Marketplace trust

[deslok]

Edit:
Imo, that would be a form of lieing.

No, because the "Risked BTC" field is only meant to indicate how much value you risked. It doesn't matter what currency you used. You could even use that field for a barter transaction where no BTC was involved.

why not make the field alphanumeric then at allow it to be risked value, let people denominate it in whatever they want.

[1714164975]

1714164975

[1714164975]

1714164975

[1714164975]

1714164975

[tysat]

Edit:
Imo, that would be a form of lieing.

No, because the "Risked BTC" field is only meant to indicate how much value you risked. It doesn't matter what currency you used. You could even use that field for a barter transaction where no BTC was involved.

I'm not being shitty, might sound like it, but I'm not. You're entitled to your opinion, as much as I am. Imo, it's considered lieing.

It's not lying, see the wording on the trust page:

Risked BTC amount is money that the person could have stolen or did steal. For example, if you do a currency trade where the other person sends first, your feedback for them would have 0 risked BTC and their feedback for you would have risked BTC equal to the BTC value of the trade.

Notice the bolded/underlined part at the end.  Trying to denominate risked amount in different currencies just adds confusion.

[FCTaiChi]

Good point tysat.  I think his problem with this is that the column is named 'BTC risked'  Whereas this could imply risking your reputation, currency or anything else. 
I'm not sure what it could be, but there may be a very simple solution to this with a slight change in the column's name.  'Value in BTC risked'  'BTC value of transaction'

It's perfectly easy to understand once you know what the column means, but at first glance it can be a bit confusing.

[tysat]

there may be a very simple solution to this with a slight change in the column's name.  'Value in BTC risked'  'BTC value of transaction'

I think this is a good idea.

[pekv2]

why not make the field alphanumeric then at allow it to be risked value, let people denominate it in whatever they want.

This would be really cool.

It's not lying, see the wording on the trust page:

Risked BTC amount is money that the person could have stolen or did steal. For example, if you do a currency trade where the other person sends first, your feedback for them would have 0 risked BTC and their feedback for you would have risked BTC equal to the BTC value of the trade.

Notice the bolded/underlined part at the end.  Trying to denominate risked amount in different currencies just adds confusion.

Oic, my apologies. I'll just use the comment section for other crypto-currencies. I'm sure I will not be the only member needing to go back in time to find out what was what to submit a trust feedback, as this trust system was never put in place in the beginning creation of the forum. I'll drop the subject here.

Thanks, tysat.

[theymos]

why not make the field alphanumeric then at allow it to be risked value, let people denominate it in whatever they want.

Because the numeric value is used in the trust score calculation, so there needs to be a consistent measure of value.

[deslok]

why not make the field alphanumeric then at allow it to be risked value, let people denominate it in whatever they want.

Because the numeric value is used in the trust score calculation, so there needs to be a consistent measure of value.

So people can overvalue their transactions by bartering a lot of high value paperclips(you can get houses for those still right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_red_paperclip

[theymos]

So people can overvalue their transactions by bartering a lot of high value paperclips(you can get houses for those still right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_red_paperclip

Sure, or they could just lie. But their contribution to the trust score is limited, and they might be removed from trust lists for attempting such manipulation.

[GIANNAT]

What happen if a scammer red flag me before going for ever? Will that feedback remain? Does it have any weight?

[tysat]

What happen if a scammer red flag me before going for ever? Will that feedback remain? Does it have any weight?

Feedback only has weight if someone has the person who left it in their trust network.

[freedomno1]

What happen if a scammer red flag me before going for ever? Will that feedback remain? Does it have any weight?

Feedback only has weight if someone has the person who left it in their trust network.

Good to know checking it out looks like a lot of scammer rage flagging on some people

[chriswen]

AWESOME!!!!  This is amazing.

[Birdy]

I think the 'scammed' checkbox needs to be renamed to 'negative feedback' or something similar. I just looked at a few feedback profiles, and see some people are leaving negative feedback for others, but not checking the scam box... which as I understand it, is the same as positive feedback(?)

I wasn't clear on this either, at first. Someone left me false negative feedback, so I wrote feedback for him, but since he didn't scam me, I didn't check the box, and I think it ended up helping him! (I just deleted it and re-did it with the scam checkbox, and now it correctly shows up as red)

Just a thought...

+1 for this, I may distrust people based on  their actions/posts without being scammed myself (e.g. someone posting phishing links).
It would be nice if you could choose between leaving a negative impression and an actual scam report.

[keatonatron]

I think the 'scammed' checkbox needs to be renamed to 'negative feedback' or something similar. I just looked at a few feedback profiles, and see some people are leaving negative feedback for others, but not checking the scam box... which as I understand it, is the same as positive feedback(?)

I wasn't clear on this either, at first. Someone left me false negative feedback, so I wrote feedback for him, but since he didn't scam me, I didn't check the box, and I think it ended up helping him! (I just deleted it and re-did it with the scam checkbox, and now it correctly shows up as red)

Just a thought...

+1 for this, I may distrust people based on  their actions/posts without being scammed myself (e.g. someone posting phishing links).
It would be nice if you could choose between leaving a negative impression and an actual scam report.

I think it can be used like that as is--Post a negative, and just say you risked 0 BTC. People will see your comment if they check out the person's trust, but it won't really affect their number.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

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

[manic]

Extended to PMs and many other boards (Trading discussion and subsections, Mining and subsections, Newbies, alt cryptocurrencies, and some local sections).

Having it here would be nice, would probably benefit the discussion and help with understanding how it works

[ganabb]

trust rating too complicated.

[nimda]

Hey theymos, you trust DeaDTerra, who trusts Vezunchik. The latter has sent this nonsensical negative feedback to Garr255.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=24589

Please either:

• Tell Vezunchik to remove it
• Tell DeaDTerra to remove Vezunchik
• Remove DeaDTerra

Thanks.

[nimda]

Hey theymos, you trust DeaDTerra, who trusts Vezunchik. The latter has sent this nonsensical negative feedback to Garr255.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=24589

Please either:

• Tell Vezunchik to remove it
• Tell DeaDTerra to remove Vezunchik
• Remove DeaDTerra

Thanks.

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

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.

[Kluge]

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.


/devil's curious advocate