Bitcoin Forum
July 17, 2019, 05:38:04 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 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 »
  Print  
Author Topic: DefaultTrust changes  (Read 44716 times)
Thule
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 275

MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG


View Profile
February 07, 2019, 02:06:49 PM
Last edit: February 07, 2019, 02:19:01 PM by Thule
 #1261

Somebody might explain to me why old members who have clearly participated a lot in the forum in the past are not allowed to have any voting rights if they didn't earn 10 merits ?

I mean i can show a lot of high ranked account who are activ on that forum and posting many updates about crypto but don't receive merit.

Why do they don't own a vote ?

Are they not considered as part of the community ?


Quote
it's a rant by a recently-uncovered scammer.  I'm not about to reward that shit with merits
But you are meriting a guy with a new account who is whoring for merit and received 80 merits for a short video made in 10 minutes which is  in your political few right?

I mean its so obvious that this account is not his first one as he clearly knows where and how to receive merits and you look his threads.
2 more videos of that low quality and he will be a DT1

DT1 in just a month thanks to short low quality videos which represents the political view of the abusers.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5105303.0


Didn't saw theymos reacting on that bullshit like the known merit cicle of Lauda and the rest......

Like i posted before .Imbalance and one sided decissions of theymos which result is that big part of the community stopped trusting anyone of you.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1563385084
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563385084

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563385084
Reply with quote  #2

1563385084
Report to moderator
1563385084
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563385084

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563385084
Reply with quote  #2

1563385084
Report to moderator
cryptohunter
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1155

MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG


View Profile
February 07, 2019, 02:33:53 PM
Last edit: February 07, 2019, 02:56:18 PM by cryptohunter
 #1262


Giving merit to a political post that's worth reading is okay, but (as a merit source) giving merit for voting rights is abuse.

Incorrect as usual - - that is if you want merit to become a real meritocracy

Motive even if stated is irrelevant -- only the posts actual content and its value should be analysed and then awarded merit based upon its contribution in relation to reaching the optimal solution.

You are suggesting an adhominem fallacy.

If we start using motives for removing merits let us start analysing bpips fans and receivers, trust lists and observable allegiances on this board. Any removal of merit without first providing a strong case the post itself does not warrant that merit is a political move and tampering.

Since merits are now trust in effect then we need to bring forth some criteria that ensures merit is given to valuable posts only. Why should persons proliferating provably incorrect / valueless information or even fighting against the formation of a fairer, transparent and more equal system for all even be considered trustworthy it the first place? makes no logical sense.



Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848
Merit: 1716



View Profile WWW
February 07, 2019, 03:18:17 PM
 #1263

It seems like theymos doesn’t like merit being given for political purposes. I can’t really disagree with this, but realistically this happened prior to the new DT system was put in place.

The above begs the question if it is acceptable to *not* give merit for political purposes.

I am on the fence if this is currently happening, but is a question to discuss.

Click Here to See Alex Morgan Twerking||2nd Video
(Videos Suchmoon doesn’t want you to see)
LoyceV
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1554
Merit: 4300


Self-made Legendary outside Meta!


View Profile WWW
February 07, 2019, 03:46:16 PM
 #1264

I mean i can show a lot of high ranked account who are activ on that forum and posting many updates about crypto but don't receive merit.

Why do they don't own a vote ?
I can think of a reason: the account farmers from before the Merit system shouldn't be able to use those accounts for voting power.

2 more videos of that low quality and he will be a DT1
Receiving Merit alone doesn't put him on DT1, it gives some voting power at best.
Last Saturday, nobody had included Crypto-DesignService, and he didn't create a custom Trust list either.

TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1387


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
February 07, 2019, 04:59:06 PM
 #1265

I certainly wouldn't say it's entirely hands off, because of the subjective contingencies lying within the rules as you have pointed out. To me, it certainly seems more decentralized than the old system, but I agree there is progress to be made.

TEC, do you believe the system would be better without the option for these judgement calls from staff (Or DT)? Genuinely curious to hear your thoughts, and anyone else on this. It's difficult to delegate responsibility in a decentralized manner without ruining whatever that responsibility is there to maintain.

At the end of the day the forum is Theymos's personal property, even if he and the community largely see it as something he is entrusted with on behalf of the community. The question is not if they will be able to interfere, ofc they will be able. I don't think they will need or want to for the vast majority of instances.

We already uphold certain standards for what is not acceptable to rate people for without staff intervention. Any disputes or judgement calls would be handled by community analysis and judgement in public as it always has been. This can be done with ratings, trust lists, and general ostracism.

The problem is no one except Theymos will ever be able to get such a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws in to effect, because it goes against the interest of those already in control of the system. He doesn't need to personally nit pick every case, or really any, but by setting a comparatively very objective standard for leaving a negative rating the VAST majority of conflict is simply avoided.

There will be no hindrance of stopping scammers, but in fact it will be easier to spot them as they don't blend in in a sea of red. Also people will feel more comfortable contributing to a community where they don't have to worry about everything being taken away over some petty squabble at any instant.

THIS SPACE FOR RENT  Did I post something you found helpful? Send me a tip: 1Hz3HZT4v8qxtyYiRQ66UHTUSK3dKCnVMW
xtraelv
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 1286


฿ear ride on the rainbow slide


View Profile
February 07, 2019, 09:29:34 PM
 #1266

Somebody might explain to me why old members who have clearly participated a lot in the forum in the past are not allowed to have any voting rights if they didn't earn 10 merits ?

I mean i can show a lot of high ranked account who are activ on that forum and posting many updates about crypto but don't receive merit.


You should have made the list before merit had a political function. Merit sources were asking for merit worthy posts in meta for months.

We are surrounded by legends on this forum. Phenomenal successes and catastrophic failures. Then there are the scams. This forum is a digital museum.  
* The most iconic historic bitcointalk threads.* Satoshi * Cypherpunks*MtGox*Bitcointalk hacks*pHiShInG* Silk Road*Pirateat40*Knightmb*Miner shams*Forum scandals*BBCode*
Thank you to madnessteat for my custom avatar hat.
The Pharmacist
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1582
Merit: 3006



View Profile
February 07, 2019, 09:40:38 PM
 #1267

I mean i can show a lot of high ranked account who are activ on that forum and posting many updates about crypto but don't receive merit.
How highly-ranked?  Who are you talking about?  Feel free to post the list in LoyceV's thread on undermerited posts and I'll be happy to take a look at it.

But you are meriting a guy with a new account who is whoring for merit and received 80 merits for a short video made in 10 minutes which is  in your political few right?
That video was funny, IMO and deserved every merit it got.  Get a sense of humor.  

otrkid1970
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 203
Merit: 11


View Profile
February 08, 2019, 02:44:09 AM
 #1268

-snip-
Why is the DT list made up of almost NO ONE who has traded a single $ on BCT?
The DT was implemented for trade reasons right?
What is this nonsense? Most of the new DT1 members (at least from the collectibles section) have traded goods worth very large amounts of BTC. You may be talking about DT members from local sections; but that was the goal if I understood my master correctly.

What have you traded,sold,bought??    Nothing... Kindly STFU
Hhampuz
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1668


Don't like me? Take a ticket, there's a long line.


View Profile
February 08, 2019, 02:48:53 AM
 #1269

-snip-
Why is the DT list made up of almost NO ONE who has traded a single $ on BCT?
The DT was implemented for trade reasons right?
What is this nonsense? Most of the new DT1 members (at least from the collectibles section) have traded goods worth very large amounts of BTC. You may be talking about DT members from local sections; but that was the goal if I understood my master correctly.

What have you traded,sold,bought??    Nothing... Kindly STFU

Hmm.. I've sold/bought things from Lauda over the last two years. Physical goods for BTC. Never used any escrow from either side so you are wrong.

EDIT; Are you just trolling or are you actually unable to check who is on DT? Most people there have made trades for tens of thousands of $ in BTC.

owlcatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1876
Merit: 1222


BTC, XMR & VIA FTW


View Profile WWW
February 08, 2019, 02:50:45 AM
 #1270

-snip-
Why is the DT list made up of almost NO ONE who has traded a single $ on BCT?
The DT was implemented for trade reasons right?
What is this nonsense? Most of the new DT1 members (at least from the collectibles section) have traded goods worth very large amounts of BTC. You may be talking about DT members from local sections; but that was the goal if I understood my master correctly.

What have you traded,sold,bought??    Nothing... Kindly STFU

Hmm.. I've sold/bought things from Lauda over the last two years. Physical goods for BTC. Never used any escrow from either side so you are wrong.

EDIT; Are you just trolling or are you actually unable to check who is on DT? Most people there have made trades for tens of thousands of $ in BTC.

Lol. I was just trying to point that out myself. This guy is trolling lol... Tongue
otrkid1970
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 203
Merit: 11


View Profile
February 08, 2019, 02:57:42 AM
 #1271

-snip-
Why is the DT list made up of almost NO ONE who has traded a single $ on BCT?
The DT was implemented for trade reasons right?
What is this nonsense? Most of the new DT1 members (at least from the collectibles section) have traded goods worth very large amounts of BTC. You may be talking about DT members from local sections; but that was the goal if I understood my master correctly.

What have you traded,sold,bought??    Nothing... Kindly STFU

Hmm.. I've sold/bought things from Lauda over the last two years. Physical goods for BTC. Never used any escrow from either side so you are wrong.

EDIT; Are you just trolling or are you actually unable to check who is on DT? Most people there have made trades for tens of thousands of $ in BTC.

You are a douchebag. I Acknowledge your trade history as  trustworhty trader but still are a douchebag. Lauda is not trustworthy. I would trust you with $$ I would not trust LAUDA

Lol. I was just trying to point that out myself. This guy is trolling lol... Tongue
otrkid1970
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 203
Merit: 11


View Profile
February 08, 2019, 02:59:08 AM
 #1272

Fucked that response up but you feel me.
Hhampuz
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1668


Don't like me? Take a ticket, there's a long line.


View Profile
February 08, 2019, 03:00:38 AM
 #1273

Fucked that response up but you feel me.

Then say that what you meant instead of spewing out shit posts that adds nothing to the discussion.

EDIT; Most people on current DT have substantial trade history of physical goods over long periods of time. Others are on DT for being trustworthy in a sense where their judgement is always on point and their contributions to this forum goes above and beyond.


Fucked that response up but you feel me.

Then say that what you meant instead of spewing out shit posts that adds nothing to the discussion.

A mistake is a Mistake...Fuck you. you impatient little fuck.

I wasn't even implying that your failed quotation was the shitty post. Your post that I initially replied to was the shit post that adds nothing to the discussion (where you spew out lies with nothing to back it up with).

otrkid1970
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 203
Merit: 11


View Profile
February 08, 2019, 03:03:32 AM
 #1274

Fucked that response up but you feel me.

Then say that what you meant instead of spewing out shit posts that adds nothing to the discussion.

A mistake is a Mistake...Fuck you. you impatient little fuck.
asche
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 635


I forgot more than you will ever know.


View Profile
February 08, 2019, 07:23:05 AM
 #1275

A mistake is a Mistake...Fuck you. you impatient little fuck.

No need in calling names.

Also Hhampuz has a point here.

If you are not refering to Lauda, mixed up quoting or not, who are you refering to? And how is it relevant?

Kindly GTFO Smiley

Gunthar
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 593


Liable for what i say, not for what you understand


View Profile WWW
February 08, 2019, 09:12:21 AM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1), LoyceV (1)
 #1276

He doesn't need to personally nit pick every case, or really any, but by setting a comparatively very objective standard for leaving a negative rating the VAST majority of conflict is simply avoided.

There will be no hindrance of stopping scammers, but in fact it will be easier to spot them as they don't blend in in a sea of red. Also people will feel more comfortable contributing to a community where they don't have to worry about everything being taken away over some petty squabble at any instant.

I agree with this, the more people adopt this system the more it will balance itself. Initially it might appear a Cats vs Dogs drama, the more people adding their trusts/distrusts the more our personal "reputation" would form based on objective observations from the community. I might be able to plot with a bunch of people against Cats for 1 month, maybe 2/3/6 months, but the real value of cats and dogs will come out overtime. Personally I woudnt even give power to any DT level indeed: the sum of someone Trust would then come out based on the entire community feedback. Scary? Behave then...

       ▄██▀ ▄█████▄
     ▄██▀ ▄███▀ ▐███▄
   ▄██▀ ▄███▀    █████▄
 ▄██▀ ▄███▀    ▄██▀  ▀██▄
██▀ ▄███▀    ▄██▀      ▀██▄
██ ███▀    ▄██▀    █▄    ███
██ ███    ███    ▄███    ███
██ ███▄    ▀███▄███▀     ███
██▄ ▀███▄    ▀███▀    ▄███▀
 ▀██▄ ▀███▄         ▄███▀
   ▀██▄ ▀███▄     ▄███▀
     ▀██▄ ▀███▄ ▄███▀
       ▀██▄ ▀█████▀
████
████  ████
████  ████  ████
████  ████  ████
████  ████  ████
████  ████  ████
████  ████  ████
████  ████  ████
████  ████  ████

████  ████  ████
████  ████  ████

████  ████  ████
████  ████  ████
████
████  ████
████  ████  ████
████  ████  ████
████  ████  ████
████  ████  ████
████  ████  ████
████  ████  ████
████  ████  ████

████  ████  ████
████  ████  ████

████  ████  ████
████  ████  ████
         ▄█████▄ ▀██▄
       ▄███▀ ▐███▄ ▀██▄
     ▄███▀    █████▄ ▀██▄
   ▄███▀    ▄██▀  ▀██▄ ▀██▄
 ▄███▀    ▄██▀      ▀██▄ ▀██
███▀    ▄██▀    █▄    ███ ██
███    ███    ▄███    ███ ██
███▄    ▀███▄███▀    ▄███ ██
 ▀███▄    ▀███▀    ▄███▀ ▄██
   ▀███▄         ▄███▀ ▄██▀
     ▀███▄     ▄███▀ ▄██▀
       ▀███▄ ▄███▀ ▄██▀
         ▀█████▀ ▄██▀
TheNewAnon135246
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2030
Merit: 1733


฿uy ฿itcoin


View Profile
February 08, 2019, 09:18:31 AM
 #1277

He doesn't need to personally nit pick every case, or really any, but by setting a comparatively very objective standard for leaving a negative rating the VAST majority of conflict is simply avoided.

There will be no hindrance of stopping scammers, but in fact it will be easier to spot them as they don't blend in in a sea of red. Also people will feel more comfortable contributing to a community where they don't have to worry about everything being taken away over some petty squabble at any instant.

I agree with this, the more people adopt this system the more it will balance itself. Initially it might appear a Cats vs Dogs drama, the more people adding their trusts/distrusts the more our personal "reputation" would form based on objective observations from the community. I might be able to plot with a bunch of people against Cats for 1 month, maybe 2/3/6 months, but the real value of cats and dogs will come out overtime. Personally I woudnt even give power to any DT level indeed: the sum of someone Trust would then come out based on the entire community feedback. Scary? Behave then...

I don't think that would work. Let's say I piss off a scammer by sending negative feedback, what would stop him from creating/using a bunch of alt-accounts to wreck my trust level? I like the idea of a non-DT system since the latest DT changes have caused a lot of childish behaviour.

asche
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 635


I forgot more than you will ever know.


View Profile
February 08, 2019, 09:20:04 AM
 #1278

He doesn't need to personally nit pick every case, or really any, but by setting a comparatively very objective standard for leaving a negative rating the VAST majority of conflict is simply avoided.

There will be no hindrance of stopping scammers, but in fact it will be easier to spot them as they don't blend in in a sea of red. Also people will feel more comfortable contributing to a community where they don't have to worry about everything being taken away over some petty squabble at any instant.

I agree with this, the more people adopt this system the more it will balance itself. Initially it might appear a Cats vs Dogs drama, the more people adding their trusts/distrusts the more our personal "reputation" would form based on objective observations from the community. I might be able to plot with a bunch of people against Cats for 1 month, maybe 2/3/6 months, but the real value of cats and dogs will come out overtime. Personally I woudnt even give power to any DT level indeed: the sum of someone Trust would then come out based on the entire community feedback. Scary? Behave then...

Then again this is biased.

Like in every situation people are more likely to speak up if they had an issue, or for the matter a trust breach, than a good experience, or say a trust proof.

The score average would be deeply negatively biased.

KingZee
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 418


Check your coin privilege


View Profile
February 08, 2019, 09:26:59 AM
Merited by LoyceV (1)
 #1279

He doesn't need to personally nit pick every case, or really any, but by setting a comparatively very objective standard for leaving a negative rating the VAST majority of conflict is simply avoided.

There will be no hindrance of stopping scammers, but in fact it will be easier to spot them as they don't blend in in a sea of red. Also people will feel more comfortable contributing to a community where they don't have to worry about everything being taken away over some petty squabble at any instant.

I agree with this, the more people adopt this system the more it will balance itself. Initially it might appear a Cats vs Dogs drama, the more people adding their trusts/distrusts the more our personal "reputation" would form based on objective observations from the community. I might be able to plot with a bunch of people against Cats for 1 month, maybe 2/3/6 months, but the real value of cats and dogs will come out overtime. Personally I woudnt even give power to any DT level indeed: the sum of someone Trust would then come out based on the entire community feedback. Scary? Behave then...

I don't think that would work. Let's say I piss off a scammer by sending negative feedback, what would stop him from creating/using a bunch of alt-accounts to wreck my trust level? I like the idea of a non-DT system since the latest DT changes have caused a lot of childish behaviour.

I don't understand how someone can wreck your trust level using alts. Feedback left by nobodies is disregarded in counting your points (you can look at my own trust page for examples).

If someone manages to create enough sockpuppets, gives them voting rights, and unlegitimately include people in DT1 just so he can tag you in red, without getting blacklisted in the process, not only we could consider the trust system flawed, but also ask what in the hell did you do to piss off this person.

TheNewAnon135246
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2030
Merit: 1733


฿uy ฿itcoin


View Profile
February 08, 2019, 09:30:48 AM
 #1280

He doesn't need to personally nit pick every case, or really any, but by setting a comparatively very objective standard for leaving a negative rating the VAST majority of conflict is simply avoided.

There will be no hindrance of stopping scammers, but in fact it will be easier to spot them as they don't blend in in a sea of red. Also people will feel more comfortable contributing to a community where they don't have to worry about everything being taken away over some petty squabble at any instant.

I agree with this, the more people adopt this system the more it will balance itself. Initially it might appear a Cats vs Dogs drama, the more people adding their trusts/distrusts the more our personal "reputation" would form based on objective observations from the community. I might be able to plot with a bunch of people against Cats for 1 month, maybe 2/3/6 months, but the real value of cats and dogs will come out overtime. Personally I woudnt even give power to any DT level indeed: the sum of someone Trust would then come out based on the entire community feedback. Scary? Behave then...

I don't think that would work. Let's say I piss off a scammer by sending negative feedback, what would stop him from creating/using a bunch of alt-accounts to wreck my trust level? I like the idea of a non-DT system since the latest DT changes have caused a lot of childish behaviour.

I don't understand how someone can wreck your trust level using alts. Feedback left by nobodies is disregarded in counting your points (you can look at my own trust page for examples).

If someone manages to create enough sockpuppets, gives them voting rights, and unlegitimately include people in DT1 just so he can tag you in red, without getting blacklisted in the process, not only we could consider the trust system flawed, but also ask what in the hell did you do to piss off this person.

That is because of the current trust system. I believe Gunthar was trying to address a system without any form of DT, just community feedback (similar to eBay).

Pages: « 1 ... 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 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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!