Bitcoin Forum

One of our developers with Bitmark(Leathan) has been working on a Bitcointalk marking integration. So far it works but it's still in the early stages of testing and not ready for full production yet. But I wanted to make a thread to ask people some of their opinions on how they think reputation should be calculated for this specific marking integration.

Having a robust reputation system here could really benefit the forum I think. As we can see that it's not always easy to tell who's worth listening to and who's not. Working it out and getting it right will take a little bit of time but I feel it's a worthy endeavor so any input is greatly appreciated.

For reference, one mark is 0.001 BTM.

If you're not familiar with the marking concept you can check out a temporary FAQ we put up here (http://faq.bitmark.co/) or ask me anything in this thread here and I'll do my best to answer you.

When you reply to someones post, the syntax will probably be something like this:


In this case the person you're replying to would gain 10 marks and that data would be recorded on the local bitcointalk integration ledger. And eventually the data will be hashed and the hash stored on the Bitmark blockchain for reference in what we're tentatively calling the 'markchain'.

Here's an example of some real markings that have taken place: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=660544.msg9214321#msg9214321

An example of a live marking integration from Poloniex:  https://www.poloniex.com/marking and https://www.poloniex.com/markingLedger

Keep in mind this is still in early testing mode so I wouldn't try to use anything unless you contact Leathan and ask him how you can assist in the testing.

The raw data for each user will be simply this:

Number of marks given
Number of marks received
And then a 'why' string that a user can specify

So as far an an algorithm to help give a good representation of how reputable people are and how they contribute to Bitcointalk, what things do you feel are important to focus on or give more weight to?

Do you feel the registration date of the person who marked someone is an important factor that should be given a lot of weight in the algorithm? If  so, how much relative to other factors?

Do you feel the activity score of the person who marked someone is an important factor that should be given a lot of weight in the algorithm? If  so, how much relative to other factors?

How much weight do you feel should be given to the raw amount of marks given(more marks given is more value received)? Keep in mind that in general reputation algorithms have ways to mitigate abuse such as someone just marking themselves on another account. But nothing is full proof and human judgement by viewing the data on the marking ledger is always the best option.

Do you feel that people should gain reputation for giving marks? Should their marking activity or frequency add reputation? What about the amount they give relative to others?

Should people who give out a lot of marks to people be considering something like 'marking whales'?

How do you feel about having leaderboards to give a good idea of people who contribute positively and have a good reputation? Should there be two leaderboards, one for reputation received and then one for the 'marking whales' who give out the most marks?

Feel free to be as specific as you want. If you have some ideas on how to calculate the reputation score feel free to do so. Each marking integration normally has different requirements and different communities. Poloniex for example created their own reputation algorithm when they started the beta of their marking integration.

Here's a link to the main Bitmark thread and Bitmark News if you're curious:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=660544

http://bitmarknews.com/

 
Wait, so the data are stored on the blockchain right ?

Where can I see my account "superresistant" with my data ?

What about abusing the system ?

The total amount of data will be stored on 'x' which will be the bot responsible for this specific marking integration. But the intention to hash the data at certain times and store that on the blockchain so the data can be verified if needed. And the raw marking data itself is also intended to be stored in multiple places so it's more distributed. Things like torrents, other local hosts, storj ect. And since the hash of data from specified periods should be verifiable on the blockchain, you'll be able to check if the data you get from some source matches the original source from comparing the hashes.

That part though is a few steps ahead though.

He's already gathered all 3xx,xxx Bitcointalk accounts so I'm sure he has you in the database already. Don't think there's an exposed way to look yourself up yet unless someone marked you though.

The abuse issues are what I hope to mitigate here by discussing ways we can implement an algorithm that helps with that.

For example, on Poloniex I think they have it so the marks you give to the same person over time are diminished significantly.

One I idea I'm thinking of here is that hero members and legendary members markings will have significantly more weight in the algo than say newbies or jr. members.

Mhhh... I don't know if this is a good idea.

Reputation makes sense when it comes to transactions, but for content only it doesn't provide more information than can be obtained by reading. Actually I think it's likely to lead to abuse, either to damage or improve a user's reputation. It will quickly establish biases and prejudice towards users as well because the importance of every post will be evaluated based on the user's reputation, giving less attention to the actual content and disregarding the fact that even low rep. / high rep. users might also post quality / crap content.

As a result it will make conversations in the forum more one-dimensional and superficial. People will read less and will pay less attention taking the reputation short route.

ya.ya.yo!

bad idea because this is forum not room chat

I don't think it will be as distracting as you might think. Originally there won't be anyway to see someones reputation right away without going to the ledger site. That might change overtime if we develop a browser extension will could overlay each persons reputation.

The general idea is that it incentives good content and provides people will a small reward(that has the possibility of appreciating over time in adoption grows re:demand).

People won't be able to damage anyone's reputation as there is unlikely to be anyway to negatively affect it. People trying to abuse the system will hopefully be mitigated somewhat by the algorithm developed. But also remember that every marking is on a public ledger, and humans tend to be good at spotting things that don't look right. So people who attempt to abuse the system will likely be spotted I would think.

If someone makes a new account and is posting quality posts and good content I would expect that person to be marked accordingly and receive reputation.

People should still be reading threads as they do now I'd imagine. I don't know why people would read less than they do now.

Thanks for the comments. :)


I would think it would be more important than chat, as more substantive issues are normally discussed on forums. People can be rewarded for contributing thought provoking posts, or making people aware of important information.

I am interested in the creation of an algorithm that will incentivize good behavior & positive contributions...Though I see the benefit of this algorithm more relative on a broader spectrum of Markings (outside of Bitcointalk).

I will open up a spreadsheet and get basic data of a sample...I will take a few standard deviations (SD) of the sample and then let you know what I come up.

So how can I now do this marking you talk?? I see on polo, but who to do on here  ??? ??? ???

sounds like a merger of the old addon for this forum posted elsewhere with features such as topic ratings..
combined with a Reddcoin tipping scheme of sorts..

sorry not interested that is all i can say.

I like the idea. I know newb so no weight but whatever everyone has a right to speak their mind regardless of sign up date.

If it were active now it would be something like this:

+20 bitcoinbboyce great question

Not sure on how the exact syntax will be after testing. But something like that.

Ok so the syntax will be the same as the polo marking, this have ledger too? How to retrieve my marks from btt??

You will try btc-e twitter and Facebook too??

forum dint even update defaulttrust

i thik btctalk is tagnant for rep

 
What about learning to trust people by talking to them and observe how they behave on the forum ?

The problem of a trust system is that people tend to believe it blindly.

Also when there is a trust system with points, you see plenty of attention-whores that want to collect points for the sake of it.

Este, if this system is ever implemented here, I will leave the forum.
It will trigger a circle-jerk of gargantuan proportions as people race to accumulate Bitmarks.
Notwithstanding that, the implementation of such a system would signal the tacit endorsement of Bitmark by the forum's admins - it's not going to happen.

https://i.imgur.com/mrQXVxl.gif?1

Not really. I'd like the algorithm to weight the amount of money less the higher it gets. Similar to how it works now on Poloniex. On Poloniex a marking of 10 can easily give more reputation than a marking of 1000 depending on who it's from and how often that person has marked them in the past.

If anything the monetary aspect of it can at least help limit the abuse somewhat due to the cost associated with it. It's very low cost, but even microtransactions can help limit spam type activities.

It would be a third party implementation. Not an implementation by Bitcointalk.

Same way we implement on twitter, youtube, facebook ect. Marking acts as a layer above the web and doesn't need the approval of anyone.


Marking doesn't exclude people interacting in a normal manner and deciding who you feel is a more valuable contributor. But it also adds another dimension where you can use crypto as an acknowledgement and incentive to show your appreciation of people who contribute in a postie way.

This isn't meant to be believed blindly. In fact it's meant to be questioned and give people data too look at and make their own decisions via the public marking ledger.

People who are doing things that aren't welcome should realize over time that they're not getting the marks they had hoped for if their content is view in a negative manner.

Anything has to be better than the current multi-flawed rep system...

if you can buy and sell accounts then any rep system is a moot point i think !


PS: i was just dying to use the word "moot" somewhere :)

All we need is Spoetnik opinion.

You make a fair and valid point, to be able to say I am no longer domain/user (https://trello.com/c/orgxj9A5/245-detach-persona) is an important part of the system.

I would invite you to consider a reputation system which does not expose ones reputation, which is not invasive, and does not create noise.  Let's say that on some website which allows the marking of any url, and where you and I both have accounts, that I may mark you 500 marks for slipping "moot" in to this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=830024.msg9288285#msg9288285).  Now let's say some others do the same thing.  In such a system no change is needed to bitcointalk, nobody considers you to have more reputation, nobody has even seen you have been marked on the forum, but you have been given transferable kudos by some people that you can use to buy a coffee or to give to some others for things they've done that you 'like'.  Even without the reputation metric exposed the system has merit.

If we now add in the reputation metric, and say you have a user page on this marking website which lists that you are Spoetnik on Bitcointalk with reputation XXX, and RandomJoe on otherwebsite with reputation YYY, and so forth, then people may view you as knowledgeable or skilled in some domain, but not in some other, that you may know some things about crypto currency but may not be a great babysitter.  Under such a system it is in your own best interests to keep your usernames up to date, if you've sold an account or swapped usernames this should be reflected and there is some incentive to do so, as the next paragraph will hopefully explain.

Reputation is not trust.  We plan to leverage identifi (https://github.com/identifi/identifi) to allow people to make trust statements about others.  The combination of these two systems allows far more information to be exposed about a persona, it can openly be asserted that SomeUsername on Bitcointalk has gained reputation for technical knowledge, for some code committed, but has negative trust statements related to managing peoples money.  Thereby allowing people to see that SomeUsername is a good person to have on a development team, but shouldn't be trusted with a 2000 BTC ICO.

Sure, systems can be exploited in various ways, exploits will be found and patched over time, some technical some social.  The ability to make statements, to assert positive or negative trust for some purpose, and to pass transferable divisible cryptographic reputation from one person to another, has a lot of merit and will surely serve to let people make more informed decisions.  Hopefully some people will be rewarded fairly for things they've said/created/done/shared where they currently aren't.  As melvster says, currently you get liked for something but (facebook/youtube/reddit/major-site) get all the rewards, in marking you get them.

I don't think you understand the point of this. It's not about the alt section at all. Those things you mentioned are irrelevant to marking and marking has nothing to do with any of those things.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say. This is just about being able to instantly transfer crypto among people on Bitcointalk in a way that's also recorded on a public ledger. Each marking also acts as a method of bookmarking posts that you've found insightful or funny.

This isn't supposed to be a replacement for the (very bad)trust system that's currently implemented. That might come later, but what I'm talking about here isn't that.

i personally would never trust transferring  'crypto' on this website.

You don't have to trust this website specifically. The implementation would be a microtrust provider. You would be dealing with a handful of cents at a time, free to deposit and withdraw at will. The trust issue is basically a non starter as the implementation itself isn't meant to function as a wallet to hold your BTM. You would just send and withdraw small amounts of marks as needed.

Also, there are trustless implementations being looked in to too at the moment. Mainly trustless micropayment channels. But for something like this it's probably overkill. Might happen in the near future though.

I see how this could be irritating to the occasional false positive, but for the most part Vod is actually providing a service to newer members and the forum in general. He's been here for a long time and he knows that an exceedingly high percentage of new users who post ads for loans (BTW whats a new user doing asking for a loan in the first place?) never repay the loan nor had any plans to repay the loan.

I am a vocal critic of the trust system for 2 reasons: 1 - accounts can be bought and sold and along with it their trust, 2 - you can post a "trust" rating for any old reason. You don't like that guy's jokes, this other guy made you cry, etc... has nothing to do with asking you to trust them.

But in Vod's case its a simple matter of statistics... If 70-80% of all noobs never repay their loans, a noob asking for a loan is likely to be a scammer. He feels this is the way to make people think twice before accepting to provide the loan, which, 70-80% of the time, is a good idea.


Bitmark sounds like a novel idea to me and I think it should be tried for the sake of experimentation. But it would work better if BTMs didn't actually have BTC value, in my opinion. People tend to get more honest about things once you remove the profit motive from the equation.

For damn suuuure ;)

strap this one on..

anything related to a reputation here where you up or down vote peoepl or their posts etc is a dumb idea.
why ? well there is many of course but here is yet one more..

it is a crystal clear fact that many of the Cloners and their Bag Holder supporters here create many alternate accounts to Troll and Advertise
i know on average i get about 2 new accounts a day coming after me..

i have seen this turn into an epidemic around here since OCT/NOV 2013
someone criticizes a coin and a new account is created a few minutes later spouting off nothing but insults.. Trolling hard.
And guys like me are STILL using the same account.
Get it ?
Guys are gaming abusing the system hard so no wonder some of you are pushing for a rep system LOL  ::)
i bet my left nut your the same trolls / shills here with dummy accounts advertising etc.. hiding and polishing your Main account.

Wanna see something funny ?
I got two PM's (months ago) at the same time one day randomly and guess who was involved.. PM is saved = http://pastebin.com/sDV6rWiB

LOL...just keep changing your name & address Sputters...it will all work out ;)

did you really have to quote me ?
to make up a lie ?
i have said 100 times probably i use one account and on some sites i used the name Greenhorn *instead.
how many have you used here Oldminer ?

and congrats on saying something on topic  ::)

Nah I'm always on topic, its you that's not - you just dont realise it LOL.

But its all good buddy - I love ya. Your always good for a laugh  ;D

Keep in mind that in general I do not give a damn on these reputation numbers, and you do not either. We both use that "human judgement" as only safe way.

And 'marking whales', seriously? What devilish kind of 'marking whale game' is up to plot? Do I have to believe the guys with the impressive big numbers, anything they say? Nope, woun't happen. Couldn't care less.

It's not meant to be a definitive system.

I'm not claiming at all that people should give people who mark a lot more presedence over others. The questions are just meant for discussion. Perhaps someone has an argument that someone should receive a small portion of reputation for their marking activity. Maybe they think otherwise. That's why I'm asking the community.

In one implemenation (http://klaranet.com), marks given is a recorded stat on the public ledger. On Poloniex's implementation I don't believe there is any way to see how many marks have been given by someone without scraping the data yourself. So we have different approaches. The point is to tailor marking for each community to make it do whatever it is you want it to do and show whatever data you want it to show. It's a flexible system with no predefined way of doing things.

An example of one users ledger. Scroll allllll the way down to see the raw statistics. There is no algorithm implemented on this implementation:

http://klaranet.com/recent?uri=https%3A%2F%2Fprojectbitmark.slack.com%2Fteam%2Fmelvincarvalho%23this

wish defaultlist was updated here finally

If you have a marking system, you could buy and build accounts in order to boost your rating so you could get some kind of pool of accounts as a paid marking service to boost rep which is not really any different than it is now.

The point of developing the algorithm is to mitigate things like that. It's one thing to buy ten accounts, but it's another thing to buy ten accounts that have all been active recently and have a enough of a reputation themselves for their markings to be weighted heavily enough to make it worth it.

Also, this isn't meant to be a trust system in the first iterations anyway. Later on with further integrations with trust systems like identi.fi, then maybe. But not yet.

Think of early versions more like reddit karma, but with the added bonus of money. Gaming this type of system at this point shouldn't really have much of an incentive.

sorry forum, but rep will mean dick all here given the way crypto and alts work, it's a fuck fest of scammers and fake accounts by people left and right.  im sure there's legit folks too but it's few and far between.  i may not have the time in alts that many others have, but hell yes i can see how disgusting this industry is already with the kids who play games.

I don't think it should have the added bonus of money with it, maybe other incentives? It shouldn't feel like the users are being squeezed for cash or they will quickly leave in droves. I assume it would be more donation based? Where is the source of income coming from? If Bitcointalk had some ad revenue system going on as well maybe they could buy BTC with the ad revenue?

Why not just have a permanent amount of trust in which people can get up/down voted with more weight to senior active members who have been a part of the forums for a long time. If you have an older account that is misusing trust and it gets banned, it takes a long time to get back up to where it was before.

IMO the trust system needs a lot of improvement, maybe it would be good to look into how Silk Road did their trust system too since it worked well in practice.

It's a p2p system, the money comes from the users. You're giving and receiving money that also counts as reputation. If you're a good poster and make well thought out posts some people might want to mark that post as a way to acknowledge it. It incentives good content and rewards people for contributing.

Trust systems are on the agenda but there's much to do before then. Sirius(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4) is finishing his identi.fi system and our lead developer has discussed us integrating it in with our marking system to provide a layer of trust above the raw reputation scores.

If it encourages more useful posts, then the ends justify the means. Provided spamming is discouraged or even punished by the system.