You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I've already thought of a scoring based system, but I haven't had time to implement it yet. My idea is to include a scoring system where you would rate each person/identity on a percent trust/distrust scale. Everyone would start out at zero. As you complete trades with someone, you can increase your trust in them by raising the scale to a positive percentage. If the trade goes bad, you can decrease the scale into the negative territory.
Then, all of the trust ratings from the people you already trust would be combined with how much they trust someone else to determine your expected trust in an unknown party. I have an idea how to do that, but I don't want to go into detail here.
More thought for this issue is needed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I am reviewing DE implementation by now, and yes it would be great for payment methods that can be reverted later if any. However between bitcurrencies or other negotiable certificates or negotiable contracts (to be implemented) the score of the trader is second to the score of the transaction. Needs careful planning!
Implement a Trust Score.
My notes so far:
I've already thought of a scoring based system, but I haven't had time to implement it yet. My idea is to include a scoring system where you would rate each person/identity on a percent trust/distrust scale. Everyone would start out at zero. As you complete trades with someone, you can increase your trust in them by raising the scale to a positive percentage. If the trade goes bad, you can decrease the scale into the negative territory.
Then, all of the trust ratings from the people you already trust would be combined with how much they trust someone else to determine your expected trust in an unknown party. I have an idea how to do that, but I don't want to go into detail here.
More thought for this issue is needed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: