Some thoughts about the old-new trust system

[TheFuzzStone]

EDIT.
Here you can find some info about me --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5096740.msg49232976#msg49232976


My English is not the best, but I'll try to explain my thoughts. If I'm somewhere wrong, I will be grateful if you correct me.

Disclaimer. I do not intend to offend anyone or to start a political / religious / clan dispute.

I am a crypto enthusiast and user of this forum since 2015. I did not attach any importance to DT0... until yesterday evening.

Several times before, I read about DT1 and what kind of war is going on around it, and how blood is shed in the form of a red trust, etc. I do not like any wars, and for myself I decided “not to stick in the trenches and not take anyone's side”. Wars have been going on for a long time, and I have no desire to waste my time to re-read tons of information in order to figure out who is right.

So, the old-new system.

If I understood correctly, the latest update from theymos should urge our community to take seriously the creation of its own DT0, to thereby help form a common DT1. To form your own DT0 is necessary solely on the basis of personal experience of being on the forum. The motivation is certainly good, and personally I will observe the overall situation.

As far as I understand, after the registration of a new user, he is automatically “subscribed” to the Default Trust. But why?

Let's imagine for a moment that we have some user (not a new multi-account for bounty or scammer) is registering on the forum who wants to learn something new about this wonderful, and at the same time cruel crypto-world, wants to buy BTC for 10-20 bucks in the equivalent of its local fiat currency.

The question is, why this user have to be subscribed to DefaultTrust? Why a new user should “trust” unknown users from the first second of being on the forum? And what about one of the main principle? -- “Don’t trust. Verify.”
  
Would not it be more logical that new users have been subscribed to satoshi? ( reference to: If you don't want to trust anyone, trust someone with an empty trust list (satoshi, for example) )

Well, suppose that our new user by default “does not believe anyone” (subscribed to satoshi), and he begins to live a forum life. And everything seems to be good for him, after a couple of months he found crypto friends on the forum, gained a certain reputation in a small community of people, etc. After some time on the forum, everyone finds a crypto-friend('s) for himself, or you just see that there are some community members who are trying to improve this forum with their answers / tips for newbies, helpful manuals / articles, etc., and you don’t must communicate with them.

In order for our user to consciously and voluntarily join the forum’s system of trust, he first needs to explain what it is and why it is important both for him and for the entire community.
The easiest way is to inform new users is the first message forum rules thread and thread about Merit. Usually these two threads have the most views. Also, not all local users know English, therefore translations (or own posts from active local users) are needed to inform local users about the trust system. I think some users will agree to translate threads about the trust system from English into their local languages.

About the scammers ... they will be, as always.  I think that they are already trying to find a cheat-code for the updated system. Do not be surprised if after a while we'll see the posts about selling/buying a place in someone's trust list.

Also on the forum there is a large number of "dead" accounts, which most likely have a... DefaultTrust. I understand that this forum engine is old, and it is very difficult to do something to it, but I think it would be good to reset the trust list for all accounts that are “sleeping” for more than a year. And if such an account “wakes up”, then let it see it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;suggest or some other alternative. (It would be interesting to see the statistics of “awakened” accounts after such reset)

Also, in theory, it will be seen who will try to cheat the system. For example, within a couple of minutes 10 accounts are registered, and immediately the same nickname appears in these 10 newbie accounts trust lists, or even a list of users, whom these 10 beginners begin to “trust”.

These were my thoughts.
Thanks for attention.
UPDATE. Links:

• DefaultTrust changes

• A short introduction to the Trust System

• [Explained] Importance of Custom Trust List

• Customized Trust Network – Interactive tool to see who we trust/distrust

• [Infographic] Leaving Feedback vs Custom Trust List

#MakeYourOwnDT0

[1714129510]

1714129510

[1714129510]

1714129510

[Lauda]

The question is, why this user have to be subscribed to DefaultTrust?

Because the rate of new users getting scammed would be ridiculous otherwise.

Why a new user should “trust” unknown users from the first second of being on the forum? And what about one of the main principle? -- “Don’t trust. Verify.

That is nonsense that can't be applied to this. Who are you going to trade with, some random that never did paypal-to-btc or someone who has 100+ such succesful changes? Oh right, don't trust verify the 0-trade-newbie offering reversible methods of payment. <- shows how absurd your attempt is.

[TheFuzzStone]

Because the rate of new users getting scammed would be ridiculous otherwise.

Why? Explain please. I think that this is a baseless statement.

Example, I'm here since 06 December 2015, you are here since 17 April 2013 and you are in DT1. When I created an account, no one told me that you personally would protect me from scammers. Am I right? I even know that you are exist  .

If I were fooled by a scammer, only I would be responsible and I think it's right.

So, why so many years I "trusted" you by default? ("You", in the context of DT1)

That is nonsense that can't be applied to this.

Sorry, I will repeat myself, why? Could you explain how you see this? I can. I never trust someone by default. I know that there are many good people on this forum, but still, by default I don't trust anyone. I will check everything by myself. At least, I need to do my own research. But, by default -- never.

Who are you going to trade with, some random that never did paypal-to-btc or someone who has 100+ such succesful changes? Oh right, don't trust verify the 0-trade-newbie offering reversible methods of payment. <- shows how absurd your attempt is.

I see your point, and the answer is -- the escrow.
Yeah, "Who you can to trust if you do not trust anyone?", but still, if an escrow have a thread (not self-moderated) and there is a lot of feedbacks, so after checking these feedback and the account owners I will make my decision to work with that person or not.

 

[Lauda]

Because the rate of new users getting scammed would be ridiculous otherwise.

Why? Explain please. I think that this is a baseless statement.

Use your head. Some people get scammed even by user accounts that already have red trust; do you really think it would be better if there was no red trust?

If I were fooled by a scammer, only I would be responsible and I think it's right.

Let's toss everyone into chaos. After all if we can protect some users, why should we? It's their responsibility to protect themselves.

That is nonsense that can't be applied to this.

Sorry, I will repeat myself, why? Could you explain how you see this? I can. I never trust someone by default. I know that there are many good people on this forum, but still, by default I don't trust anyone. I will check everything by myself. At least, I need to do my own research. But, by default -- never.

You're using quotes that you think you understand, but you really don't. What exactly would you verify instead of trusting?   Enough with this fallacious nonsense.

Who are you going to trade with, some random that never did paypal-to-btc or someone who has 100+ such succesful changes? Oh right, don't trust verify the 0-trade-newbie offering reversible methods of payment. <- shows how absurd your attempt is.

I see your point, and the answer is -- the escrow.
Yeah, "Who you can to trust if you do not trust anyone?", but still, if an escrow have a thread (not self-moderated) and there is a lot of feedbacks, so after checking these feedback and the account owners I will make my decision to work with that person or not.

The difference between a seller with 100 trusted feedback, and an escrow with 100 trusted feedback is what exactly? You'd choose the escrow because he/she is an escrow?

* Lauda facepalms

So, why so many years I "trusted" you by default? ("You", in the context of DT1)

Here's a simple solution: Remove Defaulttrust from your trust settings and lock this thread. I'm not sure whether this is utopian-styled "we can educate everyone on the planet not to be naive", or dystopian-styled "throw everyone infront the bus, it's their responsibility" thinking. Whichever it is, it is wrong.
Edit: Many typos.

[cryptohunter]

Yeah OP.

Use your head of course you want to by default trust lauda.

I mean ....just the facts..

Lauda is a proven liar (said he was on the xcoin/dash launch and there was NO PREMINE) and suspected by senior other members to also be an extortionist, there seems also some questions over his handling of escrowing also. He tries to silence people simply encouraging  others to review his observable post history and shut them up by giving red trust or just ordering them to lock their threads.

Why would you not by default want to place trust in him and his ratings?

Disregard anything this very untrustworthy person says.

If you would like to review. Some are in my signature and the darkcoin instamine LIE is there for all to see on my other theymos only thread.

That is just lauda.

Go here. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtview

You can then witness who supports lauda to be a member of the trust system, who does not care if he is or not, and those who actually oppose him being there.

You can review, investigate and analyse what I have told you. Then you can make up your own mind who (if any ) of the DT list you want to keep. Any you do not just put ~ in front of their name.

[petestheman]

I think it would be a bad decision to just delete the default trust list of all the new members of the forum. It would just make no sense for the trust system to newbie while they should be the one's who should be taking the most advantage of it.

Also, in theory, it will be seen who will try to cheat the system. For example, within a couple of minutes 10 accounts are registered, and immediately the same nickname appears in these 10 newbie accounts trust lists, or even a list of users, whom these 10 beginners begin to “trust”.

Yes, this is a possible crack to the system and it should surely be considered by theymos. A person can created many number of alts to put himself on a default trust list.

[Alone055]

Not does the new trust system nor did the old one had the condition for a user to create a custom list, it is only an option that is provided to you (after the new changes) to help build the new DT1 that will periodically be reconstructed (as theymos said) to include the users that matches these criteria:

- If rank was determined solely using earned merit, then you must be of at least Member rank.
 - You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days.
 - Your trust list must include at least 10 users, not including ~distrust entries.
 - You must not be banned or manually blacklisted from selection.
 - You must have posted sometime within the last 30 days.
 - You must have at least 10 people directly trusting you each with an earned merit of at least 10, not including merit you yourself sent.
 - You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least 250, not including merit you yourself sent.

See what theymos said about making a custom list:

it's best to make your own custom list, and you must do this if you want to be on DT1.

I didn't quite understand your point about the scammers. There is nothing that a scammer can do with the new changes. It is not like if a scammer can get into the DT1 since they can never meet the criteria for that. An scammer can never get 2 people with more than 250 earned Merits to be directly trusting them.

[Lauda]

Yes, this is a possible crack to the system and it should surely be considered by theymos. A person can created many number of alts to put himself on a default trust list.

Unless you have a sea of merit and enough DT1 members to overtake everything, you can't do that. We'd kick you back out. If you somehow managed to take over the majority, theymos would blacklist you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[DdmrDdmr]

<...> Yes, this is a possible crack to the system and it should surely be considered by theymos. A person can created many number of alts to put himself on a default trust list.

Not that easy. Amonst the full requirements specified in the DefaultTrust changes, you need to have:

<…>
- You must have at least 10 people directly trusting you each with an earned merit of at least 10, not including merit you yourself sent.
 - You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least 250, not including merit you yourself sent.<…>

We’re talking about earned merits here, not airdropped merits.


Currently (see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Zmj_95rzAM_tGJeXZTodw8MJmrcv4oJ4k5kve_2VEtQ/edit?usp=sharing) there is a potential of:

145 people with >= 250 earned merits (you need trust from at least two of them).
6.810 people with >= 10 earned merits (you need trust from at least ten of them).

On top of that, the merit between the Trustor and Trusted does not compute, so the above figures will vary (be less) per person.

[TheFuzzStone]

Use your head.

I'm using it. But thanks for a suggestion!

Some people get scammed even by user accounts that already have red trust;

... and they did get not help from DT1

do you really think it would be better if there was no red trust?

Where did you read this in my post? My point is that new registered users should not have by default  DefaultTrust in their trust list. This list should be chosen consciously by each user.

Let's toss everyone into chaos.

These are your words, not mine.

After all if we can protect some users, why should we? It's their responsibility to protect themselves

I do not see any "protection" on which you insist. Eventually, the user will have to decide to work with an other user or not.

You're using quotes that you think you understand, but you really don't.

Very reasoned remark. I thought we would have a friendly conversation here.

Here's a simple solution: Remove Defaulttrust from your trust settings

Done.

and lock this thread.

Because you said so? Sorry, but no.

I'm not sure whether this is utopian-styled "we can educate everyone on the planet not to be naive", or dystopian-styled "throw everyone infront the bus, it's their responsibility" thinking. Whichever it is, it is wrong.

It turns out you want to decide for the majority of users of this forum? Maybe we will not teach everyone. But I am sure, that we do not need centralization. But that is only my thoughts on this situation. Every active user of Bitcointalk must know about DT1, DefaultTrust and what is mean. That is my point.

[petestheman]

~

Thank you for explanation. But got to known it better here.

Simply put, users on DefaultTrust are "voted" for by the users of bitcointalk.
A user needs to have earned 10 merit before being eligible to vote.
"Super-Voters" are users who have earned 250 merit.
(if voting for someone, the number of merit you've received from that specific person is not counted)

45 people with >= 250 earned merits (you need trust from at least two of them).
6.810 people with >= 10 earned merits (you need trust from at least ten of them)

Does that mean :

45 people with >= 250 earned merits (you need to be added in the trust list by least two of them).
6.810 people with >= 10 earned merits (you need to be added in the trust list by least ten of them)

[Vod]

TheFuzzStone, can you name your 25 favorite entomologists?

How do you expect a person just learning a topic to choose who to trust?

[Lauda]

... and they did get not help from DT1

Many have, and many more will as long as they don't listen to the likes of you.

do you really think it would be better if there was no red trust?

Where did you read this in my post? My point is that new registered users should not have by default  DefaultTrust in their trust list. This list should be chosen consciously by each user.

Which will never, ever happen nor has it ever happened in any similarily sized community online.

Let's toss everyone into chaos.

These are your words, not mine.

Those are the consequences of your suggestion. If you don't understand them, then don't make the suggestion to begin with.

After all if we can protect some users, why should we? It's their responsibility to protect themselves

I do not see any "protection" on which you insist. Eventually, the user will have to decide to work with an other user or not.

You might be living under a rock. Many have been protected because of fast-tracked tagging (e.g. recent ETH forks).

I thought we would have a friendly conversation here.

Bullshit doesn't deserve friendly responses.

It turns out you want to decide for the majority of users of this forum? Maybe we will not teach everyone. But I am sure, that we do not need centralization.

I am 100% convinced you've first heard the word decentralization when you encountered Bitcoin. Sometimes false knowledge is more dangerous than ignorance.

Every active user of Bitcointalk must know about DT1, DefaultTrust and what is mean. That is my point.

How many "active users" know about these things now? < 10% (if I'm being extremely optimistic)? Heck, we even have DT members that don't fully understand how the system works. Hence:

I'm not sure whether this is utopian-styled "we can educate everyone on the planet not to be naive", or dystopian-styled "throw everyone infront the bus, it's their responsibility" thinking. Whichever it is, it is wrong.

How do you expect a person just learning a topic to choose who to trust?

I'm going to assume that the answer is "God will protect me and punish the scammers".

[TheFuzzStone]

TheFuzzStone, can you name your 25 favorite entomologists?

No, because I am not interested in Entomology. And where did you get the habit of moving away from the topic? Why did you ask this question in theese thread?

How do you expect a person just learning a topic to choose who to trust?

What about Google? What about the forum search engine? What about feedbacks in threads? What about feedbacks from not bots/alts? What about checking accounts from which feedbacks were left? These are all rhetorical questions. It is clear that users do not want to leave DT1. I've never been cheated by scammers and not because of some mystical protection from DT1. 

Those are the consequences of your suggestion.

No. And again you did not understand correctly, or did not want to understand.

Bullshit doesn't deserve friendly responses.

Oh, In that way? I have no desire to waste my time on an ignorant person. If you want to find a person to quarrel, then this is not for me.

I am 100% convinced you've first heard the word decentralization when you encountered Bitcoin

Well, here you are again mistaken, dear DT1 user. Is the conversation going to personal insults? I did not think that you would be angry so soon and that was not my goal.

Sometimes false knowledge is more dangerous than ignorance.

Smart People Quotes^TM.

How many "active users" know about these things now? < 10% (if I'm being extremely optimistic)?

And this is why this percentage needs to be raised!

I'm going to assume that the answer is "God will protect me and punish the scammers".

Wrong. See an answer in the top of this post.

[mikeywith]

Let's imagine for a moment that we have some user (not a new multi-account for bounty or scammer) is registering on the forum who wants to learn something new about this wonderful, and at the same time cruel crypto-world, wants to buy BTC for 10-20 bucks in the equivalent of its local fiat currency.

The question is, why this user have to be subscribed to DefaultTrust? Why a new user should “trust” unknown users from the first second of being on the forum? And what about one of the main principle? -- “Don’t trust. Verify.”

take a look at the market place "digital goods" > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=93.0

i am willing to make a "blind" estimation that the majority " more than 70% of the sellers there are scammers , anyone with an IQ above 0 knows this already.

most of those people are tagged by DT members, this reduces the chance of the new coming users you talk about getting scammed.

the trust system is not perfect at all , giving the fact that you do not know or trust any of the DT members, but it's more like viewing a hotel/restaurant  reviews before visiting them, while a lot of the feedback could be wrong/fake you seldom see a very good hotel with more negative reviews than positives, everyone looks for reviews before buying any goods, booking a hotel or a dinner table, you probably do that yourself, while you do not know/trust any of the reviewers their overall feedback usually means something.

TL;DR > the default trust with all the shit it has is differently better than nothing, even if there was a single honest DT member many good souls will be saved.

[Lauda]

I'm not sure whether this is utopian-styled "we can educate everyone on the planet not to be naive", or dystopian-styled "throw everyone infront the bus, it's their responsibility" thinking. Whichever it is, it is wrong.

Again, this. OP won't change his mind regardless of what gets brought up, therefore this thread is a waste of time. You could at least make your idiocy a bit more amusing like cryptohunter.

[cryptohunter]

I'm not sure whether this is utopian-styled "we can educate everyone on the planet not to be naive", or dystopian-styled "throw everyone infront the bus, it's their responsibility" thinking. Whichever it is, it is wrong.

Again, this. OP won't change his mind regardless of what gets brought up, therefore this thread is a waste of time. You could at least make your idiocy a bit more amusing like cryptohunter.

Produce an example or shut up.

This one was funny...

If this is true, this is it. I doubt that you could ever salavage the reputation after contiously doing things that you know are wrong/unacceptable here.

[TheFuzzStone]

OP won't change his mind regardless of what gets brought up, therefore this thread is a waste of time.

The same. Lauda won't change his mind and it is clear why.

But if you think for a while about this:

For years I've been unhappy with how DefaultTrust ended up as a centralized and largely-untouchable authority...

This is a good start.  

therefore this thread is a waste of time.

No one forces you to follow this thread.

[TheFuzzStone]

About an hour ago theymos published a new DT1 list:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49230484#msg49230484

And now this:



These people don't even know who I am and what I do, but nevermind   

That's why every active user of this forum must make a conscious decision and create your own DT0.

[Lauda]

These people don't even know who I am and what I do, but nevermind   

That's why every active user of this forum must make a conscious decision and create your own DT0.

You are a random; randoms shouldn't be on DT1. Stop complaining.