Is the Default trust system still working/active?

[Lauda]

I count 3890 users with a custom trust list:

That's rather surprisingly low. Thanks for parsing that, I've always wondered how many people used custom lists!

[marlboroza]

How can I see someone's trust list without including them to my trust list?

See https://bitcointalk.org/trust.txt.xz, or for the uncompressed version from 3 days ago: https://pastebin.com/3CiX1T9p

Thanks.

It may be interesting to see the total number of entries: 22,605. That means just a few entries per user on average, which is far from enough to replace the DT-system.

I completely agree. Some members are excluding accounts who negatively tagged them(I checked few accounts) and I noticed one member has removed DT from their network and excluded 3 DT members which one of them -ve them and two "neutralized" them with "begging for merit" comment. Eh, it all goes to statistics.

[Anduck]

I am against DT and I also have DT on my custom trust list.

Yes, you have become one of DT's biggest critics despite not having an understanding of why it exists, yet you still include it on your list.    That means you are a hypocrite & DT has value even to it's biggest critics.  I don't think you're making the point you're trying to make.

I think your understanding of why DT exists differs from the original intention. Care to tell us why you think DT was made in the first place? Do you have any idea why theymos made DT and now says he doesn't like at all how it works?

I am not saying that DT is worthless. I am saying that it should be gone now. Obviously a top-down structure (once again) proves to not function as intended. Also, there are a high amount of critics of DT in the forums and most of them do not care about Meta section.

I include DT, because it's such a strong anomaly that the whole trust system builds around it while that anomaly exists. This is why people who fully acknowledge the possibility to make a fully custom trust list, often do not do it.

I also trust almost everyone in the DT1, so it's convenient for me to add DefaultTrust instead of writing all those users there myself. I can exclude DT1 users I do not trust.

Now just figure out what means that DT is a strong anomaly in the trust system.

People should use custom lists and they should be encouraged and incentivized to do so.

Encourage them: drop a link to Trust settings once in a while

That's not how a systematic problem gets fixed.

How can I see someone's trust list without including them to my trust list?

See https://bitcointalk.org/trust.txt.xz, or for the uncompressed version from 3 days ago: https://pastebin.com/3CiX1T9p

For the parsed format, check out https://anduck.net/files/bct_trustlists.txt. Also shows who includes/excludes who.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I include DT, because it's such a strong anomaly that the whole trust system builds around it while that anomaly exists. This is why people who fully acknowledge the possibility to make a fully custom trust list, often do not do it.

I sort of understand that statement, maybe 70% of it.  The other 30% makes my head spin.

Contrary to what a lot of other members think, I don't get off on being on DT2 and in fact it's a pain in the ass half the time.  But since bitcointalk doesn't even moderate scammers, there needs to be some mechanism through which unwitting members can avoid being scammed and bad behavior can be punished, so to speak. 

I completely agree that the trust system is screwed up, and I think I've said that for as long as I've been here.  If Theymos were to ditch the default trust system here tomorrow, and my feedback no longer carried as much weight, I'd be fine with that--as long as there was something in place to warn people about scammers, account dealers, identity thieves, trust abuse, extortion, etc.  If you asked me how many DT2 members exist I couldn't tell you, but I know it's a lot.  But there are only a handful of them active in handing out negs when they think someone deserves it.  The rest are just members that some DT1 peeps trust.  I'm assuming your gripe is because of Vod's feedback, and he's one of the active ones.

So, if we eliminate the whole DT system right now without having a function that the active DT1/DT2 members serve, what would happen?  All the cockroaches would have a field day, that's what.  I hear lots of gripes but no suggestions about alternatives, and I'll admit I can't think of a different system that would be better either.  I used to like the Scammer Tag thing that was in place when I was a lurker, but I do believe Theymos won't be going back to that. 

[Anduck]

Contrary to what a lot of other members think, I don't get off on being on DT2 and in fact it's a pain in the ass half the time.  But since bitcointalk doesn't even moderate scammers, there needs to be some mechanism through which unwitting members can avoid being scammed and bad behavior can be punished, so to speak. 

Diluting the DT list (=adding more DT users) would reduce that PITA.

I'm assuming your gripe is because of Vod's feedback, and he's one of the active ones.

Vod threatened to red-rate me unless I changed my rating. Threatening to abuse DT position, and then abusing it, has nothing to do with one's activity. DT are currently free to abuse as long as they keep it mild and "legit", and sadly some DT members take advantage of that possibility. Be a friend of 100, bully 1, and those 101 will be sticking together and ignore the wrongdoing (or find some unreasonable excuse). It's exactly the same as in politics. Nobody would care if that structure was not pushed on people by default. Such a structure should not exist in trust system, as trust system should not have any means of top-down authority whatsoever. This sort of mixture of trust network and moderation, that the current trust system sadly is, is not excelling at being a trust system or functional moderation.

So, if we eliminate the whole DT system right now without having a function that the active DT1/DT2 members serve, what would happen?  All the cockroaches would have a field day, that's what.  I hear lots of gripes but no suggestions about alternatives, and I'll admit I can't think of a different system that would be better either.  I used to like the Scammer Tag thing that was in place when I was a lurker, but I do believe Theymos won't be going back to that. 

I think the "Force custom lists" idea by theymos is the best step forward. I think that a less dramatic change would be to dilute DT, add a lot more DT1 members, and see what happens.

[S_Therapist]

I think the "Force custom lists" idea by theymos is the best step forward. I think that a less dramatic change would be to dilute DT, add a lot more DT1 members, and see what happens.

A forced custom list will solve the problem you are talking about but what will happen to the newbies? It has been mentioned by theymos too.
What DT exactly is doing? Trying to save people like us a.k.a people who are not familiar with the forum. The majority of the persons will be harmed by either way if no DT is there, IMO. I guess account aged 1 year don't know how the trust system works, in some cases, even some Legendary too. How newbie will save them then?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Diluting the DT list (=adding more DT users) would reduce that PITA.

Please explain to my pea brain how this would be so.  Also, how would this affect the ability of DT members to warn others?  Also also, I thought you wanted to get rid of the DT system altogether.

Vod threatened

Yes, I know you've said this ad nauseam across multiple threads.  Sorry I brought it up.

I think the "Force custom lists" idea by theymos is the best step forward. I think that a less dramatic change would be to dilute DT, add a lot more DT1 members, and see what happens.

I did see that thread, and I'm not sure how forcing newbies to create a trust list would work, and they're the ones most likely to fall for scams around here, IMO.  As to adding more DT1 members--did I miss how those would be chosen?  Theymos would have to pick them, since he doesn't like the voting strategy, so it just seems like the DT system would end up being more of a clusterfuck than it already is, unless the DT1 members had to keep very strict trust lists.  Diluting the DT2 pool seems like it would end up with more people with more power, more headaches, more internecine squabbles, more bitching about wrongly-left feedback, and more chaos.

Or have I got my math wrong again?

[Anduck]

I think the "Force custom lists" idea by theymos is the best step forward. I think that a less dramatic change would be to dilute DT, add a lot more DT1 members, and see what happens.

A forced custom list will solve the problem you are talking about but what will happen to the newbies? It has been mentioned by theymos too.
What DT exactly is doing? Trying to save people like us a.k.a people who are not familiar with the forum. The majority of the persons will be harmed by either way if no DT is there, IMO. I guess account aged 1 year don't know how the trust system works, in some cases, even some Legendary too. How newbie will save them then?

There have been scammers in DT. It amplifies their scamming power a lot when almost everyone sees them as "trusted" only because someone chose that e.g. a long time ago. Account sales happen too, which make this even worse. DT accounts are traded constantly, so how correct is that perceived trust given by DT then? Also, as I said before, scumbags will find their way on to any curated or however small list, if it gives them a position they want. It's how it works. We've seen this happening on DT, too.

One solution, the one I mentioned in that quote, is to dilute DT list heavily. Also the sole purpose of it should be defined strictly. If such a default list structure exists, it should solely be a list of people unlikely to scam others, it should be nothing more, nothing less. This would then encourage people to make their own custom trust lists while also securing newbies from getting scammed.

It's not for the forum staff / theymos to tell people who to trust. Giving an option to opt-out of that doesn't change this reality where DT has this power.

[S_Therapist]

There have been scammers in DT. It amplifies their scamming power a lot when almost everyone sees them as "trusted" only because someone chose that e.g. a long time ago. Account sales happen too, which make this even worse. DT accounts are traded constantly, so how correct is that perceived trust given by DT then? Also, as I said before, scumbags will find their way on to any curated or however small list, if it gives them a position they want. It's how it works. We've seen this happening on DT, too.

You can call me a newbie as I have joined the forum earlier on October 4, 2018. But I didn't see what you have mentioned, maybe I have missed those since the forum is bigger than we think. But I didn't miss the chance to read all the thread related to Gleb Gamow/ YuTü.Co.in/ Phinnaeus Gage and I know suchmoon has paid for the account too just to prevent any kinda scam issue. I have mentioned it here because I read the history with a lot of interest but I didn't get anywhere what you have mentioned.
Why don't you just post everything with a dedicated thread in reputation? I believe that will be worthy for sure. Everyone will see what is happening here in the name of DT. You should post the proof.

Edit-

Go read the Reputation and Scam accusations boards. Dive deep into the history. Feel free to compose a list of all the DT'ers who scammed and also try to find out when they were removed from DT if at all.

Would really appreciate having some links. Since you are an old member here, it will be pretty easier for you to link up.

[Anduck]

Diluting the DT list (=adding more DT users) would reduce that PITA.

Please explain to my pea brain how this would be so.  Also, how would this affect the ability of DT members to warn others?  Also also, I thought you wanted to get rid of the DT system altogether.

If there were more DT members, the chances that someone else had already tagged a scammer increase, etc. I assume that the "workload" for DT'ers is the source for the pain in your ass.
Whoever trusts DT would still see your warnings as "trusted feedback".
I'd prefer ditching DT completely. That doesn't mean that I couldn't suggest changes to DT.

Vod threatened

Yes, I know you've said this ad nauseam across multiple threads.  Sorry I brought it up.

It's an example of what sort of "mild, unpunishable" wrongdoings are done by DT members. I can find out many more. Often these things are discussed to the point where it's only frustrating to everyone, so maybe this fresh experiment is enough to get the point? I could bring up cases regarding or brought up by e.g. Deadterra, Lauda, mexxer-2, Lutpin, OgNasty, escrow.ms, etc. etc., but it would only end up like discussions regarding those cases ended before: in frustration, no changes (or small changes after insane amount of arguing), and wasted time.

I think the "Force custom lists" idea by theymos is the best step forward. I think that a less dramatic change would be to dilute DT, add a lot more DT1 members, and see what happens.

I did see that thread, and I'm not sure how forcing newbies to create a trust list would work, and they're the ones most likely to fall for scams around here, IMO.  As to adding more DT1 members--did I miss how those would be chosen?  Theymos would have to pick them, since he doesn't like the voting strategy, so it just seems like the DT system would end up being more of a clusterfuck than it already is, unless the DT1 members had to keep very strict trust lists.  Diluting the DT2 pool seems like it would end up with more people with more power, more headaches, more internecine squabbles, more bitching about wrongly-left feedback, and more chaos.

Or have I got my math wrong again?

It could go as you describe, but I doubt it. I'd argue that more decentralization in the DT would end up in more balanced outcome. More people with more power would mean less power per single DT user. The current amount of power that DT'ers carry is way too much compared to what is needed to simply warn newbies about scammers.

Why don't you just post everything with a dedicated thread in reputation? I believe that will be worthy for sure. Everyone will see what is happening here in the name of DT. You should post the proof.

Go read the Reputation and Scam accusations boards. Dive deep into the history. Feel free to compose a list of all the DT'ers who scammed and also try to find out when they were removed from DT if at all.

Would really appreciate having some links. Since you are an old member here, it will be pretty easier for you to link up.

For example check out https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1995886.0, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1306301.0 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1359877.0 where a DT user scammed. There are loads and loads of cases there.

It's not hard to find DT abuse (not just scams) in there. It just takes time to really go through this stuff. There are only like 60-70 pages in Reputation where this material mostly resides. Scam accusations board is the other one.

[LoyceMobile]

One solution, the one I mentioned in that quote, is to dilute DT list heavily. Also the sole purpose of it should be defined strictly. If such a default list structure exists, it should solely be a list of people unlikely to scam others, it should be nothing more, nothing less.

I disagree: I want people with good judgement on DT. Not being a scammer isn't enough. Example: I don't think cryptohunter is a scammer, but he has terrible judgement.

[cryptohunter]

One solution, the one I mentioned in that quote, is to dilute DT list heavily. Also the sole purpose of it should be defined strictly. If such a default list structure exists, it should solely be a list of people unlikely to scam others, it should be nothing more, nothing less.

I disagree: I want people with good judgement on DT. Not being a scammer isn't enough. Example: I don't think cryptohunter is a scammer, but he had terrible judgement.

Bring evidence now ................... I don't think you will.  Where is my judgement terrible that makes me untrustworthy?

Where as I can demonstrate that you do not have the capacity or critical reasoning required to be a merit source. I mean how can anyone be left to judge others posts who is observably suffering from a broken mind?  Just from some of the statements you and other merit sources make you can tell that they are pretty much low functioning. If you want me to bring examples just ask and I will provide.

Actually my entire post history from.. uncovering, fighting, damaging huge huge scams and fighting for fairer distribution (even though I would have gained much more from leaving it as it was) of huge projects  only to be shouted down by a bunch of idiots who all later start complaining about how it went down and suggesting things I had presented to start with (bunch of fools).

 I help the very most weak where you and the pharmacist were trying to bully around and get banned and I know full well all of my actions will cost me probably red trust and merit withholding and could not give one shit because it just backs up my case that these systems needs to be tightened up  or destroyed.  Helping people with nothing become millionaires by helping to push forward only the projects that I see as filling in the missing pieces of the end to end fully decentralised or trustless arena we all want to see. Being asked to hold large amounts of coins for projects because they can trust me not to dump them like the dev did previously.

Honestly I would ask you to bring forth one person on the entire board with more relevant credentials for global mod or dt. Fairness and honesty and robustness against caving against pressure against other system controllers are key here.

 Not that I ask for any positions here because I am certain that where there is still free speech even one person can make a huge difference without being given positions of power.

If you can present one person with better proven judgement  over these years... and as hard as all the scammers and loud mouth turn coats have scoured my closet for skeletons they find nothing. I have been told many times projects have financed people searching for anything to discredit me as their only hope for stopping my relentless slamming of their scams. They came up with NOTHING to demonstrate I committed any wrong doing.

 I don't even just mean the gang in meta i mean every scammer and scam project who have talked trash about me but never produced ANY evidence of any wrong doing at all.  All you will find from the start is helping the weak, criticising huge scams and scammy distributional methods, pointing out and highlighting the biggest scam promoters and enablers, giving everyone fair chance of find the most profitable projects ever (that were not scams) freely and before they took off. Fighting for increased fairness and freedom for all. Yeah terrible judgement.

You have done nothing like any of that you dumb fool.. you pull stats and also try to bully the weak from what I can see... that is it and get paid to spam it all over the place..and you criticise my judgement? You are a poster boy for why the merit system is broken I could not ask for a better example. I mean you have done nothing of note, your logic is a fail over and over and you have the most earned merit on this board.

Anyway sorry to go off topic but since I am being named and accused of having judgement that makes me untrustworthy with no evidence I reserve the right to ask it is provided or it is observable he is talking nonsense.

I can not wait for this bad judgement that would preclude me from a trust position (I never asked for dt or merit source ever anyway).

[Vod]

Vod threatened to red-rate me unless I changed my rating.

I red rated you because you scammed.   

[Anduck]

Vod threatened to red-rate me unless I changed my rating.

I red rated you because you scammed.    

Don't lie.

I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy to me

After this, you started power tripping when I provoked you. You illogically "misunderstood" me to reason your further wrongdoings and power tripping. Stop being dishonest.

Here's the real reason for you red-rating me:

I have made it neutral.  You have made yours negative.  Once of us will have to change it.  :/

Which means that you gave me the option to 1) remove my rating to you or 2) be red-rated.  I did not remove the rating, so you proceeded with option 2).

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg37486761#msg37486761


It's also bamboozling how you still haven't shown any acknowledgement of your illogical misunderstanding, even though it has been opened up to you various times.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I do think we could use more DT1 and, by extension, DT2 members, but we shouldn't be adding people just because we need more people. We should be adding people who would be an asset to the system, regardless of your feelings about the system in general.

If such a default list structure exists, it should solely be a list of people unlikely to scam others, it should be nothing more, nothing less.

Surely that's what green trust is for? Green trust means you are unlikely to scam others. Being unlikely to scam isn't enough to warrant a place on DT if all your trust ratings are nonsense.


I understand you want DT either diluted, changed or removed, but if you are going to derail every discussion about it back on to your personal beef with Vod, then nothing is going to change.

[Vod]

Vod threatened to red-rate me unless I changed my rating.

I red rated you because you scammed.    

Don't lie.

Blah blah blah.  You scammed an auction. I left you negative trust.

You sure are a crybaby hypocrite.  

I understand you want DT either diluted, changed or removed, but if you are going to derail every discussion about it back on to your personal beef with Vod, then nothing is going to change.

He seems to be oblivious to this.  He doesn't want DT gone - he wants his red trust removed.

[Anduck]

This is so totally offtopic, but I feel like I need to respond anyway. This Vod user just doesn't stop his harassing.

Blah blah blah.  You scammed an auction. I left you negative trust.

I've never scammed anyone. I've honored all my auctions and other business perfectly. Off you go, liar!

[suchmoon]

Diluting the DT list (=adding more DT users) would reduce that PITA.

You keep saying that and you even "applied" to DT yourself but in the last year or so you posted around a dozen trust ratings, 2 (perhaps 2.5) of which are retaliatory and others have no reference links. That's a horrible contribution to the trust system and you should not be anywhere near DT nor have any say in how it should be changed.

[Vod]

I've never scammed anyone. I've honored all my auctions and other business perfectly. Off you go, liar!

I'm not going to let a scammer call me a liar, bozo.   

[Anduck]

Diluting the DT list (=adding more DT users) would reduce that PITA.

You keep saying that and you even "applied" to DT yourself but in the last year or so you posted around a dozen trust ratings, 2 (perhaps 2.5) of which are retaliatory and others have no reference links. That's a horrible contribution to the trust system and you should not be anywhere near DT nor have any say in how it should be changed.

If I was Satoshi, would you then listen to these ideas I present?

Look at the first post of this thread. See what makes this DT list and what the DT users do.
DT should not be a group that requires whatever active spam/scambusting you're looking for.