I believe a new rule should be implemented regarding negative trust

[Kazkaz27]

Almost everyone came forward saying the trust system is flawed or imperfect and has its issues. The majority agrees that negatives should include references and lack validity without them. What ‘examples’ are you referring to—What else is missing to prove what most members already view as a consensus?

This is true*^

3 pages of replies and 27 votes (13 yes, 13 no, 1 other) and you want to claim "majority", smh.

This isn’t true. *^

You either must have had a typo or blatantly lied. Poll votes are (13 yes, 12 no, 2 others). That means something…



Last time I checked that MEANS “"majority", smh. ”

Let's ask SpazSpaz's AI bot if there is any trust system for bitcointalk that would make every group happy.
No matter what you change it to, there will be some group of people (or groups of alts) that will "come forward" to oppose or support various opinions.

Here's a summary of what my AI said:

Different users mean completely different things by “trust”:

Some want strict, evidence-based fraud tagging only
Others want reputation + behavior + ethics included
Some prioritize financial risk only
Others care about character, history, or ideology

These directly conflict. A system optimized for one group will frustrate another.

^ I'd add some just want it easier to manipulate and not get caught.

So, welcome to decentralization. Stop trying to dismantle it to satisfy your own personal vendettas.

I'm sorry you're upset that you got called out for doing shady shit with selling keys by many members, then doubled-down defending it, then went after the members who said something, and then petitioning to change the entire system. It's actually not an uncommon progression.

You're of course welcome to keep going with it, but there are always going to be potential consequences in a decentralized system by others in the community (good or bad).

They've already split off "flags", which requires the reference link.

Requiring reference links on feedback is bad. We'll just end up with a bunch of ridiculous threads with essentially the same sentence that the feedback states. There are other reasons this is a bad idea, but stating them here could possibly help other shady people so I'll stop there.

Requiring moderators to moderate and/or validate the "proof" is also bad. We'd be moving back towards a centralized system in control of a central authority, and really, nobody in an official position of the forum should ever even want this responsibility because it puts themselves at risk for making a mistake and appearing like an accomplice in various scenarios.
 
There's no easy solution in a decentralized manner, the only solutions that might be viable would create a very complex set of multiple systems, and people already complain about the current complexities.

TLDR: I voted "other" because your poll answers are slightly misleading, but to be clear, I don't agree with these bad ideas.

It’s hard for me to believe you think I’m attempting to ruin or dismantle the system because I advocate for references to be mandatory and attached to negative trust feedback. Makes me think you’re apart of the Mob.

I believe you’re hallucinating and completely overlooked the overwhelming amount of replies that agree that should be the case.

Not to mention I’ve clearly stated to grandfather in the current trusts and implement this improvement moving forward in order to relinquish any biases on my end (located in the second to last reply before this one). It won’t change what has been done and it won’t require Mods to actively moderate the trust system. — Decentralization remains intact.

That said, most of what you said was flawed off topic conjecture and perspective. — Something I would expect from the Mob.


You are both idiots to make this topic about something unrelated.

I'm sorry you're upset that you got called out for doing shady shit with selling keys by many members, then doubled-down defending it, then went after the members who said something, and then petitioning to change the entire system. It's actually not an uncommon progression.

I lol'd at this because its true -- I can think of at least 5 instances of this happening in the last 6 years or so. To think all of this could have been avoided if this guy at any point said "OK, I see where your concerns are coming from, I'll stop selling private keys."

I’ve been over this many times before. The only reason “we” aren’t getting past it is because members like yourselves continuously bring it up. It’s ironically yourselves who can’t get past it. It’s you who attempt to destroy and throw off unrelated threads by this conjecture and misplaced perspective.— I challenge you both to put yourself in other peoples shoes or think outside the box.

[2stout]

Almost everyone came forward saying the trust system is flawed or imperfect and has its issues. The majority agrees that negatives should include references and lack validity without them. What ‘examples’ are you referring to—What else is missing to prove what most members already view as a consensus?

This is true*^

3 pages of replies and 27 votes (13 yes, 13 no, 1 other) and you want to claim "majority", smh.

This isn’t true. *^

1)  Your 1st point may have been true in Apr but not currently, one of the consequences of speaking prematurely.  Perhaps give it more time, poll hasn't even been up for a week yet but majority was claimed after 2 days.  Even a week may not be enough time.

2)  2nd point by ibminer is true currently as yes votes aren't a majority but tied for a plurality with no votes.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

You’re never going to get full consensus with everybody agreeing. I think the current system is fine and see no reason to change it.

Negative trust ratings left without a link can still be valid. If it’s some kind of childish dispute or disagreement then people will disregard it any way.

[nutildah]

Last time I checked that MEANS “"majority", smh. ”

This literally does not mean "majority" by any reasonable definition, which would include counting the 2 "Other" votes. Regardless, if we go by your definition, you're now wrong as No currently outnumbers Yes. I suppose that means you should acquiesce to the will of the majority.

I hope you realize this is all an exercise in futility. You just don't want to accept accountability for your actions.

[The Cryptovator]

The trust system on this platform is a serious matter. It is how we fundamentally operate and conduct our businesses. I therefore advocate for a change regarding the legitimacy of negative trusts on accounts. All negative trusts should be accompanied by a clear reference; otherwise, they should be deemed invalid and either removed or changed to neutral by moderators or administrators.

The reason is that any negative trust should be backed by something justifiable — such as evidence or legal grounds.

Let's say I don't like you and I want to leave negative feedback on your profile. If the forum implemented mandatory reference links, then I would simply create a thread on the reputation or scam accusation board and tag you with the reference links. Then who will verify if the thread was valid or not? The forum doesn't moderate the trust system or any scams due to transparency, and I believe the forum shouldn't moderate it.

So if my thread that has been created for reference goes false, then you will have to create another thread on reputation. So ultimately you have to go back to the reputation. Then what's the current system now? If you tagged wrongly, you have to create a reputation thread. That means whether new rules are implemented or not, you have to come on the reputation board for justice. The forum moderation system and trust system are totally different, and they won't be merged anyway.

[ibminer]

Off-topic but I want to thank you for quoting AI in a transparent manner -- if everyone did this my AI spam report thread would be a ghost town.

It really should be done this way with all AI responses, this whole thing of "oh I just let AI adjust what I wrote" stuff is BS and annoying, most are just providing simple prompts and AI is expanding it to giant intelligent-looking posts, it’s just not authentic to the person posting IMO.

2)  2nd point by ibminer is true currently as yes votes aren't a majority but tied for a plurality with no votes.

It's even worse for him currently, but it was true when I said it as well. I don't think Kaz's AI picked up on it but I explained in my prior post that I voted "other" because the "no" option is misleading and I didn't want to use that, but ultimately I'm a "no" as well:

TLDR: I voted "other" because your poll answers are slightly misleading, but to be clear, I don't agree with these bad ideas.

Overall though, my point is 27 votes in a forum of this size seems ridiculous to start saying "Almost everyone came forward" and "The majority agrees that"

Currently, I'd say it is 13 yes, 15 no, and 1 other... even though the poll results in the OP now say 13 yes, 14 no, and 2 others.

By Kaz's standards, everyone has come forward and majority have spoken NO, so we can lock the thread now. 

I also clearly stated I prefer a reference personally (like many responses here), but obviously I don’t agree with requiring it.

That said, most of what you said was flawed off topic conjecture and perspective. — Something I would expect from the Mob.

Did you get this one from AI too?  Conjecture and perspective == this entire thread
FFS, try to at least understand the shit you're regurgitating from AI.

[Kazkaz27]

Semantics, mostly unrelated to the main topic, are garbage arguments that I do not care to engage in. The poll is in constant flux but has been mostly leaning ‘yes’ the majority of the time by the majority. — Most of the points now being made are largely a distraction from the main discussion. Make debates surrounding why negative references should or should not be needed while giving negative feedback or take your off-topic conjecture elsewhere. I’ve put to rest the credibility argument some wished to have made and tolerated it even though it really crosses a line. I really don’t care to keep up the side debates in this thread. I’ve been attempting to shut them down and maintain focus. That being said, leave your opinion regarding why or why not negative feedback should or should not have references.

[Vod]

Semantics, mostly unrelated to the main topic, are garbage arguments that I do not care to engage in. The poll is in constant flux but has been mostly leaning ‘yes’ the majority of the time by the majority.

Kaz, the majority of the community has not voted in this poll. 

[nutildah]

Semantics, mostly unrelated to the main topic are garbage arguments that I do not care to engage in. The poll is in constant flux but has been mostly leaning yes the majority of the time by the majority. — Most of the points now being made are largely a distraction from the main discussion.

Its impossible to take you seriously if you dismiss valid criticism of your claims as "semantics". You're not conversing in good faith (which is already obvious by the reliance on AI), but rather proving points according to your own personal standards (or AI's standards), and insist this is the standard upon which society currently operates.

Well I think you'll encounter a lot of resistance in the effort to convert people to your way of thinking, particularly when it comes to math... You can't even admit that 13 out of 27 isn't a majority.  

[Kazkaz27]

I can happily admit I may have misspoken and that I can see how others may have perceived the tally differently.

I should have said, ‘A slim plurality of voters supported the idea, though turnout was very low.’

If you take my saying “majority” as if 400,000+ members made a vote, then no. You’re right—the majority of members did not vote. Being that there are about 750,000+ members on this forum—despite a large amount of those accounts being alts and bots.

So in that sense, no, the majority did not vote.

If you are saying the majority wasn’t met because only 13 out of 27 of the votes agreed with the idea, then yes, the majority was not yet met.

Personally, I viewed the “majority” as the participants who had the higher percentage of the vote, which for the majority of the time has been leaning towards supporting the idea. I could have been more clear with my wording.

I personally considered 13 yes votes (48.1%), 12 no votes (44.4%), and two other votes (7.4%) meant that most—the “majority”—was in support of the idea. I understand how that doesn’t truly fit the definition of “majority” and how/why that was an incorrect way to phrase it.

Moving forward.

Let's say I don't like you and I want to leave negative feedback on your profile. If the forum implemented mandatory reference links, then I would simply create a thread on the reputation or scam accusation board and tag you with the reference links. Then who will verify if the thread was valid or not? The forum doesn't moderate the trust system or any scams due to transparency, and I believe the forum shouldn't moderate it.

So if my thread that has been created for reference goes false, then you will have to create another thread on reputation. So ultimately you have to go back to the reputation. Then what's the current system now? If you tagged wrongly, you have to create a reputation thread. That means whether new rules are implemented or not, you have to come on the reputation board for justice. The forum moderation system and trust system are totally different, and they won't be merged anyway.

To answer your questions:

“Who will verify if the thread (reference) was valid or not?” — Members interested in transacting with a member left with negative feedback will be reviewing them, or people who wish to make judgments upon another character.

“Then what’s the current system now?” — Baseless if without proof and invalid if without valid evidence, reference, or reason.

Do you think it is better to leave a reference when you leave a negative trust, or better to leave a negative trust without any reference? Why?

[Vod]

Do you think it is better to leave a reference when you leave a negative trust, or better to leave a negative trust without any reference? Why?

We used to require a reference link and optional amount of BTC risked.  It was abused the same way trust is abused today, and it was easier to prove. 

[nutildah]

Do you think it is better to leave a reference when you leave a negative trust, or better to leave a negative trust without any reference? Why?

We used to require a reference link and optional amount of BTC risked.  It was abused the same way trust is abused today, and it was easier to prove.  

I just vaguely remember the amount risked part of the trust system... So you're saying it used to require a link, and now it no longer does?

I also remember Karma points. That lasted only through my first few months I think.

[Kazkaz27]

We used to require a reference link and optional amount of BTC risked.  It was abused the same way trust is abused today, and it was easier to prove.  

Easier to prove? — not sure what you mean… easier to prove abuse?

If that’s the case it sounds like we should bring it back. I like the idea of requiring a reference. Never thought of staking BTC on feedback. I like that idea as well. — now I’m curious.

[Vod]

I just vaguely remember the amount risked part of the trust system... So you're saying it used to require a link, and now it no longer does?

Actually, I remember BTC risked was optional, but I don't remember if the reference link was.  I know Theymos removed the risked BTC when OgNasty returned the 500 BTC but the community didn't know he stole from Theymos so multiple people were leaving OG positive trust with 500 BTC risked.   It weas screwing up my BPIP rankings (I forgot what I was doing) and I complained and it was removed.  

Easier to prove? — not sure what you mean… easier to prove abuse?

Click the reference link and you can verify the amount of BTC that was risked easier than verifying if the reference is valid.

[Kazkaz27]

I just vaguely remember the amount risked part of the trust system... So you're saying it used to require a link, and now it no longer does?

Actually, I remember BTC risked was optional, but I don't remember if the reference link was.  I know Theymos removed the risked BTC when OgNasty returned the 500 BTC but the community didn't know he stole from Theymos so multiple people were leaving OG positive trust with 500 BTC risked.   It weas screwing up my BPIP rankings (I forgot what I was doing) and I complained and it was removed.  

Easier to prove? — not sure what you mean… easier to prove abuse?

Click the reference link and you can verify the amount of BTC that was risked easier than verifying if the reference is valid.

Very interesting. What do you think about that system vs now?

[Vod]

Very interesting. What do you think about that system vs now?

The system is struggling and may soon collapse under the weight of autonomous agents.   

[LoyceV]

Kaz, the majority of the community has not voted in this poll.

I haven't voted because the options are flawed:

Code:

No, the current system and no reference works fine.

You shouldn't have 2 things in one vote if you don't have an option where one of them changes: I use the current system with Reference links, and that indeed works fine. But I can't choose that option.

I just vaguely remember the amount risked part of the trust system...

Wasn't that removed because Bitcoin's price increase made it hard to compare? Risking 0.01 Bitcoin now means more than 100 Bitcoin in 2010.

[Vod]

Wasn't that removed because Bitcoin's price increase made it hard to compare? Risking 0.01 Bitcoin now means more than 100 Bitcoin in 2010.

Holy shit, a rare opportunity to show up LoyceV?   I'll look for the actual reason.  

Start:

- The third number now takes into account the risked BTC as well as the number of trades. For every 50 BTC people have risked with you, you get one extra "trade" added to your trade count.

End:    https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344.msg51435911#msg51435911


One last note - I didn't know this had to be added - thought it would have been standard in the software.

Could we get page numbers as on boards/in PM's so I can jump to a specific page rather than just "Next"?

[holydarkness]

[...]
Some say my suggestion ignores existing remedies like the Reputation Board, excluding users from your own trust list, and the DT meritocracy. But those remedies don’t really alter standing negative trusts without references. My suggestion acts upon that flaw in the system.

No one overlords it. It’s automated in the system — you simply have to add a reference to negative feedback. Can this be gamed? Some yes. But it adds another mandatory step (a reference), which would make it slightly harder for trust abusers and more evident in cases where negative trust is not justified or no real reference is provided.

The remedies we have now don’t work. This is evident in the fact that a DT1 named Holydarkness just gamed the system, got caught red handed and remains on DT1 despite his abuse of the negative feedback system.

If you think I am being biased, then grandfather in the existing feedback as is. But moving forward, make the rulings more fair into the future.

This isn’t about deleting anyone’s trust or heavy moderation. It’s a simple, automated rule: negative feedback needs a reference link/field, or it doesn’t count. That’s it. It protects the integrity of the trust system without giving power to any single person or group.

Apparently editing a post can bypass TG bot and ninja-mentioned someone [thus, supposedly made the person in subject aware of it] safely.


Uhh... why do my name being referenced here and my tag got dragged to that thread? It's a fallacy, IMO. The tag, as you specifically use me as an example, directly contradict the point you're trying to raise on your thread because my tag has reference, an accurate one too as I edit and update it to the simplest case of what I describe on the tag-comment.

I said and warn people to take Rating Place's word with heavy consideration and fact check due to his tendency to twist words.

Reference link? A post where I inquire him I said something I didn't say on 27th June 2025, as recorded by my own post history and bitlist.

You want that to be neutral? Ask him to prove that I said what he tried to paint me in certain color on the said date.

You want that to be removed? Get him to learn facts and stop peer pressuring other forum members to pay others by his outdated knowledge and/or discourage others to engage with me [and thus resulting in chance of financial loss to one party or reputational loss to other member] while I am trying to get to the bottom of a matter where I heavily need both parties to work and be transparent with me.

[nutildah]

The system is struggling and may soon collapse under the weight of autonomous agents.   

NEW RULE



No. More. Autonomous. Agents.

We get it. You've always been the "techie" with the newest digital toy, the ever-evolving extension of your manhood. You had a CD player when your friends had tapes, were on Facebook when your friends were on MySpace, and you'll be the first to have an AI servant with benefits.



Well take a breath there, Westworld Willy. You didn't stop to consider if the society you are exposing your nonsense fantasy world to wants to play along. Just because you think AI is more important than genuine social interaction, it doesn't mean we all do.



NEW RULE: Nobody has to take your AI universe seriously.