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

[o_e_l_e_o]

Honest non-drama individuals don't want to deal with this nonsense

So much this.

I see someone who has artificially boosted their trust score from 0 to 13 by adding every account which has ever left them a positive feedback to their trust list (even if it's the only feedback that account has ever left, even if the account is legitimately red trusted, even if the account is banned) get voted in to DT1. Several of the votes he is receiving are from people he has left positive feedback to, and so it is in their own interests to vote him on to DT1 as then they became green trusted. I decide I disagree with this behavior (obviously, because which sane user wouldn't) and I have no interest in seeing these ratings. I exclude this user. In return I get retaliatory exclusions and this user and his trust list calling me xenophobic and racist. Similarly, I have on occasion questioned users inflating their own trust score or excluding accounts from DT2 which have been added solely for this reason. Again, I am usually met with abuse and/or exclusions. My experience in these cases is by no means unique. It is tiresome to say the least.

[marlboroza]

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

Phishing.

Elaborate.

No. I won't give them ideas and solutions. I will just add something:

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".

I remember one situation when someone was selling coins and someone else suggested them to use exchange. User was tagged because of that and person who tagged them was excluded from DT because they didn't want to remove negative. Hm..can't remember who was it. Yeah, I also miss old times. This situation would have never happened in old days, no one sane would have knowingly included scammer in trust list. And, today, we have discussions like "why do you think he is scammer if he stole someone's work? Whats your point? I trust him, go fuck yourself"...

[suchmoon]

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

Phishing.

Elaborate.

[Harlot]

To me personally I just want to see a member play it out with his DT status until he gets caught red handed on what scam he is trying to do, then there is really no questions asked if he or she should be trusted at all. What I don't like with the system is other members react suddenly when a person they have a bad past with or a beef with becomes a DT member. The bad thing about this is you are offsetting the people who have put him to their trust list even though they put him to their trust list because they have successful transactions with him in the past. With our trust system anyone who you don't like being a DT member can be remove if you just complain it to the Meta section or the reputation section and get some following to support your decision to put him in their distrust list.

[wwzsocki]

I don't really see anyone satisfied with the new trust system here. At the beginning, I thought that it will take some time and everything will work out, but unfortunately with the time passing, like others, I noticed serious shortcomings. Even started to write a thread about this subject to share my thoughts with you but I was afraid that it is too controversial to be published. So I started to read the meta section (not a big fan of) and found that there are many threads about the problems and threats in the new trust system, like this one for example.

I was happy that finally there will be no way that one red paint will ruin somebody account, especially after I was mistrusted and almost lost my account two times.
To my surprise red paint is still here, still counts and now is even much easier to get it, because there are hundreds of DT members, which trust ratings counts as a valid once and give us nice red -1 in the account trust summary.

Sometimes I see red painted DT members and ask myself: "what is going on?", "how to trust such DT?". We all see that something has to be changed with paint and trust annotations, to take the power away from a single person. Just leave it as simple feedback and not a trust measure. There are so many negative annotations left, only because of personal wars and finally, we find ourselves in a situation, when a DT member has a hundred feedbacks of all kinds (bad and good) and there is no way to judge him based on this. I think flags are a nice feature and can be valuable. Of course first, something has to be done with all these problems.

[marlboroza]

To my surprise red paint is still here

I have default trust settings and there is no red paint on your account.

now is even much easier to get it because there are hundreds of DT members, which trust rating counts as a valid one and give us nice red -1 in the account trust summary.

Point those accounts in reputation or in "default-trust" thread in meta and if it is wrongly placed it should be resolved.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

I don't really see anyone satisfied with the new trust system here.

You can not satisfy everyone with everything. The previous trust system was not perfect and the same with this new one too. Every system has it's own pros and cons.

There will be a class who will always fear the change.
Merit system introduced - they screamed
DT system changed - they screamed
New flag system introduced - they screamed

They will always scream.

[eddie13]

I don't see much for "weasels, scoundrels, or outright scammers in DT".. Maybe a few have gotten there but they are easily quickly banished..
Their are some less than perfectly upstanding honest users on DT but I guess that's where the standards are..

Getting on DT2 isn't much of an advantage anymore either..

[wwzsocki]

I have default trust settings and there is no red paint on your account.

I am not talking about my account in particular, only about red paint as a whole.

Thought it will be dismissed or something and the flags will take the place, but paint is still there and TBH nothing changed about paint.

I was sure this will be the end of the red paint threat, that someday an angry DT member will paint me and ruin my account because he doesn't like me or has nothing better to do.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

I was sure this will be the end of the red paint threat, that someday an angry DT member will paint me and ruin my account because he doesn't like me and has nothing better to do.

If you don't give them a clear reason to, they won't. Clearly you got away with a stunt most users won't get away with on the forum. Be thankful and go enjoy your stay on the forum instead of trying to play the victim card here. If you get a false feedbacks from a DT (1/2) member which isn't accurate and lacking evidence, you bring the matter to the public, if the DT member can't defend his/her feedback (that's to gives a clear and understandable explanation behind the feedback) then he/she gets voted out of the privilege of been a DT member for abusing the privilege that's if the user reject the first solution involving the removal of the false negative feedback. It's as simple as that.

Similar incident happened few weeks back, from the tagged on the topic titled, the issue got resolved: Abuser gave me a negative feedback.

[wwzsocki]

If you don't give them a clear reason to, they won't...

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.

We are not talking here about good reputable DT members, with a lot of trust from the community (about these members I am not worrying) only weasels, scoundrels, or outright scammers.

...Clearly you got away with a stunt most users won't get away with on the forum. Be thankful and go enjoy your stay on the forum instead of trying to play the victim card here...

Only because my close friend or relative (Crypto Mania) registered an account and I helped him a little, we used the same ETH address or some social media accounts and informed the forum about this fact multiple times, during these two years, we both were mistrusted and until today have a neutral rating.

WE HAVE NEVER BREAK ANY FORUM RULES OR SCAMMED ANYBODY

Still, I was mistrusted, had to explain myself (expose private information) and almost lost the account, Crypto Mania left the forum and we have still a neutral rating for exchanging merits and possible alt accounts. You will tell me this is ok?

There should be no paint for merits abuse, we did nothing and still got a neutral rating.

Of course, I have to tell now for members who don't know the story that I have awarded Crypto Mania with the first merit 3 months after his registration and never awarded more as 1 merit only to his best posts and asked him to not send any merits to me.  In 1,5 year I awarded something like 60 merits to Crypto Mania. Everything proved in accusation thread, link in my trust.

All these happen only because somebody targeted me, opened a new account, only to open accusation thread in which he used misrepresented facts to start the drama. Only because scammers use the same cryptocurrencies addresses it doesn't mean that relatives or close friends can't, especially if there was no accusation of any scam or abuse in the bounty. That is why I am so afraid of red paint and single accusation which can kill your account. I was there, I know that and wait for the moment when the threat will be finally resolved.

... if the DT member can't defend his/her feedback (that's to gives a clear and understandable explanation behind the feedback) then he/she gets voted out of the privilege of been a DT member for abusing the privilege that's if the user reject the first solution involving the removal of the false negative feedback. It's as simple as that.

Good to know.

[suchmoon]

Still, I was mistrusted, had to explain myself (expose private information) and almost lost the account, Crypto Mania left the forum and we have still a neutral rating for exchanging merits and possible alt accounts. You will tell me this is ok?

Yes, actually that shows that the system worked properly in your case. You were able to talk yourself out of this even though there is no feasible way to prove that user A is not an alt of user B so DT members basically decided to give you a break and to trust that you were telling the truth and/or that the suspected offense was of the forgivable type. I don't think there is anything wrong with that or with the vigilance that raised those suspicions in the first place.

Consider this: using the same address is often enough proof to get someone banned for ban evasion (if e.g. Crypto Mania was caught plagiarising).

[wwzsocki]

Yes, actually that shows that the system worked properly in your case. You were able to talk yourself out of this even though...

But why do I have to explain myself if I didn't break any forum rules or scammed anybody?

In our trust was added 2 years ago that we know each other and are closely related because I knew it has to be clear to other members. Talked about this openly multiple times on the forum also.

This is something I don't understand and don't be surprised, because in my situation many would feel the same. I did it little against myself and it was quite difficult and time consuming. Of course, it happened during the bubble, and immediately after, when prices fell and the bear season started, I regretted very quickly that I helped someone to start and invest in cryptocurrencies, despite the fact that I advised caution and warned that it can be already too late. In addition, later I was accused of alts, which completely filled the cup of bitterness.

[suchmoon]

Yes, actually that shows that the system worked properly in your case. You were able to talk yourself out of this even though...

But why do I have to explain myself if I didn't break any forum rules or scammed anybody?

In our trust was added 2 years ago that we know each other and are closely related because I knew it has to be clear to other members. Talked about this openly multiple times on the forum also.

This is something I can't understand.

You explained yourself and you got out of the pickle. Not pleasant but not the end of the world. And the reason for suspicions was quite obvious - the two accounts had very clear symptoms of being alts and sent merits and trust ratings to each other.

Forum rules have nothing to with the trust system, I'm sure you know that. And this being a Bitcoin forum I'm sure you can understand why users here think that private keys are private and sharing an address or a wallet is a big red flag.

[wwzsocki]

...Forum rules have nothing to with the trust system, I'm sure you know that...

Of course, and that's why I added that we never scammed anyone either, not even one bounty campaign.

I already forgot about this and moved forward but when somebody accuses me to play a victim card, I will defend myself because I did nothing wrong.

...Be thankful and go enjoy your stay on the forum instead of trying to play the victim card here...

Of course, I am grateful to all members of the community who commented in my accusation thread and granted a credit of trust or simply believed me.


I bit my tongue and did not comment on this in the first reply to CryptopreneurBrainboss but I have my thoughts about his biting comment.

Is it not because we talked about your participation in the Livecoin campaign two days ago and expressed dissatisfaction and surprise because you previously supported the flag, commented negatively and even gave them red trust?

[Quickseller]

Your situation is a good example of when people do not vet accusations sufficiently throughly, and who lack the critical thinking ability to try to disprove the accusation, and to rule out possible defenses.

The current implementation of the trust system allows for some bad apples because of the flag voting system. If it is clear someone has scammed someone they have traded with (such as was the case with livecoin), it is not a huge deal when a few people vote against a flag because many others will see the evidence and vote accordingly.

Handing out fake positive trust ratings for non-existent deals is more of a concern, but so is handing out trust amongst a group of friends, regardless of the actual existent of a trade.

The biggest problem with the trust system is the what amounts to, or is very similar to McCarthyism engaged by suchmoon against those who do not 'toe the party line' exactly. This behavior should be condemned by everyone. Even though suchmoon has lied about not collecting and maintaining a database of all the forum posts in the past, it is now more clear that she is in fact doing that.

The above is in addition to the drama that suchmoon likes to get involved in, and when there isn't enough, she will try to instigate drama.

[suchmoon]

~

Leave it to my best buddies CH and QS to go into off topic tangents and to ignore the only local rule I have LOL.

So if I may steer you back on topic - does it really matter if a scammer like suchmoon is in DT, or not? I mean what is it exactly that he (or she) will be able to achieve with this dreadful abuse that you're alleging? Is the system able to stop him (or her) or should we run for the hills?

[Quickseller]

So if I may steer you back on topic - does it really matter if a scammer like suchmoon is in DT, or not? I mean what is it exactly that he (or she) will be able to achieve with this dreadful abuse that you're alleging? Is the system able to stop him (or her) or should we run for the hills?

I want to make clear that using the proper pronoun is important. Anyone not referring to suchmoon as 'ze/zir' will have serious consequences. (the 'ze' replaces 'he/she' and 'zir' replaces 'him/her')

If there is a scammer, or someone mischievous on DT, the flag voting system will make this not a huge deal because many people can vote and overrule this person. This remains true as long as the majority of people on DT are honest (and are willing to do their own research and take a stand on issues).  

[TECSHARE]

Yes, actually that shows that the system worked properly in your case. You were able to talk yourself out of this even though...

But why do I have to explain myself if I didn't break any forum rules or scammed anybody?

In our trust was added 2 years ago that we know each other and are closely related because I knew it has to be clear to other members. Talked about this openly multiple times on the forum also.

This is something I can't understand.

You explained yourself and you got out of the pickle. Not pleasant but not the end of the world. And the reason for suspicions was quite obvious - the two accounts had very clear symptoms of being alts and sent merits and trust ratings to each other.

Forum rules have nothing to with the trust system, I'm sure you know that. And this being a Bitcoin forum I'm sure you can understand why users here think that private keys are private and sharing an address or a wallet is a big red flag.

What about when there is a popularity contest stacked on top of a similar situation, and those making accusations don't care to hear any defenses because it provides them an opportunity to punish people for calling out their own behavior? This is why I have been persistently advocating a standard of evidence of theft, contractual violation, or violation of applicable laws, because literally anyone can be picked out of a hat and have their activities scrutinized in such a leading way as to create "evidence" of some nefarious activity when there is none.

There also seems to be a very troubling "hive mind" type mentality going on among the default trust. People should be making choices based on the information they have personally reviewed, not what their buddies are doing and saying. This is cultivating a dual tier system of rules, one of a standard of general suspicion for the general user base, and one of overwhelming preponderance of evidence for those who are on and play to the desires of the default trust.

This environment of arbitrary suspicion and punishment is caustic to this community and needs to end. This was part of the goal of the most recent trust system changes, but unfortunately a small group of people believe they have a right to dictate their own set of arbitrary standards upon the overall community.

[suchmoon]

What about when there is a popularity contest stacked on top of a similar situation, and those making accusations don't care to hear any defenses because it provides them an opportunity to punish people for calling out their own behavior? This is why I have been persistently advocating a standard of evidence of theft, contractual violation, or violation of applicable laws, because literally anyone can be picked out of a hat and have their activities scrutinized in such a leading way as to create "evidence" of some nefarious activity when there is none.

And then what? Do you think a flag would stand if there is no evidence or if the evidence is manufactured?

I'm having a hard time following the rest of your post, looks like a bale of straw as I can't relate it to any actual events or possibility thereof but maybe you can expand on that.