Yes, this is a possible crack to the system and it should surely be considered by theymos. A person can created many number of alts to put himself on a default trust list.
Unless you have a sea of merit and enough DT1 members to overtake everything, you can't do that. We'd kick you back out. If you somehow managed to take over the majority, theymos would blacklist you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
Based on what? Random users that never traded and/or never sent almost any feedback to others? Great idea.  There is such a thing - reputation. We choose users who have earned the respect of many users of the Russian local Board. That's indeed a good method for determining who to trust. That is, if you want to be scammed. I'm not surprised by a local board's community's inability to properly use this system though. |
|
|
|
A personal plea by me: please consider taking users of local boards into your Trust Lists, even if you don't understand the gibberish they call their "language".
How to find out who's a good user? Well, ask around!
The local boards need strong trust networks, and in many cases they have no lobby here. Thank you.
Right now we are trying to create a local network of trust in the Russian section, but there is no success yet. Too few users have scored more than 250 Merit. [Challenge] Create your Trust listBased on what? Random users that never traded and/or never sent almost any feedback to others?  |
|
|
|
Because the rate of new users getting scammed would be ridiculous otherwise. Why? Explain please. I think that this is a baseless statement. Use your head. Some people get scammed even by user accounts that already have red trust; do you really think it would be better if there was no red trust? If I were fooled by a scammer, only I would be responsible and I think it's right.
Let's toss everyone into chaos. After all if we can protect some users, why should we? It's their responsibility to protect themselves. That is nonsense that can't be applied to this. Sorry, I will repeat myself, why? Could you explain how you see this? I can. I never trust someone by default. I know that there are many good people on this forum, but still, by default I don't trust anyone. I will check everything by myself. At least, I need to do my own research. But, by default -- never. You're using quotes that you think you understand, but you really don't. What exactly would you verify instead of trusting?  Enough with this fallacious nonsense. Who are you going to trade with, some random that never did paypal-to-btc or someone who has 100+ such succesful changes? Oh right, don't trust verify the 0-trade-newbie offering reversible methods of payment. <- shows how absurd your attempt is. I see your point, and the answer is -- the escrow. Yeah, "Who you can to trust if you do not trust anyone?", but still, if an escrow have a thread (not self-moderated) and there is a lot of feedbacks, so after checking these feedback and the account owners I will make my decision to work with that person or not. The difference between a seller with 100 trusted feedback, and an escrow with 100 trusted feedback is what exactly? You'd choose the escrow because he/she is an escrow? * Lauda facepalms
So, why so many years I "trusted" you by default? ("You", in the context of DT1)
Here's a simple solution: Remove Defaulttrust from your trust settings and lock this thread. I'm not sure whether this is utopian-styled "we can educate everyone on the planet not to be naive", or dystopian-styled "throw everyone infront the bus, it's their responsibility" thinking. Whichever it is, it is wrong.
Edit: Many typos. |
|
|
|
The question is, why this user have to be subscribed to DefaultTrust?
Because the rate of new users getting scammed would be ridiculous otherwise. Why a new user should “trust” unknown users from the first second of being on the forum? And what about one of the main principle? -- “Don’t trust. Verify.
That is nonsense that can't be applied to this. Who are you going to trade with, some random that never did paypal-to-btc or someone who has 100+ such succesful changes? Oh right, don't trust verify the 0-trade-newbie offering reversible methods of payment. <- shows how absurd your attempt is. |
|
|
|
|
If this is true, this is it. I doubt that you could ever salavage the reputation after contiously doing things that you know are wrong/unacceptable here.
|
|
|
|
This isn't even my final form. I ran out of reports to catch up to.  So there's like a mecha-Godzilla-cat Lauda as well? There's one that operates on catnip; as long as there is fuel humans like you have no chance. I've become a little bit more reluctant to tag the old "alt accounts scamming bounties" members, but have at 'em if you like. It's not like the number of scammers has decreased any in the past year or so.
I'm not. It's unfortunate that some projects are getting scammed by both their "BM" and bounty hunters. I also vehemently dislike their "they are my 15 aunts"-type lies. |
|
|
|
It violates even the Convention on Human Rights!
What is this nonsense? How old are you? You are not making your case any better IMO. |
|
|
|
Lauda has commited again various massacres everywhere just to become no. 1 . Just in a short time he surpassed The Pharmacist by a hundred of feedbacks more. This isn't even my final form. I ran out of reports to catch up to. |
|
|
|
The Pharmacist has sent more ratings then me  Okay, time for kitty to wake up from winter sleep. Game on! Did you just tag like 600+ accounts, just to be #1 again? You must have missed DT I had nightmares about this and couldn't sleep, so I did some catching up.  Or maybe I just casted a spell that automatically tagged all those people, who knows. |
|
|
|
The administration, Cloudflare, and the host provider have complete access to all PMs. All it takes is a simple request from the US government and one of those three will have to provide them. Deleting messages does not help as they are periodically backed up. Correct me if I am wrong. I believe that even you delete message admin could retrieve it same like post / reply.
Difficult, but possible (see last sentence in previous paragraph). |
|
|
|
No updates about the facebook/twitter paiements?
When will be bounty participants of Facebook and Twitter campaigns receive their payments? What's going on? In telegram group no one cannot ask about this. In This topic also no information.
The sheets are final now final in the token-payout variant; it isn't up to me anymore. You will probably have to manually swap afterwards. This is a banal disrespect to all bounty participants!
Don't be a self-entitled brat. Thanks. How long we need to wait?
However long it takes. |
|
|
|
This picture looks about right. There may be more members involved in this cult, but they remain hidden in the shadows. I was wondering where I am indeed, but I'm fine with keeping a low profile lurking in the shadows. You are artificial neural network developed by, and for, Lauda. No one was able to take picture. FTFY. I want to join this gang/cult, tell me what the requirements are.
100 bitkorn, 2500 domesticated cats, 50 tons of catnip. |
|
|
|
 The new goxxed: Jihan'd && Ver'd. Bcash scam not working out as planned, ain't it? |
|
|
|
One thing rounding my mind. If a scammer make his won trust network and complete criteria to become DT1 then there is any other way to remove him from DT1 without theymos help ?
You just have to read the first post again. #1As a special exception to the normal algorithm for determining a user's trust network, if you are on the default trust list ("DT1") but more other DT1 members distrust you than explicitly trust you, then it is as if you are distrusted by the default trust list for all purposes except for this very DT1-composition determination. So if someone on DT1 is doing something stupid, you can ask other DT1 members to distrust them. See here for live info on this "DT voting". However, there's a small problem. Complete removal isn't possible without theymoses manual intervention, and this: @theymos I think that you should tweak DT1 so that the exclusions from excluded DT1 members don't have any effect, the same way that their inclusions shouldn't. If the majority distrusts someone (e.g. a case example would be HostFat), then their trust list shouldn't affect DefaultTrust.
This to me seems like another possibly way to compromise DT over time: Keep getting accounts in that fit the criteria, even though the majority excludes them and suddenly switch once you have the adequate number. Or you could simply be a nuisance by maliciously excluding certain people from DT2 just for the sake of doing so.
While the possibility of DT1 members excluding each others creates more dynamic (by allowing consensus to form), it does not seem fully utilized until out actually means more than 'your ratings aren't trusted by default anymore'. Just a thought. Maybe that could/should also change in real time.
|
|
|
|
Oh, I just don't really like idk controversial people so I just tend to stray away from them lol
You'd be living in a cave right now if it weren't for controversial people in our history, just a thought. ~HostFat
~MemoryDealers
gmaxwell
~OgNasty
qwk
~Phinnaeus Gage
Vod
Anduck
~Tomatocage
DiamondCardz
~Xian01
~lenny_
KWH
monkeynuts
ibminer
TMAN
~Sylon
Mitchell
~cyclops
~dArkjON
Blazed
~BayAreaCoins
~EFS
hilariousandco
~shorena
suchmoon
~Rmcdermott927
~Dogedigital
~CryptoImperator
JohnUser
~iluvbitcoins
~Quickseller
~zazarb
Zepher
LoyceV
actmyname
The Pharmacist
Lutpin
marlboroza
Gunthar
Hhampuz
anonymousminer
Parsing and reading is hard. |
|
|
|
|
@theymos I think that you should tweak DT1 so that the exclusions from excluded DT1 members don't have any effect, the same way that their inclusions shouldn't. If the majority distrusts someone (e.g. a case example would be HostFat), then their trust list shouldn't affect DefaultTrust.
This to me seems like another possibly way to compromise DT over time: Keep getting accounts in that fit the criteria, even though the majority excludes them and suddenly switch once you have the adequate number. Or you could simply be a nuisance by maliciously excluding certain people from DT2 just for the sake of doing so.
While the possibility of DT1 members excluding each others creates more dynamic (by allowing consensus to form), it does not seem fully utilized until out actually means more than 'your ratings aren't trusted by default anymore'. Just a thought. Maybe that could/should also change in real time.
|
|
|
|
This picture looks about right. There may be more members involved in this cult, but they remain hidden in the shadows. Scam.
It's called SKAM. Lauda wears glasses so she/he/it is Vod.
Merited by Vod (2), Lauda (2)
Vod is me. Hmmmmm. I am Lauda.
Welcome to the dark side. You have finally confessed your evil nature. |
|
|
|
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?
Partially correct. It also affects the people that have added you to their list. 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?
If you exclude him, he'd be excluded from suchmoon's view (assuming nobody else has inclusions). 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?
It does. |
|
|
|
The Pharmacist has sent more ratings then me Okay, time for kitty to wake up from winter sleep. Game on! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
