Petition to get rid of or fix the default trust system

[Quickseller]

You don't really get any reward for being on default trust

Tell that to TradeFortress. He was able to use his position on DefaultTrust to gain a really high trust score.

TF was one of the most trusted people on here before the current trust system was even put into place (at least this is my understanding). No trust system is going to protect people from long term con men who spend a lot of time building up trust. IMO in our current system it would be more difficult to manipulate your trust score 

[BG4]

You don't really get any reward for being on default trust

Another thing I REALLY hate about the current system is that if you are on DefaultTrust you are much less likely to be negged by someone else, as they will fear retaliation feedback.

I thought that's what Alt accounts are for?

[Blazr]

TF was one of the most trusted people on here before the current trust system was even put into place (at least this is my understanding).

Not at all. He only had one highly suspicious looking lending website. He became "trustworthy" once he was put on DefaultTrust and was able to use it to silence people who tried to express concerns and reward people who sided with him. And when he was taken off of DefaultTrust theymos actually had to rewrite most of the trust systems algorithms because everyones rating were completely broken as a large branch of the trust system had been cut off.

I thought that's what Alt accounts are for?

Your alts feedback won't have as much weight unless it is also trusted, and if it is then you are still exposing yourself to retaliation feedback.

[BG4]

TF was one of the most trusted people on here before the current trust system was even put into place (at least this is my understanding).

Not at all. He only had one highly suspicious looking lending website. He became "trustworthy" once he was put on DefaultTrust and was able to use it to silence people who tried to express concerns and reward people who sided with him. And when he was taken off of DefaultTrust theymos actually had to rewrite most of the trust systems algorithms because everyones rating were completely broken as a large section of the system had been cut off.

I thought that's what Alt accounts are for?

Your alts feedback won't have as much weight.

This is what Im talking about  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=228602


seems this is want this account was opened for...

[Blazr]

This is what Im talking about  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=228602

Hes not on my trust list, when I click on your trust page I don't see his feedback. Whoever it is is just wasting their time as their feedback has no weight.

[Quickseller]

TF was one of the most trusted people on here before the current trust system was even put into place (at least this is my understanding).

Not at all. He only had one highly suspicious looking lending website. He became "trustworthy" once he was put on DefaultTrust and was able to use it to silence people who tried to express concerns and reward people who sided with him. And when he was taken off of DefaultTrust theymos actually had to rewrite most of the trust systems algorithms because everyones rating were completely broken as a large branch of the trust system had been cut off.

Very interesting. I was under the impression that he had high ratings on bitcoin-OTC prior to default trust being setup.

Using the trust system to silence critics is really no longer something that is acceptable and will likely result in the removal of someone from their position on the default trust network now. There have been several people who were removed recently (maybe closer to 2 but still) for using their position on default trust to silence others. People now also seem to be more willing to speak up about being silenced via negative trust .

[Blazr]

TF was one of the most trusted people on here before the current trust system was even put into place (at least this is my understanding).

Not at all. He only had one highly suspicious looking lending website. He became "trustworthy" once he was put on DefaultTrust and was able to use it to silence people who tried to express concerns and reward people who sided with him. And when he was taken off of DefaultTrust theymos actually had to rewrite most of the trust systems algorithms because everyones rating were completely broken as a large branch of the trust system had been cut off.

Very interesting. I was under the impression that he had high ratings on bitcoin-OTC prior to default trust being setup.

That was pirateat40.

TradeFrortress had actually been very questionable for many reasons, I recall one incident where he (allegedly and I'm only IIRC'ing here so I'm sure I got some facts wrong) he had built a site from someone, and then later he found a vulnerability in it so he hacked the site and transferred away all the bitcoins in the sites wallet. He then however contacted the owner and returned the funds, but later on he tried to hack the site again even after the owner specifically told him to stay away. The owner got negged to death by TradeFortress and his friends when the trust system came in. There was also the ripple issue where he tried to point out a "flaw" in Ripple by asking people to trust him with funds on Ripple and a number of users had their bitcoins stolen by other people.

Using the trust system to silence critics is really no longer something that is acceptable and will likely result in the removal of someone from their position on the default trust network now. There have been several people who were removed recently (maybe closer to 2 but still) for using their position on default trust to silence others. People now also seem to be more willing to speak up about being silenced via negative trust .

Yeah but it still happens, if i na small way. For example I had left Vod positive feedback and he had left me positive feedback, I had some concerns and wanted to remove my  trust but I knew he would remove the trust he left me and that would affect my score. I did it anyway and he removed mine and my trust score fell like 25%, which sucks, but I can see how someone wouldn't remove the feedback just so they can protect their score.

[BG4]

This is what Im talking about  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=228602

Hes not on my trust list, when I click on your trust page I don't see his feedback. Whoever it is is just wasting their time as their feedback has no weight.

I know I have tried different combinations of people and depths to see what happens to individuals trust level numbers....and how going from depth 2 to depth 3 changes some from green to red.......  

[Quickseller]

TF was one of the most trusted people on here before the current trust system was even put into place (at least this is my understanding).

Not at all. He only had one highly suspicious looking lending website. He became "trustworthy" once he was put on DefaultTrust and was able to use it to silence people who tried to express concerns and reward people who sided with him. And when he was taken off of DefaultTrust theymos actually had to rewrite most of the trust systems algorithms because everyones rating were completely broken as a large branch of the trust system had been cut off.

Very interesting. I was under the impression that he had high ratings on bitcoin-OTC prior to default trust being setup.

That was pirateat40.

Maybe I need to do a better job studying my bitcointalk history

TradeFrortress had actually been very questionable for many reasons, I recall one incident where he (allegedly and I'm only IIRC'ing here so I'm sure I got some facts wrong) he had built a site from someone, and then later he found a vulnerability in it so he hacked the site and transferred away all the bitcoins in the sites wallet. He then however contacted the owner and returned the funds, but later on he tried to hack the site again even after the owner specifically told him to stay away. There was also the ripple issue where he tried to point out a "flaw" in Ripple by asking people to trust him with funds on Ripple and a number of users had their bitcoins stolen by other people.

I think it would be understandable if he took funds from a site and then returned them if it was vulnerable, that is very similar to what johoe did with the funds in all the vulnerable blockchain.info created addresses.

The ripple issue does sound very sketchy. Although it does sound like it is circumstantial evidence he was stealing from them.

Why was he put on default trust in the first place? It is my understanding that he was actually trusted by DefaultTrust so anyone on his trust list was also on default trust list

[Blazr]

Why was he put on default trust in the first place? It is my understanding that he was actually trusted by DefaultTrust so anyone on his trust list was also on default trust list

Theymos said it was because he was one of the few people who actually knew how the trust system worked at the time. At the start theymos added pretty much everyone who used the trust system a lot to DefaultTrust in order to start it off.

I think it would be understandable if he took funds from a site and then returned them if it was vulnerable, that is very similar to what johoe did with the funds in all the vulnerable blockchain.info created addresses.

He should've just diclosed the issue to the owner. I guess It's kind of justifiable, but the owner told him not to hack the site a second time and he attempted to do it anyway. In hindsight it is quite funny because it was TF who coded the site.

[BadBear]

TF was one of the most trusted people on here before the current trust system was even put into place (at least this is my understanding).

Not at all. He only had one highly suspicious looking lending website. He became "trustworthy" once he was put on DefaultTrust and was able to use it to silence people who tried to express concerns and reward people who sided with him. And when he was taken off of DefaultTrust theymos actually had to rewrite most of the trust systems algorithms because everyones rating were completely broken as a large branch of the trust system had been cut off.

I thought that's what Alt accounts are for?

Your alts feedback won't have as much weight unless it is also trusted, and if it is then you are still exposing yourself to retaliation feedback.

He modified it because despite the many negatives he had, he still had positive trust from what he had accrued prior to the "hack". It was the first time for that kind of situation so it was natural it was going to need some tweaking to be more accurate.

Lot of convoluted theories in here. Simplest explanation is that theymos has changed the algorithm, since this is the first major shift in trust on someone who had a lot of positive trust. I noticed that even after 6 or 7 people on the default list had given him neg trust he was still at 17x something.

Right. The Trust system isn't really designed to deal with "long con" situations, but it was performing particularly badly in this case. I changed the algorithm to more severely limit the maximum number of positive trust points you can get per month.

(I'm not saying that TradeFortress is or is not a scammer at this point, but someone with more than 30% negative trust ratings should have a negative trust score.)

I also removed TradeFortress from DefaultTrust (early yesterday), so his entire branch of the trust network is now untrusted by default.

I don't think default trust had as much to do with him being trusted as you think, I think it's more that people just want to blame someone or something besides themselves for being suckered by him.

This is what Im talking about  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=228602

Hes not on my trust list, when I click on your trust page I don't see his feedback. Whoever it is is just wasting their time as their feedback has no weight.

I know I have tried different combinations of people and depths to see what happens to individuals trust level numbers....and how going from depth 2 to depth 3 changes some from green to red....... 

Depth 3 is fairly inaccurate, not enough people use exclusions.

[Quickseller]

I think it would be understandable if he took funds from a site and then returned them if it was vulnerable, that is very similar to what johoe did with the funds in all the vulnerable blockchain.info created addresses.

He should've just diclosed the issue to the owner. I guess It's kind of justifiable, but the owner told him not to hack the site a second time and he attempted to do it anyway.

If there is a vulnerability then there is a race against time to get the funds to safety. It would have been possible that someone else also discovered the vulnerability and could have exploited it if TF didn't hack the site. 

In hindsight it is quite funny because it was TF who coded the site.

I believe there are other allegations that TF coded sites that ended up getting hacked. IDK about their validity though (one way or another).

Depth 3 is fairly inaccurate, not enough people use exclusions.

If you have a custom trust list then even Depth 2 is inaccurate without the heavy use of exclusions. If people are going to customize their trust list then they will likely need to exclude more people then they include because some people just go crazy with their trust lists - some people even add everyone that gives them positive trust to their trust list and some people do not remove people when they turn scammer or otherwise give unreliable trust ratings.

[SpanishSoldier]

Lot of convoluted theories in here. Simplest explanation is that theymos has changed the algorithm, since this is the first major shift in trust on someone who had a lot of positive trust. I noticed that even after 6 or 7 people on the default list had given him neg trust he was still at 17x something.

Right. The Trust system isn't really designed to deal with "long con" situations, but it was performing particularly badly in this case. I changed the algorithm to more severely limit the maximum number of positive trust points you can get per month.

(I'm not saying that TradeFortress is or is not a scammer at this point, but someone with more than 30% negative trust ratings should have a negative trust score.)

I also removed TradeFortress from DefaultTrust (early yesterday), so his entire branch of the trust network is now untrusted by default.

I don't think default trust had as much to do with him being trusted as you think, I think it's more that people just want to blame someone or something besides themselves for being suckered by him.

The main problem with DefaultTrust is that every single person joining this forum is wearing it by default, i.e. wearing the trust is moderated, but when specific complanits are being placed in meta, it is being said that trust is not moderated !!! I think it is more rational to automatically inform a new joinee that something called DefaultTrust exists and he should wear it to identify scammers. But make someone wear something unknowingly and then saying that forum wont take responsibility for its moderation does not seem rational.

You guys built the forum by spending lot of time for free. So you'll know it better what is good for the forum or not. But I think, this is the rational approach...

[smoothie]

In case you missed it with your tunnel vision...see in big bold letters.  

What is so laughable about this is the 9 of you's lack of observation. When it all started, i fully got it. None of you really knew jack about woodworking, and you didnt know any better.

Now......

Smoothie has shown he has a laser, in fact he has burned some wood with a laser and posted pictures. What you children miss is the difference. Wood burned with a laser is darkened, evenly burned around everything that is cut, the wood is clearly scorched and has changed color where the laser hit. Further, the wood burned with a laser is heavily pixelated, when you look at it you can see tons of tiny little dots around the edges of anything it cut, line by line.

At first i just thought you idiots were under educated, and i understood, now i can see that your outright dumb and would believe the moon was purple if someone in your little band of degenerates said so publicly on this forum. You would ride it into the ground, leaving negative feedback for anyone who told you the moon was not purple, you would photoshop pictures of the moon to make it look purple, you would argue that 99.99999999999999% of the world is color blind and thats why they cant see the moon is purple.

But please, tell me what masters of observation and artisans of woodworking you are some more.    I rather enjoy it most days.

Further, if i would have said they were laser engraved, you guys would have argued that they were not, then i would be really fucked as i could never produce my own video of something being lasered because i dont own one.

And what stops you from laser engraving wood, then doing your own touch ups to cover up you are using a laser?.......

I even fully disclosed that the piece I lasered and posted on this forum had ZERO touch ups.

Of course if I wanted to I probably could remove those imperfections (burn marks, rough spots)...but I don't care to cover up my laser "hand-carved" () work.

 

One more thing I would like to add is that the image I lasered was not the highest resolution I could have used to laser on to that piece of wood. Pixelation would not have been as apparent would i have done this. But because I didn't want spend much time doing the piece from start to finish (including the time to setup the image in the software and put my own touch on to it), along with setting up my laser to do the work, and then the actual laser process...this is why you see some pixelation.

Total time it took me was 40 minutes start to finish. 20 min lasering time.

So please don't rule out the fact that the pixelation is always there. It was just there this time because I could care less of the quality of the image I used to make my point.

This was to simply make a point which I believe was heard by many of the users on this forum paying attention.

[erikalui]

I have not found this forum to have a good trust system as people who have not dealt with the user also tend to give him a negative feedback. Also, I have not seen a person getting banned for having negative feedback.