DefaultTrust changes

[DarkStar_]

User willi9974 seems to have been added very recently. Worth an exclusion? All they've left are positives with the majority just saying "BTC Run/BTC Lotto/BTC Lotto Run"

[1714067099]

1714067099

[1714067099]

1714067099

[1714067099]

1714067099

[tmfp]

Extraordinary Claim

Why should anyone care that this kind of behavior can get people thrown in prison, robbed, or killed in their home nations for no other reason than some people here have nothing better to do than play private investigator?

Extraordinary Evidence

                                                                           


                                                                                                 ?

Does this count?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=kidnapped+bitcoin
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=prison+for+bitcoin
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bitcoin+stolen

No.
Try again.

for no other reason than some people here have nothing better to do than play private investigator

[TECSHARE]

Extraordinary Claim

Why should anyone care that this kind of behavior can get people thrown in prison, robbed, or killed in their home nations for no other reason than some people here have nothing better to do than play private investigator?

Extraordinary Evidence

                                                                           


                                                                                                 ?

Does this count?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=kidnapped+bitcoin
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=prison+for+bitcoin
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bitcoin+stolen

No.
Try again.

for no other reason than some people here have nothing better to do than play private investigator

I see, so my points are only valid if they are your points. Good talk.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

User willi9974 seems to have been added very recently. Worth an exclusion? All they've left are positives with the majority just saying "BTC Run/BTC Lotto/BTC Lotto Run"

I don't see why he ought to be excluded, as he's received pretty much all positive trust (and a lot of it), and only some of his left feedbacks are like the ones you quoted above.  We want a diverse DT list, right?  I don't know who willi9974 is, but I don't see why he shouldn't be given a shot if he got made a DT member.

Edit:  What level of DT did he get added to?  I don't see him on the default trust breakdown list.  Am I looking in the right place?

Edit2:

That only shows the votes of DT1 members for other DT1 members. The lists you are looking for are:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dt - shows DT1 and DT2 list
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full;dt - shows each DT1's individual trust list

Appreciate the help--I know it was written somewhere how to display all of that, but I don't usually feel the need to look at other members' trust lists and thus never paid attention to how to show everything. 

[o_e_l_e_o]

I don't see him on the default trust breakdown list.  Am I looking in the right place?

That only shows the votes of DT1 members for other DT1 members. The lists you are looking for are:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dt - shows DT1 and DT2 list
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full;dt - shows each DT1's individual trust list

[cryptohunter]

Neutral trust with a warning the account "may be" changed hands is enough.

The only problem with Neutral trust is if a person has a zero trust rating, many people don't even bother to check the trust comments.

That is the issue. The trust system is supposed to be a simple guide for noobs right?

At least that's my interpretation of the trust system.
I personally will deal with people with a negative trust rating, for example.
The trust system is a warning to noobs:
Be cautious, the person you're dealing with is considered likelier to rip you off than the mean by other, more experienced users.

Unfortunately though no system is free from exploitation.

Fortunate for us that the trust system itself has a built-in mechanism to cope with abuse: the trust list.
A person abusing trust is likelier than the mean to be excluded from trust lists with "~".
Of course, it's not a perfect system, but I personally feel that blatant abuse will not go unnoticed / unsanctioned.

The trust list does nothing. It is crammed with people with people who are PROVEN untrustworthy.
The trust system is now just an add on to the merit system which is just a system that allows you to give merits to your pals so they can be on the trust system with you.

Blatant abuse will not go unnoticed because I have brought it to the attention of DT members who are too scared to even witness a blatant lie in black and white and admit it is a lie. So it it appears that DT members will not red trust liars but for some reason will red trust people they believe "could" have gained control of another account.

How about you qwk will you witness evidence of a DT member blatantly lying and if you agree with me it was a lie will you red trust them and remove them from your inclusions. Yes or No?

Or will you willingly support a proven liar into a position of trust on this board. Yes or no?

[tmfp]

I see, so my points are only valid if they are your points. Good talk.

Hahaha.
You make a wild claim that you have no evidence to support, so you obfuscate: you are the epitome of that which you criticize.

[TECSHARE]

I see, so my points are only valid if they are your points. Good talk.

Hahaha.
You make a wild claim that you have no evidence to support, so you obfuscate: you are the epitome of that which you criticize.

So it isn't a fact that some people are in countries that will imprison them simply for using crypto, or that people are robbed and kidnapped over it, and thus a system of endless inquisition is a threat to some people in this way? No what is important is your semantics and condemnation. You don't argue any of the very logical points I made and instead go for semantics and more accusations. I have brought substance to the table. Now you try.

[suchmoon]

So it isn't a fact that some people are in countries that will imprison them simply for using crypto, or that people are robbed and kidnapped over it, and thus a system of endless inquisition is a threat to some people in this way? No what is important is your semantics and condemnation. You don't argue any of the very logical points I made and instead go for semantics and more accusations. I have brought substance to the table. Now you try.

The bolded part is certainly not a fact. What you call "endless inquisition" doesn't obligate JusticeForYou to do anything, and even if JusticeForYou signed a message - that doesn't create any new dangers for JusticeForYou.

[LoyceV]

It looks like 3 users have tried to include "everyone" by including "*", not knowing that's a user:

Trust list for: * (0 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (BPIP)

* is Trusted by:
Kiwi7 (0 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
mynxtcoin (0 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
airwalk666 (0 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Source: LoyceV's Trust list viewer.

[qwk]

How about you qwk will you witness evidence of a DT member blatantly lying and if you agree with me it was a lie will you red trust them and remove them from your inclusions. Yes or No?

Absolutely not.
I would not consider someone untrustworthy just because of a simple lie.
It depends on the circumstances and what's being accomplished with the lie.

How many times have we lied to our wives when they've asked if they look fat in a dress?
(my default answer is: "I don't think it's the dress" )

[TECSHARE]

So it isn't a fact that some people are in countries that will imprison them simply for using crypto, or that people are robbed and kidnapped over it, and thus a system of endless inquisition is a threat to some people in this way? No what is important is your semantics and condemnation. You don't argue any of the very logical points I made and instead go for semantics and more accusations. I have brought substance to the table. Now you try.

The bolded part is certainly not a fact. What you call "endless inquisition" doesn't obligate JusticeForYou to do anything, and even if JusticeForYou signed a message - that doesn't create any new dangers for JusticeForYou.

You aren't really responding to my point, which is that some people might value an environment where there aren't dozens of people digging into their business and posting about it for no other reason than they suspect a forum account has been compromised, or the hundreds of other excuses people use to justify negative ratings. It is indeed a fact that just using crypto is a threat to the freedom and safety of certain individuals no matter how much you deny it.

This community used to be about freedom to do what you like as long as you aren't harming others. Now it is just a bunch of roaming cliques of outrage mobs looking for their next vessel to focus their hatred upon. This isn't stopping scammers it is actively providing cover for them regardless of what intent this may be done with. It is amazing how fast people demand the old broken corrupted systems they just escaped from any time a new disruptive technology is created. It is a shame, this place could be so much more.

[suchmoon]

You aren't really responding to my point

I'm responding directly to a false statement that you presented as a fact. Perhaps it's time for you to heed your own advice and get back on topic.

[TECSHARE]

You aren't really responding to my point

I'm responding directly to a false statement that you presented as a fact. Perhaps it's time for you to heed your own advice and get back on topic.

I responded to your claim. Just because you choose not to accept my explanation does not magically make it nonexistent. There are some more on topic points here and here you can avoid addressing as well if you can keep thinking of other stuff you would rather talk about.

[cryptohunter]

How about you qwk will you witness evidence of a DT member blatantly lying and if you agree with me it was a lie will you red trust them and remove them from your inclusions. Yes or No?

Absolutely not.
I would not consider someone untrustworthy just because of a simple lie.
It depends on the circumstances and what's being accomplished with the lie.

How many times have we lied to our wives when they've asked if they look fat in a dress?
(my default answer is: "I don't think it's the dress" )

I say though this lie is one that is financially motivated so the circumstances and goal are not trustworthy at all. I mean surely a person willing to tell a lie and stick to that even when challenged purely for financial gain is quite wrong? and not fitting with being on DT where protecting persons against scammers  (liars for financial gain) is critical?

This proven liar then show up on my threads 3x calling me a liar with no evidence even when challenged. Then red trusts me for telling the truth about him being a liar and encouraging others to view the evidence that supported my claim.

This is completely the opposite for what DT was designed for.

DT can not red trust people for telling the truth and encouraging others to view the evidence to support their claim. The very notion of using red trust this way is disgraceful and although I can tell you have a good mind for presenting a case for anything there is no way for this to be justified.

I would hear your thoughts on the entire matter. This is not at all the same circumstances and accomplishment as your example.

"Absolutely not", is not applicable in this specific case. Unless you agree with the actions of this person.

This is not a grey area like accounts being sold this is totally wrong and against the very principles that DT is supposed to represent.

[Quickseller]

So it isn't a fact that some people are in countries that will imprison them simply for using crypto, or that people are robbed and kidnapped over it, and thus a system of endless inquisition is a threat to some people in this way? No what is important is your semantics and condemnation. You don't argue any of the very logical points I made and instead go for semantics and more accusations. I have brought substance to the table. Now you try.

The bolded part is certainly not a fact. What you call "endless inquisition" doesn't obligate JusticeForYou to do anything, and even if JusticeForYou signed a message - that doesn't create any new dangers for JusticeForYou.

He has already said that he lost his private keys when his HDD died due to an electricity problem in his house. The value of his bitcoin may have been only a few hundred dollars and it would not be out of the realm of normalcy if he didn’t have backups.

Signing a 2011 address won’t prove anything, nor would signing an address with a hundred coins.

I am not aware of any prior hacked accounts that waited 4 months to start causing trouble— they will almost always try to scam or spread malware immediately because of the risk of the owner coming back to claim it.

It is fairly clear to me that the demands for proof of ownership is the result of his criticism of the current status quo.

[suchmoon]

So it isn't a fact that some people are in countries that will imprison them simply for using crypto, or that people are robbed and kidnapped over it, and thus a system of endless inquisition is a threat to some people in this way? No what is important is your semantics and condemnation. You don't argue any of the very logical points I made and instead go for semantics and more accusations. I have brought substance to the table. Now you try.

The bolded part is certainly not a fact. What you call "endless inquisition" doesn't obligate JusticeForYou to do anything, and even if JusticeForYou signed a message - that doesn't create any new dangers for JusticeForYou.

He has already said that he lost his private keys when his HDD died due to an electricity problem in his house. The value of his bitcoin may have been only a few hundred dollars and it would not be out of the realm of normalcy if he didn’t have backups.

Signing a 2011 address won’t prove anything, nor would signing an address with a hundred coins.

I am not aware of any prior hacked accounts that waited 4 months to start causing trouble— they will almost always try to scam or spread malware immediately because of the risk of the owner coming back to claim it.

It is fairly clear to me that the demands for proof of ownership is the result of his criticism of the current status quo.

Nice spin. Still it's a very likely compromised account regardless of how that information surfaced. Signing a 2011 address would be good enough for hacked account recovery so it probably would help a lot to avoid red trust. Although there are other aspects of this story that you're ignoring, like deterioration of English skills. I'd say the probability of that happening (stroke?) AND the hard drive dying at the same time is low enough to raise serious doubts.

[tranthidung]

Merit circulations before and after the Default Trust Change (09/01/2019)
I compared statistics (median, and mean) of after period (two weeks later 09/01/2019, three weeks later 09/01/2019) to the before period.

It is probably that the change of Default Trust forced new topics published, more informative, constructive dicussions, and - of course - more good posts occured days before the change.
As we always known that, sMerits are not scarce, good posts are.
Consequently, it is probably that the change of Default Trust somehow increased the amount of good posts which led to higher merit circulations days after the change.
It is clear with statistics for 2 weeks later, but the effects likely blurred for 3 weeks later.

Detail statistics are there:

Two weeks later
- Median: +31.8%
- Mean: +23.2%

Three weeks later
- Median: + 15.9%
- Mean: + 15.5%

Notes:
- Few days before Default Trust change, 3 more merit sources added, and airdropped merits to merit sources re-allocated. They are potential bias on the merit circulations in after period (2, 3 weeks later).

[nutildah]

This is completely the opposite for what DT was designed for.

DT can not red trust people for telling the truth and encouraging others to view the evidence to support their claim. The very notion of using red trust this way is disgraceful and although I can tell you have a good mind for presenting a case for anything there is no way for this to be justified.

I would hear your thoughts on the entire matter. This is not at all the same circumstances and accomplishment as your example.

"Absolutely not", is not applicable in this specific case. Unless you agree with the actions of this person.

This is not a grey area like accounts being sold this is totally wrong and against the very principles that DT is supposed to represent.

I know you don't care but you're incorrect in your assumptions about what Trust is to be used for. Trust can be given out for any reason a user sees fit, though theymos discourages leaving ratings based on post quality:

On feedback pages, you can leave trade feedback. There are no rules for this, but here are some guidelines:
- List all of the trades that you do with people (or at least the major ones). This is not like #bitcoin-otc where you give people just one score.
- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.
- Older ratings count for more, so don't delete old ratings if you can avoid it.
- "Risked BTC" is how much money you could have lost if the person you're rating had turned out to be a scammer. Or, if they are a scammer, it's how much you lost. Use the BTC value at the time of reporting.
- It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a specific trade.
- If you want to make a rating stronger, increase "Risked BTC". 50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating.

Any arguments people make about what Trust is supposed to be used for should reference this list first as it is from the OP of when the Trust system was first introduced.

[TECSHARE]

This is completely the opposite for what DT was designed for.

DT can not red trust people for telling the truth and encouraging others to view the evidence to support their claim. The very notion of using red trust this way is disgraceful and although I can tell you have a good mind for presenting a case for anything there is no way for this to be justified.

I would hear your thoughts on the entire matter. This is not at all the same circumstances and accomplishment as your example.

"Absolutely not", is not applicable in this specific case. Unless you agree with the actions of this person.

This is not a grey area like accounts being sold this is totally wrong and against the very principles that DT is supposed to represent.

I know you don't care but you're incorrect in your assumptions about what Trust is to be used for. Trust can be given out for any reason a user sees fit, though theymos discourages leaving ratings based on post quality:

On feedback pages, you can leave trade feedback. There are no rules for this, but here are some guidelines:
- List all of the trades that you do with people (or at least the major ones). This is not like #bitcoin-otc where you give people just one score.
- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.
- Older ratings count for more, so don't delete old ratings if you can avoid it.
- "Risked BTC" is how much money you could have lost if the person you're rating had turned out to be a scammer. Or, if they are a scammer, it's how much you lost. Use the BTC value at the time of reporting.
- It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a specific trade.
- If you want to make a rating stronger, increase "Risked BTC". 50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating.

Any arguments people make about what Trust is supposed to be used for should reference this list first as it is from the OP of when the Trust system was first introduced.

TL;DR   

What you are advocating for can never be done because, see the rules, the rules are how it is done, the rules say it therefore the rules must stay that way and can never be changed. End of discussion, everyone please move along nothing to see here.