Is the Default trust system still working/active?

[Anduck]

I think it's a very good idea! A shiny badge under a name will be something others notice, and if clicking it brings you to your trust settings, more users can be encouraged to make their own list.
(I haven't made my own list yet, because I want to be able to see trust the way most users see it)

I agree. The link should lead to that 'suggest' page, so the custom list would really get made.

Or we could airdrop worthless tokens Howeycoins for creating custom lists. 90% of the forum would do it overnight.

Actually not even that bad idea, as I am sure it would work quite nicely. But it's a bit silly... no real need for new shitcoins & it would cause loads of problems for the future to have such a bag to carry.

I think that force is the best way. Just remove DT and people have no other choice than to use the 'suggest' page to make their trust list. A "personal DT" would be much better, because users would know that the list is formed by their own choices, by their hand-picked users.

[1713583161]

1713583161

[1713583161]

1713583161

[1713583161]

1713583161

[1713583161]

1713583161

[coinlocket$]

I'm starting to have a big number of feedback sent, does it have a limit in numbers?

[Vod]

I'm starting to have a big number of feedback sent, does it have a limit in numbers?

You have just over 500 neg trust sent.   The highest person is The Pharmacist, with almost 2,500.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

You have just over 500 neg trust sent.   The highest person is The Pharmacist, with almost 2,500.

So I guess that makes me the alpha negger on bitcointalk--that actually surprises me, because this is a statistic that I've never even thought about before.  If you'd asked me to guess who'd given out the most negs, I would have said either you or Lauda.  Interesting.

If I'm not mistaken, I think most of the red trust I've given out has been for account selling or buying, so this just goes to show how bad that particular problem is on the forum.

[LoyceV]

I'm starting to have a big number of feedback sent, does it have a limit in numbers?

If I remember correctly, there used to be problems loading the trust page if it was too big. That's why the trust page no longer shows the status of the tagged/tagging user.

[Quickseller]

I'm starting to have a big number of feedback sent, does it have a limit in numbers?

If I remember correctly, there used to be problems loading the trust page if it was too big. That's why the trust page no longer shows the status of the tagged/tagging user.

This was because the forum server needed to calculate everyone’s trust score who appeared on someone’s trust page. This could not be done periodically globally because everyone’s trust settings, including their trust list is potentially different.

I don’t necessarily think it is a good thing to have sent a lot of negative ratings. Above all, it is important to have accurate ratings, including those that meet the definition of the description of the type of rating you are giving and that third parties are not in disagreement with. Another useful metric would include the number of people that openly dispute your ratings, although it should be acknowledged that some people will simply be unreasonable and will refuse to accept their behavior indicates they are either a scammer or will try to scam in the future.

Also, uncovering a difficult to detect scam that has gone unnoticed by others is better than tagging many low hanging fruits and/or tagging after checking others’ work.

[raveron]

I am totally schoked. I have never imagine that a forum can have such a fucked up trust system.

Maybe because it is so big and going for such a long time?

Maybe because corruption and image is more important?

This is bad, nice for sharing this info! You have some merit from me

[coinlocket$]

I'm starting to think that we need an additional system that works in parallel with the actual system, I've reported over 600 accounts for abusing from newbies to legendary, only 20 has been tagged from DT members 2 DT members.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4695194.msg42378900#msg42378900

[raveron]

I'm starting to think that we need an additional system that works in parallel with the actual system, I've reported over 600 accounts for abusing from newbies to legendary, only 20 has been tagged from DT members 2 DT members.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4695194.msg42378900#msg42378900

Not really, I think what we should do is stop tagging for usefull reasons. That might be a first.

Second, having a DT system based on activity and trading

[Vod]

I am totally schoked. I have never imagine that a forum can have such a fucked up trust system.

It worked well in your case - prevented you from scamming an innocent user.

[raveron]

I am totally schoked. I have never imagine that a forum can have such a fucked up trust system.

It worked well in your case - prevented you from scamming an innocent user.

Yes, I am totally agree with you. You're at this moment a reason why I think the system is wrong.

[Vod]

I am totally schoked. I have never imagine that a forum can have such a fucked up trust system.

It worked well in your case - prevented you from scamming an innocent user.

Yes, I am totally agree with you. You're at this moment a reason why I think the system is wrong.

Ok, so you would prefer a system where new users could not be prevented from scamming?

Do you think that would help the forum community, or just the scammers?

[raveron]

I am totally schoked. I have never imagine that a forum can have such a fucked up trust system.

It worked well in your case - prevented you from scamming an innocent user.

Yes, I am totally agree with you. You're at this moment a reason why I think the system is wrong.

Ok, so you would prefer a system where new users could not be prevented from scamming?

Do you think that would help the forum community, or just the scammers?

Oh no, obviously not. God fuck the scammers, but where is the case of scamming with a collateral? A collateral may not be valid for you, it might be valid to someone else.

I just saw you red trusted someone willing to have as Collateral CRGO coin.

This is so stupid and wrong, I have no idea if you are a person that understands crypto or someone with a lot of free time

[Vod]

Oh no, obviously not. God fuck the scammers, but where is the case of scamming with a collateral? A collateral may not be valid for you, it might be valid to someone else.

My definition of collateral is pretty clear.

Collateral is something that can easily be resold to cover the loan value plus interest

[The Sceptical Chymist]

A collateral may not be valid for you, it might be valid to someone else.

Here's the problem:  it would be a scammer's tactic to ask for a loan with a shitcoin or token that he knows can't be sold and therefore is worthless for him to hold.  In your lending thread, it looked exactly like you were just waiting for a sucker to take the bait.  People were explaining to you that your token might be unsalable, and you basically kept responding "yeah well, everyone can make up their own mind". 

This forum is rife with examples of loan scamming where people put up either worthless collateral or collateral that they're simultaneously trying to sell.  That's why you got tagged.  However, I'm not calling you a scammer outright, just pointing out that there were huge red flags in your lending thread.  Maybe you have too much faith in the future of GRVS, and maybe you intended to just pay back the loan honestly.  Who knows?  Vod called it as he saw it, and while it might seem pretty strict of him to tag you, there isn't much you can do about it unless you work out an arrangement with him. 

Vod is reasonable, but you have to understand that he's seen so many scams and attempted scams here that his position is to take no chances, especially with relative newbies.

[mikeywith]

there is a good chance that you are an honest person and you were actually going to repay the loan, but honestly using a shitcoin that is not even on CMC as a collateral is as bad as going to the pawn shop with your underwear as a collateral, while you may think it worth a lot, to most people it's useless and have 0 value. and given the amount of scammers around, the smallest thing you do puts you on the scammers side. so before you try to buy/sell/lend/load you need to think 10 times before you become a scam suspect.

[raveron]

Hmm very interesting point of view..I can say that at that moment I had faith in grvs, for now I still have as things are changing for good again. Scammers scammers scammers, this doesn't help, this makes people to scam. You have to stop saying this around all time because this is what creates. Whatsoever, you can look at logs, I have closed the thread before receiving any kind of trust feedback from the people, it was not my intent at all to care at least about scaming. I can't take serious someone like the description licking boobs, even if I am a very big fan of family guy. More or less, many things as this has to be changed soon enough

[suchmoon]

Scammers scammers scammers, this doesn't help, this makes people to scam.

It doesn't work that way. Look at Vod's received feedback:


Edited 2020-11-30 to fix a broken image

Has it made him scam?

[mikeywith]

I can't take serious someone like the description licking boobs

who doesn't like licking boobs ? i sometimes's stop and stare at that profile picture, it actually has a tongue moving. .

anyway if you plan to trade again on the forum, just be extra careful, offer a valid collateral if you need a loan.

Good luck.

[raveron]

@suchmoon, that's different, it's a mental problem there.

@mikeywith I don't like boobs, I like nipples as fact lol