Bitcoin Forum
January 20, 2018, 11:13:56 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 [56] 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 ... 349 »
1101  Other / Meta / Re: Akka - Default trust account hacked! - confirmed 2x on: January 08, 2015, 02:19:13 AM
I banned him and removed him from my trust list.

The real Akka should email me.
1102  Other / Meta / Re: Replacing DefaultTrust on: January 07, 2015, 08:58:43 PM
Moreover users would be forced to evaluate each option every time they wanted to view a new thread, and while I'm not speaking for everybody, I'm pretty damn lazy and would probably just end up clicking the 3 check boxes that happened to be closest to my mouse pointer, resulting in totally random Trust ratings displayed within that thread.

You're only redirected to this page one time, when you first try to view a trust-enabled topic as a new member. It's for setting up your initial trust list.
1103  Other / Meta / Re: Replacing DefaultTrust on: January 07, 2015, 05:26:27 AM
IMHO this list is better than earlier one.

It's basically the same list  -- it's just that some users were removed from the earlier one because they were inactive or didn't have much of a trust list. (I think that a few people became full members in the interim or something, so the numbers are also slightly different.)

I could require that people have 37 points to be suggested...
1104  Other / Meta / Re: Replacing DefaultTrust on: January 07, 2015, 04:18:37 AM
Here are the points without any of the other restrictions. establishedTrusters = the number of full members and above who trust that person. People are only counted as trusting DefaultTrust if they have edited their trust list at least once.

Code:
+--------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| realName           | establishedTrusters | points    |
+--------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| DefaultTrust       |                1110 | 3525.7408 |
| theymos            |                 104 |  509.8577 |
| John (John K.)     |                  84 |  392.0999 |
| BadBear            |                  43 |  229.0416 |
| Tomatocage         |                  51 |  226.0915 |
| dooglus            |                  45 |  206.4081 |
| Gavin Andresen     |                  30 |  174.4667 |
| Maged              |                  27 |  162.1331 |
| CanaryInTheMine    |                  44 |  161.7747 |
| HostFat            |                  32 |  155.6164 |
| gmaxwell           |                  29 |  154.1247 |
| OgNasty            |                  35 |  154.0579 |
| casascius          |                  25 |  151.5666 |
| DannyHamilton      |                  32 |  139.2000 |
| SaltySpitoon       |                  29 |  135.1082 |
| Blazedout419       |                  26 |  114.2748 |
| ThickAsThieves     |                  23 |  111.3583 |
| escrow.ms          |                  24 |  111.1747 |
| BCB                |                  22 |  110.5665 |
| yxt                |                  23 |  110.1749 |
| Akka               |                  21 |  109.8831 |
| friedcat           |                  24 |  109.7498 |
| phantastisch       |                  20 |  106.1249 |
| burnside           |                  25 |  103.0582 |
| Stunna             |                  24 |  102.5416 |
| tysat              |                  17 |  101.7332 |
| satoshi            |                  19 |   96.7750 |
| SebastianJu        |                  21 |   93.5168 |
| sirius             |                  19 |   89.4330 |
| DeaDTerra          |                  17 |   82.1833 |
| nanotube           |                  12 |   79.8498 |
| qwk                |                  14 |   74.8585 |
| Luke-Jr            |                  20 |   73.4914 |
| Blazr              |                  12 |   71.7498 |
| ghibly79           |                  15 |   71.6500 |
| ckolivas           |                  13 |   69.1250 |
| Carnth             |                  14 |   68.8415 |
| LoweryCBS          |                  10 |   67.8999 |
| jgarzik            |                   9 |   67.6667 |
| bertani            |                  11 |   67.6083 |
| paci               |                  11 |   67.1083 |
| Maidak             |                  20 |   66.3416 |
| dree12             |                   9 |   66.0332 |
| Michail1           |                  12 |   65.6500 |
| El Cabron          |                  22 |   65.5582 |
| diego1000          |                  11 |   64.5499 |
| BigBitz            |                  15 |   62.5416 |
| Sampey             |                  20 |   62.1666 |
| Stemby             |                  10 |   61.0750 |
| malevolent         |                  11 |   58.5415 |
| ziomik             |                  10 |   58.4833 |
| OldScammerTag      |                  12 |   56.5998 |
| xetsr              |                  14 |   55.4666 |
| Raize              |                   9 |   55.1832 |
| mikegogulski       |                   8 |   53.8999 |
| Pieter Wuille      |                   7 |   53.2000 |
| Vod                |                  23 |   52.8914 |
| sublime5447        |                  17 |   52.6166 |
| Kluge              |                  11 |   52.5332 |
| devthedev          |                  11 |   52.4582 |
| BayAreaCoins       |                  10 |   51.9832 |
| bitpop             |                  13 |   50.8417 |
| dwdoc              |                   9 |   50.7499 |
| DiamondCardz       |                   8 |   50.4666 |
| johnniewalker      |                  12 |   50.2749 |
| ercolinux          |                   7 |   50.1083 |
| DeathAndTaxes      |                  11 |   50.0916 |
| rb1205             |                   6 |   49.8583 |
| alexrossi          |                   9 |   49.0583 |
| Benson Samuel      |                  10 |   48.6998 |
| Dabs               |                  11 |   48.4584 |
| bitcoininformation |                  12 |   48.3249 |
| serp               |                  12 |   48.2833 |
| fhh                |                  10 |   48.0916 |
| Nightowlace        |                  14 |   47.7167 |
| klintay            |                  11 |   46.9250 |
| PsychoticBoy       |                  13 |   46.4250 |
| cooldgamer         |                  14 |   46.4084 |
| squall1066         |                  10 |   45.8500 |
| GIANNAT            |                  10 |   45.8167 |
| Cripto             |                   6 |   44.1416 |
| Mushroomized       |                   7 |   43.5582 |
| Bees Brothers      |                   8 |   43.0917 |
| ineededausername   |                   9 |   42.6415 |
| 2weiX              |                   8 |   42.5832 |
| etotheipi          |                   8 |   40.9084 |
| Menig              |                  13 |   40.2667 |
| dozerz             |                  10 |   39.6667 |
| molecular          |                   8 |   39.6417 |
| zefir              |                   9 |   39.3250 |
| KWH                |                  10 |   39.2915 |
| sushi              |                  10 |   39.1249 |
| ssinc              |                   9 |   39.1083 |
| twbt               |                   7 |   39.0167 |
| Rassah             |                   8 |   38.9333 |
| sveetsnelda        |                   7 |   38.8833 |
| philipma1957       |                  12 |   38.7750 |
| evoorhees          |                   6 |   38.5167 |
| TheButterZone      |                  13 |   38.3414 |
| Damnsammit         |                   8 |   37.9500 |
+--------------------+---------------------+-----------+
1105  Other / Meta / Re: Replacing DefaultTrust on: January 07, 2015, 04:07:09 AM
FYI, I added the top 15 people in your list to my trust settings, and accounts that were proven scammers were showing up in my trusted feedback list.   Undecided

That's because not enough people use trust exclusions. Under the new system, people will need to get into the habit of excluding people who leave bad feedback.

If someone has a trust network like this:

ExamplePerson
  Idiot
    Scammer
  Guy
  Dude

Then either ExamplePerson or Guy and Dude together can cause Scammer to be excluded. So if a decent number of people are excluding people who give bad ratings (or who trust such people), then bad ratings are likely to be excluded.

A second concern is that I think this system is going to be slow to be able to react to someone who was previously honest and later turns into a scammer.

If someone directly trusts a a scammer, then they are indeed in a bad situation, and they'll need to remove the person manually. I might add a warning to trust pages for people who directly trust a scammer if this ever happens.

It's not a big deal at lower depths due to exclusions.

A last concern is one that was touched on before, but not heavily discussed. This system would not be difficult to manipulate, but it would be much more difficult to detect manipulation. One could quietly buy up a lot of accounts then buy a 2nd set of accounts they want to be trusted. The first set of accounts could all have the 2nd set of accounts added to their trust list which would result in them being often suggested for newer users to add to their trust list. More experienced users may not even notice when this is happening because they are not being asked to add new users to their trust list.

You'd need a lot of accounts for that. 20 full members to make the list, ~100 to get reasonably high in it (currently -- the requirements will probably become higher if this system is adopted). And I'd stop this from happening once I'd notice it, so people buying these accounts would be spending a lot of money on only a very short-term advantage.

has anyone put together a concise pros and cons between current and proposed systems?

New system pros:
- More people in the typical trust network, so more default-visible ratings, more accurate scores, etc.
- Newbies will be more aware of how the trust system works, so they'll be more likely to use it properly.
- Everything will be less complicated for everyone involved. You won't be able to know what everyone else sees, so all you'll be able to do is maintain your ratings and trust list according to your own feelings. This is how I intended the trust system to work.
- There won't be people who are clearly "at the top" of the trust system. Furthermore, I will no longer need to carefully ensure that the default trust network is OK for everyone.

New system cons:
- More people in the typical trust network, so inaccurate ratings might happen more often, though they should hopefully be balanced by an increase in accurate ratings.
- People who in practice tend to be at the top of the trust system might feel less accountability/responsibility for maintaining their trust lists than they would if they were listed in DefaultTrust.
- It will be difficult to get a picture of how well someone is trusted for the typical forum user.
- People will need to interact with the trust list system at least a little bit, and not just leave it to DefaultTrust.

I like the suggestion of removing default trust lists completely.

Then newbies will be getting scammed left and right. Newbies need some sort of guidance.

The trust lists of everyone at depth 1 are public, which has historically kept Default Trust mostly comprised of reputable members. This is not the case with the "suggested trust" list under the new system.

All trust lists are public. You can see anyone's trust list by trusting them and then looking at the hierarchical view of the trust network on the Trust Settings page.

My point here is that Default Trust gives a new user a good starting point about who to trust and who not to trust, while this new system asks them to pick their own "Default Trust" pretty much at random, since they will probably have little reason to pick one name over another.

I think that it's OK to trust users at random as long as:
- None of them are creating new accounts to inflate their own trust. The trust score algorithm relies on everyone in a trust network being a separate person. People at depth 0 can trust additional users without consequence if the user trusting them isn't paying attention.
- More of the randomly-trusted users have actively good trust lists than actively bad ones.
- At least a few randomly-trusted users have actively good trust lists.

If these conditions are met, then any incorrect ratings will be excluded by the people with good trust lists.

I think that the suggestion system is likely to result in lists meeting the above criteria. And if a highly-trusted user who was previously suggested starts creating and trusting fake accounts, I'll do something to stop him, or at least warn users.

A quick glance shows that I'm not one of the 50 most trusted members here?

You don't meet the criteria for suggested users. You only have two users on your trust list. You would have 154 points otherwise.

I also see that bobsag3 who openly scammed me and had his original username scammer tagged is on the list, adding positive trust for companies like Black Arrow who have stolen hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars from this community.

He's still quite widely trusted. Users will be able to avoid selecting him on the suggestion page.

I could manually exclude people like him, but doing that would likely be controversial in itself, and I'd prefer to keep this as automated as possible.

Will the new system have the negative trust indexable via the search engines, for as it stands now nary a negative comment has ever been indexed, only found on this forum via jumping through hoops depending on what settings are ticked?

Trust pages are entirely customized per user, so they can't be viewed by non-users such as search engines.
1106  Other / Meta / Re: Nearly 10M posts - who will it be? on: January 07, 2015, 02:19:24 AM
This is the 10 millionth post if you use the counting method that the front page uses:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=632943.msg10042344#msg10042344

If you don't count deleted posts, then there are only 9,409,082 posts now.
1107  Other / Meta / Re: Replacing DefaultTrust on: January 06, 2015, 04:23:34 AM
I don't usually do this, but I'm very unsure about whether DefaultTrust or this new system is better, so I added a poll. My decision will be significantly influenced by the poll, but not absolutely decided by it. I will disregard votes by people below a certain member rank. I might also publish the votes.

If someone only ever uses the checkboxes to edit their trust list, then I will make it so that this doesn't increase the "suggestion points" of the people they select. (This isn't implemented yet.)
1108  Other / Meta / Re: Why Simple Machines forum & not anything else ?. on: January 05, 2015, 09:24:21 PM
Maybe that could be implemented as an April fools joke? Anyways, did you guys catch the hacker, or at least know who he is?

I do know who he is, but he didn't cause any permanent damage or steal any user info, so I decided not to go after him. It was just a funny joke.
1109  Other / Meta / Re: Replacing DefaultTrust on: January 05, 2015, 11:21:59 AM
Are we talking about the same point system? 1 point = 1 positive trust rating you got?

No.

Each person gets N points whenever they are trusted by someone, and loses N points whenever they are distrusted by someone, where N = 0 if the rater is less than a full member and N = [rater's activity]/120 if the rater is at least a full member.

"Trust" here means "added to someone's trust list", not "received a positive trust rating".
1110  Other / Meta / Re: Replacing DefaultTrust on: January 05, 2015, 11:12:43 AM
I changed it so that the 60 users with the most points are selected (minimum 20 points), and then 30 of these are randomly chosen to be displayed. The random sort is now weighted according to points, though, so people with more points are more likely to appear in the list and to appear higher in the list. Otherwise there'd be a good chance that the list would be filled mostly with people who aren't so widely trusted. 20 points isn't really that many.
1111  Other / Meta / Re: Replacing DefaultTrust on: January 05, 2015, 10:09:38 AM
BTW: I'll probably keep the default trust depth at 2 after this change, which will cause ratings to travel further than they do now. Trust exclusions will be more important.

For example, if someone trusts CanaryInTheMine, then they'll also trust CanaryInTheMine(0) -> bitpop(1) -> El Cabron(2). But if someone trusts both me and CanaryInTheMine, then they'll get theymos(0) -> El Cabron(1), which will exclude El Cabron because it is at a lower depth. I think that this sort of thing will cause the trust system to function more naturally.
1112  Other / Meta / Re: Replacing DefaultTrust on: January 05, 2015, 09:56:22 AM
The only problem I see with this system is the top xx people will continue to gain more trust and will pull ahead of the rest of the users.  You're basically replacing the DefaultTrust with those people.

I can make it so people won't have their vote counted if they've only ever used the checkbox thing for modifying their trust list. The suggested people will still have an advantage, but hopefully it should be surmountable.
1113  Other / Meta / Re: Replacing DefaultTrust on: January 05, 2015, 09:26:16 AM
Here are the 50 users with the most points using the algorithm I described. The top 30 are always the ones suggested, but their order is randomized.

Code:
theymos         |     471.3498 |
Tomatocage      |     192.7250 |
dooglus         |     181.7917 |
BadBear         |     180.2750 |
CanaryInTheMine |     153.0830 |
HostFat         |     144.6331 |
gmaxwell        |     133.5581 |
Akka            |     109.1663 |
BCB             |     104.3748 |
escrow.ms       |     101.2499 |
phantastisch    |      99.6915 |
ghibly79        |      65.8998 |
Michail1        |      65.2249 |
Maidak          |      62.5085 |
Sampey          |      61.8499 |
BigBitz         |      58.6833 |
ziomik          |      58.1333 |
malevolent      |      52.4748 |
sublime5447     |      52.4665 |
Stemby          |      51.0416 |
Dabs            |      48.2251 |
Nightowlace     |      47.6417 |
klintay         |      46.5750 |
Raize           |      44.0998 |
bitpop          |      43.7249 |
fhh             |      40.5083 |
zefir           |      39.2083 |
squall1066      |      38.5001 |
philipma1957    |      38.4251 |
PsychoticBoy    |      35.5750 |
KWH             |      35.5581 |
terrapinflyer   |      34.8666 |
binaryFate      |      33.8332 |
Bicknellski     |      33.5084 |
DebitMe         |      30.1501 |
elasticband     |      29.8501 |
TECSHARE        |      29.3915 |
LouReed         |      28.9249 |
2weiX           |      28.6999 |
ManeBjorn       |      27.5749 |
miaviator       |      27.3333 |
androz          |      26.2500 |
bobsag3         |      25.9415 |
nachius         |      25.2916 |
CoinHoarder     |      23.3749 |
mrbrt           |      23.1249 |
EnJoyThis       |      22.5167 |
WEB slicer      |      20.3749 |
Rub3n           |      20.0251 |
Ente            |      18.9750 |
----------------+--------------+
1114  Other / Meta / Replacing DefaultTrust on: January 05, 2015, 09:19:31 AM
I was thinking about replacing DefaultTrust in the following way:

When users first try to view a topic in a Trust-enabled section, they will instead see this page and be forced to select some users to trust before being allowed to continue to the topic. In addition to the empty text box currently on the Trust settings page, up to 30 users will be suggested.

Suggested members must meet the following criteria:
- Full member or above
- At least one post in the last 60 days
- At least 10 people listed in their trust list
- At least 20 points (see below)
Each person gets N points whenever they are trusted by someone, and loses N points whenever they are distrusted by someone, where N = 0 if the rater is less than a full member and N = [rater's activity]/120 if the rater is at least a full member. The 60 people with the highest scores are selected, this list is randomly sorted with a higher weight given to people with higher scores, and the top 30 people in the resulting list are suggested.

When the change is made, everyone who currently has only DefaultTrust in their trust list will be redirected to the Set Initial Trust page.

What do you think of this?
1115  Other / Meta / Re: Mysterious topic #3 on: January 03, 2015, 04:33:20 PM
Quote
would you mind telling why you came up with what you said?

It's called a joke.  Roll Eyes
1116  Other / Meta / Re: Nearly 10M posts - who will it be? on: January 02, 2015, 09:52:11 PM
Here's the post with message ID 10 million:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=910047.msg10000000#msg10000000

Many IDs are used by deleted posts, so I'm not sure I'd call this the 10 millionth post.
1117  Other / Meta / Re: THIS IS THE REAL MOREIA!! PLEASE HELP ME!!!! on: January 02, 2015, 01:47:14 AM
I have figured it out
Last escrow, you switched email privacy to Public to show the account was in escrow
I changed the email to random characters, someone on this forum saw it and tried to recover the account by registering the email and recovering the password

This seems plausible.
1118  Other / New forum software / Re: threaded? on: January 01, 2015, 10:26:50 AM
The problem with the flat layout is that off-topic remarks need to be strictly controlled in order to keep the thread even remotely readable.

I don't like Reddit's threading that much, but I think that this is mostly a UI issue. It hides deeply-nested comments and discourages long replies. Usenet, mailing lists, Slashdot, etc. are threaded, and the threading works well in these cases IMO.

One large site where the flat layout works well is 4chan. But this forum is very very different from 4chan, so I don't think that it's good to use 4chan as a model in general.
1119  Other / Meta / Re: Is there cases of members with massive positive Trust that ended up scamming? on: January 01, 2015, 10:20:05 AM
I thought about this a lot when designing the Trust system, but unfortunately there just isn't any way to protect against long-term con men. If someone sets out with the goal of building up trust for several years and then pulling a massive scam, and if he's skilled at hiding his true intentions, I don't think that anything will stop him. You just have to try to minimize the risk and impact of getting scammed by such people.

An important point of increased risk is when trusted people start aggregating BTC from a lot of people. For example, TradeFortess had tons of successful trades, some very large, but through inputs.io he could scam hundreds of people at once. And each inputs.io user was probably thinking, "TF has handled thousands of bitcoins at once without problems -- there's no way he'd steal my measly 0.5 BTC." But since he can steal from many people at once, the scam becomes worthwhile. (I'm assuming here that TF stole user deposits, which I am still not completely sure about.)
1120  Other / Meta / Re: Upcoming downtime on: December 31, 2014, 09:25:17 PM
Change of plans: This will actually happen next week sometime. I'll post more info when I can.
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 [56] 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 ... 349 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!