[Suggestion] Feedback should be categorized to the top by customers who on average have the most feedback with different vendors. This would cut out vendors creating their own feedback.

Also backed up with pgp would be another layer. It's so easy for vendors to pad their own feedback, this is just the first thing that came to me as a solution to that maybe we can improve on this.


Comments


[15 Points] sapiophile:

That's a really fucking good idea. It's a tough problem to solve, that of decentralized, trustless reputation. It might even be literally the hardest current problem in security engineering, because there are a lot of moving parts. Immutable identity/key-value store systems like Keybase, BlockStack, BitAlias, DNSChain and/or BlockchainME are probably a good foundation, but the actual best parameters of applying and disbursing reputation are still yet to be determined.

But what you describe would definitely be a big step up, and I'm glad you mention it.


[7 Points] None:

[deleted]


[3 Points] None:

[deleted]


[3 Points] trynakick:

Great idea! Or even just having Alpha bay display the feedback givers buyer level and trust level would be a start.


[1 Points] None:

Awesome idea mate!!!! ;)


[1 Points] irishrugby2015:

Great idea. The first market that implements this make it the standard


[1 Points] stickykitty1:

As a vendor slowly building her business on real feedback, I'd love a system that rewards integrity and levels the playing field. I know other vendors are douchebags and will do whatever it takes to get ahead (I've dealt with some as a buyer), so I'd be happy to be able to succeed with honest business practices. Actually I am succeeding with honest business practices, but it's a lot slower then I would like.


[1 Points] CynicalElephant:

I definitely agree it should be an option, but I think more recent reviews are more important. TGUK would have reviews from tons of people with tons of reviews that would say he was fantastic. But those are old reviews. The more recent reviews would obviously tell you the real truth. I definitely think that is a good idea though, especially for newer vendors.


[1 Points] bodevelho:

I think it would be even easier if you could top by customers that have the most orders with different vendors and not feedback... the reason is most vendors do not bother to give any feedback to customer.

One market where this was possible to view, was agora, you could see all the vendors transactions and if you clicked on the customer nick you could view the customer order history, if the vendor had alot of good feedback from customer with many orders with other vendors I would assume it was not padded and real feedback.. of course in agora I would had to do this work manually by clicking on each customer in the history.. it would hewlp alot if we could have a special report/view for this info..


[1 Points] Vendor_BBMC:

I#m against "weighted" feedback.

Scammers who pad their own feedback aren't vendors:- They are "super customers" who buy all of their stock from other vendors, but spend a lot more bitcoin than you real customers. You would essensially become 2nd-class darknet citizens, who get to buy anything that is left after my "high status" customer has filled his boots.

Scammers always have one buyers account that they are particularly attached to. They use it scam after scam.

If we weight accounts, they will buy up half the drugs, then by purchasing from themselves they will get higher in the listings than the real vendors.

Of course, very few marketplaces run for a whole year. So when they exit scam everybody has to start the whole process again somewhere else.

It should be one man, one vote.

If we DID change that, we should dock weighting for every purchase a customer makes from a vendor who has since been banned, so customers who always buy from scammers are ignored.

Personally, I think the top of the page listings should be for the vendors who have sold the most - measured in total bitcoin. Scammers pad their feedback by listing something very cheap, like cannabis seeds, buying it many times, then changing it's listing title to "28g of 90% cocaine".

Should "5.0/5, 2 deals " be higher than "4.99 / 5, 1000 deals"? And as we all know, 4.98 is a great vendor, 4.90 a bad one, and 4.80 is fucking useless.

Do we want to lock vendors into an anachronism like PGP for another 20 years? I don't use it any more, I use something with modern encryption. I last used PGP when I worked for the UK government in 2001, when a man from GCHQ took our disks away and told us we will get sacked if we are caught using it any longer, because it had been compromised. We had no encryption for a few weeks, then this hastily-assembled GCHQ encryption. "When you get your PGP keys, we get them at the same time" we were told.

Before you all condemn me for not using 20 year old consumer-level encryption (for no other reason than you don't want to stop using it), I signed the official secrets act at least 10 times as I was moved between different government projects at different sites to design their analytical procedures. If I'm arrested, I will get a few years for cooking meth, but life for breaking the OSA a minute ago.

I think there should be a standard "out of five" rating, and also an "average delivery time" rating. because speed of delivery is very important to customers.This would make the slow vendors pull their socks up, and not sell drugs they don't have yet.

Some vendors first become scammers when they list drugs they don't have in their hand yet. But the Lucky Horse Research Chemical Concern, Xianjiou, insists the MXE will arrive "any day now".


[1 Points] None:

Just so do what I do. Buy lottery tickets and pray to satan that you win one day. Withdrawal teh monies...buy from tons of vendors. Do you're own reviews on things, as time permits of course. And then get back to us with detailed reports and such. I would like to spend a good summer doing this kind of thing actually. And by good summer, a summer I can't go do anything really besides work and rest up in between trip reviews. Might be a little habordash but hey, it takes some strong will power. Totally doable if you ask me.

I know that's a somewhat different way to go about hashing out the vendor trials on the lovely DNMs...but it's an idea for foot work. A lot of tooling around to do within the confines of said time, at that. But in the long run, you will not only have spent time finding out which users leave decent reviews, but also how to become a reviewer yourself. For the community ya know.


[-3 Points] ThankYouBasedGodLilB:

I like this ... I like you 😍😍😍😍😍😍😂😂🙌🙌🙌👌👌👌