There is nothing anyone can do to prove they are trustworthy. Someone can only be proven to be untrustworthy, and that's only after they've scammed someone, not before.
I disagree on every level except the binary "someone is trustworthy or they aren't" level. I'd rather invest in a just-dice created by dooglus than most other forum members. Trustworthiness is not a bit, it's a gradient.
I agree that there are levels of trustworthiness and we all have different criteria for deciding who we want to trust, but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing someone can do to prove that they will never violate that trust.
This statement is a little wonky. "Proving that they will never violate trust" is an absolute: it's white, 1, one bit. Levels of trustworthiness are probabilities that the person will not violate the trust.
I can consider someone to be very trustworthy, but there is nothing they can do to prove that they are absolutely trustworthy and will not scam you in the future. Nothing wonky there, just a simple fact.
You said:
there are levels of trustworthiness
but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing someone can do to prove that they will never violate that trust.
i.e.
trust is a gradient
attaining 100% trust is impossible
This was in defense of:
There is nothing anyone can do to prove they are trustworthy.
Someone can only be proven to be untrustworthy, and that's only after they've scammed someone, not before.
i.e.
attaining 100% trust is impossible
attaining 0% trust is possible
To which I had responded,
I disagree on every level except the binary "someone is trustworthy or they aren't" level. I'd rather invest in a just-dice created by dooglus than most other forum members. Trustworthiness is not a bit, it's a gradient.
i.e.
attaining partial trust is possible
Do you see how your statement doesn't contradict mine?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean when you say, "I disagree on every level except the binary 'someone is trustworthy or they aren't' level." What is it specifically that you disagree with?
Yes, there is more than one way to make money, but if what I'm doing now works, why bother? Thanks, but if I want to make/risk more money, all I need to do is invest more.
There are only two ways I can interpret this statement:
0. You (nimda) do not provide a higher reward/risk than my current options AND
1. My current options are perfectly scalable OR
2. My investable money is less than the amount needed to break #1, i.e. bringing its reward/risk lower than your option
I'm skeptical of #0 (i.e. both ways) and #1.
Huh? There's nothing to interpret. You're reading way too much into my statement. There is no hidden message to decipher.