Which rank can we trust really?

[ifinta]

A change in the rank and i.e. the "merits" - at this time - seems to me as a very little allowance only... Or? ((not to forget, it exists in the world another marketplaces, as bitcointalk.org, also......))

[1713557123]

1713557123

[1713557123]

1713557123

[1713557123]

1713557123

[mocacinno]

When reading you OP, it's not completely clear to me what your question is... Your title however is clear, so answering the question asked in the title: you can trust NO rank.

• Accounts get hacked
• Accounts get sold
• Users can go for a long con (for example, the master-P fiasco)

But generally speaking, trust levels increase IF:

• the account's password hasn't been changed recently
• the account has stayed active for the last couple of months/years without changes in posting style/language usage
• there are no CREDIBLE negative tags for scamming or cheating on the account
• there are no CREDIBLE negative flags for scamming or cheating on the account
• the rank is relatively high
• the account has a relatively high number of merits
• the account is in DT
• the account has credible positive feedback
• the account has a staked address/PGP pubkey

The trust level of these accounts is higher than a newbie account because the account owner has invested a lot of time to get his account to a certain level, so it's unlikely he'll throw away a high trusted, lots of merit, old, active, high ranking, DT account away for a couple hundred bucks...

[NeuroticFish]

The answer to your question is always the same, no matter what: none.
You should trust no one on the internet; you don't know if he/she wants to help you or himself/herself. Always DYOR.

The only difference can be in case of a trade. Since an account is valuable, if you can prove you were scammed in a trade and get a DT believe you and tag the scammer, that account is basically ruined (no money from campaigns, low selling value, ... ). So in a trade there's a very good chance an account that worth more than the amount traded will no scam you.

Also, we're still on the trust area, you should read the feedback an account has got and decide for yourself if it worth your trust.
How old is that feedback is also important, since there were examples of trusted accounts getting hacked and sold, but usually that translates in a gap between the feedbacks.


Merit is not in the same category as trust. A scammer can write something very useful and meaningful and may get merit. So I'd get it out of the equation.

[TheNewAnon135246]

Trust has nothing to do with ranks.

[hugeblack]

Trust is a measure of the risks that can be incurred in order to obtain a service.
Never trust anyone, especially if you don't know who you're dealing with.
Rank does not mean trust, there are many high-ranking scammers.
I can trust any account as long as the amount of risk incurred by that account is less than the amount of money in which the deal was made. For example, a long-running account that runs a business of thousands of dollars would not scam me for a dollar, but could do so if it was $ 1 million.

[ifinta]

Why we need ranks then? Maybe better to operate without ranks - above Full Member i.e. - because the remained Ranks speaking about Trust: Senior, Hero, Legendary

[DdmrDdmr]

It’s people you can get to trust once you know them, not profiles with an avatar, a given rank, and a certain amount of merits. I’m not sure what kind of trust you are talking about, but being here, it most likely comes down to having some kind of economical reading. Given the right circumstances, almost anyone in real life is potentially untrustable under that context. Give them a mask (profile/avatar) and an anonymity cloak, and those chances boost.

Having said that, on the forum, I would find some people more trustworthy than others. Not due to their rank, but rather more through the persona they have managed to build here. Is that them really? Who knows. I’m personally more belligerent here with some topics than in real life, meaning that the image I project here is not exactly who I am, but some of my personal thoughts are easier to lax of a faceless environment with distance in between. Others may go about it the other way round, who knows.

There is a weak correlation to rank though in my argument: I can be more prone to trust someone based on the character I perceive they have here, and to do that it normally requires time, which in turn potentially means that the person has been around for some time and has, therefore, achieved a certain rank. As I said, it’s a weak correlation, and just as one collective is not all black and white, nor is a collective group of accounts with a given rank, set of merits or whatnot.

[ifinta]

Why we need ranks then? Maybe better to operate without ranks - above Full Member i.e. - because the remained Ranks speaking about Trust: Senior, Hero, Legendary

Maybe we should give the ranks with trust (Full, Senior, Hero, Legendary) only for members which persons are well identified through documents or i.e through eyewitnesses - which eyewitnesses are identified well already.

[Upgrade00]

Trust is not dependent on ranks. The rank of a profile is dependent on the number of merits earned and the period of time the user has been active on the forum.
A user needs to be constructive in their discussions to increase their rank, but that does not make them trustworthy. I would be more interested in the amount of time they have been active on the forum and their general disposition and interactions.

If I'm you directly answer the question in the title; Never trust someone easily, regardless of the rank or trust score. Always have your reservations, especially if you are going into financial dealings with the said account.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Accounts which have been active for a long time, and are therefore higher rank, are more likely to have built up a good reputation than a newbie account. Conversely, simply being active for a long time doesn't automatically mean more trustworthy. So although highly trusted accounts are more likely to be highly ranked, higher ranks aren't inherently more trustworthy.

Why we need ranks then? Maybe better to operate without ranks - above Full Member

I'm sure that suggestion has nothing to do with your inability to rank up above Full Member.

Maybe we should give the ranks with trust (Full, Senior, Hero, Legendary) only for members which persons are well identified through documents or i.e through eyewitnesses - which eyewitnesses are identified well already.

Absolutely not:

I'll get right on that, just as soon as hell freezes over.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

First, from the poll:

Staff Ranks (is bitcointalk.org centralised???)

Yes, bitcointalk is centralized.  It's not owned by the members, it has rules and staff to enforce those rules.  This is not a bad thing.  I always get the feeling that bitcoiners think everything should be decentralized, but I don't think decentralization works with everything--in fact, I'm damn sure of it and I've seen examples of this in my career, for instance.  Anyway.

you can trust NO rank.

Yep.  I've often written the same words myself--and then I end up trusting people in spite of my admonition to others not to do so.  It's in my nature, I guess, but it's very bad practice on the internet in general and on this forum in particular, and that's because bitcointalk is absolutely loaded with scammers.  Sometimes they present a very professional, legitimate facade and sometimes they're obviously sketchy.  You just never know who you're really dealing with.  That's especially true because of account sales and hacking, as you pointed out.

• Users can go for a long con (for example, the master-P fiasco)

I remember that debacle well, and that was quite a scam he pulled off.  If I'm not mistaken, though, wasn't that account sold somewhere along the way?  In any case I think what happened qualified as an exit scam if not a long con, and I'm not sure if there's much difference anyhow.  The point is that you can't necessarily trust somebody's positive feedback or rank, though if someone has a lot of positives, particularly from DT members, it's a good sign--but not a sign that that member can be trusted without question.

Unfortunately for all this lip service, people do trust each other a lot around here.  I find that a positive trait even though I know everyone should be exercising more caution when doing deals with each other.  It is what it is.  At least we haven't seen a long con being pulled in a while or another massive DT scandal since Master-P (I think).

[TheBeardedBaby]

Considering MagicalTux and TF cases you should not trust :
VIP, Donator, Forum Contributor, Established Member,Legendary,etc.

Basically no one expect yourself.
It's like in the real life, but here the things are even worse, you interact only with userID and Avatar and some post history, this is all you have. You don't know who is sitting behind the keyboard, If this account actually changed hands, or the guy is just a crook farming trust and gaining reputation preparing for a nice huge exit scam.

Don't trust anyone, nobody cares about you here as nobody knows you and for money people are ready to do a lot of shit. I've seen relatives killing one other for inheritance. You don't know what sick mind is sitting behind the keyboard, most of the serial killers are looking quite normal and nice individuals but...

If you intend to trade, be informed that you are risking the amount even tho you are using the most reputed escrow for example.

Don't share your private keys even with your mother. They should remain private - just and only for you.

[Pmalek]

Trust your judgement and your gut feeling. If you have the slightest concern when dealing with someone, if we are talking about money, goods etc, use an escrow. Higher rank doesn't mean a higher level of trust. Everyone can become a scammer if for some reason he fells the opportunity is 'worth it'.

I can't remember the name of the user who scammed a newbie here a few months back. The guy seemed all right, had a relatively high rank, he was writing posts about protecting yourself online, was privacy oriented and advising users of what to do and what not to. In the end he ended up emptying some users wallet who asked for his help. He saw an opportunity and decided to throw his reputation under the bus.

[hilariousetc]

Ranks are largely meaningless when it comes to trust. Anyone could turn out to be a scammer here or have their account stolen by one so that's why you need to take multiple factors involved and also look at their behaviour and history before you trade with someone. If theymos himself randomly messaged me asking if he could borrow $1000 in bitcoin I wouldn't just blindly send him it because he's a Legendary Admin who's very trusted. A lot of things could be wrong there. The fact that someone like him is even asking for money should set off alarm bells. If someone's password and/or email has been reset recently - even if they're a very reputable member - that should also make you more cautious as to who you're actually dealing with.

Why we need ranks then? Maybe better to operate without ranks - above Full Member i.e. - because the remained Ranks speaking about Trust: Senior, Hero, Legendary

You don't have to take the ranks as meaning everything, but they're just a barometer of how long you've been here (and now also how many merits you've received). They can help you in judging a person but they should not be solely relied upon.

Why we need ranks then? Maybe better to operate without ranks - above Full Member i.e. - because the remained Ranks speaking about Trust: Senior, Hero, Legendary

Maybe we should give the ranks with trust (Full, Senior, Hero, Legendary) only for members which persons are well identified through documents or i.e through eyewitnesses - which eyewitnesses are identified well already.

Well that's what the feedback system is there for. If you trust or distrust someone you can show that by either leaving them feedback or adding them to your trust list system. Theymos would never implement any sore of KYC verification and even that can be abused or bypassed so all it would lead to is a false sense of security.

[DiamondCardz]

If you trust someone based on rank you'll get scammed. It would be trivial for an account like this one (which I recently woke up from inactivity) to have been sold. If I hadn't recently verified my identity via a 2015-staked Bitcoin address, you'd have no real way of knowing if I was the original owner of this account or not, and that's a big problem. To be fair, even then I could have given the private key of that address away if I had sold this account, so the only thing that verification shows you is that it's unlikely I've been hacked, it doesn't tell you a lot about whether I've sold this account. Note I don't say impossible as they could have hacked both my account and my wallet!

I'm willing to bet that it would be pretty trivial for me to sell this account. Not to boast, but I think a 2012-created Legendary account with a strong history of trust and multiple sticky threads could probably be shifted very quickly in private markets. And then they could go and use that to perform a big exit scam. That's why I've told people to be very wary if you ever see this account trying to do big trades, an IPO, escrow, etc

I think people are more aware of the above nowadays, but previously accounts being sold and then used to perform big escrow or IPO exit scams was fairly common. It could still happen any day now even though people are more aware of it, because if a scammer slowly wakes an account up and makes it seem natural, it's hard to notice the signs.

Back to the original topic though, don't trust based on rank. Trust based on a history of reputable behavior and use your common sense.

[Wexnident]

Why we need ranks then? Maybe better to operate without ranks - above Full Member i.e. - because the remained Ranks speaking about Trust: Senior, Hero, Legendary

Uhm, I'm pretty sure ranks were supposed to be a statement of how much you've contributed to the forum and how many have approved or appreciated your contribution. As for trust, most people whom have negative remarks made about them should have a negative trust value shown and you can easily see it on their profile, right? As for trusting the sort of information, well, that is up to you. You can consider or remember things that were written down here but you should still do your own research. Solely basing your knowledge off of people on this forum may not be the best idea after all. Accumulating from different sources, compiling, and determining which is false and true should be the most easiest way to get the information you want. Now if you're a lazy one, then I have nothing for ya.

[The Cryptovator]

I were not voted on the poll since my answer wasn't there. I only trust officially to admin. Because I trusted him already with my identity like IP. And yes, personally I trust so many user. No matter what is their rank. You can't trust user with rank based. So many legendary user already scammed and sometimes newbies show enough trust. So trust can't be measure rank wise. Even a well trusted person could turn into scammer what I noticed from beginning. So it totally up to your faith, how and which user your are going to trust.

[RapTarX]

Trust has nothing to do with rank. Rank is an identity of the forum, who spent how much time here or who are the older here.
People have shared a lot of examples here. You can check their previous feedback from other people and evaluate them if they can be trusted with, and with how much money.
From my observation, in this forum, numerous people try to build their reputation for a bigger scam. So, I prefer using escrow in all the big deals.

[ifinta]

...

Why we need ranks then? Maybe better to operate without ranks - above Full Member

I'm sure that suggestion has nothing to do with your inability to rank up above Full Member.
...

To be a "Legendary" i.e. cost a simple payment... i.e. x bitcoins. or y dollars... maybe an another marketplace, but please check sometimes the prices in our Marketplace also for ranks above "Full Member".
To get one don't need any time or don't need any big effort.

Legendary is a phrase which has a meaning in english, and this meaning suggest a kind of trustworthy member! (and Senior, Hero also...) I think it is a big issue!!!!
The ranks shouldn't have any relationship with trust, if ranks we shouldn't interpret as any trust level!

[ifinta]

...

Maybe we should give the ranks with trust (Full, Senior, Hero, Legendary) only for members which persons are well identified through documents or i.e through eyewitnesses - which eyewitnesses are identified well already.

Absolutely not:

I'll get right on that, just as soon as hell freezes over.

I think, it would be better. i.e. Full Member the highest rank, because this member has a connection to the jurisdiction of our world.
If somebody won't want to be identified - remains simple Member. If a rank has no connection with the meanings of "Legendary", "Hero", "Senior", then it would be more better to exchange this ranks to Member or Full Member.