Trust flags

[mosprognoz]

We're use to seeing RED warning below the user profile in threads where they participated. Now we have to look into their trust to check if a user has the credibility before making transaction.

It takes 1 minute only. To check the profile. I opened a new thread about this.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153576.msg51442422#msg51442422

[1714776367]

1714776367

[1714776367]

1714776367

[FIFA worldcup]

We're use to seeing RED warning below the user profile in threads where they participated. Now we have to look into their trust to check if a user has the credibility before making transaction.

Red trust has been given for different purposes. You need to read the details why the red trust is given and then you will know if doing a transaction with a particular user is safe or not.

[marlboroza]

I still don't understand this system. Example:



As I can see flag is not created but warning is visible to guests but not to forum users. (On the other hand, if "+ number" is higher than "- number" there is no warning)

Account is tagged by bustabit's owner for "violating the terms of bustabit's open source license", obviously not forgiven, but no one can create flag type 2/3 except owner of site.

Is this how system should work?

[Phinnaeus Gage]

I still don't understand this system. Example:



As I can see flag is not created but warning is visible to guests but not to forum users. (On the other hand, if "+ number" is higher than "- number" there is no warning)

Account is tagged by bustabit's owner for "violating the terms of bustabit's open source license", obviously not forgiven, but no one can create flag type 2/3 except owner of site.

Is this how system should work?

Okay, on first view, I applaud the initiative. Ideally, the warning should be index by Google et al.

Please let me know if there's something I'm missing via reply to this post or PM, reserving the right to reassess my position.

[singlebit]

My trust rating is +0 / =0 / -2,How it works with -2 on right side without sign of "Warning:Trade with extreme caution!"?.We can allow to participate on campaign with this?

[mindrust]

My trust rating is +0 / =0 / -2,How it works with -2 on right side without sign of "Warning:Trade with extreme caution!"?.We can allow to participate on campaign with this?

Depends on the campaign/campaign manager I guess. I don't think managers will hire people with red trust from DT members but who knows. You can always try.

[singlebit]

My trust rating is +0 / =0 / -2,How it works with -2 on right side without sign of "Warning:Trade with extreme caution!"?.We can allow to participate on campaign with this?

Depends on the campaign/campaign manager I guess. I don't think managers will hire people with red trust from DT members but who knows. You can always try.

Thanks for concern,I dont know what happen last year,They giving red trust when i use and borrowing the btc address of my friend coz here in my country the btc wallet have limit to recieve,withdraw.Since my friend have level 3 wallet it means he have a unlimited for recieving btc and withdrawal,but unexpectedly no one cares to my prob and someone DT2 gave negative trust for accusing.Maybe im wrong when i use his wallet address.I dont know if this new update for trust is effective.I hope someone good to start again.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Is this how system should work?

See this post from theymos:

Some changes:
 - If the number of pre-flags-system negative trust ratings is greater than the number of all positive trust ratings, a warning banner is shown for guests & low-login-time newbies.

The example you have given had more pre-flag negatives than current positives, and so a warning banner is shown. This warning banner seems to maintain the text and appearance (red background) from the old system, rather than the new text and yellow background from the new system.

If this account did not have pre-flag-system negatives, then I would have thought that only bustabit would be able to create a type 2/3 flag based on the contract you linked, but any user could create a type 1 flag based on the thread you linked to in the negative trust you left this user.

[AdolfinWolf]

My trust rating is +0 / =0 / -2,How it works with -2 on right side without sign of "Warning:Trade with extreme caution!"?.We can allow to participate on campaign with this?

Is this only for accounts that received negative feedback before, or do you also not get a "Trade With Caution" tag anymore if you receive negative feedback after the update?

Isn't this going to unleash a legion of previously red-trusted bounty farmers/signature campaigners/etc, or am i missing something? The current way of "red-trusting" someone doesn't nearly look as intrusive anymore. I wonder if bounty managers will change their rules due to that.

[Findingnemo]

My trust rating is +0 / =0 / -2,How it works with -2 on right side without sign of "Warning:Trade with extreme caution!"?.We can allow to participate on campaign with this?

I guess reason of that negative feedback will plays a role on being signature campaign,if it is for cheating and abusing bounties with alts then no chance of getting into the signature campaign if the signature campaign recognizes it.

[suchmoon]

Is this only for accounts that received negative feedback before, or do you also not get a "Trade With Caution" tag anymore if you receive negative feedback after the update?

No "caution" anymore from trust feedback. Only from contract violation flags (red boxes), which can only be initiated by victims.

Isn't this going to unleash a legion of previously red-trusted bounty farmers/signature campaigners/etc, or am i missing something? The current way of "red-trusting" someone doesn't nearly look as intrusive anymore. I wonder if bounty managers will change their rules due to that.

Every previously red-tagged user lost the "caution" label, including heavyweight scamming champions like TradeFortress. Well, at least until new flags are created for them.

[malevolent]

So how should we doing it with som kind of the " Fake Ann creators " that posting links to there Malware Software in there text ?

In addition to the mentioned type-1/newbie-warning flag you can still report these topics, luring unsuspecting people to run malware is still a bannable offense. And a nuked user has all of their posts removed automatically anyway.

[suchmoon]

Is a non-victim creating an otherwise factual flag also considered to be abusing the system?

Is someone who supports a factual flag that was created by a non-victim also considered to be abusing the system?

And is someone who opposes a valid flag also considered to be abusing the system?

That's all misuse of the system.

How much proof of "victimhood" do we expect?

For example, is this sufficient:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153934.msg51455373#msg51455373

Not trying to put eddie13 on the spot here, just want to know if I can re-flag some old scams (GAW, hashie, etc) where I lost some money but there is no way for me to find TX IDs or any other tangible proof of that.

[Lafu]

So how should we doing it with som kind of the " Fake Ann creators " that posting links to there Malware Software in there text ?

In addition to the mentioned type-1/newbie-warning flag you can still report these topics, luring unsuspecting people to run malware is still a bannable offense. And a nuked user has all of their posts removed automatically anyway.

Thanks and if i see something like that and , or other posts with links that have some suspicious i am definitely reporting this posts !

[Quickseller]

Is a non-victim creating an otherwise factual flag also considered to be abusing the system?

Is someone who supports a factual flag that was created by a non-victim also considered to be abusing the system?

And is someone who opposes a valid flag also considered to be abusing the system?

That's all misuse of the system.

How much proof of "victimhood" do we expect?

Ahem

[suchmoon]

~

Talking about red box here. Try to keep up.

[Flying Hellfish]

~snip~
How much proof of "victimhood" do we expect?
~snip~

Enough to prove you were contractually violated haha!  

Check with your lawyer which you will now need to ensure your contracts are rock solid!!!

P.S NOTHING I EVER SAY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A CONTRACT BETWEEN US (ME AND ANYONE ON THE FORUM)... EVEN IF I SAY ITS A CONTRACT IT'S NOT.

Now that we have that out of the way I can never be a scammer, who wants to lend me 3000 BTC!!!!

[suchmoon]

Enough to prove you were contractually violated haha!  

I feel violated every time anyone breaks my implied contract of paying me 1 BTC for every post but I'm willing to overlook these transgressions in exchange for a non-Quickseller answer to my question

[eddie13]

How much proof of "victimhood" do we expect?

Good question.
I'd say it depends on how extraordinary the claim is, or beyond reasonable doubt, and if their is any opposition or debate of the validity..

I believe I can reasonably prove that I used cryptsy right to the end with TXs but can't really prove a final balance, I'm not sure their is reasonable doubt to doubt my statement (or even anyone unreasonably doubting), their is also no opposition and likely never will be, nor any debate of the validity..

I think even the receivership accepted about that amount of "proof", so if you like US law as a standard (I don't) I think my claim would fly if requested to prove it, but I didn't go through that because it was a small amount.

Someone who was named in the receivership might have slightly better "proof" with a court having granted them a portion of recovered value, but even that isn't solid blockchain proof because that's what you get for sending coins to a 3rd party.. That would just be trusting a court's opinion, and who trusts a court? Much less a courts opinion on altcoins, lol.

LOL @ FH and your welcome for a non-QS opinion, there's mine but I did it so I might be biased toward myself..

[suchmoon]

reasonable doubt to doubt my statement

None whatsoever for me, I recall you being part of Cryptsy scam discussions back in the day, so it would have been a mighty long con for you to stage it in the anticipation of this flag system just so that you could stick it to Big Vern's long dead account...

But we also have the [in]famous PM where a user was recommended to be excluded due to lying about being a victim.

It would help to know where the "lying" line is. What happens if someone says you (or I or whoever) lied about losing some dust in some shitcoin exchange.

A more recent example: I lost $20 or $30 in Bittrex due to them blatantly disregarding their own rules of allowing non-KYC withdrawals up to a certain amount. Unlike Cryptsy they're still alive. To me it's a clear-cut violation of a written contract. I don't know if I can put a red flag on them though.