Removal of escrow.ms? Update: Recommend users for DT 2, as escrow.ms is removed

[james.lent]

mexxer-2 and RHavar (not completely sure about this one) got added to the DT so he got more positives.

RHavar moved from DT4 to DT3 with mexxer moving from DT3 to DT2.

uh nope. Rhavar is on DT2 with bare DefaultTrust list. not sure who added him as he's not on Blazed's list. (and you're in his list, in case you missed.)

RHavar is in dooglus's trust list

He's the guy who runs moneypot right ?

[Quickseller]

mexxer-2 and RHavar (not completely sure about this one) got added to the DT so he got more positives.

RHavar moved from DT4 to DT3 with mexxer moving from DT3 to DT2.

uh nope. Rhavar is on DT2 with bare DefaultTrust list. not sure who added him as he's not on Blazed's list. (and you're in his list, in case you missed.)

RHavar is in dooglus's trust list

He's the guy who runs moneypot right ?

He ran moneypot before he sold it a few months back. I believe he now only runs bustabit

[calaber24p]

It's very sad to hear about Pankaj , thought I haven't traded with him but he has done many innovative works for circulation of bitcoin in India , I feel shame that he was involved in card frauds.

[theymos]

I tend to think that with the current trust we have three levels of how members should vote. First is untrusted and trusted from someone on default trust 2. Their trust ratings does not really mean much since they only show up on untrusted feedback and very few check there.

Next is default trust 2. Which means you have to be a lot more cautious who you trust now since your trust shows up for everyone. Your trust means you can trust this person and you show this to everyone. So it is not a thing of "a trade went well" anymore. You need to think of the person of someone you somehow got the impression of that you can trust him.

...

That's probably a fairly accurate description, but TBH I'm pretty disappointed that it worked out like that. The purpose of all the complexity in the trust system was to make it decentralized, yet to a very large extent it became centralized in the form of DefaultTrust. I'm tempted to try out my alternate idea for bootstrapping the trust lists of new users which I posted about a while ago just because I find the centralization very annoying, even if the new system might be objectively somewhat worse.

[Heutenamos]

but TBH I'm pretty disappointed that it worked out like that.

You are the one responsible for that.Like there is a chinese saying "there is nothing like a bad student".
DeaDTerra is inactive and most of his list members are,other high level guys dont even know the purpose and all this because of who ?

you are just giving gun to the.......but not N.P to buddha.Remember, the weapon's resulted nothing other than abuse in the history of mankind,the safety had a negligible share.

You know how to give me a great laugh. Though i think you did not mean that too serious anyway. It looks way too impossible anyway.

He is having some pussies to support him lately,don't say anything to them cause the pussy gang is on POWERRRRRRRR!!!!!!!

Honestly i would have supported QS if he would have apologized instead of the "thinking" to do/say anything just to save the reputation.Even in the law if a criminal ever says that he is not guilty then he usually get's a life imprisonment cause he might do the same thing again because he doesn't feels guilty.

You are a good contributor but you clearly explained why you dont deserve to be in control of something.

[smoothie]

Alright, so I was added to DT1 and am willing to add a few users if they truly deserve it (people I have overlooked). Feel free to make suggestions of people I should add (obviously I need reasons).

Edit: I will be very active with my list...

Feel free to add me if I'm not already on that list.

No pressure.

Yeah my green score is dropping...lol who cares as long as I know i'm honest that's all that matters 

[Mickeyb]

Feel free to add me if I'm not already on that list.

No pressure.

Yeah my green score is dropping...lol who cares as long as I know i'm honest that's all that matters 

You're on DT 2, on two DT 1 individuals' list actually. Quite impressive.

[Mitchell]

Smoothie, I wouldn't worry about your trust score.

[SebastianJu]

Started to rework my list. Like others, I was looking at adding users in the wrong way (based on trades). I based my additions on how much they help out and feedback left. I will likely be tweaking this list more very soon. I hope a semi-democratic list helps out around here. Seems like OgNasty being DT1 is pretty much useless according to Theymos's definition of how trust should work since his list is basicly empty?

A way to not give wrong trust too.

Anyway, what is the difference between you giving green trust to a user the normal way and you putting a user into your trust settings? Is it the same basically? If so then you have to be really cautious now. Though i think you already found out.

Well, it looks like a lot of work to me.

If I add someone to my list (like I added you) they become DT2 members and their feedback shows up for everyone. If I leave feedback it is the same as before.

Ah ok, then all normal trust feedback is handled the same way like anyones on default trust 2. The thread sounded a bit like you gave normal trust ratings to members you traded with and that they now automatically were on default trust 2 now that you are on def trust 1.

Good that this is divided.

[SebastianJu]

Anyway, what is the difference between you giving green trust to a user the normal way and you putting a user into your trust settings? Is it the same basically? If so then you have to be really cautious now. Though i think you already found out.

Did you read the post by theymos you replied to? Did you read the thread he linked? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=891261.0
If you give a positive trust to a user, that will result in a change of his trust score for all those users who got you in their trust network. If you're on DT1 or DT2, your ratings will be shown as "trusted" with default settings.
If you put a user into your trust list, that will include him into your trust network and show that users trust ratings as "trusted" for you (and those from users in their trust list,... / depending on your trust depth).

Yeah, I realized now. I thought that someone who is on default trust one and is giving a green trust to someone that this person will automatically be leveled to default trust 2, even when he is not in the trustlist. Though it seems that is divided luckily.

* I will only give one trust rating and try to put all ratings in one rating.

Actually, since trust ages, and only your oldest trust influences the rating, you can easily leave a new trust for every reason you have to give a user a trust rating.
Giving 2 trusts wont affect his score, as giving 2 negs won't either (compared to giving only one of them). Deleting and reposting however, can result in a lower overall score, since the first trust might have already aged.

Yeah, I made some errors by deleting old trust rating so consolidate them back then led to them losing some points.

But i may revise that point. I added it to not clutter the trust ratings with too many ratings though I only would need to give another rating when the trusted amount is considerably higher. Or something like that.

I had to laugh because you are so consistent on holding on your account even though it looks pretty unlikely getting the red trust away.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think QS is back to 0 on default settings.

I think he would still show up red, only his given red would show up again too. I only think going against all these red trust rating will break hell lose. I would not want to be in the persons position who does this. I saw what happened when all those, who felt being treated unfair by QS, saw finally the chance to kill his red trust. It was a mess.

[zazarb]

Started to rework my list. Like others, I was looking at adding users in the wrong way (based on trades). I based my additions on how much they help out and feedback left. I will likely be tweaking this list more very soon. I hope a semi-democratic list helps out around here. Seems like OgNasty being DT1 is pretty much useless according to Theymos's definition of how trust should work since his list is basicly empty?

A way to not give wrong trust too.

Anyway, what is the difference between you giving green trust to a user the normal way and you putting a user into your trust settings? Is it the same basically? If so then you have to be really cautious now. Though i think you already found out.

Well, it looks like a lot of work to me.

If I add someone to my list (like I added you) they become DT2 members and their feedback shows up for everyone. If I leave feedback it is the same as before.

Ah ok, then all normal trust feedback is handled the same way like anyones on default trust 2. The thread sounded a bit like you gave normal trust ratings to members you traded with and that they now automatically were on default trust 2 now that you are on def trust 1.

Good that this is divided.

feedback and adding to trust list absolutely difference things, automatically jump only people in old blazer trust list until he not remove or add new manual.

[mexxer-2]

I had to laugh because you are so consistent on holding on your account even though it looks pretty unlikely getting the red trust away.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think QS is back to 0 on default settings.

I think you are right, i only think going against all these red trust rating will break hell lose. I would not want to be in the persons position who does this. I saw what happened when all those, who felt being treated unfair by QS, saw finally the chance to kill his red trust. It was a mess.

Think you're over-exaggerating here, he probably made bad choices, but here he is, still helping out. He might've even either not be removed from DT at all, or reinstated by now, if not for the negs he has given to a select few people and if he hadn't faked his ban

[SebastianJu]

I had to laugh because you are so consistent on holding on your account even though it looks pretty unlikely getting the red trust away.

I technically have neutral trust right now. However even when I did have "red" trust, (eg a "trade with extreme caution" tag), I was able to participate in signature deals, was able to engage in trades at favorable prices/rates to me, and was entrusted with multiple other people's money in fairly decent amounts. I also feel that I have a decent amount of respect.

Only realized it now, you have -104 or so because of my trust list.

And yes I agree you still have a lot of respect.

I agree you are a good spambuster but you might remember that i at least once spoke against your red trust. I think you gave red trust way too freely. Red trust can practically destroy an account and it seems to me the complaints about your ratings were not only from scammers but from people who genuinely felt their feeling of justice hurt.

I don't think any QS threads were created by anyone who did not have a negative rating from me.

I think that doesn't really matter. There were alot who claimed you give everyone red trust that criticized you so that fact? might be no wonder.

Some people may say that I was quick to leave a negative rating, however I never left a negative rating without evaluating all of the facts and information available to me.

I know, but your evaluating was not seldom of a kind that a big majority disagreed with you and you still held onto your rating because you, for example, felt that someone would have wanted to scam.

I was also very rarely incorrect about someone being a scammer, and when I was outright wrong, I would quickly remove any negative trust that I left when evidence is presented that shows I was wrong (case in point ndnhcas the evidence that I presented stood up to scrutiny for several days, and once ndnhc pointed out something that no one else did I removed my negative rating and apologized).

For the most part I never left negative trust unless something was actually stolen, or if there was a clear attempt to steal (or an alt thereof)

I think the "for the most part" was the problem. I had the feeling of you being stubborn often enough as long as the victim could not provide proof against your rating. Which of course was impossible when you rated on a feeling that someonew wanted to scam only, so no scam happened at all at that time.

But let's not make this thread into a quickseller discussion. I think I wrote all points I think on that point already. Yes I agree with you doing good work as spambuster, only your rating technique is somewhat destructive at times.

[SebastianJu]

I tend to think that with the current trust we have three levels of how members should vote. First is untrusted and trusted from someone on default trust 2. Their trust ratings does not really mean much since they only show up on untrusted feedback and very few check there.

Next is default trust 2. Which means you have to be a lot more cautious who you trust now since your trust shows up for everyone. Your trust means you can trust this person and you show this to everyone. So it is not a thing of "a trade went well" anymore. You need to think of the person of someone you somehow got the impression of that you can trust him.

...

That's probably a fairly accurate description, but TBH I'm pretty disappointed that it worked out like that. The purpose of all the complexity in the trust system was to make it decentralized, yet to a very large extent it became centralized in the form of DefaultTrust. I'm tempted to try out my alternate idea for bootstrapping the trust lists of new users which I posted about a while ago just because I find the centralization very annoying, even if the new system might be objectively somewhat worse.

Yes the trust system is one of the hot topics of critics on the forum. Mostly because of people feeling treated unfair for being rated negatively by people on default trust.

There are suggestions in the room to force people to build their own trust list but somehow I believe that will only lead to newbies not care about adding someone. They would simply see no ratings at all anymore. And forcing them to do so would mean that they would add the same people that are on default trust now, just to get this point done and being able to use the forum.

Bootstrapping would mean an initial trust list, if Iam not wrong, which still would bring critics because people would say newbies will see the ratings from these people the same way like it is with default trust now.

To be honest, I was on the forum for years without touching the trust list because the default trust ratings were a relatively good rating most of the time. At least when the negative trust is a high number it is pretty sure someone is a scammer and that it is not only someone was angered by another person.

I really don't know how this could potentially be solved since if it is not automatic then it would be manual to some extent. And i doubt many would want to do the work checking rating and users out.

There are no alternative trust systems out there where one could learn from i guess. Otherwise it would have been suggested already.

[Heutenamos]

I dont know why QS needs DT as he is already being respected because of the contribution and help, but there is no need for him to start the ESCROW & DT business again in order to help the community.It has no connection at all.There are enough people active for that or if he is doing all this just to get back then again..lol its untrustworthy and he is doing what he doesn't want to just to get to an abusable position.

Continue the good work and some people might still treat you like the old times but the community wont.

There are no alternative trust systems out there where one could learn from i guess.

The best is to show both the negative and positive feedback side by side.This will not only kill the greed for a high score but will also solve the abuse issue cause one user cannot damage anyone's reputation.

There will be a competition if there is an end point on the race track but my suggestion is to put the end point at an infinite distance and just let it be a path where people will/can only walk but wont fight for the position because there is none.We could still have DT levels even then with more weight then others.

[SebastianJu]

I dont know why QS needs DT as he is already being respected because of the contribution and help, but there is no need for him to start the ESCROW & DT business again in order to help the community.It has no connection at all.There are enough people active for that or if he is doing all this just to get back then again..lol its untrustworthy and he is doing what he doesn't want to just to get to an abusable position.

Continue the good work and some people might still treat you like the old times but the community wont.

There are no alternative trust systems out there where one could learn from i guess.

The best is to show both the negative and positive feedback side by side.This will not only kill the greed for a high score but will also solve the abuse issue cause one user cannot damage anyone's reputation.

There will be a competition if there is an end point on the race track but my suggestion is to put the end point at an infinite distance and just let it be a path where people will/can only walk but wont fight for the position because there is none.We could still have DT levels even then with more weight then others.

I thought about a threshold before an account is shown red. So if a user only angered one member on default trust and only that user rated him negatuve then he is not instantly red. Which raises his chance to overcome that red rating with green ratings.

If that red rating is genuine then it would be pretty easy and fast to get other users rate him negative too. By creating a spam accusation thread. Spambusters are very fast on rating then.

The advantage would be that you would need to have more than one peoples judgement to push someone in the negative. It would be a little bit like swarm intelligence. A community court of some kind.

Well, I think alot of complaints could have prevented that way.

[mexxer-2]

There will be a competition if there is an end point on the race track but my suggestion is to put the end point at an infinite distance and just let it be a path where people will/can only walk but wont fight for the position because there is none.We could still have DT levels even then with more weight then others.

Won't that centralize it further? The one at the top would hold the most trust "weight"

I dont know why QS needs DT as he is already being respected because of the contribution and help, but there is no need for him to start the ESCROW & DT business again in order to help the community.It has no connection at all.There are enough people active for that or if he is doing all this just to get back then again..lol its untrustworthy and he is doing what he doesn't want to just to get to an abusable position.

And well, this is a thread for recommending users.

[Heutenamos]

Won't that centralize it further? The one at the top would hold the most trust "weight"

That will be theymos just like now.But one DT user like QS can troll anyone non-DT like pilot' in present Trust system and he will fail in the suggested idea cause there is no rating score but just +- which don't connect each other ever.

And well, this is a thread for recommending users.

It still doesn't explains why he is referring himself

[Timelord2067]

I had to laugh because you are so consistent on holding on your account even though it looks pretty unlikely getting the red trust away.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think QS is back to 0 on default settings.

I think he would still show up red, only his given red would show up again too. I only think going against all these red trust rating will break hell lose. I would not want to be in the persons position who does this. I saw what happened when all those, who felt being treated unfair by QS, saw finally the chance to kill his red trust. It was a mess.

Quicksandseller has been bragging in a separate thread how those he neg reped have been coming to life to scam again since their slates have been wiped clean as it were.

*edit* http://archive.is/JPIKO

similarly, all the scammer notations made by *just* Quickseller are now un-trusted and all the scammer's accounts are now showing neutral again.  (Something the scammers themselves seem to be mercifully unaware of)

I have actually been off of the default trust network for several months now.

In the days after I was officially removed there were a very high number of scammer accounts that logged in after several months of inactivity, many of which made additional scam attempts

2nd edit Lutpin

Quickseller Trust: -15: -5 / +17 Warning: Trade with extreme caution!

[bargainbin]

...

Quickseller Trust: -15: -5 / +17 Warning: Trade with extreme caution!

My "trust" is set to default, this is what I see:



Congratulations, Quickseller!