Bitcoin Forum

Local rules - anyone can reply who can substantiate their post with observable events or facts. No person can voice opinion without presenting credible evidence to substantiate it. Else I would like their post removed like mine always are even when they are on topic, relevant and supported with credible evidence or observable events.


Originally I noticed the DT new mechanism hinged upon they key positions of 100 earned merits.

Who here told coaxed Theymos to up it to 250 earned merits?

My money is on suchmoon? seems to have too much influence here like instructing him to remove my merits from an objectively merit worthy post that stood worthy of merit (compared to most of the trash she merits) regardless of honest intent as specified by the merit source.

My question remains unanswered as to what the reasoning is on upping it to that level since we know that centralises it greatly to the same people that ride the merit-merry-go-round

What is the point of making a pseudo decentralised system that actually just centralises it and places firm control of DT into the hands of those that observably

1. cycle merits amongst themselves.
2. collude to include each other on DT
3. collude to exclude mostly the same members from DT
4. Can be seen discussing and colluding if key trust support should be pulled or given depending on others trust lists essentially cherry picking who they want in the trust system.
5. Wtf has merit got to do with trust? A long history here is far more important. Since if you have not done anything untrustworthy for 5 years then you are more trustworthy than those getting merits from proven untrustworthy persons for supporting their agendas and ideologies to me. Also that account is far more valuable since it will take years to replace -- no short cuts. So if you are risking something far more valuable then you are less likely to scam.


This is not decentralising it it is centralising it and at the same time allowing free speech to be crushed on this board.



I would like to know

1. who told theymos to raise to 250 merits?
2. why it would not be better to make it 100 earned merits + 1500 activity or even 2000 activity?
3. some trading history perhaps??

It would then

1. decentralised DT far more
2. take much longer to power up an account for DT hence giving more history to examine before trusting
3. make it harder to collude for the observable colluders in the merit-merry-go-round
4. free speech gets a break from the jack boot of the merit/dt colluders.
5. If you have been here years you are far more likely to be wealthy and not need to scam like noobs. Your account is also far far harder to replace now. You are talking years not just a few months like some DT have been here.


Let's revise it to 100 earned merits and 1500 activity. That is a much more important account to lose and will become more so over time.

I see a bunch of noobs on DT that have no place being there only to serve their merit merry go round masters and serve their direct will. They have no history to examine and their accounts are not worth much in terms of replication. Some are barely snr members?

The entire thing is observable ludicrous.

The old system was far better than this.

Even up it to 2000 activity hence if you are proven untrustworthy and black listed then that is going to be YEARS to replace that account under a sock.

Throw in the requirement for 50 successful trades if you want.  Although of course that can be gamed.

It can all be gamed to an extent it is just making it harder and harder to game that is the key.

I see ZERO improvement here so far using this new pseudo decentralised system for trust. Let's revise it to be truly decentralised. Let's get some sensible elder members on DT and those that have ZERO untrustworthy deeds in their OWN history here.

You don't have judges who are proven previous criminals do you? or proven liars? or those that clearly demonstrate sneaky and greedy actions for financial reward?? wtf is this board turning into?  These people should be the ones glowing red not the ones painting honest members accounts red and only allowing their "pals" onto DT to condone and add support to their wrongdoing.

I've been watching this and now that this bunch of colluders are firmly entrenched in the DT system there is no way to see them removed unless by their own will. Since they are all mostly "merit" sources too the entire thing is completely ludicrous.




 

I like the concept of merit recycling, so I've changed my personal text to reflect this. :)

The original proposal was 100 earned merits.  The first time someone appeared to question the rationale behind that appears to be this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49142208#msg49142208) by LFC_Bitcoin.  Then o_e_l_e_o commented here  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49143950#msg49143950) that it was "not a particularly high bar to be set".  The first reference I can find to 250 merits is TMAN's post here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49144172#msg49144172).

I think it's unlikely any one person specifically instructed theymos to change it, but with several people calling it into question, it probably prompted a judgement call.

I broke the cycle and gave you a merit.


We have to keep in mind that the merit system has only been around for a year and a couple months. So, 250 may seem like a lot now, but a year from now it might not seem like that at all.

Perhaps he reviewed how the new system would work and adjusted accordingly.

LOL, I'm not gonna quote the OP out of respect for those who have her on ignore but if I have such enormous influence over theymos I'd like to ask him to change her rank from Legendary to Whiny Bitch.

The requested 100 merit / 2000 activity threshold fits the OP's account and doesn't fit some other accounts whom the OP has a grudge against. What a coincidence. Not sure though if the OP grasps the difference between voting for DT1 and being eligible for DT. Probably not.

Don’t know about you guys, someone did PMed me to join a group of people wanting to oust DT1. I don’t want to join any group, I just want to have some chill chill way of reading and do whatever I want here. Some people are excited on testing Epochtalk (I’m one of them), and still at this juncture are some people talking about merit + DT1, you can try and test it here -> https://www.cryptos-currencies.com. Feel enthusiastic on new stuff. I know you want change, you’re not a shitposter (IMO), you can do better than these.

Feels like some people here are living in an era wherein they want change, but, they are not doing anything to change it and just do some activities that will hindrance that change they want. Managing forum is not easy; voice out what you think is right is enough, stop reverberating it – like a broken record.

I am not against OP or group of people - the situation.

I'm not sure what I'm going to feel about that, focusing on ousting from DT1 or something. I support your stand in not joining any group or something. It's best to watch and eat popcorn, lol.

I'm just seeing this now and I know that there is the plan to have a new forum or something. I visited the link and I have seen familiar usernames there. I joined it also but didn't post anything yet, just read some stuff.

I think that this is a natural way of life. It happens in the real world, in a country, a state, a city, and wherever there are differences towards individuals in how the ruling power rules or something. If it's the right thing, it will go right, but if not then it won't.

So you will not stop DT-talk and Merit-talk. Do you? Your total concept based on remove new faces from DT1. 250 earned merit is not better than 100 earned merit? So why you always mention about activity? Lot of account here with more then 1500+ activity but they didn't earned a single merit. So he is newbie in my opinions since already 1 year+ merit system implemented. What kind of trading history are you want to suggest? Forum isn't involved with any trading and I don't think it will happen on future. No one told theymos to increase 250 merit, its came out from discussion. And theymos have enough knowledge to take decision.

As suchmoon said you want only eligible yourself on voting system ;). Still you could vote 11 DT1 by 10 merit each. Learn to stay happy with whatever you have.

Its ironic that OP asks such a loaded question with no proof that Theymos was told to do anything, yet requires posts here to offer proof to back up whatever is stated.

I don't think it's likely that Theymos was listening to anyone in particular when he made the 250 merit thing.  He's always struck me as the type of person who reads suggestions and weighs the pros and cons but who usually does something that only resembles what was suggested.  He's certainly bright enough to have come up with that figure on his own, and I think that's exactly what happened.

Did cryptohunter and his posse really expect to immediately take over DT?  That sounds like extremely delusional thinking, and if you need a reference for a history of that, just take a quick glance at his post history, which I won't bother to link to since I'm writing this on my phone.

Hmmm

So I see in this thread so far.

1. No rebuttal to my claims that 100 merits + 2000 activity (1500min) is superior in the terms that I already laid out.
2. A bunch of merit cyclers that benefit from these easily gamed and subjective systems making false claims as to why I am suggesting that it should be changed to 100 merits + 2000 activity.
3. Some noob ass lickers (@coolcryptovator merit source wannabe)  telling me they are to be trusted more than some legends I have known here for nearly 6 years who have held at points millions of dollars of crypto and never once abused that. Whilst making false statements to ass lick his master suchmoon. CAN YOU GUESS WHO IS TOP MERIT FAN IS??? YES YOU HAVE IT ---SUCHMOON?? the merit merry-go-round (not political at all)
4. People commenting here who are proven untrustworthy and have no place commenting on a trust system.
5. Jetcash an observable joke of a member who is terrified of even reviewing evidence of wrong doing (yeah great one for DT and merit source)


@The Pharmacist AKA Huge Black Woman - Merit source and DT1

Can you give me one reason I should believe anything that you say since you are a proven greedy sneaky devious racist trolling sig spammer using sock puppets to grind more btc dust from this board?

Someone who claims his crowning achievement here is joining a "highly paid sig campaign"  ?

I thought I was on ignore? what happened with that?

How do you have the bare faced effrontery to even comment on a trust system? and when I see you lecturing others on financially motivated shit posting I keep thinking your account must be hacked or you have lost your mind entirely.

Keep spamming  your sig under those net negative shit posts and you will soon have enough to afford another computer. How are you staking your  pivX that I sold you? on your phone?

@suchmoron

I see another false claim from you here again. I have said I have no desire to be on DT at all ever. So that nulls your latest piece of net negative dirt you have contributed to the board. Let's change it on the proviso that I am auto blacklisted from DT ( i have no time for snitching around for small time shit like you all day - I tackle scams as I always have HEAD ON  not crying here on meta and snitching to higher authorities)  Never mind whiny bitch "Alex", now that I have seen what you (apparently don't) look like then we should change your rank to drab snitchy bitch.

Also you told me in black and white that good poster /bad poster were MEANINGLESS without criteria and definition?? Now you want to use merit as some objective score with that means great poster and indicates the level of trust you can place on them?? Please bitch stop contradicting yourself over and over in public.

Again - I thought I was on ignore? what happened?

So again. Present a sensible argument for why we have 250 merits for key trust determining positions when it is observably gamed cycled junk that is misleading with regards post quality and has nothing to do with trust)

As if any system would provide.

1. financial motive for abuse
2. no framework at all to guard against abuse
3. reward the abusers with the potential to crush free speech and silence dissenters ?
4. assign trust to those that observably game and abuse the systems the most LOL


Let's just remove merit for anything other than leveling up past snr
Lets make DT 100 earned merits and 2000 activity + some observable trading activity if you want.

I have better suggestion, all members can vote (with small requirement to prevent abuse), but have different vote weight/power which based on sigmoid function. The hard part would be choosing which function is used and set it's notation value.

But DT system can't be perfect and most of user's suggestion only change or add more attack vectors.

---

I'll just requote my own post. TLDR : DT system has always been and will be centralized.

I would rather have it centralised where one person whom is fully accountable and seemingly fair (and does not overly set to silence free speech)  has total control of a trust system than I would see it pseudo decentralised to a bunch of people that contain many proven untrustworthy persons of ill repute who will try to use red trust for selfish means.

I care nothing for being on DT or merit source. I will willingly be blacklisted from all that if we can construct systems of control here that are not being used to silence free speech.

Theymos although seemingly taken in by the likes of suchmoon and even lauda and overtly and openly calls such double standards untrustworthy scum "excellent members" he himself does not seem to want to silence free speech because he could quite easily do so.  I would rather have 1 person who is fairer (albeit in my opinion mislead in key areas by observably untrustworthy and rotten scum) have control of a trust system rather than hand it off to a bunch of persons that are crushing free speech.

I have been told as I have said some legends and other members support what I am saying but fear to speak out for themselves. This board must not allow this kind of sentiment. People must be free to say what the fuck they like as long as they are not scamming or promoting scamming projects or ripping people off - then they must not be silenced or threatened with red trust for saying things that goes against a small group of persons personal agendas. Absolutely they must not get red trust for presenting facts regarding the wrong doing of those that are part of the DT system.


Having said all of that. If we have to have it decentralised let us at least make a real attempt at making it decentralised and not wide open to gaming and abuse motivated by self rewards that result in free speech being crushed and a pseudo decentralised dangerous system. Let's tighten it up or go back to Theymos says who is in the trust system and he puts clear guidelines for red trust and also hopefully criteria a post must meet to be merit worthy.

I accept that we just change the attack vectors but surely we can make it harder to abuse that it currently is. It is wide open and offers motive and reward for doing so.

I don't think theymos needs to be told anything.  I also assume that he spends much more time looking at the data than most, and likely is just trying to make the best decision in the interests of the forum.

Really? well i notice suchmoon told him to remove my merits and he did it. So needing to be told is one thing but allowing yourself to be cajoled has the same outcome.

I don't doubt this. However trying is not always the same as doing. Perhaps "together" the board can help analyse this "data" and provide a better system. I see no reason at all for "merit" being the sole determinant for the key positions in a trust system. This simply places the key positions with those that have proven once that they will selfishly hoard and cycle merits as we have established happens... but the explanation is simply we find each other to be the best posters in ....well our opinion.

Hence why we have proven untrustworthy scum in these key positions.
Better to have no systems than systems that reward untrustworthy persons and allow them to stifle the free speech of honest members whilst being rewarded for their foul actions.

I would like to see the NEGATIVES for making it 100 earned merits + 2000 (perhaps 1500) activity. Plus perhaps some trading activity.

Would the users with 10 Merit also require 1500 Activity to have a vote? If you make clear criteria, I'll get you a DT1-election: Rank up pipeline (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5107427.0) that fits your ideas.

No. That would be only for the key positions.

Although perhaps a 3-6 month min activity should be considered for those. This to me does not seem so important. Although tightening it up wherever possible if you want REAL "trust" to be a factor could be suitable. Then again unless they are posting on meta or got lucky with some really notable thread the 10 merits should take care of this especially on the boards most REAL noob enthusiasts will be posting the discussion boards or ann section.

You might not see a reason, but other people did.  That's not something you can simply disregard.  And then some people expressed their view that it might warrant being a larger amount of merit than initially suggested, just as a precaution.  It's also worth pointing out that the posts I linked to earlier had no hostility in their tone.  It was merely people demonstrating concern for the overall well-being of the forum and not wanting to see this new system easily gamed or manipulated.  Perhaps that's a view you share, but you're going about it in a very caustic and abrasive way.  There's no need to turn this into a witch-hunt by finding a culprit to blame for the way in which it changed.  I'm sure all the salient points will be evaluated and reviewed, but I don't think your current approach to the issue is doing your cause any favours.  Clearly you feel strongly about the matter, but from what I've seen of your various posts about this, it only seems to provoke hostility from others in return towards you.

It's undoubtedly something theymos is keeping an eye on, as they stated this was a 'see-how-it-goes' kinda deal:

That is a very sensible post and I know actually it to be a truthful account of part of my current situation.

However let's analyse this.

1. Suggesting or debating anything in "meta" is not like discussing it with the entire board. The same few people hang out here who also happen to be the beneficiaries from the "merit" system. WHY? because meta board is merit board. You see more merit handed out here for discussing "merit" than anywhere else. So discussing the importance of "merit" here with those that are the main beneficiaries of the "merit" system is going to be met with a lot of replies about how important merit is for everything under the sun.  

2. Those persons commenting on how LOW 100 earned merits is for DT key positions are.
a/ part of the merit cycling club
b/ meta board posters (99% of the board don't know about meta board or never visit it)
c/ self confessed trust abusers and those that support proven liars and trust abusers knowingly.
d/ have self interest and motive to suggest a higher level
e/tman?? a provably demented and untrustworthy turd. He has never made one original thought inspiring important post ever. I asked him to provide one and he  vanished like a fart in a hurricane. The very notion that anything he says could be a "good" idea obviously ranges anywhere between very unlikely through highly improbable to basically impossible.

3/ Those persons saying that 100 is too low are not considering the activity threshold of 1500 or 2000 so really we can't say they provided any insight into why "merit" alone should have anything to do with trust or why it could be "better" than combining "merit" with activity.


I agree with you that I take a caustic tone of late. However, review my post history for the previous 6 years and you will find that I generally only take this tone with persons that I consider scammers, untrustworthy or that take that tone with me first. I am the victim of blatant trust abuse and will not even consider altering my tone until those scum bags are removed from DT or they undo their trust abuse.  Even then my opinion that those that have demonstrated they are untrustworthy (liars, trust abusers, sneaky sock puppet sig spammers ) or if they are knowingly supporters of untrustworthy persons should be kept away from positions of trust will never change. There is no shortage of legends with clean (free from observably untrustworthy deeds and actions) pasts on this board... we are not that desperate that we need proven liars and self confessed trust abusers and other dirt bags in positions of trust.

Tone though to me should be secondary to content. So I hope those really wanting the best for this board and wish to see free speech flourish here take note of what is currently happening with this board. Regardless of the manner the information is presented. Find the truth that is all that is important.

There are 3 simple options here

1. tighten up the systems to prevent abuse
2. make sure those that would try to abuse them are not part of the systems of control
3. remove the systems

as i warned previously these systems of control set up as they are very dangerous for this movement, better to have no systems of control at all (trust)

merit is good at stopping account farmers. In its current state (merit) it is dangerous to apply any other meaning to it.

Firstly it's a new DT system therefore using activity will just favour a particular set of forum users (early forum users). That's why the merit is been used. With the merit criteria any set of users can be voted into the DT system be them old or new users. Which makes it fair and decentralized to me since theymos doesn't have a say only the community can decide who's voted in or out.

Yes but that is my point.

HISTORY is important. Who do you trust more someone who has not cheated you in the first 5 seconds you are talking to them or someone who has not cheated you for years and years that you have known them?

If I told you to research the post history of someone with 2000 activity and their interactions here and then told you to research someone with 200 activity then you will see you have a lot more material to go on

Merit has nothing to do with trust. History and TIME being honest (free from observable scamming or telling lies or greedy sneaky behaviour for financial reward) does have a bearing on trust (where finances are concerned)

Of course trading history should really be part of the trust system but again I never use it so I am not sure how easy that is to game.

There is NO GAMING/CYCLING/COLLUDING possible with activity.

One of the reasons to introduce the Merit system was massive account farming. Any spammer could earn Activity on as many accounts as he could spam.

Merit ended that.

Well, I very much doubt someone could reach legendary or even hero based upon spam only.

However, yes, I have said many times this is point of merit and for that it works well there should be no other function of merit as it stands now.

Activity tells you how long you have been a member and how active you have been. The post history is there to review. I very much doubt you will find many 2000 activity spammers. Although according to suchmoon "most" pre merit legends are spammers.  I mean plus they need 100 earned merits so they will need to have have some of this too.

It didn't take me long to find a few:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=154284
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=154307
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=70247
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=153384
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=154450
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=152713
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=152424

The first 2 even have the same registration date and were last active on the same date. Many accounts reached high ranks by only posting in Games and rounds (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=71.0). Earning free money for daily posting the same thing used to be an easy way to rank up many alt-accounts.

@cryptohunter, can you describe briefly who is decent user of this forum? Only you? You asked me about my contribution, can I ask you about your fucking contribution on this forum? Just create new useless topic daily and waste forum time. What the fuck man? just always looking on other user's ass. Did you check your ass ? Yea, I have seen real life same like you, they don't have work but always looking on other's ass. Try to change your fucking habit.

Theymos really a kind man since he did not ban you.

I was un-ignored you, thought perhaps I could learn something. But seems you are a fucking teacher. So ignored you permanently.

Edit: Still you are equal Full Member to me. I will consider you Legendary when you can earn appropriate merit.

Please newbie have some respect - - for yourself. Stop asskissing and begging to be a merit source over and over.

Review my entire post histroy.
My contributions here are far more than you can dream about.

Just to mention a few

1. first person to break the dark coin scam and with a few friends, we forced an air drop to be offered that has a value of possibly 2 Billion dollars. Was accused of stopping that becoming the number 1 on coinmarket cap by several of their scammy supporters. So arguably being responsible for stopping btc pushed off top spot ever in its history. I totally believe them that it would have rivaled btc for number 1 position if this huge war on the alt board did not break out about the captive instamine.

2. picking 6 of the top 10 rising projects in the last bull run. Was thanked in pm and in public from persons who went from nothing to millionaires by investing in them. REAL projects that are working to slot in the missing pieces of the end to end trustless decentralised arena here. Yes I shared this knowledge in public before they shot up.

3. First to spot and highlight many LARGE scams and take them on head on in alt discussion when that was actually the main hub here, not reporting and snitching on them just straight head on confrontation and slamming them in public... not the 2 bit crap scam icos only absolute fools would invest in that you seem to think you are preventing. Whilst achieving fuck all apart from whack a mole now.

4. Trying in the face of many gangs like in meta now to force fairer distributions. Later to witness many who fought against me saying later I was correct to push for changes.

5. Making honest and insightful posts like my thread of the year in meta. This is without doubt the most important thread here in the last year. These systems are changing bitcointalk forever. I see no refutation there I see nothing but merit being given to a net negative post that is nothing other than a faux and empty rebuttal.

You are just a nothing noob ass kisser I see nothing except some minor ico crap that nobody ever would invest in anyway except themselves pumping their own apparent investment and some feltching of suchmoon who bestows some merit on your begging ass.

LOL legend wanna be.

Keep begging to be a merit source so you can join the merit merry-go-round, im sure you will get there in the end.

When I see you telling me legends with less cycled merits than you are not your equals I laugh. I can only imagine what smooth, gjhiggins or dzimbeck or any number of real legends would do to your tiny mind in any kind of debate.

I would like to see a comparison between members with 250 earned merit and members with 1500 activity, as in number based.

For the concept of recycling, I propose a new concept / term for the forum merits.
Zero-Wasteful Merits, how about this term?
It is imperfect term, because in reality we can not reach it due to banned accounts and merits own by those banned accounts.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_waste
I give you a classic definition on Zero Waste, that implies a totally reuse, recycle of waste/ trash.

---

By the way, I would prefer to propose another new term for spammers or shit posters.
How about Land-fillers?
I known that you are the first one suggested the term Spambies, LOL.

Not only I suspect are there more with 1500 + I would also suspect you will not find an obvious and direct connection between many of them over the years. Preventing collusion is key in a decentralised system or else it is pseudo decentralisation.

Still DT is a tiny tiny subset and it is also a very much connected and observably tight knit group. This is not at all a good start to a decentralised system.

Imagine having some DT1 that do not hang in meta 24/7  and are not observably part of the merit-merry-go-round.

The topic, published by LoyceV, gives us very transparent, and good overview about what's going on with merit system and merit circulation in the forum.
Top 200 Merit Receivers without Merit from the Top 200 Merit Receivers (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5084723.0)
I thought that the doubt on a circle jerking club was totally answered months ago.

It was answered.

The cycling takes place and is very clearly observable. Im glad that you see that now.

Firstly, you should called me right to show that you respect others, @tranthidung, instead of @trannidung.
Secondly, it is my name, and if you feel badly or ugly with the word, @dung, you should call me as @dzung.
Yeap, dzung poster, and it is totally not related to land-fillers or shit-posters.
dzung, not dung, not shit, OK?

But then again cycled merit is not related to zero waste merit. Sometimes people are confused. We must show patience and forgiveness. Anyone can make a simple error.

Among non-banned users who have been active within the last 30 days:

~450 users with 1500+ activity.
~90 users with 100+ earned merits and 1500+ activity.
~100 users with 2000+ activity.
~35 users with 100+ earned merits and 2000+ activity.
~135 users with 250+ earned merits, any activity.

but isn't this alone a good reason to conclude that 250 merit is worth more than 1500 activities, which goes exactly against this


what is harder to get , is certainly more important to keep, you need to also consider that activate's only strength is 'time'  , there are thousands of shitposters, bots and scammers who would very likely have all the activity you want,at any point, its only a matter of time, merit on the other hand is way harder to obtain.

TL;DR adding activity to it is not a bad idea, reducing merit required is a bad idea.

NO just because merit is kept within a tight circle for control purposes does not mean 250 merits is at all hard to replicate if one gets knocked out if you have an alt or friends in the inner circle. They can do nothing at all to speed up activity so you lose a 5 year old account it will take 5 years to replace it. You lose a 250 merits account it can be replaced far more quickly if you have alts pals in the merit merry-go-round.

250 gamed and cycled merits can be earned very quickly by alts of merit sources, ass kissers and other established members of the merit circle.

As I have also stated there are other reasons for activity to be more suitable to trust.

well these are all just assumptions cryptohunter, but anyhow, if the "gang" controls merit, then they likely do control most accounts with 1500 activities too , don't you think ?

cryptohunter, you’re not a stupid/dumb guy. I can tell from your posts that you’re pretty intelligent.
250 earned Merit’s is 100% achievable for you if you drop the everybody vs you thing. 250 earned Merit’s stops alts & real bad shit posters having a say on DT.

That thread where you guys were trying to manipulate DT - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103988.0 has alts galore posting in it

Literally just the other day marlboroza made a thread showing that ac2eugenio (one of the people attempting to manipulate DT) has a string of alts. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5114184.0

This shows that most of the retards in that DT manipulation attempt thread were most likely  alts of each other. Imagine if we had that on a large scale, loads of them with 100 Merit running the forum.

You’re not dumb, you can earn 250 Merit & get a vote. Those alts are what they are - alts, scum bags & the 100 Merit total was too low. 250 Merit’s means we have more chance of fair & trustworthy people in DT.

Cryptohunter's proposal




Current system



so your proposal will exclude  45 members ( including me  ;D ) ,  but do you really think that these 45 votes are the issue ?

suchmoon i don't want to be greedy with my "wants" but can you put a list of those who won't be able to "vote" if cryptohunter's proposal is applied ?

---

i am pretty sure the majority of the remaining members will be those you have an issue with now ( excluding me and a few other new members).

It's not ~45 users losing the right to vote. ~100 users would lose the right to vote and ~55 users would gain it. The lists below is not 100% accurate because my merit data is ~2 weeks old but it should give you a good enough approximation of the impact.

Losers:


Winners:

Thanks for the list sm.

was i just called a "Loser"  ::)  ?

Let's see what cryptohunter thinks about the list and whether he thinks the "suggested" list could end the DT drama or not.

You're in good company though :)


There isn't much DT drama anymore... mostly just CH drama. The buses-bicycles "coup" didn't work so here is a new diversion approaching "election" day.

      The good news for me is that I would gain my vote again by the April vote, unless I stopped posting. The 2000 activity limit would take a while though... What I find a bit odd is that none of these criteria would exclude Lauda unless theymos put her on the blacklist. Isn't Lauda one of the main targets for cryptohunter?

You might be confusing CH with someone who can do math or logic :)

TBH, I usually don't get past the 1st sentence on most of CH's posts. Therefore, it's a challenge to do a complete analysis of the logic.  ;D

In other words: further centralizing the DT-system to a group of old users, excluding new contributors.

I'm working on a topic with different DT1-scenarios, for which I'll create a Rankup pipeline.
So far, I'll include:
250+ Merit and minimum Activity 1500
100+ Merit instead of 250+, and still minimum Activity 1500

I'd like to add some more scenarios, to show the consequences of certain choices.
Please add scenarios to the list!

Do it with 2000 activity too... because that's what CH is really aiming for. 1500 leaves too many merit recyclers in the list because they obviously registered back in 2013-2015 like a sleeper cell and patiently waited 4-5 years for theymos to implement merits so that they could take over the forum.

There is no drama there is rather serious and sensible concern that
a/ DT key positions are held by those that are observably untrustworthy and abusing their power
b/ nothing is done to remove them nor undo the damage they are doing
c/ Red trust is being used to silence and discredit those bringing forth facts and observable events demonstrating clear wrong dong by DT key position holders.

So far I...

1. I see no rebuttal or even an attempt at once concerning my assertion that reducing the merit requirement and increasing the activity to 1500 or 2000 would be more useful. This is for the key positions only not for who can be on DT after all.

It is possible and is clearly observable that merit is cycled to those familiar with each other and often for political reasons and just general shitposts. Basically any excuse to empower those that will willingly collude and gang together pushing the same agenda. Merit is useful at stopping account farming ONLY it becomes very damaging to use it for anything else or by trying to attribute any other meaning to a MEANINGLESS (as suchmoon described it) score.  

Visit my thread of the year and try to understand just how dangerous the merit system is and MORE SO now that it has been turned into the TRUST system too. Nobody has refuted this in that thread because it is not possible to refute the dangers of such a system. It is wide open to and actually encourages people to abuse it for self interest.

If you wish to debate that then go to that thread and do so. Not here.

That thread serves as a prime example as to why merit in its current form is damaging misleading and political junk.
My posts especially the latter ones there are a clear and accurate description of how open the systems are to abuse and how they even set clear and selfish motives for that abuse. Yet there is no merit given and a post that makes a faux and empty rebuttal is given merit purely on political grounds because it suits those meriting for that to be seen as the most merit worthy post. There was nothing wrong with that post essentially on that it did not make the refutation that those meriting wanted to make out that it did. As I later pointed out clearly.

So merit score = unreliable at best and misleading and dangerous at worst. It means fuck all to do with trust and mostly noobs here observably asskissing and grovelling for merits and becoming self made ALREADY SPAMMING THEIR GAMBLING AND SIGS EVERYWHERE are only here to power up for high paid spamming slots.

Activity is NOT gameable in that it takes a minimum amount of time to replace a 2000 activity account. Once it is lost due to abuse or  black listed from a position of trust you will not be powering that up again for many years. Hence the incentive to act sensibly within the guidelines or framework that Theymos has set. Trust abusers can look forward to 5 years work to power up another alt to get back into the trust system.

Merit can be recycled very quickly I notice the lauda atrix 50 swap of merits (was that deleted by theymos like my 10 merits was for my post which was deserving of merit in its own right when theirs looks like a piece of advertising crap).

It is the prevention of collusion you want in a decentralised system. We can see the members that would hold the key positions in the trust system if we went with 100 earned merit and 1500 have less observable "pal connections" and there is no way to encourage new ass kissers and acoyltes and power them up to bolster your position in DT as there are now.

The only reason to have 250 earned (cycled) merits is to ensure the entrenchment of merit cyclers in the key positions of DT.

I would like to see one real debate over the advantages of 250 cycled merits over 100 merits +1500 activity. This is for key positions this does not mean the only people that can be on DT does it anyway.

However having the same political group who cycle merits to each other having the key positions in trust is a simply a FAKE decentralised system compared to what would be possible.

I would also say anyone that has EVER done anything clearly untrustworthy or that demonstrates extreme financial greed and no thought to effects on the forum for that should be auto black listed by a higher authority. If someone can tell me why that should not happen is welcome to explain.

Suchmoon of course as well as being an observable moron and the sort of imbecile that debunks her own arguments or ends up screaming out ludicrous statements to cling on to an observable pile of shit to substantiate her insane views  is also a willing and staunched supporter of those that have been PROVEN to be untrustworthy and greedy. I can not take anything she says seriously now.

I see some persons here that are not going to qualify for the 1500 activity threshold that are actually trying to help and also not spamming sigs everywhere for gambing and other crap those can still go on DT they will just not hold the key positions.

TLDR = KEY POSITIONS SHOULD BE 100 MERITS + 1500 ACTIVITY TO PREVENT OBVIOUS COLLUSION AND CREATE SOME REAL ATTEMPT AT A DECENTRALISED SYSTEM. I would even consider 50 merits and 1500 activity far superior to what we have now if you care about preventing collusion and ensuring free speech is not crushed here.

You can always take qwks view = the trush is not important and that wrongly placed red trust is helpful since it makes persons more wary of trading in general. If that is the case just make a bot that just goes around splattering people with red trust and make sure you hit those with the most green trust more often.

On the other hand theymos could say

I will black list any trust abusing scum bag that red trusts someone that is not a scammer or strongly likely to scam. Then it would not matter too much who was in DT. Even so 1500 activity could be useful so they simply don't return and do it again soon after.  Time to regain the power that was taken away is key.

Lauda is but a symptom of the problem as are the other trust abusers who have a dark history here. A trust system that works does not have these people in the key positions.

For anyone who values their sanity: don't click "Show/Hide".

CH is basically whining about not receiving merits in this thread while other users did, therefore merit system is bad and 250-merit requirement is bad, whereas 2000 activity is good. You've probably heard that before.

Suchmoon is basically trying to stop you reading the FACTs contained within the post. Not that these are even the important facts just demonstrate what a double standards scum bag this person is. I have seen suchmoon red trust people for supporting a "POSSIBLE" scam. What a double standards scum bag. Then tells me good poster bad poster is a meaningless term without strict criteria and definition whilst arguing for the validity of merit score and indication of valuable poster. What an imbecile that snitchy bitch is.

1. suchmoon cycles merit to

a/ proven liars
b/ proven trust abusers
c/ proven greedy sneaky sock puppet racist troll sig spammers.

2. Suchmoon includes on her trust list

a/ proven liars
b/ proven trust abusers
c/ proven greedy sneaky sock puppet racist troll sig spammers.

3. Suchmoon excludes the same persons in her DT lists as

a/ proven liars
b/ proven trust abusers
c/ proven greedy sneaky sock puppet racist troll sig spammers.

4. Suchmoon has said that the merit system and it score is MEANINGLESS but wants to continue basing key positions of trust on that MEANINGLESS score.

In short ignore everything this observable imbecile suchmoron "claims" if you want any hope of finding the truth on any matter.

Anyone who wants to refute these facts then feel free to do so or you can bring a case for keeping it at 250 earned cycled merits over 100 merits +1500 activity.

Glad suchmoron read the entire post and selects out as it usually does misses the key points of the post.

Back on topic.

1. prevents obvious collusion and groups becoming entrenched
2. more incentive to act honestly because
a/ harder to replace blacklisted account will take years
b/ more likely already wealthy so lack of need for scam bucks
3/ more history to analyse and see if one they look trustworthy or have a reason to black list them from the start.


250 earned merits has zero advantage over 100 merits +1500 activity only to give a tight knit group control over trust and merit and free speech. Broken and damaging and dangerous.

CH should just go to the WO thread, request a hat avatar, and post rocket memes. He'll have 250+ merits in no time. It's really not that hard.  :D

However, I have already said I will willingly be blacklisted from BOTH systems of control merit source and DT so i have no need of gaining 250 merits if we can swap it to a REAL decentralised approach.

CH, I can't stop anyone, I'm just advising people who already have you on ignore to not waste their time on your wall of text.

I still don't know what "key positions" are, sounds kinky but not quite sure how it relates to DT.


CH is more of a verbal person, memes are too much work.

So is JayJuanGee... and he has 600+ merits. He can even troll people in that thread and have a good chance of racking up the merit.


The WO thread is a decentralized approach.  :D Virtually anyone can rack up the merits there, although the supply has been drying up lately. Bulls and Bitcoin maximalists do have an easier time. But hey, this is bitcointalk after all.

LOL first suchmoon begs moderators to DELETE my posts containing on topic relevant facts that demonstrate she supports proven liars, trust abusers and greedy sneaky racist trolling sock puppet sig spammers

Now she just tells people DONT READ the truth about her.

Now, please just get back to snitching on minor shit and playing whack a mole so you feel you have achieved something here in this community. Or lying trying to get people banned for doxing you then saying that was not even a dox and that name/address is nothing related to you at all.

Now stick on topic and stop derailing else I will request your derailing trash is deleted from my thread.

Present a case for the 250 earned merits vs 100 merits + 1500 activity or shut up.


@Bones

are you now claiming that I am a troll? If so present the incorrect and trolling posts in a thread claiming they are are trolling and I'll see you there.

Start with the thread of the year trolling thread because i can't get people to that thread even after they chime in then run off

Or perhaps the let's define net positive and valuable posts

Or well ANY thread I have started in meta. Just bring it here and list it under is cryptohunter a troll and we can break down the posts and see if it is trolling or if it is presentation of facts and observable events and an attempt to make this board a fairer and better place for all members.

Or ANY of the merit cycling threads I started that have demonstrated meta is just a place to slather each other up with merit lube before verbally masturbating all over each other how great we all are for giving all this merit to each other... often for just making graphs and stats about all the merit we have LOL

When I look at the snitchy bitchy crap suchmoon posts in reply to a lot of people and also the LACK of original content /suggestions that actually would make ANY difference to the board in a big way then I realise that she is just a big bag of wasted merit.

So nothing of note ever achieved here except whack a mole and snitching on minor shit and supporting proven untrustworthy scum and accused of actual scamming herself in the past. = yeah excellent member suchmoon.

I am pushing for a fairer board for everyone with NO SCAMMERS in DT whilst suchmoon admits merit is meaningless but want to use it as a method of control over the board because it suits her and the other proven untrustworthy scum to maintain positions of power for selfish gain and silence free speech.

One more scenario of toughening of selection:
- 5 users having on 250+ merits
- 10 users having on 100+ merits

When I visit this thread, I can never tell if I am on page 1, 2 or 3. I vote that it is time for a hard fork, or for the adoption of NewWit.

We already have a DimWit for an OP, does that count?


Ok, I'll humor you. What are "key positions"?

Oh please, you are prone to calling people names. That is a form of trolling. In fact most people on this forum are prone to being a troll from time to time. If you are looking for honeypots of merit where people are posting net positive and valuable posts, just head over to Development & Technical Discussion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=6.0) or  Bitcoin Technical Support. (http://Bitcoin Technical Support)
Also, if someone has some collectables to sell, the Collectibles (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=217.0) board can help someone rack up the merit. There are probably other merit honeypots outside of meta and reputation that I am missing. The merit system is much more decentralized than you seem to think. There are 122 merit sources and they are not exclusively distributing their merit here. Theymos should consider enlisting some more notables in the altcoin community to become merit sources since the altcoin boards do seem to lack some love at the moment.

Change is the part of life.  We observe several changes whether these are favorable or unfavorable and we have to accept willingly or unwillingly.  
The small point I want to add is that using bad abusive words for any other member should be banned.
I see most of the people are very intelligent here in debate like this.  If we can add soft words to our intelligent debate it will look very nice.

To be honest, as usual, CH makes a very long threads, but I felt really hard to catch his ideas.
I appreciated his time to compose those threads, but I strongly think that next time he should make shorter threads that should better concentrate on main ideas.

That is why I put the TLDR part.

However, it is essentially detailing the advantages of over 100 merits + 1500 activity over 250 earned merits.

These advantages are quite obvious but most people would rather resort to ad hominem fallacy and speculate incorrectly on my motives for this suggested upgrade so I have to spend a large part of my post defending of such false allegations.

I just checked CH's post history, and their last 50 PAGES of posts have been just spewing vitriol and hatred toward everybody and the system.

Thats (and Loyce back me up on my math here) 1,000 POSTS of how pissed off they are at the forum!

That is an unhealthy obsession if I ever saw one.

I really don't understand it.

What was CH doing here before they went off the rails? I really only noticed them after they started posting in Meta every single day.

Please can you stop derailing my post you dirty snake. Of course a scumbag like you that also happens to be an imbecile would not even dare debate the OP but try to weasel and snake into the thread with personal attacks and false accusations.

I see just another feltching ass kissing imbecile trying to come here to flagrantly break the local rules and derail.

It's called 1000 posts seeking a fairer system against entrenched beneficiaries of a broken and abused system in their own nest vipers. If you wish to debate it make your own thread can you not read my local rules?

Don't derail further or I request your posts removed.

Present a case for 250 merits vs 100 plus 1500 activity or fuck off.

Correct (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=20*50%3D), a full kilopost!

Things went sideways when he exchanged the Altcoin boards for the cool boards.

See his Untrusted feedback > 2014-03-15 eightspaces (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=156642) > "Angry kid annoying the hell out of forum members"
That's 5 years ago, the only thing that's changed is he left the boards where thousands of other spammers burry his posts.

Hang on, I'll get it for you :)

Saving Bitcoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086297.msg48810978#msg48810978).

It went right when I found DT members trying to bully an innocent person.

Then I found out about the snake pit of meta full of sig spamming merit cycling DT bullies that thought they could do what they like to whom they like when they like.

Sadly those days are done. You can for the moment still trust abuse and control the free speech of some however others that need not worry about some red trust can state facts and observable events at will.

Anyone opposing me is simply fighting against the formation of a fairer system for all. That is a FACT.

Anything that I have said or pushed for is to that one single aim. FACT.

Of course a fool like loyceV  who has one party trick copy and paste stats puke with MINOR analysis has more merit than satoshi is not going to like hearing the truth that merit is subjective garbage and his self made x2legendary status is a joke. I asked him for some of his achievements that have made any difference here and there was NOTHING. I asked for one insightful thought provoking post that would have big implications for this board or community again NOTHING.

So of course he is offended because I told him his merit score means nothing it is subjective political junk or stats copy and paste puked derived. How would anything change here one bit if we did not have 50 threads analysing how many cycled merits they all have and who abused it the most for their own ends. Who cares. Better to make the systems better so people here are guaranteed fair and equal treatment and free speech is once again given back to all members of this board who may not share the views or ideologies or agendas of DT and Merit cycling bullies.

ALSO the persons giving me these negative trust LoyceV the Absolute Imbecile  are SCAM pushers and liars who were pushing scams and lying there was no fucking instamine like your scum sucking pal LAUDA and the pharmacist and nutildah etc  ALL pushing scams for financial gain now all pushing for control for more selfish reasons. You are supporting them so you are just as bad.

So does that answer you mr self made cycled x2 legendary waste of space? I love how you pop up sniping once your pals do but NEVER dare debate anything with me one on one because the last times you tried it I demonstrated how fragile your mind is. Bring your debate here not you sniping and usual dumb shit like you just did. Yeah bring MORE negative trust from proven SCAM pumpers and protectors because I point out their scams. You do realise to anyone with any brains that are not corrupt scum that is like an endorsement for being a scam hunter and honest and fair member?

Now stop posting on this thread unless it is a sensible case for why 250 cycled shit merits is better than just 100 and 1500 activity.

I notice all the same "merit" cyclers here from the merit-merry-go-round.

Now back ON TOPIC

post your reasons loyce why you think 250 earned merits is better than 100 + 1500 activity or fuck off and copy more merit stats crap to merit board in your own threads.



 

This would make sense if the activity was given for useful posts in a few limited sections of the forum. Until I not see than 1,000-1,500 bounty-reports or flooding not about than, better than 250 earned merit?

And if you make a limit of 100 merits, not 250 merits - it is easy to abuse. 2 Legendary account which could fill activity shitposting in sections off-topic and bounty (and who received 200 sMerit) will be sent from one account to another at 100 merits - and here you have 2 votes to vote.

I think you made a typo - shouldn't that be a killerpost?

This is a facts based post feel free to research it all yourself and let me know if you feel any of it is not correct.

We as yet have no definition of "useful post" of course if we can start making sure MERIT goes to net positive posts (which I attempted to start helping to initiate with the "what makes defines a net positive post " thread. That would be excellent and a real meritocracy could develop here. Although even good posts do not = trust in a financial sense to me anyway. I expect the very best and most dangerous scammers can present themselves very well here and make great posts far exceeding many honest members who will get a lot less merit even in a true meritocracy.

Activity is again useful for nothing really other than

1. a minimum measure of time to reach it
2. a minimum amount of activity within that time frame.

we must not apply any other meaning to it really. Time/activity though is an important factor in trust if we don't have direct trading experience with the person or can be sure they have conducted real trades with others.

I am not sure what 1500 or 2000 activity is possible in with optimal activity (minimal activity) perhaps 4 years. So let's just say that is true.

1. 4 years of history to examine
2. 4 years minimum to recover to that level if you get blacklisted for misuse of DT also will need to get the 100 earned merits all over again. I mean you could add another requirement saying hero and legends only for a greater penalty if you think you can bot to high activity and get some merit abuse to get to 100. Therefore the real earned merit once you get blacklisted to recover is going to be a LONG ROAD AHEAD.

100 earned merits (unless you are here cycling it on meta on the merit-merry-go-round is not something that is that easy. Some excellent members and FAR smarter members here have only 30 earned merits than 95% of all the top 200 merit holders. Also many of those have had far larger sums of money under their control and never scammed and always appeared squeaky clean. If they are part of alt communities or from the alt board at all then 100 earned merits  is likely to be worth x10 x20 x30 more than on meta board.

Also we are not saying who can be on DT we are saying who can hold the key nomination positions for DT. So others can be on the DT system anyway if nominated by them and meet the other threshold votes.

More persons or many more unconnected persons make it harder to collude and make it a fairer system. You do not want persons that all share the same merit circle and same political views with regard the board who are all familiar with each other and all posting to back each other up at any time one is singled out for legitimate criticism  -- who will not even look at a proven lie and admit it is a lie. Groups within those few  that have been implicated in the SAME SCAMS AND SCHEMES  working together...You could not really come up with a bunch that observably collude more that have more dirt on them than large swathes of DT1. To call it a decentralised TRUST system at this stage is quite strange and almost ironic. It's like anti trust system or anti christ system actually. Their main justification is they stop "other" scammers. Well fine but be nice to have it decentralised with some that are not proven liars,abusers of trust and greedy sneaky sock puppets shilling - - let's have a bunch of people that are totally unfamiliar with those people and not connected at all to hold them in check shall we if they are allowed to even stay there for now.

If you have collusion on the key positions the entire system collapses into a run away gang because there is nothing to keep them in check. However take that away from them and what you get is a system where DT will not abuse their position because unlike the gang we have now that will endorse and sanction the abuse or too scared to stand out from the gang... you will have a diverse group all much less giving a shit if they are part of the "gang" we have now and if they see abuse they will say fuck off that is abuse removed it or will will exclude you and also balance that red. They will also likely include other trust worthy persons and not just their proven ass kissers and acolytes.

There is simply no point having a decentralised system that starts completely centralised with a group of entrenched colluders (observably in many ways) and then you hand those colluders the key positions to nominate new persons and they also have the means (merit sources) to either recruit or withhold the threshold merits for others to join. So they can cherry pick who should be there or not. I mean it is obviously not going to work or it is ever going to work it will take a VERY long while.

Obviously it is a complex system and you would likely need a serious game theory boffin to create a self sustaining decentralised system that can maintain anything like a fair and equal posting environment whilst kicking off scammers in an optimal way. It may even be impossible on an anonymous forum where people can have multiple sock puppets.
However TIME can not be gamed so adding a minimum TIME penalty for discovered and obvious abuse it better than not having it surely and the fact that it will bring into these key positions persons not obviously already in the colluding gang we have now.

Merit is actually the key here DT is secondary now since Merit is trust too apparently.

Of course you need a specific mandate for both with clear and detailed criteria and definition for merit and trust. You also need strict and swift punishment for those ignoring this framework.  Just the threat of getting blacklisted or worse for abuse will be enough that it needs only a little correcting now and then.

Who will risk blacklisting of a 4 year old account and I say also sig ban for 3 years for abusing a position of trust and responsibility and in serious cases a ton of red for them too. That is pretty much like a ban for most greedy and selfish users.

Again anyone with proven dark incidents in their history that make them dishonest or likely to scam need to be blacklisted anyway. Why would you have persons in trust positions that are proven already untrustworthy it makes zero sense.

This is not about DT only the key nominating positions in DT. That is what is making it pseudo decentralised when really you could not have take a forum of this size and made it MORE centralised. Start examining their post histories, their merit fans recipients, the DT includes their DT EXCLUSIONS (even worse)  all their interactions on this board. This is a centralised pot of scum for the most part. DO some digging it is all there just put in some effort and examine their past histories.

You find them supporting some of the most unfair and scam like projects here, you will find them implicated in all kinds of extortion and other foul deeds, you will find them creating puppet accounts to spam for btc dust whilst lecturing others on financial shit posting. Supporting these kinds of people willingly whilst red trusting people for promoting "possible scams" unwilling to even say a proven lie is a lie. This is a host of scum I am telling you all. These are facts and are there in black and white.

Then go examine MY OWN entire post history you will find me NEVER scamming, NEVER being greedy , NEVER refusing to help others who are being bullied when i don't even know them, ALWAYS finding real scams and meeting them head on against tons of scammers and scam pumpers in public not hiding away snitching on them.. ALWAYS fighting for fairer distributions (see the huge arguments on Byteball when it launched i was the only person saying make it fairer for new people with no btc or not much btc)  ALWAYS sharing all my research on great projects with others BEFORE it goes up massively so others can benefit also from this research. Getting thanked my many for making them super wealthy in public and in PMs.

Here I am telling you to make the systems of control fairer so everyone gets equal opportunity and free speech is not crushed and I AM THE BAD GUY NOW?? OH REALLY? and I am just doing it all for my selfish gain you say??

This sums it up quite nicely. You don't know what "activity" is, you won't spend 5 minutes trying to figure it out, but you'll post walls after walls of text arguing for 2000+ activity simply because you got that much.

You might as well argue that to be in a "key position" (you still haven't explained what that is) one needs to have "crypto" in their username and more than 13424 posts.

When do we stop responding to cryptohunter’s walls of repetitive bull shit?

How about I propose a great new feature for the forum - Let’s all put him/her on ignore then he/she might either go away or at least start to post normally instead of going on & on & on & on about DT & decisions made by figures of authority here.

 

try to focus on the more important points rather than thrashing around looking for some minor irrelevant reason to post more net negative crap.... 4 years will do whatever activity you find that to be this is a general proposal ,  now if you can waste time working on a specific detail eg 1496 activity for example that can be adjusted to be 4 years or whatever is decided a long enough penalty then knock yourself out. I am in the sun typing between chapters of my book i don't have time for the non important minute stuff right now. Pathetic little twerp.

@lfc bitcoin

spam your sig elsewhere it hurts my eyes

make a rebuttal or just confess you can not and stfu.

I had to unignore CH in order to report the repetitive bullshit to moderators... this was received about as well as you would expect but might be a better long-term strategy to reign the troll in.

Says the skanky snitchy bitch suchmoon as she breaks my local rules and go into off topic false accusations with zero grounding. I reported your post for breaking my local rules let me see if the mod deletes it or NOT.

If it is  NOT deleted then I will wonder why my on topic and relevant posts containing FACTS and observable events WERE deleted when your false accusations with nothing on topic or relevant to the OP is NOT.

Present now then the posts I have made that contain incorrect information and "trolling" or stfu imbecile.

I am about to take my early lunch I will see what happens to your post and if it still exists there upon my return.

 

Now that you mention it, this is how you first appeared on my radar (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1608859.msg17671265#msg17671265).  You were that guy who literally wouldn't shut up about distribution.  Thing is, you might believe you're doing the honourable thing in situations like back then and also here in this topic now, but all these great injustices you perceive are not a valid excuse to constantly annoy the shit out of everyone because you aren't getting your own way.  It's just petulance.  Try being less of a control freak and accept that your opinion is not the only one.  

You act as though if people don't provide a justification which meets your approval for why the current trust settings are what they are, that it somehow invalidates the current system.  But what you might find is that it's not actually your call to make.  Some users are actually quite happy with how this new trust system is going and it's ultimately up to theymos if this is how we keep it or if it gets changed again. 

The onus is not on us to satisfy your requirements and justify the current system.  People have already demonstrated the effect it would have if we lost ~100 trust list "voters" and I'm quite content with their responses.  If you aren't content, well then that's just too bad.

LOL so you show up to tell me I am  the guy that would not shut up about the grossly unfair and stupid initial distribution of byteball ....... .haha that is a great ploy to discredit me here then. Thanks. Please feel free to show up and voice your rebuttals anytime that you like. I notice if you read that thread all the turds that pushed for the original distribution model came back crying it  WAS INDEED a terrible idea haha and screaming it was being perma dumped by the handful of whales that scooped it all on on the back of other peoples btc they were holding at the time :)

Yeah that proves you should never listen to what I say for sure.  That is exactly why you do NOT want a centralised narrow distribution of power. It crushed that project which was according to AM a novel and interesting one.

Thanks for that nice reference of me being both fair and wise.

Also your post is incorrect. I am telling you clearly that we should have a debate on which is better. I am waiting for 1 person to provide insight into why they think 250 earned merits is better over what I suggested.

I am still waiting.

Some users are happy. The people that benefit greatly from the broken systems of control. That is no reason not to improve them for a fairer environment for all.

>Complains the "broken" system isn't "fair" enough
>Wants to skew the system entirely for his own benefit

Suchmoon is here (again) or is it huge black woman? I don't bother speaking to cowardly scum that dare not use their own account usually.

Now substantiate your claim else I will have it deleted you imbecile. Please read the entire thread first so as not to look more stupid and COWARDLY  than you already do you pathetic slobbering chicken shit.

What is your real account coward? I challenge you to reveal it or I will just refer to you as COWARD ...could you bunch sink any lower ....yuck!!

Yes, under the CH system, if satoshi himself ever returned, he'd have to post regularly for over two years to gain the activity necessary for a supervote. However, with the current system, satoshi already has 7 supervotes. (And I'm sure if he returned and started regularly posting, he'd have more merit than God in short order.)

Yes? what? you are agreeing with a cowardly sock puppet snivelling wretch who is obviously untrustworthy for needing a puppet account which is making observably false accusations.

He would not if he pushed for a real decentralised board you can guarantee that. Probably be red trusted and called a troll lol.

Oh please. If he returned, he'd be so venerated that whatever he said would be considered scripture. His very presence would throw out any hopes of decentralization, since he'd call all of the shots around here. It's probably best he stays away.

cryptohunter does have some valid points in his discussion , but the way he presents his ideas is just annoying, it's like when you wrap a gift in a dirty cloth, and you try to rub it in everybody's face 3 times a day for a whole month.

i am sure most members would have taken this discussion more seriously if it was brought up by another member who has better communication/writing skills.


I think what cryptohunter wants is a shift of voting power , that's a legit request, but we first need to know "what is the problem you are trying to solve ? "

see, if you can't convince us that there is actually a problem, then this is a problem to begin with.

here is what i consider serious problems that everyone with a bit of logic and ethics would stand up for a major change in DT system.

1- a good number of known scammers are not being tagged.
2- an abuse by a large number of DT members , like giving a positive feedback for scammers.
3- DT member/s taking bribes to look the other way.

These are some major issues that would really need a whole change of plans, but non of these is currently valid.


Now let us discus the real issues we have , and here is what i think.


1- some DT members "misuse" the trust system and use it on things that have nothing to do with trust ! .

notice how i typed the word "misuse" there, it stands for what I personally think, but this does not mean my view is the ultimate guide for everybody else,  some people think you can be tagged for using the word "Lemon", i have always sided your statements when it comes to this particular point.

 but why do i think you are wrong now ? because even if you were to bring a whole fresh list of new DT members, the same problem will still present itself unless theymos manually monitors DT feedback after having stated a complete set of rules.


another thing that you seem to be missing, is that the number of merit does not really represent trustworthiness, but it's more or less an indication of some validity/accuracy related to the user's vote.
  

 

Or better yet.... how about Legendary Whiny Bitch?


Are you drinking or something? You seem to be repeating yourself.


Same old, same old...  <yawn...zzzzzz>

I kinda like it actually....
He/she gives me a chuckle on a Saturday nite after I've had a few and I post a snarky reply...

Perhaps we should make some of these a mantra.

OOOM OOOM


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uDm_Tt6C2wA/maxresdefault.jpg

I think it is time for some technical analysis on this thread. At the moment it seems to be heavily in a bull phase, and we need some bare facts. I don't think this will happen until the daily exponential posting average crosses below the one week EPA. We also seem to be in an ItchyPokeU cloud, and we need to break out of that. The Bollinger band seems to dominate much of the posting, and although Bollinger is my favourite champagne, maybe we should switch to coffee to improve concentration.

We need a good head and shoulders to get to the bottom of the matter, and then we can see a reversal to get through the resistance to improve support.

Here you go: [scenarios] Changing Activity requirements for DT1-voting (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5116287.0)

Now I wonder what's the next thing you'll complain about :D

Going by the observable evidence, which is a requisite for compliance to the thread's Local Rules, I predict a strong red anti-dildo to form in the near future, as the technical merits of this thread (or lack thereof) rendered it doomed from the get go. Frankly, if I may, I find it to be just another derivative CH thread without its own legs to stand on, and therefore is fundamentally unsound.

Please could you provide a depth chart for this.

Since this is the only real attempt on THE ENTIRE THREAD at a debate then I will answer this after I have a few more hours sleep. I only woke up for a snack now going back to bed. However it is sad to see you capitulated to sig spamming with the rest in the same campaign as most of the meta-merit gang.

However I will still answer your points whilst ignoring the thrashing around of the other morons and snakes here. I notice actually this sirizamouth is a suchmoon pal from some time back now. Funny it should rear its head in meta so often lately. I guess they need to summon all the swamp creatures to the battle that they can muster now that I am here to drain this filthy pit.

So anyway yes I got some sleep but I was distracted my loyceV posting a link to "his" new thread where he decided to place the basis for his opinion rather than on here along with some false claims regarding my motive and also I believe specious conclusions on the upgraded system. So i needed to defend those claims although apparently I am not allowed to post there to defend myself. Anyway so on to the answers.

problems...

"1- a good number of known scammers are not being tagged.
2- an abuse by a large number of DT members , like giving a positive feedback for scammers.
3- DT member/s taking bribes to look the other way."

well how about

1 - innocent persons speaking the truth about wrong doing getting their accounts red tagged
2 - other innocent persons that see this need to think and worry about themselves speaking "the truth"
3. DT members with provable dirt and untrustworthy actions on their histories punishing others for the same or lesser deeds - this just will not be tolerated by people and causes resentment and anger.
4. DT members sanctioning and not attempting to reverse observable and provable abuse
5. DT members willingly and knowingly including and supporting proven liars and greedy devious financially motivated puppet account users... this is widespread abuse of trust positions.

The worst part of the entire thing and a problem that nobody can even deny is the problem I described in the thread of the year. It is that the system motivates selfish gaming  of a wide open system with no punishment allowing more entrenched and untouchable control. This is undeniable.It is undeniable that free speech is hugely vulnerable as they operate right now.

If you go back and study that thread you will understand far more. You can not use anecdotal and personal experiences to understand fully the mechanisms of systems that you operate within.

I mean do you think it is coincidence that all of these DT and merit sources that openly collude are spamming the same sigs?

It is not a matter of increasing key position numbers, it is a matter of making sure collusion does not take place between them because they you do not have decentralisation. This is very important to understand.

I do not think LoyceV simulations are correct anyway since of course trust lists will change when/if the trust mechanisms change.

I mean I totally advocate other sensible rules for key positions like - no observable dirty deeds in your past at all. Anything related to financial greed or deception or scamming. Why would anyone accept these people even in DT at all?

If I said to you "I think it is terrible that you swear at other members and call them names like spoiled petulant child mikey" and told you I will report you.

I guarantee the first thing you would say back to me from pure human instinct is " well how come you think you can do it cryptohunter?" I think it is double standards you do it but seek to punish me.

This is why it will cause a lot of trouble to have anyone with a dirty past giving out red.

I mean I see The pharmacist aka huge black woman just the other day lecturing people and saying " oh yeah 2017 was terrible for puppet accounts spamming sigs everywhere" I mean how the fuck is it possible for persons busted for this themselves to think they can then lecture others for doing the same thing. It is completely insane.

I see lauda telling people they are liars (including me although he could not present one lie EVER) he called me it 3x and could not present anything. I say if you keep saying that I will encourage others to examine his post history where he is a proven liar and BOOM red trust for being a threatening person. LOL  This is fucking insane other DT condone sanction and support this person on DT and give him a key position. YOu tell me there is no problems right now?

Tman admits " i can I will and I just have given red trust for me presenting facts and observable events? this fool is still DT and getting support.

I tell Tman remove that  red trust else because if not then I will point out this trust abuse (that you admitted in black and white) forever . BOOM their known PAL YOGG slaps some more red trust because telling a person to undo their abuse right now or else you will report it to everyone at every opportunity is actually blackmail.

So if someone grabs your phone out of your hand on the bus tomorrow and you say give it back now or else i will report you to the cops.... you are a blackmailer and you will be the criminal. Presumably made to use your 1 phone call from jail to call up "the thief" on his nice new phone and say sorry for being a blackmailer.

LOL this bunch are clearly who should be in positions of trust. I mean it is all working great atm no need for changes at all.

Only in meta do the powers that be think this is completely normal and acceptable practice.

I will assume that everything mentioned above is true , how is that going to be solved if DT members are changed? let's ignore LoyceV's data > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5116287.0 and pretend that 100 new members will take over from here, NON of the above issues will be fixed, unless the new members are some aliens or robots, but as long as they are humans, every possible issue we have now will still be there, it may get a little better, or a lot worse , nobody can tell for sure.

I think the solution here is to try and push for some changes in how the ratings are conducted, instead of trying to replace current DT members, i am not defending anyone in particular here, but from my own point of view things are not that bad at all, they just need a little tweaking here and there, i don't know if we are ever going to see that happen, but i am sure as hell the trust system will never be perfect and will never be agreed upon by every single user.

You have to ask yourself if those things are happening (which they are I can prove anything I have said else everytime I ask someone to present to me a lie i have made they would be presenting them I can assure you)

Now WHY is this allowed to happen by like 20 persons with no comeback on those that are doing it and they are still included here?  why?

The answer is clearly because they allow it when they know they should NOT. This is called collusion. They have histories of co-operation and all know each other well , all merit each other, all group together on here, histories of working together in "under cover agents attempts" it is a group who are very familiar with each other on here and are working together and also have no desire to rock the boat and stand out from the crowd.

NOW if we say okay let's not START off a decentralised system with people that are Observably colluding as a group already. I mean that is the opposite of what you want.  We want persons that are as unconnected as possible and are not afraid to lose their "pal" status by saying "WTF you just red trust some person for telling the truth. That's not right I insist you remove that red trust else I will exclude you and also I will counter that red trust so this HONEST person is not getting a scam tag from YOU a dishonest person.

This is what will keep the sytem in check you see. That is why you want to lower the merit threshold because the colluding group have one thing in common -- they have grabbed enough cycled merit (proven if you look at their recipients and fans) and that is their current "upper hand to force themselves together into a big DT untouchable group. Take this away and allow "others" outside of the group to ender the key positions and they are no longer "untouchable" being vulnerable will make them treat red trust with respect because if they flagrantly abuse trust they will get red trust from other DT members and their accounts will then be vulnerable to getting them kicked off their highly paid sig campaigns they love to spam.

This is how a decentralised system works you have to assume everyone will act as selfishly as they can to the point they still get their optimal rewards. Their rewards will be crushed if they are too selfish or too abusive with red trust because they will get a red flag and they may even get excluded.

Theymos seems to believe you can create a decentralised system where you assume everyone will just act non selfishly.

I would even consider moving the merit down to 70 actually since i have basically a very low respect for the merit metric except that it is good for preventing account farmers.

If you still don't get what I mean just ask me to explain it more. I would advice like I said to read that thread of the year the entire thing even though some is boring and see if you get how the systems REALLY operate.

Honestly though nobody should be allowed on a trust system if they have any history dark financially motivated shit on them. That just stands to reason.

Whoa! I got a shout out! I feel honored. lmao

https://i.imgur.com/u9Yqetv.jpg

Mikey? did you get the point I am making or not. I have not heard back from you since the last post that I made.

Do you understand now how "less" in number can actually = more decentralised in real terms pf diversity that is relevant and useful and the reverse?