Replacing DefaultTrust

[SpanishSoldier]

Theymos, i think this is almost a must if you expect this forum to continue to have any credibility in the future. Regardless of how many alt accounts are used to vote against it. This is about one of the only ways this place will survive with any credibility.

I've said this in another thread, the problem with surveys is people are only willing to accept votes that validate their own opinions as valid - the others are just fakes or shills, right?

I'm not saying that the poll was rigged. But, can you deny that the poll got very short time span to reflect any substantial opinion ? It started on Januray 5, 2015 and ended on January 10, 2015. Only 5 days to take public opinion about whether DefaultTrust is here to stay or not ? Even the YES was leading initially. NO was leading on the last day and the poll was closed !!! I would request theymos to re-open the poll and keep it running for at least a month.

Active people here already expressed their views. If you cannot deal with the fact a majority expressed their preference to keep the actual Trust system instead of expensive and time consuming one which will be no better or at least equal to the actual one, You have no right to cry havoc hinting the admin rigged the pool!

You are putting a word on my mouth which I never stated. Read my post again. If I remember correctly, YES was leading for 4 days. NO led only for a day and the poll was closed. I just wanted time. Never said it was rigged.

Time to grow more sockpuppets to alter poll results and force theymos' hand? You seems to have the most to gain from such an outcome and you seems to already have an habit to create accounts for such purposes.

Yah... I'm under target of a LOT of people because I got someone removed from DefaulTrust blessing with proper proofs. Read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888960.0 ...Moreover, I am not in -ve as you are showing, because the person who left me -ve is not blessed by DefaultTrust. You are seeing it because of your trust settings. You can also create a 100 sock puppet and leave -ve on me... that does not matter unless you have the DefaultTrust blessing. I kicked the hornet's nest and I know there will be some sting. The point here is you could not come up with a logical reply to my point and hence trying make things personal. Shows your depth indeed.

p.s. Unless you remove your signature, for which you get paid for trolling, do not expect any more reply from me.

[1714174805]

1714174805

[1714174805]

1714174805

[1714174805]

1714174805

[1714174805]

1714174805

[Grand_Voyageur]

Theymos, i think this is almost a must if you expect this forum to continue to have any credibility in the future. Regardless of how many alt accounts are used to vote against it. This is about one of the only ways this place will survive with any credibility.

I've said this in another thread, the problem with surveys is people are only willing to accept votes that validate their own opinions as valid - the others are just fakes or shills, right?

I'm not saying that the poll was rigged. But, can you deny that the poll got very short time span to reflect any substantial opinion ? It started on Januray 5, 2015 and ended on January 10, 2015. Only 5 days to take public opinion about whether DefaultTrust is here to stay or not ? Even the YES was leading initially. NO was leading on the last day and the poll was closed !!! I would request theymos to re-open the poll and keep it running for at least a month.

Active people here already expressed their views. If you cannot deal with the fact a majority expressed their preference to keep the actual Trust system instead of expensive and time consuming one which will be no better or at least equal to the actual one, You have no right to cry havoc hinting the admin rigged the pool!

You are putting a word on my mouth which I never stated. Read my post again. If I remember correctly, YES was leading for 4 days. NO led only for a day and the poll was closed. I just wanted time. Never said it was rigged.

Time to grow more sockpuppets to alter poll results and force theymos' hand? You seems to have the most to gain from such an outcome and you seems to already have an habit to create accounts for such purposes.

Yah... I'm under target of a LOT of people because I got someone removed from DefaulTrust blessing with proper proofs. Read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888960.0 ...Moreover, I am not in -ve as you are showing, because the person who left me -ve is not blessed by DefaultTrust. You are seeing it because of your trust settings. You can also create a 100 sock puppet and leave -ve on me... that does not matter unless you have the DefaultTrust blessing. I kicked the hornet's nest and I know there will be some sting. The point here is you could not come up with a logical reply to my point and hence trying make things personal. Shows your depth indeed.

p.s. Unless you remove your signature, for which you get paid for trolling, do not expect any more reply from me.

I agree with users giving -ve trust feedback to Cloud Mining and Ponzi operators and promoters. I'm also not agreeing with your justification of them being biased because some of them may own shares of one cloud miner. If all (or at least enough) Cloud Mining and Ponzi operators and promoters give -ve trust feedback to rival Cloud Mining and Ponzi operators and promoters, since newbies and other users arewill be made aware they should exercise extreme caution when dealing with ALL them. Moreover, I know my trust setting to be appropriate to me since while I use DefaultTrust I also "modified" it with some addition of people their judgement I trust and also some (more than the addition, of course) exclusion of people their judgement I cannot trust (e.g. known scammers, Ponzi operators, etc.).
My reply to you was not to be personal since I have no interest in discreting you; but, instead it was directed to point out the flaw of your idea since such re-opening of theymos' poll can easily be hijacked by trust abusers' sockpuppet accounts to win their desidered outcome. Moreover, since the Poll was aimed to have active forum members opinion of modifing the Trust system people who were committed to forum were able to say their opinion and even discuss it in this thread. Probably at the time you weren't committed enough to catch the Poll time frame; but this is IMHO not a valid reason to ask for the Poll be reopened. It's like someone who on Election Day not having reached the legal age for voting yet and after him/her being old enough to vote asking to have vote recast since he was not able to take part in it.

P.S. Have you got no better idea to prove me wrong than accusing me of trolling only because I have as scores of people here a paid signature? Poor boy....
P.P.S. Oh shit! You will not reply any more to me? What a pity. However, You don't need being worried about my signature advertising since you're going to be added to my Ignore list soon.

[Raize]

I like the idea of a randomized trust list, but seeing my name is on here makes me worried I'd get random people requesting I remove someone because they just got scammed or because one of the people on my list sold their account or something. I'd feel horrible about that.

Additionally, ngzhang is almost universally-hated on here, but I considered him one of the better contributors to the Bitcoin ecosystem, especially early on with his FPGAs, and it was pretty easy for me to see the problem with Avalon's batch 2 trade-ins lay precisely with BitSyncom and NOT xiangfu or ngzhang.

The first thing I did when I found out about the new Trust system was to remove DefaultTrust and just set up my own. I assumed everyone else did the same. Through my trades it added various layers of the "DefaultTrust" back in, but at least then there were clear indications of why it was added.

I think there's two users of the Trust system, people like me, that just have ratings of actual trades done and scammers they have caught themselves and folks that use it to actually point out and filter potential scammers even though they have never traded with them or verified they are bonifide scammers on their own. Maybe the problem is that I'm using it wrong and what we really need is basically just a scammer-detector system like what the other folks are using it for?

[Grand_Voyageur]

The first thing I did when I found out about the new Trust system was to remove DefaultTrust and just set up my own. I assumed everyone else did the same. Through my trades it added various layers of the "DefaultTrust" back in, but at least then there were clear indications of why it was added.

I suppose that when you started doing so, You were already an established member here or at least knowledgeable enough to be able to not needing decentralized trust networks to assist you when dealing with other forum members. I'm not in DefaultTrust but I've realized when i was a junior member that, while useful in giving me a feedback on someone new, I cannot blindy trust it and so I started adding my own exclusion to it by prefixing known scammers, ponzi operators & other people that i cannot trust with a tilde (~) before their usernames. Sometime I also add a few people i trust to my own trust list. I try to do my best to keep my trust list update but I suppose that until I reach Legendary status I cannot have a trust list complete enough to avoid having DefaultTrust included in it.

I think there's two users of the Trust system, people like me, that just have ratings of actual trades done and scammers they have caught themselves and folks that use it to actually point out and filter potential scammers even though they have never traded with them or verified they are bonifide scammers on their own. Maybe the problem is that I'm using it wrong and what we really need is basically just a scammer-detector system like what the other folks are using it for?

I don't think you are wrong, since the two behaviour can co-exist between the same user. Feedbacks can be given both if you were actually scammed or if you STRONGLY believed that the person is a scammer.

Of course you have to base your feedback on evidence you have link in the reference field. If you follow such rules I think your feedback maybe legit and can be verified allowing other members to independently consider if following such advice or not. I think feedback without a reference link should not be given and if they are they should not trusted due to the impossibility to be independently verified by others. Also if a user give such unverifiable trust feedbacks you could prefix his username with a tilde (~) in your own trust list to exclude his feedbacks.

[BitCoinDream]

Votes:

For the new system

Against the new system

theymos HostFat gmaxwell PsychoticBoy qwk $username alexrossi Welsh kcud_dab matt4054 LaudaM Blazr EnJoyThis sardokan Beastlymac alani123 Eal F. Skillz BitCoinDream redsn0w hopenotlate mitzie moreia criptix takagari Muhammed Zakir Shallow rugrats onemorebtc blablaace Gleb Gamow Sumerian Reynaldo justinetime geforcelover abyrnes81 kepo07 hexafraction Dalyb

OgNasty Tomatocage Vod MrTeal Foxpup BitcoinEXpress MiningBuddy iCEBREAKER GIANNAT KWH haploid23 dogie freedomno1 medUSA bitcoininformation Blazedout419 forzendiablo niktitan132 jdany TheGambler TookDk hilariousandco koshgel Keyser Soze cexylikepie deadley david123 siameze coinits Parazyd bitbaby Gyfts MadZ bassguitarman ABitNut inigthz Quickseller twister Katsou Superhitech Grand_Voyageur Plutonium

The vote is split fairly evenly, so this isn't very helpful. But I've decided to table this particular proposal for now.

Theymos clearly stated that the poll verdict does not mean anything over here as it seems that the votes are split fairly evenly. Hence, I think, there is no point in arguing that the idea is tabled because NO won the poll.

[galbros]

Sorry to necro this thread. 

However, given the large number of recent posts and complaints about the trust system, default trust, and how people who are trusted sometimes behave I thought it might be useful to remind people that theymos has considered alternatives and it was a pretty evenly split vote on moving to something new. 

For those of you who are unhappy, you may want to outline your alternative and see if you can get some agreement on an alternative as theymos is clearly not determined that the current system continue no matter what.  His proposal here may be a useful starting point for your thinking.

Good Luck!

[tspacepilot]

Sorry to necro this thread. 

However, given the large number of recent posts and complaints about the trust system, default trust, and how people who are trusted sometimes behave I thought it might be useful to remind people that theymos has considered alternatives and it was a pretty evenly split vote on moving to something new. 

For those of you who are unhappy, you may want to outline your alternative and see if you can get some agreement on an alternative as theymos is clearly not determined that the current system continue no matter what.  His proposal here may be a useful starting point for your thinking.

Good Luck!

Thanks, galbros, this thread is really relevant to recent issues re the trust system and it's not one that I had seen previously.  One thing this really brings home to me is that it seems like theymos definitely would have preferred a more distributed trust network---one in which people are actively adding and removing people based on their own experiences.  The current system gives us the tools to add and remove people, but because a vast majority of people do not add or remove or modify, they're really little point in doing so yourself.  Default trust has become "standard trust" and like-it-or-not, changing your own settings away from the standard just makes you out of the loop.

It's a little bit of a critical mass problem, in my opinion.  I think something like this proposal would be very valuable, I especally like the part of confronting a user with their own trust setting and forcing them to actively choose something/someone.  Having chosen, they'll be more aware that they can revist those choices.  The part about offering the "top 30" might have been problematic in this proposal, but I really see value in trying to get the wonderful personalization tools of the trust system more active.

[zazarb]

Too long topic to read full, I would just find out , or this proposal (to 30 users will be suggested)
already have effect, or just stayed proposal?
regards
-zz

[--Encrypted--]

Too long topic to read full, I would just find out , or this proposal (to 30 users will be suggested)
already have effect, or just stayed proposal?
regards
-zz

theymos decided not to replace it (for now). read the colorful quote above.

[Athertle]

already have effect, or just stayed proposal?

I'm sure that if the proposal had gone into effect then there would be no DT right now, and you would be voting for the users instead.

[tspacepilot]

already have effect, or just stayed proposal?

I'm sure that if the proposal had gone into effect then there would be no DT right now, and you would be voting for the users instead.

That's not right.  This proposal was to force each newbie account to choose someone to trust in order to bootstrap the trust system.  You're right that if it had gone into effect, the notion of "default trust" wouldn't exist, or at least not as we understand it.  But there wasn't going to be a vote for users, the beauty of this proposal was that people wouldn't just have the matching trust lists by default which most people have at the moment.

[otrkid70]

"Default Trust"    Why?

How about Earned trust?     I have  based all my transactions on established "Earned" feedback from buyers and sellers. I scrutinize all the feedback.

I could care less if a "Default trust" user has posted on a persons trust rating that he or she is credible UNLESS that person has done business with them.

Take Ebay for Example there is no Default trust list.....Your worthiness is based upon your successful transactions not because the creator says these people should be trusted.
I have placed trust in people with 0 Feedback by doing business with them and have also Denied doing business with a so call "Trusted" member.

there are many that have been or on the Default trust list that i would not trust a dime with.

My ratings have been based on transactions with other users.....Not by a user that some claim i should trust.

[qwk]

Take Ebay for Example there is no Default trust list.....Your worthiness is based upon your successful transactions not because the creator says these people should be trusted.

You're 100% mistaken.
There is a default trust list with Ebay.
It encompasses all users of Ebay.

If it weren't for a default seed of trust, any trust network would be utterly useless.

The reasons why we can't just include all users in the default trust seed of bitcointalk are obvious and have been discussed at length.

[Cointoli]

This discussion is almost year old and default trust still dominate the forum. Those with default trust are "gods" here... Joke

[otrkid70]

Take Ebay for Example there is no Default trust list.....Your worthiness is based upon your successful transactions not because the creator says these people should be trusted.

You're 100% mistaken.
There is a default trust list with Ebay.
It encompasses all users of Ebay.

If it weren't for a default seed of trust, any trust network would be utterly useless.

The reasons why we can't just include all users in the default trust seed of bitcointalk are obvious and have been discussed at length.

I disagree. Ebay users have earned their trust ratings through selling and buying transactions.  they were not given their ratings by default.

[bitcoin revo]

Take Ebay for Example there is no Default trust list.....Your worthiness is based upon your successful transactions not because the creator says these people should be trusted.

You're 100% mistaken.
There is a default trust list with Ebay.
It encompasses all users of Ebay.

If it weren't for a default seed of trust, any trust network would be utterly useless.

The reasons why we can't just include all users in the default trust seed of bitcointalk are obvious and have been discussed at length.

I disagree. Ebay users have earned their trust ratings through selling and buying transactions.  they were not given their ratings by default.

Of course not. Default trust isn't trust by default; people on the default trust become trusted as they spend time on the community doing trustable things. No one here registers and finds themselves with +4 DT trust ratings.

[qwk]

Take Ebay for Example there is no Default trust list.....Your worthiness is based upon your successful transactions not because the creator says these people should be trusted.

You're 100% mistaken.
There is a default trust list with Ebay.
It encompasses all users of Ebay.

If it weren't for a default seed of trust, any trust network would be utterly useless.

The reasons why we can't just include all users in the default trust seed of bitcointalk are obvious and have been discussed at length.

I disagree. Ebay users have earned their trust ratings through selling and buying transactions.  they were not given their ratings by default.

You disagree simply because you obviously don't understand the trust system, at all.
People on DefaultTrust have no "rating" whatsoever from being on DefaultTrust.
I.e., if you were on DefaultTrust but had no positive feedback from anyone, your trust rating would be 0. Zero.
You don't profit from being on DefaultTrust yourself. People whom you trust profit from it.

[Quickseller]

Take Ebay for Example there is no Default trust list.....Your worthiness is based upon your successful transactions not because the creator says these people should be trusted.

You're 100% mistaken.
There is a default trust list with Ebay.
It encompasses all users of Ebay.

If it weren't for a default seed of trust, any trust network would be utterly useless.

The reasons why we can't just include all users in the default trust seed of bitcointalk are obvious and have been discussed at length.

I disagree. Ebay users have earned their trust ratings through selling and buying transactions.  they were not given their ratings by default.

It is very easy to fake trades here, and many scammers give themselves fake trust feedback. This is somewhat mitigated on eBay because it cost money to engage in a trade (you need to pay the eBay fees), although that is not to say that all eBay trades are legitimate.

[Blazr]

It is very easy to fake trades here, and many scammers give themselves fake trust feedback. This is somewhat mitigated on eBay because it cost money to engage in a trade (you need to pay the eBay fees), although that is not to say that all eBay trades are legitimate.

Feedback buying and account buying/selling on eBay is actually quite common.  On eBay the feedback number displayed next to your username is a total of your buying/selling feedback, so buying stuff increases it. So many sellers will list ebooks for sale for $0.01. Other sellers then buy $10 worth these ebooks to get 1,000 feedback or so to prop up their reputation. IMO the eBay feedback system does have some advantages over the system here but it wouldn't work here and it still has widespread manipulation and is favorable for sellers (for example eBay lets high trust high volume sellers delete a set number of feedback per year to remove fake feedback) .

[Balmain]

Take Ebay for Example there is no Default trust list.....Your worthiness is based upon your successful transactions not because the creator says these people should be trusted.

You're 100% mistaken.
There is a default trust list with Ebay.
It encompasses all users of Ebay.

If it weren't for a default seed of trust, any trust network would be utterly useless.

The reasons why we can't just include all users in the default trust seed of bitcointalk are obvious and have been discussed at length.

There is no default trust in eBay. Every user has same weigh on feedbacks. You need to be directly in part of the trade to leave feedback, different than Bitcointalk.