Bitcoin Forum
November 30, 2021, 06:55:31 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Bitcoin Forums should eliminate all references to 'scammer' and 'trust'
Yes. - 9 (10.2%)
No. - 59 (67%)
You're still dumb. - 20 (22.7%)
Total Voters: 88

Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin Forums should eliminate 'Scammer' ratings and 'Trust' ratings  (Read 3736 times)
crumbs
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100



View Profile
October 30, 2013, 06:10:45 PM
 #41

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.
1638298531
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1638298531

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1638298531
Reply with quote  #2

1638298531
Report to moderator
1638298531
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1638298531

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1638298531
Reply with quote  #2

1638298531
Report to moderator
1638298531
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1638298531

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1638298531
Reply with quote  #2

1638298531
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1638298531
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1638298531

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1638298531
Reply with quote  #2

1638298531
Report to moderator
1638298531
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1638298531

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1638298531
Reply with quote  #2

1638298531
Report to moderator
1638298531
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1638298531

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1638298531
Reply with quote  #2

1638298531
Report to moderator
darkmule
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005



View Profile
November 01, 2013, 02:38:07 PM
 #42

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
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100



View Profile
November 01, 2013, 03:06:06 PM
 #43

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005



View Profile
November 01, 2013, 04:15:41 PM
 #44

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500


Hodl!


View Profile
November 01, 2013, 08:50:55 PM
 #45

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.

TL;DR See Spot run. Run Spot run. .... .... Freelance interweb comedian, for teh lulz >>> 1MqAAR4XkJWfDt367hVTv5SstPZ54Fwse6

Bitcoin Custodian: Keeping BTC away from weak heads since Feb '13, adopter of homeless bitcoins.
Oldgamer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 134
Merit: 100


View Profile
November 03, 2013, 02:27:41 AM
 #46

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490
Merit: 250



View Profile
November 07, 2013, 06:10:02 PM
 #47

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500


Doesn't use these forums that often.


View Profile
November 07, 2013, 06:11:17 PM
 #48

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.

Elastic.pw Elastic - The Decentralized Supercomputer
ELASTIC ANNOUNCEMENT THREAD | ELASTIC SLACK | ELASTIC FORUM
wolverine.ks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 375
Merit: 250



View Profile
November 07, 2013, 06:20:50 PM
 #49

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.
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!