Marketplace trust

[theymos]

That's the way it does work. Theymos trusts Vezunchik through a middleman, but Veunchik is abusing the system. This is a problem, especially when it's theymos, because he has the default trust list. It's up to him to fix it, and it highlights the problem with the default trust not being empty.

This rating isn't visible by default. Things are a little different from how they originally were: By default, you trust "DefaultTrust", not me directly. So it's not a problem for the default trust network when someone in my trust list has a bad trust list unless they're also trusted by DefaultTrust (which DeaDTerra is not).

Wait you want theymos to change how he trust people, that is a little messed up. That isn't how it should work.

No, that's reasonable. This system isn't perfect: it's more of a "choose your own moderator" system than a true web of trust. Anyone in your trust list should be someone who carefully maintains their trust network and watches for bad ratings. (I will create tools to make it easier to watch for good/bad ratings in and out of your trust network.) It's OK to alert these people when there's something wrong IMO.

Problems like this one with Garr255 will become less of an issue as time goes on, though. It'll be very difficult for someone to get a negative trust score unless they're fairly new. I don't believe that any trust scoring system can accurately rate people when they've been around for a long time and gained a lot of trust. Either negative trust scores will become so prevalent as to be meaningless, or everyone who's been around for a long time will be able to easily scam for at least several weeks before getting negative trust scores. To solve this, I think I'll create a separate arbitration system using scammer tags; with this, even if you have a trust score of one million, you'll get a scammer tag if you lose in arbitration.

Theymos.... do you ever consider admitting to yourself that someone in a position of authority (such as yourself) is more appropriate to judge the trustworthiness of other individuals involved in the transaction precisely because you don't give half a shit about them? It's easy to "care about justice" as a juror... but it's much more difficult when you have a gun to the head of your wife's murderer. When it's a puzzle, it's easy and objective. The worst thing you could do would be to allow those involved in transactions to rate others -- to give them the gun.

The trust system is meant to defend against scammers and alts of scammers who don't have significant previous trade history. (Currently, Garr255 doesn't have much trade history according to the trust system.) It's a scammer early warning system and a database of trade info that people can use as part of a trust judgement. Justice needs to be done with something else.

[Maged]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=44233

not that i really care but one guy as a joke listed me as a scammer 3 times. what will this do to my rating? 3x as bad or just normal?

Theymos silently changed it to only count once late last week, I believe. That being said, the rating is untrusted off of the default trust graph, so I wouldn't worry about it.

[Chuck]

If you don't tick the 'scammed' box, it's positive feedback and they get a +1.

I don't think people understand this.

See this one:   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=114684

5 feedbacks that say "scammer", but they did not check the Scammed checkbox for whatever reason.


Maybe instead, a radio button?

"I rate this person : ( )Postive  ( )Negative"

[FCTaiChi]

People may argue that this doesn't matter, but any person scrolling through a trust list seeing a bunch of red is going to be affected.  Whether or not they trust the person who gave the feedback.

[pekv2]

Imo, it's working pretty well and is very informative.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=58873

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=58873

[freedomno1]

Imo, it's working pretty well and is very informative.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=58873

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=58873

By the way are we trusted feedback on ourselves by default since I see two lists trusted feedback and untrusted feeback
See John K and Badbear as trusted and myself but don't remember making a trust list

[manic]

Imo, it's working pretty well and is very informative.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=58873

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=58873

By the way are we trusted feedback on ourselves by default since I see two lists trusted feedback and untrusted feeback
See John K and Badbear as trusted and myself but don't remember making a trust list

By default everyone trusts DefaultTrust, if you go to your trust settings you will see who is included.. You will see any feedback you leave for someone else as trusted because you trust yourself

[theymos]

By the way are we trusted feedback on ourselves by default since I see two lists trusted feedback and untrusted feeback
See John K and Badbear as trusted and myself but don't remember making a trust list

Yes. You trust yourself regardless of whether you're actually in your trust network.

[Chuck]

Imo, it's working pretty well and is very informative.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=58873

100% of the feedback is negative yet 50% didn't check the 'scammed' box. Does that mean they gave positive feedback accidentally?

[nimda]

Imo, it's working pretty well and is very informative.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=58873

100% of the feedback is negative yet 50% didn't check the 'scammed' box. Does that mean they gave positive feedback accidentally?

Yes.

The UI needs to be fixed. Go from a checkbox, default "not scammed," to a radio button without a default, and don't accept feedback until the user makes a selection.

[freedomno1]

Imo, it's working pretty well and is very informative.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=58873

100% of the feedback is negative yet 50% didn't check the 'scammed' box. Does that mean they gave positive feedback accidentally?

Yes.

The UI needs to be fixed. Go from a checkbox, default "not scammed," to a radio button without a default, and don't accept feedback until the user makes a selection.

Oh mumbles goes to edit my post lol and done

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

When will the rating of the person who left the feedback be shown? People who call out scammers tend to have some made up ratings by scammers..

[freedomno1]

When will the rating of the person who left the feedback be shown? People who call out scammers tend to have some made up ratings by scammers..

On OTC supa went around calling every one a scammer. But it showed his rating of like neg 500 so people ignored it.

It would be helpful to add.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225059.40

Well we have to trust the person to see the - point but I agree with Fortress

When will the rating of the person who left the feedback be shown? People who call out scammers tend to have some made up ratings by scammers..

[Raize]

Can the "scammer" box be turned into a "negative" rating? Bulanula didn't "scam" me, he's just refusing to return the 22.5 BTC. It sounds like I did this wrong by everyone else's assessment?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=11905

Should I just check the box anyway?

[El Cabron]

Can the "scammer" box be turned into a "negative" rating? Bulanula didn't "scam" me, he's just refusing to return the 22.5 BTC. It sounds like I did this wrong by everyone else's assessment?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=11905

Should I just check the box anyway?

Most people here seem to think that unless people trust you it does not matter. No one will see it anyway

[Chuck]

Someone left me, and many others, scam rating, and now they are offering a pay service to remove it

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228812.msg2409094#msg2409094

Remove Negative Feedback
Have an unprompted scammer feedback? Most likely it is from our team.

We can remove negative feedback (delete it) for just $99.99.

Ugh.

Theymos said he won't remove false Marketplace feedback (unless they do 100's), but I really wish there was an exception for people like this who are super-obvious scammers.

[legendster]

Looks pretty cool, however I'm not confident that this will reduce the amount of scams going on. Newbies seems to trust other newbies no matter how fishy it is.

Do you get a notification when someone trusts you?

I didnt. Basically its a system that anyone can abuse based on what they 'THINK' of the person, I already have -4 without even scamming 1 guy - My fault was listing 2 loan applications and obviously trying to collect contacts to sell high end cars - this despite having 4 trades on the forum already.

I m not here to whine about it, but just to let you guys know that this system is purely based on other people's perspective of you rather than your real stats, the fact whether you are a scammer or not doesnt matter.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

That's true. I also think something needs to be done for frivolous accusations or those made by scammers. It could be hiding feedback by users with a negative rating by default.

Otherwise, it creates an environment where people are somewhat punished for calling out scammers, viruses, etc.

For example:

saudibull < mad that I called out his scam.
UniversalTrek < mad that I called out his scam.
MoneypakTrader.com < I don't need to say more on this user.
Aosana < mad after I've banned him on CoinChat for being abusive, and dozen counts of ban evasion

[Welsh]

I don't understand the trust system. I have had two successful trades, however. they have given good comments etc. But my feedback which I have received is under 'untrusted feedback' any idea why? Did they input it wrong?

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

I don't understand the trust system. I have had two successful trades, however. they have given good comments etc. But my feedback which I have received is under 'untrusted feedback' any idea why? Did they input it wrong?

You do not trust them, so they are in untrusted feedback. As you haven't trusted anyone (trusting someone is different from leaving feedback), you are trusting DefaultTrust. DefaultTrust has not trusted those persons. Otherwise, people could make sockpuppets and easily game the system.