Suggestion/Discussion: Create different levels of DefaultTrust

[LoyceV]

(Originally posted here)

I think the trust system does way more harm to the community than good, it should be removed IMO.
~snip~

~In my opinion, the only way to move forward with this current trust model is to completely remove negative trust~

The suggestion that only traders should be on DT had me thinking: why not create different levels of DefaultTrust, and force users to choose one (or more!) of those?
The way things are going, I don't think more than a few percent of active users will ever set a custom Trust list, and the majority wouldn't know what to choose anyway.
DefaultTrust could be expanded by for instance the following levels:
DefaultTrust0: back to the way things were before January 09: theymos hand-picks DT1 members.
DefaultTrust1: the current system.
DefaultTrust2: only experienced traders on DT1 (how to select them would be up for discussion).
DefaultTrust3: only Admins, Global Moderators and >2 years Staff Members.
DefaultTrust4: only active scambusters.
DefaultTrust5: any user that can sign a message from an address >1000 Bitcoin, signature valid 12 months.
DefaultTrust6: ...........

Details can of course be changed (I just made most of this up), but I'm hoping this can be a system that satisfies the majority of users, while allowing new users to make an informed decision.
It can be implemented like theymos' April Fools' Day KYC: a big warning above all pages, and it only disappears once the user has made a choice. On top of this, every user can still st their own Trust list.

[1714103156]

1714103156

[Hhampuz]

I like this, however I'd probably remove the DT5 requirement. Don't see it to hold any merit in terms of how your judgement would be at this forum if you have x amount of BTC (I've spoken to idiot whales and super smart shrimps).

EDIT; Perhaps x amount of activity could warrant a low position in DT? I see that it could be abused but not as easily as some of the other ones. Just thinking out loud.

[The Cryptovator]

All of your point not valid to me except O & 1. Only solution I can see number 0, back to previous trust system. Although it will be centralized but obviously theymos will choose the best candidate. By voting system lot of new face become DT1 who don't understand properly how work truat system (including me). If admin wondering to reset DT1 again then I will suggest for to go back on previous system.  

[asche]

tbh if DT is difficult to grasp for newcomers now, your proposal will only make it worse.

Understanding what's what would be pretty difficult.

Also trade related trust feedbacks aren't necessarily the most relevant ones, and are easy to fake.

I can easily buy a lot of shit on ebay/amazon/whatever and just sell it on the marketplace to farm trust. And then use the accumulated trust to make an exit spam if this is what I want.

In my mind the actual system, while imperfect like any system anyways, is the best compromise between complexity, self governance and accuracy.

[LoyceV]

I like this, however I'd probably remove the DT5 requirement. Don't see it to hold any merit in terms of how your judgement would be at this forum if you have x amount of BTC (I've spoken to idiot whales and super smart shrimps).

DT5 was the last one I came up with, and indeed the least likely. If this gets implemented, I expect many much better suggestions from the community.

If admin wondering to reset DT1 again then I will suggest for to go back on previous system.

I don't think theymos will do that:

For years I've been unhappy with how DefaultTrust ended up as a centralized and largely-untouchable authority, but I was reluctant to change it because the alternatives seemed too messy. However, I've finally decided to try some changes, and we'll see how it works.

I'm hoping to find a middle ground where users themselves can choose between different scenarios.

Also trade related trust feedbacks aren't necessarily the most relevant ones, and are easy to fake.

I expect this to become the most controversial level indeed: who's going to decide who is an experienced trader?

[Quickseller]

When you have any kind of default option, users don’t actually have a choice despite any features of the system. In the case of DT, users *must* use the default option because such a large percentage of the rest of the ecosystem uses it, and will continue using it because it is the default option. The choice that users have is to use a custom network in addition, but separately from the DT network.

The current system doesn’t actually force people to create a custom trust list (and in turn network), it forces people into using a bad trust network and encourages them to use a second network separately.

If theymos really wanted to force users to choose a trust network and use it alone, he would remove DT entirely. This obviously has problems for actual new users.

IMO, the best alternative is to somewhat centralize the trust system as it previously was.

[asche]

I expect this to become the most controversial level indeed: who's going to decide who is an experienced trader?

DT 0 & 1?   

[Jet Cash]

Why does it have to be "default" trust. Why not just trust based on actual trading activity.

[bones261]

Why does it have to be "default" trust. Why not just trust based on actual trading activity.

     I'm not certain how you go about confirming actual trading activity occurred and that it occurred in a satisfactory fashion. The only way to confirm this would be to have Bitcointalk.org itself act as an escrow for these trades, or to designate certain people to act as escrows and report valid trades to the system.

[asche]

Why does it have to be "default" trust. Why not just trust based on actual trading activity.

Again this "trading" non sense.

How do you define trading? How do you control the trading actually took place?

If escrow is used how does the trading qualifies for proof of trust? etc etc

[Jet Cash]

If escrow is used, then trust doesn't enter into it. In fact it indicates a lack of trust. Of course it isn't worth admins spending time validating entries - the community will do that. All that is needed is the names of the two parties, the value of the trade, and a reference. This will give a member thinking of a future trade, the chance to form his own opinion. With only two minor Bitcoin purchases, then I would go to the bottom of the list, but anyone who is considering a major trade with me can review my posting history, and that should give them an idea of my moral stance.

[The Cryptovator]

The only way to confirm this would be to have Bitcointalk.org itself act as an escrow for these trades, or to designate certain people to act as escrows and report valid trades to the system.

You deserve +1, but.. . However I am strongly agree with your point. Trades can be manipulate easily if forum isn't involved with trades/escrow. But fortunately forum will never hold user fund. So its not possible to determine real trades.  

Again this "trading" non sense.

+1 too.

Why does it have to be "default" trust. Why not just trust based on actual trading activity.

Is trust system created for trading purpose? Is forum involved with any kind of trading? 

[TECSHARE]

The only way to confirm this would be to have Bitcointalk.org itself act as an escrow for these trades, or to designate certain people to act as escrows and report valid trades to the system.

You deserve +1, but.. . However I am strongly agree with your point. Trades can be manipulate easily if forum isn't involved with trades/escrow. But fortunately forum will never hold user fund. So its not possible to determine real trades.  

Again this "trading" non sense.

+1 too.

Why does it have to be "default" trust. Why not just trust based on actual trading activity.

Is trust system created for trading purpose? Is forum involved with any kind of trading? 

Pfft, yeah who ever heard of trading within a system designed for p2p exchange. Get with the program this place is for ball washing!

[S_Therapist]

There will be more or less haters and supporters in every system. Nothing will be changed. I think the current system is better. There's still a lot of people who don't understand the current trust system correctly. Doing it more complex will result more apathy to the system.

[Quickseller]

None of this will get implemented.

Theymos will almost certainly not say this until Jan 2021, but the current system is in place in order to avoid libel liability via immunity given in section 230 of the communications decency act, because trust system ratings under previous implementations did not (IMO) grant him this immunity in regards to trust ratings displayed, and the warning not to trade with someone because theymos effectively chose (directly or otherwise) whose ratings would show up by default.

Previously, even though theymos likely did not have section 230 immunity from libel, nearly all of the negative ratings had qualified privilege against liability for libel because they would serve as a warning to others against potential harm, however in recent years, this no longer was the case, and some of the people who are most active in handing out ratings, no longer reasonably are giving out ratings as a tool to warn others.

I don't think the current implementation would result in theymos receiving section 230 immunity if he was sued for libel because he still hand picks the merit sources, who ultimately get to choose who gets to "vote" on who is in DT1 -- the current system is just a roundabout way for theymos to choose who is on DT1, IMO. It would not be a slam dunk case, but I don't think theymos would ultimately prevail.

All of the suggestions in the OP will ultimately result in theymos handpicking who is on the various implementations of DT, and would only create additional risk to him.

[Your Point Is Invalid]

Decent idea, there really shouldn't be any use of the trust for things that have nothing to do with actual trades and purchases. As for people asking why they won't just lie that a transaction took place to fabricate trust, what stops them now?

Answer: Nothing

[hilariousetc]

You're never going to make everyone happy and I think convoluting it any more just does more harm than good. With the last change it mostly alleviated the issue of all those people who had been left negative for petty spats and in retaliation for something but now there's also a whole load of scammers and shady characters that are let free. It's disturbing to see the majority that have woken up recently and are now shitposting away on the new Yobit campaign because they can. No feedback/trust system is perfect and I doubt theymos will be able to come up with one that is going to be universally loved.

[malevolent]

No feedback/trust system is perfect and I doubt theymos will be able to come up with one that is going to be universally loved.

Perfect is the enemy of good. Before the warnings were added to topics made by scammers, I used to receive a lot more PMs from Newbies and 0-post users complaining how they were scammed.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

How the hell did I miss this thread entirely?

Why does it have to be "default" trust. Why not just trust based on actual trading activity.

That would satisfy members like TECSHARE, who has been arguing for that criterion for a while now--and I will acknowledge that he does have a good point. 

If you can be trusted with money, that's one form of trustworthiness.  If you're a super scam buster, that's another type.  It might be a good idea indeed if the trust system could be structured such that these forms of trustworthiness can be distinguished.  I might be comfortable doing business with someone with an extensive trade history, but that does not mean a scam buster should be trusted to do deals honestly.  They might very well be honest in business, but without that trade history who knows if they'll just pull an exit scam?

Perfect is the enemy of good.

Funny you should say that.  I think that same thought every time something is suggested in Meta and it gets shot down because it's not a perfect solution to whatever problem is being discussed.

[hilariousetc]

No feedback/trust system is perfect and I doubt theymos will be able to come up with one that is going to be universally loved.

Perfect is the enemy of good. Before the warnings were added to topics made by scammers, I used to receive a lot more PMs from Newbies and 0-post users complaining how they were scammed.

That was a decent addition and has probably stopped a lot of people from getting scammed, but on the flipside I've had a few complaints from people who's threads now make them look like scammers even though they're not or run legitimate business threads just because they have some bad feedback and that's why nothing is perfect and someone will always complain or be unfairly penalised by any changes.

If you can be trusted with money, that's one form of trustworthiness.  If you're a super scam buster, that's another type.  It might be a good idea indeed if the trust system could be structured such that these forms of trustworthiness can be distinguished.  I might be comfortable doing business with someone with an extensive trade history, but that does not mean a scam buster should be trusted to do deals honestly.  They might very well be honest in business, but without that trade history who knows if they'll just pull an exit scam?

Lots of people have or have tried to game the system by just being active in certain capacities without actually having done many trades themselves. Though with that being said, people can also just keep doing pointless trades to build feedback quite quickly. A lot of the people who took little loans out here were probably doing this. Not always for bad reasons but there have been a lots of cases where I'm positive people were just doing this to essentially 'buy' feedback and make themselves appear more trusted than they actually were. That's why people need to examine what people have actually got the feedback for. Someone with lots of varied trades over years should mean something as opposed to just blindly trusting someone just because they have a lot of green feedback just for being helpful or doing some small deals with the right people. You could probably build a nice bit of 'trusted' feedback very quickly just by giving vouch copies of something or just taking out microloans with everybody who offers them.