Wow, you can buy positive trust for 0.0301btc

[tarsua]

amount paid doesnt matter

actually, you dont even need to trade with the person at all to give the positive trust

That's not the point, I addressed this earlier. No, you don't need to trade with someone at all...but if you've never interacted with them before and all they did was buy a $10 eBook off of you? That doesn't mean you'd trust them financially or just generally trust them, does it?

It is the point, the trust system isnt used to tell if you trust someone generally or financially, its used to avoid scammers, if they have done good trades before, they are likely to do again

[tmfp]

< >actually, you dont even need to trade with the person at all to give the positive trust

Agreed, but this situation is the inverse of that: you don't need to give positive trust just because you traded.
As DiamondCardz says, someone pays you $10 for a book. Why does that make them trustworthy?
 
And, specifically to the point of this thread, why should that make you tell other people that they are trustworthy, especially when your viewpoint has been given extra weight by the system?

[Tupsu]

Agreed, but this situation is the inverse of that: you don't need to give positive trust just because you traded.
As DiamondCardz says, someone pays you $10 for a book. Why does that make them trustworthy?
 
And, specifically to the point of this thread, why should that make you tell other people that they are trustworthy, especially when your viewpoint has been given extra weight by the system?

And what is this amount, what does the buyer trustworthy ?

My last sale was 0.1 BTC shipped .  No escrow.  Buyer trusted me, but I still do not trust him ?
This is nonsense.

[Athertle]

Agreed, but this situation is the inverse of that: you don't need to give positive trust just because you traded.
As DiamondCardz says, someone pays you $10 for a book. Why does that make them trustworthy?
 
And, specifically to the point of this thread, why should that make you tell other people that they are trustworthy, especially when your viewpoint has been given extra weight by the system?

And what is this amount, what does the buyer trustworthy ?

My last sale was 0.1 BTC shipped .  No escrow.  Buyer trusted me, but I still do not trust him ?
This is nonsense.

Of course not; you don't need to trust him whatsoever. If he sent first, what on earth did he do that made your feel he was a trustworthy guy? He risked nothing and could not have scammed you. You placed nothing on his responsibility, so you can't see if his responsibility even exists.

EDIT: That being said, I see both sides to this argument.

[mexxer-2]

A friend of mine pointed me to this thread. I acknowledge how this may be seen as trust farming, but some things to be noted here:
1) People are given positive feedbacks here , for paypal/currency exchange trades where you get a positive feedback for having a big enough trade, where the actual amount you lose is max 10% of what you exchange, in which the DT member who gives the feedback rarely, if at all, risks any amount. Reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1197533.0
2) Feedbacks are given without reference many times, if bitcoinspaghetti's intention was to let the trust farming continue without his removal from DT, he would've done so by writing something like "Done a deal, thanks".
3) BiPolarBob is given positive feedbacks for just giving away his money, as per your argument "giving a small amount to farm trust" , he should've been the first person to be raised under suspicion of trust farming.
4) If anyone reviews the feedbacks given, he/she can see that it was for a small amount unlike my first point.

I have tons of more examples but I wouldn't like to point to someone in specific.

And now some reasons why he may have found me trustworthy:
1) I purchased his copy of book on 8PM , he started uploading it with a password encryption, seems he shut down his computer at 24-26%, so I had to wait for him for over 24 hrs. Quite ironical than his given feedback as it was nothing but a fast trade, but I was patient and did not complain about the delay , which he personally might have found trustworthy.
2) I gave a small review on the ebook which may have helped his coin-making PDF sale business.
3) Based on our PMs, he may have found "trustworthy behavior" in me.
4) We did have a trade, however small it may have been.

I can't speak for other feedbacks though.

All in all, all this drama seems be because how simple it may seem to farm bitcoinspaghetti's trust. Anyway, incase someone thinks I was/am untrustworthy for having (potentially) done this trade for solely positive trust, you are free to give me a Neutral stating so. Or in extreme cases or with strong evidence as to why, feel free to leave a negative as well.

[FrostStick]

I think the trust is valid. Although it might not be the most appropriate case to be giving out positive trust, the seller and the buyer indeed have been through a deal and I don't see why he shouldn't have left that trust.

[RaginglikeaBoss]

I will not argue  more with  liar like you are.

Then you will have no problem staying away from me, not derailing threads just because I'm involved with them and making up knowingly false accusations in order to blackmail companies.

I enjoy your guides and reference them all the time.

Now, please stop feeding the trolls.  You're simply encouraging them.

[Xialla]

this is nothing new and I bet, that majority of buyers never opened the pdf and just collecting trust via high reputable leg. member. sadly, after default trust list this is another example showing, how this trust system is crippled. I hope that on new board, admins will find better way..

[DiamondCardz]

A friend of mine pointed me to this thread. I acknowledge how this may be seen as trust farming, but some things to be noted here:
1) People are given positive feedbacks here , for paypal/currency exchange trades where you get a positive feedback for having a big enough trade, where the actual amount you lose is max 10% of what you exchange, in which the DT member who gives the feedback rarely, if at all, risks any amount. Reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1197533.0
2) Feedbacks are given without reference many times, if bitcoinspaghetti's intention was to let the trust farming continue without his removal from DT, he would've done so by writing something like "Done a deal, thanks".
3) BiPolarBob is given positive feedbacks for just giving away his money, as per your argument "giving a small amount to farm trust" , he should've been the first person to be raised under suspicion of trust farming.
4) If anyone reviews the feedbacks given, he/she can see that it was for a small amount unlike my first point.

I have tons of more examples but I wouldn't like to point to someone in specific.

And now some reasons why he may have found me trustworthy:
1) I purchased his copy of book on 8PM , he started uploading it with a password encryption, seems he shut down his computer at 24-26%, so I had to wait for him for over 24 hrs. Quite ironical than his given feedback as it was nothing but a fast trade, but I was patient and did not complain about the delay , which he personally might have found trustworthy.
2) I gave a small review on the ebook which may have helped his coin-making PDF sale business.
3) Based on our PMs, he may have found "trustworthy behavior" in me.
4) We did have a trade, however small it may have been.

I can't speak for other feedbacks though.

All in all, all this drama seems be because how simple it may seem to farm bitcoinspaghetti's trust. Anyway, incase someone thinks I was/am untrustworthy for having (potentially) done this trade for solely positive trust, you are free to give me a Neutral stating so. Or in extreme cases or with strong evidence as to why, feel free to leave a negative as well.

I think you've misinterpreted the thread a bit, it's less to state something like "everyone who bought the eBook is farming trust" and more to say that "this could easily be used to farm trust". Your explanation kind of sucks though, not complaining about a delay isn't what I'd call "trustworthy". And then giving a review? That gives you positive trust? Eh...

The positive feedbacks were because BiPolarBob got neg-repped. They were mainly offset reps to show that his deals were legitimate and that, indeed, we would trust him financially.

[iv4n]

What to think? Maybe that today everything is on sale,even trust. I think there will be always things like this, people like shortcuts. And for people that have money its easy to go on that easier way. I don't think we can do something about this, in a fact they had some kind of trade, and the deal for trust above it. People are free to decide will they do something like that or not, someone makes and offer and that's it.
If u think its not regular, u can give that person a negative feedback and with explanation why others will know how he got this trust.

[mexxer-2]

I think you've misinterpreted the thread a bit, it's less to state something like "everyone who bought the eBook is farming trust" and more to say that "this could easily be used to farm trust".

-snip-
All in all, all this drama seems be because how simple it may seem to farm bitcoinspaghetti's trust.
-snip-

not complaining about a delay isn't what I'd call "trustworthy".

Read my post again

And now some reasons why he may have found me trustworthy:

-snip-

I can't speak for bitcoinspaghetti's feedbacks though. He might have found all the given reasons combined as trustworthy.

The positive feedbacks were because BiPolarBob got neg-repped. They were mainly offset reps to show that his deals were legitimate and that, indeed, we would trust him financially.

$20 deals for $2, seems like throwing money around for trust to me. As for the negative feedbacks that you are talking about I see none, so once again why are the tons of pos feedback in his trust page?
As for the explaining part, yeah I get too jumbled up in my own words so the end result is... well words can't define it.

[shorena]

-snip-
The positive feedbacks were because BiPolarBob got neg-repped. They were mainly offset reps to show that his deals were legitimate and that, indeed, we would trust him financially.

The negativ rep towards BiPolarBob was well explained though. Even if BPB is legit and as far as we can tell there is no possible long con that could make them ROI so we have to assume they are indeed giving away coins. BPB still encourages bad behaviour in blindly trusting someone you have no right to trust.

If you leave a counter rating shouldnt it be removed once its no longer a counter.

---

All in all the trust system is only a guide and should be taken as such. It can give easy references to find old trades of someone, but you should never go by the score.

[DiamondCardz]

The positive feedbacks were because BiPolarBob got neg-repped. They were mainly offset reps to show that his deals were legitimate and that, indeed, we would trust him financially.

$20 deals for $2, seems like throwing money around for trust to me. As for the negative feedbacks that you are talking about I see none, so once again why are the tons of pos feedback in his trust page?
As for the explaining part, yeah I get too jumbled up in my own words so the end result is... well words can't define it.

They were deleted a while ago.

Also, his deals often required you to go first, donate to charity first, etc. The fact that you had to go first so often and the fact that he had been negative repped was more than enough to warrant positive rep.

You have put forward a straw-man argument. When people are concerned about the possible nonchalant giving away of positive rep which could result in unsavoury people abusing it (NOT EVERYONE), you jump in to refute something that seems to be a similar argument but actually is simply you trying to defend why you were given positive rep (which no-one actually really cares about) and attack why BiPolarBob was given rep (jesus, man, most of his stuff was also to help charity).

[redsn0w]

If you trust an user with only 0.0301 btc (trade) then there is a big problem ... (however it doesn't mean that all the community should trust him). It is only a positive comment about the trade, nothing else.



This :

....

All in all the trust system is only a guide and should be taken as such. It can give easy references to find old trades of someone, but you should never go by the score.

[XinXan]

If you trust an user with only 0.0301 btc (trade) then there is a big problem ... (however it doesn't mean that all the community should trust him). It is only a positive comment about the trade, nothing else.



This :

....

All in all the trust system is only a guide and should be taken as such. It can give easy references to find old trades of someone, but you should never go by the score.

Yes but the problem is when a DT member is the one who leaves the positive comment because it's not only a comment, it makes the other person green which indicates that person is someone trusted. Of course if everyone read trust comments instead of just looking if it's green or red this would be different but most newbies do not do that.

[bitcoin revo]

If you trust an user with only 0.0301 btc (trade) then there is a big problem ... (however it doesn't mean that all the community should trust him). It is only a positive comment about the trade, nothing else.

Yeah, but there is a secondary reason for adding a trust feedback. Look at the image in this post. You could have just had a successful trade with another person to add trust.

That said, there are people who may be farming trust by buying that ebook. I have nothing against positive reps for a single trade, but from the large amount of scammers coming in, it's good to be paranoid against these things.

I mean, people like Indianacoin have just one other positive feedback (untrusted), for a sum of two positive feedbacks in total. I'm not calling him out or saying that he's trust farming, but isn't that a bit weird to the rest of you guys?

All in all the trust system is only a guide and should be taken as such. It can give easy references to find old trades of someone, but you should never go by the score.

That's what should happen, definitely. But let's be honest; do people do that? Unfortunately, they don't. If they see a light green trust rating, they're immediately fine with going first; simply because the trust system is overrated like that.

[Sourgummies]

If you trust an user with only 0.0301 btc (trade) then there is a big problem ... (however it doesn't mean that all the community should trust him). It is only a positive comment about the trade, nothing else.

Yeah, but there is a secondary reason for adding a trust feedback. Look at the image in this post. You could have just had a successful trade with another person to add trust.

That said, there are people who may be farming trust by buying that ebook. I have nothing against positive reps for a single trade, but from the large amount of scammers coming in, it's good to be paranoid against these things.

I mean, people like Indianacoin have just one other positive feedback (untrusted), for a sum of two positive feedbacks in total. I'm not calling him out or saying that he's trust farming, but isn't that a bit weird to the rest of you guys?

All in all the trust system is only a guide and should be taken as such. It can give easy references to find old trades of someone, but you should never go by the score.

That's what should happen, definitely. But let's be honest; do people do that? Unfortunately, they don't. If they see a light green trust rating, they're immediately fine with going first; simply because the trust system is overrated like that.

Indeed. You should be able to give trust if you trust the person for some reason other than a direct trade, but these small purchases and transactions should be voided.

I don't think anybody should be receiving positive trust for something as simple as buying an eBook, and it does raise suspicions as to people's true intentions from buying it.

In my personal opinion, for anyone who chooses to trade with someone (even if they have some green trust) research needs to be done thoroughly.
If they choose not to do so, well... Ignorance isn't bliss.

[bill gator]

I'm going to have to say this can easily be abused and should be stopped before it becomes a detriment to the community.
It's always a shame when someone doing a good deed, such as trusting somebody who was pleasant to deal with can suddenly turn against you when that person farms trust to scam.

I appreciate what he's attempting to do, however it needs to be addressed and neutral ratings would be much more suitable.

[Cereberus]

Just set a limit on the amount that can be given for dispensing trust. Say a trade for 1+ btc just to round it off.

[Dorrittulx]

I bought his eBook, and I am more than happy with what I got. We all know how the trust system works here... it's the opposite of flawless. I think it's more than fair to leave green trust for a legitimate trade, however big. Setting limits would be ridiculous. I think bigtimespaghetti should be able to do whatever he wants. In my views, those users only got a small +1 on the far right, and that's it.

Who is more likely to scam? The user who has done successful deals in the past, or the user who has done none.