I don't know how many 250+ receivers there are, but if someone is on a mission to get onto DT I guess there will be some stalking/favor currying going on to meet this (and other) criteria. Currently 146, the list of which you can see here: https://bpip.org/report.aspx?r=mostmerited. Some of those accounts are banned, however, and some are inactive, so the true number will be slightly lower. If someone is on a mission to get on DT, they will be getting nowhere near my trust list, since that's the completely wrong attitude to have. But there are enough users with 250+ merit, and always more being made, that I'm sure anyone hell bent on being DT will be able to find a couple of shady users to add them on at their request. I wonder if DT1 exclusions, in addition to removing another user from DT1, should also remove that user's voting power, so serial abusers can be stopped from voting on anyone and everyone. |
|
|
|
Which means that I, for example, couldn't be on DT list until I have 1000 earned merit right? As I don't have enough earned merit compared to my rank right now. No. You could be on DT. The only merit requirement for you is to have earned at least 10: - If rank was determined solely using earned merit, then you must be of at least Member rank. The other merit requirements are for the users adding you to their trust lists (essentially voting for you to be on DT). You need 10 members with more than 10 merit trusting you, and 2 members with more than 250 merit. |
|
|
|
|
@LoyceV, @iasenko, @suchmoon
I can see where you are coming from regarding different depths and also different lists for trusting and voting, and I personally would also like to have this kind of control over my own trust list. However, trust is already very poorly understood by the majority of forum members, not understanding the difference between feedback and trust, not understanding how and why some feedback is trusted and some is not, not understanding trust depth, not understanding custom trust lists or default trust, etc, etc.
Anything that adds even more complexity to this system should be approached very cautiously, I would think.
|
|
|
|
|
If theymos activated trust viewings for visitors/guests as he has mentioned before, then opening a private/incognito window and browsing the forum not-logged-in would have the desired result.
|
|
|
|
|
The Pharmacist is still on that new list.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps something along the line of prefixing an * if you wish to vote for the user for DT1 in addition to adding them to your trust list?
|
|
|
|
|
If I pre-emptively declare my own self-loathing, does that make me immune?
|
|
|
|
That seems like a reasonable change. Perhaps also consider upping the 10+ merit limit to 20+ or higher? This will obviously need periodically adjusted. On a long enough time line, the number of users who will finally earn 10/100/250 merit is theoretically massive. Number of 10-merit trusters: Typo? (10 -> 100) |
|
|
|
trust depth is 4 There's your issue. A trust depth of 4 means that you are trusting the ratings of probably half the forum. So someone on DT1 trusts someone who trusts someone who trusts jamalaezaz. Lower your depth to 2 and his ratings will disappear. Better yet, make a customised trust list. |
|
|
|
Interesting. I have ~DefaultTrust and just use my list of inclusions and exclusions. You don't actually have to exclude DefaultTrust - just delete the entry. |
|
|
|
You can - https://bitcointalk.org/trust.txt.xzThis file contains a complete dump of all custom trust. It is updated every Saturday. x->y means x trusts y. x-/>y means x excludes y. Just Ctrl+F search for your name. LFC - you are trusted by jeremypwr, Joca97, Fakhoury, Don Pedro Dinero, Devawnm367, and you are excluded by EFS. |
|
|
|
- Why do we have DT2? Other users have answered this already. DT2 is just the default that theymos set: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211858.0. You can change if you want. - Why is maximum trust depth 4? Because beyond that level it becomes useless. In fact, beyond DT2 it probably becomes close to useless. The number of ratings you see will increase exponentially at each level. If you trust 5 people (level 0 - 5), and each of those trust 5 people (level 1 - 25), and each of those trust 5 people (level 2 - 125), etc, by the time you get to level 5 you are now trusting over 15 thousand people (no duplicates in this hypothetical scenario). |
|
|
|
Won't this decrease the security of the wallets? It seems like as long as you fill the 4 words then you can 'hack' any wallet. I think you've misread and/or misunderstood the answer. It's the first 4 letters of each individual word which are unique to that word, and not the first four words of the phrase, which is what your reply seems to suggest. |
|
|
|
The above is still possible under the new system, however I suspect in many cases the response will be he meets the criteria and there is no manipulation to meet the criteria, so he will stay. Once someone "meets the criteria" it will be difficult to get this to not be the case, as those on DT1 tend to receive additional trust inclusions over time, and over time, people will become inactive, and as such will not respond to (or see) requests to remove controversial people from their trust lists. Inactive users won't stay on DT1: - You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days.
- You must have posted sometime within the last 30 days. I think the point he was making is that regular users will go inactive and not maintain their trust lists. If you have 10 users all including someone in their trust list, and all these users become inactive and therefore do not respond to request to remove said person, then the only way to remove this DT1 member will be through other DT1 exclusions. As I said in the other thread, it seems a bit strange that you could have 100 or more people excluding someone, but if 10 people include them then they become DT1 (unless the other DT1s remove them). Newcomers will just tend to have a couple of post then leave the forum. This because they need to get merit before ranking up. Ranking up is one of the motivation for a user to continue on learning about bitcoin and later on will invest. Ranking up does not increase your ability to learn or contribute to the forum, apart from decreasing some wait times, which are only a problem in the first place if you are a spammer. The only real benefit of ranking up is that you can then earn more money from bounty campaigns. If ranking up is your only motivation to continue to learn about bitcoin, then you are here for the wrong reasons. |
|
|
|
For instance I want to see a post using the dt suffix, and then want to click on the trust ratings of someone in the thread, without having to add the dt suffix each time again. This would be really nice. I'm already finding myself switching back and forth regularly to see how things are changing - I can see it becoming very tedious in the coming weeks or months to keep doing this. Maybe even a check box somewhere that turns on ";dt" view until you turn it off again? |
|
|
|
My guess is that OP probably used his email(where he received the scam email) on some scammy crypto airdrop. Airdrops, bounty campaigns, news sites, mailing lists, trading insider tips/analysis/help, dodgy exchanges, dodgy web wallets, dodgy forums, dodgy gambling sites, cloud mining sites, the list goes on. I have never received a crypto phishing email because I don't give away my email address to scammy sites/people like these. The answer is simple - if you don't want your data (not just email) to be sold or used against you, then stop giving it away. |
|
|
|
People shouldn't be working towards dt. If it's a goal you need to untrust yourself I'll n your list and do us all a favour. I completely agree with you. My reason for suggesting it was that it would help stop the theoretical case of abuse as outlined by LoyceV here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49144081#msg49144081. DT1 members would be able to see who is close to reaching DT1 status before they do reach it, and could then pre-emptively decide whether to exclude that person, rather than having to react to it after it has happened and spend a month or so with their inaccurate ratings being part of DT. All these data are already publicly available on the trust.txt.xz file - it would just be a case of reformatting it to make it easier to read. Having said that, the scenario in question is unlikely enough itself, and theymos would likely step in to prevent an abuser becoming part of DT1 before they did anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Am I right in saying that only DT1s can exclude another member from DT1? So even if you have 100 users (with >10 merit) actively excluding you, as long as you have 10 including you, you will become DT1, unless the other DT1 members exclude you?
Also, I think LoyceV might already be working on this, but a page which shows everyone's votes from users with >10 and >100 merit would be nice. It woild certainly help DT1s to see who is close to inclusion, and whether they want to exclude (or support) that person prior to them getting on.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
