Bitcoin Forum

Background:

Part one:

A week ago I was contacted by tranthidung who asked me to remove my posts in a thread they had started.  I politely enquired as to whether or not anyone else had been approached (they hadn't) and reminded tranthidung that the thread is archived in possibly a half a dozen different places, so were I to delete my posts (I haven't), there would still be copies floating about.  The exchange of messages was polite but short lived.

Part two:

Yesterday, I saw a thread in the lending section: Need $200 loan without collateral for emergency situation (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407754.0;dt) - The thread was started by icalical (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1102197;dt) whom I am unfamiliar with.

On their trust feedback page (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1102197;dt) I saw these two entries amongst the others:

icalical

Trusted Feedback:


Sent Feedback:


Puzzled (as I had just looked at tranthidung 's trust feedback a week ago and did not see this user), I checked their default trust page for the current week - week 184 (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-07-23_Sat_05.08h/1102197.html):


tranthidung exchanged trust feedbacks and had also promoted icalical to DT2 (and in turn tranthidung receives a green plus one from icalical owing to the DT2 promotion)

With Dabs fresh in my mind, I began to wonder if tranthidung has done the same thing to any other users they have received positive trust feedback from?

---

---

I make no assertion that any of these users are aware of what tranthidung has done.

Also, I make no assertion that any of these UID's are alts.

---

---

Stedsm

Sent Feedback:


https://loyce.club/trust/2021-08-21_Sat_06.09h/171896.html

---

---

ccFOUND

Trusted Feedback


Sent Feedback


https://loyce.club/trust/2021-08-14_Sat_06.20h/3310513.html

---

---

wwzsocki

Trusted Feedback:


Sent Feedback:


https://loyce.club/trust/2020-04-11_Sat_05.25h/131333.html


https://loyce.club/trust/2019-08-31_Sat_06.04h/131333.html

---

---

DarkStar_

Trusted Feedback


Sent Feedback:



https://loyce.club/trust/2022-05-07_Sat_05.06h/507936.html

---

---

Ratimov

Trusted Feedback:


Sent Feedback:


https://loyce.club/trust/2020-12-19_Sat_04.07h/2627711.html


I can't find any evidence that tranthidung DT trusts Ratimov (not yet at least) but it's interesting to view that tranthidung does a loan with both DarkStar_ and Ratimov earning them two positive trust feedbacks.

As we will see in a moment, tranthidung does a third (loan or trade) yet another week on from their dealing with Ratimov:

---

---

icopress

Trusted Feedback


Sent Feedback:


Neither appears to DT trust the other at this point.

---

---

cabalism13

Trusted Feedback:


Sent Feedback:


https://loyce.club/trust/2020-06-13_Sat_05.02h/1605387.html


https://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-11_Sat_05.05h/1605387.html


A month apart, these two exchange positive trust feedback - by this stage, both are minimum DT2, so each receives a green plus one, then fourteen months later within a month, both DT trust eachother further cementing their positive trust feedbacks.

---

---

...and finally, jayce who for no apparent reason a week ago gives tranthidung positive trust feedback.

jayce

Trusted Feedback


Sent Feedback


Neither from what I can tell DT trusts the other, however of the 89 trust feedbacks given to others by jayce, just six of jace's positive trust feedbacks have a reference link ^{(and people tut-tut me for my negatives - all of which have a reference link to actual proof  ::) )}

---

---

TL; DR:

As you can see nearly all of tranthidung's nine green positive trust feedbacks came from UID's that they have promoted to DT2 status, or prop up with an extra DT vote which tranthidung profilts from as it inflates their own green (trust feedback) score.

Essentially, tranthidung seems to be doing the same thing Dabs does.

This looks like Trust self-scratching indeed (at first glance).

When exactly did this happen? I was approached too, but saw no reason to censor my posts.

My trust list
Is anything wrong when I trust people I worked with and all goes smooth ?

Tell me, if excluding me out of DT1 gang, resolve the drama. I don't wait for your opinion to send my DM to theymos. I don't beg theymos to be in DT1 and it is not my dream. Things I have done are what I have done. The community recognize it or not, it is not a matter with me.  8)

Many drama like this in the past right? Nothing is wrong if a member is not in DT1, and when they are in DT1, you guys look at their trust list, and start drama. You guys make the forum like a circus.  :D

---

My DMs

In my DM to you and LoyceV and others in that thread, I think I wrote my reasons clearly. In fact, that is my topic and when I created that, I did it without any bad intention to bring troubles to anyone. Then, just recently I thought that something can happen so I deleted all my posts in that topic.

I know things can not be erased entirely on the Internet after it was published. But back in days ago, I did not know how to change title of all posts in my topic and because I thought post titles can be keywords for search engines. That is why I sent DM to some posters in that topic.

Later, Loyce taught me how to do this, so I changed all post titles by myself. So is it fine?

When I received your DM, you instantly asked why I sent that DM. Is it on behalf of other forum members? Can't understand why you thought like this.

It depends: do they have good trust ratings and good trust lists (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust)?

It's much more useful for the DT-system if you don't get excluded, but also don't include users just because they've left you positive feedback. I can only speculate why you included some of them, but this is what it looks like.

There's always drama on Bitcointalk :P But that doesn't mean Timelord2067 (who himself has many DT1-exclusions) can't have a point. It's also something you can (easily) improve.

This is the point here. I wouldn't see it as intentional abuse of the trust system, but more so mis-use of it. Clearly adding users they trust to their trust list, as opposed to users they trust their judgement of.

It also seems that a lot of users do the same, this being just one example. Users adding others to their trust lists not for the reasons they really should be. The irony being that each users trust list is more or less their own business, it's not the same as leaving +/- trust, even if it is "self-scratching (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5143841.0)". By the looks of it, tranthidung would barely make that list compared to others though.

The real question is does it make tranthidung's trust feedback less reliable (untrustwrothy) by adding users they trust to their trust list? Probably not. But it does probably make their selection of DT2 members unreliable, if they are simply DT2 as they are trusted by tranthidung, as opposed to having trustworthy feedback. This should all be relatively self-explanatory for DT1 members at this point.

Either exclude tranthidung or exclude the newly found DT2 members if you have a problem with it.

Thank you Loyce but it's done, now I am free to use my trust list when I am not DT1. I remembered after another drama, Hhampuz left DT1 too :)

---

About the discussion ^{in another topic} on how many inclusion from DT1 will promote a member to DT2, I think it makes sense. If the threshold for DT2 promotion is 10 ie., no drama with DT1 members and their trust list.  ;D

First message 2022-07-24, 21:17:21 (GMT +10) - Request that I remove my posts from their thread.

Second message 2022-07-25, 23:22:59 (GMT +10) - At this point tranthidung states they have not contacted anyone else.

---

---

Your vote (simply by having ten or more merits) counts towards others being selected into DT1, so your choices are at work seven days a week year 'round whether or not you are on DT1.

Some months your trust feedback score is lower e.g. +3 while other months when you are DT1 that number jumps to +9 which makes your BPIP score "most trusted" jump higher and in turn your overall "most recognised" score then becomes higher.  The perception when you are DT1 is that your are more trust worthy due to the higher score.

I could demonstrate by doing it with my own received positive trust feedbacks, take a screen shot then return those values to where they were to demonstrate, but I fear some DT Trolls would perceive such a move as an attempt at self scratching on my part and fall out of their perches in indignation.

You

Me

I am not good at English but it seems I understood my DM like "Have you made this request on behalf of others?" as I wrote in previous post above, rather than "Have you made this request to others ?"

It seems your question would be the second one? to, not of. I did not reply you like "I did not / have not made the same request to others". If I replied like that, you can judge that I changed my words but it is not in this case. Just a bit of miscommunication with prepositions ^{if there is}

Anyway, as I explained in my DM to you and in my post, the reason is the same.

Not sure why you wrote like I changed my words in two DMs to you.

---

I am not in Bitcointalk with a reason to be recognized by BPIP. Any logic here. Maybe you mind about ranking on BPIP but I don't mind. Sometimes I look at it but most of time I don't. If I (barely) look at BPIP, I mostly look at the merit ranking page with my curiosity that what is my rank compares to grandfather members with airdropped merit. Not care about trust page, recognized page.  :)

Aren't you mixing up Feeback and Trust System? I am not saying you did it wrong. I also guess you know better than me about Trust and feedback systems.

If you trusted someone with the trading and had a risk of losing money, everything went well. Leave positive feedback (Which you did).
If you see a guy left accurate feedback on others, Include them on your trust list. That's how it should work. Two different forum features to handle two different things. Feedback system to handle trading risk related (Can have some exceptions). Trust system to help to see more accurate feedback. I understand there can be exceptions. Since you are a DT1, You may know better than I or I can have the wrong knowledge. Correct me, please, if I am wrong.

Really?

Is it a mandatory condition that I have to look at their trust feedback on others, before including them into my trust list?
How a member use their trust list, trust feedback are only one of things you should trust or distrust that one. They are not only or main decisive factors.

People above have their points that I agree to but your point is wrong in my opinion. Including someone into your trust list means you trust that one. Excluding means you don't trust that one.

Trust feedback is for specific works, trades, deals etc. Trust list inclusion means you trust that one in general ^{but you can always change it if things change}. Hope that I don't misunderstand.

Lastly, a member is not in your trust list does not mean you don't trust that one. A member is not in your exclusive trust list does not mean you trust that one. I think it is serious to put one member into exclusive (distrust) list so I barely do it.

Self scratching makes the trust inclusion look funny, but it's not illegal. I don't agree with it. If I have worked with or been a part of a project with someone for awhile, I normally give em a positive trust rating at some point. I barely add users to my trust list though, very hard to get there.

Honestly DT is the biggest joke anymore. All it does is cause drama by those who are jealous of others stature. It's very obvious we will never be completely happy with whatever system is in place, there are too many wanna be alphas on bitcointalk(including myself) who think they are never wrong. Just scrap DT and move to a reputation based system where everyones feedback counts the same. If someone reads feedback(which they should if dealing with a user for trading or work), then they can judge for themselves how much they trust a person. As it is now, it's easily corrupted and a big joke.

Agree with you here.

It is better than the past with old trust system. I recalled that when a DT1 member (or even DT2 member) with high power weight (not sure how it was counted with past trust system), a negative trust feedback will be shown with very big multiplier like -100, -200 in dark red. That causes a lot of panic and drama.

Fortunately, with current trust / feedback system, all is the same (at least in visual display in orange). But again, a drama is moving to a third party site (BPIP - early after the launch of new trust/ feedback system, they used the old trust algorithm for people who missed it. Maybe months later, they changed and applied a new algorithm (or their own) for Recognized page. I don't follow it so I am not sure)

I am not here to be recognized on BPIP
 :-\

This part is correct. Seems like you have misunderstood him.

The system is very much simple.

If you can trust someone with fund, send them positive feedback. While on the other hand, if you can trust someone with their judgement, you can include them into your trust list.

I think you are wrong though I can't remember correctly. It was something like as much as the feedback gets older, it gets more value. I can't remember exactly though. But it was not something like with more DT2 inclusion, it will get big multiplier.

Feel free to play the "lost in translation" card if you like - that's just a deflection from the topic at hand being "self scratching".

I see via BPIP that you have removed those users mentioned earlier and I for one thank you for doing so.

---

---

Regarding the various questions around points accumulated via positive or negative trust feedback (and even if you don't use BPIP, the point of this thread is that you are infact using the Trust Feedback system).

One positive trust feedback over a ten month period accumulates ten points - one point the day the feed back is posted, then one point per month for nine months thereafter.

It's how the system WAS until a few years ago. Some users had "hundreds" of points whilst others had just ten or twenty points.

Your green +9 is actually 90 accumulated points - nine months from when the last positive was received.

---

---

OTOH

A negative trust feedback increases (badly worded) by a factor of two points to the power of however many negatives are received from DT1/2's.

One negative = two points removed.
Two negatives = four points removed.
Three negatives = eight points removed.

That's negatives from DT1/2 members in any given month (see below). (To clarify - one negative per DT1/2 member regardless of however many negatives they post.  The same applies to positive trust feedback from DT1/2)

Effective immediately.

---

---

Feel free to correct me if my information is incorrect.

---

---

(Below - any DT 1/2 with a negative score don't have their posts counted in the above, but that's another off topic discussion of its own).

Nah. No play of translation card here. I am not born and living in a nation that has native English so probably I am not perfect in English. But honestly so far I don't believe I misunderstand your question with the proposition 'of' and I believe my answer is very clear with the preposition 'from'. If I denied that I did not send any DM to other posters in that topic, I would write "No DM to anyone else" or "No request to anyone else". Make sense?

Still not sure why you used 'of' in your DM to me in that question
My misunderstanding possibly come from 'of' that you used. I thought it is on behalf of. Sorry if I extrapolate it inaccurately. In my second DM to you, I wrote nothing to be serious and explained it clearly.

Sorry, removed who?

I agree (as wrote above) but I think yahoo has a valid point. This drama is because I am in DT1 and when I add one member in my trust list, it means I promote them to DT2. Now, it's gone. I am in blacklist of theymos, forever.

Back to your story, do you think that if someday you is in DT1 and your alt will automatically become DT2, will it trigger another drama? Now, you are not DT1, no drama. So how about future?

I see LoyceV did not add his alt, LoyceMobile in LoyceV's trust list but DarkStar_ add his alt in his trust list as same as you did. Right or wrong, it depends on how you look at it. Personally, I see it is not serious but not adding your alt to your trust list would be a better option. I don't use to trigger a drama card if your alt won't be used to scam anyone. However, if someone want to trigger drama, they will have reason to do that especially if someday you are DT1.

It seems you love the past trust system and try to stick with BPIP and old algorithm that I never spent my time to read it thoroughly. If you love it, just stick with it but you should not ask other members to use BPIP and consider the trust algorithm on that site as official one of the forum. What I am using is the current version of Trust feedback system, not an old version years ago.

Reasons why we have a new trust feedback system. Because past algorithms cause drama when people can paint other walls in dark red. How it becomes darker with time, as said, I don't spend my time to learn its algorithm. But now, it is gone from this forum, isn't it?

Read this again:
Follow the link to read the full description. This forum is all about freedom, but if you follow what it says there, you could call it mandatory. I believe it's necessary for the Trust system to work properly.
I also believe this:
But unfortunately, many people have a different interpretation.

You forgot the word "judgement". Trusting someone with money is not the same as knowing they leave accurate feedback. But since you're excluded from DT1, it doesn't matter to the rest of the forum anymore if you follow a different line of reasoning.

A user needs 10 votes to reach DT1, so individual votes barely mean anything. The users that were made DT2 by tranthidung won't reach DT1 any time soon.

BPIP is simply a telegraph repeating what occurs on the forum.  BPIP also does a couple of others things such as rank those scores that occur on the forum and takes the average of three of those scores to create a "rank" of users. 


According to BPIP, you have removed these users from your DT trust list:

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/15/blob276f78ec67f2eb7b.jpeg

I had assumed you removed those users, however, your next part I've quoted needs clarification:

---

---

Did @theymos tell you that?

---

---

Actually yes, I am DT1 this month. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5117330.msg60488026#msg60488026)

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/15/blobe9ce2f1d3ca70e5a.jpeg

You sound like a DT climate denier when you say that.

---

---

While that may be true in this instance, it's straying from the topic of the thread that their trust feedback caused self-scratching.

I don't care about these ranks!

Because if I care about it, I should spend my time to understand what algorithms / criteria they use to calculate ranks that is unnecessary. I don't obsess with those ranks especially they are on BPIP. I have my name here, bitcointalk not on BPIP. They are built and managed by trusted team but it does not mean they are representatives of the forum.

Sorry. Again, don't rely on third-party resources too much. It's a bug from BPIP and they should fix it ^{I did not know BPIP has that information too. Thanks for sharing}. My trust list is the same from my side, no changes. Change was made by theymos, not by me so their information is not correct.

No. I sent him a DM after that post and it was done a few hours later when he was online.

Speaking of drama - it's considered bad manners to quote a PM (as you have done with my PM's) without a person's permission.

(you neither sort, nor received my permission to mis-quote me)

---

---

Thanks also for clarifying theymos did NOT exclude you - that you (if I'm reading you correctly) REQUESTED to be excluded.

Yes, this is true, agree. I should not do this!

---

Initially, in my answer, I did not quote any thing.
Later you brought that one on. If you did not have inaccurate paraphrasing of my DM that is very simple to understand, I did not quoted it. If you paraphrase, paraphrase it accurately and don't distort the original meaning, please.

Nice deflection.


I stand by what I said in the OP.

Trust setting has been designed for that actually. Before adding or removing anyone from your trust list you should consider their judgements of how and why they leave feedback to others also their judgments to the different cases they interact in conversations.  

I read the whole case yesterday from my phone, I was not logged in. I believe your intention is not bad. But you were not clear how to use it.

No one is powerful 🤣
Before it was only on Theymos who used to pick the DT1 and rest those were picked by the DT1 were DT2. It was completely a single call from the admin which obvious was not better than the current system we have.

Are you trying to win on semantics from a non-native English speaker? I'm with tranthidung on this one:
Timelord2067's (quoted) question isn't clear. If you would have said for instance: "Have you asked others to remove their posts too?", there wouldn't be any confusion.
Tranthidung answered your vague question by stating the request didn't come from someone else. Don't blame non-native English speakers for being confused on vague questions. He didn't say he did not contact anyone else.

I don't think you can call it mandatory. Maybe it should be, but clearly it isn't. Everyone has the freedom to include who they want in their trust list, in the the way they want, for they reasons they want, regardless of suggested guidelines. It simply means that not all DT1 eligible members should be DT1 if they aren't creating their trust lists appropriately and in the way they should be (based on a users judgement).

If there was a confirmation page after trust list edits stating "Are you sure you trust/distrust these users judgement?", then sure we could call it compulsory. But for now that's not how it works. Maybe some users simply want to only see the trust feedback from users they trust, regardless of whether their judgement is correct or not. This is worth taking into consideration I think and possibly why tranthidung had the list they did.

It just means if that's the case then users should either submit to being blacklisted, or otherwise excluded as a DT1 member, as has been the case here. Now tranthidung is able to see trust feedback from users they trust, as they desire, without any further controversy about it. After all there is no direct option from users to be included in DT1 or not, so there is no formal agreement to this as it were.

Timelord2067 has some weird sense of humor. Being suspicious is not bad but it's not good to stick to it when there are some clear explanation. I am with Tranthidung. He may be did not use the system how it should be but he did not do anything wrong to go under the sword too.

I could be wrong. But that's how it should work. At least that is what I read from LoyceV's thread which you can find in his previous post. He already mentioned the part I was talking about. If I am right (I assume I am after seeing LoyceV's post), I guess you misunderstood or it wasn't intentional. It's not any offense anyway. You have removed almost all of them from your Trust list.

One thing, my guy, Life is not a bed of roses. If you know you are right, Do not get manipulated by haters' allegations. Do not take a decision when you are angry or manipulated by others. Take your time. Observe everything. If you know, You are legit. Strictly with your decision.

I wrote:


(Their request was to remove my posts)

Their reply was:


It's not ambiguous.  They claim they never asked anyone else to remove their posts, hence what Tranthidung is now saying is misleading.

---

---

By their own admission, as with Dabs, they haven't actually corrected their misuse.  In this instance, they have simply had themselves removed from the DT1 vote.

Like Dabs, tranthidung is ignoring the expectations of their peers.

Please stay on topic.

Well, like AnotherAlt said, there is clear a difference between feedback and trust.
There is nothing wrong in trusting people you worked with and all goes well, but on the other hand, I personally don't think it's right trusting every single person youve had a successful deal with, or even promoting them to a higher DT level because they gave you a g'trust (clearly, I am not a DT member so I might not fully understand how the DT system works).
I think we all should refrain from trusting a user on our very first successful deal with the user, there are some users who do deals solely for the purpose of gaining a g'trust most especially from DT members.

I am on topic. I would love to see Tranthidung understand the idea of using feedback and trust setting. Give him time to understand instead of poking him. It's not a place we blame each others.

The Dabs case was not clear to me as I did not have time and mind to involve in other things because of the situations I was in for the last few months.

I'm pretty sure Tranthidung knew what they were doing given they now DT distrust me together with the issues I raised in the OP I consider their action to be retaliatory towards me.

I did not distrust you because of this topic, but it is because you played with words, and distorted my DM meaning to you. Please ask anyone who can understand my reply to you in the way you described in your posts.

• Prepositions 'from' and 'to' have different meanings and you tried to change the meaning. If you can point out any dictionary supports your opinion, please share, I am ready to learn it.
• So far, I did not understand the preposition 'of' has the meaning you implied. Maybe I could be wrong here because I am non-native English speaker
• Weird

This style is reflected on many feedbacks given to your account by other members too.

You're still playing the "translation" card?

Go ahead. Nothing to be serious when you distrust me.  :)

As I said, if you can not share where the 'of' preposition has the meaning you implied here, you are wrong. The way you understand my answer with 'from' is wrong too. So your distrust makes no sense with me.

Nice deflection there.

I've found that you were gaming the trust feedback and default trust system, so you in turn sequel and fill the thread with FUD.

*CASE CLOSED*