Bitcoin Forum
September 22, 2019, 11:27:35 PM *
News: If you like a topic and you see an orange "bump" link, click it. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Why aren't there postive trust flags?  (Read 210 times)
killyou72
Copper Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 884


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 09:30:03 PM
 #1

We always talk about the negatives, why not a positive trust flag? Like maybe one that is "scam-buster" "alt-buster" "spam-buster" etc

rent my signature just PM me, or pay me to not post ;P
1569194855
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569194855

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1569194855
Reply with quote  #2

1569194855
Report to moderator
There are several different types of Bitcoin clients. Header-only clients like Bither trust that the majority of mining power is honest for the purposes of enforcing network rules such as the 21 million BTC limit. Full clients do not trust miners in this way.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
jackg
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498
Merit: 1305


https://bit.ly/2FR9nyn - free python tutorials


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 09:33:43 PM
Merited by Jet Cash (2), exstasie (1)
 #2

A scam buster imo is not deservant of a positive tag. Someone who has done 3 high value successful trades maybe though...

You haven't traded with them so I wouldn't leave a trust unless you deam it extremely necessary.

The issue with labelling a scam buster is that they can then (and quite a few times do) go on to scamming others themselves.

killyou72
Copper Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 884


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 09:50:34 PM
 #3

A scam buster imo is not deservant of a positive tag. Someone who has done 3 high value successful trades maybe though...

You haven't traded with them so I wouldn't leave a trust unless you deam it extremely necessary.

The issue with labelling a scam buster is that they can then (and quite a few times do) go on to scamming others themselves.

I think reporting 500 posts for spam deserves a postive trust flag or icon. 


I am not saying a positive tag of trust.


I am saying create a positive type of flag.

rent my signature just PM me, or pay me to not post ;P
CryptopreneurBrainboss
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 781


WOLF.BET - Provably Fair Dice Game


View Profile WWW
June 13, 2019, 09:59:55 PM
 #4

I think reporting 500 posts for spam deserves a postive trust flag or icon.

A reporters badge is on the way just give it more time. We have a third option in the trust system which many people ignore, I believe it can be used for those feedbacks that doesn't relate to trade. I use it, already sent out five feedbacks that doesn't relate to trade but I believe it's worth leaving a feedback to show some appreciation. It's called neutral feedback.

.WOLF.BET.
▀  ▀▀▀▀▀▀
  ▀ ▀▀▀
 ▄ ▄▄▄   
  ▄ ▄▄▄
▄  ▄▄▄▄▄▄
        ▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▄▄▄
    ▄███▌        ▀▀▄
  ▄▀   ▐█████████▄  ▀▄
 ▄▀  ▄█████████████▄  █
 ▌  █████████████████  █
▐  ████████████████ ▄█
█  █████████████████████▌
▐  ██████████████████ ▀█▌
 ▌ ▐█████████████████▌ ▐▀
 █  ██████████████▀ ▄▀
  █   ███████████▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄▄██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▄▄▀
     ▀██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀
▄███████████▄
███████    ████████████▄
███████    ███████   ▀██
██████████████████    ██
██    ██████████████████
██    ███████    ███████
█████████████    ███████
███████    █████████████
███████    ███████    ██
██████████████████   ▄██
██        ▀███████████▀
██
██
      ▄█▄         ▄█▄
 ▄██ ███ ███████ ███ ██▄
▐███▄ ▀ ▄███████▄ ▀ ▄███▌
▐█▌▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▐█▌
▐█▌   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄        ▐█▌
▐█▌   ████████        ▐█▌
▐█▌       ███     ▄▄▀▀▀██▄
▐█▌      ███    ██▀      ▀█
▐█▌     ███    ███         █
▐█▌    ███     ███          █
 ██▄           ███▄         █
  ▀█████████████████▄     ▄█
                  ▀▀█████▀▀

████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████


.AFFILIATE PROGRAM.
   ...FREE FAUCET........
..CHAT RAIN.............
Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114
Merit: 1238


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 10:00:40 PM
Merited by Vod (1)
 #5

A scam buster imo is not deservant of a positive tag. Someone who has done 3 high value successful trades maybe though...

You haven't traded with them so I wouldn't leave a trust unless you deam it extremely necessary.

The issue with labelling a scam buster is that they can then (and quite a few times do) go on to scamming others themselves.

Busting a scam takes time and effort and is thankless, making high values trades is profitable and easy.

Which is not to say I think there should be flags for this, just pointing out I think you are incorrect.

lobcmt2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 154



View Profile
June 13, 2019, 10:28:41 PM
 #6

Trust plays its roles with trading issues and you are right by suggesting Positive Flags. I guess you mean you suggested other colors for Flag Boxes if Numbers of Oppositions outweight Supports. If a Flag Box, mostly opened to raise Warning, and in most cases Supports outweigh Oppositions for sure. Therefore, I guess such cases (that you want to see with Positive (Oppositions>Supports) Flags, that should be displayed with other colors are so rare). Moreover, I believe by now DT members have lots of things to do with current Trust Flags (without such Positive Trust Flags you suggested).

I don't think reporting scammers relate to three usecases of Trust Flags. Reports will be read and solved by forum staffs, and community are unable to support or oppose reports. It's very different.
I think that several of the problems with Trust were because three different goals were being jammed into one system:
 1. Getting a general idea of someone's trade history and trustworthiness in one convenient location, sort of like reviews on sites like EBay.
 2. Warning newbies/guests who don't know how to research properly about high-risk people.
 3. Deterring scams by creating a cost to scamming (ie. you'll "lose" a veteran account).
A reporters badge is on the way just give it more time.
I think reporting 500 posts for spam deserves a postive trust flag or icon.
o_e_l_e_o
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 2754



View Profile
June 13, 2019, 10:46:43 PM
Merited by Jet Cash (2), LoyceV (1), killyou72 (1)
 #7

I disagree with a positive flag.

A scammer flag is there to prevent further scams from happening. An incorrect one will prevent some trades from happening, but no one is going to be scammed as the result of an incorrect flag.

I don't see what a positive flag would bring which positive trust does not, and positive trust has the added benefit of having a comment box to say why you trust this person. An incorrect positive flag could result in a scam taking place because of a newbie putting too much value in it. People should be encouraged to read trust comments, and not just blindly follow the colors.

I agree that reporting many posts deserves a badge, but being able to report posts says nothing about a user's trustworthiness.

Steamtyme
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 1182



View Profile WWW
June 14, 2019, 07:59:18 PM
Last edit: June 15, 2019, 08:09:13 PM by Steamtyme
Merited by hilariousandco (1)
 #8

The way things read now leaving someone "Positive Feedback" is the way to do that. It also shows right under the profile in "trust" enabled areas or on the profile which is much more visible.
Quote
Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.

This is a wide brush you can paint people with. Like o_e_l_e_o said you can also add the reasoning behind why you think they deserve it. Up until this change I didn't agree with positive being used this way. The new system has taken my reasoning away so it seems that's the way to give kudos.

Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!