Bitcoin Forum

Just a friendly counter to the 500 BTC that Pamoldar did not risk with OG, based on Theymos' definition in the reference link. - "Risked BTC" is how much money you could have lost if the person you're rating had turned out to be a scammer.

"Risked BTC" is how much money you could have lost if the person you're rating had turned out to be a scammer.

Thanks for the PM brother. Not sure if I agree or disagree with you. One mind says I agree (sure I personally did not risked any btc) but another mind says that I am right in my view and I do not see I should change anything. Here is the explanation:

I thought I left a trust rating, not feedback of a trade. I believe trust rating can be seen from thousands of angles.

Besides, it's a positive feedback for someone who returned 500 BTC (keyword 500 BTC, over 4 millions in dollar!), I do not think this risked amount is going to change anything but towards good.

Anyway, how are you going to interpret this?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211858.msg2221664#msg2221664

The interpretation of my trust rating is that, the value of this trust rating is 500BTC which makes the rating stronger. I could put 1000BTC but I have witnesses 500 BTC so this is the highest I have gone.

Please point me where I am wrong in my viewpoint?

Thanks again brother.

<snipped>

---

Feel free to share it publicly. This may help me to understand (when several users will give their opinions) that there is something wrong from my side.

"Risked BTC" is how much money you could have lost if the person you're rating had turned out to be a scammer.

- If you want to make a rating stronger, increase "Risked BTC". 50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating.

- If you want to make a rating stronger, increase "Risked BTC". 50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating.

2) interpret Theymos' words however you want.

^ This doesn't apply any more and has not for quite some time. Just change your trust rating to zero risked and be done with it as it won't make a difference.

if there are no negative ratings
	score = 0
	for each rating, oldest to newest
		if this rater has already been counted
			continue
		score += min(10, round_up(months since rating))
else
	score = unique_positive - 2^(unique_negative)
	if score >= 0
		start_time = time of first negative
		score = unique_positive since start_time - unique_negative since start_time
		if(score < 0)
			return ??? (orange)
			
move score to range [-9999,9999]
return score
[/quote]

So I was not wrong in my interpretation?

The person who should have left the risked amount in the feedback could have been Theymos but on his feedback he also just left there Zero.

You can interpret my words however you want as well.  As long as you know you're breaking a forum rule, I don't care what you do.  :)

You can interpret my words however you want as well.  As long as you know you're breaking a forum rule, I don't care what you do.  :)

What rule is that?

Risked BTC amount is money that the person could have stolen or did steal.

    Positive - You trust this person or had a successful trade.
    Neutral - Comments. Your rating will not affect this person's trust score.
    Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

The "increase risked BTC to increase the strength" thing only applied for a brief period of time. It didn't work well, so I removed it. It has no effect on anything, and I will probably remove "risked BTC" entirely in the future.

I don't think that it's a big deal to put ridiculous values in that field, though probably you shouldn't. For reporting something second-hand, there's never been a standard, and as far as I'm concerned you can do whatever you want. Since it doesn't actually affect anything, it's basically the same to have riskedBTC=1 with a comment of "he stole BTC" as to just say in the comment "he stole 1 BTC".

I will probably remove "risked BTC" entirely in the future.