BFL bringing down the trust rating?

[Swordsoffreedom]

I don't see why people whine so much about the trust system, really all it is meant to do is serve as some sort of general guideline when dealing with new users. It's extremely sad that Inaba is bribing people to leave negative feedback for no reason. BFL has been unethical at best from day one but this sort of behavior is honestly just childish.

This one has to make some sort of toplist for weird things spread on the forum
I guess the lesson here is that if you don't like the system just break it

[1715115973]

1715115973

[1715115973]

1715115973

[dogie]

I don't see why people whine so much about the trust system, really all it is meant to do is serve as some sort of general guideline when dealing with new users. It's extremely sad that Inaba is bribing people to leave negative feedback for no reason. BFL has been unethical at best from day one but this sort of behavior is honestly just childish.

This one has to make some sort of toplist for weird things spread on the forum
I guess the lesson here is that if you don't like the system just break it

He is yet to do either of those things and I think he's getting angry.

It will be quite interesting to see how this experiment turns out, although it may just serve to reinforce the irrelevant nature of Bitcointalk and show that no one really cares one way or another about what goes on there, which has been my opinion for quite awhile now. It's mostly just a troll echo chamber at this point, at least in the mining sections.

I'm just about staying afloat/above even, and I'm giving anyone who does neg a chance to break the brainwashing of Josh first. If you look at this guy's comments, he seriously believes what he is saying: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=90768

[theymos]

He asked me whether he could demonstrate that the Trust system is broken. I said that he could, though I didn't know exactly what he was planning, and I don't like what he's doing here. Trust isn't the right way to respond to people whose posts you dislike. If I'd have known that he was going to do this, I would have warned him that it would probably result in significant backlash...

I'm happy with the performance of the Trust system here so far. I have a few more default-untrusted negative ratings, but Inaba's default trust score went from ~5 to -261 overnight. (I did not change anything about how the Trust system works for this.)

[Bicknellski]

Meanwhile back on the real topic.

28nm Asics from BFL are 13 months into production still not working.

They have not shipped their Monarchs and they are being sued on a number of fronts.

Nice deflection off of their failures into the trust system. Misdirection at best. Poorly executed people are getting the word out BFL is losing market share because others are delivering units that are OFF THE SHELF. BFL the vapourware kings are dead.

[KWH]

He asked me whether he could demonstrate that the Trust system is broken. I said that he could, though I didn't know exactly what he was planning, and I don't like what he's doing here. Trust isn't the right way to respond to people whose posts you dislike. If I'd have known that he was going to do this, I would have warned him that it would probably result in significant backlash...

I'm happy with the performance of the Trust system here so far. I have a few more default-untrusted negative ratings, but Inaba's default trust score went from ~5 to -261 overnight. (I did not change anything about how the Trust system works for this.)

Yes, it can be gamed and/or manipulated. Tell me what system can't be? The biggest "problem" I see is the retaliatory feedback but very often that very person accrues multiple negatives short term/long term.

[dogie]

He asked me whether he could demonstrate that the Trust system is broken. I said that he could, though I didn't know exactly what he was planning, and I don't like what he's doing here. Trust isn't the right way to respond to people whose posts you dislike. If I'd have known that he was going to do this, I would have warned him that it would probably result in significant backlash...

I'm happy with the performance of the Trust system here so far. I have a few more default-untrusted negative ratings, but Inaba's default trust score went from ~5 to -261 overnight. (I did not change anything about how the Trust system works for this.)

What about the largely innocent people (ie me ) getting caught up as a target in this? I've done nothing but provide viable services to the community and newbies especially. And because we're sticking to the unmoderated system, my negs are there to stay :/

Edit: Look at the last one... "Bribes people for good trust ratings" from a 4 post newbie. Not only does it not make any sense and is highly contradictory, but someone with such low activity/a throw away account that's not posted in 6 weeks shouldn't be able to participate in the trust system.

[Xian01]

And because we're sticking to the unmoderated system, my negs are there to stay :/

 I'm sorry you're a Victim of Zerlan, dogie

 You're a totally cool dude in my book, FWIW.

[User705]

He asked me whether he could demonstrate that the Trust system is broken. I said that he could, though I didn't know exactly what he was planning, and I don't like what he's doing here. Trust isn't the right way to respond to people whose posts you dislike. If I'd have known that he was going to do this, I would have warned him that it would probably result in significant backlash...

I'm happy with the performance of the Trust system here so far. I have a few more default-untrusted negative ratings, but Inaba's default trust score went from ~5 to -261 overnight. (I did not change anything about how the Trust system works for this.)

But that happens all the time on here with no way to challenge it.  Trust system isn't broken, default trust is.  I mean FFS I'm red to myself.  
EDIT Also consider that in your own words Inaba's default trust score went from ~5 to -261 overnight.  Mind you his company and probably he by extension deserves every single red possible but what could he have done OVERNIGHT to any of these people that left him that trust?  If that isn't a sign of a broken system what is?  This isn't a trust system it's a popularity system.

[LittleD]

LOL....

Hahaahaha. I relish the fact they are putting bounties on my head. Amazing eh? You can't have people just post REAL trust ratings you have to pay for them. Ethically challenged? What a joke.

When will they get their rewards? March 2014?

If anyone takes BFL up on that offer they are selling their reputation for hardware. At least they are admitting they need to PAY FOR positive ratings and discredit me and dogie for the same coin and goes directly to the fact that Inaba has been abusing the trust system since it's implementation and a good reason to BAN him and BFL from the forums entirely.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=8198 (Inaba)

Code:

Bicknellski 14: -0 / +16(16)	2014-03-30	0.00000000	Reference	Buying Trust ratings. What is wrong with that? (Delete)

Feel free to counter Inaba's attempt to trash the trust ratings by posting your own negative or positive feedback. He has already lied countless times in Trust ratings and people can verify that independently by just checking what he posts for negative feedback on the trust of various people. I suggest this is just another ploy to discredit the trust system and bring it down so that his negative ratings and BFL's negatives will disappear. Don't let him run from his past keep posting the TRUTH as you know it bitcointalk members. It looks like BFL is feeling the pain and is really working on their psyops full on now. Laughable.

Any of this look familiar in BFL's and Inaba's playbook? Anyone know exactly what sort of work he did in the past for the Army? Hmmm... funny his tactics seem to be right out of the psyops right? https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/02/24/art-deception-training-new-generation-online-covert-operations/

I already did bro and i gave you a good positive love

[Bicknellski]

LOL....

Hahaahaha. I relish the fact they are putting bounties on my head. Amazing eh? You can't have people just post REAL trust ratings you have to pay for them. Ethically challenged? What a joke.

When will they get their rewards? March 2014?

If anyone takes BFL up on that offer they are selling their reputation for hardware. At least they are admitting they need to PAY FOR positive ratings and discredit me and dogie for the same coin and goes directly to the fact that Inaba has been abusing the trust system since it's implementation and a good reason to BAN him and BFL from the forums entirely.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=8198 (Inaba)

Code:

Bicknellski 14: -0 / +16(16)	2014-03-30	0.00000000	Reference	Buying Trust ratings. What is wrong with that? (Delete)

Feel free to counter Inaba's attempt to trash the trust ratings by posting your own negative or positive feedback. He has already lied countless times in Trust ratings and people can verify that independently by just checking what he posts for negative feedback on the trust of various people. I suggest this is just another ploy to discredit the trust system and bring it down so that his negative ratings and BFL's negatives will disappear. Don't let him run from his past keep posting the TRUTH as you know it bitcointalk members. It looks like BFL is feeling the pain and is really working on their psyops full on now. Laughable.

Any of this look familiar in BFL's and Inaba's playbook? Anyone know exactly what sort of work he did in the past for the Army? Hmmm... funny his tactics seem to be right out of the psyops right? https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/02/24/art-deception-training-new-generation-online-covert-operations/

I already did bro and i gave you a good positive love

If you could edit that 500 BTC out though to 0 for me from you that be great. Although I have held as much as 781 BTC (Value $80,000 USD) for others and returned it when Avalon failed to deliver our group it's chips realistically I have not held larger than a few BTC in the limited trading I have done and the refunds we did offer to our BPMC customers was not held by me I just facilitated the refunds in the thread. Thanks for the trust and I reciprocated as I feel your work on exposing BFL BS is critical to getting this company shut down.

[killinitsoftly]

Wow.
Throwing professionalism right out the door, aren't they?
****ing pathetic.

I had $10,000 pre-ordered with them and received the goods when they were worth half that.  Scammy company. 

[Bicknellski]

BFL_Josh  BFL_Josh is online now
Employee

Drawing date will be the at midnight UTC the day after we ship our first unit.

On a slightly different note, the Imperial Monarch will be shipped within the first 1000 shipped (so within the first few days of starting to ship, most likely, barring any problems), as I've secured an early spot in line. I figured that would be the case but I didn't want to commit to it until I was sure. So the winning entry will receive the Imperial Monarch rather quickly once they start shipping.

LOL! Eh... so what date are they shipping? Hahaha. No date... just promises to ship when they ship. Nice. If he only spent half the time he does defaming people they might actually ship the product. 13 months and counting... do you know where your bribe is?


https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/8203-win-butterfly-labs-imperial-monarch.html#post79152

[Bicknellski]

I just will try voice my disagreements. If I accidentally will win the monarch, it will be a nice bonus.

Feel free to leave appropriate trust ratings for anyone that sells them.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=42514


-426: -5 / +3(3)
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!

[squall1066]

He asked me whether he could demonstrate that the Trust system is broken. I said that he could, though I didn't know exactly what he was planning, and I don't like what he's doing here. Trust isn't the right way to respond to people whose posts you dislike. If I'd have known that he was going to do this, I would have warned him that it would probably result in significant backlash...

I'm happy with the performance of the Trust system here so far. I have a few more default-untrusted negative ratings, but Inaba's default trust score went from ~5 to -261 overnight. (I did not change anything about how the Trust system works for this.)

Sorry but I think this is realy poor work, I would not say anything unless I knew the in's and out's or what was being proposed.

In a way, I do like the trust system, But I still don't like the fact there is no uber control, Over people posting for reasons you have mentioned, like because they dont like your posts.

This is nothing more than a flame war, Bought down to its basic component level. And it's here because everyone has a voice and has the right to be heard on bitcointalk, I have personally been on the fence, Knowing the animosity growing between these two sites, But I am totally behind this site, I can understand a demonstration of a flawed trust based system, But making a competition out of it and dragging in people who in his eyes are trolling him, That is totally out of order.

But enough of my rant, Is the system staying? Will we have some tweaks or some control over this?
Also, I have never heard of a "default trust list" lol where is it? can I see it?

[Sirrah]

Also, I have never heard of a "default trust list" lol where is it? can I see it?

You should be able to find it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust
If you wish to change the depth of the trust list you can (to a max of 3) or you can choose to ignore defaulttrust and use your own trust list.

[BadBear]

Sorry but I think this is realy poor work, I would not say anything unless I knew the in's and out's or what was being proposed
...Also, I have never heard of a "default trust list" lol where is it? can I see it?

   If you don't know what default trust is how can you understand how it works?

[Unacceptable]

He asked me whether he could demonstrate that the Trust system is broken. I said that he could, though I didn't know exactly what he was planning, and I don't like what he's doing here. Trust isn't the right way to respond to people whose posts you dislike. If I'd have known that he was going to do this, I would have warned him that it would probably result in significant backlash...

I'm happy with the performance of the Trust system here so far. I have a few more default-untrusted negative ratings, but Inaba's default trust score went from ~5 to -261 overnight. (I did not change anything about how the Trust system works for this.)

What about the largely innocent people (ie me ) getting caught up as a target in this? I've done nothing but provide viable services to the community and newbies especially. And because we're sticking to the unmoderated system, my negs are there to stay :/

Edit: Look at the last one... "Bribes people for good trust ratings" from a 4 post newbie. Not only does it not make any sense and is highly contradictory, but someone with such low activity/a throw away account that's not posted in 6 weeks shouldn't be able to participate in the trust system.

Dogie did not "bribe" me,I left trust for a significant deal we did   Oh & Bick too  

Thanks Dogie & Bick!!!!!!!!!!!!  

[Sirrah]

Edit: Look at the last one... "Bribes people for good trust ratings" from a 4 post newbie. Not only does it not make any sense and is highly contradictory, but someone with such low activity/a throw away account that's not posted in 6 weeks shouldn't be able to participate in the trust system.

Technically speaking his opinion (although I do agree it is highly contradictory) has as much weight as your opinion considering that to a general layperson who knows neither of you it is hard to choose which is deemed trustworthy. This is the reason that although they are allowed to create trust ratings they are not on the DefaultTrust list as they are not deemed to be trustworthy by the mods on this site. Sure it is open to revenge attacks - but a moderated trust system is completely worthless as it simply propagates the views of a few people. The way it is set up is that you can create your own trust list and hence only 'trust' people you actually feel you can 'trust'.

[BadBear]

Edit: Look at the last one... "Bribes people for good trust ratings" from a 4 post newbie. Not only does it not make any sense and is highly contradictory, but someone with such low activity/a throw away account that's not posted in 6 weeks shouldn't be able to participate in the trust system.

Technically speaking his opinion (although I do agree it is highly contradictory) has as much weight as your opinion considering that to a general layperson who knows neither of you it is hard to choose which is deemed trustworthy. This is the reason that although they are allowed to create trust ratings they are not on the DefaultTrust list as they are not deemed to be trustworthy by the mods on this site. Sure it is open to revenge attacks - but a moderated trust system is completely worthless as it simply propagates the views of a few people. The way it is set up is that you can create your own trust list and hence only 'trust' people you actually feel you can 'trust'.

Agree completely, even though I would likely be one of those few. No the current system isn't perfect, but going with a moderated system is far worse. Ideally the forum itself wouldn't need moderators, but it is a necessary evil.

[cedivad]

Is the formula that calculates trust public? I don't understand why hashfast has a less negative trust than josh, with the feedbacks being more relevant in the first case (amount risked, trust of the people leaving feedback):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=151974
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=8198
Posted from Bitcointa.lk - #5AOWrTe2PbvsUIQU