As it was before a person needed more inclusions than exclusions by 10 [or 9? to have (0)].

Now any single 1 exclusion is the final answer? Whose exclusion counts first?

To reduce the size of the DT1 list it could easily have been changed to 30 10 merit votes and 5 100 merit votes or something rather than greatly centralizing voting power.

I get the 10 merit standard, 100 merit standard, even the 250 merit standard, but anything over 500 merits is rediculous and depends too much on where you post, what you post about, and who your friends are..

I like LoyceV just fine but 6X as many votes as SaltySpitoon? lol no..
Is LoyceV 6X more trusted to make good votes than SaltySpitoon?

I think the DT1 list would be nice with around 50 members on it anyway..


That is no good IMO..
What about all the extra votes someone needs to overcome rival exclusions?

This looks like quite a step backwards in terms of decentralization.


Does the algorithm decide "most useful" before taking into account how many exclusions a member must overcome to stay on DT1 or after?

Yes, in my opinion.
You can give positive feedback to someone without any need for their to be any related trade at all..
Look at The Pharmacist's positive feedback from DT.. Whole bunch of them with no trades..

I also think that just because you are on DT does not mean that you have to tag every scam you see, or any. Don't feel pressured to leave any feedback that you don't want to..

I think you are actually..
Added by suchmoon..

13 - eddie13

create

A lot of trusted members, DT even, leave positive feedback ratings without any trade and such is considered ethical, so maybe you should add that to your infographic.
You only mention negative feedback in the absence of a trade..

I would say that feedback is for leaving your thoughts as ratings on others about their likeliness to scam, or trustworthiness, and why with an explanation and reference, positive or negative, while your custom trust list is to add users that you think make good feedback, have good judgment about leaving feedback, and remove those who make poor feedback or have poor judgement.

Your feedback is to help noobs judge a persons trustworthiness.
Your trustlist is to add who else, in your opinion, does a good job of helping noobs judge a persons trustworthiness via their feedback, or who does not with a tilde (~)..


I myself think that is quite a lot of merit given for a low effort drawing including numerous English grammatical and syntax errors, but your effort to spread awareness is applaudable (if you plan to use it for anything more than merit bounty hunting).

I hope you continue to work on your infographic to bring it up to a level of prestige where we can all be proud to meme-drop it to anyone who has questions, but as it is now it is subpar IMHO..
I think JetCash has some sort of forum for this sort of thing, or if you would like to, feel free to run the text by me so I can help you correct it and help you understand why it needs correcting..

Ok good..  

I was confused because I was still seeing someone that was excluded under me coming in and out of my DT view a couple times.
I guess some person(s) higher than the exclusion must have included them and has since excluded them again, maybe a couple times...

It gave me the impression that my sub's exclusions weren't working for my view and must have missed what changes were going on above me at the time.

I am still unsure of the workings of exclusions, or want to clarify my understanding..

From what I think I understand exclusions do absolutely nothing for anything other than your own personal view unless you are on DT1?
An exclusion does not have effect on anyone's trust view other than your own?

Example: Suchmoon adds me to his list and I add member1. Member1 has added member2 but I think member2 has bad ratings so I exclude member2 from my DT1 view..

Member1 is my DT0 and is Suchmoon's DT1
Member2 is my DT1 and is Suchmoon's DT2  Excluded from my view but not from Suchmoon's view?

I exclude member2 to take his bad ratings off of my DT1 view but my exclusion of member2 does not exclude member2 from Suchmoon's DT2 view?


I think this is how this is working but I think it would work better if my exclusion from my view worked up the chain and also excluded member2 from Suchmoon's view..

If not, my work weeding out the bad ratings that slip through only fix my view, but Suchmoon's view of DT2 is still going to look like crap from my "subordinates" that I have actually excluded but still look included to Suchmoon, and therefore my trust list to him still looks like crap.. Right?

I got a nice encouraging message from suchmoon regarding my last post..
Thank you.
+ Respect

I see that you guys are putting a large amount of work into this right now and that is good, but come Monday I expect DT to drastically change again and become much bigger, possibly bigger than it ever has been before, so I hope you are pacing yourselves..

I myself am not sure what I am going to do with my list yet. I am probably just going to leave it blank other than brief experimenting for now, likely through past the recalculation Monday and see what that brings.

I am tempted to set at least a very conservative list of 10 now to be eligible for DT1, but I don't think I want anywhere near that so early on in the chaos.

Now that this is going to be a very big list (I think) and in many more people's hands, I half want to create quite a big trust list of users just that I somewhat trust to try to do what they believe is the right thing to do, and give them a chance. Users that have been here a good while and not used whatever reputation they have made to scam, and have interest in the good of crypto, might deserve a chance on my list..

I tested a list of a good amount of the most recognized users on BPIP, and I quite liked it..
It makes for a lot more ratings and I found that mostly the decent ratings came up to DT and the worst of them stayed in untrusted..
I am one to go through untrusted feedback when I am trying to make a decision on anyone anyway, and this really helped to distinguish the best part of untrusted feedback from the worst that stayed untrusted.
With just a few exclusions of (mostly unheard of users) bad ratings that leaked through, to me it looked pretty good..
For example ThePharmacist, out of his gazillion spam untrusted retaliation feedback, only 2 or 3 slipped into the trusted feedback. Which I think is pretty good results simply fixed with a couple exclusions.

I would like for DT to be much more decentralized and in much more people's hands.
DT being so small and rare makes all DT ratings overly powerful IMO. I think DT being a lot larger and more common, reducing the power of any single rating, would make for a better trust system.

I do not like how, a user with an extensive positive history, is close to destroyed by just one very powerful negative rating. In a more dispersed trust system a single negative is much less powerful among an extensive positive history, and could help people not make such a big deal and fuss about their disagreements.
If many agree with the importance of an issue they can always step in and add their own/more negatives rather than a single one being so massive.
I also would like to see a lot more positive ratings out there. DT is too focused on negative ratings and their are a lot of good positive rating out there that don't make it.

But a big list such as this too soon would make me no friends and probably get me excluded by many and generally be a problem for me, because if most anyone who is anyone is on my list that means that their enemies likely are too, and everyone from all sides will be pissed about it..

Even with a small list, if I add almost anybody their is going to be someone out there that is going to be pissed that I added that person, especially with a small list.
It's like any small list is choosing sides, a big list is choosing decentralization, and no list is choosing to be a poor member..
I feel I need to wait for more data to make a decision..


I see that @suchmoon has me on their list. I guess thanks, I'm flattered and appreciate the recognition.
I think you can trust me to always try to do whatever I think is the right thing to do..
But I think it is very fragile and likely to be short lived. Probably as soon as I make a decentralized trust list some enemy(s) of suchmoon will make it on there and I will be excluded..
Even if I put suchmoon and many of his friends on my list, which surely would be, I'll probably be discluded if I add anyone that suchmoon disagrees with.. And if I don't, I'll be discluded by anyone who disagrees with suchmoon..

I need to see what this actually tuns into before I do too much and open myself up to who knows how much drama.

This sure is an interesting and exciting happening though!
I really hope this turns out well for the future Bitcoin and cryptocurrency..

Good luck to all and I hope that this can ultimately help people put their differences aside to build a great trust system!  

(while you were typing 27 new replies have been posted)

Oh boy. This should keep things interesting again for a while, stir up the pot..


I imagine this "directly trusting" means they have added you to their custom trusted feedback list as opposed to just having left a positive feedback?


I could see not very members having 10 or more people with >10 merit and 1>100 merit having added them to their trust list. Even current DT..
But current DT1 members are still in even if they don't have these requirements right?

In any case I should take my time to add users to my custom trust list that I would like to see on DT1, or stay there..



I'm not seeing any difference in my trust score or noticing differences in others trust scores..
Lauda's feedback is still showing in untrusted for me and I don't have them excluded..

OK now they have changed.. OgNasty is out wow..
Big changes..

Join Bitcoin..
And they already beat eth and xrp by being decentralized and immutable..

Still looking..

philipma1957 is out - his cards won't work

I guess I need someone with 1080ti cards or nvidia cards with a lot of ram.. ??


Unsure..

I agree and this is basically what I was trying to express earlier in this thread (post #4)

I don't mind that this tag was placed since it is an unethical act and was quite a few merits but the post referenced does lend credence to the claim it was a mistake made out of pure ignorance.

I have seen in the past seemingly legit companies ruining relations with bitcointalk out of pure ignorance and at times it feels a shame that they just didn't read the rules and understand the cultural etiquette here before they made mistakes.

It would depend a bit for me on the scammyness of whatever this "KORE" project is. I haven't really looked at it..
Can anyone that knows give me/us a quick scammyness rating of this on a scale from 1 to 10? (apart from this merit problem)

If the scammynss of this all is relatively low other than this meriting I think it would be nice of Suchmoon to possibly make a deal on this issue..

Some things I can think of......

1. Burn the merited account.. Send the password of it to Suchmoon for destruction of the account..
I think this would basically destroy the sent merit and Mike would just have lost the smerit..
Maybe all of its posts can be deleted too before burning it..

2. Maybe make mike read the rules and make 100 good reports and/or make him write you a small essay on the working of the merit system and the ethics thereof so he will be henceforth educated..

3. Make him wear the red for 3 months or so as a warning to others and then change it to a neutral..

If he otherwise seems to bring value to the forum..

Also depending on these "attacks"..
If he has been belligerent, violent, extremely disrespectful, threatening, much bad behavior otherwise maybe he should keep the red just for his reaction if it has been terrible..
I'm not sure we have all of these PMs/"attacks" available..

Either your seed for the entire wallet or priv key for the specific address(s) that holds the coin should work.

No, it is not OK.
But I think they are not getting tagged for it right? Because theymos said to only tag for extreme cases of merit abuse right? So it's not something I would try to bring to DT or put effort into proving if I saw it happening..


Where? How?

The first original Casascius..

2011 error coin right?
I want one..

I would like to rent the work of your GPU/CPU miner(s) mining Grin on a pool for a few days or so, depending on cost, around the 15th of this month. Paid in BTC or alts.
Willing to make a fair deal like 110% of your usual income or something and maybe a share of possible profits. Make an offer..

I think you need to have relatively new cards with a good amount of RAM.

I think you can find info about how to configure the miner here
https://www.grin-forum.org/c/mining
https://www.mwgrinpool.com/
ANN https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5090427.0

Sound feasible?