should luke-jr be on Default Trust?

[Quickseller]

If a person is a liar, it makes them a scammer? That's just a rating left for personal issues and without any reference link as well. BipolarBob has proved to be a genuine user and has helped in donating money as well and how does he become a scammer just because he offers "too good to be true" deals. It's clearly abusing the trust system.

I think you could argue initially the feedback was arguably justified and I was always thinking I wouldn't be surprised if he did at some point scam, but I think after a certain while the feedback should have been removed or changed to neutral as doubts were removed.

So in other words he is still going to be on dt? I mean wasnt quickseller removed because he supposedly abused the system? Isnt this guy doing the exact same thing with almost 50% of his ratings?

I was removed from BadBear's trust list because I was wrong about two alts of scammers, although he wouldn't tell me which ones, however I went back and checked after he removed me and was able to verify that there was solid evidence against all the alts of scammers that I tagged.

I haven't spoken to tomatocage specifically about why he removed me from his list, however it was immediately after this incident, so one can conclude that it was related to that, although it was also very shortly after he was offered 2 BTC to remove me from his trust list, however he denied being aware of the offer.

I honestly doubt that luke-jr will remain on DT, as it should be pretty clear that the sent ratings are very inaccurate, were sent for personal reasons, and affect very highly trusted members of the community that otherwise have a clean trading history.

[Luke-Jr]

P.S. You will note anderl and danielpbarron have also given me subjectively-bogus negative ratings, but since they did not lie, they do not have distrust from me for that reason alone.

[erikalui]

Nobody needs to baby sit other members to know if they are trustworthy or not but when members are added to a DT system, it means that they are considered to be trustworthy and their ratings are reliable and the users who they tag as trusted or scammers are truly the same. If one holds no responsibility of their ratings, the DT system isn't the place for them then as even if they term a member as trusted with a positive feedback, the rating will be meaningless as they won't track the users whether or not the user has scammed anyone else.

[EcuaMobi]

P.S. You will note anderl and danielpbarron have also given me subjectively-bogus negative ratings, but since they did not lie, they do not have distrust from me for that reason alone.

It seems to me an important reason for you not to give them negative trust is because they're not trusted and therefore they don't affect your own trust. The 2 users you did give negative trust are very trusted otherwise. If you hadn't given them negative trust to them you'd have negative trust given by people with dark green trust and thay would definitely affect you.

Of course maybe I'm wrong but I find it hard believing that you accept "He cant think logically" isn't a lie while you insist "Tried to censor the Bitcoin network" is.

[redsn0w]

I think he should be removed from the defaultTrust's list, because his sent ratings are innacurate (too much) and he should give a good example to other users and it seems that it's not the case.


Thanks for the attention.

[Muhammed Zakir]

You should take care of your own ratings. You can change that feedback to neutral or remove it now. I even send you a PM to tell you about that many weeks ago but you didn't reply. I recommend you to take an action now. "Better late than never."

I have no action to take. I still do not trust him.

Whether you trust him or not is your concern but you shouldn't leave feedback for that reason unless the user is showing shady behavior or is a scammer which is not true for BPB. So you should at least change it to neutral.

I don't think feedback on cooldgamer is also good as the thing cooldgamer claimed actually happened(didn't it?).

Not the censorship part.

Meaning of 'censor' is 'examine (a book, film, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it'. So what they said can be true.

[Luke-Jr]

To the "negative trust is only for scammers" view: this makes it hypocritical to be bothering me specifically, since it makes the lying ratings against me a precedent "abuse" of the trust system.
In other words, the fact that I am the one being specifically attacked means this argument is just a distraction and not a real concern.
If negative trust is only for scammers, go after cooldgamer and lenny_ first.

[Ruzka]

Needless to say the community is/has spoken, I believe theymos will remove him but have my doubts about the other guy removing him. Lets see if the communities word means anything in these situations, clearly abusing the trust system for his own reasons with unaccurate and unacceptable feedback for a long standing member. Thought default was for people who could give very accurate feedback. My vote should be obvious.

[hilariousandco]

If a person is a liar, it makes them a scammer? That's just a rating left for personal issues and without any reference link as well. BipolarBob has proved to be a genuine user and has helped in donating money as well and how does he become a scammer just because he offers "too good to be true" deals. It's clearly abusing the trust system.

I think you could argue initially the feedback was arguably justified and I was always thinking I wouldn't be surprised if he did at some point scam, but I think after a certain while the feedback should have been removed or changed to neutral as doubts were removed.

So in other words he is still going to be on dt? I mean wasnt quickseller removed because he supposedly abused the system? Isnt this guy doing the exact same thing with almost 50% of his ratings?

I don't have any say on whether he will be removed or not, that's up to the users who put him on there but people who are found to be abusing or being reckless with their position are usually removed, but I don't know why you came to your conclusion anyway when I insinuated nothing of the sort that he should remain on dt.

So we are powerless pretty much, i mean look at the poll its obvious that the majority of people agree to have him removed but in the end it wont matter because he wont be removed, he can do whatever he wants with his ratings and nothing will happen. Shouldnt we have some power? Why should we trust people like him if he never really did any trades or hold btc ?

Polls on here aren't definitive. Op and his 50 alts could have manipulated it for all we know. And people are removed and he may be. He also has the option to change his feedbacks and maybe he will or wont.

[XinXan]

I think he should be removed from the defaultTrust's list, because his sent ratings are innacurate (too much) and he should give a good example to other users and it seems that it's not the case.


Thanks for the attention.

It would be logical for him to be removed, he barely has any trust ratings sent and 50% of them are inaccurate and since quickseller who made hundreds of good ratings got removed because he supposedly made 1 or 2 errors this user definitely has to be removed but im not so sure.

[damiano]

I think he should be removed from the defaultTrust's list, because his sent ratings are innacurate (too much) and he should give a good example to other users and it seems that it's not the case.


Thanks for the attention.

It would be logical for him to be removed, he barely has any trust ratings sent and 50% of them are inaccurate and since quickseller who made hundreds of good ratings got removed because he supposedly made 1 or 2 errors this user definitely has to be removed but im not so sure.

After checking his sent feedback, there must be another reason he is on default other than the feedback because that is not up to the standard that I personally would like to see someone with that sort of power over others. I would like to comment on QS but this is not about him and we have been asked not to make it about him. #

@ Luke-Jr is there any chance of you going back on what you think about the two guys mentioned and their feedback, maybe neutral until there is proof they are going to or have scammed would be a good idea?

[BeGoods]

Guys, i have the ultimate answer to all of this, each rating from every neutral member or above counts as half a rating, therefore we wont have to make threads like this, if the masses give him negative trust, theymos will have no choice but to sink him down to layer 3 or 4

[dserrano5]

I'll just leave this here.

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=524512

+static struct BlacklistEntry BlacklistedPrefixes[] = {

Ah, I had forgotten about this. Thanks for remembering!

[TECSHARE]

To the "negative trust is only for scammers" view: this makes it hypocritical to be bothering me specifically, since it makes the lying ratings against me a precedent "abuse" of the trust system.
In other words, the fact that I am the one being specifically attacked means this argument is just a distraction and not a real concern.
If negative trust is only for scammers, go after cooldgamer and lenny_ first.

The difference is that you are on the default trust and have more power to destroy reputations. You want to end this debate right now? Change all your questionable negative ratings to neutral. People get warned about the users behavior and no one has any right to call it abuse. End of discussion.

[Luke-Jr]

The difference is that you are on the default trust and have more power to destroy reputations.

If they're worried about their reputation being "destroyed", then they shouldn't have done something to "destroy" it.
It's ironic that I'm being accused of censorship in this thread, yet the goal of this thread appears to be to censor me.

You want to end this debate right now?

No, I don't really care.

Change all your questionable negative ratings to neutral. People get warned about the users behavior and no one has any right to call it abuse. End of discussion.

No one has any right to call it abuse in the first place.

[theymos]

This sort of conflict has happened before. IIRC it was decided in previous cases that if you receive negative ratings for no good reason, then it's OK (but perhaps sub-optimal/petty) to send retaliatory negative ratings until the first person removes their ratings.

It's not a good idea IMO, but Luke's "blacklist" is intended to stop only certain types of spam, not to blacklist any specific people/companies. The companies affected by this can easily bypass it by using Bitcoin properly. Even if Luke was trying to blacklist all gambling or whatever (which he's not), that still wouldn't be a good reason to give him negative feedback; it doesn't make him any more likely to scam someone.

Probably his BiPolarBob feedback should be reevaluated, though, especially after all this time.

[Xian01]

It's not a good idea IMO, but Luke's "blacklist" is intended to stop only certain types of spam, not to blacklist any specific people/companies. The companies affected by this can easily bypass it by using Bitcoin properly.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

[Quickseller]

This sort of conflict has happened before. IIRC it was decided in previous cases that if you receive negative ratings for no good reason, then it's OK (but perhaps sub-optimal/petty) to send retaliatory negative ratings until the first person removes their ratings.

I would draw similarities between someone leaving negative trust in retaliation of receiving a negative rating and someone leaving negative trust because someone was speaking out against them via posting. I think it is pretty well established that when someone leaves a negative rating when they are spoken out against, that they do not have a place on the default trust list. I can provide a few examples of people getting removed from default trust after leaving negative ratings for these kinds of reasons, however I am fairly certain that you are familiar with them already.

If someone leaves a negative rating for no good reason, then they should be removed from default trust (if they are on it) and their trust ratings should be ignored by others. I would argue that someone leaving a negative rating does not make them a scammer (unless they ask for something of value in return for removing it, in which case they would be an extortionist - however I don't believe this to be the case in this situation). 

I think this is almost exactly the same as what happened when TBZ was previously removed from Default Trust, except the person in question has made a post about TBZ, while the person in question in this situation left a negative rating - the only real difference is what medium was used (posting verses trust).

It's not a good idea IMO, but Luke's "blacklist" is intended to stop only certain types of spam, not to blacklist any specific people/companies. The companies affected by this can easily bypass it by using Bitcoin properly. Even if Luke was trying to blacklist all gambling or whatever (which he's not), that still wouldn't be a good reason to give him negative feedback; it doesn't make him any more likely to scam someone.

I think this is open for debate, however some may argue that his "blacklist" was something that would have harmed Bitcoin and as a result his work should not be trusted.

Probably his BiPolarBob feedback should be reevaluated, though, especially after all this time.

Hi somewhat implied above that he is not going to do this.

[dogie]

I think this is open for debate, however some may argue that his "blacklist" was something that would have harmed Bitcoin and as a result his work should not be trusted.

All miners use at least a portion of his code, so that's not really possible. We implicitly trust him, like we implicitly trust Theymos by using the forum.

[Xian01]

All miners use at least a portion of his code, so that's not really possible. We implicitly trust him, like we implicitly trust Theymos by using the forum.

Hah!

<breathes>

HAH HAH !

<breathes>

BWAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

<breathes>

Wait, you're serious, right ?