Quote from: suchmoon on January 11, 2019, 09:11:37 PM

Quote from: KingZee on January 11, 2019, 08:12:28 PM

It CAN be verified manually.

How?

Quote from: KingZee on January 11, 2019, 08:12:28 PM

You speak as if in the current state, you can verify anything at all in trust ratings?

You can check the reference link and other proof presented in the feedback and everyone can decide on their own what level of verification is needed/acceptable.

It's still a manual verification. Just like you can red-tag someone caught posting a fake trust rating, you can red-tag someone who posted a trade with an amount that never happened. I really don't see how such a detail fundamentally changes anything. Every single part of information written in a trust rating cannot be automatically verified.

Quote from: theymos on January 11, 2019, 09:32:54 PM

Quote from: KingZee on January 11, 2019, 07:40:38 PM

@theymos No comment on this suggestion? I have a nice graph too

It's an interesting idea, but I think that trust ratings and trust lists are fundamentally different concepts which shouldn't be mixed. Just because you had a good trade with someone doesn't mean that you trust their judgement generally. For example, your system would tend to strongly amplify long cons like pirateat40, I think.

Also, we're not going to moderate things like "did a trade actually occur, and with x value?".

Like I posted in that post, custom lists arent a solution. You can't just set a custom trust list and live in your own world, so that's why my suggestion forces a decentralized common trust list for everyone. Custom trust lists already mean nothing because only the person using them sees them.

Moderating the trust ratings also becomes the burden of the network itself. Newbies will have little to no weight compared to legendary members, and legendary members also have only a share of contribution compared to trusted legendary members. I honestly think it's possible for the network to calibrate itself. If someone is abusing trust, he's going to be red tagged. If someone is legitimate, he's going to be more and more influencive on the rest of the network and so-on. No centralized trust list needed. If someone's position changes, and he becomes trusted/untrusted after being otherwise, all the ratings specific to this account are going to propagate depending on the change.

Still, I can see that it might be a drastic change and not easy to implement compared to the current solution of updating and reworking the default trust list. Would be fair enough to wait for its results before judging.