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

[Quickseller]

Is there any chance you could exclude when other people trust DefaultTrust? I don't think it is really necessary to show when others trust DefaultTrust because almost everyone has it in their trust network, and it really just adds clutter to the graphs.

[koshgel]

I love these kinds of visualizations. Thanks for taking the time to make it.

I could look at sites like dadaviz.com all day

[dogie]

Is there any chance you could exclude when other people trust DefaultTrust? I don't think it is really necessary to show when others trust DefaultTrust because almost everyone has it in their trust network, and it really just adds clutter to the graphs.

I guess I could, but then where do we stop? Don't show any upward trust? Don't show any cross depth trust?

[Quickseller]

Is there any chance you could exclude when other people trust DefaultTrust? I don't think it is really necessary to show when others trust DefaultTrust because almost everyone has it in their trust network, and it really just adds clutter to the graphs.

I guess I could, but then where do we stop? Don't show any upward trust? Don't show any cross depth trust?

Well it is well known that almost everyone trusts DefaultTrust, so we don't need a chart to tell us that. If trust relationship's to DefaultTrust were removed, then it would be easier to come to other conclusions regarding the trust system.

[RocketSingh]

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.

I'm on the same page with you on this. This is the reason decentralized exchanges and marketplaces will most likely be unsuccessful.

But, DefaultTrust has also been tricked in a gross way. FriedCat has stolen probably more than what DefaultTrust has ever saved and he is still standing at +150 !!!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=49840

[TECSHARE]

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.

I'm on the same page with you on this. This is the reason decentralized exchanges and marketplaces will most likely be unsuccessful.

But, DefaultTrust has also been tricked in a gross way. FriedCat has stolen probably more than what DefaultTrust has ever saved and he is still standing at +150 !!!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=49840

Proof that the default trust list can't prevent anything. The default trust only serves to give new users a false sense of security and causes them to let down their guard with higher rated users. Trust ratings should be an INDICATOR of some one's trust, not the be all end all. Right now it is designed to be all and end all. It should be more like a footnote, because no matter what the system will be gamed. The best way we can stop scamming is to teach individuals to be vigilant, not put blinders on them, tell them everything is ok, and let them loose.

[Vod]

Trust ratings should be an INDICATOR of some one's trust, not the be all end all. Right now it is designed to be all and end all.

Trust ratings are simply an indicator of someone's trust, not the be all end all.  I see many people successfully trading with users that have negative trust.

[TECSHARE]

Trust ratings should be an INDICATOR of some one's trust, not the be all end all. Right now it is designed to be all and end all.

Trust ratings are simply an indicator of someone's trust, not the be all end all.  I see many people successfully trading with users that have negative trust.

Cool story bro.

[dogie]

But, DefaultTrust has also been tricked in a gross way. FriedCat has stolen probably more than what DefaultTrust has ever saved and he is still standing at +150 !!!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=49840

Friedcat wasn't enabled to 'scam' by his rating, the early batches of Blades were enabled by his even earlier Blades and subsequent ratings. What he did after that was irrelevant to his relationship on bitcointalk.

[RocketSingh]

Trust ratings should be an INDICATOR of some one's trust, not the be all end all. Right now it is designed to be all and end all.

Trust ratings are simply an indicator of someone's trust, not the be all end all.  I see many people successfully trading with users that have negative trust.

Is it ? Example ?

But, DefaultTrust has also been tricked in a gross way. FriedCat has stolen probably more than what DefaultTrust has ever saved and he is still standing at +150 !!!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=49840

Friedcat wasn't enabled to 'scam' by his rating, the early batches of Blades were enabled by his even earlier Blades and subsequent ratings.

What do u mean ? Care to elaborate ?

[dogie]

Trust ratings should be an INDICATOR of some one's trust, not the be all end all. Right now it is designed to be all and end all.

Trust ratings are simply an indicator of someone's trust, not the be all end all.  I see many people successfully trading with users that have negative trust.

Is it ? Example ?

But, DefaultTrust has also been tricked in a gross way. FriedCat has stolen probably more than what DefaultTrust has ever saved and he is still standing at +150 !!!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=49840

Friedcat wasn't enabled to 'scam' by his rating, the early batches of Blades were enabled by his even earlier Blades and subsequent ratings.

What do u mean ? Care to elaborate ?

If Friedcat had a 0/0 rating on trust, the outcome would have been the same. Those parties who had funds / investments / $millions with friedcat were not making a decision solely based on his bitcointalk trust rating.

[Quickseller]

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.

Are you just not hearing yourself? In one sentence you say Bitcoin is a decentralized system where people do not need to trust a third party, then the very next sentence says "Either you need to trust the third party or the third party needs to trust you." Those statements are contradictory and is indicative of the fact that you don't understand how bitcoin works. I will touch more on that below.

Why don't you explain the below two things and I will bother responding to the rest of your post:

• How does Bitcoin require you to trust a bank, or other similar third party when you are either holding onto your bitcoin or spending your bitcoin?
• How is it possible to trade bitcoin for fiat without either party trusting the other party in any way whatsoever (nor them trusting any other person)?

[TheButterZone]

My previous complaints in this topic are now resolved.

[Snagglebone]

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.

Are you just not hearing yourself? In one sentence you say Bitcoin is a decentralized system where people do not need to trust a third party, then the very next sentence says "Either you need to trust the third party or the third party needs to trust you." Those statements are contradictory and is indicative of the fact that you don't understand how bitcoin works. I will touch more on that below.

Why don't you explain the below two things and I will bother responding to the rest of your post:

• How does Bitcoin require you to trust a bank, or other similar third party when you are either holding onto your bitcoin or spending your bitcoin?
• How is it possible to trade bitcoin for fiat without either party trusting the other party in any way whatsoever (nor them trusting any other person)?

I see even you have lost track of what you're trying to say within the twisted logic you're trying to use to prove your point.

But to answer your questions:

1. Bitcoin does not require you to trust a bank (where did banks come in to this?) or any third party when you are holding on to or spending your bitcoin. To tie it into the topic, Bitcoin does not default to a trusted relationship by saying "Hey, these parties are ok to trade with, but these parties are not!" That is what the DefaultTrust list does. It says "These parties are ok to trade with, these parties are not!" If you want Bitcoin to do that, you have to explicitly enable that through a variety of means, one being using an online wallet that is curated, a trusted intermediary, etc... Once again, you've handily made my point for me. Are you arguing against or for the DefaultTrust? Because you're doing a heck of a job arguing against it.

2. I guess that depends on your definition of trust. If we are talking about "Do I trust this person not to knife me in the gut in the middle of this crowded coffee shop?" or "Will this person stand up and run out the door the moment I transfer the bitcoins/hand him the cash, while in the middle of this crowded coffee shop?" then I guess there is a level of trust there that needs to happen. But if you disregard the basic daily level of trust you put into going outside and assume that as a given, then you don't need to trust anyone to trade bitcoin for fiat. You walk up to them, they hand you cash, you transfer bitcoins or vice versa. Heck, you could even mitigate that by trading with an established entity that does such. Then you'd be putting just as much trust into the transaction as you do when you buy anything, anywhere, in any store. Yes, there is a level of trust there, but that level of trust exists in your daily life anyway, so it's not an extra level of trust you have to develop or have someone hand hold you into. But again, it has nothing to do with the topic. Where did you even get off on the tangent of trading bitcoin for fiat? We are not talking about trading bitcoin for fiat.

So. I have answered your questions, now oh great one, by all means, please do "bother to respond to the rest of my post." Thank you so much for taking time out of your busy schedule of saving newbies from themselves and making decrees on who is trustworthy and who isn't to debate with me. I do so appreciate how hard you must work and how grueling and tiring it must be protecting all the innocents from the big, bad scammers that lurk around every corner! You must be absolutely exhausted from all the mental contortions and twisting of logic to justify your increasingly murky and muddled point. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I grovel at your feet for taking time out of your day!

[Snagglebone]

My previous complaints in this topic are now resolved.

Wow, TBZ. If that doesn't highlight the good-old-boy network nature of the DefaultTrust, I don't know what does.

If DefaultTrust wasn't such an elitist, ivory tower of the chosen few, this wouldn't even be a topic. But the fact that that it is a topic and the fact that it comes up so frequently just highlights how bad it really is.

The only people arguing for DefaultTrust are those in it. Take a step back and think about that for a moment.

[TheButterZone]

My previous complaints in this topic are now resolved.

Wow, TBZ. If that doesn't highlight the good-old-boy network nature of the DefaultTrust, I don't know what does.

If DefaultTrust wasn't such an elitist, ivory tower of the chosen few, this wouldn't even be a topic. But the fact that that it is a topic and the fact that it comes up so frequently just highlights how bad it really is.

The only people arguing for DefaultTrust are those in it. Take a step back and think about that for a moment.

Oh, I'm not arguing for it, I just prayed for relief from a specific injustice under the dominant imperfect system, and it was granted. Libertarians who sue the government over its civil rights violations aren't arguing for totalitarianism! 

[dogie]

My previous complaints in this topic are now resolved.

Wow, TBZ. If that doesn't highlight the good-old-boy network nature of the DefaultTrust, I don't know what does.

If DefaultTrust wasn't such an elitist, ivory tower of the chosen few, this wouldn't even be a topic. But the fact that that it is a topic and the fact that it comes up so frequently just highlights how bad it really is.

The only people arguing for DefaultTrust are those in it. Take a step back and think about that for a moment.

:/ This topic exists because I had some time and needed some data, no huge conspiracy.

[TheButterZone]

My previous complaints in this topic are now resolved.

Wow, TBZ. If that doesn't highlight the good-old-boy network nature of the DefaultTrust, I don't know what does.

If DefaultTrust wasn't such an elitist, ivory tower of the chosen few, this wouldn't even be a topic. But the fact that that it is a topic and the fact that it comes up so frequently just highlights how bad it really is.

The only people arguing for DefaultTrust are those in it. Take a step back and think about that for a moment.

:/ This topic exists because I had some time and needed some data, no huge conspiracy.

I think he meant the topic with TheButterZone in the title.

[koshgel]

My previous complaints in this topic are now resolved.

Wow, TBZ. If that doesn't highlight the good-old-boy network nature of the DefaultTrust, I don't know what does.

If DefaultTrust wasn't such an elitist, ivory tower of the chosen few, this wouldn't even be a topic. But the fact that that it is a topic and the fact that it comes up so frequently just highlights how bad it really is.

The only people arguing for DefaultTrust are those in it. Take a step back and think about that for a moment.

I'm not in DefaultTrust, and I don't mind its existence. If you have a better idea (besides scrapping it altogether), I'm sure the forum is all ears.

As it stands the trust system is only an initial indicator of a poster's trustworthiness. It doesn't give your comments any added value or influences. You don't get free BTC every month for having green trust or being on DefaultTrust. It's only here to serve as some guidance when going into the trading, buying/selling goods, or loaning world.

Yes, people leave negative trust for petty reasons that aren't always warranted but no system is 100% perfect. If there is abuse of the system by a DefaultTrust member, it's almost always handled adequately from what I've seen.

I would rather a few members be pissy about their red trust (most likely warranted) than having newbies be scammed and turned off of Bitcoin.

[Vod]

[]
I'm not in DefaultTrust, and I don't mind its existence. If you have a better idea (besides scrapping it altogether), I'm sure the forum is all ears.
[]

By "the forum," you mean mods/those on the default trust list, theymos, or?

At this point, mods are saying that account dealing is great because if it was banned, new users would get a "false sense of security" and not be as vigilant as they should be.

At the same time, these very same newbies see some members labeled as untrustworthy, others trustworthy, wouldn't that lull them into dropping their guard?  
Especially since senior accounts with green trust (like yours) are bought and sold, right on this forum, by trusted members, to anyone who pays? Regardless of their trustworthiness?

Explain why anyone should respect your words when you don't respect them yourself?