Does it really matter if we have weasels, scoundrels, or outright scammers in DT

[suchmoon]

It really doesn't matter that much to me personally since I've been using a custom trust for a long time and had most of the miscreants excluded well before the trust system overhaul made them eligible for DT.

But how much does it actually matter for the forum as a whole? For example, if a dishonest person gets into DT:

1) What are the potential attack vectors they could use to take advantage of their position?
2) How much benefit (monetary or otherwise) could they extract from it?
3) How much damage (monetary or otherwise) could they cause to others?
4) What are the chances of them getting caught?
5) What do they stand to lose if they get caught?
6) How vigilant are the other members of DT going to be towards unacceptable behavior?
7) Would it all magically balance itself out? (the "fear of retaliation" idea)

I think I'm mostly concerned about #6. It does appear the DT is mellowing and becoming more tolerant to behaviors that would have been unacceptable in the past. Or maybe it's just me and my nostalgia for "good old times".

Please keep in mind that no system is ever perfect, there is always going to be someone running a super-long con, etc etc. But in the current expanded DT  - do we need to fight tooth-and-nail to exclude anyone we think is unsuitable, or do we just need to accept the fact that some will sweet-talk themselves into DT and all we can do is just wait for them to scam and then deal with the consequences.

Any thoughts are welcome but please refrain from personal attacks, there's plenty of other threads for that.

[1714173766]

1714173766

[1714173766]

1714173766

[TheNewAnon135246]

Plenty of forum users shared their concerns with Theymos regarding the new system. This is what happens so I guess it's up to Theymos (and other staff) to decide if this is what they had in mind.

[suchmoon]

Plenty of forum users shared their concerns with Theymos regarding the new system. This is what happens so I guess it's up to Theymos (and other staff) to decide if this is what they had in mind.

It appears that it's kinda up to us since theymos hasn't really shown much enforcement, aside from some generic guidelines (no punishment for opinions, forgive and forget, etc) and some... uhm... lobbying via PM.

[AB de Royse777]

Every system has pros and cons. In my opinion, the current system has lesser cons than the previous DT system. Previous DT system was too much centralized, picked by one hand but in this current system, we have the power to eliminate someone who does not suit in the DT network.

and some... uhm... lobbying via PM.

Syndicating privately is not good. This is a public forum and keep everything in public.

[The Cryptovator]

There is a option on current system for exclusion, so usually we would use that option when we don't like to see someone on DT network. If a obvious scammer in my custom list then I will not mind if you ask me by PM and inform me about that person history. Perhaps I am fully not aware about that person previous history although I should not add someone on my custom list if I don't know his history. If I am not agree to remove a abuser from my trust list then there is simple solution, exclude that person and me. I don't think we should attack someone personally since there is good solution. Also open a thread will be appropriate if I deny to remove a abuser from my custom trust list. I am pretty much discourage to attack someone personally.

[Slow death]

But how much does it actually matter for the forum as a whole?

I see only one thing that the scammer that would be in DT would do: he would abuse the trust system through retaliation

People don't have a lot of time to research if someone is from DT or not, they trade based on reputation and using Escrow.

If each person has the right to add who they want to their trust list, then that means that each person trusts the person they want, it may be that someone says that X is scammer and another person say that X is not scammer. and the other day someone else add X to your trust list and X becomes DT. this is the democratic world. Now if anyone thinks X doesn't deserve to be in DT, then exclude that person from your trust list.

[Kalemder]

This is a remarkable subject. Thanks.

The important thing is that the reputation of the person you shop for should be worth more than the money you give him. I care about it when I trade. When that person hurts me, he actually only hurts himself.

Even if you are a DT member in this forum, the only thing you lose is your member account.

My other rule: I don't trade with someone trying to stay anonymous.

[TheNewAnon135246]

My other rule: I don't trade with someone trying to stay anonymous.

Why is that?

[AB de Royse777]

My other rule: I don't trade with someone trying to stay anonymous.

I am not questioning you but you need to remember that you are in a anonymous forum and most of the users in here is not going to give you their identity before making a financial deal with you. Also, Bitcoin inspires anonymity.

[Blacknavy]

I don't trade with someone trying to stay anonymous.

It's possible to use bitcointalk.org without submitting any personal info. Use Tor + a throwaway email + a new pseudonym, etc. If you care about preventing personal information from being collected on bitcointalk.org, then preventing this collection is your responsibility.

[1] Criminals kidnapped the owner of the Paribu exchange because of his BTCs in Turkey. Why should I reveal my identity? Stay anonymous, be safe.

[LoyceV]

But how much does it actually matter for the forum as a whole? For example, if a dishonest person gets into DT:

1) What are the potential attack vectors they could use to take advantage of their position?
2) How much benefit (monetary or otherwise) could they extract from it?
3) How much damage (monetary or otherwise) could they cause to others?
4) What are the chances of them getting caught?
5) What do they stand to lose if they get caught?
6) How vigilant are the other members of DT going to be towards unacceptable behavior?
7) Would it all magically balance itself out? (the "fear of retaliation" idea)

I don't think being on DT matters much for any of those. Someone could (1) inflate their own Trust score by being a Trust selfscratcher, but I don't expect this to be easily abused by creating, including and exchanging feedback with alt-accounts without getting caught.

there is always going to be someone running a super-long con, etc etc

I'd say a user's reputation is much more important than his DT-status for a super-long con. I could easily get away with $200, and probably much more than that. But I don't think that has much to do with me being on DT, it has much more to do with my dedication to this forum, and dedication isn't something to easily fake for a long-con. I also like to think many users here would know by now I don't take loans, and would be very suspicious if I suddenly ask for it.
The scams I've seen pulled by trusted members often start small, to get some "loan history", until they took off with the big hit. It's probably good to always be suspicous when someone suddenly starts taking bigger and bigger loans.
As for your (5): they stand to lose their reputation and gain a load of red Trust and a Flag, but as with anything in crypto they're likely able to keep any stolen funds.

I haven't traded much, but when I do, I prefer to trust people with much less than I think their account is worth to them. DT or not doesn't matter much.

But in the current expanded DT  - do we need to fight tooth-and-nail to exclude anyone we think is unsuitable

I call them out sometimes by just posting the evidence and leaving it up to the community. I don't like to take rush-decisions for those things, so I don't instantly exclude them by myself.

My other rule: I don't trade with someone trying to stay anonymous.

In crypto, I haven't traded with anyone (except for people I know IRL) who isn't completely anonymous to me.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

But how much does it actually matter for the forum as a whole? For example, if a dishonest person gets into DT:

1) What are the potential attack vectors they could use to take advantage of their position?

A dishonest DT member can take advantage of the system through this means; Personal attacks, retaliatory feedbacks, giving wrong judgement via feedback and flag support. Some individuals, could be out of ignorance or intentionally, they misinterpret the flag system. A dishonest dt user abusing the flag/trust system takes away the credibility of the system.

2) How much benefit (monetary or otherwise) could they extract from it?

We have direct monetary benefit which has to do with them exchanging their feedback or support/oppose "power" on flags for money. And the indirect benefits, comes from them exchanging trust feedbacks between themselves to increase their reputation on the forum which make them favorites for Job/services opportunities and open slots via signature campaigns, etc.

3) How much damage (monetary or otherwise) could they cause to others?

Permit me to use an example to explain this; for instance, if I was to get a negative feedback from a dishonest user that made his way into the dt list stating; "Don't trust this user, he's a scammer", it automatically puts a questionable "trusted" feedback on my profile which can cost me a job offer on the forum and also put my reputation to question from inexperience users. I also become less favorite for some business opportunities like Signature Management etc.

6) How vigilant are the other members of DT going to be towards unacceptable behavior?

We have to give them some credit because, they're performing above average, hardly before a new dishonest user make it into the list without getting caught although the few users already on the list are getting away with positive trust farming unnoticed and most of this users are products of the local boards.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

If there's a true scammer on DT, that's a huge problem, and I think the consequences of this happening are pretty obvious.  Remember the Master-P incident?  If I remember the situation correctly, he leveraged his DT position in order to pull off a huge scam--and nobody expected that to happen because of his DT status and extensive history of not pulling off scams.  And in Master-P's case, there wasn't any warning that he was going to do what he did.

If we know for certain there's a scammer on DT, that scammer needs to be voted off via exclusions.  I'm not talking about a member who holds controversial views or is an abrasive personality, but one who is an actual dishonest member of bitcointalk.  I don't know how a scammer could end up on the list, but I'm sure it could happen--and it's the responsibility of other DT members to take action.

6) How vigilant are the other members of DT going to be towards unacceptable behavior?

This one is probably always going to be an issue, as there's usually a lot of debate about these issues before anything is done.  On the other hand, I have seen DT members act quickly to exclude members.  I understand the concern, but I tend to believe that there is a core group of DTs that keep a close eye on their fellow DTers and would blow the whistle at the first sign of potential shenanigans.  I'm being optimistic there, but my gut tells me it's the truth.

[suchmoon]

I don't know how a scammer could end up on the list, but I'm sure it could happen--and it's the responsibility of other DT members to take action.
[...]
This one is probably always going to be an issue, as there's usually a lot of debate about these issues before anything is done.  On the other hand, I have seen DT members act quickly to exclude members.  I understand the concern, but I tend to believe that there is a core group of DTs that keep a close eye on their fellow DTers and would blow the whistle at the first sign of potential shenanigans.  I'm being optimistic there, but my gut tells me it's the truth.

A couple of months ago I would have been reasonably certain that if e.g. a well-known sockpuppeting scammer would try to push some of their accounts into DT, they would be immediately found and excluded. Today I'm not so sure. The vast majority of DT1 members seem to be drama-averse (not a bad thing in itself) and those "questionable" users know how stir up drama to make it seem like there is a doubt of their wrongdoing. So I can now see a couple of ways how we can end up with some really nasty elements in DT if they put some effort into it.

[The-One-Above-All]

If there's a true scammer on DT, that's a huge problem, and I think the consequences of this happening are pretty obvious.  Remember the Master-P incident?  If I remember the situation correctly, he leveraged his DT position in order to pull off a huge scam--and nobody expected that to happen because of his DT status and extensive history of not pulling off scams.  And in Master-P's case, there wasn't any warning that he was going to do what he did.

If we know for certain there's a scammer on DT, that scammer needs to be voted off via exclusions.  I'm not talking about a member who holds controversial views or is an abrasive personality, but one who is an actual dishonest member of bitcointalk.  I don't know how a scammer could end up on the list, but I'm sure it could happen--and it's the responsibility of other DT members to take action.

6) How vigilant are the other members of DT going to be towards unacceptable behavior?

This one is probably always going to be an issue, as there's usually a lot of debate about these issues before anything is done.  On the other hand, I have seen DT members act quickly to exclude members.  I understand the concern, but I tend to believe that there is a core group of DTs that keep a close eye on their fellow DTers and would blow the whistle at the first sign of potential shenanigans.  I'm being optimistic there, but my gut tells me it's the truth.

LOL what levels of proof do you need. We are ready to discuss this with you in public and you can explain clearly why tman is not an auction scammer and lauda is not a scammer too.

You do realize you can not just use a different " definition" of scammer as it suits you.

Love this new angle. Does it even matter if we have scoundrels and outright scammers on DT ?

Brilliant. Now it is undeniable since the evidence is here.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.0

We will swap to the angle that it probably does not matter that they are no DT.

Perhaps its a positive thing? meta board will certainly go for that. Also why is this thread not on meta. I mean of course cowards run to rep to self moderate but suchmoon must have forgotten to click SM this time.

Good for us and the board that some truth and observable instances can be brought to this party.

We already know who the nasty elements arrived on DT suchmoon  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.0

You and your friends put them there.

Can you highlight these other nasty scammers you seem to be referring too so we can compare their actions against your includes. Or are you talking about the same people but pretending you have not included them?

This is really a meta board matter. Let's bring it over there. Nobody reads rep really. You and your DT includes should be compared against these "OTHER" scoundrels and outright scammers under theymos nose. So he can compare himself. If your includes and those of people like pharmacist and tman are super clean in contrast to these "nasty" others then theymos should go on your side and blacklist them for sure. However if your includes and those of your friends (including them) are equally as bad or worse he should blacklist the lot of you and go with people that have zero instances of financially motivated wrong doing?

Are you open to this challenge you weasel and scoundrel and supporter of outright scammers and extortionists, trust abusers and other vile scum bags?  Or run away again?

[Kalemder]

My other rule: I don't trade with someone trying to stay anonymous.

Why is that?

Reputation of the person who will trade should be high. or she should not insist on staying anonymous.
When I have a negative event, when I get hurt, who am I going to get?
That's what I want to say.

[suchmoon]

suchmoon must have forgotten to click SM this time.

I did not forget, I had the thread created with self-mod at first and then deleted and recreated without it so that users could feel free to comment.

There is only one local rule so please stick to it and of course stay on topic. This is not about your grievances against individuals - other Reputation threads can serve that purpose.

[DireWolfM14]

But how much does it actually matter for the forum as a whole? For example, if a dishonest person gets into DT:

1) What are the potential attack vectors they could use to take advantage of their position?
2) How much benefit (monetary or otherwise) could they extract from it?
3) How much damage (monetary or otherwise) could they cause to others?
4) What are the chances of them getting caught?
5) What do they stand to lose if they get caught?
6) How vigilant are the other members of DT going to be towards unacceptable behavior?
7) Would it all magically balance itself out? (the "fear of retaliation" idea)

1) The perception of being a trusted individual gives them a slight advantage, ie. in a currency exchange or buying/selling physical goods they could convince the other party to send first.

2) That depends on the situation, a would be scammer can be selective about who and when he scams, waiting for that one big score.

3) Again, situational.  With the appearance of "trust" a member could lure many into his scam scheme.

4) Another situational answer.  The user could target only newbies, and nobody listens to the complaints of newbies.  If that's the case, a user could abuse his position for months before being called out.

5) If the user in question has been careful to remain anonymous, he'll lose the trust of the community, or at most the account.  But that's about it.  If the account has exposed his true identity, then more is at stake and that could largely depend on the amount scammed.

6) I see this as "so far so good."  I think (or would like to believe) that there are plenty of good people here looking out for one another.  I think we have a pretty good group on DT1 for the most part, and as the system gets more exposure and we all gain experience I think it'll get better.

7) I think it will all balance its self out, as long as nobody fears retaliation.  If you think someone with a high rank is being shitbird, call him out on it.  If you're right any retaliation will be mitigated in due time.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I was thinking the other day after I saw Vod & TECSHARE arguing that I need to go through the current DT list & see who needs to be ~

I think there are probably a lot of non deserving DT Members atm due to it now being much easier to get in. I’m going to spend a few hours updating my custom trust list on Friday.

I suggest that you all do the same. Oh & great post suchmoon.

[suchmoon]

7) I think it will all balance its self out, as long as nobody fears retaliation.  If you think someone with a high rank is being shitbird, call him out on it.  If you're right any retaliation will be mitigated in due time.

Well, then we're fucked since retaliation is supposed to keep us straight:

A major goal of this is to allow retaliatory distrusts and ratings to actually have some chance of mattering so that contentious ratings have an actual cost. If someone is obviously scamming, then any retaliatory rating should not last long due to the DT1 "voting", but if you negative-rate someone for generally disliking them, then their retaliation against you may stick. In borderline cases, it should result in something of a political battle.

This is inspired partly by something that David Friedman said once (though I can't find the quote), that one of the requirements for a peaceful society is the credible threat of retaliation in case you are harmed. As DT was organized previously, one or both sides of a dispute was usually unable to effectively retaliate to a rating, at least via the trust system itself. Now your ability to effectively retaliate will tend to increase as you become more established in the community, which should discourage abuse generally. (Or that's the idea, at least.)

Seriously though, we've seen trust system retaliation play out both ways over the last few months and I'm not convinced it's working. Honest non-drama individuals don't want to deal with this nonsense even if "retaliatory rating should not last long" and some leave DT altogether so we potentially lose good members who could call out scams; and shitbirds don't really care much about "credible threat of retaliation" so they keep misusing the system for questionable purposes.

IOW shitbirds appear to have thicker skin and can win by attrition.