SebastianJu getting seduced by trust farmers - and he's loving it!

[PistolPete]

feryjhie got sold in an auction today. No biggie, account changes hands like cards in a deck in the org named Bitcointalk. The seller, a new account rolled to just sell the account even got a default trust from SebastianJu who was escrow. Apparently the escrow somehow risked 0.255BTC and was so grateful to the Newbie for having the priviledge of being the escrow that he couldn't wait to give a default rating.

No biggie again, the Legendary Escrow Service is the middleman of choice for all sorts of traders angling to get that coveted feedback as a quick glance through the sent feedback reveals. What was concerning in this particular case was that the sold account itself received a rating. This seems to be a new policy for the popular escrow, who has seen a sudden rise in business coinciding with him doling out default feedback.

What do you do if you want to buy an account here? Make a new account, use SebastianJu to escrow the trade and ask him to provide the feedback to the new account and voila! you are the proud owner of an account which is going to turn green in 5 months.

But then, escrow fortunes rise and fall with the everchanging landscape of default trust. devthedev was the most popular at some point but was discarded like a stale bread when escrow.ms wielded his axe. bitpop had a few days in the sun but that was cut short quickly. Now master-P, who has worked so hard to buld up his rating is the only viable rival, but his insistence in being a miser in the sent feedback means he is left eating SebastianJu's dust.

[EcuaMobi]

feryjhie got sold in an auction today. No biggie, account changes hands like cards in a deck in the org named Bitcointalk. The seller, a new account rolled to just sell the account even got a default trust from SebastianJu who was escrow. Apparently the escrow somehow risked 0.255BTC and was so grateful to the Newbie for having the priviledge of being the escrow that he couldn't wait to give a default rating.

No biggie again, the Legendary Escrow Service is the middleman of choice for all sorts of traders angling to get that coveted feedback as a quick glance through the sent feedback reveals. What was concerning in this particular case was that the sold account itself received a rating. This seems to be a new policy for the popular escrow, who has seen a sudden rise in business coinciding with him doling out default feedback.

What do you do if you want to buy an account here? Make a new account, use SebastianJu to escrow the trade and ask him to provide the feedback to the new account and voila! you are the proud owner of an account which is going to turn green in 5 months.

But then, escrow fortunes rise and fall with the everchanging landscape of default trust. devthedev was the most popular at some point but was discarded like a stale bread when escrow.ms wielded his axe. bitpop had a few days in the sun but that was cut short quickly. Now master-P, who has worked so hard to buld up his rating is the only viable rival, but his insistence in being a miser in the sent feedback means he is left eating SebastianJu's dust.

This seems to be a problem if real. I'd like to read SebastianJu's version.
A single positive default trust feedback makes an account green so it should be given only when one really thinks someone is trustworthy. And as described in the profile page the risked amount should always be set to zero if the other person sends first. It doesn't make sense that an escrow includes a non-zero risked amount unless there's something we don't know, in that case that extra information should be included in the feedback.
I really think escrows shouldn't leave feedback at all unless something particularly positive or negative happened in the deal.

[ColderThanIce]

This seems to be a problem if real. I'd like to read SebastianJu's version.
A single positive default trust feedback makes an account green so it should be given only when one really thinks someone is trustworthy. And as described in the profile page the risked amount should always be set to zero if the other person sends first. It doesn't make sense that an escrow includes a non-zero risked amount unless there's something we don't know, in that case that extra information should be included in the feedback.
I really think escrows shouldn't leave feedback at all unless something particularly positive or negative happened in the deal.

I too am surprised when escrow providers leave positive feedback to the people involved in the transaction, especially when these people are on DefaultTrust. It definitely gives people a false sense of trust and degrades from those people's rating. I really don't mind when escrow providers give out neutral feedback or none after the transaction, since there is no trust involved on the escrow provider's end.

Edit: I just took a look through SJ's rating and it appears that he puts amounts in for all transactions he escrows. Probably just a pattern he follows but he should probably change that, considering he isn't the one risking the bitcoins.

[redsn0w]

The users must read 'positive  all the trusts' (the comments) and not only look at the green trust score (or in another case the red score)  . In that case no one will be scammed, I'm sure of this thing.

[Yamato no Orochi]

this is ridiculous. the seller and buyer should be the ones who left a positive rating to the escrow, not the other way around.

if this keeps up someone can just create another account and do fake trades multiple times to get trust.

[qwk]

The users must read 'positive  all the trusts' (the comments) and not only look at the green trust score (or in another case the red score)

In a perfect world, the trust system wouldn't be needed.
This is not a perfect world. Newbies will trust whoever flashes some shade of green.
Newbies won't ever understand the trust system, heck, even the great old ones don't always.

[subSTRATA]

The users must read 'positive  all the trusts' (the comments) and not only look at the green trust score (or in another case the red score)  . In that case no one will be scammed, I'm sure of this thing.

unfortunately, people dont do this so often; some people dont even bother using escrow when dealing with newbie accounts, what makes you think everyone looks through someone's trust profile? he's free to do what he wants, but giving positive trust to everyone he deals with is something i agree on being excessive, especially for those newbie accounts that are created solely for the purpose of selling an account.

[Quickseller]

I talked to him about this in the beginning of June and his response was something along the lines of that he wants a record of the transaction.

I would not personally give positive trust this liberally as it makes it easy for people to farm trust which ultimately leads to bad things.

[redsn0w]

The users must read 'positive  all the trusts' (the comments) and not only look at the green trust score (or in another case the red score)

In a perfect world, the trust system wouldn't be needed.
This is not a perfect world. Newbies will trust whoever flashes some shade of green.
Newbies won't ever understand the trust system, heck, even the great old ones don't always.

I think it is needed a good F.A.Q page about the trust system, and it should be linked in the maintab. The newbies (and not) should learn more if they want to stay alive (here in the forum).

The users must read 'positive  all the trusts' (the comments) and not only look at the green trust score (or in another case the red score)  . In that case no one will be scammed, I'm sure of this thing.

unfortunately, people dont do this so often; some people dont even bother using escrow when dealing with newbie accounts, what makes you think everyone looks through someone's trust profile? he's free to do what he wants, but giving positive trust to everyone he deals with is something i agree on being excessive, especially for those newbie accounts that are created solely for the purpose of selling an account.

It is not our problem if someone doesn't take 5 minutes to check the trust profile of someone else, before start the 'deal'... or am I wrong?

[subSTRATA]

It is not our problem if someone doesn't take 5 minutes to check the trust profile of someone else, before start the 'deal'... or am I wrong?

more so 5 seconds than 5 minutes, but it is true that it is up to the people involved in the trade to check the trust summary. the problem is, people are naive and dont bother to do so.

[qwk]

It is not our problem if someone doesn't take 5 minutes to check the trust profile of someone else, before start the 'deal'... or am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong.
As long as we maintain a trust system, we should take care of it and how it is perceived by someone with no previous experience a.k.a. newbie.
If the system we maintain flags someone as "green" or "trustworthy" on first glance, we can't simply sit back and say "but you should have looked closer at his ratings".

[redsn0w]

It is not our problem if someone doesn't take 5 minutes to check the trust profile of someone else, before start the 'deal'... or am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong.
As long as we maintain a trust system, we should take care of it and how it is perceived by someone with no previous experience a.k.a. newbie.

I used to think like you, but recently I've changed idea. However I can agree with you but until a certain point.


PS: dark or light green trust score doesn't mean exactly trustworthy, when all the users will learn this thing then I am sure the forum will be a better place.

If the system we maintain flags someone as "green" or "trustworthy" on first glance, we can't simply sit back and say "but you should have looked closer at his ratings".

This is why I said "I think it is needed a good F.A.Q page about the trust system"  basically how the trust system works (so all the newbie users will not have any excuse).



Sorry if I seem arrogant.

[ajareselde]

I agree with op. There's an obvious bunch of people that are abusing trusted members just in order to get feedback from them.
That is why the trust settings as they are now are faulty, and the main problem are exactly trusted members that are ignoring everything and giving
away "blind trust" to anyone who use their services.

I tried to contact such members in cases where shady deals were being made on the fact that they have green trust, but i was ignored most of the time.
I guess they just want people to come to them to make deals, regardless of their motives.

cheers

[SebastianJu]

Hi everyone. First:

feryjhie got sold in an auction today. No biggie, account changes hands like cards in a deck in the org named Bitcointalk. The seller, a new account rolled to just sell the account even got a default trust from SebastianJu who was escrow. Apparently the escrow somehow risked 0.255BTC and was so grateful to the Newbie for having the priviledge of being the escrow that he couldn't wait to give a default rating.

No biggie again, the Legendary Escrow Service is the middleman of choice for all sorts of traders angling to get that coveted feedback as a quick glance through the sent feedback reveals. What was concerning in this particular case was that the sold account itself received a rating. This seems to be a new policy for the popular escrow, who has seen a sudden rise in business coinciding with him doling out default feedback.

What do you do if you want to buy an account here? Make a new account, use SebastianJu to escrow the trade and ask him to provide the feedback to the new account and voila! you are the proud owner of an account which is going to turn green in 5 months.

But then, escrow fortunes rise and fall with the everchanging landscape of default trust. devthedev was the most popular at some point but was discarded like a stale bread when escrow.ms wielded his axe. bitpop had a few days in the sun but that was cut short quickly. Now master-P, who has worked so hard to buld up his rating is the only viable rival, but his insistence in being a miser in the sent feedback means he is left eating SebastianJu's dust.

Where do you get the idea from that the account was the one i gave a rating?

Im open to critics regarding how i use the trust system so i want to first explain how i handle trust.

I think the trust system is for showing others that forum members can deal with others without scamming. Thats why i give neutral trust for items traded under a worth of $50, and green trust above $50.

For me the trust system is an indicator that someone has already a trail of good trades. You get ratings on ebay too when you traded successfully regardless of if you used paypal so that there was no way of scamming. The trust system should simply how that someone can trade correctly.
 
So when i escrow an account then there are two parties involved that did a trade. And when both behaved the way they should do a trade then i give trust. I dont think that im not allowed to give trust only because im on default trust. At the end the new owner of the account would either use the new account or make the trade with his normal account. When he behaved correctly then he needs a good trust rating in order to show that he trades correctly. And when the buyer is chosing to use the new account then this is his new identity.

Generally im not a friend of account trades when they have trust but thats something that happens and is allowed. And the new owner will use that account regardless if anyone is knowing that he is a new owner.

By the way... i act when i see that someone is trying to gain fake trust. But again. What should the trust rating say if not that someone behaves while trading?

This seems to be a problem if real. I'd like to read SebastianJu's version.
A single positive default trust feedback makes an account green so it should be given only when one really thinks someone is trustworthy. And as described in the profile page the risked amount should always be set to zero if the other person sends first. It doesn't make sense that an escrow includes a non-zero risked amount unless there's something we don't know, in that case that extra information should be included in the feedback.
I really think escrows shouldn't leave feedback at all unless something particularly positive or negative happened in the deal.

I too am surprised when escrow providers leave positive feedback to the people involved in the transaction, especially when these people are on DefaultTrust. It definitely gives people a false sense of trust and degrades from those people's rating. I really don't mind when escrow providers give out neutral feedback or none after the transaction, since there is no trust involved on the escrow provider's end.

Edit: I just took a look through SJ's rating and it appears that he puts amounts in for all transactions he escrows. Probably just a pattern he follows but he should probably change that, considering he isn't the one risking the bitcoins.

So how would you handle it? I set amounts when the trading parties set amounts. Since then i know that they dont care if the amounts are stated.

And how can a good trust rating be wrong when a trade went correctly?

I talked to him about this in the beginning of June and his response was something along the lines of that he wants a record of the transaction.

I would not personally give positive trust this liberally as it makes it easy for people to farm trust which ultimately leads to bad things.

I did not say anything of a record, that makes no sense. I told you that i think the trust rating should show that someone is trustworthy to deal with. Might be some people use it for rating their friends or so but for me it shows that deals went well.

And yes, we spoke about that. And i agreed that i should be more strict. Thats why i only do neutral rating for values lower than $50.

By the way... you remember why i contacted you? Because i needed to hear your opinion regarding someone trying to gain illegitimate trust.


Anyway... im open to suggestions. I believe the trust rating should show that trades went well. So if the established members think i should handle it differently then let me know.

[ColderThanIce]

This seems to be a problem if real. I'd like to read SebastianJu's version.
A single positive default trust feedback makes an account green so it should be given only when one really thinks someone is trustworthy. And as described in the profile page the risked amount should always be set to zero if the other person sends first. It doesn't make sense that an escrow includes a non-zero risked amount unless there's something we don't know, in that case that extra information should be included in the feedback.
I really think escrows shouldn't leave feedback at all unless something particularly positive or negative happened in the deal.

I too am surprised when escrow providers leave positive feedback to the people involved in the transaction, especially when these people are on DefaultTrust. It definitely gives people a false sense of trust and degrades from those people's rating. I really don't mind when escrow providers give out neutral feedback or none after the transaction, since there is no trust involved on the escrow provider's end.

Edit: I just took a look through SJ's rating and it appears that he puts amounts in for all transactions he escrows. Probably just a pattern he follows but he should probably change that, considering he isn't the one risking the bitcoins.

So how would you handle it? I set amounts when the trading parties set amounts. Since then i know that they dont care if the amounts are stated.

And how can a good trust rating be wrong when a trade went correctly?

I'd handle it a little differently. I don't think I'd leave users trust just because a trade goes well, since the escrow provider doesn't need to put trust into any of the other parties. However if someone asks for a trust rating after the trade, I'd leave them a neutral trust rating, unless I truly do trust the user. I escrow a transaction here and there on my main account, and although plenty of the transactions are over $50, I wouldn't necessarily trust all the people I deal with, so I don't leave them trust unless they ask. If they do ask, I usually leave them neutral trust so that others know they've successfully completed a deal or two, but that I wouldn't completely trust them, especially if the user is a newbie, or this was their first trade.

One possible problem I see with the neutral ratings for escrows below $50 is that users could just create two accounts, ask you to escrow a "trade" between them, and receive positive trust on both accounts for fairly cheap without any trade having actually taken place. I don't know if you charge a fee, but if so it would only cost them about $0.50 + 0.0001 BTC (1% fee + tx fee) to potentially have two green accounts to sell (or do whatever else with) later on. I'm not saying that this does happen, I'm just mentioning that this could be a potential problem with leaving positive feedback after a trade.

As for the risked amount, it's really not a big deal at all, but it's supposed to be the bitcoin that you risked during the transaction. Since you didn't risk any bitcoin, it technically should be 0 BTC. But since you leave a comment saying that you provided escrow for the users I really don't think that's a big deal, people should be able to figure things out.

[EcuaMobi]

Anyway... im open to suggestions. I believe the trust rating should show that trades went well. So if the established members think i should handle it differently then let me know.

I like that $50 policy. The problem I see is that when you receive the payment first (as you always do when acting as escrow) the actual amount you're risking is always zero, regardless of the amount of the trade. Therefore by your logic you should always leave a neutral rating when you're escrowing.

Risked BTC amount is money that the person could have stolen or did steal. For example, if you do a currency trade where the other person sends first, your feedback for them would have 0 risked BTC and their feedback for you would have risked BTC equal to the BTC value of the trade.

It's my understanding that the field 'Risked BTC amount' for positive ratings somehow says what amount we can trust a user won't scam for because he's already had the chance to scam for that much and didn't. For example if I make some work for BTC1 I usually get 50% beforehand. I receive BTC0.50, I do the job and then I receive the other BTC0.50. The person I dealt with could have scammed me for BTC0.50 after receiving the work, but he didn't therefore I leave a positive trust with a risked amount of BTC0.50.
If someone pays 100% beforehand then the amount I risked is 0. He couldn't scam me in this case even if he wanted to, therefore I don't know whether he's trustworthy for BTC1, BTC0.5 or any amount.

If you escrow a deal then both parties send you the good or payment first to you. In that case you're not risking anything. You don't have any way to know whether they would have scammed if they could. Again, the amount you risked to them is zero.

[SebastianJu]

This seems to be a problem if real. I'd like to read SebastianJu's version.
A single positive default trust feedback makes an account green so it should be given only when one really thinks someone is trustworthy. And as described in the profile page the risked amount should always be set to zero if the other person sends first. It doesn't make sense that an escrow includes a non-zero risked amount unless there's something we don't know, in that case that extra information should be included in the feedback.
I really think escrows shouldn't leave feedback at all unless something particularly positive or negative happened in the deal.

I too am surprised when escrow providers leave positive feedback to the people involved in the transaction, especially when these people are on DefaultTrust. It definitely gives people a false sense of trust and degrades from those people's rating. I really don't mind when escrow providers give out neutral feedback or none after the transaction, since there is no trust involved on the escrow provider's end.

Edit: I just took a look through SJ's rating and it appears that he puts amounts in for all transactions he escrows. Probably just a pattern he follows but he should probably change that, considering he isn't the one risking the bitcoins.

So how would you handle it? I set amounts when the trading parties set amounts. Since then i know that they dont care if the amounts are stated.

And how can a good trust rating be wrong when a trade went correctly?

I'd handle it a little differently. I don't think I'd leave users trust just because a trade goes well, since the escrow provider doesn't need to put trust into any of the other parties. However if someone asks for a trust rating after the trade, I'd leave them a neutral trust rating, unless I truly do trust the user. I escrow a transaction here and there on my main account, and although plenty of the transactions are over $50, I wouldn't necessarily trust all the people I deal with, so I don't leave them trust unless they ask. If they do ask, I usually leave them neutral trust so that others know they've successfully completed a deal or two, but that I wouldn't completely trust them, especially if the user is a newbie, or this was their first trade.

One possible problem I see with the neutral ratings for escrows below $50 is that users could just create two accounts, ask you to escrow a "trade" between them, and receive positive trust on both accounts for fairly cheap without any trade having actually taken place. I don't know if you charge a fee, but if so it would only cost them about $0.50 + 0.0001 BTC (1% fee + tx fee) to potentially have two green accounts to sell (or do whatever else with) later on. I'm not saying that this does happen, I'm just mentioning that this could be a potential problem with leaving positive feedback after a trade.

As for the risked amount, it's really not a big deal at all, but it's supposed to be the bitcoin that you risked during the transaction. Since you didn't risk any bitcoin, it technically should be 0 BTC. But since you leave a comment saying that you provided escrow for the users I really don't think that's a big deal, people should be able to figure things out.

Yes, i always state that i ESCROWED a trade, i dont state that i traded with them, its clear what happened to everyone reading.

Sure, im not very much at risk, except someone tries to scam me with 2 accounts, which luckily didnt happen yet except someone trying to scam trust with fake transactions. I worked together with the staff and all the details are with the correct persons now. You wouldnt believe how many accounts seem to be owned by single persons that dont have to do better things than using them to scam one way or another.

I dont take a fee, though i accept donations.

Youre right, i did not really risk though when i state i escrowed then it should be clear that its the amount in escrow.

I checked around on other members accounts and found that ALOT of green trust comes from escrows. Maybe the most. Even when not, you would need to forbid two trading partners, that use an escrow, to give each other green trust. Because they didnt risk anything too by using the escrow.

At the end the trust system would become pretty much useless since green trust would be given to friends you know. Which would be arbitrary to some extend since friends are treated different naturally. Does it need to mean someone wont scam only because he behaves with you as your friend?

So i know the trust system is not perfect but i think it should be used. It doesnt make sense when everyone on the forum has no trust at all because everyone is using escrows that eliminate risks.

And it doesnt make sense to only give green trust to those that trade without escrow since that isnt really a behaviour that is a good thing. Reward for NOT using escrow, surely the opposite what scammers teach on here.

[SebastianJu]

Anyway... im open to suggestions. I believe the trust rating should show that trades went well. So if the established members think i should handle it differently then let me know.

I like that $50 policy. The problem I see is that when you receive the payment first (as you always do when acting as escrow) the actual amount you're risking is always zero, regardless of the amount of the trade. Therefore by your logic you should always leave a neutral rating when you're escrowing.

You are right. Though i state explicitly that i only escrowed, so its not that someone can think that i bought something from that user. And the amount would logically show the amount the trade was for. I mean the info fields are there and could be used i think. Since at the end we dont want that someone really RISKS some coins. The chance of being scammed when risking is simply way too high on the forum. So using escrows should theoretically eliminate every risk and no green trust should be given to any involved party then. I dont think thats what the trust rating is for.

Risked BTC amount is money that the person could have stolen or did steal. For example, if you do a currency trade where the other person sends first, your feedback for them would have 0 risked BTC and their feedback for you would have risked BTC equal to the BTC value of the trade.

It's my understanding that the field 'Risked BTC amount' for positive ratings somehow says what amount we can trust a user won't scam for because he's already had the chance to scam for that much and didn't. For example if I make some work for BTC1 I usually get 50% beforehand. I receive BTC0.50, I do the job and then I receive the other BTC0.50. The person I dealt with could have scammed me for BTC0.50 after receiving the work, but he didn't therefore I leave a positive trust with a risked amount of BTC0.50.
If someone pays 100% beforehand then the amount I risked is 0. He couldn't scam me in this case even if he wanted to, therefore I don't know whether he's trustworthy for BTC1, BTC0.5 or any amount.

If you escrow a deal then both parties send you the good or payment first to you. In that case you're not risking anything. You don't have any way to know whether they would have scammed if they could. Again, the amount you risked to them is zero.

Though i think even with an escrow there are enough chances of a scam happening. I had those cases too but luckily the truth came to light. So there is still a risk. And that lies in a scammer that can forge the evidences so that event he escrow is scammed. The risk is way way smaller of course but still there. So i think a trade that ended with all parties happy is a good trade and everyone can give each other the hand and say "Yes, good trade, lets do it again." Which translates to me like a first impression of green trust.

[twister]

I think all default trust members should only leave neutral trust ratings, it documents the trade or whatever and doesn't adds any color to any parties. I suspect one other member who I think is an account farmer and is doing deals with his alt accounts and using default trust escrows to receive green + on his both accounts which he might sell later for extra profit due to green ratings. He recently sold an Hero Member account which went for 0.55 and he knows that the green ones will go for even better. He picks only default trust escrows, first Devthedev but he got removed so he lost his chance to get green, then Maidak, he got bad trust then he did one with TC and the account he was selling, he chose QS for it hoping to receive another +1 but it didn't work out because the buyer didn't wanted to use QS.

I think some people are seeing it as easy opportunity to get green, do some trades with Default trust members or ask them to escrow and wallah you're green, the account value is up and you're considered trusted.

[SebastianJu]

I think all default trust members should only leave neutral trust ratings, it documents the trade or whatever and doesn't adds any color to any parties. I suspect one other member who I think is an account farmer and is doing deals with his alt accounts and using default trust escrows to receive green + on his both accounts which he might sell later for extra profit due to green ratings. He recently sold an Hero Member account which went for 0.55 and he knows that the green ones will go for even better. He picks only default trust escrows, first Devthedev but he got removed so he lost his chance to get green, then Maidak, he got bad trust then he did one with TC and the account he was selling, he chose QS for it hoping to receive another +1 but it didn't work out because the buyer didn't wanted to use QS.

I think some people are seeing it as easy opportunity to get green, do some trades with Default trust members or ask them to escrow and wallah you're green, the account value is up and you're considered trusted.

And what would be the sense in a forum empty of green trust?

What will you do when someone gets into default trust and suddenly all ratings he gave are on that level?

How will you prevent trades going on that would not be done when no green trust would happen? I mean real trades. You simply cant. You would be surprised which kind of account network some scammers have. Surely they wont have a problem giving some trust around here and there.

There will normal trades happen with green trust and there will trades happen only because there is green trust. There is no way to prevent that. You might stop giving green trust completely to trades. But then the trust system would render useless. Either using the trust system or not using it. But when it gets used then surely it can be misused at times. The only way is to use your head and see if a trade might be faked. If im unsure about that then i only give neutral trust.