I think trust system default should be set at 3

[Maidak]

Any objections or questions on my topic keep it constructive. I believe 3 so I see a users entire rep and not from this 'default' list

[1714858586]

1714858586

[1714858586]

1714858586

[Candystripes]

I completely agree. If you are a late joiner, and most of the default trustees are no longer active, you don't have a chance at getting postive trust. I think setting it to 3 is only fair.

[Maidak]

I completely agree. If you are a late joiner, and most of the default trustees are no longer active, you don't have a chance at getting postive trust. I think setting it to 3 is only fair.

Thanks!

I feel if its set to by default to 3 the user can really see how active in trading/trusted he is by all members who gave said user a trust rating. Not just a select few who were put on it in the beginning. As well as the inactives.

[Window2Wall]

I would say this certainly does have pros and cons to make this the default setting.

You do make a very good point that a depth level of "3" would be much more inclusive and would capture many more active traders. It would also make it much easier for people to check for potential scams as more people would be able to leave negative trust that shows up for everyone.

One negative is that it would cause many people to be able to manipulate their trust as you will have more people who have the ability to give trust to others.

I might suggest a compromise and say that people can give negative trust at a 3 depth level and to have a "semi trusted" list of people when positive trust is on someone's profile - you would have trusted feedback, semi trusted feedback and untrusted feedback.

I am fairly certain that theymos will likely respond by saying that people have the option to change both their trust network and their trust depth to their choosing

[Dare]

The default trust list is maintained by the admins, so it only contains those people that theymos has found to be trustworthy, and the next level down. It's pretty obvious that there are a lot more people in that level, and while it would make gaining default trust easier, it would also make it considerably less useful. Try setting your personal trust level to 3; do you really trust everyone who now has green feedback? It's not necessarily invalid, but I would consider it less reliable. As you mentioned, I believe that allowing people to extend their own trust level and create their own lists (as is currently in place) is the best solution.

[Muhammed Zakir]

The default trust list is maintained by the admins, so it only contains those people that theymos has found to be trustworthy, and the next level down. It's pretty obvious that there are a lot more people in that level, and while it would make gaining default trust easier, it would also make it considerably less useful. Try setting your personal trust level to 3; do you really trust everyone who now has green feedback? It's not necessarily invalid, but I would consider it less reliable. As you mentioned, I believe that allowing people to extend their own trust level and create their own lists (as is currently in place) is the best solution.

+1. I personally set the DefaultTrust list to 2. The people trusted by DefaultTrust (1) and people trusted by (1) will be most accurate. Getting into level 3 isn't very hard when compared to other levels. So it is better to avoid level 3.

   ~~MZ~~

[EFS]

I think Default Trust should be removed completely. It's not accurate and it misleads new members.

[Muhammed Zakir]

I think Default Trust should be removed completely. It's not accurate and it misleads new members.

I understand what you said, but DT makes it easy to know the behavior of a user. It can be seen clearly by looking his posts but it needs a lot of time, with DT we can know it in a glance. If it really misleads, a short note can be placed in the Trust Summary.

   ~~MZ~~

[Bitcoin Seller]

I personally can't understand this Trust system , I mean even if someone give you a trusted feedback , you don't have green+ positive feedback? or you get green only with particular users ?

[Muhammed Zakir]

I personally can't understand this Trust system , I mean even if someone give you a trusted feedback , you don't have green+ positive feedback? or you get green only with particular users ?

You will get green or red when users in DefaultTrust list put trust feedback on your profile. Feedback of people in level 2 & 3, will only show if the user set it. I hope you understand!

   ~~MZ~~

[Bitcoin Seller]

I personally can't understand this Trust system , I mean even if someone give you a trusted feedback , you don't have green+ positive feedback? or you get green only with particular users ?

You will get green or red when users in DefaultTrust list put trust feedback on your profile. Feedback of people in level 2 & 3, will only show if the user set it. I hope you understand!

   ~~MZ~~

Oh I see now , much better
Thank you so much for the explanation mate 

[galbros]

I think Default Trust should be removed completely. It's not accurate and it misleads new members.

You actually get green or red when someone you trust leaves positive or negative feedback.  It's just that default trust is just that, a list of users you automatically start out trusting.

If there is going to be a system default I'd go with this suggestion.  You can manually set it to whatever you want and I'm pretty happy to have pruned my trust list to people who I'd actually interacted with.  It seems default trust started as a way to allow moderators to vouch for certain users so I can appreciate its potential.  If you want to set it to 3 do so, but I think most people should be encouraged to take control of it themselves rather than relying on some default value.

[Vod]

I think Default Trust should be removed completely. It's not accurate and it misleads new members.

What system would you propose in it's place?

We need a method to protect new members from hardened scammers, and the nature of Bitcoins means there are a LOT here.   

[hilariousandco]

Any objections or questions on my topic keep it constructive. I believe 3 so I see a users entire rep and not from this 'default' list

You can set it to level three yourself. I don't think this is a good idea having it as default though. It would be far too easy to become trusted then and people like Tradefortress would become default trusted not to mention loads of other scammers appearing green trusted too.

I think Default Trust should be removed completely. It's not accurate and it misleads new members.

What system would you propose in it's place?

We need a method to protect new members from hardened scammers, and the nature of Bitcoins means there are a LOT here.   

Yeah, it's not a perfect system but I don't think any system ever would be, nor have I seen someone suggest a better alternative, but If someone did I'm sure it would be considered.

[Blazed]

I think it is best to leave it at 2...too many people would be trusted by default if it were set to 3. It is easy enough to adjust it anyways to a depth of 3.

[laverre]

This trust systems sucks and it should be deleted.
Some trolls and wannabe cops who came in early can easily destroy reputation of new users and nobody can do anything about that

[Muhammed Zakir]

This trust systems sucks and it should be deleted.
Some trolls and wannabe cops who came in early can easily destroy reputation of new users and nobody can do anything about that

Almost all of them will help the user, if the -ve trust was made for no reason. If you find any -ve trust which were put for no reasons, you can make a thread about it. If it is a person in DefaultTrust list, he can be removed from it. Thus, that -ve trust will not be shown is Trust scores unless a user add him/her to his DefaultTrust list(very very rare). What you said is just a misunderstanding.

   ~~MZ~~

[laverre]

This trust systems sucks and it should be deleted.
Some trolls and wannabe cops who came in early can easily destroy reputation of new users and nobody can do anything about that

Almost all of them will help the user, if the -ve trust was made for no reason. If you find any -ve trust which were put for no reasons, you can make a thread about it. If it is a person in DefaultTrust list, he can be removed from it. Thus, that -ve trust will not be shown is Trust scores unless a user add him/her to his DefaultTrust list(very very rare). What you said is just a misunderstanding.

   ~~MZ~~

Like this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=343899
"too good to be true" lol wtf is that reason? He has no evidents about that he is scamming or going to never scam anyone... He is just leaving negtive feedback "jsut in case".  Maybe he just is fucking rich and want share his money with us?

And then those ponzi owners who says it is a game, not investment, gets negative feedback, wtf? Theards about gambling are not allowed?
I unerstand that they leave negative feedback if ponzi owner claims to give 200% return in 24 hours from "guaranteed investment" or some other bs but if they admit that it is a ponzi gambling game they could aswell give negative feedback for Stunna and all casino owners...

[Muhammed Zakir]

This trust systems sucks and it should be deleted.
Some trolls and wannabe cops who came in early can easily destroy reputation of new users and nobody can do anything about that

Almost all of them will help the user, if the -ve trust was made for no reason. If you find any -ve trust which were put for no reasons, you can make a thread about it. If it is a person in DefaultTrust list, he can be removed from it. Thus, that -ve trust will not be shown is Trust scores unless a user add him/her to his DefaultTrust list(very very rare). What you said is just a misunderstanding.

   ~~MZ~~

Like this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=343899
"too good to be true" lol wtf is that reason? He has no evidents about that he is scamming or going to never scam anyone... He is just leaving negtive feedback "jsut in case".  Maybe he just is fucking rich and want share his money with us?

And then those ponzi owners who says it is a game, not investment, gets negative feedback, wtf? Theards about gambling are not allowed?
I unerstand that they leave negative feedback if ponzi owner claims to give 200% return in 24 hours from "guaranteed investment" or some other bs but if they admit that it is a ponzi gambling game they could aswell give negative feedback for Stunna and all casino owners...

Luke Jr. told in his point of view and he didn't trust BitPolarBob. His -ve trust doesn't mean he is a scammer.

Yes, new ponzi owners get -ve feedback because ponzi has no guarantee and he may scam people. If he is running that ponzi for a long time, then he can ask the users who put it to remove. Casinos are in outside internet too. So that can't be compared to ponzi schemes and gambling involves risk. And also, unlike ponzi, money can be withdrawn from casinos. Please understand the differneces.

   ~~MZ~~

[laverre]

This trust systems sucks and it should be deleted.
Some trolls and wannabe cops who came in early can easily destroy reputation of new users and nobody can do anything about that

Almost all of them will help the user, if the -ve trust was made for no reason. If you find any -ve trust which were put for no reasons, you can make a thread about it. If it is a person in DefaultTrust list, he can be removed from it. Thus, that -ve trust will not be shown is Trust scores unless a user add him/her to his DefaultTrust list(very very rare). What you said is just a misunderstanding.

   ~~MZ~~

Like this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=343899
"too good to be true" lol wtf is that reason? He has no evidents about that he is scamming or going to never scam anyone... He is just leaving negtive feedback "jsut in case".  Maybe he just is fucking rich and want share his money with us?

And then those ponzi owners who says it is a game, not investment, gets negative feedback, wtf? Theards about gambling are not allowed?
I unerstand that they leave negative feedback if ponzi owner claims to give 200% return in 24 hours from "guaranteed investment" or some other bs but if they admit that it is a ponzi gambling game they could aswell give negative feedback for Stunna and all casino owners...

Luke Jr. told in his point of view and he didn't trust BitPolarBob. His -ve trust doesn't mean he is a scammer.

Yes, new ponzi owners get -ve feedback because ponzi has no guarantee and he may scam people. If he is running that ponzi for a long time, then he can ask the users who put it to remove. Casinos are in outside internet too. So that can't be compared to ponzi schemes and gambling involves risk. And also, unlike ponzi, money can be withdrawn from casinos. Please understand the differneces.

   ~~MZ~~

"and he may scam people"
You may scam someone aswell... Where is your negative feedback?

"unlike ponzi, money can be withdrawn from casino"
They are onchain games like satoshidice, you send coins to the game address and if you win you get more back and if you lose you don't get.
Having offchain ponzi would be even more risky for players so I am not sure where your gettin at with that.

"Luke Jr. told in his point of view and he didn't trust BitPolarBob. His -ve trust doesn't mean he is a scammer. "
That is my point. They can left negative feedback and have no evidents about that is not trustworthy.
And if someone ask reason they can just say "I can feel it with my eigth sense" or anythin they want.
And yes it won't mean he is scammer but if someone has an red trust under his name many ppl won't trust them.