Already posted my general opinion in that topic:

---

I don't see including absent/left members in trust list as "voting" for them personally. This concept is reserved for reaching the threshold of inclusions to become eligible for DT1, or otherwise in relation to DT1 members voting directly. If they are no longer active, they aren't eligible for DT1, so it's therefore simply based on whether their feedback is trusted by default or not.

Additionally when including inactive members this doesn't ever extend to their list of inclusions, in the way that it would be DT1 members producing votes for DT2 members, as inactive members can only be DT2 at most. So in this sense it's very much a "limited vote", one that is solely based on trusting their feedback, as their only personal inclusions and exclusions, or lack of, become irrelevant.


This is just an example or poor judgement from those who include a member who hasn't left any feedback.

PS - Didn't you include my mobile account to your trust that hasn't left any feedback?? ...


This is an example of how feedback can become outdated, and if so, then sure the user can be removed from DT. But not based on his activity, simply the accuracy of feedback, regardless of who the member is.


This I don't understand. Either their feedback is trusted or not to enter your inclusion list. Whether they have an trust list or not doesn't change the accuracy or that feedback either.


I guess you are trying to say old, maybe even outdated feedback carries no weight? If that's the case, then by this logic it's not that damaging to remain then? Personally I think for example a red tag is a red tag, whether it's from the past year or from many years ago. Sure someone reading it might give it more or less weight based on it's age, but otherwise whether the user remains active or not becomes less relevant imo.

Personally I think what you are suggesting is an over complication of the trust system. You simply add users with accurate feedback, dead or alive. That's it.

If you trust the judgement of a user less because they have left or died, then don't include them in your trust list.

I'm confused, why is there a community vote happening for this? Is this what theymos suggested? To me it seems completely unnecessary.

I don't understand the need for 80%+ consensus either. Either there will be enough users to use that board or not, and already 50+ people voted Yes for it with 90% support. To me it seems pretty simple. You either create the board or not and assign a mod to move the topic into it. Takes a few hours at most. I'm not criticising you for this, I appreciate the initial proposal, I'm simply questioning the long-winded process.

To do this it makes more sense to leave feedback on the account stating that the user has died, either in neutral or positive, so that if the user wakes up it won't take long for someone to raise the topic.

Can't think of many examples right now but Tecshare comes to mind. RIP based feedback was left on his account, but no-one left negative because he had died. Furthermore someone's feedback doesn't become useless if they leave, it's still just as useful even if it won't be updated and therefore can become outdated. Many DT members have otherwise left but there feedback remains trusted.


The case with Lauda wasn't the same as either Zepher or Techsare. Lauda left and made it clear that any activity from her account should be considered an imposter, and therefore not trusted. That was a good enough reason to get tagged as a warning to others, because that also seemed like what she wanted, not simply because she was leaving. It was a very unique situation imo.

More relevantly though, it's not accurate to say that many removed Lauda from trust inclusion after this, not based on the logs provided. She had already become excluded from DT for the best part of 6 months and remained on and off after for almost two years, until as recently as August last year. Within a week of saying goodbye she instead went from -1 exclusion to 0 (inclusion). You could point to her getting to -7 the following year after leaving, but she had already reached -13 in the year she left prior to leaving, so I don't think her exclusion is that related to her leaving, as her feedback was already in general distrusted by then.

Unfortunately there are many misconceptions about Lauda's exclusion from DT, I'm not surprised that many people think it's because she left and requested to have her account distrusted. If anything the opposite could be true. After years of being a DT members and tagging thousands of scammers she had become distrusted, and therefore left the forum as her work had gone to waste.

Managed to find myself quite quickly  

The trick is to move to smaller circles from those that have more merit received than you, and towards members who have sent/received merit.  Is there a way to enable a zoom into this visualisation? Ideally with this and labels it'd show a more complete picture. It's interesting to see though, there are still members I've never heard of who have received hundreds of merit it's ironic.

Personally I'd like to see it, and also think it could encourage some donors to donate. Not necessarily to get listed there, but simply by seeing that other prominent members have donated.

At a minimum, I'm curious, and I imagine others are too. Obviously only for those donors who wish to be listed, this goes without saying. Others could be listed as Anonymous.

I noticed Blazed as one of top 50 DT members over the past 4+ years, also wondered what happened to him at one point though don't remember him on here personally.

As for Zepher is now one of the most excluded DT members, also never heard of him or understood why his judgement is so distrusted now. Passing away isn't much of a reason, nor is leaving the forum.

(There are many members who remain DT2 that are no longer active)

---

Ideally the charts on this topic would be re-uploaded as they are no longer visible  

I see your point that it wouldn't be ideal making it easy for feedback to be removed/un-trusted and you're probably right overall. For example a DT member could leave feedback that the majority of DT1 members agree with, but get's down-voted by a handful of DT1 and then removed. This is why I said having down-voting won't work without up-voting as well to counter it. The frustrating reality would be the possibility of having hundreds of pieces of feedback down-voted by certain members, that would require up-voting by others in order to remain, which sounds like an exhausting task for DT1 members.

Either way I don't think the feature should be rolled out without some sort of test-run first, for example a handful of feedback (proposed by users) that become available to vote on by DT1/DT members. Regardless of whether it requires 5 DT1 downvotes or otherwise a majority, I can see it going wrong either way, or being unpopular. Then ideally DT1/DT members would be able to vote on implementing the system or not.

edit: Am starting to think that this feature would work better by requiring a minimum number of users to initially propose voting on pieces of feedback, such as 3 DT members, before having the feature becoming available for the feedback in question - ie regulate the feature better. The idea of having every single piece of negative feedback available for up-voting/down-voting is starting to sound a bit insane in hindsight.

What's the deal with exchanging to XMR? I see that currently there is 0 reserves so I assume this isn't possible at present if there are no third party liquidity providers?

I created an order to see what would happen and I get the following:


Obviously there's something not quite right with that calculation if the maximum I can send is 0, but the minimum is 0.00000055.

People have a lot of predictions as always, either up or down, but neither seem that convincing to me until either the current $25K support level fails or $28K resistance breaks. Generally people think a re-test of $20K or $30K will come next, personally I think $23K is the next level of support based on volume profile over the past year or so. Based on today's price action it seems that $25K is unlikely to hold as support (again) but that said it's too early to tell being the first day of the week. Given the news of FTX liquidations "apparently" on the horizon I don't trust price action so much right now as it's being heavily influenced by news events.

For example price could crash to $23K, even $20K, based on the liquidation news. But then if it turns out these liquidations won't be happening anytime soon then price could swiftly recover. I'm otherwise not so convinced of breaking $30K this year anymore, we had the opportunity for that to happen for about 3 months but bulls failed, so not expecting that opportunity to return very quickly, not until next year imo. At a guess I think consolidation between $20K to $30K until the end of the year seems relatively likely. This has more or less been the case for the past 9 months so I see no reason it can't continue for another 3 months.

That said if $25K does somehow hold as support and $28K breaks as resistance, then the chances of breaking $30K resistance level increases. As does the possibility of consolidating between $25K and $30K for another few months, given price has already consolidated in this range for 6 months, confirming there is a healthy balance at present between buyers and sellers in this range. I guess this is why I don't have a lot of technical analysis right now, because it's generally based on "more or the same price action", ie sideways or consolidation, rather than bullish/bearish, even if some lower prices come first. At least until something gives.

Am starting to get the impression that the next leg up, or otherwise new bull market, won't be until next year either now. There is also the (somewhat unconfirmed) news that FTX will be selling off $268m Bitcoin over the next 17 weeks which would take us to the end of the year. The irony being that this isn't a lot for liquidity to absorb (it'd be around $16m per week), but would likely spook investors in the immediate term.

By next year there should be a clean slate for price to be able to move back to the upside, especially once there are only a few months until the halving.

Is it possible that this script would work for tradingview images as well if I changed imgur to tradingview? I noticed a lot of these disappeared out of older topics around the same time as the imgur situation, whereas the images themselves are still available via TV. I assume it'd be imageLinkRegex and decodeProxyImages lines of code that needs changing if so?

The strange thing is TV images are still working on the forum, but it seems that images prior the changes have been affected nonetheless, so ideally it'd also only change the broken ones.

Fair point I guess. I was going by the grammar of present tense. If you had used the past tense I wouldn't of said anything. No need to take my dissertation too seriously or personally for that matter, it's been a while that I've read others claiming Lauda is a good DT member over the years - or simply a DT member - whereas neither is currently true, so thought I'd put my correction in there at some point.

I guess over all it's still up for debate whether Lauda was net positive or net negative for DT. Within 6-12 months she'll statistically be net negative at current pace, so until then it's still up for debate. Personally I'd say spending years tagging thousands of scammers only for all your feedback to no longer be trusted by default is not only a massive waste of time but also an epic fail, so it's net neutral at best.

---

I agree with you that up until 2019 Lauda was probably the best example of a controversial DT member, as one of the most controversial. Ironically it would be her downfall in the end.  Can't even remember what the mass distrusting of Lauda was back in 2019, but it wasn't until 2020 that she became excluded from DT for reference sake. She went from 30+ DT strength down to 0-10 in 2019 roughly, then reached -10 by 2020. I think it was around the time trust flags were introduced and she went a bit rogue with it, with Timelord highlighting her numerous incorrect uses of them (many flag references).


Also agree it does take a lot of wrongdoing to get removed from DT if you have thousands of accurate feedback left, but ultimately it's all in proportion. Leave 100 feedback with more than 1 error and you'll likely lose some support. Likewise leave a thousand with 10 wrong and you're in the same boat etc. Introduce trust flags and you give everyone the opportunity to make 2x the amount of mistakes it seems.

---

From what I've seen it's not community feedback that JG listens to, probably as it's not "the community" that maintains his DT status. It's only been those who have included him in their trust list (namely his DT1 sponsers) that he listens to. Otherwise there's basically no reason to listen or consider anything anyone else is saying, as it won't directly effect his DT status. That's my interpretation anyway.

Just used this script (better late than never I figured) and can also say it worked very well. Quite a lot of API rate limiting pauses but I guess this is to be expected using the key provided, or in general maybe. Ideally there would have been an option to ignore all images I've posted to Wall Observer, as that would have saved most of the work, but the script got the job done in the end regardless.

There were also some instances of images being uploaded, but then due to locked topic no post was edited, I assume this is where you are the OP you locked the topic maybe? I didn't generally find this happened with images in locked topics overall, just a few instances. Even when re-running the script it would still re-upload the images but be unable to edit the post... maybe this has already been discussed though.

Trying to follow the alternating proposals here but failing to understand the logic of 2/3 or 3/4 of DT1 to vote. For starters, it's very unlikely to get 61 to 69 DT1 members to vote on anything imo.

I don't see the issue with having only 50%+ agreement as the threshold for having feedback removed, as long as there is the option to upvote in order to counter downvotes. I also don't understand why this is suggested for DT1 only instead of all DT. Many of the most trusted DT members aren't even DT1 anymore anyway, as have wiped trust list or opted for exclusion, but are their feedback is still highly trusted.

To me it makes more sense to keep it simplistic like with the trust flags, with the addition of requiring at least 5 DT votes prior to any removal of default feedback to take affect. After all DT/DT1 is determined by majority inclusion (even 50%) that determines whether feedback is trusted by default or not, so to me it makes sense that any feedback votes from DT/DT1 are treated in the same manner as inclusions/exclusions.

Either that or increase the voting requirement to 10 DT votes (as opposed to 5 DT1 votes) if you want to avoid too many feedbacks being countered which could well end up being the case with such a low threshold. This would require a minimum of 6 DT down votes (based on majority agreement) in order for feedback to no longer be trusted, or otherwise the full 10 DT downvotes if there is no opposition.

Also having only DT1 able to upvote/downvote means that some feedback will "flip flop" on and off a lot more than if the votes are based on DT, due to how the DT lottery works, which wouldn't be ideal imo.

As a correction, Lauda isn't DT and hasn't consistently been DT since March 2020 - ignoring the few "lucky" weeks here and there - prior to leaving the forum 7 months later. She was kicked off DT long before leaving the forum, in case there was any doubt. Since then Lauda hasn't managed to consistently return to DT status either and has instead been consistently excluded for the past year. She otherwise ranges between Top 10 to 50 most distrusted DT members. In summary, Lauda isn't a good example of controversial DT members, but more so an example of how you can go from one of the most trusted DT members (+30) to least trusted (-10) within a year, which is an impressive turnaround. Lauda remains the greatest example of how not to act when you are on DT if you want your feedback to remain trusted by default.


I am generally in favour of this, it's the kind of solution that would have saved Lauda from being dropped by DT I think. There were only ever a dozen or so invalid feedbacks from her as far as I remember, and she remained too stubborn to ever back down or correct her feedback. Most DT members didn't care for a while as her feedback still remained 99+% accurate with thousands she had left for genuine scammers.

I'm otherwise not intending to compare Lauda and JG here, as they are considerably different. JG has removed or amended feedback after criticism, which is something Lauda would never do. Just thought I'd provide some context regarding Lauda since you bought her up as a "good DT member", which couldn't be further from the truth, at least based on the raw data available regarding DT inclusion/exclusion.

MixTum is still open for new participants: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5446619.0

They chatter says they hold $268 in Bitcoin (7.8%), which isn't a lot tbf. $16m per week per week liquidating that would be. Other altcoins will get rekt though as there is already no liquidity to prop up a lot of prices.

I'm thinking it's time for another flush out of altcoins as Bitcoin continues sideways, maybe even a bit to the upside.

So mempool is back under 600K unconfirmed, even if the weight of unconfirmed txs is around the same. Low priority remains around 16 sat/vB.



It doesn't look like it's gong to clear out much in a hurry. Lots of users still waiting on 5/6 sat transactions (200K+) but might be a while longer yet.

There is chatter on Twitter about FTX liquidating assets next week, does anyone have more info on this? In total it's $3.4b, $268m of which is in Bitcoin (7.8%).


This would mean liquidating assets for the next 17 weeks if kept at the same pace (and info is correct).  For Bitcoin, this would only mean around $16m per week which doesn't sound too bad.

This could be the moment where certain altcoins get crushed even harder against Bitcoin, and it's higher liquidity will be a lot more resilient to selling pressure.

Also another guess would be taking the Bitcoin to OTC and potentially selling it there a lot quicker while the rest of the market suffers. for longer.

Naturally lump sum will always outperform DCA when done at low prices, or near the lows. Likewise lump sum will always under-perform against DCA when done near the highs.

I'm a fan of the combination of both strategies, specifically using a lump sum amount to DCA over the course of a year or so, ideally after prices have dropped by 50%+.