What will happen with deceased DT members' feedback?

[cestmoi]

The death of members is quite a serious problem, and not just for DT issues. My partner uses a Chromebook for emails and watching history, health and cooking videos on You Tube, but she has no idea how to recover my Bitcoin in the event of my death. Maybe we could start a trusted members club to help in these situations.

Hey Jet Cash, have you seen my thread : [Postmortem crypto plan] : making sure my wife will know what to do !

Maybe it can help you

[1715263331]

1715263331

[1715263331]

1715263331

[1715263331]

1715263331

[1715263331]

1715263331

[TheBeardedBaby]

I knew there is going to be a discussion here with different opinions.
I value the rest of the feedback left from Zepher, and I don't think it should be removed.
But here is one another example with hacked account and negative feedback left from Zepher :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=114334

If by chance the original owner shows up with a signed message we will come back to the same situation as now.
I guess reporting to theymos those isolated cases should be ok but we need confirmation from his side.

[bernardos]

Overall trust ratings shouldn't be changed by the mods unless they are obviously of abusive nature. But cases like this are rare because it is clear that Zepher left that negative rating because the account got hacked. He didnt have a problem with the tagged user and would have surely removed his rating if the account got recovered, which is now the case. theymos could intervene and remove the negative rating but also the positive ratings that were left by other DTs to counter the negative.

[bones261]

I knew there is going to be a discussion here with different opinions.
I value the rest of the feedback left from Zepher, and I don't think it should be removed.
But here is one another example with hacked account and negative feedback left from Zepher :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=114334

If by chance the original owner shows up with a signed message we will come back to the same situation as now.
I guess reporting to theymos those isolated cases should be ok but we need confirmation from his side.

Hmm, I'm not sufficiently convinced that qwep is indeed a hacked account. In 2016, qwep asked for a loan.

Code:

[b]Loan Amount:[/b] .2
[b]Reason:[/b]  trading & gambling
[b]BTC Address:[/b]  1911F5SekQSyaxdzJSZvJrHbcLrKtday9Y	
[b]Term Length:[/b]  15 days
[b]Collateral:[/b] this account

Code:

I am qwep from bitcointalk.org, today is 10/20/2016. I am asking for a loan from condoras with my account as collateral. If i default my loan, condoras will be the new owner of my account.

Code:

HNVpLHhNxQHbgeVvPBjxZ3bWFTxdcu4b62MGaLDq5V9VcpnbkF0IOxkhtlZkfetSx6hogrE8RfMGJxHxocjx4uE=

In May of 2017, after a long period of inactivity, they applied to join a signature campaign using the same address.

Btctalk name: qwep
Rank: Legendary Member
Current post count: 1006
BTC Address: 1911F5SekQSyaxdzJSZvJrHbcLrKtday9Y
Wear appropriate signature: Yes

App for campaign signature.

Then in June of 2017, the account suddenly promotes some ponzi scheme, and suspicions are raised that it could be hacked or sold. Furthermore, I am not seeing a thread referenced that has a victim come forward and provide evidence that they were hacked. I'm more inclined to think the account was either sold by the original owner or never changed hands.  If someone comes back now and "recovers" this account, I'm not certain the negative trust about promoting a ponzi scheme should to be removed by others.

[TECSHARE]

Not fair according to who? Why is it the entire community now has to suffer a potential exploit because this individual user did not secure their account correctly? Yes it sucks, but if there are not standards then it is a continual never ending slow creep toward abuse. SwingFast made a mistake, they should bear the responsibility for it, not pass it on to the community as a whole.

     If this was a normal case, everyone who had left the negative rating for the account being hacked would have removed the negative rating because it no longer applies. However, Zepher is dead, so that is just not possible at all. Sure SwingFirst's probably made a small mistake, but why should he not be restored to whole while someone else who made similar mistakes gets to get their account made whole. It isn't SwingFirst's fault that Zepher died. SwingFirst's getting restored back to whole as much as possible is the very definition of "fair."
    Personally, I don't have Zepher on my trust list. However, I'm not going to ask 19 DT1 members to remove him either.

You are asking the wrong question. The question you need to be asking is why is he so special that the standards we all agree are there for a reason should be deviated from just to selectively suit this single user? What precedent does this set? Who decides who is special enough to get this extra effort? Yeah I wish he could be completely restored, but I also think it would be a net negative if a precedent of meddling in trust ratings is set for any reason as it degrades the reliability of the entire system. You need to make a choice between leaving him a counter positive and leaving him to deal with the minor setback, or making efforts to remove Zepher from the default trust instead of collectivizing the loss.

[bones261]

You are asking the wrong question. The question you need to be asking is why is he so special that the standards we all agree are there for a reason should be deviated from just to selectively suit this single user? What precedent does this set?

The precedent is that the person who left him the negative trust is dead. So it's not possible to have it removed in the normal and established way. Furthermore, I already presented the posting from Zepher himself that made it clear that he would remove the negative trust once the account was recovered. Shouldn't someone carry out his intentions for him, since he is now dead?

Who decides who is special enough to get this extra effort? Yeah I wish he could be completely restored, but I also think it would be a net negative if a precedent of meddling in trust ratings is set for any reason as it degrades the reliability of the entire system.

Theymos or Cyrus gets to decide.

You need to make a choice between leaving him a counter positive and leaving him to deal with the minor setback, or making efforts to remove Zepher from the default trust instead of collectivizing the loss.

I already left him a counter positive and do not have Zepher on my trust list. What additional efforts can little old me do? I only have control over my own trust list. It's up to the 19 DT1 members and 30 other members on whether they want Zepher on their trust list or not. Also, I really don't see what the "loss" is for the forum? All I see is a fine tuning of the rules to account for cases when the person who leaves trust is now dead, and cannot modify it themselves. (And since Zepher already posted that he would remove the negative trust once the account was recovered, I really do not see the "loss" for the forum of carrying out the intentions of the dead.)


Edit: Just for reference, here is Zepher's post again. I don't see how this is such an issue for having theymos carry out what Zepher stated that he was going to do.

Signed messages are valid.


@OP - I have tagged your account with a temporary negative rating until such time as you regain access to it.

Once you do, shoot me a PM from both this account, the hacked account, along with a link to this thread, and I will happily remove the rating.

Cheers

[owlcatz]

Yeah Qwep account is done for IMO.

I knew Zepher quite well - Will it help you all if I add his ratings to mine (the valid ones that won't cause me too many pm's), that way if/when he gets removed from DT/lists etc)?  ... He was quite active tagging people for a few months I believe so many are likely still valid.

Thanks.

[mikeywith]

Emotions aside.

1-   I checked all of Zepher's negative sent feedback,  there is not a single user who is tagged by Zepher alone. ( even if there was, another DT can tag those a few acounts)

2-   I have also checked some of his "old" positive feedback which either now or in the future can be very misleading or inaccurate. ( based on the fact that people change)

an example : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1245199;dt

3-  He also left many positive feedback for small deals that were done using escrow/ members who went first , etc.. , many of those users could be trust farming, they can turn to scammers at any moment, and that positive feedback will help them a lot assuming not everyone knows about Zepher's death.


Nothing personal , Zepher seems like he was an excellent member, may he rest in peace but i think the proper option now is to exclude him from both DT1 and DT2 . IMO that would be the best thing for the forum as a whole.

[TECSHARE]

You are asking the wrong question. The question you need to be asking is why is he so special that the standards we all agree are there for a reason should be deviated from just to selectively suit this single user? What precedent does this set?

The precedent is that the person who left him the negative trust is dead. So it's not possible to have it removed in the normal and established way. Furthermore, I already presented the posting from Zepher himself that made it clear that he would remove the negative trust once the account was recovered. Shouldn't someone carry out his intentions for him, since he is now dead?

Who decides who is special enough to get this extra effort? Yeah I wish he could be completely restored, but I also think it would be a net negative if a precedent of meddling in trust ratings is set for any reason as it degrades the reliability of the entire system.

Theymos or Cyrus gets to decide.

You need to make a choice between leaving him a counter positive and leaving him to deal with the minor setback, or making efforts to remove Zepher from the default trust instead of collectivizing the loss.

I already left him a counter positive and do not have Zepher on my trust list. What additional efforts can little old me do? I only have control over my own trust list. It's up to the 19 DT1 members and 30 other members on whether they want Zepher on their trust list or not. Also, I really don't see what the "loss" is for the forum? All I see is a fine tuning of the rules to account for cases when the person who leaves trust is now dead, and cannot modify it themselves. (And since Zepher already posted that he would remove the negative trust once the account was recovered, I really do not see the "loss" for the forum of carrying out the intentions of the dead.)


Edit: Just for reference, here is Zepher's post again. I don't see how this is such an issue for having theymos carry out what Zepher stated that he was going to do.

Signed messages are valid.


@OP - I have tagged your account with a temporary negative rating until such time as you regain access to it.

Once you do, shoot me a PM from both this account, the hacked account, along with a link to this thread, and I will happily remove the rating.

Cheers

The precedent would be that it is now ok for the administration to change trust ratings. Of course Theymos/Cyrus get to decide, that is not the question, the question is why should they break the current precedent of NOT moderating trust ratings to suit a single user? The cost is that now moderating trust ratings will be an accepted thing, opening the door for manipulation and abuse by the staff. Even if they are not actively abusing their positions, this still necessitates a position where they have to pick and choose when to intervene, meaning some people will get this special privilege, and some will not, automatically creating an imbalance in the trust system as far as equitable treatment under it. SwingFirst fucked up by not securing his account properly, he should bear the cost, not the entire community in the form of debasing the reputability of the entire trust system even more than it already is.

[r1s2g3]

Can we add one more category in feedback as "Inactive Feedback". That feedback will remain but will not take part in trust calculation.

Any person who has not logged into the forum for 1 year has all the feedback sent shown as Inactive feedback on other profiles. Inactive feedback still can be positive or negative.

[joniboini]

Can we add one more category in feedback as "Inactive Feedback". That feedback will remain but will not take part in trust calculation.

Nice idea, but it must be shown directly to the user's profile, such as "This user has inactive feedbacks, take a look before you do any deal with him" to prevent scammy account being active again, just in case lots of DT members died and there is no other feedback from active users.