The latest change in the trust system has a flaw making it abusable

[shorena]

-snip-
I think that he is a scammer, but I cannot call him a scammer unless I have proof.
-snip-

If you think this is true please explain your rating - and I quote below just to make sure we are talking about the same thing - towards tsp without any reference or even a hint of evidence.

Wardrick 61: -0 / +7   2015-09-09   0.00000000      Stole BTC from TF a while ago and then later tried to weasel out of it.

[1715274619]

1715274619

[1715274619]

1715274619

[1715274619]

1715274619

[1715274619]

1715274619

[dooglus]

-snip-
I think that he is a scammer, but I cannot call him a scammer unless I have proof.
-snip-

If you think this is true please explain your rating - and I quote below just to make sure we are talking about the same thing - towards tsp without any reference or even a hint of evidence.

He's talking about TF there, not tsp.

It's OK to call tsp a scammer without proof, because he was paid some small fraction of a bitcoin more than he deserved by TF, where the small fraction was earned by a b0t, and that was against terms and conditions that were added to the site after the alleged 'crime' took place.

It's not OK to call TF a scammer without proof, because he only 'lost' hundreds or maybe thousands of other people's bitcoins, most of which should have been in cold storage but weren't.

[Quickseller]

Wardrick is saying that TF is not a *proven* scammer, but still (strongly) thinks that TF is a scammer. I would consider this to be a reasonable statement. The reason for this is because the preponderance of the evidence shows that TF stole from inputs and coinlenders.

Wardrick is saying that he (strongly) believes that tspacepilot is a scammer in a similar regard. Grue had posted something to the contrary that at the time of the thread there were no TOS saying that you need to name bots certain ways. He said that coinchat pays *people* to chat and bots are not people. I am I sure why you would proclaim that such a small amount of Bitcoin was stolen by tspacepilot when he made no such claim until after several pages of denying that something that took place outside of bitcointalk should be reflected on his trust profile and being pointed out that he did admit to taking some amount and that he did use the bot some amount, and that he did not make any serious claim as to the amount. After 5 pages of tspacepilot making the above argument, he showed no interest of wanting to repay what was stolen.

[dooglus]

In summary, for people who previously had many positives and no negatives:
- The first negative rating defines a border between pre-controversy and post-controversy.
- Don't move this border unless you have a really good reason. If you must add more info, leave another negative or neutral rating.
- If you agree with the border-negative, leave a negative rating.
- If you disagree with the border-negative, leave a positive rating responding to the negative, even if you already have a positive rating for that person. Don't delete your old rating. You should also consider excluding the inaccurate-rater from your trust list.

A couple of questions:

1) what if the person who left the first negative rating gets removed from DefaultTrust, so that for most people their rating is no longer defining a border, but still is for some?

2) what if the negative trust defining the border gets removed by an administrator (because their account is suspected of having been hacked, for example); the border no longer exists, so am I expected to remove the positive rating I left responding to the negative (bolded, above)? Or should I leave it in place?

[theymos]

A couple of questions:

1) what if the person who left the first negative rating gets removed from DefaultTrust, so that for most people their rating is no longer defining a border, but still is for some?

2) what if the negative trust defining the border gets removed by an administrator (because their account is suspected of having been hacked, for example); the border no longer exists, so am I expected to remove the positive rating I left responding to the negative (bolded, above)? Or should I leave it in place?

There's no harm in leaving extra positive trust ratings. You can keep them or not, it's up to you.

It is a bit of an issue that trust ratings are subjective. Probably this is a flaw in the trust score algorithm, but I'm not sure what to do to improve this.

[mexxer-2]

A couple of questions:

1) what if the person who left the first negative rating gets removed from DefaultTrust, so that for most people their rating is no longer defining a border, but still is for some?

2) what if the negative trust defining the border gets removed by an administrator (because their account is suspected of having been hacked, for example); the border no longer exists, so am I expected to remove the positive rating I left responding to the negative (bolded, above)? Or should I leave it in place?

There's no harm in leaving extra positive trust ratings. You can keep them or not, it's up to you.

It is a bit of an issue that trust ratings are subjective. Probably this is a flaw in the trust score algorithm, but I'm not sure what to do to improve this.

Also dooglus is more or less talking about tsp, where he has given a more or less a reputation loan, should that be considered a valid trust feedback?

[Quickseller]

A couple of questions:

1) what if the person who left the first negative rating gets removed from DefaultTrust, so that for most people their rating is no longer defining a border, but still is for some?

2) what if the negative trust defining the border gets removed by an administrator (because their account is suspected of having been hacked, for example); the border no longer exists, so am I expected to remove the positive rating I left responding to the negative (bolded, above)? Or should I leave it in place?

There's no harm in leaving extra positive trust ratings. You can keep them or not, it's up to you.

It is a bit of an issue that trust ratings are subjective. Probably this is a flaw in the trust score algorithm, but I'm not sure what to do to improve this.

Also dooglus is more or less talking about tsp, where he has given a more or less a reputation loan, should that be considered a valid trust feedback?

Of course not! I don't see any potential reason why anyone would ever consider that to be a valid feedback.

But then again this is little different then negative ratings left because a site did not pay a extortion payment bug bounty, and is little different then public endorsement that lead to multi-million dollar thefts shortly after such public endorsements

[dooglus]

But then again this is little different then negative ratings left because a site did not pay a extortion payment bug bounty, and is little different then public endorsement that lead to multi-million dollar thefts shortly after such public endorsements

The site (ballonbit) didn't pay the amount they had promised to pay me, and my feedback for the scammy dice site (dicebitco.in) was left before there was any indication that they were scammy. But you know all this since we have been over this elsewhere.