I have excluded zazarb and krog as well. I'd like to ask other DT1 members to do so at least until these two users clean their trust lists up. It seems they've been adding people they traded with into their lists... who in turn added them perhaps. Not a good use of the system IMO. Nothing against them personally.
I can agree with that. I have messaged krogo already and he has removed some people (2 which I've explicitly requested - both are mentioned in this thread; and some others chosen by himself). His list is still way too large and includes people that have no idea how this system works. Excluded krogo until he fixes his list to something much more reasonable (other than pulling in almost every collector into DT2). Edit: Salty
Edit2: Tomato
Edit3: philipma1957, BadBear (my memory is lagging horribly)
who else?
We might want to consider reincluding these users for the next round.
Tomato is a big no, BadBear seems inactive (and I'm against adding inactive users, especially now given that they can cause more trouble). I've already added hilariousandco, maybe philipma and Salty are next. |
|
|
|
That list also appears to be out of date as the knives are already out for zazarb, by the look of it, going from undisputed +2 on that list to -1 now, (and consequently struck thru and off DT1?) according to this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtHow does one find out where his 3 negatives came from? One is mine (I find his list questionable at best). It isn't easy, but you have to look through this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full. It seems that he is back again? I have excluded zazarb and krog as well. I'd like to ask other DT1 members to do so at least until these two users clean their trust lists up. It seems they've been adding people they traded with into their lists... who in turn added them perhaps. Not a good use of the system IMO. Nothing against them personally. I can agree with that. I have messaged krogo already and he has removed some people (2 which I've explicitly requested - both are mentioned in this thread; and some others chosen by himself). His list is still way too large and includes people that have no idea how this system works. Very nice. No need for BPIP. |
|
|
|
That list also appears to be out of date as the knives are already out for zazarb, by the look of it, going from undisputed +2 on that list to -1 now, (and consequently struck thru and off DT1?) according to this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtHow does one find out where his 3 negatives came from? One is mine (I find his list questionable at best). It isn't easy, but you have to look through this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full. It seems that he is back again? |
|
|
|
The lending scammers were on zero too. I guess with a negative from vod that would've pushed them positive if that was the case.
Vinsin is zero too.
Might be worth to build a custom list then, if you don't trust DefauftTrust? theymos: Total votes 9 = included
HostFat: Trusted by theymos; distrusted by gmaxwell, TMAN, Lauda, achow101, owlcatz, The Pharmacist. Total votes -6 = excluded.
dooglus: Total votes 8 = included
gmaxwell: Trusted by theymos, OgNasty, Cyrus, TMAN, Lauda, achow101, The Pharmacist; distrusted by HostFat. Total votes 6 = included.
OgNasty: Trusted by theymos, SebastianJu, greenplastic, achow101, krogothmanhattan; distrusted by TMAN, Lauda, suchmoon, owlcatz, BitcoinPenny, The Pharmacist. Total votes -1 = excluded
SebastianJu: Total votes 4 = included.
qwk: Total votes 5 = included
Cyrus: Total votes 7 = included.
monkeynuts: Total votes 6 = included.
TMAN: Trusted by Lauda, greenplastic, owlcatz, BitcoinPenny, The Pharmacist, krogothmanhattan; distrusted by OgNasty. Total votes 5 = included.
Lauda: Trusted by gmaxwell, qwk, TMAN, Blazed, suchmoon, owlcatz, JohnUser, BitcoinPenny, The Pharmacist; distrusted by HostFat, OgNasty. Total votes 7 = included.
Mitchell: Total votes 9 = included.
Blazed: Trusted by Cyrus, monkeynuts, TMAN, Lauda, Mitchell, suchmoon, BitcoinPenny, The Pharmacist, krogothmanhattan; distrusted by zazarb. Total votes 8 = included.
greenplastic: Total votes 2 = included.
suchmoon: Trusted by dooglus, Lauda, Blazed, owlcatz, The Pharmacist; distrusted by OgNasty. Total votes 5 = included.
achow101: Total votes 2 = included.
owlcatz: Trusted by TMAN, greenplastic, suchmoon, BitcoinPenny, krogothmanhattan. Total votes 5 = included.
JohnUser: No trusts/distrusts on DT1. Total votes 0 = included.
BitcoinPenny: Total votes 4 = included.
zazarb: Total votes 2 = included.
actmyname: Trusted by TMAN, Lauda, Blazed, suchmoon, The Pharmacist; distrusted by theymos. Total votes 5 = included.
The Pharmacist: Trusted by qwk, TMAN, Lauda, Blazed, suchmoon, owlcatz; distrusted by OgNasty, zazarb. Total votes 6 = included.
krogothmanhattan: Trusted by monkeynuts, TMAN, greenplastic, BitcoinPenny; distrusted by owlcatz. Total votes 4 = included
It would be nice if these scores were actually shown here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dt. All I see is -1 or +1. |
|
|
|
It turns out you can't add an empty list I had to fill it with ~defaultttrust
Anyone knows if this counts as an -1 score on everybody on trust list if you are on DT1? I would assume yes unless there is some sort of different way that particular exclusion is handled. I'm not willing to try it given that my list is big and that exclusions work in real time (?): |
|
|
|
Would it not be logical that when one leaves a positive or negative trust for someone, that one's own trust list should automatically change to either respectively include that member or exclude (~) them? Or at least to have that option in Settings?
It kinda does. It does not. I thought that's how the system works. You give someone a positive they love up to your DT0? No. If you add people in your list just because they sent you a positive rating, then you are doing it wrong (and/or likely intentionally abusing it to boost your score). This is known as CanaryInTheMine syndrome.
This. There would be probably stronger consequences for doing this again given that DT1 is expanding in size. |
|
|
|
Would it not be logical that when one leaves a positive or negative trust for someone, that one's own trust list should automatically change to either respectively include that member or exclude (~) them? Or at least to have that option in Settings?
It kinda does. It does not. |
|
|
|
Would it not be logical that when one leaves a positive or negative trust for someone, that one's own trust list should automatically change to either respectively include that member or exclude (~) them?
Just because someone did something trustworthy or untrustworthy, that doesn't mean that their sent ratings are trustworthy/untrustworthy. |
|
|
|
Just exclude him: I'll use this opportunity to share my exclusions: ~cryptohunter
~gamerfan
~game-protect
~SmartPayMINT Two of those are included by krogothmanhattan. Note that 1 exclusion is not enough to cancel 1 inclusion. His list looks terrible: satoshi
theymos
laszlo
bg002h
casascius
mwally
Noitev
Josh
BookofNick
fabrizziop
counter
OgNasty
CanaryInTheMine
Otoh
Mjbmonetarymetals
Lincoln6Echo
John (John K.)
SaltySpitoon
canton
Pistachio
squall1066
serp
philipma1957
dozerz
bigtimespaghetti
BG4
Cyrus
hephaist0s
monkeynuts
TMAN
flora_digitalis
TookDk
cptdome1
Mitchell
vizique
wttbs
Ticked
dArkjON
Blazed
FiniteByDesign
yogg
bittawm
klaaas
hybridsole
greenplastic
AT101ET
cryptodechange
buckrogers
Lesbian Cow
XXXgames
Hexah
elianite
Jackblack90909
NattyLiteCoin
wheelz1200
Rmcdermott927
DaveF
teeGUMES
owlcatz
bitkilo
CryptoImperator
dazedfool
iluvbitcoins
Fortify
Luckycoin90
BitcoinPenny
chronicsky
Zepher
Hox
Xprim777
BTCMILLIONAIRE
digicoinuser
micromen
BitcoinNewsMagazine
tothemoonsands
m4nki
Lutpin
SFR10
Zyro
BTCC_Official
elokk
Bitguy2016
polymerbit
nathansenn
lebnor
Hhampuz
trbittr
ChiBitCTy
anorganix
comit
bobbyclee
Kryptowerk
wolfcoin2
OneNattyLitecoin
rusbitcoinuser
Ramelius
ThatRandomDude
Trofo
Kid_diK
JanEmil
Untold
bavicrypto
Crypto_Collection
Wyospl2
justatrader
ClearSky8
frankbitcoin
ZipReg
iasenko
fclardycake
BitElevation
Heisenberg_Hunter
guy369
grbox2002
ArkiCrypto
Collectcrypto
SmartPayMINT
qsdqsd
NightSabre
 |
|
|
|
Would be easier if you wrote who added a particular member when pointing something like this out. PM'd krogo. His list seems very unmaintained. |
|
|
|
There should definitely be an activity requirement in addition to the merit requirement being increased. That would certainly make it harder, but given the number of ongoing account sales, still not difficult enough (i.e. impossible). It doesn't matter if you can get an account or two to the list this way. It's only important that you can't get a big enough share. We can collectively kick out someone trying to climb up via account sales/farming without theymos intervening. Opening a thread/sending out a mass PM to the whole DT1 list would be sufficient. You are right, Loyce and I missed that. Each new account would need at least 60 merit.
You've lost me: Member rank requires 10 Merit. Oops, I mixed it up with activity. Ignore that post. |
|
|
|
There should definitely be an activity requirement in addition to the merit requirement being increased. Now it is even more dangerous to add inactive accounts to any kind of list!
- If rank was determined solely using earned merit, then you must be of at least Member rank.
I really think they need to of earn't 250 merit, but thats just my thought on it You are right, Loyce and I missed that. Each new account would need at least 60 merit. na mate, you missunderstood - I think the bar is far too low, 250 merit should be the minimum earn't to be considered for DT1
Ah, I got it. I don't think that kicks anyone out from the current list, does it? |
|
|
|
But probably far less who will actually update their lists. Having said that, 10 people with 10 merits (and 1 with 100) trusting you is not a particularly high bar to be set. I would worry about potential scammers either buying or trading merits their way on to DT. If I'm not mistaken, 200 sMerit is enough to create 10 DT1 members: Send 20 Merit to 10 accounts, send 10 times 10 Merit to the last account, and give all of them this Custom trust list: myfirstDT1
mysecondDT1
mythirdDT1
myfourthDT1
myfifthDT1
mysixthDT1
myseventhDT1
myeightDT1
myninethDT1
mytenthDT1
myeleventhDT1 That puts all accounts with 20 Merit on DT1, only the account with 100 Merit isn't trusted by someone with 100 Merit. A bored Newbie with a hacked Legendary account could pull this off. Then exclude all other DT1 accounts, and the hostile takeover of the trust network is complete (until manual intervention). Suggestion: Shouldn't there at least also be an Activity requirement? There should definitely be an activity requirement in addition to the merit requirement being increased. Now it is even more dangerous to add inactive accounts to any kind of list! |
|
|
|
Why is this happening and what can I do about this apart from begging a crazy person to reverse what they did?
Start by not threatening to attack me everywhere and not necroposting. An apology wouldn't 't hurt either, but I guess I'm asking for too much.. |
|
|
|
|
The #1 trusted spot finally makes sense. I don't think anyone matches his volume.
|
|
|
|
As I said before, although we obviously disagreed about the conduct of that auction, I don't think it should have permanently marked your account given your otherwise extensive positive trading history.
Exactly. And I will too. If my understanding is right, although I'm not trusted by anyone, simply by virtue of having earned enough merits, my inclusion will count?
Yes. You must have at least 10 people directly trusting you each with an earned merit of at least 10, not including merit you yourself sent.
-snip- I'm going to have to ask you to stop using that gif because every time I see it makes me feel funny in my pants. Are you blaming me for being gorgeous? That's sexist! Meow. |
|
|
|
Which raises a question - is there a way to see one's eligibility? Like how many 10-merit users are including the user? The current trust hierarchy can only show who's included by people in my list but not the other way round. I know this can be extracted from data dumps but that's convoluted. Having visibility of it might help detect abuse before it happens.
I don't think so. Someone could make a parser that updates this in real time. Maybe Vod could add it to BPIP (e.g. a page called "DT1 elligibility"). Damn, I'm found out. While personally training Lauda in the dark arts of forum moderation, we fell deeply in love. I couldn't bear to see her endure the torture of trust drama while doing unspeakable deeds for me, so I invented this complicated algorithm as an excuse to add her back in even though I could've just unilaterally added her to DT at any second. Truly, my cowardice knows no bounds.
So much win; you deserve a smile from me.  |
|
|
|
Public request: Stop adding https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=58223 to DT2, it's killing the admin's rating (is inactive anyways).  People who you add to your list are DT1 for you. The people that they have added to their lists are DT2 for you. Feedbacks from both layers are visible by default. This has a strong recursive effect: adding theymos for instance turns certain users red and others green. I've noticed, yeah. That's why I'm just hoping someone excludes Timelord2067 on the basis that he's tagged lots of other people without actual evidence too. I guess it's just a regular thing he does. (I'm sure there's legit tags too, but it's an obvious problem) So this is sort of a litmus test for me regarding whether this system can be just or not.
Who added him to begin with? He has some very good ratings, but also some others that I can't even remotely agree with. |
|
|
|
If Anduck is willing to remove his rating if I remove mine, what does that say about his rating?
Well: If you view every "dispute" in which parties exchanged negative ratings, then you can never "burry the hatchet" with anyone. No? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
