Bitcoin Forum
May 25, 2024, 03:44:45 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 ... 190 »
21  Other / Meta / Re: Marketplace trust on: May 29, 2019, 10:34:43 PM
I'm not going to be immature and call any trust I dislike "abusive" or "bullshit", but as the current rules stand, and as we have always done it, four people claiming to have risked 500 BTC is wrong, and Theymos has stated I am allowed to counter it.    :-\
I have some questions for you. I hope you answer directly to all of them:
  • I do think I made a mistake entering BTC500 as the risked amount. I did it without thinking too much about it. But I don't think that's important at all because the reference makes it really clear what happened and because the new algorithm doesn't consider the risked amount to calculate the total trust. I think the only important part is that action deserved positive trust so I left it. However I have no issues about updating my trust.
    Would you completely remove your counter if we all update our feedback by setting the risked amount to 0? (I don't know if I can convince everyone but I'd try. Just to confirm, you're referring to Pamoldar, dbshck and me, right?)
  • If OgNasty didn't have any other DT negative trust and you didn't have any issues with him, would you still have left that (first) negative trust and made his account negative or ??? just because the risked amount is wrong?
22  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Changelly.com - instant exchange. VISA/Mastercard accepted. on: May 29, 2019, 10:15:25 PM
Just out of topic, would like to ask on whats on your negative feedback? Have you able to resolve it out? 2017 issue is a long time ago.
You should read the references for more about their negative trust. This is the information regarding my particular case. It was never resolved besides what's explained there. What's posted there is still accurate.
23  Other / Meta / Re: User Script: Automatically remove nested quotes on: May 29, 2019, 04:06:07 AM
If you have an Android device, you can use usi (User|Unified Script Injector) or Tampermonkey and it will *probably* work. The former has better compatibility.
I tested this script with Tampermonkey for Android (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.biniok.tampermonkey) and it definitely works. However it's not really a very good browser, at least on Android 9.
I'm checking the other one.

Update:
Firefox for Android along with User|Unified Script Injector worked great! And that one is definitely a very good browser. Here's a gif demo.
I'm updating OP to suggest this for Android.



By the way, due to the topic title, I would like to raise a minor discussion on the term: pyramid quote or nested quote, which one should officially used?
I know that they have nearly same implications, but global moderator officially mentioned the type of posting style as pyramid quote, I think we should use only one term here to mention about it: Pyramid quotes.
Any ideas?
I thought nested quotes was the generic name, while pyramid quotes was used only when several (5+ or so) quotes are nested so the whole thing looks like a pyramid seen from above.
24  Other / Meta / Re: [Feature Suggest] Let disable multi quoting on: May 28, 2019, 05:40:03 PM
I've written a small userscript to handle this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5148327.0



Here's what the script did to this post by just clicking 'Quote':
This one is mentioned in my guide, that is a troll, but if there are such pyramid posts, that are very terrible despite of the fact that such post looks like art.
25  Other / Meta / User Script: Automatically remove nested quotes v1.1.1 on: May 28, 2019, 05:37:38 PM
I introduce the "Quote plus" user script.

I always have to manually edit my post when quoting someone else and getting several nested quotes like this:

This has also been recently discussed here.

So I've written a small user script that removes all the extra quotes, leaving only the latest one:


It also shows 3 links to use the whole text, only the latest quote (default), or just a "~snip~":


Here's what the snip button does:


Important: You should use these 3 buttons before making any editions. You may lose your work otherwise.



To install this userscript you need to:
Here you can see the source code: https://openuserjs.org/scripts/EcuaMobi/Quote_plus/source
Code:
// ==UserScript==
// @name        Quote plus
// @namespace   ecuamobi
// @author      EcuaMobi
// @include     https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=post;*quote=*
// @include     https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;f=inbox;pmsg=*;quote;u=*
// @version     1.1.1
// @license   MIT
// @grant none
// ==/UserScript==

(() => {
  var full_text = document.forms.postmodify.message.value;
  var regex = /\[quote author/gi,
    result, indices = [];
  // Find second [quote]
  var i = 0;
  var start2 = 0;
  var end2 = 0;
  while ((result = regex.exec(full_text))) {
    i++;
    if (2 == i) {
      start2 = result.index;
      break;
    }
  }
  regex = /\[\/quote\]/gi, result, indices = [];
  var last = 0;
  while ((result = regex.exec(full_text))) {
    if (last > 0) {
      end2 = last + 8;
    }
    last = result.index;
  }

  // Are there several quotes?
  if (start2 == 0 || end2 == 0) {
    // Abort
    return;
  }

  // Get text to use for every option
  var latest_quote = full_text.substr(0, start2).trim() + '\n' + full_text.substr(end2).trim() + '\n';
  var snip_quote = full_text.substr(0, start2).trim() + '~snip~[/quote]\n';
  full_text = full_text.trim() + '\n';

  // By default use the latest quote. REPLACE THIS BY snip_quote OR REMOVE IF DESIRED
  document.forms.postmodify.message.value = latest_quote;

  // Add buttons to manually use full text, latest quote or snip
  const $links = "<span style='margin-left:38%'><a id='full_text' href='#'>Full text</a> | <a id='latest_quote' href='#'>Latest quote</a> | <a id='snip_quote' href='#'>~snip~</a></span>"
  document.querySelector("textarea").insertAdjacentHTML('afterend', $links);

  document.querySelector('#full_text').addEventListener('click', function(e){
    e.preventDefault();
    document.forms.postmodify.message.value = full_text;
  });
  document.querySelector('#latest_quote').addEventListener('click', function(e){
    e.preventDefault();
    document.forms.postmodify.message.value = latest_quote;
  });
  document.querySelector('#snip_quote').addEventListener('click', function(e){
    e.preventDefault();
    document.forms.postmodify.message.value = snip_quote;
  });
})();
    Demo:
    Capture taken on Android. It works the same on PC/Mac/Laptop.

    Notes and limitations:
    • It will not run if there are no quotes inside your quote (no nested quotes)
    • It only considers regular quotes ([ quote author=username link=...), not other simple quotes
    • It may behave strangely if the nested quote is not at the beginning or if there are several quotes mixed with inline responses. I'm still testing these scenarios
    • You should always check whether the script did a good job and click "Full text" otherwise

    Version history:
    • 1.1.1
      By minifrij. jQuery has been removed
    • 1.1
      It now works when quoting from 'Show the last posts of this person.' or a PM (more info)
    • 1.0:
      Initial release

    I'll keep testing and improving it. Let me know your comments or any bugs you find.[/list]
    26  Other / Meta / Re: Marketplace trust on: May 28, 2019, 04:53:06 AM
    I tend to believe that theymos somehow picked the wrong words here, it does not make sense for it to be about only what 'YOU' would have lost, because if it was true, then one can only leave a feedback for members whom they have personally traded with, which is not the case.
    Yes, maybe. I mostly agree with you. Another option is we can leave feedback but risked amount should be 0 if we didn't risk anything personally.

    However the main part of my question is whether "50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating" is still valid or not. People has left trust because of it so I consider that important.
    27  Other / Meta / Re: Marketplace trust on: May 27, 2019, 10:55:41 PM
    I have a couple of questions about this, considering the changes made to the trust system over the years:

    - "Risked BTC" is how much money you could have lost if the person you're rating had turned out to be a scammer. Or, if they are a scammer, it's how much you lost. Use the BTC value at the time of reporting.
    I've recently left positive trust to OgNasty because he returned the 500 BTC he was holding as treasurer. I entered BTC500 as risked amount without thinking too much about it to be honest.
    Being stricter I now see "Risked BTC" is how much I could have lost, and since I personally wouldn't have lost anything in this case it seems I was wrong about that. Is that right?

    However, I think that's not important at all. And that takes me to the next point, which I think is no longer valid and needs to be updated:

    - If you want to make a rating stronger, increase "Risked BTC". 50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating.
    AFAIK, this is no longer true since a long time. Trust is now calculated in a different way, without taking the risked amount into account at all. Therefore "Risked BTC" is much less important than before.
    @theymos, please correct me if I'm wrong, or update OP if this point is no longer valid.

    I'm posting this because of Vod's negative counter feedback left on OgNasty's profile: "Just a friendly counter to the 1,500 BTC that three members did not risk with OG, based on Theymos' comments in the reference link. 'Each 50btc risked will count as an additional rating' " with a risked amount of BTC1,500.

    I've seen other trust actions taken (or at least justified) based on "50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating". This thread is a reference and I think it's very important to keep it up to date.


    Update:
    Note all the previous posts of this thread are more than one year old. Most probably you don't want to quote or reply to any of them, like jademaxsuy did.
    28  Economy / Digital goods / Re: Avoid auto-buy links, mainly locked or self moderated. Register before dealing on: May 23, 2019, 01:02:34 AM
    -
    Hi. Unfortunately when a brand new user posts a new site that asks users to pay first it's impossible for us to know whether it's legit or not. I understand some site are completely OK but most are not.

    I'd recommend you to:
    • Post your reddit profile on your thread and prove it's really you (for example posting on reddit a link to your thread here)
    • Agree to deal with trusted members of this forum acting as escrow. You could ask users to pay for any fees in this case but you shouldn't reject using escrow. Here are some users offering escrow services.

    Edit: Thanks for following my advice and showing signs you want to do things right instead of asking to blindly trust you as several newbies do.
    29  Economy / Digital goods / Re: [BTC-AMAZON.COM] Amazon giftcards at 40% on: May 23, 2019, 12:25:36 AM
    10-days-old domain, without even SSL, asking the user to pay first, promoted by a brand new account. Sure, seems legit.
    I'm leaving negative trust. If you want to get rid of it deal using trusted members of this forum as escrow.
    30  Other / Meta / Re: Trust Selfscratchers: how every DT1 user changes their own trust on: May 17, 2019, 02:11:57 AM
    I'm gonna need an ELI5 on what "-1" means. Am I excluding someone who posted a positive rating for me?
    It means when having just "DefaultTrust" you appear with slightly more less trust than when having "DefaultTrust ~suchmoon". I haven't checked it in more detail.
    One option is you excluded someone who left you positive trust. However after a quick look this doesn't seem to be the case.
    The other option is you included someone who excluded a user who left you positive trust.

    Because there's an exclusion in here                  ^^^, it's possible there's an error similar to the one noted by LoyceV. Exclusions and recursion can get things very complicated. I'll need to check to see if I can improve those numbers.

    I don't think this "-1" is very meaningful. I just think this list can be used as base to identify DT1 users who have modified their own trust the most in order to further check those accounts.
    31  Other / Meta / Re: Trust Selfscratchers: how every DT1 user changes their own trust on: May 17, 2019, 01:03:31 AM
    Again, you are only interested in your own definitions for what trust is and how it should be decided and totally ignoring the reality that some times (but not always) if some one is reputable in trade, that is to say they do what they say they will do when money is involved, it is representative of their ability to leave honest ratings.
    What the hell are you talking about? Of course sometimes (but not always) people who are reputable traders are good at leaving honest ratings too. I'd say most of the times that's the case, but not always.
    Now you're wrongly assuming I don't agree on that basic point (or are you blatantly lying to try and make me look irrational? or do we really speak different languages and are unable to communicate?).

    The point here is receiving trust from somebody must not be the reason to add somebody to one's trust list, not even being trustworthy is reason enough to add them to the trust list. We must add people to our trust list if we trust they will leave proper feedback. That must be the reason. Of course several times the same person is trustworthy and good at leaving feedback, but not always. And sometimes this trustworthy, good-at-leaving-trust person happened to have left us positive trust, but that's just a coincidence. It must not be the reason to be included in our trust list.

    That's why the fact a DT1 user modifies their own trust doesn't necessarily mean they're abusing the trust system, but it could be the case, especially if the number is understandably big as in Dabs' case. It's worth looking in more detail, and that's the purpose of this list.

    By you pretending this is invalid and wrong, yes, you are precisely telling me which metrics I should use to gauge trust and applying moral values to them. Keep wagging that finger your highness.
    I'm not pretending anything. You're the one making wrong assumptions and attacking based on that, as usual.
    32  Other / Meta / Re: Trust Selfscratchers: how every DT1 user changes their own trust on: May 16, 2019, 11:21:12 PM
    No, you are just assuming values of a metric while not totally understanding the various reasons that metric might be the way it is. My point was this is something that would result as a standard trading marketplace behavior where trust often has to go both ways. Through building that trust, as the system was actually intended to do, you are then more likely to understand the user and their interactions increasing their chances of being trustworthy.
    When you add somebody to your trust list, it doesn't mean you (just) trust somebody with money. It means you trust they will leave proper feedback and will add the right users to their own trust list.
    If you'd trust somebody with money then leave positive trust. I'm just reading what I quoted. It's very clear.
    Probably we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

    But as you put it I am wrong, and by default you are right and your highness is above such discussions of their relations to the actual social dynamics of the forum relating to trust lists. You have fun with your finger wagging.
    This kind of useless words are the ones I ask you to avoid using to interact with me and the ones I tend to ignore. I hope it's clear now.

    Edit:
    Or this useless rhetorical question:
    Critical thinking exercise. If you teamed up with other DT members to manipulate the trust network, would your difference rating be shown here as higher or lower than average?
    33  Other / Meta / Re: Trust Selfscratchers: how every DT1 user changes their own trust on: May 16, 2019, 11:01:30 PM
    That is what the quote says yes, but who told you you get to define for me by what metric I make that choice? People build trust in all kinds of different ways.
    I haven't told you anything regarding what metric to use. I listed the users who have modified their own trust the most. The more their own trust is modified, the more likely it is that's a main factor for them for adding a someone as DT2.
    As I've said before, a good solution for this would be:
    If a DT2 member is added only by one DT1 user and the former left positive trust to the later then it should not appear as trusted on the DT1's profile.

    So in practice the DT1's default trust should not be affected by changes made by that DT1 user to their trust list.

    No, you aren't targeting anyone, especially the ones who would cause you issues right?
    Right. I'm not targeting anybody except those who have modified their own trust the most; mainly Dabs, zazarb, willi9974, anonymousminer and buckrogers. Hopefully they will improve their lists.

    Don't interact with you regarding that?
    Regarding assumptions mainly. Only discuss with me with facts because you make too many and too wrong assumptions.
    If you (again) make a wrong assumption and attack me based on that then don't expect me to reply.

    You are really on DT1 when you take that kind of attitude towards conflict? Just ignore it it will go away right?
    I only ignore discussions that are useless. For example the latest discussions that have been everywhere have consisted mainly on assumptions, accusations and insults. Why would I get involved?
    If somebody (anybody) writes with facts and looks for solutions then I won't have any issues actively discussing, even if we don't agree.

    Now, let's get back on topic.
    34  Other / Meta / Re: Trust Selfscratchers: how every DT1 user changes their own trust on: May 16, 2019, 10:27:48 PM
    Additionally this kind of ranking doesn't take into account that people such as myself and OGNasty largely use the trust system AS IT WAS DESIGNED as a system to build trust networks for trade, and generally trading with people builds trust. WHO KNEW?
    No. You're wrong. Trust list is designed to "List the users who you trust to have good trust ratings and good trust lists, one user per line" (source).

    Of course Loyce's list didn't include your favorite targets so, you made sure they were included and featured for their crimes.
    I think this shows potential abuse and/or ignorance on how the list works. I'm not targeting anybody. I've listed the ones who modified the most their own trust, either intentionally or not.

    I am sure none of this has anything to to with people criticizing your exceptionally abusive pals atop the DT list
    You're delusional. The people you acuse are not my "pals" (we just agree OgNasty and you aren't fit for DT1, among very few other things). I'm not commenting about who is abusive. That discussion is senseless and I prefer to avoid it. Do not interact with me about that. I won't reply to you regarding this anymore.

    Of course every one knows after being around almost a decade and being trusted with thousands in value trading with hundreds of users and still ranking below known con artists, abusers, and people I have never even heard of before is clear manipulation on my part Wink
    Trust is not the same as trust list. Again, you're wrong and/or delusional. It's really impossible to have a proper conversation with you so I prefer not to.
    I'll reply to you only if you post objectively, without sarcasm or attacks.
    35  Other / Meta / Re: Trust Selfscratchers: how every DT1 user changes their own trust on: May 16, 2019, 09:27:37 PM
    When you exclude someone to see the difference, you see the differences on DT2.
    However, when you include someone, you put him at Depth 0, and you see not only his Depth 1 (which would be DT2 if the user is on DT1), but also his Depth 2 (which would be DT3 if the user is on DT1).
    So for the excluded DT1 users, you're effectively comparing their "would be" Trust score to DT3 instead of DT2.
    You're absolutely right. My bad.
    What would be the right way to do it? Add the user (i.e. OgNasty) into the trust list on one account and then use a second account to add the first one into the trust list so that OgNasty goes down one level, right?
    If I do that I get these numbers for him: 23: -6 / +73

    Edit: I've updated OP with this recalculation.
    36  Other / Meta / Trust Selfscratchers: how every DT1 user changes their own trust on: May 16, 2019, 07:35:58 PM
    Today LoyceV posted a thread about "Trust Selfscratcher": "someone who received positive feedback from a user, and has included said user on his Trust list".

    This is especially important when 2 conditions are met:
    • The user who makes the inclusions is DT1
    • No other DT1 user made the same inclusion
    In this cases the DT1 is effectively changing their own trust by making those inclusions, either on purpose or otherwise.

    o_e_l_e_o asked LoyceV to publish how DT1 users are really modifying their own trust. I was going to ask the same thing, but I read LoyceV said no.... So, I decided to publish this list myself.

    Some important notes:
    • I have included every DT1 user on LoyceV's top 40
    • I have also considered excluded DT1 users, that is they're here but are not on DT1 because other DT1 users excluded them
    • For DT1 users I am comparing their DT trust vs the trust they would have if they weren't DT1
    • For excluded DT1 users I am comparing their DT trust vs the trust they would have if they were DT1
    • This is done manually. I had to use a new account with DT settings and check everyone's trust. Then I re-checked the trust after excluding that specific DT1 user (or including them if it's an excluded DT1 user)
    • I've doubled checked but because this is manual I may have made some mistakes. Let me know if you find anything is wrong

    UserDT trustTrust without their influence*Difference (unique users)
    Dabs            410: -0 / +42      50: -0 / +6      36
    greenplastic      437: -0 / +47      370: -0 / +40      7
    minerjones         926: -0 / +102      926: -0 / +102      0
    BitcoinPenny      379: -0 / +41      369: -0 / +40      1
    anonymousminer      167: -0 / +25      73: -0 / +12      13
    buckrogers         254: -0 / +26      134: -0 / +14      12
    TMAN            238: -0 / +26      238: -0 / +26      0
    hedgy73            250: -0 / +25      220: -0 / +22      3
    ezeminer         214: -0 / +22      214: -0 / +22      0
    Lafu            49: -0 / +6         29: -0 / +4      2
    Hhampuz            373: -0 / +47      372: -0 / +46      1
    monkeynuts         280: -0 / +28      260: -0 / +26      2
    bill gator         0: -1 / +15         0: -1 / +15      0
    dazedfool         222: -0 / +28      222: -0 / +28      0
    Anduck            3: -1 / +18         3: -1 / +17      1
    owlcatz            366: -0 / +39      376: -0 / +40      -1
    SebastianJu         253: -0 / +26      220: -0 / +22      4
    vizique            242: -0 / +27      242: -0 / +27      0
    Lauda            303: -0 / +31      303: -0 / +31      0
    LFC_Bitcoin         60: -0 / +10      30: -0 / +6      4
    yogg            199: -0 / +25      199: -0 / +25      0
    DarkStar_         268: -0 / +32      275: -0 / +33      -1
    The Pharmacist      182: -0 / +22      182: -0 / +22      0
    qwk               130: -0 / +15      130: -0 / +15      0
    Lesbian Cow         331: -0 / +37      331: -0 / +37      0
    TheNewAnon135246   258: -0 / +27      258: -0 / +27      0
    krogothmanhattan   437: -0 / +53      437: -0 / +53      0
    phantastisch      119: -0 / +12      69: -0 / +7      5
    hybridsole         192: -0 / +20      192: -0 / +20      0
    Ticked            258: -0 / +28      218: -0 / +23      5
    gmaxwell         140: -0 / +14      110: -0 / +11      3
    Kryptowerk         140: -0 / +24      140: -0 / +24      0
    Vod               1: -2 / +27         1: -2 / +26      1
    suchmoon         69: -0 / +11      79: -0 / +12      -1
    ICOEthics         58: -0 / +14      58: -0 / +14      0
    Avirunes         85: -0 / +10      85: -0 / +10      0
    EcuaMobi         164: -0 / +17      164: -0 / +17      0
    Mitchell         370: -0 / +37      370: -0 / +37      0
    lovesmayfamilis      9: -0 / +5         7: -0 / +4         1
    philipma1957      208: -0 / +21      188: -0 / +19      2
    OgNasty            21: -6 / +64      23: -6 / +73*      9
    TECSHARE         284: -0 / +30      356: -0 / +38*      8
    willi9974         43: -0 / +5         201: -0 / +21*   16
    zazarb            ???: -1 / +23      ???: -1 / +39*      16
    HostFat            0: -0 / +0         40: -0 / +4*      4
    *Excluded DT1 users. The third column shows the trust they would have if they weren't excluded.

    Edit:
    I made a mistake calculating these numbers for excluded DT1 users. Thanks LoyceV for noticing this. This is now fixed by using a second account.



    The users who have modified their own trust the most (or would modify their own trust the most if they weren't excluded) are:

    Dabs: 36 unique users, up to 360 extra trust points
    zazarb: 16 unique users, up to 160 extra trust points
    willi9974: 16 unique users, up to 160 extra trust points
    anonymousminer: 13 unique users, up to 130 extra trust points
    buckrogers: 12 unique users, up to 120 extra trust points
    OgNasty: 9 unique users, up to 90 extra trust points
    TECSHARE: 8 unique users, up to 80 extra trust points
    greenplastic: 7 unique users, up to 70 extra trust points
    37  Other / Meta / Re: Trust Selfscratchers: who scratched his own back the most? on: May 16, 2019, 05:09:19 PM
    No bud, we are talking about trust not trust-lists, people interact quite closely and get to know each others judgement in that section, I am in numerous Slack, discord and telegram rooms and that is why some people I have transacted with I also have on my trust and others I do not.
    Yes trust list, that's the main part of this: trust, trust list and how they are different.

    If someone you trust very much left trust only to you and almost nobody else then it doesn't make sense to add them to your trust list. Even if you also trust their judgment it wouldn't be useful for the forum to add them as DT2 if they haven't left feedback to too many people besides you.
    I'm not saying you're abusing, I haven't checked your trust list and even less so the behavior of those people. I'm just pointing out how the trust list works and how trust is not the same as trust list.

    I would trust a few people who have positives from me with all my bitcoin but I don't necessarily trust them with DT.
    Yes. Exactly. This makes me think we mostly agree and are just having problems with the terms we use.


    Edit:

    How easy or otherwise would it be to calculate how many of those selfscratches are only included by that DT1 user in question, for the full list of DT1s, the same as you have done for Dabs?
    I did this by adding only one user to my alt's Trust list, so it's too much work to do.
    There are also cases such as Lafu (DT1), who's "Selfscratched users" didn't make it to DT2 because of DT1 exclusions.
    I've created this list:
    https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5144068.0
    38  Other / Meta / Re: Trust Selfscratchers: who scratched his own back the most? on: May 16, 2019, 03:15:21 PM
    Trusting someone is not reason enough to add them to the trust list (despite the name).
    We must add people to the trust list if we think the feedback left by those users is useful and fair. And it must be useful for most if we're DT1.

    If someone is extremely trustworthy then they must have dark green trust but not necessarily be on other people's trust list, unless they also leave proper, useful feedback.
    You can write that in public another 10 000 times, it's pointless. How many people did you PM about it and how many did listen to you? Here's a hint: They won't remove the inclusions because "friends". Circular ad naseum won't get us anywhere; either theymos changes it up a bit or very strong trust will remain a reason for inclusion for many.
    I'm sure there are people who honestly don't know the difference, so posting it does help. I've PM'd dabs and will exclude him if he doesn't fix his list. I hope others do too.

    But I agree theymos must change something, either requiring more than one DT1 inclusion to make someone DT2, or ignoring inclusions made by X when calculating X's trust. He should also make sure at least DT1 users know how things work, either by adding clearer messages next to the trust list or by PM'ing every DT1 users as soon as they become DT1.
    39  Other / Meta / Re: Trust Selfscratchers: who scratched his own back the most? on: May 16, 2019, 01:47:55 PM
    He currently has +42 positive DT-feedbacks, and if I exclude him to see the difference (don't test this on a DT1-account!), he has only +7 left.
    I think this change is the main indicator of probable abuse by DT1 members.

    Besides requiring more than one DT1 user to add someone as DT2, this suggestion of mine could solve this potential abuse:
    If a DT2 member is added only by one DT1 user and the former left positive trust to the later then it should not appear as trusted on the DT1's profile.

    So in practice the DT1's default trust should not be affected by changes made by that DT1 user to their trust list.



    What does the 42x mean next to dabs?
    If I understood it correctly it means he's added 42 users who have left positive trust to him, regardless of whether other DT1 users have added them too.
    In dabs' particular case it seems almost all of them became DT2 only because of him.


    Edit:

    nearly 100% of deals conducted between those in the list are conducted without escrow - the level of trust there is fucking strong
    Trusting someone is not reason enough to add them to the trust list (despite the name).
    We must add people to the trust list if we think the feedback left by those users is useful and fair. And it must be useful for most if we're DT1.

    If someone is extremely trustworthy then they must have dark green trust but not necessarily be on other people's trust list, unless they also leave proper, useful feedback.
    40  Economy / Reputation / Re: What's wrong with Vod, and Hhampuz on: May 14, 2019, 07:44:45 PM
    But... I removed the DOX....    Roll Eyes
    And that's why I think you don't deserve the negative trust either. But retaliation shouldn't be the only reason why you leave that trust.

    Too late I think.
    I'm more concerned about non-deserved negative trust. The whole discussion has been absurd for a long time but I just ignore it.

    In my personal opinion, potentially losing the forum treasury holdings due to a momentary lapse of judgement by a single individual would be more significantly damaging to the forum, Bitcoin, our community than any scam I have seen take place around here. I am all for forgiveness, and I most likely will remove my tag at a later date
    That's not what negative trust means. It doesn't mean "a momentary lapse of judgement by this user could have significantly damaged the forum". It means "this user is very untrustworthy. He has scammed and/or I think he will scam as soon as he gets a chance.".
    Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 ... 190 »
    Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!