DefaultTrust is BAD. Very bad.

[Lohoris]

DefaultTrust completely defeats the purpose of having trust handled by the users themselves.
Most users will keep their DefaultTrust setting, hence people who happen to sit in the DefaultTrust list have way too much power.

i.e. I can't leave a negative feedback to someone in that list, because if he'll reitaliate (and he'd likely do, if he deserved the negative feedback in the first place) I'll be labeled as untrustworthy for most users, who likely don't know or care how to setup trust properly.

If the reason why you put in the DefaultTrust is to give some extra protection to the lazy users, there's, for instance, a much better solution: no DefaultTrust, and a big red warning message "You have to setup your trust if you want to be safe" on every page.
That's just a random idea, but even just having no DefaultTrust would be much better than having it instead.

Please remove it, or people on it will be free to ill-behave at will.

[1715493279]

1715493279

[1715493279]

1715493279

[1715493279]

1715493279

[1715493279]

1715493279

[jackjack]

Here's my +1
You'll likely receive others

Nothing will change

[Raize]

Most users will keep their DefaultTrust setting, hence people who happen to sit in the DefaultTrust list have way too much power.

It really is a good newbie trust list. That said, the very first thing I did was remove DefaultTrust and only put in trust levels for folks that I've actually done business with. It didn't some as a surprise to me that my trust list now pretty much looks like DefaultTrust. There's a reason why these folks are trusted, and it's because they are willing to do trades and use the trust system. If you don't like it, start trading and get enough trust going so that you can affect the system.

[Shallow]

What kind of abuses are being committed exactly?

[Lohoris]

It really is a good newbie trust list. That said, the very first thing I did was remove DefaultTrust and only put in trust levels for folks that I've actually done business with. It didn't some as a surprise to me that my trust list now pretty much looks like DefaultTrust. There's a reason why these folks are trusted, and it's because they are willing to do trades and use the trust system. If you don't like it, start trading and get enough trust going so that you can affect the system.

I don't get your point.

My point is that with a DefaultTrust you can't leave a negative feedback on someone who is in DefaultTrust.

You point is?

[elasticband]

the trust system is a failure and abused by several members

[r3wt]

the trust system is a failure and abused by mostseveral members

[jackjack]

Tysat even became red and 'trade with extreme caution' a couple of days ago...

[tysat]

Tysat even became red and 'trade with extreme caution' a couple of days ago...

lol, I did?  Must have been someone who wasn't on my trust list.

[Raize]

I don't get your point.

My point is that with a DefaultTrust you can't leave a negative feedback on someone who is in DefaultTrust.

You point is?

Glad you asked.

My point is, if DefaultTrust gets filled with people who do too much negative ratings spuriously, then a legitimate competitor will emerge. Encourage people to drop DefaultTrust and build your own Trust list. Make a post that highlights all the frivolous ratings by individuals in DefaultTrust and why they are abusing the system. Do it in the newbie thread or here if you want. Bump it daily, encourage others to participate in a "no-coin trust rating system" and eventually you'll have a competitor to DefaultTrust that anyone can use since the default one is so flawed.

You might think there is nothing you can do, but there isn't. You'd be surprised how many people might switch to your list if you could make a good comprehensive argument instead of turning to despair. If you've got examples of people abusing their sitting in Default Trust, make a post highlighting it, or do so via a negative rating and then, when retaliated against, make a thread about it. PM the individuals in DefaultTrust that have those folks in their Trust and ask them why they are giving "power" to someone who is rating spuriously.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if, in the course of the next year, two or three other trust networks develop as reasonable alternatives to DefaultTrust. I also think you seriously underestimate the power of a PM to whoever is including the abusive "reviewer" in their trust list. If you have even a shred of evidence to show someone is being a bully with their trust ratings, then it would be a strong incentive for their trust to be altered.

The onus is on you to prove you are a more reliable source than anyone else. Right now, based on your sent ratings and lack of evidence of even a single BTC worth of trading on the forums, I have to question whether or not you have ever even participated in any legitimate Bitcoin trades.

TLDR;I think the problem you actually have is that you're upset that someone who is great at catching scammers is catching scammers. Prove that assumption wrong, because that's what anyone immediately thinks when they see someone who doesn't have any stake in the game or any proof of participating in legitimate Bitcoin trade complaining about the current system.

(If there's anything you could easily make an argument for, after reviewing your trust, references and etc., is a new auction forum where PM bids are to be ignored except on consequences of the community. I've tried to sell in an auction before twice and regretted accepting the PM bids I was getting in the first one so much that I later did a second one whereby I refused to accept PM bids and told people if they wanted to bid anonymously to just make a new account and I'd try to get their account cleared for bidding. IMHO, there's no "safe" way to do PM-based bidding, someone always gets hurt in the end.)

[SaltySpitoon]

I don't really think the red numbers mean that much. I find the trust system to be more like a personal feedback/suggestion system. If you see someone has negative trusted someone else, you go to the reference, and if its BS you disregard it. That or if someone has been neg'd by Sock9001 I tend to not pay that much attention to that rating either. I'm not sure if the system was meant to work this way, but I believe its evolved into a system where people just leave their thoughts/opinions, and a few times real scam accusations, and whoever is going to make a deal with them is in charge of judging the validity of their trust rating themselves. Even John K has a few negative feedback ratings, and the guy does dare I say tens of thousands of BTC in escrows. The people named NewAccount90210 that say that JohnK scammed them out of 1 BTC tend not to get me to believe it. Just like everything else in this community, you get to judge the validity of peoples claims.

[Lohoris]

TLDR;I think the problem you actually have is that you're upset that someone who is great at catching scammers is catching scammers.

The rest of your post is interesting and reasonable, and I guess I'll answer it properly tomorroy.

This part however just eludes me. I'm absolutely clueless on why you think such a thing, could you elaborate, please? (either here or in private).

[Lohoris]

I don't really think the red numbers mean that much. I find the trust system to be more like a personal feedback/suggestion system.

You don't think they matter, but the average user likely does.
Furthermore, I agree it's personal, and exactly because it's personal it shouldn't have a default.

[Raize]

The rest of your post is interesting and reasonable, and I guess I'll answer it properly tomorroy.

This was in your first post...

I can't leave a negative feedback to someone in that list, because if he'll reitaliate (and he'd likely do, if he deserved the negative feedback in the first place) I'll be labeled as untrustworthy for most users, who likely don't know or care how to setup trust properly.

I am saying to stop and consider this objectionably, first. Is it possible this fictional *he* may not retaliate at all?

The part regarding scammers kind of implies that without any actual transactions, we cannot rule out that you, yourself wouldn't scam. Don't take offense, but it's important to put actually BTC values on trades, even if folks won't reciprocate. For example, look at my sent feedback. I've done hundreds of BTC in transactions with folks, even if they won't confirm such trades happened. Any one of them is open to dispute the fact that I have, or just ignore it (which they are doing ).

I think I do sort of agree that Default trust should never extend beyond folks that have never had actual BTC transactions. In other words, if someone in DefaultTrust cannot prove they lost money or had a good trade, that rating should not be reciprocated or reflected on default trust screens, but the fact of the matter is that theymos took so much crap for so long about not having *any* way to flag these folks, so having something is better than nothing.

[Maged]

i.e. I can't leave a negative feedback to someone in that list, because if he'll reitaliate (and he'd likely do, if he deserved the negative feedback in the first place) I'll be labeled as untrustworthy for most users, who likely don't know or care how to setup trust properly.

If that happened, that person would not remain on the DefaultTrust list for very long. People who are on DefaultTrust have to be very careful with the ratings they give, because a single bad rating could result in them being dropped from the list. Theymos has dropped people from the list on several occasions for much less than what you are describing.

[tysat]

Is it even possible to remove DefaultTrust? When I tried removing it on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust it appears again.

I hate to see people with +100 trust that I don't trust at all.

Yes, but you can't have a blank trust list.  Put someone else there in place of DefaultTrust and it should stick.

[Lohoris]

Well, I meant to put a negative feedback on TradeFortress, I guess I'll have no problem now :O

Thanks to this faulty DefaultTrust system, I feared putting it there before now, see how well it worked.

[zulover]

ive just been hit with this trust thing recently, it hurts especially when the giver is unreasonable and being an arse!!

any way how can i get someone ofe my default trust list so i can rid myself of the red writing? also does and positive feedback and trust impact the negative like on ebay, wipe it away after a while?

[SaltySpitoon]

Guys dont worry tradefortress who stole 4000 btc is on the default trust list!

Right. The Trust system isn't really designed to deal with "long con" situations, but it was performing particularly badly in this case. I changed the algorithm to more severely limit the maximum number of positive trust points you can get per month.

(I'm not saying that TradeFortress is or is not a scammer at this point, but someone with more than 30% negative trust ratings should have a negative trust score.)

I also removed TradeFortress from DefaultTrust (early yesterday), so his entire branch of the trust network is now untrusted by default.

[Damnsammit]

Guys dont worry tradefortress who stole 4000 btc is on the default trust list!

but he said he was hacked!  we should definitely believe him because he is such an outstanding member of the community... blah blah puke...

I think the real question that needs to be answered is how many other members of this forum benefited from the scam?  How much BTC did he pay to gain DefaultTrust? 

[SaltySpitoon]

If you check his trust, you see that Theymos added him to default trust, with the comment, "Responsibly disclosed forum security flaws." so I'd imagine thats how he got on the default trust network.

But really, he had tons of feedback, being on the default trust list I don't really think gave him any additional power after he had an additional 100 people leave good feedback for him. Assuming Tradefortress actually planned the long con if it was one, the default trust wouldn't help him all that much past a certain point.

In all fairness, I believe its just as likely that he staged the hack, as it is it was actually a hack, and now he just can't pay back the Bitcoins. Either way, a lot of people are out money.

[Damnsammit]

If you check his trust, you see that Theymos added him to default trust, with the comment, "Responsibly disclosed forum security flaws." so I'd imagine thats how he got on the default trust network.

Sounds like horse shit to me.

He disclosed security flaws but then his site got "hacked"?  He's a scam artist and Theymos is either a fool or he was in on it.

[Lohoris]

If you check his trust, you see that Theymos added him to default trust, with the comment, "Responsibly disclosed forum security flaws." so I'd imagine thats how he got on the default trust network.

Sounds like horse shit to me.

He disclosed security flaws

It likely means that he "penetration tested" the forum without authorization, and blackmailed the owner to either pay him a bounty or bring it down.

IIRC he has already done things like that in the past.

[Damnsammit]

Default trust... what an oxymoron...

hahahah never thought about it like that, but definitely an oxymoron...

[DiamondCardz]

DefaultTrust would be fine and people wouldn't bitch about it if people weren't added to it just because they're friends of theymos. Fuck, at least have some user input if it's DEFAULT.

I don't even edit my trust list because 90% of the forum will just have DefaultTrust and see my trust as DefaultTrust thinks it should be anyway. No point having 999 people with the same trust list and being the 1 person with a different trust list.

[jackjack]

DefaultTrust would be fine and people wouldn't bitch about it if people weren't added to it just because they're friends of theymos. Fuck, at least have some user input if it's DEFAULT.

I don't even edit my trust list because 90% of the forum will just have DefaultTrust and see my trust as DefaultTrust thinks it should be anyway. No point having 999 people with the same trust list and being the 1 person with a different trust list.

This

[b!z]

I have an idea. Why not have a notification bar at the top of every page that doesn't go away until you've read how the Trust system works, and you've edited your Trust settings?

[DiamondCardz]

"Well hang on, my trust list says you're untrusted..."

"Hm? Mine says that I have +5 rep points and that you have -1..."

"No, it says -5 for you..."

- Why everyone having a different trust list isn't a perfect system.

I agree that having everyone being able to give rep that means something is bad because...look at my rep page, but having those people be exclusively chosen by ~10 people is worse.

[jackjack]

"Well hang on, my trust list says you're untrusted..."

"Hm? Mine says that I have +5 rep points and that you have -1..."

"No, it says -5 for you..."

- Why everyone having a different trust list isn't a perfect system.

I agree that having everyone being able to give rep that means something is bad because...look at my rep page, but having those people be exclusively chosen by ~10 people is worse.

I don't see why everybody should have the same trust about someone...
Why should I trust someone you trust?

You have -1 for me and I have -5 for you? Well I guess we won't trade together. And that's all.

[DiamondCardz]

"Well hang on, my trust list says you're untrusted..."

"Hm? Mine says that I have +5 rep points and that you have -1..."

"No, it says -5 for you..."

- Why everyone having a different trust list isn't a perfect system.

I agree that having everyone being able to give rep that means something is bad because...look at my rep page, but having those people be exclusively chosen by ~10 people is worse.

I don't see why everybody should have the same trust about someone...
Why should I trust someone you trust?

You have -1 for me and I have -5 for you? Well I guess we won't trade together. And that's all.

Hmmm, true.

[jackjack]

"Well hang on, my trust list says you're untrusted..."

"Hm? Mine says that I have +5 rep points and that you have -1..."

"No, it says -5 for you..."

- Why everyone having a different trust list isn't a perfect system.

I agree that having everyone being able to give rep that means something is bad because...look at my rep page, but having those people be exclusively chosen by ~10 people is worse.

I don't see why everybody should have the same trust about someone...
Why should I trust someone you trust?

You have -1 for me and I have -5 for you? Well I guess we won't trade together. And that's all.

Hmmm, true.

Well the problem remains for newbies who don't know trustable people and/or can be easily tricked

[MakeBelieve]

It seems the trust system is causing more heartache than good.

[Kouye]

Tweaked my settings a bit. I added users I haven't interacted with, but with ratings I like/trust.

Much better

You got TradeFortress in your default trust list...
Which makes it useless to me.

[DiamondCardz]

Tweaked my settings a bit. I added users I haven't interacted with, but with ratings I like/trust.

Much better

You got TradeFortress in your default trust list...
Which makes it useless to me.

TF isn't in DefaultTrust anymore.

[Kouye]

TF isn't in DefaultTrust anymore.

Meant he added TF to his root trust, sorry.

[AndrewWilliams]

Speaking of abuse of the trust system...



Sod, I mean, Vod has sunken to new lows:

Posted in his sent feedback:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=104135



just_me -6: -1 / +0(0)   2013-11-08   0.00000000  
Reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320104.msg3516069#msg3516069
"User has mental health problems and has lost touch with reality. Do not do business with this person!"




The thread was started by just_me to discuss Christianity.

Predictably enough Vod starts thread crapping calling Christianity a cult and insulting every Christian posting in it.

Apparently, being a Christian and discussing it is enough for him to call someone mentally ill and taint their reputation.

Since Vod has no shame, I implore everyone to give Vod negative feedback for continuously harassing Christians on this forum, until he removes his false feedbacks.




This is after he accused me of identity theft with no proof, since I offered loans in the lending section which he likes to bully on, giving anyone he dislikes neg feedback. He continues to troll me, saying I am in a cult because of my Christian beliefs.

Vod is in the default trust list (surprise!)

Is this the type of behavior that people who run the forum support?

[Kouye]

Speaking of abuse of the trust system...



Sod, I mean, Vod has sunken to new lows:

Posted in his sent feedback:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=104135



just_me -6: -1 / +0(0)   2013-11-08   0.00000000   
Reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320104.msg3516069#msg3516069
"User has mental health problems and has lost touch with reality. Do not do business with this person!"




The thread was started by just_me to discuss Christianity.

Predictably enough Vod starts thread crapping calling Christianity a cult and insulting every Christian posting in it.

Apparently, being a Christian and discussing it is enough for him to call someone mentally ill and taint their reputation.

Since Vod has no shame, I implore everyone to give Vod negative feedback for continuously harassing Christians on this forum, until he removes his false feedbacks.




This is after he accused me of identity theft with no proof, since I offered loans in the lending section which he likes to bull on. He continues to troll me, saying I am in a cult because of my Christian beliefs.

This is completely off-topic, please go rant somewhere else.

[AndrewWilliams]

What part of Vod is on the default trust list do you not understand?

Like, seriously?

[jackjack]

"Well hang on, my trust list says you're untrusted..."

"Hm? Mine says that I have +5 rep points and that you have -1..."

"No, it says -5 for you..."

- Why everyone having a different trust list isn't a perfect system.

I agree that having everyone being able to give rep that means something is bad because...look at my rep page, but having those people be exclusively chosen by ~10 people is worse.

I don't see why everybody should have the same trust about someone...
Why should I trust someone you trust?

You have -1 for me and I have -5 for you? Well I guess we won't trade together. And that's all.

Hmmm, true.

Well the problem remains for newbies who don't know trustable people and/or can be easily tricked

Yes but trusting scammers is not going to help them.

[Kouye]

What part of Vod is on the default trust list do you not understand?

Like, seriously?

Ok, let's play at "Where's Vod".

Code:

sirius
theymos
HostFat
Maged
OgNasty
CanaryInTheMine
John (John K.)
Tomatocage
SaltySpitoon
BadBear
escrow.ms

[AndrewWilliams]

well just looking at it, it seems to be an abuse of the system. that is assuming what you say is true.

I'm sure Theymos could look into it as it is his list.

Absolutely. There is a whole thread dedicated to him being called out on his lies.

It's been over two months and he refuses to admit he lied about me, and he refuses to turn over "evidence" to mods as he said he would (because it doesn't exist!).

I told him, put up or shut up. He just lies. I am not the only one he does it too.

I've invited Theymos or any other mod to look for themselves. The invitation remains open.




The sad thing is, this forum is the focus point that people come to to discuss and learn about Bitcoin. If such people like TF and Vod are allowed to have credibility in such a venue, it can only hurt the viability of Bitcoin.

[Kouye]

Can you please stop being off-topic?
You hate Vod. Ok. We got it.

[AndrewWilliams]

Can you please stop being off-topic?
You hate Vod. Ok. We got it.

He is on the default trust list.

It's another support for revamping or getting rid of the current trust system.



Trying to simply it by saying I hate Vod is pretty lame. Stop calling it off topic, it's the point of the whole thread.

[Kouye]

He is on the default trust list.

No.
Unless you can find him in the list I posted a few minutes ago.
So please take your witch hunt somewhere else.

[AndrewWilliams]

He is on the default trust list.

No.
Unless you can find him in the list I posted a few minutes ago.
So please take your witch hunt somewhere else.

You're wrong.

When I go into trust settings, DefaultTrust is in the Trust Settings box.

Trust depth is 2.

I have not tweeked the settings, so Vod shows up on the trust list as sub of TamatoCage and BadBear (new thing I just learned, did not know this)...

Trust depth should probably be set at 1 by default.



Drop your dumb comments. Looking at your trust I see you and Vod are butt buddies. What a coincidence  

[BadBear]

I'm not too impressed by his usage of the trust system in this instance, leaving feedback over that is just silly. Hopefully they can work it out...You should probably make another thread about it though, I doubt vod will see this thread.

[Kouye]

Trust depth is 2.

Haha  . Guess you just didn't understand what we are talking about here, then.
Just create a new post, please.

[AndrewWilliams]

I'm not too impressed by his usage of the trust system in this instance, leaving feedback over that is just silly. Hopefully they can work it out...You should probably make another thread about it though, I doubt vod will see this thread.

Thanks for the honesty BadBear.


I've been trying to resolve his issue with me for almost two months, to no avail.

A thread was made to deal with it and it came down to him sticking to the lie that I ask for social security numbers (blatant lie), and never producing the proof he promised he would. I openly invite mods to check all my PMs to see I have never done anything like that.

Unfortunately Vod has been getting worse and attacks many users without cause. Until a few weeks ago, he even gave the borrower of one my loans neg feedback just because he was defending me and calling Vod out on his bullshit.

This forum deals with money and trust is very important. BS like this ruins the whole scene.



I will make a new thread to deal with this. Thanks all for their input.

[Vod]

I'm not too impressed by his usage of the trust system in this instance, leaving feedback over that is just silly. Hopefully they can work it out...You should probably make another thread about it though, I doubt vod will see this thread.

It was brought to my attention.  I was drunk last night when I made that trust, and it was done on a whim when I saw I was being censored by a self moderated thread.  Normally I don't act so impulsively. 

I've removed it and I apologize to just_me. 

[Lohoris]

This topic is about DefaultTrust, so any issues with a DefaultTrust member leaving feedback, is of course in-topic. No idea why someone said it's offtopic.

With that being said, "pointing out" such an issue is in-topic, but going on for 10 posts reiterating the same thing that has been said in the first one, is not exactly ideal. Every new post should add something new, otherwise we'll be buried by noise.

[Kouye]

This topic is about DefaultTrust, so any issues with a DefaultTrust member leaving feedback, is of course in-topic. No idea why someone said it's offtopic.

Because Vod never was on default trust list, maybe? 

[AndrewWilliams]

Kudos to Vod for resolving the issue with just_me.


Hopefully now we can resolve our issue in the other thread.


Kouye, the fact is Vod shows up on the default trust list, as deep as 2 levels. That is what this thread was about, the default trust list.

I know its hard to understand the trust system, so try looking into it more.



Thanks Goat for your help.

[Kouye]

Thanks Goat for your help.

Kouye, the fact is Vod shows up on the default trust list, as deep as 2 levels. That is what this thread was about, the default trust list.
I know its hard to understand the trust system, so try looking into it more.

I'm sure with depth set at 15, even Kruniac shows up on your list.
Depth is the only issue, imho.

[AndrewWilliams]

I'm sure with depth set at 15, even Kruniac shows up on your list.
Depth is the only issue, imho.

The point is depth is set at 2 or 3 by DEFAULT, so newbies going by the default settings will think it's an accurate gauge of trust, when it's really not.

Remember, people who are not that computer savvy are joining this forum by the busload.

[Lohoris]

He is just trolling (or too stupid to get the point). Ignore him.

+1 please stop polluting this thread (I'd split it if I could)

[pyra-proxy]

A potentially better alternative to handling trust is to force it to use risked BTC, right now many people just give random feel good trust based on nothing of true value.  If trust required risked BTC, and proof of risked BTC in the event of a dispute it would be much more manageable by admins, this includes the standard "default" trust list.  Members such as those in several above squabbles would have no trust or negative trust instead of positive trust from this system.

Trusting someone just because you think they are an internet hero is a waste of trust flags, conversly administering negative trust just because you "don't trust that person" is also a waste of trust flags, and administering + or - trust as reward/vengeance for valid trust issued is also a waste of trust.

If BTC risked was required, with proof in the event of a dispute then the overall trust system would be more helpful in general and much more clear/concise... it's not foolproof but it is still better than the current system....  admins should not get default trust status, theymos could take patient 0 of trusted status and people that have had direct and provable BTC exchanges with him in a positive manner could expand the default trust list organically but he should be the only patient 0 of default trust and risked BTC proof should be required to get on the default list, the non-default list would use risked BTC proof in case of dispute.

[dank]

As it stands, it's largely a judgement system.

[Vod]

As it stands, it's largely a judgement system.

One that works well.

You scammed.  People noticed.  Now you can't scam again.

[Lohoris]

A potentially better alternative to handling trust is to force it to use risked BTC

Doesn't work for two reasons:

1. how many BTC I have or invest is my own business, I'd rather leave no feedback than being "forced" to state how much (privacy, remember?)

2. enforcing would be a huge waste of resources. I do mean huge.

[Lohoris]

As it stands, it's largely a judgement system.

One that works well.

You scammed.  People noticed.  Now you can't scam again.

Worked great for TradeFortress.
Guess he won't scam anymore...

[Vod]

As it stands, it's largely a judgement system.

One that works well.

You scammed.  People noticed.  Now you can't scam again.

Worked great for TradeFortress.
Guess he won't scam anymore...

Interesting point.

If you could turn back time, how would you change the system so that wouldn't happen?  I believe most of the people that left him positive feedback had traded with him already.

[Lohoris]

Worked great for TradeFortress.
Guess he won't scam anymore...

Interesting point.

If you could turn back time, how would you change the system so that wouldn't happen?  I believe most of the people that left him positive feedback had traded with him already.

I'd remove DefaultTrust?

[Vod]

Worked great for TradeFortress.
Guess he won't scam anymore...

Interesting point.

If you could turn back time, how would you change the system so that wouldn't happen?  I believe most of the people that left him positive feedback had traded with him already.

I'd remove DefaultTrust?

I understand where you are coming from, but I think the benefits far outweigh the negatives.  Maybe limit DefaultTrust to those who have done a lot of business on the forum?  That wouldn't have helped in TF's case however.

There is no better way to warn newbies of ongoing scammers than the current trust system.

[Lohoris]

I understand where you are coming from, but I think the benefits far outweigh the negatives.  Maybe limit DefaultTrust to those who have done a lot of business on the forum?  That wouldn't have helped in TF's case however.

There is no better way to warn newbies of ongoing scammers than the current trust system.

Yes there is: having a base trust of -1 instead of 0 towards everyone.
After all, you shouldn't trust random people.
Then, if you manually chose to trust someone, well, it's your own action instead of a default.

[User705]

If you check his trust, you see that Theymos added him to default trust, with the comment, "Responsibly disclosed forum security flaws." so I'd imagine thats how he got on the default trust network.

But really, he had tons of feedback, being on the default trust list I don't really think gave him any additional power after he had an additional 100 people leave good feedback for him. Assuming Tradefortress actually planned the long con if it was one, the default trust wouldn't help him all that much past a certain point.

In all fairness, I believe its just as likely that he staged the hack, as it is it was actually a hack, and now he just can't pay back the Bitcoins. Either way, a lot of people are out money.

He was involved in a few small scams before, but some people like me (not on the default trust) would not risk giving him bad feedback as he would just give us badfeed back and only his would hurt.

Go look into his ripple scams and some of the other projects he was paid to do... That guy was shady as fuck!

hell just for operating his business where all he did was pay people out, meaning ponzi would have got a neg rating from me had he not been default trusted.

But whatever...

Are you saying that as a fact or a possibility?  If you were intimidated to leave negative trust for fear of retaliation isn't that about as good an indicator as any that it's not working?

[Lohoris]

Are you saying that as a fact or a possibility?  If you were intimidated to leave negative trust for fear of retaliation isn't that about as good an indicator as any that it's not working?

That's exactly what we are saying.
BTW it's a fact: I did check TradeFortress' trust, and noticed that many people who gave him a negative feedback got one back from him, and since he was in DefaultTrust they were basically marked as scammers when what they actually did was quite the opposite.
And that's why I posted this thread instead of giving him a negative feedback.

I'm not saying that theymos was actively an accomplice, but he was likely social-engineered/blackmailed into putting him in DefaultTrust, and this is the result.
The least he could do is putting an and to this INSANE system, since it only benefits the scammers.

(hint: actually if he wanted to do something more, unless I'm mistaken this forum holds a huge amount of unspent BTC from "donations"... how huge is that pile?)

[dank]

There is no better way to warn newbies of ongoing scammers than the current trust system.

Yes there is, it's very simple.  You post your feelings in the thread you assume they are scamming people in.  This gives the person you're accusing a fair chance to explain their side and their legitimacy.  This way, people get both sides of the story and can form an educated opinion on the matter.

The thing is, you guys are trying to implement a system that will stop scammers, which will never happen, it's impossible without an upbringing in moral responsibility and compassion of the individual.  Only a shift in consciousness can prevent negative intentions from being executed, only love for one another as the brothers and sisters that we are.  As it is used today it has prevented free trade from taking place on this community by creating FUD in those who see a warning sign next to anybodies name.

[Vod]

There is no better way to warn newbies of ongoing scammers than the current trust system.

Yes there is, it's very simple.  You post your feelings in the thread you assume they are scamming people in.  This gives the person you're accusing a fair chance to explain their side and their legitimacy.  This way, people get both sides of the story and can form an educated opinion on the matter.

And then what dank?  We have to follow you around to every thread you post in Newbies, warning people you have stolen close to $10,000?  Too much work.

[Lohoris]

And then what dank?  We have to follow you around to every thread you post in Newbies, warning people you have stolen close to $10,000?  Too much work.

With DefaultTrust:
- some scammers will be labeled as trustworthy, free to scam people
- people denuncing them will be labeled as scammers

Without DefaultTrust, and -1 base trust:
- everyone is "untrusted, trade with extreme caution" by default, so you should always be wary (as you actually should)
- if you actually really trust someone, you add him and you inherit his trust list

I fail to see how you are missing that yet

[Vod]

And then what dank?  We have to follow you around to every thread you post in Newbies, warning people you have stolen close to $10,000?  Too much work.

With DefaultTrust:
- some scammers will be labeled as trustworthy, free to scam people
- people denuncing them will be labeled as scammers

Without DefaultTrust, and -1 base trust:
- everyone is "untrusted, trade with extreme caution" by default, so you should always be wary (as you actually should)
- if you actually really trust someone, you add him and you inherit his trust list

I fail to see how you are missing that yet

People would soon ignore the "Trade with extreme caution!" if they saw it on every account.  It would no different than everyone having zero trust, like it is now.

[dank]

There is no better way to warn newbies of ongoing scammers than the current trust system.

Yes there is, it's very simple.  You post your feelings in the thread you assume they are scamming people in.  This gives the person you're accusing a fair chance to explain their side and their legitimacy.  This way, people get both sides of the story and can form an educated opinion on the matter.

And then what dank?  We have to follow you around to every thread you post in Newbies, warning people you have stolen close to $10,000?  Too much work.

Ha!  Like you haven't been doing that anyways?

Funny man you are.

You clearly still have not comprehended that a failure to return an investment does not indicate the deliberate intentions stealing or scamming does imply.

If we are going to have a judgment system, it needs to be based on cold hard facts, not opinions.  And I really don't see why there's a hierarchy of trusted users, what makes their opinion any more valid than anyone else as to hide the rest?

Regardless, all systems fail.

[User705]

But the current default trust people gain financially from said trust so it's not likely they will just drop it and exchange it for a bright red warning sign.

[Lohoris]

People would soon ignore the "Trade with extreme caution!" if they saw it on every account.  It would no different than everyone having zero trust, like it is now.

(first, "now" it is not zero for every account, because there is DefaultTrust)

And... that would be fine.

Unless you plan to physically send a guy to every user's home to check what he is doing, you can't prevent someone from hurting themselves.
You can warn them, though.

But this is not about 0 vs. -1 base trust, this is about removing this insane DefaultTrust, after it has been shown so eloquently and spectacularly how it is dead wrong.

[Lohoris]

But the current default trust people gain financially from said trust so it's not likely they will just drop it and exchange it for a bright red warning sign.

Reality contradicts you.
TradeFortress did just that.
pirate40 basically did the same, even if that's before this system AFAIK.
Once you reach a certain theresold of money you can steal, if you're a thief you will steal it, and that's just that.

[Vod]

But the current default trust people gain financially from said trust so it's not likely they will just drop it and exchange it for a bright red warning sign.

I don't make anything from having positive trust.  In the past I escrowed a couple deals for a few dimes, but that's not worth it to me anymore.

I'm not paid at all - I volunteer all my time on here.

[User705]

But the current default trust people gain financially from said trust so it's not likely they will just drop it and exchange it for a bright red warning sign.

Reality contradicts you.
TradeFortress did just that.
pirate40 basically did the same, even if that's before this system AFAIK.
Once you reach a certain theresold of money you can steal, if you're a thief you will steal it, and that's just that.

Let me clarify.  Right now there's a set of users who are default trust green to all newcomers.  Many conduct various BTC businesses and/or regular exchange transactions.  By virtue of their perceived trust to newcomers they get preferential treatment wether it's better exchange rates or items get sent to them 1st which is a financial benefit.  So why would anyone willingly give that up?

[dank]

I'm not paid at all - I volunteer all my time on here.

I don't buy it, vod is a paid shill trying to stir FUD imo.  He's been at it, spreading misinfo, for over a year.  Nobody could accidentally compose so many false statements on accident.

[Kouye]

Btw im now in the default list.

Confirmed, Goat got promoted by badbear.

Code:

DefaultTrust
    sirius
    theymos
        HostFat
        MagicalTux
        mikegogulski
        Luke-Jr
        dooglus
        Raize
        Maged
        Carnth
        TECSHARE
        Caesium
        dilatedPixel
        phantastisch
        OgNasty
        CanaryInTheMine
        paraipan
        John (John K.)
        danieldaniel
        pekv2
        Ukyo
        dree12
        Tomatocage
        SaltySpitoon
        ineededausername
        DeaDTerra
        BadBear
        Blazr
        xkrikl
        BCB
        PsychoticBoy
        btharper
        burnside
        Akka
        TheButterZone
        LoweryCBS
        stenkross
        Benson Samuel
        johnniewalker
        escrow.ms
        shiftybugger
        ThickAsThieves
        fluidjax
        MikeMark
        binaryFate
        dwdoc
        Tywill
        DefaultTrust
        BayAreaCoins
    HostFat
        theymos
        rb1205
        paci
        Stemby
        ziomik
        ercolinux
        diego1000
        bertani
    Maged
        theymos
        Gavin Andresen
        MagicalTux
        casascius
        tysat
        piuk
        sveetsnelda
        John (John K.)
        BadBear
        DefaultTrust
    OgNasty
        nonnakip
        DefaultTrust
    CanaryInTheMine
        Miner-TE
        Noitev
        luv2drnkbr
        Digigami
        E
        zapeta
        bitpop
        TECSHARE
        redcomet
        ipxtreme
        Philj
        os2sam
        knybe
        Trance104
        CrazyGuy
        sveetsnelda
        conv3rsion
        tlr
        bitcoin-rigs.com
        dtmcnamara
        notme
        FCTaiChi
        Mushroomized
        Maidak
        mainichi
        greeners
        dribbits
        echris1
        SaltySpitoon
        bitcoiner49er
        freshzive
        arklan
        Pistachio
        tarrant_01
        tbcoin
        ElideN
        friedcat
        Bees Brothers
        Christoban
        Stale
        af_newbie
        eroxors
        camolist
        cncguru
        PsychoticBoy
        Dabs
        mem
        Namworld
        lky_svn
        420
        mr2dave
        gektek
        johnny5
        dyingdreams
        Zillions
        phrog
        Domrada
        philipma1957
        jborkl
        RicRock
        jmutch
        MonocleMan
        CoinHoarder
        absinth
        (^_^)
        der_troll
        soy
        Ozymandias
        iluvpcs
        batt01
        xstr8guy
        MJGrae
        mobile
        nubbins
        ThickAsThieves
        hephaist0s
        BitcoinValet
        Timzim103
        Rounder
        Nemo1024
        TheXev
        Benny1985
        hanti
        ssinc
        Kaega
        finlof
        True___Blue
        elchorizo
        fewerlaws
        bitterdog
        Swimmer63
        locksmith9
        Krellan
        Spendulus
        MikeMike
        statdude
        bluespaceant
        Hiroaki
        keeron
        Bigdaddyaz
        Polyatomic
        palmface
        flowdab
        SpaceCadet
        photon
        dwdoc
        xzempt
        mackstuart
        bmoconno
        mrtg
        maxpower
        xjack
        CommanderVenus
        Plesk
        helipotte
        aurel57
        gambitv
        boyohi
        LaserHorse
        chalidore
        slashopt
        drofdelm
        canth
        cdogster
        DBOD
        DefaultTrust
        DustMite
        pixl8tr
        namoom
        blblr
        Taugeran
        arc45
        smscotten
        Cilantro
        chadtn
        kinger1331
        rumlazy
        fractalbc
        fforforest
        KyrosKrane
        bitdigger2013
        jaslo
        BorisAlt
        ASICSAUCE
        steelcave
        buyer99
        digeros
        west17m
        Trillium
        ziggysisland
        ryhan
        zac2013
        atomriot
        metal_jacke1
        Apheration
        spacebob
        2byZi
        terrapinflyer
        BenTheRighteous
        gsr18
        Paddy
    John (John K.)
        sirius
        theymos
        MagicalTux
        Maged
        BadBear
        DefaultTrust
    Tomatocage
        theymos
        Gavin Andresen
        grue
        Maged
        Kluge
        jwzguy
        tysat
        Graet
        OgNasty
        the joint
        Vod
        John (John K.)
        pekv2
        wallet.dat
        BadBear
        Blazr
        BCB
        LoweryCBS
        DefaultTrust
    SaltySpitoon
        DefaultTrust
    BadBear
        theymos
        nanotube
        casascius
        Raize
        Maged
        tysat
        zvs
        malevolent
        Korbman
        Vod
        John (John K.)
        dree12
        Tomatocage
        SaltySpitoon
        Deprived
        Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย
        Augusto Croppo
        BCB
        TheButterZone
        DannyHamilton
        Boelens
        favdesu
    escrow.ms
        Otoh
        jackjack
        Eisenhower34
        Bees Brothers
        Projects
        DannyHamilton
        Benson Samuel
        buysellbitcoin
        jasonslow
        webr3
        vitalemontea
        axorb
        Dragooon
        americandesi
        Equate
        DefaultTrust
        ashish12

EDIT : that and BCB being on badbear direct trust list made me remove badbear from mine.
Warning this post contains a tracking pixel. Or 2.

[AndrewWilliams]

But the current default trust people gain financially from said trust so it's not likely they will just drop it and exchange it for a bright red warning sign.

I don't make anything from having positive trust.  In the past I escrowed a couple deals for a few dimes, but that's not worth it to me anymore.

I'm not paid at all - I volunteer all my time on here.

Not so fast. You repeatedly interfered in my loan to i3lome after you turned down his loan. You regularly shoot down people who are honest without a reason.

You DO have a vested interest in keeping the Lending forum limited to you and your cronies.
The way you harassed me for months and abused the trust system by giving me three neg feedback accusing me of being a scammer without any proof, just because I made the loan to i3lome that you wouldn't.

So stop saying you don't benefit. You do benefit. You have given positive trust to shady people just because they gave you positive trust to begin with, and sided with you in your trolling escapades.

You should be embarrassed for yourself, but I'm sure you already got rid of that thing called a conscious.

[Vod]

But the current default trust people gain financially from said trust so it's not likely they will just drop it and exchange it for a bright red warning sign.

I don't make anything from having positive trust.  In the past I escrowed a couple deals for a few dimes, but that's not worth it to me anymore.

I'm not paid at all - I volunteer all my time on here.

Not so fast. You repeatedly interfered in my loan to i3lome after you turned down his loan. You regularly shoot down people who are honest without a reason.

You DO have a vested interest in keeping the Lending forum limited to you and your cronies.
The way you harassed me for months and abused the trust system by giving me three neg feedback accusing me of being a scammer without any proof, just because I made the loan to i3lome that you wouldn't.

So stop saying you don't benefit. You do benefit. You have given positive trust to shady people just because they gave you positive trust to begin with, and sided with you in your trolling escapades.

You should be embarrassed for yourself, but I'm sure you already got rid of that thing called a conscious.

Nope, I don't make a thing off of keeping the lending forum free of scammers. 

Not saying if Theymos offered to pay me I wouldn't take it....   

[AndrewWilliams]

Nope, I don't make a thing off of keeping the lending forum free of scammers. 

Not saying if Theymos offered to pay me I wouldn't take it....   

You seek to elevate yourself by putting others down. If you had a REAL interest in keeping scammers away, you would do away with your trollish ways and giving useless assumptions about trust on peoples feedback.

[Vod]

Nope, I don't make a thing off of keeping the lending forum free of scammers. 

Not saying if Theymos offered to pay me I wouldn't take it....   

You seek to elevate yourself by putting others down. If you had a REAL interest in keeping scammers away, you would do away with your trollish ways and giving useless assumptions about trust on peoples feedback.

Thanks for the advice bible boy.   

[AndrewWilliams]

Thanks for the advice bible boy.   

You're welcome Satanic scum. 

[Vod]

Thanks for the advice bible boy.  

You're welcome Satanic scum.  

Sorry bible boy, don't believe in satan - that's a cult figure.  

[BadBear]

You two already have one thread, could you not shit this one up too, thanks.

[Arvicco]

Current trust system is all but useless for any practical purpose. It also creates a false sense of security among newbies. I think it should be scrapped. Or, at least DefaultTrust part. You want to use the trust system, you choose between TheymosTrust and any competing trust list. There are no defaults for everybody.

[Oldminer]

lol @ the 'DefaultTrust' list. Some really shady individuals in that list. Best make your own list of people you know who are trustworthy.

[dserrano5]

lol @ the 'DefaultTrust' list.

Big +1 on this. Please people take a look on who you're trusting by default. Set depth to 0 and pick your specific individuals.

[galbros]

lol @ the 'DefaultTrust' list.

Big +1 on this. Please people take a look on who you're trusting by default. Set depth to 0 and pick your specific individuals.

I did this awhile back and like it much better.  The trust rating is truly my own.  I really don't like the idea of default trust. 

[hilariousandco]

Using your own list is all well and good, but you then can't see how you and everyone else appears to the majority seeing as most people just use default trust as standard.

[Lohoris]

Big +1 on this. Please people take a look on who you're trusting by default. Set depth to 0 and pick your specific individuals.

As long as you set your own, you may increase depth if you want to, as long as they themselves don't trust DefaultTrust, of course.

[DiamondCardz]

Using your own list is all well and good, but you then can't see how you and everyone else appears to the majority seeing as most people just use default trust as standard.

Yeah, this is what stops me from building my own trust list and keeps me on DefaultTrust at depth 2. The people who actually build their own trust list are limited to the minority and those at depth 1 on DefaultTrust.

[Lohoris]

Using your own list is all well and good, but you then can't see how you and everyone else appears to the majority seeing as most people just use default trust as standard.

Yeah, this is what stops me from building my own trust list and keeps me on DefaultTrust at depth 2. The people who actually build their own trust list are limited to the minority and those at depth 1 on DefaultTrust.

I disagree: what's the use-case?

If you are just talking to someone, knowing that some random guy trusts or mistrusts him is irrelevant: more useful to know if someone you picked trusts or mistrusts him.

Instead if you are going to do some business deal with him, you'd better check his full trust anyway: you go to his profile, "show untrusted" and read everything.

Either way, DefaultTrust is useless at best.

[DiamondCardz]

If I flip the finger to DefaultTrust and stop using it for x period of time, then during that x period of time if someone on DefaultTrust gives me a negative trusted feedback I have no way of seeing it, while the vast majority of the forum will see me with a nice little red tag under my name. Say what you like, but that affects any jobs I want to do, businesses I want to create, et cetera.

[Lohoris]

If I flip the finger to DefaultTrust and stop using it for x period of time, then during that x period of time if someone on DefaultTrust gives me a negative trusted feedback I have no way of seeing it, while the vast majority of the forum will see me with a nice little red tag under my name. Say what you like, but that affects any jobs I want to do, businesses I want to create, et cetera.

And that's why you should be requesting for this broken system to be taken down.

[bbxx]

And that's why you should be requesting for this broken system to be taken down.

that is right, such cases too:

beastlymac is at default trust tree

he has scammed my brother for 2.1 btc and put him negative trust
i tried to recover some losses so i got negative trust from him too
he has scammed Mr Jinx, who got his 10 gridseeds at may (13 feb promised delivery), used and with no equipment - jinx lost 3+ BTC
also he got negative trust from beastlymac.

beastlymac should be removed from d. tree and banned for such behaviour, dont you think ?

[galbros]

If I flip the finger to DefaultTrust and stop using it for x period of time, then during that x period of time if someone on DefaultTrust gives me a negative trusted feedback I have no way of seeing it, while the vast majority of the forum will see me with a nice little red tag under my name. Say what you like, but that affects any jobs I want to do, businesses I want to create, et cetera.

It will still appear in your profile though wont it?  Just under untrusted feedback?

I agree though, I guess there does need to be a way to see your "default" profile.  Though my first choice would be no default trust at all.  Users should not join the forums and jump into trading.  People can find out who the mods are and decide for themselves if someone, say, Vod is a champion of the people and bane of scammers or a boob licking troll.  Personally, I think the former, but I'm still not sure I'd send first to him.  (No offense Vod.)

I sometimes think default trust was just designed to get the mods out of the having to determine if they needed to apply the "scammer" tag or not.

I guess I can understand that. 

[Lohoris]

beastlymac should be removed from d. tree and banned for such behaviour, dont you think ?

No, I think there just shouldn't be any default trust, so this wouldn't be an issue anymore.

I agree though, I guess there does need to be a way to see your "default" profile.  Though my first choice would be no default trust at all.  Users should not join the forums and jump into trading.  People can find out who the mods are and decide for themselves if someone, say, Vod is a champion of the people and bane of scammers or a boob licking troll.  Personally, I think the former, but I'm still not sure I'd send first to him.  (No offense Vod.)

Much true.

I sometimes think default trust was just designed to get the mods out of the having to determine if they needed to apply the "scammer" tag or not.
I guess I can understand that.  

Not exact.

The trust system has been designed with that goal in mind, and it would work... but it has been destroyed by this stupid DefaultTrust, and has (needlessly!!!) become something completely different, and deeply broken.

[EFS]

DefaultTrust should be removed.

[DiamondCardz]

I don't think DefaultTrust needs to be removed altogether. But the system should at the very least be changed to make it much less centralized and abusable than it is currently. For instance, the "established members" idea that was used for highlighting the ignore button when people ignored someone. Possibly if a certain amount of established members trusts you, then you would be added to a certain depth of DefaultTrust. This would be quite a high requirement though.

[acs267]

beastlymac should be removed from d. tree and banned for such behaviour, dont you think ?

No, I think there just shouldn't be any default trust, so this wouldn't be an issue anymore.

I agree though, I guess there does need to be a way to see your "default" profile.  Though my first choice would be no default trust at all.  Users should not join the forums and jump into trading.  People can find out who the mods are and decide for themselves if someone, say, Vod is a champion of the people and bane of scammers or a boob licking troll.  Personally, I think the former, but I'm still not sure I'd send first to him.  (No offense Vod.)

Much true.

I sometimes think default trust was just designed to get the mods out of the having to determine if they needed to apply the "scammer" tag or not.
I guess I can understand that. 

Not exact.

The trust system has been designed with that goal in mind, and it would work... but it has been destroyed by this stupid DefaultTrust, and has (needlessly!!!) become something completely different, and deeply broken.

DefaultTrust isn't the problem, necessarily, I guess it's more that when people see a negative trust rating - havoc is involved. Not saying that to all, but there has been times when people were wrongly accused or were being exploited and it didn't just drop. The same goes for a positive trust rating. A small portion of people simply trust anyone with a rating.

[BitCoinDream]

beastlymac should be removed from d. tree and banned for such behaviour, dont you think ?

No, I think there just shouldn't be any default trust, so this wouldn't be an issue anymore.

I agree though, I guess there does need to be a way to see your "default" profile.  Though my first choice would be no default trust at all.  Users should not join the forums and jump into trading.  People can find out who the mods are and decide for themselves if someone, say, Vod is a champion of the people and bane of scammers or a boob licking troll.  Personally, I think the former, but I'm still not sure I'd send first to him.  (No offense Vod.)

Much true.

I sometimes think default trust was just designed to get the mods out of the having to determine if they needed to apply the "scammer" tag or not.
I guess I can understand that.  

Not exact.

The trust system has been designed with that goal in mind, and it would work... but it has been destroyed by this stupid DefaultTrust, and has (needlessly!!!) become something completely different, and deeply broken.

DefaultTrust isn't the problem, necessarily, I guess it's more that when people see a negative trust rating - havoc is involved. Not saying that to all, but there has been times when people were wrongly accused or were being exploited and it didn't just drop. The same goes for a positive trust rating. A small portion of people simply trust anyone with a rating.

The root of the problem u r stating is actually DefaultTrust. Then why saying DefaultTrust isn't the problem ? The green part is well stated and after witnessing numerous abuses, I absolutely stand by this...

[acs267]

beastlymac should be removed from d. tree and banned for such behaviour, dont you think ?

No, I think there just shouldn't be any default trust, so this wouldn't be an issue anymore.

I agree though, I guess there does need to be a way to see your "default" profile.  Though my first choice would be no default trust at all.  Users should not join the forums and jump into trading.  People can find out who the mods are and decide for themselves if someone, say, Vod is a champion of the people and bane of scammers or a boob licking troll.  Personally, I think the former, but I'm still not sure I'd send first to him.  (No offense Vod.)

Much true.

I sometimes think default trust was just designed to get the mods out of the having to determine if they needed to apply the "scammer" tag or not.
I guess I can understand that.  

Not exact.

The trust system has been designed with that goal in mind, and it would work... but it has been destroyed by this stupid DefaultTrust, and has (needlessly!!!) become something completely different, and deeply broken.

DefaultTrust isn't the problem, necessarily, I guess it's more that when people see a negative trust rating - havoc is involved. Not saying that to all, but there has been times when people were wrongly accused or were being exploited and it didn't just drop. The same goes for a positive trust rating. A small portion of people simply trust anyone with a rating.

The root of the problem u r stating is actually DefaultTrust. Then why saying DefaultTrust isn't the problem ? The green part is well stated and after witnessing numerous abuses, I absolutely stand by this...

I was aiming more so to the fact that, it doesn't matter if it's DefaultTrust or not, once you get a negative rating... There's still that portion of users that tag you off as whatever the accused said. For DefaultTrust, this might happen more often, due to the fact that's its easily seen.

[Vortex20000]

I don't really think the red numbers mean that much. I find the trust system to be more like a personal feedback/suggestion system. If you see someone has negative trusted someone else, you go to the reference, and if its BS you disregard it. That or if someone has been neg'd by Sock9001 I tend to not pay that much attention to that rating either. I'm not sure if the system was meant to work this way, but I believe its evolved into a system where people just leave their thoughts/opinions, and a few times real scam accusations, and whoever is going to make a deal with them is in charge of judging the validity of their trust rating themselves. Even John K has a few negative feedback ratings, and the guy does dare I say tens of thousands of BTC in escrows. The people named NewAccount90210 that say that JohnK scammed them out of 1 BTC tend not to get me to believe it. Just like everything else in this community, you get to judge the validity of peoples claims.

I beg to differ, sir.

Most users on this forum can't be bothered to click the trust rating link and only see the red numbers. Users who have been unfairly given negative trust have to go through the hassle of explaining why they have red lines under their username every single time they do business or even want to be respected properly.

[Vortex20000]

And you neglect to answer it because you know it is true.

He did it again!

[BitCoinDream]

beastlymac should be removed from d. tree and banned for such behaviour, dont you think ?

No, I think there just shouldn't be any default trust, so this wouldn't be an issue anymore.

I agree though, I guess there does need to be a way to see your "default" profile.  Though my first choice would be no default trust at all.  Users should not join the forums and jump into trading.  People can find out who the mods are and decide for themselves if someone, say, Vod is a champion of the people and bane of scammers or a boob licking troll.  Personally, I think the former, but I'm still not sure I'd send first to him.  (No offense Vod.)

Much true.

I sometimes think default trust was just designed to get the mods out of the having to determine if they needed to apply the "scammer" tag or not.
I guess I can understand that.  

Not exact.

The trust system has been designed with that goal in mind, and it would work... but it has been destroyed by this stupid DefaultTrust, and has (needlessly!!!) become something completely different, and deeply broken.

DefaultTrust isn't the problem, necessarily, I guess it's more that when people see a negative trust rating - havoc is involved. Not saying that to all, but there has been times when people were wrongly accused or were being exploited and it didn't just drop. The same goes for a positive trust rating. A small portion of people simply trust anyone with a rating.

The root of the problem u r stating is actually DefaultTrust. Then why saying DefaultTrust isn't the problem ? The green part is well stated and after witnessing numerous abuses, I absolutely stand by this...

I was aiming more so to the fact that, it doesn't matter if it's DefaultTrust or not, once you get a negative rating... There's still that portion of users that tag you off as whatever the accused said. For DefaultTrust, this might happen more often, due to the fact that's its easily seen.

I dont see any logic in the argument u r putting here for DefaultTrust to stay. A red signal from DefaultTrust is always a problem is doing normal business on the forum, because the majority are not going to check why it is red.

If I flip the finger to DefaultTrust and stop using it for x period of time, then during that x period of time if someone on DefaultTrust gives me a negative trusted feedback I have no way of seeing it, while the vast majority of the forum will see me with a nice little red tag under my name. Say what you like, but that affects any jobs I want to do, businesses I want to create, et cetera.

When the trust is NOT moderated, there should not be any DefaultTrust either. U'll give power to certain people to show a red signal by default and then wont moderate it ...is not logical at all.

[bbxx]

And you neglect to answer it because you know it is true.

He did it again!

This is crazy.
I will not answer him here becouse it is off topic.
I am glad that he has been removed from default trust by theymos today.

[galbros]

While I doubt this is the account he is planning on using, I think THIS offer to sell trust ratings highlights the potential abuse of the current trust system.

If the account listed is a shill account for a real account on default trust a lot of damage could be done.

[hilariousandco]

Of course there is always potential for abuse, but I very much doubt that guy has another account on the trust list. He's just trolling. People selling feedbacks in such a fashion would probably get busted very easily or removed from the list when people complain about unjust feedback.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Of course there is always potential for abuse, but I very much doubt that guy has another account on the trust list. He's just trolling. People selling feedbacks in such a fashion would probably get busted very easily or removed from the list when people complain about unjust feedback.

When another people adds a user to trust list, will Theymos or BadBear review it or they just enter into the list?

  ~~MZ~~

[EvilPanda]

My question, maybe not completely related to the trust issue:  why permabans (ip bans) are so rarely used on the forum?
I noticed there's a real problem with people making multiple acounts for trolling purposes. They make a thread and populate it with their own posts from newbie accounts. This can be easily spotted if you check their registration dates and post history. I've also seen this done as a ban response in the meta section threads. These accounts are also used for personal attacks, FUD posting, trading trust ratings and so on.
If moderators have access to IP's why not just simply block the puppeteer?

[hilariousandco]

Of course there is always potential for abuse, but I very much doubt that guy has another account on the trust list. He's just trolling. People selling feedbacks in such a fashion would probably get busted very easily or removed from the list when people complain about unjust feedback.

When another people adds a user to trust list, will Theymos or BadBear review it or they just enter into the list?

  ~~MZ~~

They don't review individual additions by others, but I think theymos has stated he reviews it every so often and adds or removes people. If people abuse it and start leaving silly or unjust feedback they're likely to be removed by someone at some point.

My question, maybe not completely related to the trust issue:  why permabans (ip bans) are so rarely used on the forum?
I noticed there's a real problem with people making multiple acounts for trolling purposes. They make a thread and populate it with their own posts from newbie accounts. This can be easily spotted if you check their registration dates and post history. I've also seen this done as a ban response in the meta section threads. These accounts are also used for personal attacks, FUD posting, trading trust ratings and so on.
If moderators have access to IP's why not just simply block the puppeteer?

Mods don't have access to IPs; only admins. I can't say how frequently the bans are issued but they are used, but it wont stop persistent spammers as they will just use another proxy or tor etc. There's nothing that can be done about completely banning trolls really.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

My question, maybe not completely related to the trust issue:  why permabans (ip bans) are so rarely used on the forum?
I noticed there's a real problem with people making multiple acounts for trolling purposes. They make a thread and populate it with their own posts from newbie accounts. This can be easily spotted if you check their registration dates and post history. I've also seen this done as a ban response in the meta section threads. These accounts are also used for personal attacks, FUD posting, trading trust ratings and so on.
If moderators have access to IP's why not just simply block the puppeteer?

Perhaps because calling out a scam (who admits in their ToS that it is a scam) is not 'FUD' and you are the one initiating all the personal attacks.

Trading trust ratings is allowed.

[BitCoinDream]

My question, maybe not completely related to the trust issue:  why permabans (ip bans) are so rarely used on the forum?
I noticed there's a real problem with people making multiple acounts for trolling purposes. They make a thread and populate it with their own posts from newbie accounts. This can be easily spotted if you check their registration dates and post history. I've also seen this done as a ban response in the meta section threads. These accounts are also used for personal attacks, FUD posting, trading trust ratings and so on.
If moderators Admins have access to IP's why not just simply block the puppeteer?

In today's internet, most of the online identities are NOT attached with a certain IP or IP range. There are proxies, NAT box and the same person may physically access 2-3 different service providers... let alone the TOR usage. So, it is most likely that IP ban of one bad guy will affect n number of good guy associated with that IP. Hence, I think, IP ban is very very selective in nature and that's for the good reason.

[EvilPanda]

Mods don't have access to IPs; only admins. I can't say how frequently the bans are issued but they are used, but it wont stop persistent spammers as they will just use another proxy or tor etc. There's nothing that can be done about completely banning trolls really.

I know they can proxy or use dynamic IP, but you'd at least make their life harder.

Perhaps because calling out a scam (who admits in their ToS that it is a scam) is not 'FUD' and you are the one initiating all the personal attacks.

Trading trust ratings is allowed.

I'll come to you when I need a lesson in scamming

In today's internet, most of the online identities are NOT attached with a certain IP or IP range. There are proxies, NAT box and the same person may physically access 2-3 different service providers... let alone the TOR usage. So, it is most likely that IP ban of one bad guy will affect n number of good guy associated with that IP. Hence, I think, IP ban is very very selective in nature and that's for the good reason.

I think you have to pay to be allowed to access this forum with TOR, so very few people are using it here. Most trolls aren't as sophisticated.

[peligro]

My question, maybe not completely related to the trust issue:  why permabans (ip bans) are so rarely used on the forum?
I noticed there's a real problem with people making multiple acounts for trolling purposes. They make a thread and populate it with their own posts from newbie accounts. This can be easily spotted if you check their registration dates and post history. I've also seen this done as a ban response in the meta section threads. These accounts are also used for personal attacks, FUD posting, trading trust ratings and so on.
If moderators Admins have access to IP's why not just simply block the puppeteer?

In today's internet, most of the online identities are NOT attached with a certain IP or IP range. There are proxies, NAT box and the same person may physically access 2-3 different service providers... let alone the TOR usage. So, it is most likely that IP ban of one bad guy will affect n number of good guy associated with that IP. Hence, I think, IP ban is very very selective in nature and that's for the good reason.

I remember reading that only Theymos can access IPs and not even other admins can do that.

[BadBear]

Mods can't, admins can.

Most of them are using proxies/tor, or once they get IP banned they will. 

[BitCoinDream]

-snip-

In today's internet, most of the online identities are NOT attached with a certain IP or IP range. There are proxies, NAT box and the same person may physically access 2-3 different service providers... let alone the TOR usage. So, it is most likely that IP ban of one bad guy will affect n number of good guy associated with that IP. Hence, I think, IP ban is very very selective in nature and that's for the good reason.

I think you have to pay to be allowed to access this forum with TOR, so very few people are using it here. Most trolls aren't as sophisticated.

I dint discuss about TOR and hence said "let alone the TOR usage". The other means are just explained before as proxies, NAT box etc that allows people to share IP. U wont be able to find the rotten apple among those sharing the IP.

[hilariousandco]

Mods don't have access to IPs; only admins. I can't say how frequently the bans are issued but they are used, but it wont stop persistent spammers as they will just use another proxy or tor etc. There's nothing that can be done about completely banning trolls really.

I know they can proxy or use dynamic IP, but you'd at least make their life harder.

How can we make their life harder without making innocent users' lives harder as well?

In today's internet, most of the online identities are NOT attached with a certain IP or IP range. There are proxies, NAT box and the same person may physically access 2-3 different service providers... let alone the TOR usage. So, it is most likely that IP ban of one bad guy will affect n number of good guy associated with that IP. Hence, I think, IP ban is very very selective in nature and that's for the good reason.

I think you have to pay to be allowed to access this forum with TOR, so very few people are using it here. Most trolls aren't as sophisticated.

You only have to pay to use tor or a banned proxy if you sign up via it. Once you are signed up you can use tor or proxies freely.

[nutildah]

I just would like to add to this thread with my complete agreement with the OP.

MsCollec, who I call a known scammer based on certain evidence, left me a -1 trust rating because they/he/she didn't like me warning others about Iconic Expert and advising the masses to be wary of him since he has been known to cheat people out of their money in the past. Please feel free to do a lil Google for him if you disagree or require immediate evidence.

So anyway, this is b.s. In what way did I ever ask MsCollec that he/she trust me? They had never even conversed with me before taking this action, which I think goes against every aspect of what the trust rating system is supposed to be used for. Here was his reasoning:

Trolls the forum

So this is acceptable because this person has spent more time here than me? In theory this idea should work, but only if the people in charge of such power use it for good instead of evil. Which lets face it, here a lot of the time, they simply don't. No offense to the good ones.

[MsCollec]

I just would like to add to this thread with my complete agreement with the OP.

MsCollec, who I call a known scammer based on certain evidence, left me a -1 trust rating because they/he/she didn't like me warning others about Iconic Expert and advising the masses to be wary of him since he has been known to cheat people out of their money in the past. Please feel free to do a lil Google for him if you disagree or require immediate evidence.

So anyway, this is b.s. In what way did I ever ask MsCollec that he/she trust me? They had never even conversed with me before taking this action, which I think goes against every aspect of what the trust rating system is supposed to be used for. Here was his reasoning:

Trolls the forum

So this is acceptable because this person has spent more time here than me? In theory this idea should work, but only if the people in charge of such power use it for good instead of evil. Which lets face it, here a lot of the time, they simply don't. No offense to the good ones.

The negative was due to how you harassed other people on xcloudcoin thread. The dev had to close the thread and opened a self moderated because of you. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=722328.2200


You are trying to buy positive feedback

I basically want to undo the negative trust rating left for me by known scammer MsCollec who didn't like the fact that I was calling him and IE out on their newest bs scam.

Anyway, please make me an offer. I will pay up to 40 satoshis per HIC and CC rate is negotiable. No escrow is necessary, I will pay up front granted you have a high trust rating and are willing to leave me a positive rating afterwards. (I will of course also return the favor).

Thank you!

Thats the same

I beg to disagree. "Buying feedback" would be saying "I will give you .1 BTC if you write me a +1 trust rating."

I am saying, "Anyone want to trade BTC for their Colbert or HawaiiCoins." Giving feedback is a normal side result of this trading process.

I am trying to buy altcoins with BTC, not positive feedback for BTC.

There is a difference.

And you incorrectly moved my message because it has to do with trading Bitcoin for other things.

Below are the series of pm you're sending me.

You didn't get me banned the first time you dumb greedy fuck.

How are you not in jail already?

Your entire soul is composed of garbage.

I will be fucking with you for the remainder of your career here.

It doesn't matter if you remove my feedback, I am going to fuck you up.

Dickless Faggot.

Die a slow death you useless person made of garbage.

[nutildah]

I just would like to add to this thread with my complete agreement with the OP.

MsCollec, who I call a known scammer based on certain evidence, left me a -1 trust rating because they/he/she didn't like me warning others about Iconic Expert and advising the masses to be wary of him since he has been known to cheat people out of their money in the past. Please feel free to do a lil Google for him if you disagree or require immediate evidence.

So anyway, this is b.s. In what way did I ever ask MsCollec that he/she trust me? They had never even conversed with me before taking this action, which I think goes against every aspect of what the trust rating system is supposed to be used for. Here was his reasoning:

Trolls the forum

So this is acceptable because this person has spent more time here than me? In theory this idea should work, but only if the people in charge of such power use it for good instead of evil. Which lets face it, here a lot of the time, they simply don't. No offense to the good ones.

The negative was due to how you harassed other people on xcloudcoin thread. The dev had to close the thread and opened a self moderated because of you. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=722328.2200


You are trying to buy positive feedback

I basically want to undo the negative trust rating left for me by known scammer MsCollec who didn't like the fact that I was calling him and IE out on their newest bs scam.

Anyway, please make me an offer. I will pay up to 40 satoshis per HIC and CC rate is negotiable. No escrow is necessary, I will pay up front granted you have a high trust rating and are willing to leave me a positive rating afterwards. (I will of course also return the favor).

Thank you!

Thats the same

I beg to disagree. "Buying feedback" would be saying "I will give you .1 BTC if you write me a +1 trust rating."

I am saying, "Anyone want to trade BTC for their Colbert or HawaiiCoins." Giving feedback is a normal side result of this trading process.

I am trying to buy altcoins with BTC, not positive feedback for BTC.

There is a difference.

And you incorrectly moved my message because it has to do with trading Bitcoin for other things.

Below are the series of pm you're sending me.

Yes, I agree, that while I did nothing illegal I got carried away. I was frustrated that you would stoop so low as to abuse your authority and felt that I had little choice in recourse. I realize in hindsight I should have addressed my complaint through the proper channels.

But you didn't bother to reproduce my other message I sent you where we review what trust ratings you have received:

SYNC is a ponzi, hidden premine shitcoin.
- hidden premine(s)
- users were not informed about what the minimum balance must be for generating PoS dividends
- runs the thread like a dictator

This cocksucker sent me a pm telling me to send him 3BTC and then he will remove negative trust. He is a well-known blackmailer on this forum! Avoid! Avoid Avoid!

The new/ 2nd SYNC block explorer's Block 1, 2 and the premine addy do not coincide with the original BE's stats and figures.

The funds from SYNC and other coins are being used to, manipulate their respective markets and/or to covers the other coin(s) losses.

Be cautious with this expert manipulator. Manipulated VootCoin prices https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=713874.60, and made jokes about it in the Sync thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=607919.msg8064070#msg8064070

This person was behind Voot scam.

Calls me a PnD expert, but has no proof. I guess Mscollect is just mad that I left a negative rating on him first, with proof mind you. The only PnD expert I see is you mscollect, with the way you handled Voot at the end there. Coward, manipulator, thief, scammer.

schizophrenic symptomatology

left negative trust rating over a matter of opinion in a forum post.. his pattern of behavior constitutes abuse of the trust system and he should be banned from the forum.

sock puppet

Schizofrenic scamer

Seeing as how its you and Iconic Expert who are the only 2 to leave me negative feedbacks (+ your sock puppet), I guess I should feel honored. Seeing as how these are the two most unashamed scammers currently free to destroy what's left of the reputation of crypto.

I can't believe more isn't done about them knowing full-well they are behind scam after scam, they are almost like false flag operations for why cryptocurrencies need more regulation. That's the level of their boldness.

So, punish me how you will, and let me know if the crime of being a dick is truly greater than that of being a thief, cheater or con artist.

[MsCollec]

Oh sync has hidden premine, the coin has been active since May 13, 2014.
Anyone can check the source, if there's any hidden block.
https://github.com/MsCollec/sync
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/sync/

oh vootcoin, well it's a community takeover and i call it quit.

Now, what did i stole from you again

[nutildah]

Oh sync has hidden premine, the coin has been active since May 13, 2014.
Anyone can check the source, if there's any hidden block.
https://github.com/MsCollec/sync
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/sync/

oh vootcoin, well it's a community takeover and i call it quit.

Now, what did i stole from you again

You stole my 0 trust rating. You turned it into a -1 when I never asked for your trust in ANY way! Before you left me a -1 rating I had NEVER engaged in any conversation with you whatsoever!

This is clear abuse of the trust system and exactly why default trust is BAD. Very Bad. As the title infers.

I never asked him to trust me. I never asked anyone to trust me. If you could legitimately be awarded negative trust for personal opinions we should all be at -1000 by now.

Anybody wanna step up and interject here? It would be appreciated. MsCollec seems to think he/she should just be able to leave people negative trust for any ol' reason. It sort of defeats the purpose of the system, wouldn't you agree?

[Lohoris]

This is clear abuse of the trust system and exactly why default trust is BAD. Very Bad. As the title infers.

I never asked him to trust me. I never asked anyone to trust me. If you could legitimately be awarded negative trust for personal opinions we should all be at -1000 by now.

Anybody wanna step up and interject here? It would be appreciated. MsCollec seems to think he/she should just be able to leave people negative trust for any ol' reason. It sort of defeats the purpose of the system, wouldn't you agree?

You got it the other way around, I fear.

Anyone (User A) should leave any trust he wants to anybody (User B).

BUT there shouldn't be a Default Trust, so that unless someone User C specifically wants to trust User A, User B's rank for him will be unaffected.

That's how you build a working system.
The current one is dumb.

[nutildah]

This is clear abuse of the trust system and exactly why default trust is BAD. Very Bad. As the title infers.

I never asked him to trust me. I never asked anyone to trust me. If you could legitimately be awarded negative trust for personal opinions we should all be at -1000 by now.

Anybody wanna step up and interject here? It would be appreciated. MsCollec seems to think he/she should just be able to leave people negative trust for any ol' reason. It sort of defeats the purpose of the system, wouldn't you agree?

You got it the other way around, I fear.

Anyone (User A) should leave any trust he wants to anybody (User B).

BUT there shouldn't be a Default Trust, so that unless someone User C specifically wants to trust User A, User B's rank for him will be unaffected.

That's how you build a working system.
The current one is dumb.

Yes, I agree with the second half, but doesn't being able to leave trust for anybody at any time obliterate the definition of "trust"? Why not just call it "negative karma" or something.

For the longest time I was under the impression you could only collect negative trust if you were in a trade and didn't deliver. Ironically, "negative trust" left by a default user over their disagreement with my personal opinions supersedes positive trust left by a non-default user which involved a trade.

So I agree with you and accept your premise, so long as the default trust list is removed (or MsCollec is taken off it... I mean, c'mon people, what kind of world do you want to live in here??).

[Lohoris]

but doesn't being able to leave trust for anybody at any time obliterate the definition of "trust"?

No, you leave trust on anyone.

Anyone else may decide to trust you or not.

If they trust you, the trust you leave will affect the ratings they see.

If it wasn't for the idiotic DefaultTrust, it would be a pretty good system, actually.

For the longest time I was under the impression you could only collect negative trust if you were in a trade and didn't deliver. Ironically, "negative trust" left by a default user over their disagreement with my personal opinions supersedes positive trust left by a non-default user which involved a trade.

Either you moderate it, or you leave it up to the users.
If you moderate it, it's bad because it can be abused.
If you leave it to the users, it's up to you to decide who you trust or not, so people leaving strange trust will be irrelevant.

[galbros]

This thread was the first thing I thought of after reading this recent thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=846683.0

I'd like to thank Lohoris again for convincing me to create my own trust list.

[BadBear-Away]

This thread was the first thing I thought of after reading this recent thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=846683.0

I'd like to thank Lohoris again for convincing me to create my own trust list.

Indeed, thanks for bumping this. I've lost a lot of confidence in default trust and those entrusted with it due to that, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[BitCoinDream]

This thread was the first thing I thought of after reading this recent thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=846683.0

I'd like to thank Lohoris again for convincing me to create my own trust list.

This does not solve the problem as the majority of the users will still be using DefaultTrust and hence be misguided. The trust system is good, logical and be there. But, DefaultTrust should be abolished.

-snip-

Indeed, thanks for bumping this. I've lost a lot of confidence in default trust and those entrusted with it due to that, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Why r u using a new account ? Even if u dont trust your current network to secure your password, as an admin is it difficult to reset it for yourself ?

[BadBear]

as an admin is it difficult to reset it for yourself ?

Not really, but untrusted people with an admin account could do a lot of damage that can't easily be undone, and also see a lot of information that shouldn't be seen, so I feel obligated to protect it as much as I can. Global moderator accounts are much safer in those respects.

[TECSHARE]

This thread was the first thing I thought of after reading this recent thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=846683.0

I'd like to thank Lohoris again for convincing me to create my own trust list.

Indeed, thanks for bumping this. I've lost a lot of confidence in default trust and those entrusted with it due to that, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Funny how you find me defending myself from harassment and direct attacks on my trading are some how unwarranted reasons for use of feedback. Lets take a look at some other users feedback around here whom you are simply glossing over and instead assigning blame to me.

some examples:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=101763
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=138471
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=30747

Clearly my single defensive use of feedback to protect my reputation is more of an affront than leaving hundreds of negative trust ratings based on suspicions or personal issues.

[ibminer]

This thread was the first thing I thought of after reading this recent thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=846683.0

I'd like to thank Lohoris again for convincing me to create my own trust list.

Indeed, thanks for bumping this. I've lost a lot of confidence in default trust and those entrusted with it due to that, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Funny how you find me defending myself from harassment and direct attacks on my trading are some how unwarranted reasons for use of feedback. Lets take a look at some other users feedback around here whom you are simply glossing over and instead assigning blame to me.

some examples:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=101763
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=138471
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=30747

Clearly my single defensive use of feedback to protect my reputation is more of an affront than leaving hundreds of negative trust ratings based on suspicions or personal issues.

Am I OK to leave negative trust for you because my opinion is that you abused the trust system?  
Personally, I would argue no, but I think you might be OK with this?   He has an opinion of you, you have an opinion of him, but it doesn't appear the trust system should have been involved.

I didn't think the feedback system was there to protect your own reputation and pointing fingers at other users and their behaviors appears childish and is only deflecting attention from your own actions

If you are good at what you do, and you appear to be a respected trader, then some guy posting nonsense shouldn't really effect you.

[murraypaul]

Funny how you find me defending myself from harassment and direct attacks on my trading are some how unwarranted reasons for use of feedback.

The issue is that:
a) You left false feedback, saying you has lost/risked BTC when you had not.

Risked BTC amount is money that the person could have stolen or did steal

b) The DefaultTrust system means that your ratings mean much more than most other peoples', so that there is no 'equality of arms'. You can effectively leave bad feedback against almost anyone with no fear of retribution, as if they leave bad feedback about you, noone will see it. This isn't your fault, it is a broken system (hence the title of this thread).

[TECSHARE]

If you are good at what you do, and you appear to be a respected trader, then some guy posting nonsense shouldn't really effect you.

... And you know this doesn't effect me how? Are you clairvoyant? Can you see when I get a reduction is responses to my threads because of this behavior? Its easy to write this off when it doesn't effect you.

Funny how you find me defending myself from harassment and direct attacks on my trading are some how unwarranted reasons for use of feedback.

The issue is that you left false feedback, saying you has lost/risked BTC when you had not.
 

A) I corrected this already not knowing it was a violation.... what is the issue about now? BTW, I put a number 1 into a field (which I have now deleted), I never said with words that he robbed me. You are making it sound like I was actively lying about him when I clearly stated he was marked for harassment.

B) So because I have shown myself to be trustworthy, I should just stand by like a royal guard and let tourists slap my face because my responsibility is to serve as an example rather than to protect my trading? P.S. I am not on the default trust.