"Trust" system is shit !!! "Trust me !!!"

[athanz88]

snip

I consider your statement as a humbug and stupid as there are too many similar cases . Not providing proof doesn't mean I was not scammed . And the word you have used is foolish on its own as anyone will do a small trade with a +ve trust guy & this was not my problem if it was a bought account .

You can tell people all you want because you think that you are the right person here. If you want to blame a system then play by a system. Say, will your report to the police be investigated if there is no single proof and you even said that you do not know the name of the scammer?

Not anyone is stupid and humbug and willing to trade a small amount with a positive trust guy without any precaution, especially on internet. Gosh. I am not defending the trust system, but you are completely wrong if you want to raise an awareness into trust system, by attacking it without any proof.

[1715299882]

1715299882

[1715299882]

1715299882

[1715299882]

1715299882

[1715299882]

1715299882

[1715299882]

1715299882

[jointherevolution]

The trust system can be as good as the people who monitor it. If they are understaffed, then scammers will in way to abuse the trust system. It's not bad  or good on its own.

[Thanasis]

I too believe that the trust system is not completely accurate because the trust ratings are given by the people and making mistake is just common with the people,so if you want to trade you need to be careful and also need to see the untrusted feedbacks as well it may replicate the real face of that person too.But the trust system is helping the people to stay away from scammers at most of the time but there are other reason also the negative trust given to the people other than scam attack but this trust system is what we have.

Do you have any other better idea than the current trust system?

[marlboroza]

It is funny how you scammers are always talking about how trust system should work. Besides, OP is exactly what people are fighting against - payed ICO bump service, shilling for scam projects, spamming forum, bumping threads with nonsense, misleading investors etc.

I think there shoud be a voting system for DT members to survive each month .

Who will vote?

You and your alt account army?
Shitposters with 50+ accounts?
Quacky and his alt account army?

 

[FlamingFingers]

How about an overhaul to the trust system?

What I think of: members would submit evidence/reference of whatever they are accusing another member of for moderators to look in to and decide whether the member deserves to be tagged or not (more like how 'Report to moderator' works). It would go down like this:

1. Negative Trust: if evidence is verified as true, accused members will be tagged with a red trust (exactly like what it is right now). This will be primarily for scammers, Ponzi, HYIP or Pyramid schemes' creators and promoters, known alternatives of scammers and even wanna-be scammers (if evidence is solid);

2. Slightly Negative Trust: if evidence cannot be verified or hardly present, but moderators can see that the accused member is showing attitude or doing actions which sustain the evidence (i.e., a member who is explicitly attacking, flaming or accusing other members for no obvious reasons—I think this forum has a fair share of those). This will also be for account sellers and buyers, verified shills, members suspected of being scammers (no solid evidence), Trust abusers, Merit and Trust traders, etc.;

3. Neutral Trust: would stay the same as it is;

4. Slightly Positive Trust: trusted members giving their trust to other members (for good actions like doing something good for the forum or the members themselves, trying hard to clean this forum from scammers and spammers, or trusting with no evidence, etc.), moderators won't need to look much in to this;

5. Positive Trust: this will be for honest, reputable traders (whether it be currency exchange, physical or digital goods, etc.), bounty managers, services providers, moderators, etc. This still needs evidence to be provided and approved in order to be tagged.

Notes:
I know this will still annoy butt-hurt people like CoolWave and KingScorpio as it gives MOAR POWAAA to "corrupted" moderators, and we will see increased numbers of threads like this one. 
I know this will add a ton of work for the already busy moderators, so expanding the moderation team a little could help.
I know Trust abusers will find a way to manipulate the system. However, this might stop members from tagging each other unfairly.
I also know that this isn't perfect (nothing really is?), and would need suggestions and changes from other trusted members.   

[EcuaMobi]

for moderators to look in

Giving power only to moderators would make the system even more centralized. This is why trust is not moderated.

members would submit evidence/reference of whatever they are accusing another member of for moderators to look in to and decide whether the member deserves to be tagged or not

This is somehow how it works when someone posts on Scam accusations, except more users have the power to tag instead of just moderators.

I see the advantage on your several suggested levels and colors. But maybe it could become too confusing to use.

[jeremypwr]

Agreed that the "trust" system on this forum is all but pointless.

With a couple clicks through a profile and post history, its easy to decipher between who is trustworthy and who is not. 

Take my "trust," for example, where I have been responsible for paying thousands of dollars out to forum members who have participated in a Campaign.

Some person I don't even know decides to tag me for "negative trust" for something I did more than 4 years ago.

Now, my "positive trust" become red negative.  Big deal; if anyone wants to really investigate into my character and history, I suggest ignoring the "trust" color/number and doing your own research.

[pugman]

I think there shoud be a voting system for DT members to survive each month .

You mean something like this? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;suggest

There was poll for this back in 2015, and people wanted to keep the Default Trust, but at that time, DT was used for its original purpose. Now we see people getting tagged for things like, He called me a ".....".

Agreed that the "trust" system on this forum is all but pointless.

With a couple clicks through a profile and post history, its easy to decipher between who is trustworthy and who is not.  

Take my "trust," for example, where I have been responsible for paying thousands of dollars out to forum members who have participated in a Campaign.

Some person I don't even know decides to tag me for "negative trust" for something I did more than 4 years ago.

Now, my "positive trust" become red negative.  Big deal; if anyone wants to really investigate into my character and history, I suggest ignoring the "trust" color/number and doing your own research.

You never had positive trust, your Trust Depth might have been set at 4. 2 is the Default Trust, where the ratings only by DT members are visible, and not the ratings given out by Non-DT members.

[Thekool1s]

God Damnit! Another Trust Thread. To all geniuses out there! We know 'Trust system' has it's flaws, it's not perfect! nobody claimed it was perfect! But it's what keeping this sinking ship afloat. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. What irritates me the most is people crying about 'trust' being an issue don't propose a solution to the 'problem'. @Coolwave Do you have any revolutionary ideas to "decentralize trust"? I will be more than happy to hear about them. You will be the next 'Satoshi' if you can successfully decentralize trust.

[EcuaMobi]

I think there shoud be a voting system for DT members to survive each month .

You mean something like this? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;suggest

No. I think he means getting a list of every DT1 and DT2 members (like this provided you have default settings) and voting who deserves to remain in the list. Ideally it doesn't sound like a crazy idea, but it would be extremely difficult to avoid abuse (creating or buying accounts to vote) and keep it objective. The voting should be either moderated or limited to trusted users, losing the whole idea behind voting. However I do think DT1 members should be much more open to suggestion about modifying their DT2 list and theymos about the DT1 list.

[pugman]

I think there shoud be a voting system for DT members to survive each month .

You mean something like this? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;suggest

No. I think he means getting a list of every DT1 and DT2 members (like this provided you have default settings) and voting who deserves to remain in the list. Ideally it doesn't sound like a crazy idea, but it would be extremely difficult to avoid abuse (creating or buying accounts to vote) and keep it objective.

That page I linked is outdated, it would be a fairly decent idea if theymos updates the list with all the DT members, and ask from users above a specific rank(preferably limited only to Full member and above to avoid too much abuse) who they trust, and the ratings of others to be based on that. By doing so the level of hierarchy would be avoided and there'll be no more "bullying" by DT1 members, but "bullying" by DT members will continue to exist. 

[Thekool1s]

preferably limited only to Full member and above to avoid too much abuse) who they trust,

A far better idea would be to only allow members who have at least XX merit above their "Default" merit which was assigned to them to vote, this should keep things pretty fair.

By doing so the level of hierarchy would be avoided and there'll be no more bullying by DT1 members, but "bullying" by DT members will continue to exist.

"Damned if we do! Damned if we don't!" - Hilariousetc

[mrcash02]

How about an overhaul to the trust system?

What I think of: members would submit evidence/reference of whatever they are accusing another member of for moderators to look in to and decide whether the member deserves to be tagged or not (more like how 'Report to moderator' works). It would go down like this:

1. Negative Trust: if evidence is verified as true, accused members will be tagged with a red trust (exactly like what it is right now). This will be primarily for scammers, Ponzi, HYIP or Pyramid schemes' creators and promoters, known alternatives of scammers and even wanna-be scammers (if evidence is solid);

2. Slightly Negative Trust: if evidence cannot be verified or hardly present, but moderators can see that the accused member is showing attitude or doing actions which sustain the evidence (i.e., a member who is explicitly attacking, flaming or accusing other members for no obvious reasons—I think this forum has a fair share of those). This will also be for account sellers and buyers, verified shills, members suspected of being scammers (no solid evidence), Trust abusers, Merit and Trust traders, etc.;

3. Neutral Trust: would stay the same as it is;

4. Slightly Positive Trust: trusted members giving their trust to other members (for good actions like doing something good for the forum or the members themselves, trying hard to clean this forum from scammers and spammers, or trusting with no evidence, etc.), moderators won't need to look much in to this;

5. Positive Trust: this will be for honest, reputable traders (whether it be currency exchange, physical or digital goods, etc.), bounty managers, services providers, moderators, etc. This still needs evidence to be provided and approved in order to be tagged.

Notes:
I know this will still annoy butt-hurt people like CoolWave and KingScorpio as it gives MOAR POWAAA to "corrupted" moderators, and we will see increased numbers of threads like this one.  
I know this will add a ton of work for the already busy moderators, so expanding the moderation team a little could help.
I know Trust abusers will find a way to manipulate the system. However, this might stop members from tagging each other unfairly.
I also know that this isn't perfect (nothing really is?), and would need suggestions and changes from other trusted members.    

Something like this would be good. But I would change a little: If you receive one negative feedback (from a DT member, obviously) you will have an orange mark (automatically); then to turn the mark red, the DT member will have to find another DT members to corroborate his feedback. It avoids persecution and situations like that where one person has enough power to destroy someone's reputation totally (what is the maxim of the centralization), generating controversies and inconsistencies.

And of course, a difference between the trust traders receive for making deals and trust people receive for being admired by others. This is a good point to think about...

[athanz88]

The thing is, every system that is implemented in  in real world and in this forum, has flaws that can be used by evil people to gain something from innocent people. You can not trust the system blindly, and should make a priority for your self before you deal with anything in the closed system.

snip

Something like this would be good. But I would change a little: If you receive one negative feedback (from a DT member, obviously) you will have an orange mark (automatically); then to turn the mark red, the DT member will have to find another DT members to corroborate his feedback. It avoids persecution and situations like that where one person has enough power to destroy someone's reputation totally (what is the maxim of the centralization), generating controversies and inconsistencies.

And of course, a difference between the trust traders receive for making deals and trust people receive for being admired by others. This is a good point to think about...

Although until now there is no difference of the trust, you can always look up to their trust page and see the reference of the trust. It would give you a glimpse of how they gain the trust.

[CoolWave]

snip

I consider your statement as a humbug and stupid as there are too many similar cases . Not providing proof doesn't mean I was not scammed . And the word you have used is foolish on its own as anyone will do a small trade with a +ve trust guy & this was not my problem if it was a bought account .

You can tell people all you want because you think that you are the right person here. If you want to blame a system then play by a system. Say, will your report to the police be investigated if there is no single proof and you even said that you do not know the name of the scammer?

Not anyone is stupid and humbug and willing to trade a small amount with a positive trust guy without any precaution, especially on internet. Gosh. I am not defending the trust system, but you are completely wrong if you want to raise an awareness into trust system, by attacking it without any proof.

Well I am not reporting anything and it is just a discussion . You are unable to understand that this is not the only case , there may be thousands like mine . Every system has flaws but this system is very ill featured giving no chance to red guys . Every single person on this earth deserves a chance .

[CoolWave]

It is funny how you scammers are always talking about how trust system should work. Besides, OP is exactly what people are fighting against - payed ICO bump service, shilling for scam projects, spamming forum, bumping threads with nonsense, misleading investors etc.

I think there shoud be a voting system for DT members to survive each month .

Who will vote?

You and your alt account army?
Shitposters with 50+ accounts?
Quacky and his alt account army?

 

A green trust guy lol . Yes, I have more than 50 alts, wait not 50 more than 1 crore alts now that sounds good ? Stupid people like you say anything without any single proof : do you have even a single instance where I have scammed someone ? No ? Please get lost !

How about an overhaul to the trust system?

What I think of: members would submit evidence/reference of whatever they are accusing another member of for moderators to look in to and decide whether the member deserves to be tagged or not (more like how 'Report to moderator' works). It would go down like this:

1. Negative Trust: if evidence is verified as true, accused members will be tagged with a red trust (exactly like what it is right now). This will be primarily for scammers, Ponzi, HYIP or Pyramid schemes' creators and promoters, known alternatives of scammers and even wanna-be scammers (if evidence is solid);

2. Slightly Negative Trust: if evidence cannot be verified or hardly present, but moderators can see that the accused member is showing attitude or doing actions which sustain the evidence (i.e., a member who is explicitly attacking, flaming or accusing other members for no obvious reasons—I think this forum has a fair share of those). This will also be for account sellers and buyers, verified shills, members suspected of being scammers (no solid evidence), Trust abusers, Merit and Trust traders, etc.;

3. Neutral Trust: would stay the same as it is;

4. Slightly Positive Trust: trusted members giving their trust to other members (for good actions like doing something good for the forum or the members themselves, trying hard to clean this forum from scammers and spammers, or trusting with no evidence, etc.), moderators won't need to look much in to this;

5. Positive Trust: this will be for honest, reputable traders (whether it be currency exchange, physical or digital goods, etc.), bounty managers, services providers, moderators, etc. This still needs evidence to be provided and approved in order to be tagged.

Notes:
I know this will still annoy butt-hurt people like CoolWave and KingScorpio as it gives MOAR POWAAA to "corrupted" moderators, and we will see increased numbers of threads like this one.  
I know this will add a ton of work for the already busy moderators, so expanding the moderation team a little could help.
I know Trust abusers will find a way to manipulate the system. However, this might stop members from tagging each other unfairly.
I also know that this isn't perfect (nothing really is?), and would need suggestions and changes from other trusted members.    

I agree and I declare that I have had none of those characteristics .

Something like this would be good. But I would change a little: If you receive one negative feedback (from a DT member, obviously) you will have an orange mark (automatically); then to turn the mark red, the DT member will have to find another DT members to corroborate his feedback. It avoids persecution and situations like that where one person has enough power to destroy someone's reputation totally (what is the maxim of the centralization), generating controversies and inconsistencies.

And of course, a difference between the trust traders receive for making deals and trust people receive for being admired by others. This is a good point to think about...

I think this is far better idea to call at least 10 DT members to verify the basis on which a person is negative tagged .

[xtraelv]

I still trust the green members more than the red ones (With an exception of a few)..... Just sayin'.

this forum is doomed to become the community of the bitcoin miner cult.

Strange that on a forum called Bitcoin Forum also known as Bitcointalk.

I went on a car forum and it was like déjà vu  of what you were saying. Just car cultists. They had a motorcycle section as well but they seemed to be mainly interested in cars.

1. i got mistrust because i wanted to trade merit with someone else to support each other, otherwise this forums consits only of gay bitcoin sectists that constantly merit each other

Hey hey, the new forum is coming out in 3018^TM. Have high hopes. 

Looks like some people already suspect that.

[marlboroza]

Stupid people like you say anything without any single proof : do you have even a single instance where I have scammed someone ? No ? Please get lost !

Looking at proofs...

I think this is far better idea to call at least 10 DT members to verify the basis on which a person is negative tagged .

Verifying proofs....reading Lauda's reference opinion....reading ibminer's reference opinion....reading The Pharmacist's reference opinion...

Nah, everything is just fine with your trust wall, especially this part http://archive.is/j7AEM. There you go, now go and find 6 other opinions and see if someone will counter negative feedback 

[vphasitha01]

Stupid people like you say anything without any single proof : do you have even a single instance where I have scammed someone ? No ? Please get lost !

Looking at proofs...

I think this is far better idea to call at least 10 DT members to verify the basis on which a person is negative tagged .

Verifying proofs....reading Lauda's reference opinion....reading ibminer's reference opinion....reading The Pharmacist's reference opinion...

Nah, everything is just fine with your trust wall, especially this part http://archive.is/j7AEM. There you go, now go and find 6 other opinions and see if someone will counter negative feedback 

Sometimes scammers didn't like to see their trust wall, until they get scammed

Dear @marlboroza,
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience" - George Carlin

[CoolWave]

Stupid people like you say anything without any single proof : do you have even a single instance where I have scammed someone ? No ? Please get lost !

Looking at proofs...

I think this is far better idea to call at least 10 DT members to verify the basis on which a person is negative tagged .

Verifying proofs....reading Lauda's reference opinion....reading ibminer's reference opinion....reading The Pharmacist's reference opinion...

Nah, everything is just fine with your trust wall, especially this part http://archive.is/j7AEM. There you go, now go and find 6 other opinions and see if someone will counter negative feedback  

Well ofcourse everything is fine other than morons statements like Lauda, Pharmacist and ibminer . Well why not ? My statement doesn't need any proof as it can happen with anyone . You know nothing about http://archive.is/j7AEM so better stay away from that crap.

Sometimes scammers didn't like to see their trust wall, until they get scammed Cheesy

Dear @marlboroza,
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience" - George Carlin

Here comes another one .
Perfect statement for you @vphasitha01 . You speak like a bumpkin . If I were scamming people, I wouldn't have been here wasting my time with you morons .