Discussion of trading negative trusted accounts

[Berau]

Discussions of nyktalgia's purchased account and whether the negative trust leavers should cancel the negative trust or not.

Original thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973915.0

Please do not post on that thread anymore since the sale has already been completed.

[1714919004]

1714919004

[1714919004]

1714919004

[1714919004]

1714919004

[hilariousandco]

Trust shouldn't be removed just because an account is sold. If this was regular practice people would just fake a sale to themselves in an attempt to get it removed. Accounts should be ruined or lose most of their value once they have used to scam and if people removed feedback under these circumstances scammers could get a lot more for their accounts or as above cheat the feedback into being removed completely.

[Berau]

Trust shouldn't be removed just because an account is sold. If this was regular practice people would just fake a sale to themselves in an attempt to get it removed. Accounts should be ruined or lose most of their value once they have used to scam and if people removed feedback under these circumstances scammers could get a lot more for their accounts or as above cheat the feedback into being removed completely.

IMO if the buyer provides certain credible proof that he's not associated with the seller, then maybe the trust should be changed to neutral, but still providing the same information.

The problem is that the buyer has 0% chance of proving that he's not associated with the seller at all.

[TotalShift]

Did nyktalgia already scammed some people or the negative feedback is created to warn against possible scam in the future?

If it is the latter I believe there is a chance the feedback should be removed if the buyer is an established and trusted that can be proven that he is not an alt of the user who owns the negative accounts.

[hilariousandco]

Trust shouldn't be removed just because an account is sold. If this was regular practice people would just fake a sale to themselves in an attempt to get it removed. Accounts should be ruined or lose most of their value once they have used to scam and if people removed feedback under these circumstances scammers could get a lot more for their accounts or as above cheat the feedback into being removed completely.

IMO if the buyer provides certain credible proof that he's not associated with the seller, then maybe the trust should be changed to neutral, but still providing the same information.

The problem is that the buyer has 0% chance of proving that he's not associated with the seller at all.

How can you prove you're not associated with someone? That can easily be faked anyway and would be abused in the way I detailed above. Scammers would then easily be able to get their accounts restored to normal. If you buy a negatively trusted account then you have bought a negatively trusted account.

[Quickseller]

Below is a PM I sent to two other members who are on default trust who had asked for my opinion on the matter:

I told him that just because an account was sold does not mean that negative trust should be removed.Doing so would create a number of problems.

-It would create more of a market for negative trust accounts, which means that scammers can get something out of their account after scamming.

-After this happens enough (remove negative trust from an account after it scams), account buyers will notice and will start to buy negative trust accounts at a discount which will eventually push up the price of negative trust accounts to near that of neutral trust accounts. This will take away the incentive of people not to scam because they would no longer lose the majority of the value of their account when they are caught scamming.

-It will cause scammers to pretend to sell their accounts with the hope of getting their negative trust account removed. We saw what is likely a number of fake scammer account sales after Vod removed negative trust from someone that bought an account from me, and posted that on my thread.

Below is an additional response to the discussion in hand.

They can redeem themselves with many months of good behavior. For the newbie loan scammers I would remove  negative trust after 30 days of active participation in the forum. For other members, I would say a more appropriate timeframe would be at least 3-4 months, with a more appropriate time frame being somewhere closer to 6 months. If they are involved in any scam attempts or scammy behavior then I would outright decline to remove negative trust. I would consider them actually posting to be considered "good behavior" and not just abandoning their account for the required time period.

If they scammed for smaller amounts then they can repay their victims to get negative trust removed, for larger amounts then their dox gets removed (if they were doxed) but not the negative trust upon repayment.

This is my policy at least. Either of you are free to adopt it or adopt a variation of it, and I am interested/willing to hear what policy you think is best.

[hilariousandco]

Good points. Also, Negative trust depreciates over time and if you get a certain number of positive feedbacks it can become 'neutralised' so there is still salvation for some accounts though negative feedback shouldn't be removed and they should still bare the marks of previous behaviour regardless of who now owns them.

[shorena]

Just to give a quick tl;dr for those that didnt read to original thread:

Nyktalgia did not scam, but acted in a way scammer would. They asked for loans with the account as collateral while at the same time trying to sell the account. In both cases they locked the threads and asked for PMs in order to stop negative posts. If thats indeed the reason is a speculation of mine, but it was enough for me to leave negative feedback as a warning. As a result I got several PMs from nyktalgia asking me to remove the negative feedback and offering me positive feedback in return. In interpreted this as buying trust or rather buying the removal of negative trust.


I also went out on a limb and said that my negative rating would not have an influence on the buyer. After I read Quicksellers opinion on the subject I changed my mind in this regard. I am certainly willing to remove the negative after some time has passed and the new owner is contributing in a positive way.


Regarding the point that the buyer has no chance to prove that they are not acquainted with the seller, I would argue that in this case they look like two different people from timezones at least 8 hours apart. There is also an alt of the seller that was recently reactivated and registered on the same day as nyktalgia.

[Berau]

Did nyktalgia already scammed some people or the negative feedback is created to warn against possible scam in the future?

If it is the latter I believe there is a chance the feedback should be removed if the buyer is an established and trusted that can be proven that he is not an alt of the user who owns the negative accounts.

Based on the feedbacks, it seems like that he was just asking for loans and haven't actually scammed someone.

Trust shouldn't be removed just because an account is sold. If this was regular practice people would just fake a sale to themselves in an attempt to get it removed. Accounts should be ruined or lose most of their value once they have used to scam and if people removed feedback under these circumstances scammers could get a lot more for their accounts or as above cheat the feedback into being removed completely.

IMO if the buyer provides certain credible proof that he's not associated with the seller, then maybe the trust should be changed to neutral, but still providing the same information.

The problem is that the buyer has 0% chance of proving that he's not associated with the seller at all.

How can you prove you're not associated with someone? That can easily be faked anyway and would be abused in the way I detailed above. Scammers would then easily be able to get their accounts restored to normal. If you buy a negatively trusted account then you have bought a negatively trusted account.

Like I said: The problem is that the buyer has 0% chance of proving that he's not associated with the seller at all.

Below is a PM I sent to two other members who are on default trust who had asked for my opinion on the matter:

I told him that just because an account was sold does not mean that negative trust should be removed.Doing so would create a number of problems.

-It would create more of a market for negative trust accounts, which means that scammers can get something out of their account after scamming.

-After this happens enough (remove negative trust from an account after it scams), account buyers will notice and will start to buy negative trust accounts at a discount which will eventually push up the price of negative trust accounts to near that of neutral trust accounts. This will take away the incentive of people not to scam because they would no longer lose the majority of the value of their account when they are caught scamming.

-It will cause scammers to pretend to sell their accounts with the hope of getting their negative trust account removed. We saw what is likely a number of fake scammer account sales after Vod removed negative trust from someone that bought an account from me, and posted that on my thread.

Below is an additional response to the discussion in hand.

They can redeem themselves with many months of good behavior. For the newbie loan scammers I would remove  negative trust after 30 days of active participation in the forum. For other members, I would say a more appropriate timeframe would be at least 3-4 months, with a more appropriate time frame being somewhere closer to 6 months. If they are involved in any scam attempts or scammy behavior then I would outright decline to remove negative trust. I would consider them actually posting to be considered "good behavior" and not just abandoning their account for the required time period.

If they scammed for smaller amounts then they can repay their victims to get negative trust removed, for larger amounts then their dox gets removed (if they were doxed) but not the negative trust upon repayment.

This is my policy at least. Either of you are free to adopt it or adopt a variation of it, and I am interested/willing to hear what policy you think is best.

I agree with you that it creates a demand and a market for negative trust accounts, as I already have noticed at least 3 threads that are WTB negative trusted/banned accounts, and they're probably a result of the selling of nyktalgia's account sales. And at some point an admin or a trusted member has to step out and stop it. Prevention is better than a cure.

For the dox part, even if you remove the dox other people probably have quoted it or noted it down. So removing a dox doesn't really do anything. Also, if we use your policy then the scammer can easily pretend to sell his account to one of his sockpuppets, or just paying off a loan directly to the loaner. The record should still be there, but possibly with neutral trust.

Also nyktalgia's account doesn't seem to have scammed anyone yet, there are just some signs that he's about to scam. What do you think the solution would be in this case?

Good points. Also, Negative trust depreciates over time and if you get a certain number of positive feedbacks it can become 'neutralised' so there is still salvation for some accounts though negative feedback shouldn't be removed and they should still bare the marks of previous behaviour regardless of who now owns them.

May I ask what is the rate the negative trust is depreciating by? But by becoming neutralised you'll still have -ve records, which most signature campaigns don't accept. But either way the buyer didn't negotiate at all, it seems with the feedback leavers to get to some kind of solution, so he should take the responsibility of buying this account and not ask for the negative trust to be edited/removed.

[Berau]

Just to give a quick tl;dr for those that didnt read to original thread:

Nyktalgia did not scam, but acted in a way scammer would. They asked for loans with the account as collateral while at the same time trying to sell the account. In both cases they locked the threads and asked for PMs in order to stop negative posts. If thats indeed the reason is a speculation of mine, but it was enough for me to leave negative feedback as a warning. As a result I got several PMs from nyktalgia asking me to remove the negative feedback and offering me positive feedback in return. In interpreted this as buying trust or rather buying the removal of negative trust.


I also went out on a limb and said that my negative rating would not have an influence on the buyer. After I read Quicksellers opinion on the subject I changed my mind in this regard. I am certainly willing to remove the negative after some time has passed and the new owner is contributing in a positive way.


Regarding the point that the buyer has no chance to prove that they are not acquainted with the seller, I would argue that in this case they look like two different people from timezones at least 8 hours apart. There is also an alt of the seller that was recently reactivated and registered on the same day as nyktalgia.

It can be another guy, who the seller has employed to do this. There is really no proof either way.

[shorena]

-snip-
It can be another guy, who the seller has employed to do this. There is really no proof either way.

Sure, proving a negative is not possible, but I am convinced the two in question are two different people. There also is a way out of the negative trust for the new owner. I have no feedback from redsn0w regarding this, but Im with Quickseller here. If the new owner uses the account in a positive way I see no reason why the account should be tained for eternity.

-snip-

They can redeem themselves with many months of good behavior. For the newbie loan scammers I would remove  negative trust after 30 days of active participation in the forum. For other members, I would say a more appropriate timeframe would be at least 3-4 months, with a more appropriate time frame being somewhere closer to 6 months. If they are involved in any scam attempts or scammy behavior then I would outright decline to remove negative trust. I would consider them actually posting to be considered "good behavior" and not just abandoning their account for the required time period.

If they scammed for smaller amounts then they can repay their victims to get negative trust removed, for larger amounts then their dox gets removed (if they were doxed) but not the negative trust upon repayment.

This is my policy at least. Either of you are free to adopt it or adopt a variation of it, and I am interested/willing to hear what policy you think is best.

[peligro]

Removal of trust for sold accounts shouldn't be done. In that case someone can scam, and then sell the account for good money knowing that the buyer can get rid off the negative trust.

Any buyer of negative trust accounts should get negative trust as they are helping a scammer.

[Berau]

-snip-
It can be another guy, who the seller has employed to do this. There is really no proof either way.

Sure, proving a negative is not possible, but I am convinced the two in question are two different people. There also is a way out of the negative trust for the new owner. I have no feedback from redsn0w regarding this, but Im with Quickseller here. If the new owner uses the account in a positive way I see no reason why the account should be tained for eternity.

-snip-

They can redeem themselves with many months of good behavior. For the newbie loan scammers I would remove  negative trust after 30 days of active participation in the forum. For other members, I would say a more appropriate timeframe would be at least 3-4 months, with a more appropriate time frame being somewhere closer to 6 months. If they are involved in any scam attempts or scammy behavior then I would outright decline to remove negative trust. I would consider them actually posting to be considered "good behavior" and not just abandoning their account for the required time period.

If they scammed for smaller amounts then they can repay their victims to get negative trust removed, for larger amounts then their dox gets removed (if they were doxed) but not the negative trust upon repayment.

This is my policy at least. Either of you are free to adopt it or adopt a variation of it, and I am interested/willing to hear what policy you think is best.

That's actually contradicting with one of his points. If you guys do this, then that will bring the trades for negative trusted accounts more and more popular(Thus bringing the prices for negative accounts up), because there's a pretty simple way of getting rid of the negative trust.

[hilariousandco]

Good points. Also, Negative trust depreciates over time and if you get a certain number of positive feedbacks it can become 'neutralised' so there is still salvation for some accounts though negative feedback shouldn't be removed and they should still bare the marks of previous behaviour regardless of who now owns them.

May I ask what is the rate the negative trust is depreciating by? But by becoming neutralised you'll still have -ve records, which most signature campaigns don't accept. But either way the buyer didn't negotiate at all, it seems with the feedback leavers to get to some kind of solution, so he should take the responsibility of buying this account and not ask for the negative trust to be edited/removed.

All different I think. Depends on several factors including number of negatives and their values, when they were left, then on the opposite all those factors but with positives. You'll notice over time that some accounts are marked as scammers but that will go away after a while and they get an orange number in the middle value. Sometimes even a couple of trusted negatives wont show up if you've got enough green (see marco's account).

Regarding the point that the buyer has no chance to prove that they are not acquainted with the seller, I would argue that in this case they look like two different people from timezones at least 8 hours apart. There is also an alt of the seller that was recently reactivated and registered on the same day as nyktalgia.

It can be another guy, who the seller has employed to do this. There is really no proof either way.

Yep. It may be a legit sale in this case but people will quickly learn to exploit it. Not hard to use a buddy to fake a sale as opposed to using an alt account. Allowing this just sets a really bad precedent and smart scammers will be able to get their account neutralised ready to scam or use again very easily.

[Mitchell]

If you buy an account, you buy everything. This includes debts and trust ratings. These shouldn't be removed just because it's now someone else's property. You wouldn't ask the person who broke a toy you bought from someone else to repair it.

[redsn0w]

-snip-
It can be another guy, who the seller has employed to do this. There is really no proof either way.

Sure, proving a negative is not possible, but I am convinced the two in question are two different people. There also is a way out of the negative trust for the new owner. I have no feedback from redsn0w regarding this, but Im with Quickseller here. If the new owner uses the account in a positive way I see no reason why the account should be tained for eternity.

-snip-

They can redeem themselves with many months of good behavior. For the newbie loan scammers I would remove  negative trust after 30 days of active participation in the forum. For other members, I would say a more appropriate timeframe would be at least 3-4 months, with a more appropriate time frame being somewhere closer to 6 months. If they are involved in any scam attempts or scammy behavior then I would outright decline to remove negative trust. I would consider them actually posting to be considered "good behavior" and not just abandoning their account for the required time period.

If they scammed for smaller amounts then they can repay their victims to get negative trust removed, for larger amounts then their dox gets removed (if they were doxed) but not the negative trust upon repayment.

This is my policy at least. Either of you are free to adopt it or adopt a variation of it, and I am interested/willing to hear what policy you think is best.

I will not remove the negative trust, the new owner knew what he bought. As a lot of you said : it can be impossible to determine if the new owner is not associated with the old, in this case we cannot remove the negative trusts.

[shorena]

-snip-
That's actually contradicting with one of his points. If you guys do this, then that will bring the trades for negative trusted accounts more and more popular(Thus bringing the prices for negative accounts up), because there's a pretty simple way of getting rid of the negative trust.

I dont think contributing in a positive way for 3-6 months would be considered simple by most, especially if they try this as a business model to redeem accounts. Its also only possible for those that got negative feedback as a warning, not for actual scammers.

-rephrasing-
Any buyer of negative trust accounts should get negative trust as they are helping a scammer.

But the account in question did not scam to the best of everyons knowledge they just tried to or arguably have bad trading practices.

[Berau]

Yep. It may be a legit sale in this case but people will quickly learn to exploit it. Not hard to use a buddy to fake a sale as opposed to using an alt account. Allowing this just sets a really bad precedent and smart scammers will be able to get their account neutralised ready to scam or use again very easily.

We can't even be sure that it is a legit sale in this case.

In my opinion: if you buy an account, you buy everything. This includes debts and trust ratings. These shouldn't be removed just because it's now someone else's property.

I agree, but this is a certainly debatable topic.

Wait, were you bitcoininformation or just has the same avatar?

[redsn0w]

If you buy an account, you buy everything. This includes debts and trust ratings. These shouldn't be removed just because it's now someone else's property. You wouldn't ask the person who broke a toy you bought from someone else to repair it.

Exactly, I am agree with you. Maybe after some months and trades he can gain a couple of positive trusts.

[Berau]

-snip-
That's actually contradicting with one of his points. If you guys do this, then that will bring the trades for negative trusted accounts more and more popular(Thus bringing the prices for negative accounts up), because there's a pretty simple way of getting rid of the negative trust.

I dont think contributing in a positive way for 3-6 months would be considered simple by most, especially if they try this as a business model to redeem accounts. Its also only possible for those that got negative feedback as a warning, not for actual scammers.

-rephrasing-
Any buyer of negative trust accounts should get negative trust as they are helping a scammer.

But the account in question did not scam to the best of everyons knowledge they just tried to or arguably have bad trading practices.

Yeah, well IMO it's pretty simple.

If a guy can just post a post or two to show someone that he's still online and active etc., then it would be very profitable when they can buy accounts in bulk and when the negative trusts are gone, resale it for a much higher price, thus reaping a large profit.

If the account is a hero or legendary(I doubt though), then the owner probably want his personal account back, and probably would consider this method of removing his negative trust. But I think if we still can leave a record that the account has previously received a negative feedback by giving a neutral feedback, that would be better. Although that some people don't really check the feedbacks but only the trust score, if doing a large deal I'm sure that the dealer will be careful enough to check it.

Anyone is entitled to their opinion though, and in this case I respect Quickseller's personal opinion.