I think trust system default should be set at 3

[EFS]

Luke Jr.'s that rating is totally BS, that's one of the thousand reasons why Default Trust should be removed. The best resolution is removing Default Trust system and give people time to arrange their own Trust List. Newbies shouldn't trade before knowing how things work here.

[1713886982]

1713886982

[1713886982]

1713886982

[stellar69]

I believe that 1 should be default trust. People should be encouraged and should be made educated enough to make their own trust list.
3 will include a lot of members whom you wouldnt want to be in your trust list.

[ondratra]

Imho there would be no gain in default 3. I have 0 trust since the beginning and don't complain.
Trust level is only guidance - doesn't reflect reality.

[freedomno1]

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

Would support this I think at depth level 3 TF is still effective in the trust system so it messes with a lot of things
Puts a lot of scam ratings on people.

Hmm perhaps kill default trust and rebuild a new index or somehow force it to be a constant stream
Oldest trust weighs less newer trust more with the average growing over time.

Newer has more weight since it represents maintenance older less because things can change, in time a baseline is built though so a person will prove trust by having both old and newer trust relationships.

Not sure how it would weight though some problems would be X trusts Y but is not trusted by any but X etc.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

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.

Firstly, I wouldn't appear green trusted with defaulttrust level 3.

Secondly, just because Inputs.io was hacked previously doesn't mean my trust ratings are any sort of unreliable

[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.

Firstly, I wouldn't appear green trusted with defaulttrust level 3.

Secondly, just because Inputs.io was hacked previously doesn't mean my trust ratings are any sort of unreliable

1) I didn't say you would, but your feedback left for others would show as trusted.

2) Mark Karpales would probably say the same thing, but nobody believes or trusts him, and I don't think your feedback being un/reliable is for you to decide but others.

[the joint]

Luke Jr.'s that rating is totally BS, that's one of the thousand reasons why Default Trust should be removed. The best resolution is removing Default Trust system and give people time to arrange their own Trust List. Newbies shouldn't trade before knowing how things work here.

I don't think Default Trust should be removed, but I do think that users on the default trust list should be automatically removed from that list  if their amount meets certain criteria, e.g. not being active at least once during a 365-day period, etc.

[hilariousandco]

But them being inactive doesn't invalidate all their previous feedbacks. Some people who were marked as scammers could then be neutralised or even become green trusted. With regards to the negative left by Luke on bipolarbob, it was arguably a valid warning at the time, but it seems that his deals have been confirmed to be legit so it probably should be removed, but that's obviously up to him. Has anyone asked him to reconsider the feedback?

[marcotheminer]

Luke Jr.'s that rating is totally BS, that's one of the thousand reasons why Default Trust should be removed. The best resolution is removing Default Trust system and give people time to arrange their own Trust List. Newbies shouldn't trade before knowing how things work here.

How is it "total BS"? Some of his points make sense actually. Just because someone is giving away free items doesn't mean they should be 'trusted' or even on the other hand, untrusted.

He also paid me from the same address to confirm it was his: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9768004/proof/proof4.jpg

This proves absolutely nothing at all.

But guys, PLEASE, remember to exercise caution with "too good to be true" deals. While BPB's case really is true, it's very atypical, and people should exercise caution and do their research before making a decision when trading on similar "too good to be true" deals.

pirateat80 was "really true" too... until it wasn't.

Where's the proof he isn't:
1) Scamming people with different nicks, to pay for those gift cards
2) Being paid off by scammers who take advantage of those he predisposes to making foolish decisions

Even if he isn't doing any of those things, he's de facto teaching people to make foolish decisions and become scammer bait.
IMO that makes him at least partly at fault for scams resulting, whether he was directly involved or not.

[the joint]

But them being inactive doesn't invalidate all their previous feedbacks. Some people who were marked as scammers could then be neutralised or even become green trusted. With regards to the negative left by Luke on bipolarbob, it was arguably a valid warning at the time, but it seems that his deals have been confirmed to be legit so it probably should be removed, but that's obviously up to him. Has anyone asked him to reconsider the feedback?

But a strong account that goes AWOL for a year and then returns is likely hacked or stolen.  And, if the account actually was abandoned for a year, then it could imply that the account isn't very important or strong after all, or at least that its owner doesn't seem to think so.  Additionally, the more that time goes on, you could argue that feedback isn't as applicable anymore as it's possible to imagine all sorts of things that could happen to a person to change they way they behave towards others.  I would naturally be suspicious of any strong account that goes offline for any significant period of time and suddenly reappears.  Accordingly, I would no longer trust them by default.

[EternalWingsofGod]

But them being inactive doesn't invalidate all their previous feedbacks. Some people who were marked as scammers could then be neutralised or even become green trusted. With regards to the negative left by Luke on bipolarbob, it was arguably a valid warning at the time, but it seems that his deals have been confirmed to be legit so it probably should be removed, but that's obviously up to him. Has anyone asked him to reconsider the feedback?

I would naturally be suspicious of any strong account that goes offline for any significant period of time and suddenly reappears.  Accordingly, I would no longer trust them by default.

That makes a lot of sense
A time function for trust seems like a good idea since a constant history of good lending is used to determine a credit score in finance.
Why wouldn't it be the same for trust a good reputation is built up with time and consistency after all.
(Sort of like Ebay lol)

[zhangxiaoh]

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.

[expert4knowledge]

I strongly disagree with assigning default trust 3, If they define it as 3, since it opens the way for some cheaters at the 1st, furthermore after some time 3 makes a sense like current 0.

[dogie]

I'd be interested to see what list level 3 creates. Potentially there could be a difference in weighting between levels 0-2 and 3?

[truthstalker]

With the new forum in development is it going to be using the same system as the current deffault trust?

[Xian01]

I think DefaultTrust should be something users need to opt-in to, with a depth of 1.

New users should have a blank default trust list as a basic tenet to never inherently trust anyone on Bitcointalk.

[rugrats]

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

And it creates a more-equal-than-the-rest hierarchical superclass, followed by all the usual social byproducts (cronyism, nepotism, abuse, grovelling, outcasts).

[BadBear]

I find level 3 to be much more inaccurate overall.

[TECSHARE]

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

And it creates a more-equal-than-the-rest hierarchical superclass, followed by all the usual social byproducts (cronyism, nepotism, abuse, grovelling, outcasts).

I agree with this conclusion as I have personally experienced the results of this on about every level possible, as you described.