Bitcoin Forum
July 15, 2024, 04:59:33 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 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 ... 422 »
721  Other / Meta / Re: PM from admin demanding to exclude a certain user on: June 13, 2019, 03:47:59 AM
Innocent until proven guilty, sure. But with this one it is unflagged until victim proves scammer guilty. If no victim acts on the flag, then nothing is done. You are not allowed to flag without first being scammed.

No, you are just not allowed to use the high-power scam flags -- intended mainly for punishing people, not really for preemptively warning about scams -- without first being scammed. You can still use the newbie-warning flags and negative ratings, which have plenty of warning power.
722  Other / Meta / Re: Let me be the first to start a bitching thread about the flags on: June 13, 2019, 03:39:27 AM
Quote
I wish the "#" would be more prominent though, and the less-than-3-supporters contract violation flags had some sort of indicator too. Not red and scary, just more visible.

There are three very separate scopes for trust which need to be kept separate. Newbie-warning flags are only for warning newbies, not for warning experienced members who should know better, or for harming the target. The "#" symbol is supposed to be inconspicuous, since it's not supposed to be a warning or a "mark of shame".

(I won't rule out adding a per-post warning for newbies if people evade the per-topic warnings, though.)
723  Other / Meta / Re: Trust flags on: June 13, 2019, 03:25:14 AM
Some changes:
 - If the number of pre-flags-system negative trust ratings is greater than the number of all positive trust ratings, a warning banner is shown for guests & low-login-time newbies.
 - I added "These warning banners will disappear when you have 7 days of login time. You should familiarize yourself with the trust system before then." to the newbie warning banner. Note BTW that it usually takes months for someone to get 7 days of login time: among all 4096 users with 6.5 to 7.5 days login time, the account age (lastLogin-dateRegistered) is: maximum 3216 days, minimum 7.5, median 677, average 936.
 - The pages you see after clicking "next" are now bigger.
 


Some people are acting as though these changes are "letting scammers off the hook", but I don't really think so. Let's assume for a moment that flag types 2 & 3 are too restrictive and will therefore never be used. Even then, you can still give scammers negative feedback, which will display next to their posts in orange, and the threshold for giving negative feedback has been loosened. You can also give newbie-warning flags very easily, and the warning which this creates is shown to more people than any previous warning.

The only thing that scammers got is that they don't have red trust scores or a "trade with extreme caution" warning. But when you consider the measures in the previous paragraph, who is actually going to be scammed due to the absence of this? I think few if any. IMO the main point of these things was to punish/deter scamming, which is what was causing a lot of drama. And by making the threshold for this specific thing higher, it became reasonable to lower the threshold and widen the effect for the other warnings.

I think that scamming will be net-reduced due to these changes.

This system actually incentivizes one-account-one-scam

If someone creates a newbie account and tries to scam with it, they have roughly the same ability as before. The only thing they might be missing is a tiny piece of screen real estate shown only to logged-in users with a trust score and "Trade with extreme caution!" The more effective warnings are the banners, which have been expanded.

If someone does a long con, they have more to lose, since the scam flags create a banner for all users, and it's more exclusive and therefore meaningful. This can give you a bit more confidence in veteran members.

So how should we doing it with som kind of the " Fake Ann creators " that posting links to there Malware Software in there text ?

Newbie-warning flag.

Is a non-victim creating an otherwise factual flag also considered to be abusing the system?

Is someone who supports a factual flag that was created by a non-victim also considered to be abusing the system?

And is someone who opposes a valid flag also considered to be abusing the system?

That's all misuse of the system.

@Theymos, I have opened a scam accusation here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153498.0

People have lost money/had to recover their funds because of this user and I have included several clear fact-statements in my topic. Would it be against the rules for me to (attempt to) add a scammer flag since I personally haven't dealt with the user in question?

If you have not been scammed by him, then you should not create a scam flag. A newbie-warning flag and/or trust rating would be OK.


On agreement types:

A written contract is a piece of text taking the rough form of "I will do this, and then you will do this in return," where both sides clearly agreed to it. It needn't be super formal, but there definitely shouldn't be any case of someone not realizing that they were agreeing to something. "I'll send you 1 BTC for the coin" -> "OK" is enough of a written contract.

Exactly what falls into an "implied agreement" may be somewhat grey-area, and certain very obvious torts may also count. Let's see how the culture around this develops.
724  Other / Meta / Re: PM from admin demanding to exclude a certain user on: June 12, 2019, 11:00:40 PM
It's a recommendation, not a demand. As I said:
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP.



As I mentioned in the flags topic, there are three very separate scopes for trust which need to be kept separate. For scammer flags, the point is to damage the person's forum existence in order to deter future scamming. This is a very serious action which should have a very high bar. Because it's so serious, I only want actual agreements considered here. In legal systems, there's additionally such a thing as tort law and statutory law, but the forum is very far from having the kind of cohesive legal system which could handle such things in a halfway-reasonable way. The only thing that approaches clear-cut scamming is violation of an agreement. If non-contractual offenses are allowed in the scammer-flag space, then we're going to get factions of forum users constantly fighting each other, which is exactly what I'm trying to stop. I'm sick and tired of big escalations and never-ending feuds over highly-subjective and/or relatively minor things.

For non-agreement issues, use a newbie-warning flag and give them a negative trust rating. These actions are in the different scopes of warning newbies or informing other users of your opinions, which have less severe consequences and therefore lower bars.

I hate having to "defend" BSV and BCH, which were created with deception in mind, are technologically bankrupt, and are run by huge assholes, but you can't say that their supporters broke a contract with you when they didn't. Give them a newbie-warning flag if you want, but not a contract-violation flag unless they actually broke a contract with you. (Note that you might have a case for breach of implied contract if you were actually tricked into buying one of these coins instead of BTC.)
725  Other / Meta / Re: theymos why remove the red tag from Lauda? on: June 12, 2019, 08:34:06 PM
He withdrew the accusation.

I'm still pretty annoyed about it, though. I mean, he checked a box which said:
Quote
On my honor, I affirm the following: 1) This user [Quickseller] violated a written contract [with me], resulting in damages; 2) I have not been made whole by the user; 3) no existing flag covers this same incident; 4) this incident is accurately and completely described in the above topic; 5) the incident occurred roughly in the month given above [Sep 2015]. Furthermore, I promise to withdraw my support for this flag if this user makes me whole in the future.
Which has several blatantly-false statements.
726  Other / Meta / Re: Maybe don't show subforum moderator names on every page when logged out? on: June 12, 2019, 08:26:36 PM
Good idea, done.
727  Other / Meta / Re: Trust flags on: June 12, 2019, 06:12:30 AM
Can I also create a scammer flag for alt-accounts of the contract violator? Example: BetKing.io violated a contract, but BetKing Support, dean nolan and PocketRocketsCasino are his alt-accounts.

Yes, one of the victims can.

I gather that if someone creates a flag and I support the flag, the person does not need to have scammed me as well, I just have to believe the evidence the flagger presented.

Correct.

Also, if exchange xyz makes an exit scam, is that considered one incident that can only be flagged once? Or can each victim make their own flag?

It's probably best if one of the victims makes a flag and the rest support it.
728  Other / Meta / Re: DefaultTrust changes on: June 12, 2019, 05:56:11 AM
Well, that's a change Cheesy I'll need some time to process this, maybe probably it's for the better, but it looks like theymos now officially got himself a part-time job as a quasi-lawyer?

I am one of the world's foremost experts on quasi-law, after all. Surely you've read my widely-cited article in the Journal of Laws or Whatever titled, "A new approach to the rigorous design of legal systems: just worry about it later."
729  Other / Meta / Re: Trust flags on: June 12, 2019, 04:23:17 AM
SafeDice has the honor of being the first to get an active scammer flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=396610

How is support/opposition to a flag displayed? Are those who are in my trust network always shown in larger font and first, and those outside of my trust network in smaller font and second, and then sorted by UID after determining if a person is in/out of my trust network?

Right, except that they're sorted by activity.
730  Other / Meta / Re: Trust flags on: June 12, 2019, 04:09:00 AM
Here someone created a contract-violation flag:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=9
Since that's clearly a test account, feel free to support it or oppose it as a test.

Note that right now it's only linked in a small note on the target user's trust page:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626817
And listed on their inactive-flags page:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626817;page=iflags
And shown as an entry in the sender's sent ratings:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626816;page=sent

If it gets enough support, it will no longer be listed in "inactive flags", and will instead move to "active flags".

So if I understand this correctly, when I create a contract violation flag I'm counted as the first supporter and I'll need two more if I want someone to have "trade with extreme caution".

Correct.

You can create both a newbie-warning and contract-violation flag if you want.

Just to confirm, you are not allowed to create a contract violation flag unless you were personally harmed, correct?

Correct.
731  Other / Meta / Re: Trust flags on: June 12, 2019, 03:53:45 AM
Ok, this user now has 3 supporters for the flag but still no "trade with extreme caution", only the "#" sign. What am I missing?

A contract-violation flag has to be created for that.
732  Other / Meta / Re: Trust flags on: June 12, 2019, 03:49:12 AM
Can everyone create a flag? I have seen add flag option in users profile. Does this have any affect by DT member? Or everyone can create flag and if get support, it will be active.

Anyone can create them, but support/opposition is only counted from people in your trust network. So if a newbie creates one, probably it will not be active from anyone's perspective, and it will thus have no effect unless it gets additional support from others.

These limits are in place:
 - Per 180 days, you can only give 1 flag of each type to a given user. So you can't give someone multiple written-contract-violation flags in 180 days, for example.
 - Globally, per year you can only create 1 flag per activity point you have, but at least 1/year.

This is why I checked my profile page early today, I saw something strange, but did not know what it is

Those are neutral ratings.
733  Other / Meta / Re: Trust flags on: June 12, 2019, 03:41:08 AM
How are the existing ratings converted into the new flags?

They're not. I decided that too many negative ratings aren't flag-worthy, and there's no way to automatically determine it. If you believe that a past negative rating is flag-worthy, you'll need to create a flag.
734  Other / Meta / Re: Trust flags on: June 12, 2019, 03:35:28 AM
I am wondering will users be able to remove a scammer flag early in the spirit of forgiveness. Do users in your trust network automatically support flags or do they need to take action?

The original accuser can withdraw their support, but they can't delete the flag. So other users could take it up even if they withdraw.

Flags need to be actively supported.

Here's a user with a flag that you could support/oppose:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=157669
And if you log out or use a newbie account, you can see the banner on their topic:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2690003.0

Can we use a community thread for flagging potential scammers? I ask because it says you can create 1 thread if you tag flag many users, or can this be a simple thread that states I flag people for these reasons and leave it at that.

Yes, but make sure that if someone goes there, it's clear what the flag is about.

Scammer flags should usually each have distinct topics.
735  Other / Meta / Trust flags on: June 12, 2019, 03:13:36 AM
I think that several of the problems with Trust were because three different goals were being jammed into one system:
 1. Getting a general idea of someone's trade history and trustworthiness in one convenient location, sort of like reviews on sites like EBay.
 2. Warning newbies/guests who don't know how to research properly about high-risk people.
 3. Deterring scams by creating a cost to scamming (ie. you'll "lose" a veteran account).
 
To improve this, I've split up these use-cases:

Use-case #1 is the old trust system, but I made the descriptions on the rating types a bit more general and removed the concept of a trust score. The numbers are now "distinct positive raters / distinct neutral raters / distinct negative raters". You should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person, but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.

Use-cases 2 and 3 will be handled by a new system of flags. You can create a flag using a link on a person's trust page.

A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it. It shows a banner on topics started by the flagged user for guests and for users with less than 7 days of login time. For all users, a "#" is shown next to their trust scores.

For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created. This is the only thing which causes the "Warning: trade with extreme caution" warning to return. It also triggers a banner similar to the newbie-warning banner which is visible to all users. A scammer flag requires 3 more supporting users than opposing users to become active.

A new scammer flag should be created for each separate alleged incident. In the spirit of forgiveness/redemption, scammer flags expire 3 years after the incident if the contract was casual/implied, and 10 years after the incident if the contract was written. These expiration times might be administratively changed in specific cases.

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.

Only users in your trust network count as supporting or opposing flags. For guests, the default trust network is used.

Also, a few miscellaneous changes:
 - All of the sections on users' trust pages are now paginated, so the page doesn't expand to massive size anymore.
 - The ordering of sent feedback is now consistent with the other sections.
 - "Risked BTC" is removed.

PM me if you find bugs.
736  Other / Meta / Re: DefaultTrust changes on: June 11, 2019, 08:14:06 AM
I was always intending to choose a random subset of 100 once more than 100 became eligible. This creates more people who have a credible threat of retaliation: if you give someone negative trust for some stupid reason, you have reason to worry about them or a close friend of theirs negative-trusting you for a similarly stupid reason, if not in this month, then in a future month. I think that it pushes people (without forcing people) toward acting in-line with consensus, so that any retaliation against your sent negative trust always gets the sender excluded definitively.

IMO it'd be nice if in the future it's a subset of 100 among a pool of 250+.
737  Other / Meta / Re: DT update log on: June 11, 2019, 04:43:53 AM
More than 100 would be selected, so a random subset of eligible users will be chosen each month to bring it down to 100. This month 111 users were eligible.

Old:
Code:
theymos
HostFat
gmaxwell
TECSHARE
phantastisch
OgNasty
SebastianJu
malevolent
qwk
Vod
Anduck
mprep
Dabs
Foxpup
philipma1957
Cyrus
monkeynuts
Welsh
TMAN
Lauda
Mitchell
vizique
Ticked
yogg
dbshck
TheNewAnon135246
hybridsole
greenplastic
hedgy73
hilariousandco
EcuaMobi
Avirunes
buckrogers
Lesbian Cow
willi9974
cryptodevil
suchmoon
achow101
teeGUMES
owlcatz
nutildah
JohnUser
dazedfool
minerjones
sapta
tmfp
BitcoinPenny
yahoo62278
zazarb
bill gator
LFC_Bitcoin
ezeminer
MaoChao
bones261
LoyceV
actmyname
WhiteManWhite
The Pharmacist
LeGaulois
DarkStar_
TheFuzzStone
Jet Cash
bL4nkcode
Lafu
polymerbit
Hhampuz
xtraelv
Kryptowerk
krogothmanhattan
roycilik
Halab
kenzawak
Veleor
theyoungmillionaire
o_e_l_e_o
chimk
iasenko
coinlocket$
asche
DdmrDdmr
anonymousminer
Alex_Sr
morvillz7z
taikuri13
Coolcryptovator
lovesmayfamilis
1miau
ICOEthics

New:
Code:
theymos
HostFat
gmaxwell
TECSHARE
phantastisch
OgNasty
malevolent
qwk
Vod
Anduck
Tomatocage
mprep
Dabs
Foxpup
philipma1957
babo
Cyrus
Flying Hellfish
monkeynuts
Welsh
TMAN
TookDk
Mitchell
Micio
vizique
Ticked
Blazed
yogg
dbshck
hybridsole
greenplastic
hilariousandco
EcuaMobi
arulbero
Avirunes
Lydian
mindrust
Piggy
buckrogers
Lesbian Cow
redsn0w
willi9974
cryptodevil
Rmcdermott927
teeGUMES
owlcatz
nutildah
dazedfool
minerjones
sapta
tmfp
BitcoinPenny
yahoo62278
LFC_Bitcoin
ezeminer
MaoChao
mhanbostanci
bones261
LoyceV
actmyname
Last of the V8s
LeGaulois
kzv
TheFuzzStone
Jet Cash
bL4nkcode
Lafu
polymerbit
Hhampuz
xtraelv
crwth
Kryptowerk
krogothmanhattan
roycilik
Halab
micgoossens
PHI1618
kenzawak
Silent26
Veleor
theyoungmillionaire
o_e_l_e_o
chimk
iasenko
pandukelana2712
coinlocket$
asche
DdmrDdmr
anonymousminer
Alex_Sr
morvillz7z
fillippone
taikuri13
abhiseshakana
Coolcryptovator
DireWolfM14
mikeywith
1miau
DIKUL
ICOEthics
738  Other / Meta / Re: Can we make a bitcoin talk with no mods? on: June 10, 2019, 05:48:01 PM
You can't make an unmoderated forum as a clearnet site due to legal issues. And even if you set up SMF as a Tor hidden service and promised never to do a single moderation action, soon your forum would be 99.9% spam, and all of the real users would leave. Eventually, every centralized site comes to a policy of at best "everything is allowed but spam and illegal stuff". And this is in fact not too far what bitcointalk.org does, though I guess you think that our definition of "spam" is too broad.

If you want a decentralized forum (with all of the spam and other headaches that entails), it's existed for years on Freenet.
739  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What stances from the opposite of your political spectrum do you support? on: June 09, 2019, 04:49:16 PM
"Opposite of your political spectrum" is a bit ambiguous.

I'm a libertarian. Within libertarianism, I think that the biggest division is between those who came to libertarianism from the left and those who came to it from the right. I came to it from the left, so among libertarians I have rather liberal views on virtue, LGBT issues, some race-related things, the role of selfishness, the basic justification for libertarianism, some economic-theory nitpicking, etc. But on the most divisive left-right split within libertarianism, abortion, I was actually flipped from pro-choice to pro-life due to effective arguments by right-oriented libertarians.

More broadly, the opposite of libertarianism is authoritarianism, including fascism and communism. I don't agree with these groups much, but authoritarian regimes often have self-sacrifice as a core value, and I appreciate this. (But I despise collectivism, which I basically define as sacrificing the valuable few for the convenience of the ignorant many, and fascist/communist self-sacrifice is often oriented toward collectivism.) Also, communists are often pro-technology, which isn't bad on its face.

It's an interesting question to think about. IMO you can find common ground with basically anyone. Oftentimes, I find dedicated centrists the most difficult to understand, since they're basically saying that the world is not massively screwed up, which is ridiculous.
740  Other / Meta / Re: Create an option to get an e-mail notification someone logs in on: June 06, 2019, 06:48:53 AM
It's tricky to get email notifications right so that they're not too spammy. Maybe later.

For now, I added this page where you can see your IP logs for the past 30 days: https://bitcointalk.org/myips.php . You could pretty easily write a userscript to periodically check this and warn you if it's weird. (But don't scrape it on every pageload.)

I don't want to make older IP logs automatically accessible because that'd give a hacker a bunch of useful/sensitive information. But 30 days is probably not too harmful.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 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 ... 422 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!