to argue that who people should trust should be determined in a decentralized way then I would say scammers would manipulate this and exclude who is trustworthy and include fellow scammers. There are a large number of scammers who have excluded me from their trust network while they have added their alts and fellow scammers to their trust network. The fact that scammers outweigh honest people (especially when it comes to the number of accounts) means that any voting system will result in scammers appearing as trustworthy and honest people appearing as scammers.

+1

Any decentralized trust system will eventually be taken over by scammers.

They have more to gain that we do.  I don't get paid in any way for what I do here.  But you can bet there are rooms full of Chinese hackers that are making a pretty penny scamming ignorant new users.

[Snagglebone]

You are right that is not what Bitcoin is about. However Bitcoin is also not about determining who is appropriate who can be trusted. The question if a node will accept a Bitcoin transaction is very black and white while if someone is trustworthy is extremely subjective. There is really no criteria that can determine if someone has scammed in the past and good judgement really needs to be used.

I can say that I was a supporter of the default trust system long before I was a part of the default trust network. I can also say that the default trust system was able to protect me from a number of scams when I was a newer user.

Prior to the default trust system there was the scammer tag system which was even more centralized and was reactive instead of the proactive system that is in place today.

What would you propose using instead of the current system in place currently?

What? Of course bitcoin is about determining who is appropriate to be trusted. That's exactly what it's about. It's about giving the power back to the user to trust those they wish to trust and not be forced to trust those they don't wish to trust. Bitcoin does not say "You will only connect to these trusted nodes unless you configure otherwise." it says "You will connect to everyone and decide who you wish to exclude."

It does not say "You will process only these transactions that you agree with and trust."
It says "You will process all transactions unless you choose to exclude them."

If the default trust system protected you from a number of scams as a newer user, that's on you. I simply don't understand (and I admit that perhaps I am in the minority here) why people can't spot a scam. Or barring being able to spot a scam, why they don't take precautions to prevent being scammed, such as using escrow. If you were naive enough to get scammed here by these amatuer scams, then you have much larger problems. Being protected by little tin gods on a forum is only going to further your vulnerability elsewhere, as you will become reliant on the nanny system to protect you. If what you say is true, Bitcointalk DefaultTrust has done you far more harm than good. But that is a different argument we can have elsewhere if you want.

The prior system was a joke as well... the scammer tag was unevenly applied and was completely arbitrary. The "new" trust system is equally a joke, just a larger one. But let me state it again, since it seems to have been lost. I am not saying we should remove the trust system. I am saying we should remove DefaultTrust as new user enforced trusted entity. It should be removed. Everything else can remain in place and it will function MUCH better for everyone involved.

One look at the DefaultTrust network, especially at depth 2 reveals what a sham the whole system is. Many of those in tier 2 use the system as a weapon and give negative feedback that has nothing to do with trust or no trust. Heck, a fair portion of those in or previously in tier 1 have done the same thing. Tell me, how are those people any more trustworthy than a random person on the internet? The answer is, they aren't. They should not be trusted by default.

That is the point I am making. I am not saying get rid of the trust system, I'm not even saying get rid of DefaultTrust. I am saying stop making DefaultTrust enforced by default. Make it "SuggestedTrust" or something similar that a user can add if they so desire, but the trust list should be empty by default - meaning you don't trust anyone.

As a side point, and perhaps I should post this elsewhere... but what the hell. It's easy enough to get a green rating, you just seek out someone in tier 1 or 2 and do a few small trades with them. Bingo, green rating. But that's the rub - you have to trade with those in tier 1 or 2. If you just go about your business on the forum without explicitly seeking out tier 1 or 2 members (or run across them by accident), any ratings you get are irrelevant and meaningless. So again, we are back to the men in the ivory tower deciding who is trustworthy and who isn't. As long as you don't piss off the people in tier 1 and 2, you will remain neutral. If you seek to appease them, they will bestow some green upon you.

What a shitty system.

[Vod]

Snagglebone - you weren't even around when the prior scammer tag system was in place.   

[GannickusX]

I'd go so far as to say anyone who thinks DefaultTrust is a good idea is a hypocritical twat.

I'm OK being called a twat by a newbie account with no bitcoin experience, but what makes you think I'm a hypocrite?  

I do something everyday to combat scams and "hinky shit" that go on in this forum.  Have you taken a look at my untrusted feedback?  

I have far more bitcoin experience than you, not that it matters on iota. It's interesting that you feel the need to bring it up in your defense, since you lack any other cogent argument.

As far as your untrusted feedback, why would I care? I don't know you. I have no reason to trust you. Why should I give two shits about what you have to say on a given subject as being authoritative? You've offered no reason why DefaultTrust is desirable or in line with the philosophical underpinnings of Bitcoin. You've offered no reason why we should keep DefaultTrust. You've basically done nothing but offer "That's the way it is." as your only defense, followed by "You're a newb." Neither of which is an actual rebuttal to a solid decry of the DefaultTrust good-old-boy network. In fact, your responses lead me to believe that you know how flimsy your arguments are, so you are deflecting the issue onto anecdotal and irrelevant topics.

Just because you may or may not do something "everyday to combat scams" means absolutely nothing with regards to you being a hypocrite. DefaultTrust is against everything Bitcoin seeks to establish. It centralizes an authority who says what's right and wrong, who's real and fake, who's trustworthy and who isn't. Not only does it centralize it, but it puts it into ONE persons hands... not even a group of people. It is the ultimate centralization tool to exclude anyone who goes against the party line.

If you support DefaultTrust and are a proponent of Bitcoin you are, be default, a hypocrite. In case you aren't aware, being a hypocrite is one who says one thing and does the opposite. You support bitcoin and the decentralization of trust, or better yet the elimination of the need for trust while espousing the benefits of a centralized trust system on Bitcoin talk. That is the very definition of a hypocrite. So yes, no matter how much you do every day to combat scams, you are still a hypocrite.

I am not advocating getting rid of the trust system, even though it's kind of a joke. I believe it may serve a legitimate, however tenuous, purpose. I AM advocating getting rid of the centralized DefaultTrust.

But in real life, often times you will have to trust people that you dont know, you will have to trust a policeman or a judge for example, why are we trusting the judges, they could be wrong aand sometimes they are, woah what a surprise the world is not perfect

[Quickseller]

You are right that is not what Bitcoin is about. However Bitcoin is also not about determining who is appropriate who can be trusted. The question if a node will accept a Bitcoin transaction is very black and white while if someone is trustworthy is extremely subjective. There is really no criteria that can determine if someone has scammed in the past and good judgement really needs to be used.

I can say that I was a supporter of the default trust system long before I was a part of the default trust network. I can also say that the default trust system was able to protect me from a number of scams when I was a newer user.

Prior to the default trust system there was the scammer tag system which was even more centralized and was reactive instead of the proactive system that is in place today.

What would you propose using instead of the current system in place currently?

What? Of course bitcoin is about determining who is appropriate to be trusted. That's exactly what it's about. It's about giving the power back to the user to trust those they wish to trust and not be forced to trust those they don't wish to trust. Bitcoin does not say "You will only connect to these trusted nodes unless you configure otherwise." it says "You will connect to everyone and decide who you wish to exclude."

No. Bitcoin is a decentralized system where people do not need to trust a third party in order to send money to the third party. Either you need to trust the third party, or the third party needs to trust you if you are to send money to the third party.  

It does not say "You will process only these transactions that you agree with and trust."
It says "You will process all transactions unless you choose to exclude them."

No. The Bitcoin protocol says that a node will process all transactions unless the transaction is invalid. This means that even if a scam transaction is valid, it will be included in the next block (assuming that the pool's tx policy allows such transaction to be included based on it's tx policy, the size of the tx fee and the size of the tx). The fact that a tx is potentially part of a scam will not at all be considered when deciding if a tx will be accepted/confirmed or not.

If the default trust system protected you from a number of scams as a newer user, that's on you. I simply don't understand (and I admit that perhaps I am in the minority here) why people can't spot a scam.

Lack of experience. The fact that, for all intensive purposes Bitcoin transactions cannot be reversed, and that for all intensive purposes, that Bitcoin transactions are anonymous changes the landscape in which scams happen. If I were to accept a check from someone after personally checking their ID (in person) then I most likely could take them to court and/or press criminal charges then the check turns out to be somehow fraudulent, while the same cannot be said with bitcoin deals.

Or barring being able to spot a scam, why they don't take precautions to prevent being scammed, such as using escrow.

In order to use escrow, you need to know who is trustworthy enough to trust them with your money. Without a good trust system to allow me to make this determination then using escrow is worthless. As mentioned previously, in a decentralized system, the scammers will appear trustworthy, so scammers would simply start offering escrow services and would steal money via escrow.

If you were naive enough to get scammed here by these amatuer scams, then you have much larger problems.

A good number of the scams are here are far from amateur. A good number of them are pretty advanced and take a good amount of research to detect.

Being protected by little tin gods on a forum is only going to further your vulnerability elsewhere, as you will become reliant on the nanny system to protect you. If what you say is true, Bitcointalk DefaultTrust has done you far more harm than good. But that is a different argument we can have elsewhere if you want.

As mentioned above, it is primarily the lack of experience that allows people to get scammed.

Piggybacking on my previous example of accepting a check from someone, if I were to sell my car and accept a check from someone, then after the check bounces for whatever reason, then I could have the title reversed back into my name after proving that I never received payment and could report the car as being stolen.

The prior system was a joke as well... the scammer tag was unevenly applied and was completely arbitrary. The "new" trust system is equally a joke, just a larger one. But let me state it again, since it seems to have been lost. I am not saying we should remove the trust system. I am saying we should remove DefaultTrust as new user enforced trusted entity. It should be removed. Everything else can remain in place and it will function MUCH better for everyone involved.

The use of a system where everyone's trust ratings are equally untrusted would be much worse. It would be impossible to tell which ratings are legitimate and whose are not.

One look at the DefaultTrust network, especially at depth 2 reveals what a sham the whole system is. Many of those in tier 2 use the system as a weapon and give negative feedback that has nothing to do with trust or no trust. Heck, a fair portion of those in or previously in tier 1 have done the same thing. Tell me, how are those people any more trustworthy than a random person on the internet? The answer is, they aren't. They should not be trusted by default.

I disagree. People who engage in this kind of practice tend to get removed from the default trust network pretty quickly. There are plenty of examples of people getting removed quickly after engaging in this kind of activity. There are also a lot of examples of people claiming abuse when there is really none that results in people not being removed - these people are almost universally scammers.

That is the point I am making. I am not saying get rid of the trust system, I'm not even saying get rid of DefaultTrust. I am saying stop making DefaultTrust enforced by default. Make it "SuggestedTrust" or something similar that a user can add if they so desire, but the trust list should be empty by default - meaning you don't trust anyone.

There is nothing that forces anyone to use it at all. However without it there would be nothing that would allow newer users from knowing who can be trusted and who should not be.

As a side point, and perhaps I should post this elsewhere... but what the hell. It's easy enough to get a green rating, you just seek out someone in tier 1 or 2 and do a few small trades with them. Bingo, green rating. But that's the rub - you have to trade with those in tier 1 or 2. If you just go about your business on the forum without explicitly seeking out tier 1 or 2 members (or run across them by accident), any ratings you get are irrelevant and meaningless. So again, we are back to the men in the ivory tower deciding who is trustworthy and who isn't. As long as you don't piss off the people in tier 1 and 2, you will remain neutral. If you seek to appease them, they will bestow some green upon you.

The people who freely give out positive ratings when nothing is risked for a single trade should be removed from the default trust network. If someone were to engage in this kind of practice then they will not be reputable and their ratings will not be taken seriously.

What a shitty system.

You are welcome to have your opinion.
@tspacepilot - stop shilling to try to get your negative trust removed - you are a scammer even though you are very good at lying your way out of taking responsibility

[tss]

great to see the visual.. shows how small the community truly is and who is here to manage the good and evil. 

[redsn0w]

So we can basically say : a centralized trust system is the best thing for this forum (also of it is contrary or against the bitcoin philosophy).

I do not know if in the new forum software it will be used the same system or a new one. The excuse to help the new members , there are not new members but only a lot of alt account (created by a bot to spam).

[Muhammed Zakir]

It will be good if you use different colors for different users in depth 1 to know who they trust. Now it is hard to differentiate.

[TheButterZone]

One look at the DefaultTrust network, especially at depth 2 reveals what a sham the whole system is. Many of those in tier 2 use the system as a weapon and give negative feedback that has nothing to do with trust or no trust. Heck, a fair portion of those in or previously in tier 1 have done the same thing. Tell me, how are those people any more trustworthy than a random person on the internet? The answer is, they aren't. They should not be trusted by default.

I disagree. People who engage in this kind of practice tend to get removed from the default trust network pretty quickly. There are plenty of examples of people getting removed quickly after engaging in this kind of activity. There are also a lot of examples of people claiming abuse when there is really none that results in people not being removed - these people are almost universally scammers.

And then there's my example, where someone aggressively libeled me, I defended myself the only way I could afford to (can't afford a lawyer), I got removed from default trust T2 x2 as if I was one of those "almost universally scammers". Now I see the aggressor is at T2 off BadBear's T1, 6 months after I was removed from T2, an eternity in internet time. Should I presume the aggressor was at T2 the entire 6 months, or did they get suspended and reinstated at T2, or is everyone's memory so short that he got T2 for the first time only after libeling me?



for justice. Why should libelers' ratings be endorsed by default trust?

[Quickseller]

One look at the DefaultTrust network, especially at depth 2 reveals what a sham the whole system is. Many of those in tier 2 use the system as a weapon and give negative feedback that has nothing to do with trust or no trust. Heck, a fair portion of those in or previously in tier 1 have done the same thing. Tell me, how are those people any more trustworthy than a random person on the internet? The answer is, they aren't. They should not be trusted by default.

I disagree. People who engage in this kind of practice tend to get removed from the default trust network pretty quickly. There are plenty of examples of people getting removed quickly after engaging in this kind of activity. There are also a lot of examples of people claiming abuse when there is really none that results in people not being removed - these people are almost universally scammers.

And then there's my example, where someone aggressively libeled me, I defended myself the only way I could afford to (can't afford a lawyer), I got removed from default trust T2 x2 as if I was one of those "almost universally scammers", and the aggressor still remains at T2 off BadBear's T1, 6 months later, an eternity in internet time.



For justice why should libelers' ratings be endorsed by default trust

While I don't think that slander/libel is appropriate, I do not think that slander makes someone a scammer. If someone were to engage in slander then their credibility will be diminished as others can see that what they say is wrong.

Someone that, over time, slanders others, will eventually make their way onto people's ignore list. If you really are as honest as others believe you to be (and as I believe you to be) (and as you present yourself to be) then no one will take such slander without proof.

[TheButterZone]

Someone that, over time, slanders others, will eventually make their way onto people's ignore list. If you really are as honest as others believe you to be (and as I believe you to be) (and as you present yourself to be) then no one will take such slander without proof.

Just because proof is an absolute defense to libel/slander does not mean that libel/slander lacking proof isn't a revocation of trust-worthy offense in any just society.

In a libel action, unless the plaintiff is a public official or public figure, the plaintiff does not need to prove financial damages. The common law has made a policy determination that the publication of defamatory statements in a transmittable, affixed form that is capable of widespread and simple dissemination will certainly cause damage and therefore damage to one's reputation or character is enough for a court to impose damages.

The libel was complete regardless if anyone will admit to believing in it.

[Quickseller]

Someone that, over time, slanders others, will eventually make their way onto people's ignore list. If you really are as honest as others believe you to be (and as I believe you to be) (and as you present yourself to be) then no one will take such slander without proof.

Just because proof is an absolute defense to libel/slander does not mean that libel/slander lacking proof isn't a revocation of trust-worthy offense in any just society.

Well my point is that just because someone is libeling you does not make them a scammer. There are plenty of examples both here and in the real world when people have libeled others, could not back up their claims with facts and then lost credibility. (FWIW, you still appear in my trust list and I have not excluded you from my list- therefore I personally find your ratings credible)

[Vod]

Well my point is that just because someone is libeling you does not make them a scammer.

Maybe not a scammer, but certainly untrustworthy.  TS for example, tried for months to damage my credibility with libel.  In my mind, that makes him untrustworthy and I left the appropriate trust.