should luke-jr be on Default Trust?

[dogie]

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.

Wait, you're serious, right ?

Assuming you're not trolling, yes. We implicitly trust Theymos by using this forum.

[1714777495]

1714777495

[1714777495]

1714777495

[1714777495]

1714777495

[1714777495]

1714777495

[1714777495]

1714777495

[1714777495]

1714777495

[TECSHARE]

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.

Posting vs using retaliatory trust ratings are very different things and should be distinguished from each other. When one is posting in the forums, it is meant as a means of communication, and that needs to be protected. It is very easy for some one to simply claim some one is lying about them, or say something they said is untrue to try to justify harming their reputation in retaliation. This atmosphere will make sure no one ever speaks out about the abusive behavior of others and it will continue to grow unchecked. This is why in my opinion negative trust ratings should not be left for simply what people say, no matter how full of shit they are, as long as they otherwise follow the forum rules and are posting in the correct area to make the complaint. In the past there was no neutral option, so this also helped to condition people to jump right to using negative ratings, and this should stop since we have another option now.

Now as far as leaving retaliatory ratings (negative ratings left after another user left one first), I think this should be protected, even for those on the default trust, and I will tell you why. People use the reputation system as a tool here to exploit honest people into submitting to them. They spend the energy and effort building up a trustworthy reputation in an environment completely saturated with fraud, clawing out a name for themselves, then they have something to lose that can be used against them to make them either ignore abuse from others, or become complicit in it. Additionally, some people try to say that anyone who leaves retaliatory ratings is abusing the trust system, but I ask you this simple question... do you think if people know for a fact you will not retaliate with a negative rating in kind, would that not give them even more incentive to abuse the trust system to begin with knowing it will cost them nothing?

It would be analogous to saying in public that you are so against violence, that you wouldn't hit some one back even if they hit you. If some one knows you will not retaliate, and they have a reason to dislike what you say (for reasons that may or may not be valid), they will be more likely to hit you. Furthermore what is to stop a single person from using lots of accounts with reputation to do this further amplifying the problem? Retaliatory ratings should be allowed, but only if the other party did so first, and not just because of what they post. Neutral ratings are perfectly sufficient to deal with slander in threads.

In summary the difference is the forum is supposed to be for communication (even if you consider it bullshit), and the trust system should be for building a trade reputation, identifying untrustworthy individuals, and defending the reputation of ones self and other reputable individuals so we can all enjoy the benefits of an effective trust system filled with reliable information, not just bickering, which is what belongs in the forum is anywhere.

[Xian01]

Assuming you're not trolling, yes. We implicitly trust Theymos by using this forum.

Speak for yourself. I don't trust Theymos at all. Luke-Jr even less so.

I fail to see your logic of patronizing these forums being a sign of implicitly trusting Theymos. To wit, I patronize a lot of sites I don't entirely trust. That's just life on the internet.

[Quickseller]

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.

Well considering that his code has been audited a number of times, by a number of people, the trust in him specifically is not highly needed for the code that is currently being used.

My understanding of the situation around his "blacklist" was that he did not disclose the "blacklist" and only removed it when he was called out on it. I think it is pretty well established that his blacklist was not something that the vast majority of bitcoin users wanted to be using, and as a result:

The definition of malware is:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malware June 23, 2015, ~1:58 AM EST

-snip-

security
Any software designed to do something that the user would not wish it to do, hasn't asked it to do, and often has no knowledge of until it's too late.

-snip-

http://techterms.com/definition/malware June 23 2015, ~1:59 AM EST

Short for "malicious software," malware refers to software programs designed to damage or do other unwanted actions on a computer system.

-snip-

I will allow anyone reading this to draw their own conclusions.

Back on topic, I think that the ratings referenced in the OP should certainly not be seen by default, I am not familiar with lenny_, however I certainly think that it is safe to say that cooldgamer is not a scammer, and as a result I have left a positive rating to counter luke-jr's negative rating against him.

I think it should be more then clear that at least 5 of the 9 negative ratings that he has left are questionable at best, and some would argue that those 5 negative ratings were given in bad faith. That works out to a ~55% rate of  questionable ratings. On the other hand, I was removed from BadBear's trust list after getting two alts of scammer's wrong (although no examples have ever been given to me), out of a total of 547 negative ratings left for various scammers, and the negative ratings were left, in what I would consider to be good faith (I was also removed from tomatocage's trust list after getting one negative rating wrong, also acting in good faith for the rating in question). This works out to an error rate of 0.3% which is 1/150 the "bad/questionable" rate of luke-jr.

[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.

Posting vs using retaliatory trust ratings are very different things and should be distinguished from each other. When one is posting in the forums, it is meant as a means of communication, and that needs to be protected. It is very easy for some one to simply claim some one is lying about them, or say something they said is untrue to try to justify harming their reputation in retaliation. This atmosphere will make sure no one ever speaks out about the abusive behavior of others and it will continue to grow unchecked. This is why in my opinion negative trust ratings should not be left for simply what people say, no matter how full of shit they are, as long as they otherwise follow the forum rules and are posting in the correct area to make the complaint. In the past there was no neutral option, so this also helped to condition people to jump right to using negative ratings, and this should stop since we have another option now.

Now as far as leaving retaliatory ratings (negative ratings left after another user left one first), I think this should be protected, even for those on the default trust, and I will tell you why. People use the reputation system as a tool here to exploit honest people into submitting to them. They spend the energy and effort building up a trustworthy reputation in an environment completely saturated with fraud, clawing out a name for themselves, then they have something to lose that can be used against them to make them either ignore abuse from others, or become complicit in it. Additionally, some people try to say that anyone who leaves retaliatory ratings is abusing the trust system, but I ask you this simple question... do you think if people know for a fact you will not retaliate with a negative rating in kind, would that not give them even more incentive to abuse the trust system to begin with knowing it will cost them nothing?

It would be analogous to saying in public that you are so against violence, that you wouldn't hit some one back even if they hit you. If some one knows you will not retaliate, and they have a reason to dislike what you say (for reasons that may or may not be valid), they will be more likely to hit you. Furthermore what is to stop a single person from using lots of accounts with reputation to do this further amplifying the problem? Retaliatory ratings should be allowed, but only if the other party did so first, and not just because of what they post. Neutral ratings are perfectly sufficient to deal with slander in threads.

In summary the difference is the forum is supposed to be for communication (even if you consider it bullshit), and the trust system should be for building a trade reputation, identifying untrustworthy individuals, and defending the reputation of ones self and other reputable individuals so we can all enjoy the benefits of an effective trust system filled with reliable information, not just bickering, which is what belongs in the forum is anywhere.

What would be the difference between me posting on bitcoininformation aka Mitchełł's reputation thread that he is a scammer, and me giving him a negative rating for being a scammer without any kind of reference, after he leaves me a negative rating for defaulting on a loan that I dispute (I don't think that Mitchełł is a scammer, I actually have, and would again trust him with good amounts of money, and I have not defaulted on any loan, nor does he, to my knowledge think that I have)? The two are essentially the same.

Similarly, if I were to post on one of Mitchełł's threads where he was trying to sell something that I think he is a scammer, then I would do just as much damage to him as if I had posted on his reputation thread. In both me leaving a negative rating, and posting that I think he is a scammer, if I don't present any evidence, and if it is clear that my claim is without merit (in this case it would be considering that he is not a scammer), then I would not be taken seriously.

Both posting and leaving a negative trust rating are a form of speech, which should be equally protected by the forum and the community.

It also just so happens that trust ratings are not picked up by search engines, so anything I post will actually have a greater impact verses a trust rating, because someone searching for his forum handle would come up with results of my (frivolous) claim that I posted. I don't see any reason why something that has the possibility to do more damage should have more protection then what could cause less damage.

(The reason I choose Mitchełł for this example is because I am fairly certain that he is never going to turn scammer, and because he has a reputation thread).

[TECSHARE]

What would be the difference between me posting on bitcoininformation aka Mitchełł's reputation thread that he is a scammer, and me giving him a negative rating for being a scammer without any kind of reference, after he leaves me a negative rating for defaulting on a loan that I dispute (I don't think that Mitchełł is a scammer, I actually have, and would again trust him with good amounts of money, and I have not defaulted on any loan, nor does he, to my knowledge think that I have)? The two are essentially the same.

Similarly, if I were to post on one of Mitchełł's threads where he was trying to sell something that I think he is a scammer, then I would do just as much damage to him as if I had posted on his reputation thread. In both me leaving a negative rating, and posting that I think he is a scammer, if I don't present any evidence, and if it is clear that my claim is without merit (in this case it would be considering that he is not a scammer), then I would not be taken seriously.

Both posting and leaving a negative trust rating are a form of speech, which should be equally protected by the forum and the community.

It also just so happens that trust ratings are not picked up by search engines, so anything I post will actually have a greater impact verses a trust rating, because someone searching for his forum handle would come up with results of my (frivolous) claim that I posted. I don't see any reason why something that has the possibility to do more damage should have more protection then what could cause less damage.

(The reason I choose Mitchełł for this example is because I am fairly certain that he is never going to turn scammer, and because he has a reputation thread).

The difference is his reputation thread is not attached under his username everywhere he posts, the trust system ranking is. One could also make an argument that unless an explicit claim of fraud was being brought that any other types of complaints would not be appropriate to post in a persons reputation thread. Regardless, anyone can buy a site and promote it with the explicit purpose of slandering an individual and get it highly ranked in search engines, so this is a moot point.

[Quickseller]

What would be the difference between me posting on bitcoininformation aka Mitchełł's reputation thread that he is a scammer, and me giving him a negative rating for being a scammer without any kind of reference, after he leaves me a negative rating for defaulting on a loan that I dispute (I don't think that Mitchełł is a scammer, I actually have, and would again trust him with good amounts of money, and I have not defaulted on any loan, nor does he, to my knowledge think that I have)? The two are essentially the same.

Similarly, if I were to post on one of Mitchełł's threads where he was trying to sell something that I think he is a scammer, then I would do just as much damage to him as if I had posted on his reputation thread. In both me leaving a negative rating, and posting that I think he is a scammer, if I don't present any evidence, and if it is clear that my claim is without merit (in this case it would be considering that he is not a scammer), then I would not be taken seriously.

Both posting and leaving a negative trust rating are a form of speech, which should be equally protected by the forum and the community.

It also just so happens that trust ratings are not picked up by search engines, so anything I post will actually have a greater impact verses a trust rating, because someone searching for his forum handle would come up with results of my (frivolous) claim that I posted. I don't see any reason why something that has the possibility to do more damage should have more protection then what could cause less damage.

(The reason I choose Mitchełł for this example is because I am fairly certain that he is never going to turn scammer, and because he has a reputation thread).

The difference is his reputation thread is not attached under his username everywhere he posts, the trust system ranking is. One could also make an argument that unless an explicit claim of fraud was being brought that any other types of complaints would not be appropriate to post in a persons reputation thread. Regardless, anyone can buy a site and promote it with the explicit purpose of slandering an individual and get it highly ranked in search engines, so this is a moot point.

A person's trust score is only displayed in the marketplace, reputation/scam accusations and mining sections.

Also frivolous trust ratings should not be displayed by default, and untrusted trust ratings come with a warning that they may not be accurate so people should take them with a grain of salt.

[Luke-Jr]

My understanding of the situation around his "blacklist" was that he did not disclose the "blacklist"

This is false. It was always disclosed, and always optional.

I think it is pretty well established that his blacklist was not something that the vast majority of bitcoin users wanted to be using,

The majority of Bitcoin users also did/do not use it.
It is not established that the majority of people using it did not want it, nor that the majority of Gentoo users do not want it.
It is also not established that the majority of people who actually understand it (as opposed to reading lies such as the first quote) do not want it.

I think it should be more then clear that at least 5 of the 9 negative ratings that he has left are questionable at best, and some would argue that those 5 negative ratings were given in bad faith.

No, they are perfectly honest and accurate.

On the other hand, I was removed from BadBear's trust list after getting two alts of scammer's wrong

So your ratings were false. Big difference from the ratings I gave which are true.
Your argument should be directed against lenny_ and cooldgamer, who, like you, posted false ratings.

[cooldgamer]

I am changing my rating to a neutral.  I believe that he should not be on Default Trust, as his blacklist episode worked against the general consensus of the BTC community.  His actions worked against the general idea of decentralization (nobody wanted the blacklist), and I left feedback to represent this.  

It is not established that the majority of people using it did not want it, nor that the majority of Gentoo users do not want it.
It is also not established that the majority of people who actually understand it (as opposed to reading lies such as the first quote) do not want it.

Has anybody ever said they did want a blacklist?  We're fighting over the block size and you made an assumption as big as blocking transactions from certain sources on a network that is supposed to be completely free.

While it is a crappy attempt at censorship, it still meets the definition.  If everybody was using this blacklist, the network would block transactions from those sources.

This isn't your first time doing things without people wanting it.  You changed the definition of a paper wallet to something besides the generally agreed definition, put prayers in the blockchain, and added tonal to the BTC wiki (seriously, who uses that?)



This also seems like a good time to point out the glaring flaw in his trust.  He was at +100 for a single rating with 1,000 BTC risked.  This was for creating code.

However, the developers of armory or any of the 'lite' wallets have nothing of the type.  The general concensus is that you should be rated on the amount paid in exchange for the code, not how much that was on the system it ran on.  I'm guessing what he made was open source, so it could have been examined to see that nothing bad was in there, but instead gmaxwell didn't do so and rated him for his lax security.

[BadBear]

Both posting and leaving a negative trust rating are a form of speech, which should be equally p
rotected by the forum and the community.

Should be protected, unless you're on default trust, then you need to suck it up and deal with it. Not really fair.

I'm not a big fan of the practice, but double standards aren't good either.

[mmmaybe]

I voted no, but it wasn't anything related to luke.

To me it's just a dumb idea to implement something like "Default Trust". A member's contribution needs to be evaluated on a regular basis by his/her peers, and from that come to conclusion of trust.

Nothing should be given. In fact, this controversy shows that.

[Quickseller]

Both posting and leaving a negative trust rating are a form of speech, which should be equally protected by the forum and the community.

Should be protected, unless you're on default trust, then you need to suck it up and deal with it. Not really fair.

I'm not a big fan of the practice, but double standards aren't good either.

Well everyone's posts are visible to everyone by default, so leaving a neutral rating is exactly the same as posting.

The people that should be on default trust network should leave positive and/or negative ratings only when appropriate according to generally accepted community guidelines. In other words, they shouldn't leave positive feedback excessively (although the new trust score algorithm somewhat protects against this), should only leave negative ratings when they have credible information to lead them to strongly believe that they are a scammer, and should be open to revising their negative rating upon the receipt of additional credible information that would cause them to question such a conclusion. As long as they are prompt to revisit a negative rating after the receipt of additional information, then getting a small number of ratings wrong should not be penalized.

If someone is leaving negative and/or positive ratings when it is not appropriate, then the community will not take their ratings seriously and they should not be in the default trust network.

As I previously mentioned, Luke-jr's sent ratings do not conform to the current community standards so they should not be seen by default. If he wanted to revise it to a neutral with the same comment, then I would have no problem with it, this would be no different then him posting in a thread somewhere (possibly, but not necessarily with an alt) that cooldgamer is slandering his name. He should be free to keep the ratings as a negative, however if he does then people will not find his sent ratings to be accurate and he should be removed from default trust.

[Xian01]

My understanding of the situation around his "blacklist" was that he did not disclose the "blacklist"

This is false. It was always disclosed, and always optional.

Dude.

"Bug 524512 - net-p2p/bitcoind and net-p2p/bitcoin-qt: do not enable ljr use flag by default"

It was made optional after people called you out on making it the default behaviour.

Revisionist history much ?

[LGD2Business]

Why don't you remove Default Trust completely? It harms more than good to this community.

[hilariousandco]

Why don't you remove Default Trust completely? It harms more than good to this community.

It doesn't. It works very well the vast majority of the time but no feedback system is perfect or without flaws. What system would you suggest as an alternative? Remove it completely and all that would happen is gormless newbs getting scammed would increase by a ridiculous amount and it would make judging a user much more difficult.

[redsn0w]

...

If someone is leaving negative and/or positive ratings when it is not appropriate, then the community will not take their ratings seriously and they should not be in the default trust network.
...

In this case we can start to remove him from our personal trust list (~Luke-Jr) and wait or better hope to a good judgment by theymos (but I do not think the things will change).

Why don't you remove Default Trust completely? It harms more than good to this community.

It doesn't. It works very well the vast majority of the time but no feedback system is perfect or without flaws. What system would you suggest as an alternative? Remove it completely and all that would happen is gormless newbs getting scammed would increase by a ridiculous amount and it would make judging a user much more difficult.

We had several case of newbie that have been scammed by someone who has a negative trust score, so the trust system helps only in certain case and the real problem will always be the 'ignorance' of such users (not the trust system itself).

[hilariousandco]

We had several case of newbie that have been scammed by someone who has a negative trust score, so the trust system helps only in certain case and the real problem will always be the 'ignorance' of such users (not the trust system itself).

It helps in most cases as most pay attention to it but there's always going to be idiots who throw their money away regardless but the number would drastically increase if it wasn't there at all.

[mmmaybe]

Why don't you remove Default Trust completely? It harms more than good to this community.

+1. This is my generally position as well, now backed up by the situations with luke-jr and VOD. Can even include CYIAM in the club: Trusted as hell, member sinces Jesus walked the earth - and one drunk evening with bad judgment.

When was Default Trust introduced? Would be nice to do an analysis of what good it has done and what bad it has - and will be doing in the future. We are humans, even Default Trustees, and the bad actions will continue forever.

[SebastianJu]

How can luke-jr censor bitcoin with the code? Is it related to the mining software he develops? If so i think its not fine to censor that way since the websites arent scam if im not wrong. So yes, he would try to censor bitcoin by doing so. Even though he cant, it would be a try with a small effect. And thats not ok. Its not up to him to decide what transactions should go through i think. He isnt the bitcoin police.

So i think the ratings he gave are wrong since in fact he tries to censor bitcoin.

Tell me when i misunderstood something.

[Muhammed Zakir]

How can luke-jr censor bitcoin with the code? Is it related to the mining software he develops? If so i think its not fine to censor that way since the websites arent scam if im not wrong. So yes, he would try to censor bitcoin by doing so. Even though he cant, it would be a try with a small effect. And thats not ok. Its not up to him to decide what transactions should go through i think. He isnt the bitcoin police.

So i think the ratings he gave are wrong since in fact he tries to censor bitcoin.

Tell me when i misunderstood something.

You answered your own question except the software part. He blacklisted certain addresses in Gentoo Linux Bitcoind.

 - https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2ityg2/warning_bitcoin_address_blacklists_have_been/
 - https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=524512