only in one day, he left more than 80 negative feedbacks and with reference While I completely agree with the points made regarding the positive feedback he has left, to be fair to him, his negative feedbacks had originally been left over a period of weeks to months. However, he had not left any references for them, as so was advised earlier in this thread to update them all with references, which he did: ~
Please add reference links to all your negative ratings. Thank you for correcting me! I'm not experienced yet, but I'm learning fast! Done! All negative ratings now with links! |
|
|
|
|
Given that it is becoming impossible to have a sensible discussion about merit or trust in any way shape or form, without it being derailed with the same incoherent spam about "Lauda's gang", "inner circle of merits" and "show me the facts" from the usual suspect (I mean, we're talking 28 posts in the last 4 hours alone), I would also support self-moderated threads in Meta.
I have him on ignore, and I would encourage everyone else to do the same, but all it takes is one person to try to have a rational conversation with him and the thread is ruined.
|
|
|
|
Old threads are just meant to be read by now. These topics has been discussed thoroughly in a good manner so its better to leave it be. 99% of the time, yes. Old threads in Bitcoin Discussion, Altcoin Discussion, Economics, etc deserve to be left alone - when they are necrobumped, they are almost always necrobumped with some nonsense one line spam that serves no purpose other than to attract other spammers to the dead topic. However, in boards like Technical Support, when looking for help with a problem it is often better to find an old thread with the same or similar problem and run through that thread first. If you still need help, then necrobumping that thread can be beneficial, as it prevents other users from having to rehash all the same ideas/solutions again. |
|
|
|
"difficulty bomb" is more like a scarecrow specially because of its name. in fact they messed it up when they pushed it back a couple of times since this hard fork was supposed to happen a very long time ago. which proves it is not really a big deal. not to mention that Ethereum Classic (the original immutable chain) got rid of it about 9 months ago which means if anybody wanted they could simply pull the already tested change from ETC into ETH and continue mining in. Oh absolutely. The original difficulty bomb was supposed to make Ethereum as it currently stands pretty much unusable by the start of 2017, to force the Casper update and moving from Proof of Work to Proof of Stake. It's been delayed before, and will be delayed again with Constantinople. And as you say, there's nothing to stop a side chain such as ETC from passing their own upgrade to delay or even remove it. On another note, looks like a bug was discovered in EIP 1283, and so the whole of Constantinople has been delayed for at least a week or so while they figure it out: https://medium.com/chainsecurity/constantinople-enables-new-reentrancy-attack-ace4088297d9 |
|
|
|
Sometimes I get the idea that either good posts made by people are not seen by merit source or are just ignored. I am always actively on the lookout for good posts by newbies or other more junior members to give merit to, but honestly, they are few and far between. If you are coming across any posts which you think are good enough to be given merit, but haven't received any, please link us to them on this thread so we can review them: [self-moderated] Report unmerited good posts to Merit Source. |
|
|
|
Why not put all this to a vote, a vote in which untagged members with at least a certain amount of earned merits (20,30,50...I don't know) would participate? I mean, you've just suggested exactly how the new system works. Any member with more than 10 merits gets to vote in who they want to be DT1. The more merit you have, the more user you can vote for. Just because you don't like the outcome of a vote, doesn't mean the entire system is invalid. The whole point of the system is to not have theymos handpicking a few DT1s. If there is anyone he really doesn't want on the DT1 list, he can still blacklist/remove them, so you can assume he is it at least somewhat happy with the current voted in list. |
|
|
|
And the giant head half the size of a room is funny too It's so poorly done as well. You would think if you were going to use photoshop to try to pull a scam, you would at least be half decent at it? The other 3 team member pictures are clearly photoshopped as well if you look closely at them, I just can't find sources for them. Not that it matters.  |
|
|
|
|
I would adjust point number 8. I agree that only posting one line replies is a fairly solid sign of being a bounty spammer, but there are some instances where a brief one line reply is all that is needed. Longer posts are interesting to read not because they are longer per se, but because they contain more or complex information. Making your replies needlessly longer by padding them out with waffling or repeating the same nonsense is boring to read and will likely get your post reported. Be long enough to cover the point, but short enough to be interesting.
I'm also a bit skeptical with your general "aim for merit" advice. While I absolutely agree new users shouldn't be "aiming for bounties", I also don't think they should be aiming for merit. They should be aiming to learn, discuss and contribute, and by doing so constructively, some merit will likely come their way. Merit should be a by-product, not a goal, in my opinion.
Nice guide, though.
|
|
|
|
Bad news for Spurs Kane is injured it could be even one month break so he can miss CL games even It's terrible news for Spurs. Kane isn't expected back to training until March, so it will be April before he playing again. He'll be out for both Dortmund games, the Carabao Cup and games against Chelsea and Arsenal. Moura is still injured, and Son is about to leave for the Asian Games for a month as well. All they've got left is Llorente, who is inconsistent at best. Spurs will be very lucky to hold on to top 4 now, especially with the new run of from Man Utd find themselves in with OGS. |
|
|
|
Rambotnic's rating looks weird to me. One negative and one positive, so the total should be zero I think. Yet it's showing as -1. Is it because of my own neutral? -1 is the correct number. He gets -2 for his single negative feedback, and +1 for his single positive feedback. You can follow the calculation from theymos' code: I also completely changed the trust score algorithm to this: 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
I usually just try to exchange my crypto to fiat and don't intend to store much of it on a single address and private keys. I'm just not buying that I'm afraid. The address quoted above "you" used for a period of several months, and if you look at "your" post history, made several trades and sent bitcoin to several other forum users. You certainly didn't exchange it all to fiat as you are claiming. Still, there other two other addresses used in 2014 by that account - if you can sign from any of them your red trust will disappear. 1JywwXphRygZ42KPvP7qtQYccXM2L8hpTu 1JmTGwncb1uUZ9xP5SK8zni4wKxgU56M7B 1CaaSJtbAJ7jBaHTpUyKDUcHs4bwHUSXbe |
|
|
|
I like o_e_l_e_o's proposal a bit better, but with more time allowed (e.g. 3 activity period at least) to earn that merit, because if you're on a holiday or have something to do in real life for a while, you should not lose your merits because of inactivity.
Or, if we count only those activity periods, when the user has posted at least 1 post. This would not burn the acquired merits if someone is inactive.
As I said, I read this on another thread, and I've since gone to the bother of looking it up. It was stompix's suggestion here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5092399.msg49017143#msg49017143. His original suggestion includes what suchmoon is suggesting: 1 merit for each activity period in which you display a signature. If you don't want to be charged the 1 merit, then remove your signature. |
|
|
|
but what is stopping miners from continuing to mine ETH and not accept that fork? Technically, nothing. This is essentially what happened when Ethereum Classic was created - some of the miners rejected the hardfork and continued to mine the old chain, which still exists and is now known as ETC. However, Ethereum has a built in "difficulty bomb", which makes mining new blocks become exponentially harder over time, until eventually mining a new block becomes impossible and chain freezes - known as the Ethereum "ice age". One of the EIPs (EIP 1234: Constantinople Difficulty Bomb Delay and Block Reward Adjustment) in this hardfork will push that back. If miners do not adopt the new chain, they will be stuck mining a chain that is rapidly becoming more difficult, less profitable and eventually obsolete. |
|
|
|
|
I would be against this suggestion in its current form.
While I agree that most of the users affected by a 1-merit-in-200-posts restriction would be spamming newbies, there are bound to be false positives in there. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the denizens of Politics & Society and Off Topic such as notbatman or BADecker hit that ratio. While these users' views are (in my opinion) insane, we shouldn't be seeking to silence people we disagree with. I could also foresee a situation where people stop being helpful and responding to newbie's/simple questions, as they are unlikely to get merit for these posts, which is not something we wish to encourage.
A suggestion I did see in another thread, which I would prefer over this one but has a similar outcome, is charging users 1 earned merit per activity period (2 weeks) to display a signature. If they run out of earned merit, they lose their signature until they earn more.
|
|
|
|
City dominated with a 3-0 win, as you say. Wolves got Boly sent off in the 20th minute - which was a bit harsh considering the challenge - and it was over from then. Possession was 77% to 23%, shots were 24 to 3. The second goal was a penalty and the third was an unlucky headed own goal from a De Bruyne cross. Standard City stuff, but you didn't miss much by not tuning in to be honest. Perhaps the best bit of the game was Ederson getting bored with Wolves' zero shots on target and deciding to play center back for a while - https://streamable.com/na4c8. |
|
|
|
That's my inclusion and I can assure I'll be watching it for any potential improprieties... top notch investigator though and has the right mindset for DT.
Some of the users in the list are moderators included by theymos so perhaps we should leave them out of any concerns unless there's a specific issue. Agreed. When making that list I hesitated almost immediately when I hit rickbig41 with zero sent ratings, but I figured it was better just to present the entire list without trying to edit it myself and making a mistake on who I excluded. There are obviously quite a few false positives, and morvillz7z was definitely one of them considering his activity on the Scam Accusations board.
I would also consider adding the following to your exclusion list, for the same reason as the other "Lafu" ones. btct22 - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=43526 - Trustsaga-crypto - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1116811 - Trust |
|
|
|
Maybe we voted for them because we think they would make good decisions for the community if they got into DT1. Obviously, there are some users on the list I have made who are trusted in other ways - be it involvement with developing bitcoin core, moderators, etc. However, the list I have made above is composed of DT2 members, the majority of whom are DT2 members based on a singe inclusion from a DT1 member, and not from a community vote. |
|
|
|
Guests will not be trading with users without registering an account. I disagree. In fact, I would wager that many scammers count on the fact that their trust score is not visible to guests to lure people in. There are hundreds of threads which give emails, phone numbers, WhatsApp, Telegram, Discords, ICQs, Skype, etc, to contact the seller, so they can sell to people without accounts. And then there are all the threads with auto-buy links, which are almost always scams. People can and do get sucked in to these scams without registering an account. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
