Tracking the Trust System's Stupid Shit

[EcuaMobi]

I think you are focusing on the instances where it is useful and missing the greater and more far reaching/dangerous issues.

I'm focusing on most users, unlike you who are focusing on your particular case.
The system is far from perfect but you're not helping if you just criticize instead of suggesting specific changes to improve it. Of course just removing it completely is not an option as that would cause a lot of scams.

1. The implications for free speech (HUGE)

People can still write whatever they want, with or without the trust system. Users with negative trust (like you) can still post and discuss.

2. The false sense of security and positive or neutral score can render
3. The fact that people should study a persons entire history here before trading not just be lazy and rely on a misleading score.

Yes, ideally. However the truth is most users don't do that, especially newbies. People with positive trust are less likely to scam than people with negative trust. Of course that's not absolute and, ideally, users should still do their homework.

4. The damage to accounts that are not scammers but got red trust via abuse.
5. The incentive and reward to abuse it.
6. The possible benefits of a different policing system

Post you specific suggestions instead of just blindly attacking the system to get rid of your negative trust.


Update: If you ever post suggestions instead of just attacking the system I'll make sure to read. Until then I'll just avoid wasting my time.

[1714053173]

1714053173

[1714053173]

1714053173

[1714053173]

1714053173

[1714053173]

1714053173

[cryptohunter]

I think you are focusing on the instances where it is useful and missing the greater and more far reaching/dangerous issues.

I'm focusing on most users, unlike you who are focusing on your particular case.
The system is far from perfect but you're not helping if you just criticize instead of suggesting specific changes to improve it. Of course just removing it completely is not an option as that would cause a lot of scams.

1. The implications for free speech (HUGE)

People can still write whatever they want, with or without the trust system. Users with negative trust (like you) can still post and discuss.

2. The false sense of security and positive or neutral score can render
3. The fact that people should study a persons entire history here before trading not just be lazy and rely on a misleading score.

Yes, ideally. However the truth is most users don't do that, especially newbies. People with positive trust are less likely to scam than people with negative trust. Of course that's not absolute and, ideally, users should still do their homework.

4. The damage to accounts that are not scammers but got red trust via abuse.
5. The incentive and reward to abuse it.
6. The possible benefits of a different policing system

Post you specific suggestions instead of just blindly attacking the system to get rid of your negative trust.

There are 2 possibilities.

1. you don't have a clue how the systems of control function
2. you are pretending not to have a clue how the systems of control function.

Let me qualify those statements for you.

You clearly have no understanding of the impact of merit and red trust.  Or pretending not to.

Solution - go find my most important thread of the year here on meta which will baby step you through WHY there can be NO denial or even DEBATE over the way the systems of control operate and how free speech is crushed/vulnerable.

I was trying to give you a hints, but I will not baby step you through it all over again here now. Go read.
If you deny that Merit/DT crushes/renders vulnerable free speech after reading what I have just told you to read come back and say WHY you don't accept an accurate description of how the systems of control observably work.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.0

educate yourself.

As for your last statement, well I really have no idea how it relates to any of the last points that I have made.  I mean for number 4 just take a look around the rep board or pay some attention to some of the complaints made in meta. 5,6, are simply observable fact and a statement/challenge.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you I am simply telling you how things observably operate. Please do not speculate on my motives for blindly lashing out presenting the truth.

[The Cryptovator]

It's too bad that people's are realizing that trust system has broken just after they got tag. Why OP had not discussed it when you were not got tag? Same question to all whoever made similar thread previously.

I am not saying that current trust system is 100% accurate. But my question is why realize now. Perhaps some DT members or I have left wrong feedback's, it could be solve by constructive discussions. But people's start open multiple thread and start question about full trust system. This isn't really decent way for discussion.

OP got tag due to multiple loan and he didn't return on time. There isn't just single case. However OP have repaid loan and it's fine, but just repaid after got tag and ask to remove feedback's after paid isn't appropriate in my opinions. At least few days a warning should reflect on OP profile, so that others lenders will be aware his paste behaviour.

[Quickseller]

The major problem with the trust system is the selection process for those who are on DT has nothing to do with who actually uses the trust system in a meaningful way (eg, they don't participate in the marketplace in a meaningful way). As a result, the DT system is not one of self governance, but is rather something closer to a dictatorship, in that those who make the rules are entirely unrelated to those who are bound by the rules, and those who are bound by the rules have zero input in the rules.

Those who are in DT are also not selected by those who have ever been active in the marketplace.

IMO, the best way to structure the DT system is to have several people who own, or have owned large bitcoin related businesses who have people on their trust list they are willing to trust their businesses' reputation on in regards to giving fair ratings, and otherwise acting fairly within the trust system. When there is a rating dispute, if someone is not acting in good faith, or otherwise is acting fairly, their sponsor(s) should be called out publicly.

The best and most appropriate people to run the trust system is those who are wanting to protect their (potential) customers.

Looking at the first 3 pages of the digital goods section, it looks like nearly all of the threads are scam attempts, or attempts to do something illegal. The services sub is made up almost entirely of signature campaigns, the currency exchange sub has few active threads of people conducting legitimate business, and very few loans are ever made in the lending sub.

[marcotheminer]

This thread wouldn't exist without those new negatives that you've gotten. Nothing is broken, sort-of.

Correct, the debacle is what prompted me to make this post. Does that mean all is fine? No..

If you consistently repay loans late then you have to accept that the neutral ratings are fair. Potential lenders might not be happy getting paid late & I doubt you tell them before the loan ‘I’ll probably repay late’. If you did it might determine wether they’re willing to lend to you or not so absolutely the neutral ratings are fair.

The negative ratings are determined by who has given them, I can see why some have left you red trust but I deemed neutral as enough for now.

Just stop repaying loans late & you won’t have to worry.

Where are you getting "consistently" from? I've repaid 2 late loans in full with additional interest. Late repayments HAPPEN believe it or not.

And see? More assumptions.. "I doubt you tell them": of course I fucking tell them, I'm the borrower I have some expectations and even more so if I don't see myself being able to repay on time.

Just expressing my thoughts, trying to NOT come from a biased point of view (though currently, I am victim of these problems too).

Oh, come on.  Your opinion and your creation of this thread is completely biased, and the only reason you're saying anything is because of the red trust you recently got.

The problem in this case isn't the trust system, though there are certainly problems with it.  The problem here is that members finally called bullshit on your late loan repayment practices and lousy attitude toward both the lender and the community, which I've already addressed in at least one other thread that dealt with the incident.  You can't expect to hold someone's money hostage with excuses and delays and not pay a penalty for that.  The problem is you in this case, not the trust system.

That said, I may consider revision of my feedback at a later date, just as I do with anyone who has learned from their mistakes.  I'm not sure you realize where you went wrong, however.

I repaid TWO loans late. Both in the VERY recent past. If you need a novel on which circumstances/events led to having to extend repayment AND give extra: sorry you won't be getting that for at least a couple more years.

Lousy attitude to lender? I like to think they would both disagree. As for lousy attitude towards community: there's a reason for my attitude to be perceived that way by the negative trust places .

Not pay a penalty? The penalty is already late interest.

I realize exactly where I went wrong: I asked for too many loans (frowned upon) and I asked for too much at once (frowned upon by non-trusting members, which is completely fine). Then, following the accusations/scammer tagging that followed: I didn't reply as nicely as I should have (in some people's minds, so I apologise to those I offended..). Should those things render my account into a scammer's? I don't think so.

There's just a few bad eggs in the default trust system.  It's functioning mostly as expected.  In time I am sure we will see more improvements.

I agree that it does function "mostly as expected" but it still relies heavily on personal opinions (and often un-involved ones).

I wouldn't say its broken as we have the Reputation board ( and Scam accusation) to talk about the negative trust that has been given to you. I have been hanging out on those threads for a while now and to tell you the truth a lot of negative trust that has been given wrongly to members has been either removed or changed to neutral. Mostly misunderstandings as well as the problem being fixed is the most common way you get your negative trust be removed in your trust summary.

I think that the current situation IS a misunderstanding, made worse by me trying to explain myself (people see that as "weaselling" out and "making excuses" but no - I'm just stating facts, and exactly what happened between my lenders and I).




Here's another good example:

Hello! I am new here, but I can provide multiple social media accounts for verification. I have a decent following so I'm not someone who can just disappear with your coins. 

Loan Amount: 0.2 BTC
Loan Purpose: Our furnace needs to be replaced and being an adult sucks. [/b]
Loan Repay Amount: 0.25
Loan Repay Date: 3/10/19
Type of Collateral: um I have 3 cats, a 6 month old baby and a massive collection of Star Trek memorabilia. (100% true) But also, whatever you need to feel confident I can probably do!
Escrow profile Link:
Bitcoin Address:  3KVqfqHMcUVrTxPkGyJNuQ9NFBVcnsXdUt

For everyone's information: I loaned this user and all was settled - fully repaid. LFC_Bitcoin: please remove your negative trust.

Photobook was tagged as a scammer for asking for this loan. I loaned her (we chatted outside of bitcointalk, agreed on a loan amount/repayment date/repayment amount and I let her provide all the verification she was ready to provide) and she repaid fully as agreed.

This was the trust placed (not an attack of any kind against the placer - some would argue it was semi-understandable at the time, though I would call it too hastily placed):



It's an example of prematurely/hastily placed negative trust.

[cryptohunter]

It's too bad that people's are realizing that trust system has broken just after they got tag. Why OP had not discussed it when you were not got tag? Same question to all whoever made similar thread previously.

I am not saying that current trust system is 100% accurate. But my question is why realize now. Perhaps some DT members or I have left wrong feedback's, it could be solve by constructive discussions. But people's start open multiple thread and start question about full trust system. This isn't really decent way for discussion.

OP got tag due to multiple loan and he didn't return on time. There isn't just single case. However OP have repaid loan and it's fine, but just repaid after got tag and ask to remove feedback's after paid isn't appropriate in my opinions. At least few days a warning should reflect on OP profile, so that others lenders will be aware his paste behaviour.

This is why you should never be a merit source.
You simply do not have the capacity to recognise valuable information.

If a system is broken and this is demonstrated clearly based on the observable mechanisms upon which it is formed and the implications of those mechanisms, then there is NO POINT saying well you only mentioned it after the broken system failed you. As if that is some kind of rebuttal and reason to discredit the valuable information that could lead to the system being improved or fixed.

It is quite obvious most people will only realise something is fucked/broken when its failure has impact upon them personally. They may have no reason to notice before that.

Your post is largely a net negative contribution that I class as a faux rebuttal. Most of this crap gets a stack of merit too hence why that misleading dirt is net negative also.

We sold out free speech here to stop some ico spammers and account farmers.

[marcotheminer]

Bump

[mikeywith]

The trust system is not perfect  , but what is broken is you getting a positive feedback for "Great trade!" And a few positives for renting a few DT's signature spaces, when there are other members who have traded hundreds of thousands of   dollars on forum but have not had a planed/random deal with a DT member.

The trust system is far from perfect, but i worry more about meanginless and misleading  positive feedback , i mentioned this before, you do not deserve a positive score, if you do , then what do others who repay their loans on time should get? There has to be something that differincnates you from more truthwothy members, maybe the current score is a bit too much, but it is much more reasonable than being  positive.

[FFrankie]

Bump

Its not broken, because even though your tagged you still have a long history here. I would lend you micro/trivial amounts of btc. I would even trade with no escrow with QS even though he is -9999, the trust score really doesnt mean anything


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5123783.msg50276979#msg50276979

Edit: ^That doesnt look good

Checklist for scam:

Seeking no collateral loan
posting cut off screenshots
Promising returns with little to no risk
cant explain fully, but will explain to the "right" person

[marlboroza]

I would even trade with no escrow with QS even though he is -9999, the trust score really doesnt mean anything

Logically because if you use escrow there is high possibility that quacky will scam you for escrow fees.

Seeking no collateral loan
posting cut off screenshots
Promising returns with little to no risk
cant explain fully, but will explain to the "right" person

Maybe he is trying to run ponzi scheme?

The major problem with the trust system is the selection process for those who are on DT has nothing to do with who actually uses the trust system in a meaningful way (eg, they don't participate in the marketplace in a meaningful way)

Escrow scammer talks about trust system and something about marketplace. Again.  

Here's another good example:

Well, I don't trust your example for some reasons.

[marcotheminer]

Here's another good example:

Well, I don't trust your example for some reasons.

Hold on, you don't trust my link to a loan because 4 years ago I'm alleged to have had some alt accounts? You think I made photobook to use later as a "perfect example against my trust". Oh, the stories we could make based off forum replies

[marcotheminer]

Here's another example of stupid shit going on:



On user Vod: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=30747

Edit: it was also a counter on Anduck's profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=31931

[xolxol]

if you are one of the mafia members and you've got red trusted they will do anything to reverse that,counter for what? counter strike? LOL

[EcuaMobi]

Here's another example of stupid shit going on:

[img ]https://i.imgur.com/tvq7g5r.png[/img]

On user Vod: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=30747

Edit: it was also a counter on Anduck's profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=31931

[img ]https://i.imgur.com/oghEtfG.png[/img]

Anduck and Vod left negative trust to each other. It's clear actmyname don't think they deserve that negative so he left counter feedback.
Theymos has said it's OK to do that if you strongly disagree with the left feedback.
Why is that stupid? A more complete description would have been better but that feedback is absolutely OK.

[suchmoon]

Here's another example of stupid shit going on:

How will I repay [...] ?: I will sell my altcoins worth on binance worth 0.033BTC. I will not provide as collateral

Now that's what I call stupid shit for a bright-red trusted user to do.

[OgNasty]

Here's an example of the trust system's stupid shit.  Last of the V8s claims I scammed 2,100 BTC.  This is untrue, and yet some of the con-artists on DT have actually included this moron.  Using this guy's logic, every single company or organization that has ever offered ownership and hasn't yet returned 100% of the stock's price in the form of a dividend measured by a volatile currency is a scam (spoiler alert: this is every publicly traded company in the world).  They're literally making things up.  It's this sort of ignorance that's dangerous and those who include them in DT to further their agenda need to be pushed out of the DT system if we're to restore any sense of legitimacy to the trust network.



If you haven't added ~Last of the V8s to exclude this bottom feeder from your trust settings yet, you should.  Those who have included this user should also take a long look at what sort of ignorance they're enabling and hopefully at some point the community will hold them accountable as well.


Edit:
Here's another user, Hellot, who was trying to help scam me and is included into DT by other con-artists only because of their negative trust rating on my account.  In the last 3 1/2 years, this user has left 3 users trust ratings.  A negative rating to isoneguy who popped up and left a bunch of bogus negative ratings.   A negative rating to me for not letting myself be scammed and a positive rating for minerjones.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=351430

~Hellot should also be added to exclude him from the trust network and those including his ratings should be looked at.

[TECSHARE]

We need to enforce an objective standard of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating. Unless we do these issues will only continue to get worse as more and more people seek to elevate their status by destroying the status of others indiscriminately as if they are trying to rank up in a game.

[Vod]

Here's an example of the trust system's stupid shit.  Last of the V8s claims I scammed 2,100 BTC.  This is untrue, and yet some of the con-artists on DT have actually included this moron.  

Reminds me of when, years ago, I initially PMed you about including the moron Quickseller in your DT2 trust list.

You promptly told me he had done nothing wrong to you.  

So why the hypocrisy here?   "Last of the V8s" has done nothing wrong to everyone else... :/

[Quickseller]

Here's an example of the trust system's stupid shit.  Last of the V8s claims I scammed 2,100 BTC.  This is untrue, and yet some of the con-artists on DT have actually included this moron.  

Reminds me of when, years ago, I initially PMed you about including the moron Quickseller in your DT2 trust list.

This is a weird thing to say....

Perhaps you can document or otherwise backup this....or is this something you are lying about?

[OgNasty]

Here's an example of the trust system's stupid shit.  Last of the V8s claims I scammed 2,100 BTC.  This is untrue, and yet some of the con-artists on DT have actually included this moron.  

Reminds me of when, years ago, I initially PMed you about including the moron Quickseller in your DT2 trust list.

You promptly told me he had done nothing wrong to you.  

So why the hypocrisy here?   "Last of the V8s" has done nothing wrong to everyone else... :/

A search of my PMs with you shows that you have messaged me about Quickseller multiple times over the years until I eventually blocked PMs from you.  I don't believe I ever added him to my trust settings though and think you literally pulled that out of your ass, as I've reviewed our exchange of messages.  You were crying about a trust feedback I left because we had a successful business deal even though I noted his prior bad behavior in my feedback, and explained why I left it anyway.  This while continually asking me to leave you a trust rating and add you to my network while showering me with Merit at the time.  Between that pathetic manipulation attempt failure escalating to you telling me that you'd add me to your distrust list unless I removed trust ratings for Anduck and Quickseller and if I did you would add me to your trust list, I really think you are part of the problem.  For my part, I told you to..., blocked you, and kept the trust ratings even though this has resulted in me carrying a -1 DT rating and thus effecting me far more than the other parties involved.  This is called integrity.  Your latest comment of "has done nothing wrong to everyone else" is just an example of how you look the other way for those who support your agenda and is in no way related to anything I've said despite your fantasies otherwise.  You really are a slimy user and I honestly think you and Blazed were the main causes of the old DT's failure.  It is no surprise that you're still grasping for control and trying to bully people with the new system.  If DT is so important to you that you're willing to bully others and minimize their contributions for some misguided revenge scheme, have at it.  I won't fight you.  However, I won't pretend you are a white knight either when you act like a slimy wannabe bully.