DT1 users may be artificially increasing their own trust (Updated March 26th)

[Annon001]

It's understandable users will add to their trust list several people they've traded with. It's likely trust may have been exchanged with several of them
However for DT1 members there's a conflict of interests because adding those users will increase their own trust. They should avoid doing that more so than regular users
This is especially unacceptable if a considerable percentage of those users were added only by that DT1 user

I've checked all DT1 members for this behaviour and all of them (except Maged) increased their own trust score
It's acceptable to increase it by a few points, 15% or even 20%. I would consider that normal
However using this trick to increase their own score by 10+ unique trusts (eventually 100+ trust points) or by 35% or more shows it was intentional

There are 2 DT1 members who have manipulated their trust list to increase their own trust by 10 and even 22 unique trusts (100 or 220 points) totalling 40% and 440%!
They should immediately remove those users from their trust lists (and thus from DT2) or they should be removed themselves from DT1
DT1 members should not use their special powers to manipulate the system and appear more trusted than they really are

Here's the complete data for every DT1 user. This is obtained by checking their trust with default settings (only DefaultTrust) and compare it when explicitly excluding that specific user from the trust list (i.e. DefaultTrust and ~DT1user). The difference shows the artificial increase in trust due to them adding users to DT2.

The following information is included:
  DT1 username
  Trust with default settings
  Trust ~excluding the DT1 user (i.e. without counting DT2 additions made by that DT1 user)
  Trust artificially increased (percentage of increase)

MARCH 26th	MARCH 20th
hilariousandco 58: -0 / +8 50: -0 / +7 +8: +1 (14.3%)	hilariousandco 57: -0 / +7 50: -0 / +6 +7: +1 (16.7%)
dooglus 134: -0 / +14 114: -0 / +12 +20: +2 (16.7%)	dooglus 134: -0 / +14 114: -0 / +12 +20: +2 (16.7%)
Maged 30: -0 / +3 30: -0 / +3 +0: +0 (0%)	Maged 30: -0 / +3 30: -0 / +3 +0: +0 (0%)
dserrano5 10: -0 / +1 0: -0 / +0 +10: +1 (inf%)	dserrano5 10: -0 / +1 0: -0 / +0 +10: +1 (inf%) (Huge percentage, but only one unique trust)
Tomatocage 210: -0 / +21 150: -0 / +15 +60: +6 (40%)	Tomatocage 220: -0 / +22 160: -0 / +16 +60: +6 (37.5%)
SaltySpitoon 140: -0 / +14 120: -0 / +12 +20: +2 (16.7%)	SaltySpitoon 140: -0 / +14 120: -0 / +12 +20: +2 (16.7%)
philipma1957* 105: -0 / +11 105: -0 / +11 +0: +0 (0%)	philipma1957 260: -0 / +27 45: -0 / +5 +215: +22 (440%)
Cyrus 62: -0 / +7 42: -0 / +5 +20: +2 (40%)	Cyrus 62: -0 / +7 42: -0 / +5 +20: +2 (40%)
Blazed 304: -0 / +31 255: -0 / +26 +49: +5 (19.2%)	Blazed 334: -0 / +34 285: -0 / +29 +49: +5 (17.2%)
theymos 161: -0 / +17 141: -0 / +15 +20: +2 (13.3%)	theymos 160: -0 / +17 140: -0 / +15 +20: +2 (13.3%)
HostFat 40: -0 / +4 0: -0 / +0 +40: +4 (inf%)	HostFat 40: -0 / +4 0: -0 / +0 +40: +4 (inf%) (Huge percentage, but only 4 unique trust)
OgNasty 298: -0 / +31 194: -0 / +20 +104: +11 (55%)	OgNasty 338: -0 / +35 244: -0 / +25 +94: +10 (40%)

* philipma1957's trust without counting his own trust list has greatly increased (from 45 to 105) during the last week because OgNasty added several users who were initially added only by philipma1957. Besides this change out of philipma1957's control, he made a huge change in his list which produced his trust with default settings to drop from 260 to 105 (and it would be even less without the mentioned change made by OgNasty)


I've marked them with these colours:
Ideal, no artificial trust increase
Acceptable, normal
Barely acceptable
Mostly unacceptable but could have been a mistake which must be fixed immediately
Absolutely unacceptable, clear trust manipulation

[LFC_Bitcoin]

There’s going to be fireworks in here.....

[OgNasty]

The goal is supposed to be to add users to your network that you trust in order to decentralize the network...  Not really a measure of abuse.  theymos has even encouraged us to add users to decentralize the network by voicing his displeasure with the centralization.

Strange that I'm listed as a clear trust abuser along with someone that is 400% higher than I am in his "artificially increased" rating while Hostfat, Cyrus, & Tomatocage are all within a few % of me or infinitely higher and aren't...  Seems like someone here is trying to grind an axe against me or something?

[Jet Cash]

I'm probably unusual in that I completely ignore trust. I don't do any trading, apart from a few domain names, and those tend to be run through an escrow service. I thought trust was about trading, and money exchanges, but it seems to be a lot more here. I'm not sure that I understand it's purpose. It seems to be used as a weapon, more than a trading rating.

[Lauda]

Well, to get a clearer picture you might want to look at whether someone was included before or after leaving positive trust to their "superior". For example, I don't remember exactly when Blazed added me to their trust list but I haven't left them a rating until 06-20-2017. I am not completely sure about my rating on hilariousandco; it may have been posted after I got added which would nullify his case.

It seems to be used as a weapon, more than a trading rating.

[mdayonliner]

I'm probably unusual in that I completely ignore trust. I don't do any trading, apart from a few domain names, and those tend to be run through an escrow service. I thought trust was about trading, and money exchanges, but it seems to be a lot more here. I'm not sure that I understand it's purpose. It seems to be used as a weapon, more than a trading rating.

I really do not understand these DT1, DT2 etc things. Can anyone enlighten me please. I saw people send trust for others if they are not trust worthy. I really interested to know actually what is the purpose of trust things and how to find these DT1, DT2 etc things. A link of the details should be fine for me.

Thanks

[akamit]

I'm probably unusual in that I completely ignore trust. I don't do any trading, apart from a few domain names, and those tend to be run through an escrow service. I thought trust was about trading, and money exchanges, but it seems to be a lot more here. I'm not sure that I understand it's purpose. It seems to be used as a weapon, more than a trading rating.

Trust system is all about trust rating of a user who should earn it by trading or any activity where money involved, nothing more nothing less in my opinion.

But now it is what you have mentioned > It seems to be used as a weapon, more than a trading rating.

Btw op, once I left a rating for philipma1957, and I'm not in his trust network. He earned it for his nice work, that was a way of expressing appreciation.

[owlcatz]

The goal is supposed to be to add users to your network that you trust in order to decentralize the network...  Not really a measure of abuse.  theymos has even encouraged us to add users to decentralize the network by voicing his displeasure with the centralization.

Strange that I'm listed as a clear trust abuser along with someone that is 400% higher than I am in his "artificially increased" rating while Hostfat, Cyrus, & Tomatocage are all within a few % of me or infinitely higher and aren't...  Seems like someone here is trying to grind an axe against me or something?

Seriously? You abuse and diddle the system with your buddy Quickscammer all the time. Quit playing dumb and btw, are you ever going to answer my scam accusation about whether or not you sent that PM to Michael Silver? You also negged minifrij yesterday for nothing, then bragged about it to all your minions. That's not abuse? LOL, you are such a fool, and everyone will finally see it eventually.

This is the most trustworthy user here? FFS, really?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3160695.msg32677479#msg32677479

[minifrij]

The goal is supposed to be to add users to your network that you trust in order to decentralize the network...

The idea is to add users that contribute to the trust network, not just users that you trust. If you trust someone, give them a positive rating.

Strange that I'm listed as a clear trust abuser along with someone that is 400% higher than I am in his "artificially increased" rating while Hostfat, Cyrus, & Tomatocage are all within a few % of me or infinitely higher and aren't...

I have no idea why Tomatocage isn't listed as such, however in the case of Cyrus and Hostfat I'd expect it has to do with their low trust score after the fact - as mentioned in the post.

(Huge percentage, but only 4 unique trust)

Someone giving themselves +1 rating, while not necessarily right to do, is less damaging than someone giving themselves +20.

[Quickseller]

The only real concern I see here is the number of additional ratings that philipma1957 has as a result of his own trust list.

After CITM was removed, more people were added to the DT network, and I am fairly confident that those trusted directly by DefaultTrust are more conscientious of not adding too many people who have given them positive ratings, although this is sometimes unavoidable.

What is more concerning is the one or two "DT1" members who have a trust list made up of people who have given eachother positive ratings. 

[Blazed]

Looks like Blazed has a pretty low and respectable %...what a great guy! I guess it would be pretty easy to pump up my overall ratings, but honestly to what end? Having a high score for pretty much most of the DT1 users makes no difference. I do not think anyone trusts me more if my score were 300 or 600?

[Annon001]

The goal is supposed to be to add users to your network that you trust in order to decentralize the network...  Not really a measure of abuse.  theymos has even encouraged us to add users to decentralize the network by voicing his displeasure with the centralization.

Strange that I'm listed as a clear trust abuser along with someone that is 400% higher than I am in his "artificially increased" rating while Hostfat, Cyrus, & Tomatocage are all within a few % of me or infinitely higher and aren't...  Seems like someone here is trying to grind an axe against me or something?

The goal is to add users who leave correct trust without abuse, helping others to recognize trusted users from scammers
If you think the users you've added meet that requirement and should stay as DT2 then ask them to remove the feedback they left to you or make it neutral, otherwise you're abusing the system to increase your trust

I considered the percentage but even more the total amount of added trust points. You are red because you added 94 points (soon to be 100) to yourself. Specifically you've added 12 users not added by any other DT1 member (i.e. they are DT2 only because of you) and 10 of them left positive trust to you (83%). It's more than obvious the fact they added positive trust to you is a very important factor for you to decide to make them DT2

I wasn't sure if Tomatocage had to be orange or red, I had to put the limit somewhere. Imagine he is red too if that makes you feel better. Anyhow besides philipma1957 and you it's clear Tomatocage, Cyrus and maybe HostFat and Blazed should do something to prevent this conflict of interest

[owlcatz]

The goal is supposed to be to add users to your network that you trust in order to decentralize the network...  Not really a measure of abuse.  theymos has even encouraged us to add users to decentralize the network by voicing his displeasure with the centralization.

Strange that I'm listed as a clear trust abuser along with someone that is 400% higher than I am in his "artificially increased" rating while Hostfat, Cyrus, & Tomatocage are all within a few % of me or infinitely higher and aren't...  Seems like someone here is trying to grind an axe against me or something?

The goal is to add users who leave correct trust without abuse, helping others to recognize trusted users from scammers
If you think the users you've added meet that requirement and should stay as DT2 then ask them to remove the feedback they left to you or make it neutral, otherwise you're abusing the system to increase your trust

I considered the percentage but even more the total amount of added trust points. You are red because you added 94 points (soon to be 100) to yourself. Specifically you've added 12 users not added by any other DT1 member (i.e. they are DT2 only because of you) and 10 of them left positive trust to you (83%). It's more than obvious the fact they added positive trust to you is a very important factor for you to decide to make them DT2

I wasn't sure if Tomatocage had to be orange or red, I had to put the limit somewhere. Imagine he is red too if that makes you feel better. Anyhow besides philipma1957 and you it's clear Tomatocage, Cyrus and maybe HostFat and Blazed should do something to prevent this conflict of interest

I wouldn't bother. This pussy ass fucktwit won't do anything. See my ratings for him if you don't believe me. He never admits any wrongdoing, and is a blatant trust abuser and outright narcissistic prick.

Besides he still refuses to answer one basic question - DID YOU SEND THIS PM TO SILVER815 Siccing scammed users from your escrow thread on me for ZERO reason? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3160695.msg32677479#msg32677479

YES OR NO??? !!!!

Thanks!

PS - You will just feel dumber after reading all his bullshit. Don't bother... LOL

[TMAN]

Typical OG move - Deflect and attack.. with a little bit of persecution mixed in..

Strange that I'm listed as a clear trust abuser along with someone that is 400% higher than I am in his "artificially increased" rating while Hostfat, Cyrus, & Tomatocage are all within a few % of me or infinitely higher and aren't...  Seems like someone here is trying to grind an axe against me or something?

The goal is to add users who leave correct trust without abuse, helping others to recognize trusted users from scammers
If you think the users you've added meet that requirement and should stay as DT2 then ask them to remove the feedback they left to you or make it neutral, otherwise you're abusing the system to increase your trust

I considered the percentage but even more the total amount of added trust points. You are red because you added 94 points (soon to be 100) to yourself. Specifically you've added 12 users not added by any other DT1 member (i.e. they are DT2 only because of you) and 10 of them left positive trust to you (83%). It's more than obvious the fact they added positive trust to you is a very important factor for you to decide to make them DT2

Anyhow besides philipma1957 and you it's clear Tomatocage, Cyrus and maybe HostFat and Blazed should do something to prevent this conflict of interest

So OG is using the trust system for personal gain? I count that as trust abuse.. maybe theymos can chime in here with his views? it would be great if he could clarify if this personal gaming of the system is how he intended the trust system to be used? if not Blazed as the truly most trusted member of this forum could act out and pull an OG move by adding the magic ~ before a few peoples names?

[Quickseller]

If you think the users you've added meet that requirement and should stay as DT2 then ask them to remove the feedback they left to you or make it neutral, otherwise you're abusing the system to increase your trust

That might be your opinion, however your account was created today, and you have two posts, so your opinion is worthless. (your motivations are transparent). You can present an argument as to why your opinion is right, or you can shut up.

When you add a person to your trust list, you are vouching for their integrity, and obviously trust ratings. In order to do this, you must have somehow gotten to know this person, and have observed their behavior. This is fairly easy for moderators and admins because this is closely aligned with their normal job duties as a moderator, hence why (in part) the moderators among those trusted directly by DefaultTrust have few people on their trust lists who have given them positive trust ratings. Those who are not moderators, generally must interact with those they add to their trust lists directly in order to properly evaluate if it is appropriate to do so - one of the easiest ways to be able to make this evaluation is to trade with the person under competitive terms (and/or otherwise collaborate with the person), which will often result in positive trust being exchanged, especially after multiple transactions, so it should be expected for non-moderators to have positive trust from those on their trust list.

If you are a moderator and have not traded with many people on your trust list, or otherwise interacted with them, then there is a good chance you are adding a bunch of strangers to your trust list.

[TMAN]

If you think the users you've added meet that requirement and should stay as DT2 then ask them to remove the feedback they left to you or make it neutral, otherwise you're abusing the system to increase your trust

That might be your opinion, however your account was created today, and you have two posts, so your opinion is worthless. (your motivations are transparent). You can present an argument as to why your opinion is right, or you can shut up.

When you add a person to your trust list, you are vouching for their integrity, and obviously trust ratings. In order to do this, you must have somehow gotten to know this person, and have observed their behavior. This is fairly easy for moderators and admins because this is closely aligned with their normal job duties as a moderator, hence why (in part) the moderators among those trusted directly by DefaultTrust have few people on their trust lists who have given them positive trust ratings. Those who are not moderators, generally must interact with those they add to their trust lists directly in order to properly evaluate if it is appropriate to do so - one of the easiest ways to be able to make this evaluation is to trade with the person under competitive terms (and/or otherwise collaborate with the person), which will often result in positive trust being exchanged, especially after multiple transactions, so it should be expected for non-moderators to have positive trust from those on their trust list.

If you are a moderator and have not traded with many people on your trust list, or otherwise interacted with them, then there is a good chance you are adding a bunch of strangers to your trust list.

Annon001's opinion is worth more than yours QS, all you seem to do is come running when anyone points out absolutely anything controversial about your master OG..

it is obvious to anyone with an IQ of over 60 that OG is gaming the system here, but yet again you come in and attack and try to deflect the pertinent issue

[Annon001]

If you think the users you've added meet that requirement and should stay as DT2 then ask them to remove the feedback they left to you or make it neutral, otherwise you're abusing the system to increase your trust

That might be your opinion, however your account was created today, and you have two posts, so your opinion is worthless. (your motivations are transparent). You can present an argument as to why your opinion is right, or you can shut up.

When you add a person to your trust list, you are vouching for their integrity, and obviously trust ratings. In order to do this, you must have somehow gotten to know this person, and have observed their behavior. This is fairly easy for moderators and admins because this is closely aligned with their normal job duties as a moderator, hence why (in part) the moderators among those trusted directly by DefaultTrust have few people on their trust lists who have given them positive trust ratings. Those who are not moderators, generally must interact with those they add to their trust lists directly in order to properly evaluate if it is appropriate to do so - one of the easiest ways to be able to make this evaluation is to trade with the person under competitive terms (and/or otherwise collaborate with the person), which will often result in positive trust being exchanged, especially after multiple transactions, so it should be expected for non-moderators to have positive trust from those on their trust list.

If you are a moderator and have not traded with many people on your trust list, or otherwise interacted with them, then there is a good chance you are adding a bunch of strangers to your trust list.

Yes my motivations are completely transparent: I want DT1 members to stop abusing their powers, especially (in this order) philipma1957, OgNasty and Tomatocage
I have presented my arguments (i.e. facts) along with my opinions and continue to do so. I don't try to start a fight. I ask you to read these arguments and refrain from attacking me with your "shut up"

Of course when you add someone to your trust list it's very likely you've dealt with him and positive trust has been exchanged, I said exactly so in OP (please read it). However there's a conflict of interest which should be avoided as much as honestly possible.
While trust may have been exchanged, it's not a requirement for that to happen. You can realize someone leaves valid and helpful trust by reading what he posts and what feedback he leaves, with what arguments and references. Actually this is a better method than dealing with him because here we're talking about the trust they leave, not if they can be trusted with money.

Maybe this process is somewhat easier for moderators but of course you don't have to be a moderator to make that little research, it's based on public information. Besides a honest DT1 user can just ask those added to DT2 just by him to leave him neutral feedback (if at all), that's a simple request without negative consequences. Conflict of interest must be avoided whenever possible, that's true for anyone with power, here and IRL. This conflict of interests happens only because they are DT1. That's not the case for other users. That's why another solution would be for them to be removed from DT1 so they can keep acting as a regular user without any issues. If they are on DT1 then their main reason to add someone to their trust list should be helping the forum, not themselves

So it's definitely normal to expect DT1 members to add some users they've exchanged positive trust with but definitely not more than half. The 440% increase of trust made by philipma1957, the +94 points added by OgNasty (along with the fact 83% of users he's added to DT2 left positive trust to him) or the +60 points added by Tomatocage are definitely wrong

[SaltySpitoon]

Looks like Blazed has a pretty low and respectable %...what a great guy! I guess it would be pretty easy to pump up my overall ratings, but honestly to what end? Having a high score for pretty much most of the DT1 users makes no difference. I do not think anyone trusts me more if my score were 300 or 600?

I hear that SaltySpitoon fella is pretty solid as well  but joking aside, the quality of a person's feedback and the users it is from are more important than some numerical score. Having a +10 from Theymos is probably more telling than +100 from 10 random people. At a certain point, I really don't think the number matters all that much.

It is an interesting metric, but there are a lot of reasons why you can't necessarily draw conclusions from this alone. For example, each person's marketplace presence. Phillipma has a pretty large presence in the computer hardware section (if I'm not mistaken, I'm not looking up post history now, just recalling this from memory), Ognasty and Blazed in the Collectibles sections, myself in the Goods/Collectibles sections, and the others not as much. The 15-20% that you are calling normal seems to be about the standard for those not as heavily involved in the marketplace sections, so what does that mean about people who are getting tons of feedback for trades they are doing?

As you said in your OP, there is also some consideration to the nature of how a relationship starts. I have a couple of people on my trust list that I would never have known had I not traded with them, so to a certain extent its inevitable. The real metric for who you should trust to add to your trust list, are people that you believe will leave accurate feedback for others and act fairly.

And finally, usergroups kind of just establish themselves in boards where people frequent. The Alt coin sections have pump/dump groups, the ICO hunter groups, etc. Another example is the weird cult of people that have established themselves in the collectibles section. If you find yourself in one of those groups, by interacting with them, you'll probably find people you trust to add to your trust list. More so than just following the posts of a user you agree with in the speculation section. If that group was formed in a section that facilitates trades, your % I'd imagine would get higher.

Phillipma is indeed a large outlier, but this thread serves as the smoke to warrant further investigation, not necessarily something to draw conclusions from. I'm really tired so ignore the spelling and grammar mistakes, I write walls of text and proofreading is more than I'm up to right now.

[Quickseller]

Maybe this process is somewhat easier for moderators but of course you don't have to be a moderator to make that little research, it's based on public information.

A moderator will likely see reports from users in their trust list, which may play a role in deciding if they can be trusted or not. There also may be non-public information in the staff section about certain users.

Conflict of interest must be avoided whenever possible, that's true for anyone with power, here and IRL.

I agree with your statement, however I disagree with your conclusion that this presents a conflict of interest.

With the exception of philipma1957, I don't think the change in trust score reasonably changes the community perception of how trusted these people are.

Except for hilariousandco, and SaltySpitoon I don't think any of the staff members engages in any meaningful trades on behalf of themselves, so their trust scores are arguably irrelevant. One could also argue that their global moderator tags contribute more to their ability to be trusted than their trust score realistically would.

Although dooglus has been involved in very shady activity, he has handled tens of millions of dollars (when bitcoin was in the low triple digits) worth of other's bitcoin, and returned said money when his website shut down. If someone is doing their research on dooglus, his trust score will probably be a very small factor.

Both tomatocage and OgNasty have handled millions of dollars of other people's money (over time), and have for a long time been arguably the most trusted members in the community, and their increased trust scores do not change that.

I would be more concerned about DT1 members adding people to their trust list, and the result is certain 3rd parties' trust scores are inflated substantially. This could be an indication that a DT1 member is using their trust list to increase the trust score of either their sockpuppet, or a potential accomplice in a later scam, and/or is giving certain users credibility that may not be warranted. This is much less transparent than what you are describing, and has the potential to cause damage multiple times.

[hilariousandco]

Well, to get a clearer picture you might want to look at whether someone was included before or after leaving positive trust to their "superior". For example, I don't remember exactly when Blazed added me to their trust list but I haven't left them a rating until 06-20-2017. I am not completely sure about my rating on hilariousandco; it may have been posted after I got added which would nullify his case.

It was left after. I added you on July 11 2017.