The criteria are arbitrary and cannot be demonstrably used to create a list of truly trustable users. For now, most are responsible enough to be DT1 members and thus the voting system is a bit of a necessity to restrict any users that the community disagrees with.

That being said, the idea of the new system is still to improve its decentralization.

It's a good thing that there are way more DT members. This incentivizes users to properly develop their own trust list rather than stumbling on a path of lunacy as we have scores of users sloshing about the feedback sewers. Beyond that, the value of DT has been diluted immensely and thus reliance upon it as a proper vector for trust isn't the most brilliant idea.

Whoever needs your vote the most gets it. It depends on who is on your list, not the order of their placements.

I have a better proposition for you: find a loose dollar, use that for your roulette strategy.

Win three times on zero and you've already made over 10 BTC!^*

matico mentioned something about me.

To extend my piece of the opinion pie, I found it difficult to justify tagging someone based on hearsay evidence. The ICO bumping included direct PM's and substantiated alt-account propositions, yes. There however was also a user that propagated a large list of users and matico was a part thereof.

Without any further evidence, it's inconclusive. Yes, it's likely that the users are involved however who is to say that the sender of the PM was not padding the message with "extra" participants that they chose randomly? That's why I had doubts when reviewing Lauda's tags.

Not anymore, though.

You speak in tongues, my dear friend.
It puts a hamper on the accessibility of all when Lauda is so frequently-discussed. As a subject, the density of threads is far too much for the average user to pore through.
But you, an expert on the topic of extortion, you have the ability - the prowess - to properly compile the evidence and construct an ostentatious thesis.
If expansion of the idea is to be desired, then that is the path one must follow. Bring forth your passion, your flourish, your exhibit of Lauda's corruption.
Display this to all, and you may strike a true revolution indeed.

Ah, you are so correct! I shan't have a contrary position against only theymos. The true path towards a fair system is for every reply to be of dissent, rejection and to throw the pittance of virtue signalling out of this existence! Our qualms needn't be sullied by the burden of agreement, nay, reality demands contradiction. It demands chaos!

So I declare unto you: no. I disagree with your opinion.

Finally, someone speaks the truth!

It behooves all of Bitcointalk to develop a contrarian opinion against theymos, for dissent is king when it comes to debate. No more shall this wretched king reign supreme, striking down all contrary opinions. No more shall we see any agreement towards this malevolent ruler! Down with theymos! Down with theymos!

Where is your well-articulated thread targeted at theymos addressing the issues of DefaultTrust?

Surely, your strong opinion is based on a foundation of deep research and analysis which can be thoroughly explained. I look forward to seeing your logical conclusion derived from the many facts you've no doubt accumulated during your time on the forum.

For someone who doesn't care that much about their trust, you sure care a lot about trust.

Append ;dt to the URL. Create a script for it if you have to: it's not that difficult.

Someone put a newline character in their DefaultTrust list.

Cool.

Nothing is absolute. That is why, in the justice system (at least in NA), the onus is to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

Like I wrote to you on Telegram, the DefaultTrust system has been enlarged to the point where feedback has become more diluted. Obviously, we don't want egregious feedback about any little disagreement to become the norm however I believe the voracity of sending feedback should increase, at least by a little bit. Since DT was built to tackle the grey area of scam/not, we should have more thoughts spitting around now with the expanded community rather than less.

I will still counter any "opinion-based" feedback where the recipient isn't shady (or worse) at best. Perhaps a change in the guidelines is a good idea?

There's free speech: say what you will.

That is the point, though. If your network consists of some static list that you're just "supposed" to trust then it's rather unreliable.

Your network should consist of those that you trust. In the old DT system, capricious individuals could hand out ratings that you may have disagreed with. To that end, it would be advised to set your depth to 1 in order to truly keep it personalized.

You're too fast, MLoyceV

I get roped into a lot of gang conspiracies, it seems :/

Goes to show how deep the conspiracy goes. All these threads and still, no action being done against the cartel.

New DT1 members.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49140832#msg49140832

You don't understand what I'm saying.

Proposition by RichGang, supported by JollyGood: "Big bets showed up in the final four hours because this was Dean playing, to kick off winners from the leaderboard."

My reply indicated that the theory is partially flawed, due to the fact that players will often wait until the last moments to bet in a +ev wagering contest. I had indicated "there is the possibility of fraudulent play" not that players are fraudulently playing.

The reasoning that I had provided for the suspicious-looking betting is not based on superficial probabilities. It is what happens.

Just chiming in real quick here:

Fact: The top 200 merit receivers are the ones with the most sMerit. (excluding some outlier merit sources)

Those with more sMerit to send will send more sMerit, generally. Hence you will see an uneven distribution of merit fans in the top 200.

For example, cryptohunter.

Just from the top 10 merit fans of your profile, four are in the top 200. Those four correspond to 20% of your earned merit.

Perhaps that's not a lot in your mind but here's the thing: you're rank 606 for most-merited. Isn't it conducive that because the top merit-holders have the most sMerit, then the more merit you receive, the more likely it is to come from the top 200?