|
Title: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: LoyceV on March 03, 2019, 09:24:21 AM Someone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=92110) has been complaining (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5084723.0) about Merit and more recently DefaultTrust for a very long time.
His proposed "solution" is usually a bit vague, and hidden in Since it's very unlikely to get a clear answer to a question (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115304.msg49964499#msg49964499), I had to make some assumptions. Please post other scenarios (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115304.msg49987465#msg49987465) too. Baseline criteria (green is included by me, red is ignored): - If rank was determined solely using earned merit, then you must be of at least Member rank. Baseline (http://loyce.club/trust/ranking/) (as taken from my DT1-election Rank up pipeline (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5107427.0)): 77 users qualify for DT1 by voting:- You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days. - Your trust list must include at least 10 users, not including ~distrust entries. - You must not be banned or manually blacklisted from selection. - You must have posted sometime within the last 30 days. - You must have at least 10 people directly trusting you each with an earned merit of at least 10, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49220414#msg49220414). - You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least 250, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49220414#msg49220414). Code: 1. LoyceV (DT1! (33) 2026 Merit earned) is included by 52 users with 250+ earned Merit and 42 users with 10-249 earned Merit. Can DT-voting be improved? I'll edit (in blue) the Baseline criteria from theymos' quote to add scenarios. If a user with 250+ Merit doesn't meet the Activity requirement for a scenario, his vote counts the same as a user with 10-249 earned Merit. Scenario ch1 - You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least 250 and at least 1500 Activity, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49220414#msg49220414). Scenario ch1 (http://loyce.club/trust/scenarios/trust_1500_Activity_250_Merit/ranking/): 59 users qualify for DT1 by voting:Code: 1. theymos (DT1! (37) 4009 Merit earned) is included by 14 users with 250+ earned Merit and 144 users with 10-249 earned Merit. Scenario ch2 - You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least Scenario ch2 (http://loyce.club/trust/scenarios/trust_1500_Activity_100_Merit/ranking/): 72 users qualify for DT1 by voting:Code: 1. theymos (DT1! (37) 4009 Merit earned) is included by 25 users with 100+ earned Merit and 133 users with 10-99 earned Merit. Scenario ch3 - You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least Scenario ch3 (http://loyce.club/trust/scenarios/trust_2000_Activity_100_Merit/ranking/): 42 users qualify for DT1 by voting:Code: 1. theymos (DT1! (37) 4009 Merit earned) is included by 14 users with 100+ earned Merit and 144 users with 10-99 earned Merit. Scenario ch4 Let's test theymos' initial idea (quoted here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49141715#msg49141715)): - You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least Scenario ch4 (http://loyce.club/trust/scenarios/trust_no_Activity_100_Merit/ranking/): 85 users qualify for DT1 by voting:Code: 1. theymos (DT1! (37) 4009 Merit earned) is included by 90 users with 100+ earned Merit and 68 users with 10-99 earned Merit. Scenario ch5 (thanks DIKUL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115304.msg49989128#msg49989128)) - You must have at least 10 people directly trusting you each with an earned merit of at least Scenario ch5 (http://loyce.club/trust/scenarios/trust_no_Activity_10_users_100_Merit__5_users_250_Merit/ranking/): 55 users qualify for DT1 by voting:- You must have at least Code: 1. LoyceV (DT1! (33) 2026 Merit earned) is included by 52 users with 250+ earned Merit and 25 users with 100-249 earned Merit. Conclusion It was to be expected that higher Activity requirements reduce the number of DT1-candidates (and thus further centralizes the DT-system). But even in the new scenarios, many of the same users are still on DT1, although they have less inclusions per person. At scenario ch3, things get interesting: the number of users is largely reduced, and many of the older accounts are on top again. Kinda like the old days, when theymos added users to DT1. Scenario ch5 isn't bad either, and in the long run, many users will have 100+ Merit, but it denies voting power to users with <100 Merit. But...... We all know the real reason for ch (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=92110) to attack DT: he has red tags from Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872), TMAN (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=98986) and yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827). The first 2 users are on DT1 in all scenarios, yogg only drops off DT2 in Scenario ch3. But since yogg is trusted by many other DT1 members (http://loyce.club/trust/2019-03-02_Sat_05.56h/140827.html), he'll still be on DT2. The end result will be the same red tags, and the complaints about how unfair Merit and DT is won't stop. That doesn't make this exercise completely useless though, the results are still valid :) Thanks Thanks suchmoon for providing Activity-data. This data is 2 days old, but that doesn't matter much for the purpose of this topic. Local Rule (starting 50 minutes after this topic was created): cryptohunter and his alt-accounts are no longer allowed to post in this thread. Reason: inability to stay on topic (https://archive.is/qP3dS#selection-5879.0-5977.115) See [overview] LoyceV's useful data on Bitcointalk (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5145594.0) for more of my forum-related topics Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: LoyceV on March 03, 2019, 09:24:30 AM Scenario ch666
- You must have at least Scenario ch666 (http://loyce.club/trust/scenarios/trust_no_Activity_13_users_13_Merit__2_users_666_Merit/ranking/): 50 users qualify for DT1 by voting:- You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least Code: 1. hilariousandco (DT1! (29) 442 Merit earned) is included by 9 users with 666+ earned Merit and 79 users with 13-665 earned Merit. Scenario ch7 - Your trust list must include at least Scenario ch7 (http://loyce.club/trust/scenarios/trust_no_Activity_7_users_7_Merit__2_users_17_Merit/ranking/): 126 users qualify for DT1 by voting:- You must have at least - You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least Code: 1. theymos (DT1! (37) 4009 Merit earned) is included by 144 users with 17+ earned Merit and 19 users with 7-16 earned Merit. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: asche on March 03, 2019, 09:32:30 AM That's some work you did here.
It proves what most already knew but at least there is data to back it up now. Long story short, if someone want to substantially change the face of DT it would need another requirement than merit and/or activity. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: nutildah on March 03, 2019, 09:41:40 AM For the most part I'm good with any of these proposed scenarios. They almost all include the core group of people whose trust ratings and opinions I most value. I can imagine that by shifting to any new standard listed here or otherwise, an entirely new contingency of people will be upset by this or that. So frankly there are no winners in the game of making further changes to the system. Things should just be allowed to mellow out for a while as I believe the dust is still settling from the last implemented changes.
BTW Loyce your criteria for ch2 and ch3 appear to be identical, that may be a typo, otherwise I'm just not getting something. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: LoyceV on March 03, 2019, 09:42:58 AM Long story short, if someone want to substantially change the face of DT it would need another requirement than merit and/or activity. Let's try that :D I'm adding scenario ch7 now (give me some time).For the most part I'm good with any of these proposed scenarios. Note that I'm not proposing to implement any of those :) So far, all it does is confirm theymos made a pretty good call.BTW Loyce your criteria for ch2 and ch3 appear to be identical, that may be a typo Fixed, thanks!Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: asche on March 03, 2019, 09:46:02 AM For the most part I'm good with any of these proposed scenarios. They almost all include the core group of people whose trust ratings and opinions I most value. I can imagine that by shifting to any new standard listed here or otherwise, an entirely new contingency of people will be upset by this or that. So frankly there are no winners in the game of making further changes to the system. Things should just be allowed to mellow out for a while as I believe the dust is still settling from the last implemented changes. BTW Loyce your criteria for ch2 and ch3 appear to be identical, that may be a typo, otherwise I'm just not getting something. The difference appears to be activity Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: cryptohunter on March 03, 2019, 10:08:45 AM This demonstrates why you need to stick to stats copy and paste rather than attempting anything else that is beyond your capabilities. Just present the stats and forget the diatribe that is incorrect and speculative after them. Stick to minor analysis which is within your limited capabilities.
Let me point out something... The system is not decentralised just by increasing numbers of colluders, that is pseudo decentralisation if they all are all colluding to start with. . 1. they all mostly are cycling merit between them this is observable from their fans and receivers lists 2. they all swarm to support each other with posts when any one of them is questioned legitimately on their trust abuse (which I will challenge you on next in debate if you deny this.) 3. they all include each other on DT 4. they can be seen ( the inner and most blatant colluders) excluding the same people 5. they mostly seem to all share the same "high paid" gambling and mixing sigs 6. Groups of these are implicated in the same "scams" and extortions 7. Groups of them can be linked through their post histories for years back supporting each other. 8. Most reside in meta and rep See what you do not get is that having LESS numbers of observable COLLUDERS that do not act as one is decentralising it in REAL terms. Along with that you will have many more VALUABLE histories to observe and analyse. Along with that you will have much more to lose if you get black listed because these old and Valuable accounts are much harder to replace that if a colluder that can quite easily be topped up with cycled merits loses their accounts. There is no cheating time. Elder members due to being earlier adopters to crypto are far more likely to be wealthy and not desperate for money and therefore have less need to scam. Elder members do not need therefore to be part of a colluding group to ensure they control the best PAID2POST sigs to spam and therefore are not under pressure to allow trust abuse. Persons familiar with the entire board not just familiar with their pals in meta. You see therefore that you yourself who is spamming a highly paid sig whilst condoning trust abuse and making false accusations regarding my intentions and false statements about my proposal for a REAL decentralised system are net negative to the board. Yet are more merited than satoshi. You are trying to prevent a fairer more decentralised system in DT and trying to prevent also a fairer and more equal system for all regarding merit. Although the 2 are now obviously linked together for some strange reason. You are honestly and with out prejudice limited to stats copy and paste. That is it, so stick to that rather than making idiotic posts like this that demonstrate you are incapable of any kind of deeper/creative thought than copy and paste stats with minor analysis. AI is a great term for you as many have labelled you with it. A very primitive and basic model that could operate with massive redundancy on my little floor cleaning bot that scurries around the house. In human terms an Absolute Imbecile. Also this is ridiculous. When a system changes persons behaviours may change and they may include and exclude new persons and make new custom lists. So any predictive models as to who will be IN DT is invalid anyway. Now of course no system will work here unless there is some real punishment for gross abuse like blacklisting for flagrant and overt trust abuse. However, if you do not have ONLY colluding bunches of persons backing up the red trust with more red trust simply because they are part of some gang roaming around trying to allegedly extort people, lie, and generally bully persons around and their pals or those that are scared to stand up to them then you start to have a much more robust system. Now let's get back to a sensible debate about how to PREVENT trust abuse that impinges upon free speech here. I mean yes, there would be LESS need for a system change if persons self appointed into these systems of control operated under the mandate they were given. Red trust only 1. scammers 2. strongly likely to perform a scam. However since people here have no consideration for what Theymos says and will just abuse the system to their own ends when they like then we need to try to create a system where these people are held in check. Not supported by a bunch of direct colluders and sniveling cowards who dare not stand up to them. Just tell these people stick to the mandate reverse your trust abuse or get black listed. How difficult can it be ? Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: LoyceV on March 03, 2019, 10:14:25 AM This user is currently ignored. Let me guess, you didn't like the results, and thus continue with your off-topic charade as usual.You're welcome. Now please New Local Rule: cryptohunter is no longer allowed to post in this thread. Reason: inability to stay on topic (https://archive.is/qP3dS#selection-5879.0-5977.115) Feel free to edit your existing post. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: cryptohunter on March 03, 2019, 10:17:42 AM This user is currently ignored. Let me guess, you didn't like the results, and thus continue with your off-topic charade as usual.You're welcome. Now please leave. New Local Rule: cryptohunter is no longer allowed to post in this thread. Reason: inability to stay on topic (https://archive.is/qP3dS#selection-5879.0-5977.115) Sorry local rules only count if they are in the OP. My post is totally on topic. I'm sorry that you are such a coward that feel you can come to my threads and type what you like but I am not allowed in your threads?? Why so afraid? This is why one sided debates should not be allowed in meta. Any mod deleting my posts is going to get called on each and every one of them from now on. I am only going to post on topic and relevant information based on facts and observable events. Any deleting of these is crushing free speech and is politically motivated. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: asche on March 03, 2019, 10:30:43 AM Why so afraid? You are not scaring anybody. You are just fck**g annoying. Like a flee pocking you for hours without being able to stop it, always doing the same thing without any reason besides getting on other people nerves! The fact he wants this to stay on topic is understandable, and after reading your long unnecessary post I am completely agreeing with his opinion on that. The only thing he did was compare how different parameters would influence the trust network as it is today, and he did it well. So why don't you and your superior mind go talk with others of your kind, and leave us retards alone here? Please? Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: cryptohunter on March 03, 2019, 10:31:46 AM Why so afraid? You are not scaring anybody. You are just fck**g annoying. Like a flee pocking you for hours without being able to stop it, always doing the same thing without any reason besides getting on other people nerves! The fact he wants this to stay on topic is understandable, and after reading your long unnecessary post I am completely agreeing with his opinion on that. The only thing he did was compare how different parameters would influence the trust network as it is today, and he did it well. So why don't you and your superior mind go talk with others of your kind, and leave us retards alone here? Please? Are you blind, do you not see the references to me and my intentions on that post? these criteria are what I suggested you idiot I am not allowed to post on a thread inspired by me, with references to me, with false assumptions made about my intentions? Present evidence for how it was off topic else you are lying. Tick tock. What a bunch of jokers you are ... make false accusations about a person and they are not allowed to reply LOL what a swamp meta is. Time to drain it. I CHALLENGE YOU NOW TO PRESENT A CASE FOR WHY MY POST WAS OFF TOPIC. edit - asche ??? are you there asche?? where is the case for my post being off topic?? LoyceV?? are you there?? how about you? I'm waiting to be shown how my post is off topic?? I'll check when I wake up. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: LoyceV on March 03, 2019, 12:31:59 PM I've added scenario ch7:
Scenario ch7 I think this is an interesting one: even with much lower Merit requirements, the number of DT1-candidates doesn't go up that much. - Your trust list must include at least Scenario ch7 (http://loyce.club/trust/scenarios/trust_no_Activity_7_users_7_Merit__2_users_17_Merit/ranking/): 126 users qualify for DT1 by voting:- You must have at least - You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least Code: 1. theymos (DT1! (37) 4009 Merit earned) is included by 144 users with 17+ earned Merit and 19 users with 7-16 earned Merit. Without hard evidence, I think many more users should make custom trust lists before the DT-system can become more decentralized. But that would also require users to include other users than the current DT-members. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: Qulian on March 03, 2019, 12:42:42 PM OP, you should make a scenario exactly like ch4 but adding that anyone who adds negative or neutral trust to cryptohunter is automatically excluded. I think that is what he wants and would make automagically remove colluders according to him.
Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on March 03, 2019, 12:55:03 PM Nice analysis, but in the end cryptoscunter is just going to have to suck it up regardless of whatever scenario you can come up with. If he ever got onto DT, it would only serve his warped ego and not the community in any meaningful way. It's also probably a moot point. Theymos isn't likely to change all the requirements now because of some high-volume bitching from the peanut gallery.
I've also never understood the argument that decentralization=panacea that seems to get made so often on this forum, as if leadership itself is an inherently bad thing. It isn't, and I would argue that scammers would thrive on a forum without a system like the one we have--and it's not exactly like they aren't already thriving. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: Bitcoin_Arena on March 03, 2019, 01:17:56 PM Baseline criteria (green is included by me, red is ignored): - If rank was determined solely using earned merit, then you must be of at least Member rank. - You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days. - Your trust list must include at least 10 users, not including ~distrust entries. - You must not be banned or manually blacklisted from selection. - You must have posted sometime within the last 30 days. - You must have at least 10 people directly trusting you each with an earned merit of at least 10, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49220414#msg49220414). - You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least 250, not including merit you yourself sent. A red-green colour blind member here, would you mind changing the one colour to lime green or blue in the OP. Sorry for the inconvenience :) Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: LFC_Bitcoin on March 03, 2019, 01:26:08 PM I think it’s absolutely fine the way it currently is & we need to stop giving cryptohunter the platform to carry out his pathetic tirade against what we have in place.
I don’t know why he has such an influence that we’re discussing him every single day. If he doesn’t like the way things are here then there are other forums & he should go try them out. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: LoyceV on March 03, 2019, 01:37:00 PM Baseline criteria (orange is included by me, red is ignored): A red-green colour blind member here, would you mind changing the one colour to lime green or blue in the OP. Sorry for the inconvenience :) - If rank was determined solely using earned merit, then you must be of at least Member rank. - You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days. - Your trust list must include at least 10 users, not including ~distrust entries. - You must not be banned or manually blacklisted from selection. - You must have posted sometime within the last 30 days. - You must have at least 10 people directly trusting you each with an earned merit of at least 10, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49220414#msg49220414). - You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least 250, not including merit you yourself sent. I don’t know why he has such an influence that we’re discussing him every single day. And there I was thinking about suggesting to have him banned from Meta and Reputation only. He'll be much happier that way :DIf he doesn’t like the way things are here then there are other forums & he should go try them out. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: LFC_Bitcoin on March 03, 2019, 01:43:27 PM And there I was thinking about suggesting to have him banned from Meta and Reputation only. He'll be much happier that way :D Loyce ——> https://media0.giphy.com/media/wi8Ez1mwRcKGI/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a5c7bd9e3473053336f69fa29 Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: o_e_l_e_o on March 03, 2019, 01:44:15 PM I don’t know why he has such an influence that we’re discussing him every single day. Because people just can't keep him on ignore. I understand the appeal of trying to refute his points, as I occasionally get sucked in to the same thing with flat Earthers, creationists, etc, but just like these latter groups, there is literally nothing you can say that will change his mind. He's right, everyone else is wrong, and no amount of evidence will convince him otherwise.I've not been following his most recent nonsense (as he remains firmly on ignore), but it seems that Loyce has put his suggested criteria* firmly to bed, as it makes fairly little difference to the list of DT1s (and probably no difference whatsoever to the list of DT2s). Inb4 he decides you should need 2000 activity and 100 merit to be allowed to be on DT1. *1500/2000 activity and 100 merit, if I read things correctly? What a coincidence that these criteria perfectly fit cryptohunter himself. ::) Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: LFC_Bitcoin on March 03, 2019, 01:46:34 PM I don’t know why he has such an influence that we’re discussing him every single day. Because people just can't keep him on ignore. I understand the appeal of trying to refute his points, as I occasionally get sucked in to the same thing with flat Earthers, creationists, etc, but just like these latter groups, there is literally nothing you can say that will change his mind. He's right, everyone else is wrong, and no amount of evidence will convince him otherwise.I've not been following his most recent nonsense (as he remains firmly on ignore), but it seems that Loyce has put his suggested criteria* firmly to bed, as it makes fairly little difference to the list of DT1s (and probably no difference whatsoever to the list of DT2s). Inb4 he decides you should need 2000 activity and 100 merit to be allowed to be on DT1. *1500/2000 activity and 100 merit, if I read things correctly? What a coincidence that these criteria perfectly fit cryptohunter himself. ::) I just think he’d be a lot happier if he relaxed a bit. Having him on DT1 would be a disaster in my opinion. I don’t think he’s a scammer at all but he’d be handing out red trust for arguments & disagreements all the time. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: kken01 on March 03, 2019, 01:58:26 PM sage advice from theymos on cryptohunter:
My opinion is that I'm not going to waste time reading your huge, rambly, low-content posts which you post everywhere. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: mikeywith on March 03, 2019, 02:34:48 PM nice work , but i thought cryptohunter wanted a change of voters not who would be eligible for DT.
for an example someone like me with over 250 merit but less than 1.5k activities , my vote shouldn't add to anyone. so if someone needs 2 members with 250 merit + 1.5K activity then he won't benefit from his inclusion in my trust list as oppose to the current system. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: LoyceMobile on March 03, 2019, 02:42:07 PM nice work , but i thought cryptohunter wanted a change of voters not who would be eligible for DT. That's what I did. Big surprise, high Activity users also vote for the same users.Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: mikeywith on March 03, 2019, 02:49:05 PM That's what I did. Big surprise, high Activity users also vote for the same users. so not even DT2 list would have a many changes if those new requirements were to be applied. to be honest i did imagine i would see something like that, i just didn't think it would be this much similar :o Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: cryptohunter on March 03, 2019, 03:12:32 PM And there I was thinking about suggesting to have him banned from Meta and Reputation only. He'll be much happier that way :D Loyce ——> https://media0.giphy.com/media/wi8Ez1mwRcKGI/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a5c7bd9e3473053336f69fa29 Facts based post So it goes like this - 1/Loyce comes to my thread (ignoring my local rules) and inserts a link to his new thread instead of just answering it on the original thread like i challenged him to do. I mean my local rules specify that anyone can post if the present their case on my thread. He does not he just links to it on his own thread. 2/ Loyce then creates a thread that a/ makes false claims about me and my motives (not that they are relevant) b/ presents a specious conclusion based on my proposal 3/Loyce then tells me I can not post on this thread because my reply was off topic (It was on topic and was I answering his accusations and specious and misleading conclusions) 4. I tell him it was on topic and then challenged him and the other ass kisser asche telling me it was off topic to present a case as to why it was off topic. If they can then I guess it will be removed or I will adjust it. 5. Loyce pretends I am on ignore but then has somehow read the post where I said I need a few more hours sleep just after that. Also says he has not read the post anyway so how to know it is off topic?? 6. Neither Loyce or the other ass kisser comes back with any case to demonstrate I was offtopic (because obviously it was not) 7. Loyce now says he wants to ban me from meta to silence me (well this account anyway) from presenting challenges he will not or can not meet. This is just a prime example of how these people-- (Yes I mean most of you on meta) operate. So back on topic (not that defending myself against accusations can be off topic since it was stated in the OP) and as I have said I am sure you can not base much on these predictive models since people could well change their lists as the system is changed. You know what -- if Theymos started blacklisting people that did not stick to red trusting a/ scammers b/ strongly likely to scam then that could set an example and people may start using the system for its intended purposes rather than to prevent persons mentioning their untrustworthy prior deeds that are there for all to observe. Sadly though. I happen to believe that if you are willing to sit there and sanction and support these kind of untrustworthy persons then you yourself become untrustworthy. Together these actions are impinging on the free speech of all members. Yes, I know this for a fact because others have told me they are not happy but will not speak up for fear of reprisals and having their account painted red. I will likely not contribute further (or not too much) to this particular thread since I can tell my mere presence is distracting to all my admirers here that are starting to show up one by one. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: suchmoon on March 03, 2019, 03:54:38 PM 7. Loyce now says he wants to ban me from meta to silence me (well this account anyway) So nice of you to admit sockpuppeting. if Theymos started blacklisting people So now that your cockamamie theories have been debunked you want to go back to a top-down DT structure. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: cryptohunter on March 03, 2019, 04:06:39 PM 7. Loyce now says he wants to ban me from meta to silence me (well this account anyway) So nice of you to admit sockpuppeting. if Theymos started blacklisting people So now that your cockamamie theories have been debunked you want to go back to a top-down DT structure. Nothing - has been debunked You are drawing false and misleading conclusions again. Perhaps I can just hire a secretary to post on my behalf. If that is not permitted then I will just ask my close friends who share my sensible opinions based upon observable events to continue my righteous work. But do you now say sock puppets and those that use them are untrustworthy too? I wonder at your answer here?? I already said this end part before concerning theymos blacklisting trust abusers. Before this "debunking" (not debunking at all) so again your nonsense is observable. Please stop derailing the thread. Please contain yourself snitchy bitch. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: bones261 on March 03, 2019, 04:10:14 PM if Theymos started blacklisting people So now that your cockamamie theories have been debunked you want to go back to a top-down DT structure. I have a suspicion that if theymos started actively blacklisting several members, CH would not like those results either...CH will probably blame it on you if someone gets blacklisted that CH feels should not be blacklisted. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: cryptohunter on March 03, 2019, 04:15:29 PM if Theymos started blacklisting people So now that your cockamamie theories have been debunked you want to go back to a top-down DT structure. I have a suspicion that if theymos started actively blacklisting several members, CH would not like those results either...CH will probably blame it on you if someone gets blacklisted that CH feels should not be blacklisted. So the false speculations and assumptions just keep pouring in. Do you ever stop to think before posting pure drivel? You can only be blacklisted for abusing trust. Your job as a DT is (as far as red trust is concerned) 1. red trust scammers 2. red trust persons STRONGLY likely to scam you red trust others you are blacklisted. Trust abusers are banned it is quite simple. Stop asskissing suchmoon, huge black woman etc... it's sickening. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: bones261 on March 03, 2019, 04:25:03 PM if Theymos started blacklisting people So now that your cockamamie theories have been debunked you want to go back to a top-down DT structure. I have a suspicion that if theymos started actively blacklisting several members, CH would not like those results either...CH will probably blame it on you if someone gets blacklisted that CH feels should not be blacklisted. So the false speculations and assumptions just keep pouring in. Do you ever stop to think before posting pure drivel? You can only be blacklisted for abusing trust. Your job as a DT is (as far as red trust is concerned) 1. red trust scammers 2. red trust persons STRONGLY likely to scam you red trust others you are blacklisted. Trust abusers are banned it is quite simple. Stop asskissing suchmoon, huge black woman etc... it's sickening. You make it seem like that is a total black and white decision. It isn't. Especially when you add some vague qualifier such as "strongly." Do you mean more likely than not or do you mean beyond all doubt? Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: suchmoon on March 03, 2019, 04:31:59 PM You make it seem like that is a total black and white decision. It isn't. Especially when you add some vague qualifier such as "strongly." Do you mean more likely than not or do you mean beyond all doubt? It's obviously "if you disagree with CH you're a scammer". Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: cryptohunter on March 03, 2019, 04:49:36 PM if Theymos started blacklisting people So now that your cockamamie theories have been debunked you want to go back to a top-down DT structure. I have a suspicion that if theymos started actively blacklisting several members, CH would not like those results either...CH will probably blame it on you if someone gets blacklisted that CH feels should not be blacklisted. So the false speculations and assumptions just keep pouring in. Do you ever stop to think before posting pure drivel? You can only be blacklisted for abusing trust. Your job as a DT is (as far as red trust is concerned) 1. red trust scammers 2. red trust persons STRONGLY likely to scam you red trust others you are blacklisted. Trust abusers are banned it is quite simple. Stop asskissing suchmoon, huge black woman etc... it's sickening. You make it seem like that is a total black and white decision. It isn't. Especially when you add some vague qualifier such as "strongly." Do you mean more likely than not or do you mean beyond all doubt? well these are Theymos own words are they not? I thought he said that recently in his guidelines. I mean if you build a STRONG case someone is a scammer or going to scam then that obviously means it needs to be strong. If you are red trusting without believing you can present a STRONG case in Theymos's mind then you are risking getting blacklisted. This will cut out the blatant abuse and petty arguments and he called me this I called him that crap that people think they can paint you with a scam tag for. Or perhaps because you said you enjoyed LEMON tea. BOOM you're blacklisted. People can express their like or dislike of a fucking lemon without fearing their account getting a scam tag. suchmoon can make false assumptions of me admitting I have a sock puppet and I can't red trust them for that. People can not use "scare quotes" and red list you because you thought these were "normal" quotes when they were apparently quoting what you just said 3 times in that sentence.. People can say what they like so long as they are not scamming people out of money or setting up a scam. I mean really if someone offers escrow in a thread with little history anyone can post in that thread beware this person has little history and should be wary. Same for possible scam icos or anything "possible" just hit the thread saying this looks dodgy for X reasons and present the reasons. I never fought scams before by hiding away and snitching on them. Just hit them there hard and in the alt discussion board saying it looks like a scam and present the reasons why. You could tell them if they are on self moderated threads let you express your concerns on the thread and have them answered in public or then you feel that unwillingness to do this means they just crossed the threshold of "strongly" and will get some red pain until they change their minds. There is no real reason to pain people red unless they scam or really appear to be setting up a scam. Call them out in public, if then they will not play ball... BOOM some red for them. It will then be their own fault. No more using red trust to crush free and open discussion. This is not what red trust is for and certainly not for stopping persons telling the truth about other DT's prior wrong doing. That is the opposite of what red trust is for. @suchmoon Just contain yourself and make sensible posts that you can present some grounding for. We know you are prone to making ludicrous statements that you are unable to present any kind of case for. Take a moment to have a lay down. I think soon you will spiral into making "another" one of those types of claims. I mean i see nothing on this entire thread except nonsense claims with no case behind them. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: DireWolfM14 on March 03, 2019, 05:36:35 PM @LoyceV
Can you please put together the CH scenario? That's the one where you're position on DT1 is calculated solely by the number of times you've posted the words "Abuse" and "Merit" in coherent, well constructed sentences. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: Quickseller on March 03, 2019, 05:50:09 PM All of these scenarios only tinker around the edges of the DT system, and as you you shown, will only have a minimal impact on who is on DT1.
The new DT system is such that those now on DT1 have slightly more influence/power as those who were previously on DT2 under the old system and those on DT2 under the new system have slightly less influence/power as they did under the old system. I don't think it would be appropriate for a high activity requirement to be on DT1 as many people over the years have been able to show themselves to be trustworthy enough to be on DT (and understand the system) after being here for only several months. Perhaps a requirement to have 150, or 200 activity to be on DT1 would be appropriate, although I don't think it would affect who gets onto DT1 >99% of the time. IMO a better question that should be debated is if merit is an appropriate indicator for someone to be able to have influence on the trust system, and if it is appropriate for many people who do not trade (participate in the marketplace) to have an influence on the trust system (that is suppose to help those who do participate in the marketplace). Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: LoyceMobile on March 03, 2019, 06:03:28 PM IMO a better question that should be debated is if merit is an appropriate indicator for someone to be able to have influence on the trust system Probably not. But merit is a good method to keep account farmers out of DT-voting, and I think that's why theymos uses it.Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: bones261 on March 03, 2019, 06:24:03 PM well these are Theymos own words are they not? I thought he said that recently in his guidelines. Actually, these are theymos' last words regarding this matter. I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect. In particular, in my view: - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it. - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid. - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again. - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103988.0). Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views. I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists. As stated by theymos, he does not desire blacklisting people that don't follow his views. It appears that if this does not work out, theymos is simply going to get rid of it entirely and enforce custom trust list. I also believe theymos is going to give this new system a try for more than a couple months before considering giving up on it. Perhaps he will tweek it a bit in the coming months. However, Loycev data suggests that this will only have a nominal effect. Therefore, given this data, increasing activity is likely not to be a tweek he will implement. As for your suggested approach to directly confront a potential scammer and then accelerating a response to eventually include red trust, I see nothing wrong with that approach. However, I also see nothing wrong with simply "snitching." Most law enforcement agencies that I know of use both approaches. When I was a bill collector, I frequently resorted to both overt and covert means to attempt to get the bill paid. Whatever works and did not violate the law was fair game. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: Quickseller on March 03, 2019, 08:12:36 PM IMO a better question that should be debated is if merit is an appropriate indicator for someone to be able to have influence on the trust system Probably not. But merit is a good method to keep account farmers out of DT-voting, and I think that's why theymos uses it.Theymos has said he will blacklist anyone who is using alts to get into DT1 I have also argued in the past that I believe merit tends to be given to posts the person awarding the merit agrees with, which I predict will result in a cycle of those in power having more power, and any transgressions by those in power being overlooked. Ultimately it comes down to: Quote if it is appropriate for many people who do not trade (participate in the marketplace) to have an influence on the trust system Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: suchmoon on March 03, 2019, 09:12:04 PM Ultimately it comes down to: Quote if it is appropriate for many people who do not trade (participate in the marketplace) to have an influence on the trust system Marketplace participation would be even easier to game than your theoretical merit circle. Go to the marketplace, post a thread, have your alts post in it, post some trade feedback... eligible to have influence now? No to mention that business is done and scams happen outside of marketplace too (gambling, ICOs, etc). Merits at least can't be produced out of thin air by any random newbie and all transactions are public. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: cryptohunter on March 03, 2019, 09:49:36 PM Ultimately it comes down to: Quote if it is appropriate for many people who do not trade (participate in the marketplace) to have an influence on the trust system Marketplace participation would be even easier to game than your theoretical merit circle. Go to the marketplace, post a thread, have your alts post in it, post some trade feedback... eligible to have influence now? No to mention that business is done and scams happen outside of marketplace too (gambling, ICOs, etc). Merits at least can't be produced out of thin air by any random newbie and all transactions are public. But then again no objective person who looks at the fans and recipients of you and your "pals" can believe it is "theoretical" it is clearly there in black and white. The merit merry-go-round. Pull up the just the top 25 fans and recipients of you and the known "group of pals" each of your lists is riddled with each other. FACT Match that with your DT inclusions, the very similar "exclusions" and the way you all in "appear" in any threads calling anyone of you out on abuse or dare to suggest any changes to the systems of control you are gaming. Nobody would consider that "theoretical" really if they are being sensible and did not have self interest in making it seem only "theoretical" I would say persons acting in an observable close knit group like this are ripe for blacklisting immediately if you want a "decentralised" system. You want a group of persons NOT likely to collude or the entire thing is pseudo decentralisation. You have that with no punishment for flagrant abuse then you have a run away gang that can crush free speech in the name of catching a few 2 bit ico scammers. NOT WORTH IT. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: suchmoon on March 03, 2019, 11:31:33 PM whining I'm still waiting for actual proof of wrongdoing, preferably in another thread to stop derailing this one. Doctored screenshots sent by your sockpuppets don't count. For someone so bent on "fixing" the system you're awfully lazy when it comes to showing what needs to be fixed. I doubt you'll see any blacklisting as a result of your rambling. I doubt you'll see any blacklisting just because you don't like someone. I doubt you'll see any blacklisting to help you or your sockpuppets advance in "the systems of control". But if you can show someone actually "gaming" the system - like stingers did - you might see some action. But that would require you to do something instead of yapping, so it won't happen. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: cryptohunter on March 03, 2019, 11:52:43 PM tells it how it is and suchmoon tries to call it whining. Whenever in the past when I have pointed out wrong doing or untrustworthy behaviour is is always called... whining, butthurt, crying, moaning, etc......same thing suchmoon tries. I'm still waiting for actual proof of wrongdoing, preferably in another thread to stop derailing this one. Doctored screenshots sent by your sockpuppets don't count. For someone so bent on "fixing" the system you're awfully lazy when it comes to showing what needs to be fixed. I doubt you'll see any blacklisting as a result of your rambling. I doubt you'll see any blacklisting just because you don't like someone. I doubt you'll see any blacklisting to help you or your sockpuppets advance in "the systems of control". But if you can show someone actually "gaming" the system - like stingers did - you might see some action. But that would require you to do something instead of yapping, so it won't happen. Wrong doing has been proven many times in the context of a trust system a/ lying b/ self confessed trust abuse (red trusting for a presenting facts of wrongdoing) c/ sneaky and devious sock puppeting to racist troll sig spam for extra btc dust that is if we leave out the compelling evidence for extortion from your other pals. Sorry If I don't like your pals who are openly doing the things above. Stingers was HONEST he said I will give merit to excellent posts that agree with my politics here.This is like saying I will give merit to good posts I agree with. YOU ALL DO THIS OBSERVABLY. Suchmoon is DISHONEST because you clearly give merit on a political basis and snitchy little bitch that you are report stingers for being honest and force theymos to remove merit given to posts that objectively on their own merits deserved ....yes you guessed it MERIT. I have no idea why Theymos capitulates to your skanky ass every time you start snitching away. I mean I call it snitching but really he did nothing wrong. His mistake was just being HONEST. He should have just been a sneaky liar like you cyclers. .... err what we don't cycle it amongst ourselves its just out of 150k persons we believe ourselves deserve each others merit the most because we make such original thought inspiring posts that lead to huge ground breaking changes here..... haha oh really well come on present some of these master works so that I can admire them?? more like a bunch of cycled back slapping points for agreeing with each others gibberish and net negative nonsense. You have nothing to throw back but a lot of screaming about "my sockpuppets" which is a false accusation. You have ZERO evidence and ZERO compelling examples of observable events to back it up. Again you complain about puppets yet support on DT and merit a known proven sock puppet sig spammer. Double standards and false accusations you bring. Get back to your gutter and scramble around for something of substance before wasting my time again with your nonsense. Honestly you normally put up a little more of fight than this before you just start screaming unsubstantiated nonsense and run away. (Having said that it is nice to have you back again, I was feeling a little neglected). Yeah. derailing a thread that originates from my idea, makes false allegations about my motives and makes specious case for why it is unworkable and not worth it. Be rather difficult for me to go off topic especially as you keep blathering on about my "puppets" that simply do not exist. Now prove it, bring some evidence or even some observable events that you can present or stop making false claims that I have lots of puppet accounts here. Do I seem like some coward or snitcher that needs a puppet account. It is far more likely you use puppets than I do "Scum Buster". I do not want anyone black listed from DT because I do not like them. I want them blacklisted because they have proven themselves to be either liars, trust abusers or sneaky and greedy for finacial gain OR they have supported these types willingly. Yes sadly most DT must be vanquished if you want trustworthy persons in DT. Suchmoon claims you are untrustworthy and require red trust if you support even a "possible" scam. Therefore you willingly support proven untrustworthy scum then you are therefore scum yourself. You can not have double standards in public and expect to get away with it. Sorry!! Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: suchmoon on March 04, 2019, 01:41:10 AM Stingers was HONEST he said I will give merit to excellent posts that agree with my politics here. False. Observe: Sorry, for late support but I am also a victim of the trust abuse in the past. You can check my case on my trust feedback. It was a total harassment by DT and especially Lauda on me to put me down and out of this business. A contribution from my side would be a bunch of merits, as per the discussion in this thread merit is one of the most important part to vote for the DT and change it. I have some smerits to award for all the trust abuse supportive here. You need 10 earned merits to vote right? I can provide you with that to be eligible for voting. Not many but some of the supportive and abused, Jr.member and newbies can vote because of my help which is an honour for me. He simply stated he'll make users eligible for voting. No mention of "excellent posts". You have nothing to throw back but a lot of screaming about "my sockpuppets" which is a false accusation. You have ZERO evidence and ZERO compelling examples of observable events to back it up. If I had evidence you'd be banned. But you can observe this event (emphasis mine): 7. Loyce now says he wants to ban me from meta to silence me (well this account anyway) It is far more likely you use puppets than I do "Scum Buster". I know you don't like ScumBuster for obvious reasons but I don't need an alt to report posts... I do that from my account many times a day. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: cryptohunter on March 04, 2019, 02:45:31 AM Stingers was HONEST he said I will give merit to excellent posts that agree with my politics here. False. Observe: Sorry, for late support but I am also a victim of the trust abuse in the past. You can check my case on my trust feedback. It was a total harassment by DT and especially Lauda on me to put me down and out of this business. A contribution from my side would be a bunch of merits, as per the discussion in this thread merit is one of the most important part to vote for the DT and change it. I have some smerits to award for all the trust abuse supportive here. You need 10 earned merits to vote right? I can provide you with that to be eligible for voting. Not many but some of the supportive and abused, Jr.member and newbies can vote because of my help which is an honour for me. He simply stated he'll make users eligible for voting. No mention of "excellent posts". You have nothing to throw back but a lot of screaming about "my sockpuppets" which is a false accusation. You have ZERO evidence and ZERO compelling examples of observable events to back it up. If I had evidence you'd be banned. But you can observe this event (emphasis mine): 7. Loyce now says he wants to ban me from meta to silence me (well this account anyway) It is far more likely you use puppets than I do "Scum Buster". I know you don't like ScumBuster for obvious reasons but I don't need an alt to report posts... I do that from my account many times a day. Okay snitchy calm down... Whatever, theymos removed the merits from my excellent post that stood on its own merit for being excellent and merit worthy far more than all the crap you send merit to and way better than the net negative trash you receive merit for. The reason for removal was said to be political. When I discussed it with stingers he mentioned he would be giving it to good posts that he agreed with. Oh no how terrible and political. Oh really?? you think you can have people banned for having sock puppets do you?? well good ban the pharmacist then. Who do you think you are miss I will have you banned. Will you have him banned right now? get on it. Is English something you struggle with? "well this account anyway" does not essentially mean I have any other accounts currently nor essentially that i even intend to have any other accounts at all myself. Just because your limited capacity does not allow you to consider any other possibilities that sentence could be alluding to is not my issue. Get further education before putting emphasis on words that do not prove at all which you wrongly believe they do. Your case as always is weak bordering on pathetic. Your problem is that you do not realise that I hold all of the cards. I just see no sensible argument from your side of things. You all have observable untrustworthy histories and double standards and observably politically cycle the merits and all observably include each other and exclude as a colluding group. It's like a turkey shoot for me really. I feel only saddened by the desperation and dirty levels you will all sink to to keep some grasp on your abilities to put some little red marks next to people. LOL -- Get a life suchmoon and cheer up. There is more out there than long days scouring pages and page of text for whack a mole no consequence snitching and bitching. Find the big well funded and established scams then take them head on alone and see how you get along. If you want I will tell you some great detailed experiences from my illustrious past here and you can close your eyes and imagine for a short time what it would be like to be .........a real scam fighter with balls. I warn you though it is no place for snitchy bitches that's mans work. None of this sneaky red trusting behind their back and telling tales on 2 bit start outs that have no support and no hope of going anywhere whack a mole junk, or some poor honest member COPY AND PASTING OOOOOOHHHHH NOOOOOOO some helpful article or evidence of scam or mining guide to help people. What a snitchy little twerp. Find the real bad guys and bust them. You won't have to look far. Start with your pals. Or maybe even get a mirror who knows who would think of stealing a persons mining equipment. What's that?? you don't like allegations that can not be confirmed oh well at least there is some kind of evidence for that and far more than you have for me having sock puppets and that does not stop you accusing me over and over in public does it. Shut up girl you bore me with you junk. You have this tactic of avoiding the main content which crushes you and you snip little bits out you feel you have a chance at sniping at. Typical bitchy female. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: suchmoon on March 04, 2019, 03:12:52 AM Oh really?? you think you can have people banned for having sock puppets do you?? Not for having sockpuppets. For ban evasion. If you want I will tell you some great detailed experiences from my illustrious past here and you can close your eyes and imagine for a short time what it would be like to be .........a real scam fighter with balls. See that would have been a good path into DT and you would also have much more influence to effect change. Bust those scammers and post evidence in Scam Accusations. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: Veleor on March 04, 2019, 04:48:36 AM <...> Now prove it, bring some evidence or even some observable events that you can present or stop making false claims that I have lots of puppet accounts here. Do I seem like some coward or snitcher that needs a puppet account. <...> Let me do this, if you don't mind. ~ Account: cryptohunter (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=92110) Possible connected profile: Chosen Username (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2509769) December 20, 2018, 09:04:29 PM - The report on cryptohunter's plagiarism (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1926895.msg48790244#msg48790244) was published. December 21, 2018, 08:21:36 PM - Chosen Username (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2509769) has registered and claimed that s/he has a Legendary account. their should be a statute of limitations agreed upon for plagiarism 2 or 3 years especially if it is not related to signature spam or shitposting if you are motivated enough to go through the many years and thousands of posts on my legendary account you can probably find some example of text copied from someplace on the net without a link or something as an excuse to ban me it was not a major concern back then but now it is a ticking time bomb and major anxiety all it will take is to cross the wrong person enough for them to put in the time to search it all - they will probably find something - and all of years of effort i put into this forum will be gone and i would not even be able to start again with a new account because it would be ban evasion this is true for many good users old accounts full of years of banter a permanent account ban is harsh enough but a complete ban from even being able to start over is ludicrous what should i do ? spend weeks searching all my old posts in google and delete anything that matches ? what if the post has been quoted ? what about archives or waybacks ? December 26, 2018, 08:08:53 PM - Chosen Username has received 2 merit from cryptohunter for this post: marlboroza using ""plagiarism"" as weapon to silence critics (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088832.msg48851974#msg48851974) all start with cryptohunter not agree when one of central gang say "pre merit legends are spammers" CH point out the fact & data of the still broken aspect & centralize merit system correctly marlboroza have most centralized merit history & get angry when data show marlboroza then try stop CH with fake RED TRUST but had to remove 4 fake https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086816.0 gang cant handle criticism centralize merit one of gang make sock first to ban CH on plagarisms https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1926895.msg48790244#msg48790244 & fail - source was there but still "" Merited by Lauda (2), Foxpup (1), LoyceV (1) <agree with tactic next marlboroza main account start digging for plagarisms again to shut down CH with 4yoa post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1926895.msg48828854#msg48828854 & fail again keep digging marlboroza dig posts still today try to ban CH https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086297.msg48837494#msg48837494 still fail this dirty tactic of marlboroza shut down opinion by search ancient post 4 plagarisms we not worry about ""plagarisms"" in 2013-2014 like now TP & SM hide from subject in threads I say dirty tactic used you think good to use tactic ? how u feel if marlboroza search all your old post 2 ban u on technical if u disagree with marlboroza ? marlboroza try find me 2 to dig 4 plagarisms but wont expose apology - have to hide writing type or be attack by dirty tactic Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: cryptohunter on March 04, 2019, 09:54:54 AM veleoringpiecelicker slobbering his nose into suchmoons ass pipe for some merits Possible not the same as PROOF ... Possible not the same as compelling evidence. Yeah, that proves I have a sock puppet you idiotic little asskissing scab. I gave some merit to some person that out of this entire dirt pit that had some spine. If he came back I would give him more merit for his posts demonstrating his courage. Where as an ass licking little dreg like yourself deserves only a real legends contempt and derision. That is not proof or even strong compelling evidence that I have a sock puppet. I do not have a sock puppet account here. So your false accusations to kiss ass just make you look pathetic and desperate for some kind of acceptance amongst the other more credible dirt bags here. Who are you again? that's right Nothing and nobody. Just start a zero day old sock puppet account and post. its pretty much what you have now anyway. Noob trash with zero achievements here. Don't worry one of the "high paid" sig campaigns will accept you in a few months if you ass kiss enough. @suchmoon. you are getting more desperate - ban evasion ? wtf are you blathering about now. Which account that is banned do you suspect that cryptohunter is an alt of now? I don't need scam accusation I see a scam i call it a scam and create an all out war with the scamming little dirt bags pushing it until others start to accept it is a scam and start to bail and spread the news about their dirty tactics. That would be too head on for you. Stick to reporting and snitching with some red little marks. These new icos popping up are like mushrooms and only the very most greedy and stupid are going to risk burning btc on that junk these days most know these are white paper (toilet paper) dreams that are just marketeers with no developers behind them to push their dreams and talk into reality. It is the semi established and established projects with shady narrow distributions that seek to collude and manipulate the markets whilst sucking in semi savvy investors that are the biggest threat here. Unregulated ICO by its own nature is mostly a scam especially "capped" sold on out in 10 seconds crap for 2 million USD hits exchange with a CMC 100M . This is a 100 percent premine in POW terms and will suck investors in over time before it collapses in on itself to nothing. POW should be the only method of distribution. I'm glad the scamming icos are doing one good thing ruining that method of distribution. ICO is now almost a dirty word. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: Veleor on March 04, 2019, 09:07:20 PM Possible not the same as PROOF ... Possible not the same as compelling evidence. Actually, you asked for 'observable events'. My comment above proves with ~70% chance that you're a liar and have an alt account.Where as an ass licking little dreg like yourself... I'm sure that it's your specialty, because no one on this forum tried so hard to justify the known scammers for their political goals, as you do.Due to the fact that you're losing credibility and constantly insulting other members, no one takes you seriously. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: suchmoon on March 04, 2019, 09:56:21 PM you are getting more desperate - ban evasion ? wtf are you blathering about now. Which account that is banned do you suspect that cryptohunter is an alt of now? The one where you went full retard and got nuked: https://archive.fo/SBoeG I would appreciate if you could do that with your main account too. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: cryptohunter on March 04, 2019, 11:20:33 PM Possible not the same as PROOF ... Possible not the same as compelling evidence. Actually, you asked for 'observable events'. My comment above proves with ~70% chance that you're a liar and have an alt account.Where as an ass licking little dreg like yourself... I'm sure that it's your specialty, because no one on this forum tried so hard to justify the known scammers for their political goals, as you do.Due to the fact that you're losing credibility and constantly insulting other members, no one takes you seriously. 70% chance of being a liar - can you produce your calculations I want to check through those. You have it the wrong way around. You GAIN credibility insulting proven liars and trust abusers and greedy sock puppet sig spammers and their supporters. You LOSE credibility by ass kissing them for merits and other favourable scraps. I am ONLY insulting those that are PROVEN liars and those that support other PROVEN trust abusers and their ass lickers like you you. 100% chance of you being included in that bunch. ONLY when they start poking their nose in and attacking me first. Start to get that now? don't make me out to be unreasonable and vicious to people for NO GOOD reason. I wouldn't ever attack a person first. I simply do not believe in operating like that. @suchmoon You can dream, hope, pray, beg but since it never happened it is as realistic as dreaming about dating Bradley Cooper in your state. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: Vod on March 05, 2019, 12:00:57 AM I've taken the thankless task of addressing this. Maybe no thanks, but 14 merits. ;D Excellent work as usual, Loyce. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: Veleor on March 05, 2019, 02:00:03 AM 70% chance of being a liar - can you produce your calculations I want to check through those. To prove that you're a liar, it should be confirmed that you're writing from another profile. <...> You have nothing to throw back but a lot of screaming about "my sockpuppets" which is a false accusation <...> Let's take a 6-point scale: ▮▮▮▮▮▮ In order to state with full confidence that profiles cryptohunter (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=92110) and Chosen Username (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2509769) are belong to the same person, it's necessary that there are 6/6 matches, which means 100%. On December 20, 2018 a report on cryptohunter's plagiarism (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1926895.msg48790244#msg48790244) was published. On the next day Chosen Username (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2509769) had registered and claimed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5087992.msg48809393#msg48809393) that s/he has a Legendary account which could be banned for plagiarism. ▮▮▮▮▮▮ [3/6 = 50%] Chosen Username (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2509769) has the similar writing style as cryptohunter (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=92110) and this was noticed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5087992.msg48822716#msg48822716) by the moderator hilariousetc. ▮▮▮▮▮▮ [4/6 ~ 70%] Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: cryptohunter on March 05, 2019, 03:03:54 AM 70% chance of being a liar - can you produce your calculations I want to check through those. To prove that you're a liar, it should be confirmed that you're writing from another profile. <...> You have nothing to throw back but a lot of screaming about "my sockpuppets" which is a false accusation <...> Let's take a 6-point scale: ▮▮▮▮▮▮ In order to state with full confidence that profiles cryptohunter (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=92110) and Chosen Username (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2509769) are belong to the same person, it's necessary that there are 6/6 matches, which means 100%. On December 20, 2018 a report on cryptohunter's plagiarism (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1926895.msg48790244#msg48790244) was published. On the next day Chosen Username (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2509769) had registered and claimed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5087992.msg48809393#msg48809393) that s/he has a Legendary account which could be banned for plagiarism. ▮▮▮▮▮▮ [3/6 = 50%] Chosen Username (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2509769) has the similar writing style as cryptohunter (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=92110) and this was noticed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5087992.msg48822716#msg48822716) by the moderator hilariousetc. ▮▮▮▮▮▮ [4/6 ~ 70%] The first part is laughable and pulled out of your ass. Next I have no care for what anyone "thinks" who is supporting proven liars and trust abusers. I care what they can PROVE only. Their judgement is already called into question by overtly choosing to trust proven scum. 70% chance is 1. incorrect and likely 2% 2. not 100% so is speculation. I would not use a puppet and never have used a puppet account. So even considering your dumb shit calculations you pulled out of your ass. You do not get to call me a liar. You have zero proof. I will start calling suchmoon a liar and say that dumb bitch is ScumBuster then by your standards of evidence. Let me reiterate this for the last time. I do not need sock puppets since 1. anyone can see a sock puppet is a SOCK PUPPET so reduces its credibility to next to zero because people will speculate it is you. 2. I prefer to keep all of my effort locked down to this account. When reflecting upon my past I feel winning battles alone against multiple scum bags have always been the most satisfying. Hence why I prefer tennis to team based sports. Now shove your fake 70% up your ass. Speculation and false accusation and nothing more. Now back to begging for merits and dreaming about becoming a REAL legend. Go trawl read my post histories that range from forcing 2 BILLION dollar airdrops from scammers with armies of scumbag supporters, to being quite plausibly responsible for keeping BTC as number 1 in market cap, on to making paupers into millionaires, and being lauded for my works. Asked by super legends and super brains to help them fight scams. Imagine you can some day become a REAL legend. Let me quickly calculate on your little point scale the chances of that ever happening......0%. Oh well, imagination can be a useful thing give it a try or just go full on fantasy as you have been. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: suchmoon on March 05, 2019, 03:32:44 AM my writing style is in anyway the same Who said anything about "writing style"? Oh wait... obfuscate meine Sprache oder wie ein speeddealer lol garbled txt 2 avoid being panthered apology - have to hide writing type or be attack by dirty tactic Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: cryptohunter on March 05, 2019, 03:37:02 AM my writing style is in anyway the same Who said anything about "writing style"? Oh wait... obfuscate meine Sprache oder wie ein speeddealer lol garbled txt 2 avoid being panthered apology - have to hide writing type or be attack by dirty tactic Fuck you are dumb. Look to his post above my own it says it clearly there in your assmunchers post above my own. Says hilarious claims its the same. Although I never see hilarious and co say it is the same just speculates it is me for some reason that he is quite free to express now. Can you see it NOW ?? ScumBuster?? far more likely you are a puppet user you dirty skank. I don't say you are ScumBuster yet but one day you will trip yourself up. Not that I need anything other than your willing support of proven of liars and supporters of scams, and self confessed trust abusers, and greedy sneaky sig spamming sock puppet trolls. I mean I have enough dirt on you. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: suchmoon on March 05, 2019, 03:52:54 AM Says hilarious claims its the same. Although I never see hilarious and co say it is the same Drinking at breakfast again? You're making less sense than usual and that's quite an achievement. I would suggest using some punctuation and more English words, maybe a spellchecker or something like that. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: cryptohunter on March 05, 2019, 04:02:05 AM Says hilarious claims its the same. Although I never see hilarious and co say it is the same Drinking at breakfast again? You're making less sense than usual and that's quite an achievement. I would suggest using some punctuation and more English words, maybe a spellchecker or something like that. No you are just being stupid and are unable to discern a simple instruction. You said "who said anything about writing style". I said well your ass kissing pal did in his post. Sorry if the complexity is getting too much. If you can't get that now don't worry about it. Just get back to snitching or knitting or reading about my illustrious past imagining you could date someone of my calibre one day. You're out of your depth here. Anyway why am I wasting time here now that I have you back Here now you answer my questions suchmoron. Since your obsessed with sock puppets. What is your reasoning behind supporting a proven sock puppet greedy and sneaky racist trolling sig spammer like your pal the pharmacist? I mean you approve obviously? haha More questions on the way. I mean since you have totally derailed the entire thread then I may as well just use it to ask you questions whilst you are here insisting on derailing. Of course when you type at the speed I do you will make a few small errors and I will not check shit for you as I have told you before. I like that you need to read my scraps. Although most people with any kind of human level intelligence would be able to fill in any small gaps, errors to gain the meaning. I like that it requires you to struggle and often fail. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: Foxpup on March 05, 2019, 04:20:11 AM Since your obsessed with sock puppets. What is your reasoning behind supporting a proven sock puppet greedy and sneaky racist trolling sig spammer like your pal the pharmacist? I mean you approve obviously? haha I thought you were going to make a new thread for The Pharmacist and his purported "pals"?More questions on the way. I mean since you have totally derailed the entire thread then I may as well just use it to ask you questions whilst you are here insisting on derailing. Of course when you type at the speed I do you will make a few small errors and I will not check shit for you as I have told you before. I like that you need to read my scraps. Although most people with any kind of human level intelligence would be able to fill in any small gaps, errors to gain the meaning. I like that it requires you to struggle and often fail. You like failing to communicate properly? Okay, but stop complaining about people not understanding you when you've just admitted it's your own fault.Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: cryptohunter on March 05, 2019, 04:35:41 AM Since your obsessed with sock puppets. What is your reasoning behind supporting a proven sock puppet greedy and sneaky racist trolling sig spammer like your pal the pharmacist? I mean you approve obviously? haha I thought you were going to make a new thread for The Pharmacist and his purported "pals"?More questions on the way. I mean since you have totally derailed the entire thread then I may as well just use it to ask you questions whilst you are here insisting on derailing. Of course when you type at the speed I do you will make a few small errors and I will not check shit for you as I have told you before. I like that you need to read my scraps. Although most people with any kind of human level intelligence would be able to fill in any small gaps, errors to gain the meaning. I like that it requires you to struggle and often fail. You like failing to communicate properly? Okay, but stop complaining about people not understanding you when you've just admitted it's your own fault.FFS every attention seeking vixen and snitchy bitch wants my attention. I am on vacation right. Wait your turn. I asked if you wanted those threads I did not say you would be getting those threads. Are you not late for your next merit sprinkle on some untrustworthy scum bag you support. 1. I am not complaining, such moon is complaining it does not understand. 2. I am simply telling her and you if you are unable to understand then you must fall in to the category of sub human intelligence that can not fill in the tiny missing gaps and errors. 3. I am not going to spend time reading over it after i hack it out, nor spell check it. If you can not use context to place a meaning to a word spelled incorrectly or a missed comma then get back to school. get it now? Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: Foxpup on March 05, 2019, 04:58:44 AM I asked if you wanted those threads I did not say you would be getting those threads. Why would you ask if I wanted them if you weren't going to deliver? You know it's not nice to get people's hopes up like that. :(Are you not late for your next merit sprinkle on some untrustworthy scum bag you support. You don't dictate my schedule.1. I am not complaining, such moon is complaining it does not understand. No. You're omitting entire words and phrases:2. I am simply telling her and you if you are unable to understand then you must fall in to the category of sub human intelligence that can not fill in the tiny missing gaps and errors. 3. I am not going to spend time reading over it after i hack it out, nor spell check it. If you can not use context to place a meaning to a word spelled incorrectly or a missed comma then get back to school. get it now? I say that not only am I not a spammer. Feel free to finish that sentence at any time. I'll wait.Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: cryptohunter on March 05, 2019, 05:02:06 AM Are you not late for your next merit sprinkle on some untrustworthy scum bag you support. You don't dictate my schedule.Thanks, that is comedy gold. That is up there with a suchmoon level admission. Don't blame me if you're late and they start moaning. More back stabbing coming your way. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: Veleor on March 05, 2019, 07:06:14 AM Imagine you can some day become a REAL legend. The only legendary that you have is ego, you're so self-centered that nothing else seems to bother you. Speaking of 'ass kissing', you're fully comply with this definition, because you're ready to support fraudsters any day if they have the same political views on 'Default Trust' as you. You are a hypocrite, acting like a baby whose toy was taken away. With no doubts, it is better to be a newbie than such a "pro" as you are. You're a disgrase, not a legend. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: suchmoon on March 05, 2019, 01:28:41 PM After re-reading the whole dialog I have to apologize to cryptohunter. I didn't realize Veleor is "assmuncher".
Fuck you are dumb. Look to his post above my own it says it clearly there in your assmunchers post above my own. Is that his real name? Does this count as doxing? Getting awfully personal here. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: Foxpup on March 05, 2019, 03:41:47 PM If you don't understand how I of all people have fought scammers then you should not even be speaking to me. Not willing to wade through your entire post history, I'm just going to take a guess and say "by ranting incoherently about it and wondering why nobody listens". Am I close?Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: LoyceV on March 05, 2019, 03:48:00 PM I'm locking this (this is now post #67) until a Mod handles my reports.
I'd like to forward everybody who fed the troll to A boycott of replies to the recent extensive trolling by cryptohunter (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088527.0). Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: LoyceV on April 22, 2019, 03:24:58 PM Unlock and bump! Please stay on topic :)
Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: dragonvslinux on May 28, 2019, 01:49:06 PM Back on topic, some food for thought.
I understand the idea of proposed changes to DT is for the benefit of decentralization of this group, and while I don't believe hierarchical structures can become decentralized (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5148016.msg51251544#msg51251544), I think they can become more accountable. Arguably, this would help make the default trust group more decentralized to some extent, as it would be accountable from the ground up, as opposed to predominantly horizontally. For the purposes of the following, the ratios are mere examples and not proportionate, this is more theoretical mathematics than practical. I'm wondering how a scenario would look if to be in DT1 you additionally require;
Or alternatively, continue with <X:X ratios, so that to be in any of the DT groups, you require less than X:X ratio of inclusions from your DT.X group verses exclusions from DT.X(-1). Example: to be in DT2 you require <1:2 inclusions from DT2 verses exclusions from DT3. Note how DT2-4 would be less determined by DT1 in this scenario, and therefore much more experimental and unpredictable, as it would empower an exponential amount of members in 2-4 trust groups. I'm not recommending this at the moment, but more as as a direction to follow for the future, in the spirit of decentralized accountability. In summary: if someone is proportionally un-trusted twice as a much by the trust group "below" them, as they are trusted by their own DT group, they would be demoted from that DT group. Although these ratios presumably would be better applied based on the ratios of numbers of members in DT1,2,3,etc. For example, if there is 4x more members in DT2 than DT1, then the ratio would be better set to 1:4 (proportionate % based ratios). I hope that makes some vague sense, without doing the calculations I have no idea what this would look like, but you get the idea: lower DT groups make the higher DT groups accountable. If the DT problem isn't based on the majority of DT1 being untrustworthy but a handful of "bad apples", which I believe is probably the case, then this could remove these bad actors. I'm certain there would be some trusted DT1 members that would be maliciously removed by DT2 as a result, but it's a small sacrifice for the benefit of accountability in my opinion. Ideally, malicious DT2 actors can then be held accountable by DT3 members, and so on. I recognize there would be a need for enough members to have custom trust lists for this to work, and that probably these ideas are still too premature to implement, but there you go. Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: o_e_l_e_o on May 28, 2019, 02:02:41 PM It's an interesting thought experiment, and it would be interesting to crunch the numbers and see what changes it would have on the DT1 list.
If it were to be implemented, I would suggest changing it slightly. Let's say we have a user with 10 DT1 inclusions. As per your system, they could be excluded by 10 DT1 users and 20 DT2 users and 30 DT3 users and so on, and still be part of DT1. Surely it would make more sense to have an overall "inclusion/exclusion score". Each inclusion from a fellow DT1 would give +1 to that score. A DT1 exclusion would give -1, a DT2 exclusion would give -0.5, a DT3 exclusion would give -0.33, and so forth. They would need an overall score >0 to remain on DT1. Having said all that, it would currently be open to massive abuse, and that would need addressed first. A DT1 user could simply add 100 sock puppets to their own trust list therefore making all those sock puppets DT2, and then exclude anyone they wanted from DT1. Perhaps some kind of counter voting system using the same or stricter merit requirements for the current voting system would work better? Title: Re: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting Post by: dragonvslinux on May 29, 2019, 08:09:29 AM I appreciate your input, it's to the point and expands on the brainstorming I was looking for.
It's an interesting thought experiment, and it would be interesting to crunch the numbers and see what changes it would have on the DT1 list. My thoughts exactly, emphasis on thought experiment and what the potential outcome would be. If it were to be implemented, I would suggest changing it slightly. Let's say we have a user with 10 DT1 inclusions. As per your system, they could be excluded by 10 DT1 users and 20 DT2 users and 30 DT3 users and so on, and still be part of DT1. Surely it would make more sense to have an overall "inclusion/exclusion score". Each inclusion from a fellow DT1 would give +1 to that score. A DT1 exclusion would give -1, a DT2 exclusion would give -0.5, a DT3 exclusion would give -0.33, and so forth. They would need an overall score >0 to remain on DT1. I like this for the simplification, it's very similar to the second part of my suggestion, but without the requirement for a minimum un-trusted threshold from one particular DT group. It would also be much easier to calculate overall +/- trusted/untrusted values from DT members than my suggestions, from a math/programming perspective I imagine. Having said all that, it would currently be open to massive abuse, and that would need addressed first. A DT1 user could simply add 100 sock puppets to their own trust list therefore making all those sock puppets DT2, and then exclude anyone they wanted from DT1. Perhaps some kind of counter voting system using the same or stricter merit requirements for the current voting system would work better? Yes, I couldn't agree more. While sock puppets is a problem of sock puppets, it would easily destroy any attempts of DT decentralized accountability. I also completely agree that a minimum merit/rank requirement would be necessary before considering to implement any of these suggestions. This could still do with more brainstorming though, ideally from a more qualified mathematician in my mind. |
