Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust

[redsn0w]

I would like also to add :

With this trust system it is so easy *abuse it* so I think we need new change , or better modify it completely. Because I've seen a lot of these type of threads ( it is always the same story).

[1714184890]

1714184890

[1714184890]

1714184890

[1714184890]

1714184890

[1714184890]

1714184890

[hilariousandco]

I would like also to add :

With this trust system it is so easy *abuse it* so I think we need new change , or better modify it completely. Because I've seen a lot of these type of threads ( it is always the same story).

What do you suggest as an alternative? I cannot think of a feedback system that is flawless or foolproof to abuse but if you can some up with one maybe it will be considered.

[Quickseller]

I would like also to add :

With this trust system it is so easy *abuse it* so I think we need new change , or better modify it completely. Because I've seen a lot of these type of threads ( it is always the same story).

What do you suggest as an alternative? I cannot think of a feedback system that is flawless or foolproof to abuse but if you can some up with one maybe it will be considered.

there should be limits as to how many people can be on your trust list if you are on level 1 default trust. This will prevent the privilege of being on default trust being given out as a "thank you" for your customers.

There should be different formula for calculating positive trust if multiple people give trust feedback that are not trusted by different people. For example if everyone that gives you positive trust are all trusted by badbear then each additional trust rating by someone on badbears list should count for less while someone on theymos' list would count for more. You should not be able to receive "green" trust unless you are trusted by people that are on at least two different trust lists.

Negative trust should cause a profile to turn "red" at first with one scam report but would go away after n time without a second scam report. This would prevent someone from being able to continue to scam but would prevent someone from abusing the trust system and would force scam reports to be community reviewed (and a 2nd person agreeing on default trust) after a scam accusation is opened (as it should be after giving negative trust)

[Puppet]

Because of this Canary removed me from his trusted list.

Im more curious how you ended up on canary's list in the first place.
A quick glance over your post history doesnt exactly answer that question.

[SpanishSoldier]

Because of this Canary removed me from his trusted list.

Im more curious how you ended up on canary's list in the first place.
A quick glance over your post history doesnt exactly answer that question.

The same way Mabsark & MrTeal ended up in his trust list. Canary has lost his credibility to be in DefaultTrust.

Canary leads Group buys from FriedCat led AsicMiner and whoever joins there gets into his trust list. Now, if anyone goes against FriedCat will be thrown out of his trust list, because that is a conflict of interest for Canary. This is utter nonsense.

BadBear clearly stated that der_troll is not an alt and from the password change history, it is also clear that his password was not changed. So, that is the original owner, but Canary threw him out of his trust list for conflict of interest.

malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.

Nah, I don't think so.

[Chris_Sabian]

this thread is becoming ridiculous.

Well, this thread has just added a bunch of people to my ignore list and my personal distrust list.

[Stargazer]

<snip>

Let the trust system moderate itself. Going around telling people who to remove from their trust under threat of themselves being removed is little more than a loophole to let Theymos personally dictate who gets to join his special little club, and anyone who doesn't obey his directive gets removed. That is not a community based distributed trust system, that is a centralized trust dictatorship, in many ways even worse than the old "scammer tag" days, because now everyone thinks it is distributed. This strategy of trying to moderate trust in any way is a failed one and will only lead to this community destroying itself from the inside out as trolls and scammers leverage it as a wedge against the core of the community.

This!

People who are "accepted" by the owner of the forum should not be in any way promoted and be able to tag other people's profiles.
What matters now is not how many transactions the account is involved in or how many people left a trust rating but if these people are among the privileged.

[SaltySpitoon]

People who are "accepted" by the owner of the forum should not be in any way promoted and be able to tag other people's profiles.
What matters now is not how many transactions the account is involved in or how many people left a trust rating but if these people are among the privileged.

If you have a better solution please speak up. As it is the current system is the most stable that we have had. Find a plan for forum trust that can't be exploited, or has a lower risk of being exploited, and I'm sure it will be adopted.

[Stargazer]

People who are "accepted" by the owner of the forum should not be in any way promoted and be able to tag other people's profiles.
What matters now is not how many transactions the account is involved in or how many people left a trust rating but if these people are among the privileged.

If you have a better solution please speak up. As it is the current system is the most stable that we have had. Find a plan for forum trust that can't be exploited, or has a lower risk of being exploited, and I'm sure it will be adopted.

Every system can be exploited, just like the current one is. What I'd propose is:
Remove the default trust and make all comments equal. Rate the profile by the number of positive/negative votes.
Allow only 1 vote per account and don't allow newbies and jr. members to leave comments to prevent spam.

What I find strange at the moment are people leaving multiple trust ratings with the same purpose. Why doesn't the staff ban trust spammers or allow only 1 rating per person?

[SaltySpitoon]

People who are "accepted" by the owner of the forum should not be in any way promoted and be able to tag other people's profiles.
What matters now is not how many transactions the account is involved in or how many people left a trust rating but if these people are among the privileged.

If you have a better solution please speak up. As it is the current system is the most stable that we have had. Find a plan for forum trust that can't be exploited, or has a lower risk of being exploited, and I'm sure it will be adopted.

Every system can be exploited, just like the current one is. What I'd propose is:
Remove the default trust and make all comments equal. Rate the profile by the number of positive/negative votes.
Allow only 1 vote per account and don't allow newbies and jr. members to leave comments to prevent spam.

What I find strange at the moment are people leaving multiple trust ratings with the same purpose. Why doesn't the staff ban trust spammers or allow only 1 rating per person?

People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.

[malaimult]

malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.

This is ridiculous. You conclude that just because two people have the same opinion that you do not agree with that they must be a puppet of eachother. This just shows how open you are when discussing this.

I also question you regarding your (un)paid signature. Anyone who sees a paid signature advertisement can reasonably conclude the reason someone is wearing a signature of one of the companies that you claim to be a scam - they are being paid to do so. With your signature on the other hand there is no such clear incentive. Both yourself and others who appear to be trustworthy because of a small circle of people giving each-other trust are in the same situation, along with others who appear to be random are wearing the signature of a thread that is one sided (and self moderated to prevent an opposing side to voice their counter points) that claims the competition of the site you are promoting is a scam.

To put it another way:

• You are wearing a signature promoting a specific company
• The company is not your own
• There is no clear evidence you are getting paid to promote such company
• There is no affiliate/referral link to track how much traffic/business you bring to the site discrediting any potential claim you receive any kind of referral income for wearing your signature. 
• From what I can tell these signature went up at all the approximate same time
• From what I can tell these signatures are exactly the same with somewhat complex formatting features

The above would make me conclude that you are either all puppets of ASICminer in order to get more people to buy shares so the operator can run away with investor money (just because mining power is "real" does not mean the operator is forced to deliver mining revenue to shareholders), or are all colluding to pump the price of AM1 that you all own.

[xuan87]

People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust.

-SNIP-

This part is crucial for me.
What if the trusted member make a new account and make it trustable ?

[Stargazer]

People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.


@malaimult I've seen some of these plants who bash certain mining companies while pushing their own through paid or unpaid signatures. A common practice these days

[MrTeal]

People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.

I can't speak for others, but Canary added me to his trust list and I've never participated in one of his group buys. I'd suspect the majority of the people there are in a similar situation. There's no reason for Canary to add random group buy participants, as he doesn't have to trust them at all to take their money and send it to Fried cat.  They need to trust him.

[malaimult]

People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.

I can't speak for others, but Canary added me to his trust list and I've never participated in one of his group buys. I'd suspect the majority of the people there are in a similar situation. There's no reason for Canary to add random group buy participants, as he doesn't have to trust them at all to take their money and send it to Fried cat.  They need to trust him.

If you look at his trusted trust you will see that he has many people that have left him positive feedback that have not themselves received any feedback from anyone. These people are on his trust list (meaning they are on default trust because of him). You should be able to reasonably conclude that he has put many people on his trust list because he has done business with him (and he unlikely risked anything because he has his customers send funds to him prior to him sending his product)

[SaltySpitoon]

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.


@malaimult I've seen some of these plants who bash certain mining companies while pushing their own through paid or unpaid signatures. A common practice these days

Having multiple accounts is something we can't enforce, so it would be irresponsible to say that its disallowed. The number next to someone's name is pretty irrelevant, if anyone is using the trust system solely by the green or red number, thats their fault. Its like Ebay feedback, before you buy a yacht from someone with 100 positive feedback for purchases, you should probably check and see what that feedback is for. Allowing people to leave more than one rating really isn't a big deal. I haven't seen any issue with people spamming feedback. Giving someone positive feedback does not mean that they are on the default trust list, I have done many deals with people, but if you check my sent feedback it accurately describes the transaction so that people can gauge what my feedback means for themselves. I have added four people to the default trustlist and left probably 50 different positive feedbacks. Mr. CanaryInTheMine gave positive feedback to people he had a positive transaction with, not a problem. That goes back to the point of reading what someone has gained feedback for and the Ebay example. If someone has 50 positive trust for buying things from group buys, that doesnt mean they are trustworthy to sell you something. The feedback system is a tool, there is no preventing it from people that use it wrong. The default trust system just means that someone in the line trusts that they will give others accurate feedback. If not, changes are made.

[MrTeal]

People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.

I can't speak for others, but Canary added me to his trust list and I've never participated in one of his group buys. I'd suspect the majority of the people there are in a similar situation. There's no reason for Canary to add random group buy participants, as he doesn't have to trust them at all to take their money and send it to Fried cat.  They need to trust him.

If you look at his trusted trust you will see that he has many people that have left him positive feedback that have not themselves received any feedback from anyone. These people are on his trust list (meaning they are on default trust because of him). You should be able to reasonably conclude that he has put many people on his trust list because he has done business with him (and he unlikely risked anything because he has his customers send funds to him prior to him sending his product)

I don't claim he hasn't done business with them. I'm merely saying I wasn't part of his group buy and don't imagine all the others are either. He obviously didn't put everyone on his trust list from the group buys, he'd have hundreds if that was the case.

[BadBear]

People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.


@malaimult I've seen some of these plants who bash certain mining companies while pushing their own through paid or unpaid signatures. A common practice these days

It's naive to think you can stop multiple accounts, you can't. I'm not going to sit here and list all the ways to do it, but suffice it to say the scammers know all of them, and it isn't very hard. It's their livelihood, it's what they do, and most of them are good at what they do. Multiple negative ratings by the same user already do not increase one's negative rating, but they shouldn't be stopped from giving more than one because there may be more than one issue at stake (there are good reasons to leave more than one negative feedback, and there are bad). Trust spam does get removed.

Default trust isn't perfect and incorruptible, but a trust list run by someone else (and let's be real here, if default trust didn't exist, someone would make a "default" that everyone would end up using anyway) would be much more corruptible.

If the trust list itself didn't exist and all comments were given equal weight, it would just turn into a numbers game, and scammers/spammers would win that game by a large margin. I found a spammer/account farmer in the local boards with over 130 accounts, and they weren't newbie accounts either. Under your system, that guy, if he wanted, would probably be the highest trusted member on the forums, lol. I've found other spammers with similar numbers, or even more.

Also newbies wouldn't know who to trust, and just throwing newbies in the water with the sharks when they don't know sharks exist (most forums ban anyone who's even suspected of scamming) isn't right. And if you're going to say ban scammers, we have no interest in banning people from participating in the forum just because they are breaking a law. Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Guy Fawkes, fuck it even Robin Hood just to make the point, all "criminals" who break laws. (Alleged) rapist, (alleged) treasonist, (attempted) mass murder, and theft. All Criminals who should be banned if they posted here?

[malaimult]

People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.

I can't speak for others, but Canary added me to his trust list and I've never participated in one of his group buys. I'd suspect the majority of the people there are in a similar situation. There's no reason for Canary to add random group buy participants, as he doesn't have to trust them at all to take their money and send it to Fried cat.  They need to trust him.

If you look at his trusted trust you will see that he has many people that have left him positive feedback that have not themselves received any feedback from anyone. These people are on his trust list (meaning they are on default trust because of him). You should be able to reasonably conclude that he has put many people on his trust list because he has done business with him (and he unlikely risked anything because he has his customers send funds to him prior to him sending his product)

I don't claim he hasn't done business with them. I'm merely saying I wasn't part of his group buy and don't imagine all the others are either. He obviously didn't put everyone on his trust list from the group buys, he'd have hundreds if that was the case.

He does have hundreds on his trust list, more specifically he has over 200 (201 as per an above post). I agree that he probably doesn't have everyone that has participated in a group buy on his trust list, but looking at the number of untrusted trust reports verses the number of trusted trust reports I would say that he puts most people who have participated in a group buy on his trust list.

Having multiple accounts is something we can't enforce, so it would be irresponsible to say that its disallowed. The number next to someone's name is pretty irrelevant, if anyone is using the trust system solely by the green or red number, thats their fault. Its like Ebay feedback, before you buy a yacht from someone with 100 positive feedback for purchases, you should probably check and see what that feedback is for. Allowing people to leave more than one rating really isn't a big deal. I haven't seen any issue with people spamming feedback. Giving someone positive feedback does not mean that they are on the default trust list, I have done many deals with people, but if you check my sent feedback it accurately describes the transaction so that people can gauge what my feedback means for themselves. I have added four people to the default trustlist and left probably 50 different positive feedbacks. Mr. CanaryInTheMine gave positive feedback to people he had a positive transaction with, not a problem. That goes back to the point of reading what someone has gained feedback for and the Ebay example. If someone has 50 positive trust for buying things from group buys, that doesnt mean they are trustworthy to sell you something. The feedback system is a tool, there is no preventing it from people that use it wrong. The default trust system just means that someone in the line trusts that they will give others accurate feedback. If not, changes are made.

You are right, it is not possible not even try to come close to enforcing only allowing people to have one account, plus there are legit reasons for someone to post from another account (for example to post something controversial they do not want associated with their "real" account or to post an anon scam report with 'leaked' information). 

I very much agree that CanaryInTheMine should give positive feedback to people he has a positive experience trading with (this is really how most/all trades should result in) however he seems to also make a habit of adding them to his trust list which happens to also put them on default trust. Now once someone is on default trust they can leave fake feedback to their alternate accounts saying that they purchased something from these alternate accounts and that they risked large amounts of BTC. Going back to reading the feedback that someone has received, the alternate account now has the potential to scam someone who is looking to buy a certain product because a potential buyer would read the alternate account's trusted feedback and see several successful trades when the other party risked money so they might be willing to risk similar amounts of money. The person on default trust would have plausible deniability as they would claim that actual trades did in fact take place from the trust feedbacks given. 

[TECSHARE]

...Default trust isn't perfect and incorruptible, but a trust list run by someone else (and let's be real here, if default trust didn't exist, someone would make a "default" that everyone would end up using anyway) would be much more corruptible...

This is quite an assumption to make. The forum itself is earning income and interacting with users of the forum. The moderators are paid, and that income comes from ads sold. There is a DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST in keeping this trust list under control of the people who are the primary beneficiaries of this (mods, any paid staff).

Even assuming that you are all 100% honest at your word, that alone is enough to influence your actions drastically regarding how you moderate the default trust. This is why a distributed solution to this is the only solution. Will it ever be exploited? Yes probably, but so is the current system. At least a distributed system has the ability to react and shift reputation to individuals who deserve it and remove it from those who don't THEMSELVES, not from a central position of a small group of otherwise disinterested financial beneficiaries.