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

[crumbs]

You need collateral because you don't trust me without my trust ratings.

i would agree that i need collateral because i dont trust you, however, im not looking to trust you, and even if i were, trust ratings and scammer tags only have some correlation with previously documented behavior, but they do not have a causal relationship to future behavior.

economic incentives do have a causal relationship to future behavior.

Causation is simply correlation with a good backstory, so correlation is better than nothing.
Sure, behaving honorably in the past doesn't preclude the possibility of scamming in the future.  All other things being equal though, i'd still bet on someone who hasn't scammed before than an established scammer.

[1714902748]

1714902748

[darkmule]

Sure, behaving honorably in the past doesn't preclude the possibility of scamming in the future.  All other things being equal though, i'd still bet on someone who hasn't scammed before than an established scammer.

True, but you're more likely to get scammed BIG by someone who was previously trusted, because you simply wouldn't trust someone for a lot of money without some reputational background.  A good con artist knows to build a reputation before the big score.

[crumbs]

Sure, behaving honorably in the past doesn't preclude the possibility of scamming in the future.  All other things being equal though, i'd still bet on someone who hasn't scammed before than an established scammer.

True, but you're more likely to get scammed BIG by someone who was previously trusted, because you simply wouldn't trust someone for a lot of money without some reputational background.  A good con artist knows to build a reputation before the big score.

You do have a point -- if we have cops, we become less vigilant in protecting ourselves.  I simply don't see it as a strong argument for getting rid of cops altogether.

Even if you feel that the scammer labels/negative trust have 50/50 chance of being rigged, you should still avoid trading with tagged users if non-tagged users are available.  Not necessarily fair, simply statistically sound.

*There are possible scenarios in which this doesn't hold true, but those are pretty contrived.

[darkmule]

Even if you feel that the scammer labels/negative trust have 50/50 chance of being rigged, you should still avoid trading with tagged users if non-tagged users are available.  Not necessarily fair, simply statistically sound.

*There are possible scenarios in which this doesn't hold true, but those are pretty contrived.

Well, despite the unreliable criteria used to determine those 'scammer tags' you can at least be fairly certain if someone has one of those tags, it's probably deserved.  I suppose they at least have some historic value.

[Flashman]

If you feel that scam tags might be undeserved and you want to rehab the poor innocent luser with some high BTC transactions, go nuts.

[Oldgamer]

Sure, behaving honorably in the past doesn't preclude the possibility of scamming in the future.  All other things being equal though, i'd still bet on someone who hasn't scammed before than an established scammer.

True, but you're more likely to get scammed BIG by someone who was previously trusted, because you simply wouldn't trust someone for a lot of money without some reputational background.  A good con artist knows to build a reputation before the big score.

A good con artist at first was a bad con artist in the beginning. And became a good one only because he had the opportunity.
Listen to you all background checking everywhere has no sense. If background checking was good enough, probably con artist would never be a good one.

[deodecagone]

agreed trust shouldn't be part of the equation. Please send me your bitcoins here :
165sBm8mohPjjF1oxmXNbK36kgc9SpPD23

I'll give it to you back plus a bonus.

A no-need-to-trust-me fellow,

[whiskers75]

agreed trust shouldn't be part of the equation. Please send me your bitcoins here :
165sBm8mohPjjF1oxmXNbK36kgc9SpPD23

I'll give it to you back plus a bonus.

A no-need-to-trust-me fellow,

I don't trust you.

[wolverine.ks]

perhaps a complete definition of trust is needed. any takers?

it seems like there are at least two different definitions being used and if any progress is to be made, then agreeing on the terms may be beneficial.