DefaultTrust is BAD. Very bad.

[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...