Bitcoin Forums should eliminate 'Scammer' ratings and 'Trust' ratings

[tinus42]

The scammer tag should go. Old scammers will still bear the tag but new ones won't get them. That may fool some newbs that someone isn't a scammer because they don't have a scammer tag.

[1715660076]

1715660076

[1715660076]

1715660076

[1715660076]

1715660076

[PrintMule]

So far trust ratings were really helpful for me personally.

It's a fastest way to tag/report someone too.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Satoshi never said Bitcoin eliminates the need to trust the OTHER party.  I mean think about it, you always need to trust the other party.  You send me coins, I don't send you good.  Oops you lose.  Or you send goods, I don't send coins.  Oops you lose again.


If you are going to quote the "man" at least quote him correctly.

1. Introduction
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as
trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for
most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.
Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot
avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the
minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions,
and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible
services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of
their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need.  A certain
percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be
avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over
a communications channel without a trusted party.

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.

Without a trusted third party.  i.e.

You <----> Me

vs

You <----> PayPal <----> Me

Bitcoin eliminates the need for the trusted third part (as in not the buyer or seller) it doesn't and never will eliminate the need for trust in commerce.

[wolverine.ks]

lets assume a few things...

(1) a transaction occurs
(2) both parties benefit if the transaction occurs.
(3) if either party (attempts or successfully) scams the other, each party will be less well off than if neither party scammed.
(4) there is no additional cost as compared to an identical transaction that does not include item (3).

would this transaction be preferable to an identical transaction that does not include item (3)?

[ahfs6298]

One of the reasons people use bitcoin or any crypto currency is to eliminate the need to trust the other party.

The use of scammer ratings and trust ratings increases the ability of people to rely on trust in their transactions.

BitcoinTalk forums should remove all references to scamming, scammers, scams, trust and the like, in order to decrease the community's ability to rely on trust, and encourage business models that are transparent and do not rely on trust.

Thoughts?

I'm pretty sure the whole world economy and pretty much every business that ever existed is built on trust, I mean even being friends with someone means to trust in them, so if you have a better idea, feel free to say so, but removing the scammer tag will only cause other issues, and also how can anybody trade if they cannot trust one another?

[Flashman]

You don't have to trust that a bitcoin isn't counterfeit, or will evaporate like fairy gold, or a central bank will devalue it overnight, or that the other party will reverse the transaction after completion... but you DO have to trust that they will give you the coin or the goods in the first place!

[theonewhowaskazu]

One of the reasons people use bitcoin or any crypto currency is to eliminate the need to trust the other party.

The use of scammer ratings and trust ratings increases the ability of people to rely on trust in their transactions.

BitcoinTalk forums should remove all references to scamming, scammers, scams, trust and the like, in order to decrease the community's ability to rely on trust, and encourage business models that are transparent and do not rely on trust.

Thoughts?

I think that users should be able to post 'scam'/'trust' etc... because (1) preventing them from doing so == censorship =/= good, and (2) trust is an important part of any financial deal.

That said, I think trust ratings don't work remotely well. If possible, we could have some forum where people can open up ONE THREAD PER USER either posting positive feedback or negative feedback, or just have the existing trust system but without the 'default trust' users.

[Stunna]

Unfortunately not all deals can or do involve collateral which is why these ratings are invaluable. There are countless inaccurate ratings made daily, but as a whole the system seems to work decently at protecting newbies from scammers.

[waqas]

Unfortunately not all deals can or do involve collateral which is why these ratings are invaluable. There are countless inaccurate ratings made daily, but as a whole the system seems to work decently at protecting newbies from scammers.

most of peoples talking about eliminate or system is not good but no person giving good feedbacks for this system how this could be good and secure its more important then elimination or something like this

[Dealer]

It's designed to remove the need to put all your trust in banks and governments. People never started using Bitcoins thinking they can just freely send it around in trades and never get scammed. Something has to be there to encourage trading with the right person. In this case, scammer and trust ratings. I think it's a good idea.

[Oldgamer]

Okay if you want people to scam you for your money, then you ignore the rating and trade with everyone (incl. the ones with a scammer tag).
I know that I wanna have the lowest possible risk when trading.

+1
Exactly, if you think that scam tag is not good - just do not pay attention on this tag and trade like it is not there.

[moderate]

Please keep these tags and always show the trust rating. You might also want to add a TROLL tag, as it is impossible to stand certain sub-forums around here. People might stop replying to trolls if they are clearly tagged as such.

[gweedo]

Please keep these tags and always show the trust rating. You might also want to add a TROLL tag, as it is impossible to stand certain sub-forums around here. People might stop replying to trolls if they are clearly tagged as such.

Can you define a troll? Cause what some people call a troll, other people call a smart person. In my case people call me a troll and some people call me a very smart visionary of the future of bitcoins You can't tag something that has a very loose definition.

[moderate]

Please keep these tags and always show the trust rating. You might also want to add a TROLL tag, as it is impossible to stand certain sub-forums around here. People might stop replying to trolls if they are clearly tagged as such.

Can you define a troll? Cause what some people call a troll, other people call a smart person. In my case people call me a troll and some people call me a very smart visionary of the future of bitcoins You can't tag something that has a very loose definition.

The same applies to the scammer and trust ratings. The scammer might have had personal issues that caused him to be marked as a scammer, but maybe he was a very honest person. Since you are creating situations, I'm feeling free to create them too. The trust rating may be applied among a group of friends, creating the illusion that a person is trusted by the whole community. You can't tag something that goes beyond what you can evaluate here, uhm ?

Here is an actual troll: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140852

[darkmule]

Trust ratings are important, but I'm not convinced the ones on BCT are worth anything.  The "scammer" tag seems reserved only for people who rip off the people who run the site.  You can rip off anyone else with impunity, as I've found, and no matter how blatant the scam (basically a MoneyPak trader who NEVER delivered and was a pure ripoff), they don't get a scammer tag.

[malevolent]

Trust ratings are important, but I'm not convinced the ones on BCT are worth anything.  The "scammer" tag seems reserved only for people who rip off the people who run the site.  You can rip off anyone else with impunity, as I've found, and no matter how blatant the scam (basically a MoneyPak trader who NEVER delivered and was a pure ripoff), they don't get a scammer tag.

Scammer tags are no longer "awarded" since the introduction of the trust ratings which serves as a replacement for the scammer tags, and people can now rely on their own due diligence and the judgement of people within their trust lists. Theymos now also doesn't need to spend time on looking through the evidence and deciding whether someone deserves a tag or not, which could have eventually become dull with more scam artists flooding the forums this spring.

[moderate]

Please keep these tags and always show the trust rating. You might also want to add a TROLL tag, as it is impossible to stand certain sub-forums around here. People might stop replying to trolls if they are clearly tagged as such.

Can you define a troll? Cause what some people call a troll, other people call a smart person. In my case people call me a troll and some people call me a very smart visionary of the future of bitcoins You can't tag something that has a very loose definition.

The same applies to the scammer and trust ratings. The scammer might have had personal issues that caused him to be marked as a scammer, but maybe he was a very honest person. Since you are creating situations, I'm feeling free to create them too. The trust rating may be applied among a group of friends, creating the illusion that a person is trusted by the whole community. You can't tag something that goes beyond what you can evaluate here, uhm ?

Here is an actual troll: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140852

No cause a scammer can always talk to the lender and try to work out a payment plan or even better give up an item of the value they are trying to seek. If they have issues and don't communicate them, then they should be a scammer, they took money and due to the situation they couldn't pay. A troll is someone who voices an opinion and is labeled that cause people don't like him for that opinion very different things here.

It could be that the supposed scammer just lost internet connection, for whatever reason. A troll can be clearly labeled, just like a scammer supposedly can.

[DeathAndTaxes]

One of the reasons people use bitcoin or any crypto currency is to eliminate the need to trust the other party.

Starting from a flawed premise.  The stated purpose of Bitcoin is to allow transactions without a TRUSTED THIRD PARTY.   Most transactions involve trust of the counterparty.  Even if it is a cash for BTC trade in person in a public place you need to trust the other party isn't going to hit you over the head with a crowbar and take both the BTC and cash.

[wolverine.ks]

correct. my mistake.
 that is what I was intending.

in the case of scammer tags and trust ratings the user must trust bitcoin talks approval of the scammer tag and the people making the ratings.

my understanding is that the scammer tags are no longer in use, and a distributed evaluation in the form of trust ratings are less easily corruptible.

I think the trust ratings are a step in the right direction, but they might be a little misleading. I think it would be easily perceived as a probability that a user is a scammer or probability that a user is not a scammer. this is definitely not the case.

it should be viewed as reputational currency. how much RC do they stand to lose if they scam, and compare that to the actual gains of a scam. this calculation is nearly impossible to calculate. at least with the current rating system.

[Oldgamer]

correct. my mistake.
 that is what I was intending.

in the case of scammer tags and trust ratings the user must trust bitcoin talks approval of the scammer tag and the people making the ratings.

my understanding is that the scammer tags are no longer in use, and a distributed evaluation in the form of trust ratings are less easily corruptible.

I think the trust ratings are a step in the right direction, but they might be a little misleading. I think it would be easily perceived as a probability that a user is a scammer or probability that a user is not a scammer. this is definitely not the case.

it should be viewed as reputational currency. how much RC do they stand to lose if they scam, and compare that to the actual gains of a scam. this calculation is nearly impossible to calculate. at least with the current rating system.

I believe that scammer tag should stay forever, does not matter if it is happened only once. That way people will think twice before scam. Also, I want to know if the party scammed even once. No need to have "Not a scammer" tag, cause it does not mean anything. Yesterday was not a scammer - today is.