Trust system abused by caring, overzealous members.

[biggbox]

No doubt the bitcoin world is shady and there are a bunch of misguided and malicious individuals using bitcoins as an accessory for criminal activity. I can understand the cynical nature of most forum members in this forum.

The purpose of the trust system is to vote down potentially malicious users with ill intents or dishonest activities. However, the level of cynicism has driven some users to vote down any other members. It is mainly to be used for trade-related activities

I created a thread in the Bitcoin main discussion forum to discuss the pros and cons of interest-generating non-ponzi sites. It was shifted to invested-based games by a moderator and subsequently I got voted down by a caring but over-zealous member who demanded me to remove the discussion so that he will remove the negative trust. Isn't that blackmail?

In one of the replies in the discussion, it appears that a China based site that was listed is being doubted just because the management of the site is relatively unheard of in the western world. We all know the bulk of the processing power these days are based in China, as much as I don't approve it, this is the trend. Even Genesis-Mining has an office in Hong Kong.

Anyway, my main point - are there ways to improve the Trust system to prevent it from being overused by members who care about the BTC community?

If such situation continues, will there be members who are willing to share views without fear of being voted down?

The discussion in question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1479767.msg14916191#msg14916191
My trust rating comment by over-zealous member: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=548570

[1714120195]

1714120195

[1714120195]

1714120195

[1714120195]

1714120195

[Your Point Is Invalid]

No doubt the bitcoin world is shady and there are a bunch of misguided and malicious individuals using bitcoins as an accessory for criminal activity. I can understand the cynical nature of most forum members in this forum.

The purpose of the trust system is to vote down potentially malicious users with ill intents or dishonest activities. However, the level of cynicism has driven some users to vote down any other members. It is mainly to be used for trade-related activities

I created a thread in the Bitcoin main discussion forum to discuss the pros and cons of interest-generating non-ponzi sites. It was shifted to invested-based games by a moderator and subsequently I got voted down by a caring but over-zealous member who demanded me to remove the discussion so that he will remove the negative trust. Isn't that blackmail?

In one of the replies in the discussion, it appears that a China based site that was listed is being doubted just because the management of the site is relatively unheard of in the western world. We all know the bulk of the processing power these days are based in China, as much as I don't approve it, this is the trend. Even Genesis-Mining has an office in Hong Kong.

Anyway, my main point - are there ways to improve the Trust system to prevent it from being overused by members who care about the BTC community?

If such situation continues, will there be members who are willing to share views without fear of being voted down?

The discussion in question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1479767.msg14916191#msg14916191
My trust rating comment by over-zealous member: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=548570

I agree, crypotodevil is misguided and is blackmailing you, nothing wilol be done though as people are afraid to say anything

[Evildrum]

“To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
― Sun Tzu

I already know what names will flock to this thread in echoing fashion and it will be to drive you back from where you came.
Its a futile fight,go look at past threads on the topic and you will see this is not just members driving this agenda.
So if you can not talk sense in to them,you do the next best thing in encouraging them. Eventually it achieves the same goal in eliminating the trust system.

Or at least adjusting it so that it is not manipulated by those that have it.

Good luck

[Your Point Is Invalid]

“To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
― Sun Tzu

I already know what names will flock to this thread in echoing fashion and it will be to drive you back from where you came.
Its a futile fight,go look at past threads on the topic and you will see this is not just members driving this agenda.
So if you can not talk sense in to them,you do the next best thing in encouraging them. Eventually it achieves the same goal in eliminating the trust system.

Or at least adjusting it so that it is not manipulated by those that have it.

Good luck

you used so many words but said absolutely nothing usefull, zero real input, along with yobit signature which makes most take you for a joke, and your post is 8 times your activity, seems like you trying too hard

[Quickseller]

1 - the thread in question belongs in service discussion, not the ponzi section. The moderator who moved it did so incorrectly.

2 - AFAICT none of the sites in question are ponzis, and there are legitimate ways that the sites in question may be able to make money while risking very little and paying the agreed upon interest.

3 - Cryptodevil has zero business being in the DefaultTrust network as he has zero trading experience on here, gives inaccurate trust ratings, is not open to receiving any kind of feedback and trolls anyone who disagrees with him.

Edit: I would suggest that you report the subject thread to a moderator saying that it belongs in service discussion.

[Blazed]

I agree OP should not have gotten negative trust over this. He clearly stated to invest at your own risk etc...

[Your Point Is Invalid]

I agree OP should not have gotten negative trust over this. He clearly stated to invest at your own risk etc...

Flawed logic, people in your trust list give negative ratings for people posting in the investor based section although there is a clear warning at the top of the board there. You cant criticize cryptodevil, you are in the same boat

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Cryptodevil is definitely a dick and I think he should be removed from DT as well.  His level of trolling/bullying goes beyond obnoxious with the result that we're seeing here.  I solved part of the problem by putting him on ignore, but his trust feedback carries weight because he's on DT and that doesn't help OP. 

[Blazed]

I agree OP should not have gotten negative trust over this. He clearly stated to invest at your own risk etc...

Flawed logic, people in your trust list give negative ratings for people posting in the investor based section although there is a clear warning at the top of the board there. You cant criticize cryptodevil, you are in the same boat

Where did I criticize him? I simply said I did not agree with that rating. I am not in any boat...just giving my opinion...I feel your point was invalid.

[Quickseller]

I agree OP should not have gotten negative trust over this. He clearly stated to invest at your own risk etc...

Maybe you should consider excluding cryptodevil from your trust list as he has a pretty long history of inaccurate ratings, and leaving negative trust for those who are clearly not scammers. While you are at it, you might as well exclude Dooglus as well as he has a history of extorting people into paying him in exchange for him removing negative ratings, as well as a history of promoting sites that end up stealing millions of dollars worth of Bitcoin that they were entrusted with because of dooglus's endorsements.

[Your Point Is Invalid]

I agree OP should not have gotten negative trust over this. He clearly stated to invest at your own risk etc...

Flawed logic, people in your trust list give negative ratings for people posting in the investor based section although there is a clear warning at the top of the board there. You cant criticize cryptodevil, you are in the same boat

Where did I criticize him? I simply said I did not agree with that rating. I am not in any boat...just giving my opinion...I feel your point was invalid.

crit·i·cism
ˈkridəˌsizəm/
noun
1.
the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.

are you sure you arent criticizing him?

[biggbox]

1 - the thread in question belongs in service discussion, not the ponzi section. The moderator who moved it did so incorrectly.

2 - AFAICT none of the sites in question are ponzis, and there are legitimate ways that the sites in question may be able to make money while risking very little and paying the agreed upon interest.

3 - Cryptodevil has zero business being in the DefaultTrust network as he has zero trading experience on here, gives inaccurate trust ratings, is not open to receiving any kind of feedback and trolls anyone who disagrees with him.

Edit: I would suggest that you report the subject thread to a moderator saying that it belongs in service discussion.

Thanks. I wonder how does the DefaultTrust system works, and how do members get into this network?

Thank you for the suggestion, I will send a private message to moderators of Main bitcoin discussion and Investor-related forum to seek their opinion and advice.

I don't think I should succumb to blackmail attempts by cryptodevil, although I believe his original intentions of flagging the discussion was well.

[Quickseller]

I don't think I should succumb to blackmail attempts by cryptodevil, although I believe his original intentions of flagging the discussion was well.

I can assure you that they are not. It is no secret that the "investments" offered in the ponzi section are well, ponzis and that any money "invested" is more likely then not going to be stolen. Cryptodevil is simply giving negative trust to anyone who so much as discusses something that he does not want people participating in. The vast majority of people he has left negative trust for are not by any stretch scammers.

[biggbox]

Hi all,

Please do not get into arguments over this matter.

I think firstly, the over-zealous, cynical and trigger-happy behaviour by crytodevil should stop. He was probably embolden by his default trust status, whatever that is.

I am a victim of ponzi-scammers too. If cryptodevil were to search through my first few naive post in this forum, he should see that I was a victim of coin-face dot com. I have also warned members and new comers to stay away from ponzis and I have flagged to moderators that ponzi site owners are abusing the system: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1476341.msg14893296#msg14893296

Like many have mentioned here, the Trust system has probably been misused but the system is the best the community has against those with dubious intention.

[hilariousandco]

Moved it to SD.

[Operatr]

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. -John Dalberg-Acton

But any member of the DT1 or DT2 who gets caught trying to extort people in any way, should be removed immediately.

So create your own "trust list" and modify your trust settings accordingly. The "TRUST" system really only works if you and other users actually start adding and/or excluding users  accordingly, took me almost a year to kind of figure this out. Once that happens? The corrupt DT's will eventual be weeded out and you will NOT even see the effects of their corruption because they have been excluded, like an "out of sight, out of mind" type thing. But anyone who actually takes the time to examine the actions of some of these corrupt DT's can see right through the ulterior motives, their entire attitude and demeanor changes as soon as they have SOME forum "power" :-)

Maybe @Theymos can eventually employ some DT MOD's as well to keep DT corruption/extortion at bay. Imagine how much MORE police corruption there would be if there were NO INTERNAL AFFAIRS division? Same type of thing can (and most likely will) happen here.

But in the END OP? Don't stress the small stuff, just start excluding and IGNORING the corrupt DT's all together. The VERY LAST thing that will matter to you on your death bed will be the opinion or ratings of Cryptodevil...lol

[biggbox]

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. -John Dalberg-Acton

But any member of the DT1 or DT2 who gets caught trying to extort people in any way, should be removed immediately.

So create your own "trust list" and modify your trust settings accordingly. The "TRUST" system really only works if you and other users actually start adding and/or excluding users  accordingly, took me almost a year to kind of figure this out. Once that happens? The corrupt DT's will eventual be weeded out and you will NOT even see the effects of their corruption because they have been excluded, like an "out of sight, out of mind" type thing. But anyone who actually takes the time to examine the actions of some of these corrupt DT's can see right through the ulterior motives, their entire attitude and demeanor changes as soon as they have SOME forum "power" :-)

Maybe @Theymos can eventually employ some DT MOD's as well to keep DT corruption/extortion at bay. Imagine how much MORE police corruption there would be if there were NO INTERNAL AFFAIRS division? Same type of thing can (and most likely will) happen here.

But in the END OP? Don't stress the small stuff, just start excluding and IGNORING the corrupt DT's all together. The VERY LAST thing that will matter to you on your death bed will be the opinion or ratings of Cryptodevil...lol

Haha. Yes you are right. It is not worth getting upset over it. Thank you.

But I urge the forum management review and re-organise the whole list of DefaultTrust members and perhaps re-evaluate the Trust system.

[cryptodevil]

As far as I can see there is absolutely no good reason to promote these operations. If they want to work to earn customers they can do so themselves without you creating a random list which will likely end up simply being a collection of scams with one or two legitimate services.

Each one should have it's own thread where they can work to prove themselves as not being ponzis. The legit ones will fare well enough under scrutiny and the fraudulent scams will quickly be exposed as such.

By all means, please explain why the bold paragraph isn't a reasonable resolution and, please, don't get all pissy about an issue being made out of people promoting services which are extremely high risk of scamming. I delete ratings where users cooperate and seek to resolve the problem. Simply calling for the choir of the usual suspects to begin their poo-flinging while they pretend like they don't have an ulterior motive for complaining about me shutting their shit down isn't going to solve anything.

Why promote them when you yourself aren't sure, whether they're safe or not?

^^^This.

[electronicash]

why promote those interest earning sites, i can understand if its your site but seeing you mentioned "Use them at your own risk" means you don't trust them yourself.
i don't take sides though but you may have to evaluate before posting so.

[Evildrum]

As far as I can see there is absolutely no good reason to promote these operations. If they want to work to earn customers they can do so themselves without you creating a random list which will likely end up simply being a collection of scams with one or two legitimate services.

Each one should have it's own thread where they can work to prove themselves as not being ponzis. The legit ones will fare well enough under scrutiny and the fraudulent scams will quickly be exposed as such.

By all means, please explain why the bold paragraph isn't a reasonable resolution and, please, don't get all pissy about an issue being made out of people promoting services which are extremely high risk of scamming. I delete ratings where users cooperate and seek to resolve the problem. Simply calling for the choir of the usual suspects to begin their poo-flinging while they pretend like they don't have an ulterior motive for complaining about me shutting their shit down isn't going to solve anything.

Why promote them when you yourself aren't sure, whether they're safe or not?

^^^This.

As bad as things are I still believe there needs to be a separation from accuser being the judge and jury as well.
You can cut the way you see trust many ways,for me I see it as extortion to make people submit to the thumb or face potential damage to their account.
Could we not set up a mediator for passing judgement,might help address the issue of fairness.

Lot of these accounts are newbies just starting out so I hate this to be one of their first dealings with the forum.