Quote from: suchmoon on Today at 04:10:47 AM

Quote from: eddie13 on Today at 03:27:57 AM

Positive should be indicators of actually having done some sort of business/trade, risk or not.. Just having made successful trades is a good indicator that they aren’t here just trying to scam..

No. That's a recipe for trust farming. Just go buy some trinkets from someone who hands out ratings to everyone and is in DT (and these days half of the forum is in DT)... no. "Unlikely to scam" should mean something otherwise what's the point.

Hasn't the post-DT100 system somewhat shifted away from (or at least, transformed) business-primary basis for trust dynamics?

Ratings no longer have the "risked BTC" field which would have served to add weighting to positive trust: deals of varying magnitudes are not equivalent. There's more work to be done, now, to determine not only whether you can trust an individual but also how ~~far you can throw them~~ much Bitcoin you can trust them with. I wouldn't say it's a bad thing (except towards new users) in that it incentivizes personalized trust system use but the execution could be improved.

As an example, my positive trust rating is 19 (as of now, via DT-base) compared to DarkStar_'s 54. Should I be trusted with a corresponding 35% of the value DarkStar_ typically transacts? Abso-fucking-lutely not. How much should I be trusted with at this point? Who can tell? There are no risked amounts and you'd have to develop a case file, researching the feedback and references just to determine my scam threshold!

Dilution of the trust system means that each user must be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis: not only do you need to effectively run a DFS to gather the full scope of who is/isn't trustworthy starting from any particular individual, but you need to continually do this as the 100-tribunal cycles and as lists, opinions, and users are updated.