An option to fix default trust

[Vod]

DT1 members are usually scrutinized and the abusers are removed quickly.   However, their choices for DT2 are tied to their own personal experience, even if the person in DT2 is a known scammer.

What if we stopped including DT2 members in default trust?  All of the BS trust issues that are floating around would go away.

But DT2 members, who are trusted by DT1 members, should have benefit as well.  Let DT1/2 members have a full signature and everyone else have restrictions. 

I know this is user experience vs $$, so I'm going to hold my breath. 

[bitmover]

What if we stopped including DT2 members in default trust?  All of the BS trust issues that are floating around would go away.

Removing DT2 feedbacks from default trust would have a terrible impact in local boards, which lack DT1 members to tag scammers.

[YOSHIE]

If, not for the sacrifice and persistence of @LoyceV, @suchmoon, @marlboroza and some other members, in maintaining (default trust), I will swear, will make a topic about Erasing DT1 / 2. By changing to another system means tagging scammers and criminals on this forum, that's the problem, the sacrifice is full of tears.


If the DT1 / 2 is a lot of trouble, of course, the new system must be set up and run for the sake of all the community and the safety of this forum, of course.

I prefer mods, staff, whether local or global who handle and flag any scams or those that harm the community/forum.
Whoever is invited to reveal fraudulent acts is no exception provided that sufficient evidence, after all proven decisions: those I mentioned above who gave the red label to the suspect.

No DT1 / 2/3, done.


That is precisely what is a challenge for the community here with the pros and cons of removing dt from this forum, with a struggle that cannot be valued with $$$ for each member of the DT in doing work without merit / death is not appreciated /failed reviled /success is not recognized.
Once again, the sacrifices will not stop in eradicating crime related to the running of the existing regulations.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I've said multiple times before: DT2 members should require to be included by at least 2 different DT1 members (maybe even 3) in addition to having a net positive number of inclusions. This removes all the "soft" inclusions as well as removing the issue of people artificially inflating their own trust scores.

Linking default trust to signatures is a bad idea. It would encourage people only to aim for a default trust inclusion so they can monetize their account, and I have no doubt there would be some DT1 users who would include their friends/alt accounts/countrymen for the sole reason of joining signature campaigns, or even sell inclusions.

[LoyceV]

I've said multiple times before: DT2 members should require to be included by at least 2 different DT1 members (maybe even 3) in addition to having a net positive number of inclusions.

I made a post showing the effect a while ago, but I can't find it back. Here's a more recent list:

DT2-members with 0 net inclusions:

Code:

Gavin Andresen
WhiteManWhite
pooya87
jonnybravo0311
WhyFhy
BitcoinGirl.Club
Aceeakell
TheQuin
mindtrip
hanspeter77
lega46141
F2b
N0sferatu
DrBeer
btct22
unick
zoose
saga-crypto
Parodium
robelneo
Nestade
Jcga
Scheede

DT2-members with 1 net inclusion:

Code:

Meni Rosenfeld
Raoul Duke
zvs
ineededausername
DeaDTerra
vgo
BCB
Benson Samuel
shiftybugger
Wardrick
dwdoc
Adriano
Taras
franckuestein
Barcode_
Anon11073
Carnth
Xialla
ThePhwner
mikegogulski
molecular
Akka
lassdas
Coiner.de
d5000
twbt
lclc
Souri
seek3r
Lydian
goatpig
bitpop
TraderTimm
aigeezer
cr1776
jseverson
RGBKey
buysolar
valkir
HerbPean
generalt
wndsnb
frodocooper
favebook
Philipma1957cellphone
gbianchi
Speculatoross
Kluge
MiningBuddy
PsychoticBoy
bigtimespaghetti
tyrion70
hedgy73
Eodguy149
Novun
CryptoImperator
rusbitcoinuser
flix
BookofNick
Gatorelf
JanEmil
Professionalism2007
alexrossi
Initscri
jayce
boltz
ralle14
Blockchayne
Deathwing
TomCrypto
devans
Astro
Pistachio
Hiroaki
FiniteByDesign
Poloherb
bithalo
m4nki
zekoroger
Chiefmonkey
RealHummer
cryptoheadd
xyz
2run
teramit
Halmater
nullCoiner
yefi
Spotswood
kimosan
Cheeseater
Riley600
Coopster8888
ZACHM
icon73
btcapollo
pasrical
sAj1420
offordscott
Tramirostronix
mezzomix
ailikun
Milquetoast
Queenvio
nrg1zer
eneloop
saugwurm
yesiam6
jadefalke
ZyTReX
thandie
oliver12
ds06
x3t9fi
spider703
monbux
elokk
Wind_FURY
bluefirecorp_
Mbitr
notblox1
DooMAD
mocacinno
condoras
shasan
haloxon
selassiesoildier
SatsLife
Est2013
Steeley
dArkjON
BitcoinNewsMagazine
SFR10
Matt Corallo
Chefin
fsm247
dsattler
zimbo123
altcoinb
celeborne
MiLkz
XVzN
khaled0111
hugeblack
donnyespo
nimogsm
Komosa
PolyPanto
DiamondCardz
ranochigo
DarkStar_alt
DarkDays
jwinterm
Helana
mnightwaffle
audiotopix
HCLivess
mxhwr
pazor_true
jstefanop
seoincorporation
Spidersbox
Hardstyles
paramind22
Silent26
abel1337
Wexnident
Maus0728
kronos123
Bttzed03
ScamViruS
temarazin
Coinfan
Javi_Anibarro
LZ
Captain-Cryptory
Polkeins
Text
nelson4lov
friends1980
UserU
mu_enrico
nakamura12
BITCOIN4X
Upgrade00
Charles-Tim
cAPSLOCK
P_Shep
jojo69
600watt
kurious
gentlemand
Arriemoller
HairyMaclairy
Biodom
BTCMILLIONAIRE
BobLawblaw
Icygreen
d_eddie
Cryptoqueeen
allinvain
QuentinA
Best_Change
koryu
moonlambo19
AakZaki
julerz12
bisdak40
harizen
GazetaBitcoin
naypalm
shadallion
Imperial_Hash
Blest
ClayCastCrypto
Hookzup1
Pieter Wuille
Cøbra
alanst
tyz
WorldCoiner
MishaMuc
criptix
hodlcoins
Koal-84
Unknown01
MinoRaiola
Theb
Hellmouth42
solosequenosenada
Csmiami
paxmao
BitcoinPappi
BitProdigy
finlad
BTCC_Official
astrocity1981
lebnor
snarfbag
Edits
curt999
1Dq
jackbauercsgo
Sat0shisGhost
Ljunior
picchio
gdassori
Neo_Coin
giammangiato
ryzaadit
kawetsriyanto
poptop
igor72
qwertyup23
FatFork
BandanaPanda
alani123
A-Bolt
wwzsocki
diks
andy_pelevin
Julien_Olynpic
Snork1979

DT2-members with 2 net inclusions:

Code:

Raize
dree12
tysat
wttbs
-doubleU-
odolvlobo
willi9974
xenon131
sidehack
Biffa
HagssFIN
Hockeybum
bitbollo
Ale88
Plutosky
grue
djjacket
Coin_trader
Harkorede
Xprim777
frankbitcoin
cygan
quasimodo
bitserve
Raja_MBZ
Kylapoiss
klaaas
fyoung55
Bytekiller
Bitze
Real-Duke
aundroid
comit
Lincoln6Echo
Wed
infofront
JSRAW
tweetious
OneNattyLitecoin
Rath_
Globb0
Yaremi
tyKiwanuka
masulum
Russlenat
Heisenberg_Hunter
babo
sujonali1819
esmanthra
Bitcoin_Arena
tranthidung
raghavsood
Husna QA
abhiseshakana
SPQRCoin
Daniel91
ETFbitcoin
joniboini
Nikisa

This removes all the "soft" inclusions as well as removing the issue of people artificially inflating their own trust scores.

I'm still in favor of this!
DT1 requires this:

- You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days.

For DT2, something like being online in the last 90 days might be good too.

Let DT1/2 members have a full signature and everyone else have restrictions.

I think that's a bad idea.
I'd be in favor of removing signatures for users with a certain number of negative feedbacks on boards that don't show Trust ratings. That would stop scammers like this guy from advertising a scam in their signature on for instance the Beginners board.

Slightly related: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting

[ABCbits]

Let DT1/2 members have a full signature and everyone else have restrictions.  

This will make trust system abused more than ever, such as
1. Pay $XX to include you to DT2 for X months
2. Pay $XX to exclude competitor from DT2 for X months
3. etc.

[bitmover]

Linking default trust to signatures is a bad idea. It would encourage people only to aim for a default trust inclusion so they can monetize their account, and I have no doubt there would be some DT1 users who would include their friends/alt accounts/countrymen for the sole reason of joining signature campaigns, or even sell inclusions.

Good point. people would be selling DT2 inclusions for a percentage of signature campaigns gains. lol

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I've said multiple times before: DT2 members should require to be included by at least 2 different DT1 members (maybe even 3) in addition to having a net positive number of inclusions.

I must have missed reading those times when you wrote that idea, but nevertheless it's a good one.

Some of the best scam busters are/were on DT2 and not DT1, so I wouldn't want DT2 feedback to be lessened in its weight.  But part of me thinks that the trust system is so broken at this point, where we've got good members with bad feedback and vice versa, that the whole thing should be overhauled.  I get Vod's point, though I doubt Theymos is likely to share his feelings (but I've been wrong about that before).

Good point. people would be selling DT2 inclusions for a percentage of signature campaigns gains. lol

You put a "lol" at the end of that, but I wouldn't put it past some members to do exactly that.

[sujonali1819]

I've said multiple times before: DT2 members should require to be included by at least 2 different DT1 members (maybe even 3) in addition to having a net positive number of inclusions.

I am agreed with this point. Yes, DT2 members should be included atleast 2 different DT1. The more DT1 will include, the DT2 position will be more stronger but there should be a minimum more than only 1.

It's need because sometime some evil people manually input own id or friend id in trust list to make them a DT2 member.

[AB de Royse777]

I've said multiple times before: DT2 members should require to be included by at least 2 different DT1 members (maybe even 3) in addition to having a net positive number of inclusions. This removes all the "soft" inclusions as well as removing the issue of people artificially inflating their own trust scores.

I must miss it all the time even if it was said by anyone else too. This seems a very good idea to improve the DT2 network. The current rule is too vulnerable, and it needs one guy in DT1 to make a mistake to include a scammer. Give it to the hands of x guys. X must be greater than 1.

[DdmrDdmr]

Trimming DT2 by the number of net inclusions seems adequate, although that would mean that, perhaps, DT2s on local boards may have a harder time getting on DT, unless they are known on the more general boards (or have a couple of DT1s on the local board itself).

Besides that, I’m pretty sure many DT2 members aren’t even away they are actually on DT, nor that being on it gives more weight technically to the feedback they may leave. Displaying their DT status somewhere easy to spot when one sees his own (or open to all) profile information (i.e. Trust(DT1):  or Trust(DT2): ) would be useful to this end, without the need to become aware by other means (i.e. lists). Probably even a text on the Feedback page, with a reminder, would be useful, in a similar fashion to when Merit Sources see that they are a Merit Source and are shown a brief explanation on it.

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

So, if we also look at the data from your latest trust dump here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5139250.msg56701583#msg56701583

You have 465 users on DT2. Between the two boxes above of 0 net inclusions and 1 net inclusion, there are 286 users. Requiring a minimum of 2 net inclusions to be included on DT2 would bring the total from 465 down to 179. I think that is a much more reasonable number than 465. 100 DT1s, and ~200 DT2s.

Some of the best scam busters are/were on DT2 and not DT1, so I wouldn't want DT2 feedback to be lessened in its weight.

Sure, but these users generally have way more than 2 net inclusions anyway. In the rare case that someone with a lot of good feedback was excluded from DT2 under my proposal, there is nothing stopping the single DT1 member who includes them (or any other user for that matter) to start a thread in reputation drawing attention to the matter. If they truly deserve a DT2 spot, then it would only take 1 of the other 99 DT1 members to agree, which is not exactly a high bar to pass.

You need at least 10 people to trust you to become DT1, whereas you can become DT2 with only 1 person trusting you. Seems a bit of a disconnect there to me.

[The Cryptovator]

To be honest, if the trust system exists then abuse and manipulation will exist as well. I don't think we could prevent it anyway, otherwise, only the admin will have to control the full trust system who will be on DT1 or DT2. Users always will complain regarding the trust system, when the new system was implemented many users were against new systems. If enable full signature only for DT members then you have to wait for more manipulation and abuse of the trust system. But I only agree to increase support for selecting DT2 members and maintain active users. It would only reduce the abuse partially but not fully.