Separate trust lists

[Somekindabitcoin]

I see one problem with trust and it's that other users may be able to use it to abuse other members and such. The purpose of this thread is to share my own opinions and such as well as other member's opinions as a possibility to be added. Nonetheless, it is up to Theymos if he wants to implement them.

I will add on other ideas to this thread.

I say to make a separate trust list.

One trust list for:

Marketplace buyers and sellers
Escrowers
Software creators
Altcoins
etc.


Basically any sub forum that involves trust.

What would happen is that the other trust from other sub forums would carry on to other sub forums, but just as neutral trust; Thereby allowing them to have untainted trust while also allowing them to be able to redeem themselves in other sub forums. One again, if they scam in another sub forum, easy as that to ban them indefinitely.


Any thoughts?

[1714769924]

1714769924

[1714769924]

1714769924

[1714769924]

1714769924

[1714769924]

1714769924

[1714769924]

1714769924

[erpbridge]

I feel this would make it extremely complicated. This would also not reflect trust in messages which would require another trust rating or maybe an OR condition of all the trusts. When I tend to look at different members on the forum, I might not be on the marketplace section while doing so and can miss his trust on there. I see nothing wrong with the current trust as you could just click on the trust and see what it is for and decide if you want to trade with that member.

[RocketSingh]

So, what you are saying is like having sidechains that would be pegged to the main chain.

Well... apart from joke, I like this idea. Lets take the example of escrow.ms. He is a long term trader and probably a nice fit for the 'Currency Exchange' section. But, he might not be well aware about the happenings of 'Alternative Cryptocurrecy' section. So, mprep might be the best fit over there. Good idea. But, I guess, it would be a tedious job for theymos to implement this into SMF. Especially when the new forum is coming, I doubt whether he'll take this suggestion seriously.

[Somekindabitcoin]

It's complicated because it has to be, otherwise, members on default trust have that trust on all quarters. One would need to be proven trustworthy on all points. Thus a person might also have a total trust rating.

But, I could also see it as something the new forum will not have, though it would be an upgrade in itself making the forum an even safer place.

[redsn0w]

I don't think it is a good idea, instead I think that make visible the trust core in each section of this forum (that would be useful when you are talking with someone).

[Somekindabitcoin]

I don't think it is a good idea, instead I think that make visible the trust core in each section of this forum (that would be useful when you are talking with someone).

Guess you put it in a simpler way. This would allow us to be able to trust their claims in other parts of the forum.

[GannickusX]

It's complicated because it has to be, otherwise, members on default trust have that trust on all quarters. One would need to be proven trustworthy on all points. Thus a person might also have a total trust rating.

But, I could also see it as something the new forum will not have, though it would be an upgrade in itself making the forum an even safer place.

In my opinion the default trust is the only problem with the trust system, other than that its perfectly good. Maybe default trust people shouldnt have so much power or maybe there shouldnt be ''trusted feedback'' or ''untrusted feedback'' but rather just feedback so people specially newbies would look at all the trust and not only the ''trusted feedback'' which could very well be wrong as it happened many times before.

[Somekindabitcoin]

It's complicated because it has to be, otherwise, members on default trust have that trust on all quarters. One would need to be proven trustworthy on all points. Thus a person might also have a total trust rating.

But, I could also see it as something the new forum will not have, though it would be an upgrade in itself making the forum an even safer place.

In my opinion the default trust is the only problem with the trust system, other than that its perfectly good. Maybe default trust people shouldnt have so much power or maybe there shouldnt be ''trusted feedback'' or ''untrusted feedback'' but rather just feedback so people specially newbies would look at all the trust and not only the ''trusted feedback'' which could very well be wrong as it happened many times before.

I personally think default trust are for those who have some kind of maturity to their account or they've been here quite awhile to know everything.

Sure, you can get on for scam busting and gain that rep so very fast, but what if that's just all something they could use to their advantage to pull off a huge scam?

Otherwise, it should be for Moderators and higher only.

Temporary spots on Default trust for users who would be verified to be able to set something up like a group buy or service.

[GannickusX]

It's complicated because it has to be, otherwise, members on default trust have that trust on all quarters. One would need to be proven trustworthy on all points. Thus a person might also have a total trust rating.

But, I could also see it as something the new forum will not have, though it would be an upgrade in itself making the forum an even safer place.

In my opinion the default trust is the only problem with the trust system, other than that its perfectly good. Maybe default trust people shouldnt have so much power or maybe there shouldnt be ''trusted feedback'' or ''untrusted feedback'' but rather just feedback so people specially newbies would look at all the trust and not only the ''trusted feedback'' which could very well be wrong as it happened many times before.

I personally think default trust are for those who have some kind of maturity to their account or they've been here quite awhile to know everything.

Sure, you can get on for scam busting and gain that rep so very fast, but what if that's just all something they could use to their advantage to pull off a huge scam?

Otherwise, it should be for Moderators and higher only.

Temporary spots on Default trust for users who would be verified to be able to set something up like a group buy or service.

Yep i agree with all your points specially the first one and the problem is that people on default trust list are not that trusted, some of them dont even have trades done, some dont even have more than 1 or 2 trust ratings from other people, im not saying thats a reason for them not to be on default trust list, im just wondering what made them get into the list.

[Muhammed Zakir]

I don't think this is a good idea. So a "no" from me.

Yep i agree with all your points specially the first one and the problem is that people on default trust list are not that trusted, some of them dont even have trades done, some dont even have more than 1 or 2 trust ratings from other people, im not saying thats a reason for them not to be on default trust list, im just wondering what made them get into the list.

Accurate judgement is the key not trades.

[Blazed]

I don't think this is a good idea. So a "no" from me.

Yep i agree with all your points specially the first one and the problem is that people on default trust list are not that trusted, some of them dont even have trades done, some dont even have more than 1 or 2 trust ratings from other people, im not saying thats a reason for them not to be on default trust list, im just wondering what made them get into the list.

Accurate judgement is the key not trades.

I agree somewhat, but trades are also a very good indicator of honesty around here. I trust someone more who has proven time and time again via trading/escrows that they are honest. I do not just trust someone because a user from D1 has added them into their list. I think the default network is currently pretty solid with public disputes and CITM's list removed.

Also multiple lists is too confusing - most people are already confused with the current system.

[TECSHARE]

I like where you are going with this, but people do have a point, this would complicate things excessively. In stead, perhaps the left rating form can be modified with radial buttons such as "I traded with this user.", "I believe it is necessary to rate this user based on my observations of their interactions with other users.", "This user has taken aggressive actions against me and I feel a rating is appropriate in response.", ETC.

Something simpler such as this could help people differentiate between trade reputation and just people observing and leaving ratings, or ratings left as a retaliatory measure. This could also be used to divide trust into various groups so that they can be examined independently based on the interaction you intend to have with the user. It could also be used to give more weight to trade based ratings over ratings left for casual observation. Obviously, in the case of giving different weights to the ratings, there would have to be a rule though that any rating left that doesn't match its checked category is invalid and should be removed.

[Blazed]

I like where you are going with this, but people do have a point, this would complicate things excessively. In stead, perhaps the left rating form can be modified with radial buttons such as "I traded with this user.", "I believe it is necessary to rate this user based on my observations of their interactions with other users.", "This user has taken aggressive actions against me and I feel a rating is appropriate in response.", ETC.

Something simpler such as this could help people differentiate between trade reputation and just people observing and leaving ratings, or ratings left as a retaliatory measure. This could also be used to divide trust into various groups so that they can be examined independently based on the interaction you intend to have with the user. It could also be used to give more weight to trade based ratings over ratings left for casual observation. Obviously, in the case of giving different weights to the ratings, there would have to be a rule though that any rating left that doesn't match its checked category is invalid and should be removed.

I like your idea on the adding more info to the ratings via a radial button. That would keep it simple, but still add much better information.

[XinXan]

I don't think this is a good idea. So a "no" from me.

Yep i agree with all your points specially the first one and the problem is that people on default trust list are not that trusted, some of them dont even have trades done, some dont even have more than 1 or 2 trust ratings from other people, im not saying thats a reason for them not to be on default trust list, im just wondering what made them get into the list.

Accurate judgement is the key not trades.

I agree somewhat, but trades are also a very good indicator of honesty around here. I trust someone more who has proven time and time again via trading/escrows that they are honest. I do not just trust someone because a user from D1 has added them into their list. I think the default network is currently pretty solid with public disputes and CITM's list removed.

Also multiple lists is too confusing - most people are already confused with the current system.

I dont know it depends what trades, someone who takes loans of 0.01 btc shouldnt be really trusted, someone that takes loans or does trades of 1 btc or more should be more trusted also people who give loans shouldnt really get a positive trust, after all they are not risking any bitcoins if they ask for collateral

[redsn0w]

I don't think it is a good idea, instead I think that make visible the trust core in each section of this forum (that would be useful when you are talking with someone).

Guess you put it in a simpler way. This would allow us to be able to trust their claims in other parts of the forum.

Yes, I put it in a simpler way but I do not think theymos will make visible the trust score around the forum (in each forum section).

[BrianM]

I think this is too complicated. Better make things simple so people can figure out.
I have problem understanding the system already as it is. Think many people don't understand fully how it works.

[qwk]

OP: way too complicated. People don't understand the trust system as it is now, how do you expect them to understand what you suggested? Heck, not even Tomatocage understands the trust system
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1076359.0

[...]there shouldnt be ''trusted feedback'' or ''untrusted feedback'' but rather just feedback so people specially newbies would look at all the trust and not only the ''trusted feedback'' which could very well be wrong as it happened many times before.

That would result in a long list of ratings that you would have to read to find out whether someone is trustworthy or not.
With no mechanism in place to avoid it, a scammer could easily spam his own trust with fake positive ratings and make the real negative ones disappear in the sheer amount of fake ones.
In short: bad idea.
Almost everyone seems to agree that DefaultTrust isn't such a splendid mechanism and has its flaws, but we're still waiting for anyone to suggest a viable alternative.

[Somekindabitcoin]

Like I said, an opinion. I haven't put much thought into it, but I will try to find a much better alternative to the default trust.

[Lauda]

I'm going to disregard the complexity in this case. Have you even put much thought into this?
This would enable scammers to do a lot more.

Marketplace buyers and sellers
Escrowers
Software creators
Altcoins
etc.

What would prevent one from scamming multiple times from the same account? Each member would have to do some research on the member and verify his trust in for every single section.

Update:

Read my reply above yours and you'd see that I didn't put much thought into this.

But, as you added, it would make people do background research on others thereby decreasing their own risk of getting scammed. Once they scam, they're closed.
Another thing that is unpreventable is VPN's specifically because Bitcointalk is sponsored by Private Internet Access. Possibly they can ban every proxy and VPN other than Private Internet Access.

Then why did you start a thread before thinking about it? I don't really see the point of banning every proxies and VPN aside PIA. This wouldn't help much at all.

[Somekindabitcoin]

I'm going to disregard the complexity in this case. Have you even put much thought into this?
This would enable scammers to do a lot more.

Marketplace buyers and sellers
Escrowers
Software creators
Altcoins
etc.

What would prevent one from scamming multiple times from the same account? Each member would have to do some research on the member and verify his trust in for every single section.

Read my reply above yours and you'd see that I didn't put much thought into this.

But, as you added, it would make people do background research on others thereby decreasing their own risk of getting scammed. Once they scam, they're closed.

Another thing that is unpreventable is VPN's specifically because Bitcointalk is sponsored by Private Internet Access. Possibly they can ban every proxy and VPN other than Private Internet Access.