Bitcoin Forum
November 29, 2020, 09:10:36 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 »
  Print  
Author Topic: DefaultTrust changes  (Read 73425 times)
naska21
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 605



View Profile
May 20, 2019, 10:36:55 AM
 #1661

It goes to the person to whom it would be "most useful". This is elaborated on here. You only get 1 vote for every multiple of 250 earned merit.


This mathematical model is too complex. Is there any practical graph from some one DT list?
Or whatever I understood.it means that a graph for a single user cannot be created because nobody can determine "s" until all user voted, have their merit added to determine the total number of votes that are taking part in voting.




Arguably, "weights" (that depend on  number of votes) are assigned to DT1 candidates whose name are arranged   into some kind of stack either in descending or ascending order. Depending on the last,  algo uses  either LIFO or FIFO to move name from the  candidates  list to DT1 one.

whole nazca signature space owned by naska21 for rent, feel free to PM me
1606641036
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1606641036

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1606641036
Reply with quote  #2

1606641036
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1606641036
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1606641036

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1606641036
Reply with quote  #2

1606641036
Report to moderator
1606641036
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1606641036

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1606641036
Reply with quote  #2

1606641036
Report to moderator
H8bussesNbicycles
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10

▄▀ REMOVE LAUDA FROM DT


View Profile
May 30, 2019, 02:49:10 AM
 #1662

new dt not working good
taken over by mafia gang but have shown themselves like msm
we see through
we watch

▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄ REMOVE LAUDA and Corruption FROM DT ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄ bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103988
LoyceV
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2044
Merit: 7171


Thick-Skinned Gang Leader


View Profile WWW
June 11, 2019, 06:22:54 AM
 #1663

Theymos updated DT1 today. I made a new list of DT1 and DT2 members (unfortunately, DT1 and trust scores are still based on last Saturday's Trust data dump, I will update this next Saturday).

Several users are now red-trusted. Remember this:
All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have.

TheNewAnon135246
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1937


฿uy ฿itcoin


View Profile
June 11, 2019, 06:38:31 AM
 #1664

Theymos updated DT1 today. I made a new list of DT1 and DT2 members (unfortunately, DT1 and trust scores are still based on last Saturday's Trust data dump, I will update this next Saturday).

Several users are now red-trusted. Remember this:
All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have.

Did Theymos post the new requirements/changes somewhere?
subSTRATA
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1043


:^)


View Profile
June 11, 2019, 06:40:18 AM
 #1665

Did Theymos post the new requirements/changes somewhere?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5117330.msg51424908#msg51424908

theres nothing here. message me if you want to put something here.
TheNewAnon135246
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1937


฿uy ฿itcoin


View Profile
June 11, 2019, 06:48:46 AM
 #1666


Yeah I saw that post but it doesn't mention anything about new requirements, besides randomly selecting 100 users?!.
Veleor
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1584


Rêlêå§ê ¥ðµr MïñÐ


View Profile WWW
June 11, 2019, 06:49:18 AM
Merited by suchmoon (4), JayJuanGee (1), LoyceV (1)
 #1667

DT1 update (June 11, 2019)

Added:
Tomatocage       Trust list
babo                 Trust list
Flying Hellfish      Trust list
TookDk              Trust list
Micio                 Trust list
Blazed               Trust list
arulbero             Trust list
Lydian               Trust list
mindrust             Trust list
Piggy                 Trust list
redsn0w             Trust list
Rmcdermott927    Trust list
mhanbostanci      Trust list
Last of the V8s    Trust list
kzv                    Trust list
crwth                 Trust list
micgoossens        Trust list
PHI1618              Trust list
Silent26              Trust list
pandukelana2712  Trust list
fillippone             Trust list
abhiseshakana      Trust list
DireWolfM14         Trust list
mikeywith            Trust list
DIKUL                 Trust list

Removed:
SebastianJu
Lauda
TheNewAnon135246
hedgy73
suchmoon
achow101
JohnUser
zazarb
bill gator
WhiteManWhite
The Pharmacist
DarkStar_
lovesmayfamilis
subSTRATA
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1043


:^)


View Profile
June 11, 2019, 06:50:49 AM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)
 #1668


Yeah I saw that post but it doesn't mention anything about new requirements, besides randomly selecting 100 users?!.
I guess theymos wants to keep the DT1 list limited to 100 users as more and more users become eligible for DT1, and this is just the solution he chose for the time being. I don't think there are any new requirements. Maybe more requirements should be put in place, or the current requirements be made more stringent, as the number of qualified users keep increasing.

theres nothing here. message me if you want to put something here.
LoyceV
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2044
Merit: 7171


Thick-Skinned Gang Leader


View Profile WWW
June 11, 2019, 06:55:18 AM
 #1669

Yeah I saw that post but it doesn't mention anything about new requirements, besides randomly selecting 100 users?!.
I don't think anything changed: DT1 is selected in the same way, then reduced to 100 members.

nutildah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 3810


No, I'm not an admin or a mod.


View Profile
June 11, 2019, 06:57:47 AM
 #1670

Several users are now red-trusted. Remember this:
All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have.

Unfortunately that sentiment doesn't seem to be very popular around here :/







.
.




░██████████████████░
████████████████████
█████████▀░░░███████
█████████░░▄████████
███████▀▀░░▀▀███████
███████▄▄░░▄▄███████
█████████░░█████████

█████████░░█████████

█████████▄▄█████████

████████████████████

░██████████████████░
░██████████████████░
████████████████████
████████████▀▀▀█▀███
███░▀█████▀░░░░░▀███
███▌░░░▀▀▀░░░░░░████
████▄░░░░░░░░░░░████
█████▀░░░░░░░░░█████

██████▄░░░░░▄▄██████

█████▄▄▄▄███████████

████████████████████

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

███████▌▄▄▄▐██████

████████████████████

████████████████████

░██████████████████░
TheNewAnon135246
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1937


฿uy ฿itcoin


View Profile
June 11, 2019, 06:58:32 AM
 #1671

Yeah I saw that post but it doesn't mention anything about new requirements, besides randomly selecting 100 users?!.
I don't think anything changed: DT1 is selected in the same way, then reduced to 100 members.

Yeah, I figured that. I think it's an odd choice to randomly select them instead of looking at trust level, in/exclusions etc.
LoyceV
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2044
Merit: 7171


Thick-Skinned Gang Leader


View Profile WWW
June 11, 2019, 07:02:11 AM
 #1672

I think it's an odd choice to randomly select them instead of looking at trust level, in/exclusions etc.
Theymos wants to (more or less) decentralize DT1. By looking at trust and inclusions, the list would be mostly the same each month.
It's not ideal, but this at least gives more different users a chance to reach DT1.

nutildah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 3810


No, I'm not an admin or a mod.


View Profile
June 11, 2019, 07:03:25 AM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)
 #1673

Yeah I saw that post but it doesn't mention anything about new requirements, besides randomly selecting 100 users?!.
I don't think anything changed: DT1 is selected in the same way, then reduced to 100 members.

Yeah, I figured that. I think it's an odd choice to randomly select them instead of looking at trust level, in/exclusions etc.

I agree. Should definitely be based on rank of eligibility if capped at 100 members. Random just means peoples' trust ratings could fluctuate pretty intensely from month to month... Whatever, I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.





.
.




░██████████████████░
████████████████████
█████████▀░░░███████
█████████░░▄████████
███████▀▀░░▀▀███████
███████▄▄░░▄▄███████
█████████░░█████████

█████████░░█████████

█████████▄▄█████████

████████████████████

░██████████████████░
░██████████████████░
████████████████████
████████████▀▀▀█▀███
███░▀█████▀░░░░░▀███
███▌░░░▀▀▀░░░░░░████
████▄░░░░░░░░░░░████
█████▀░░░░░░░░░█████

██████▄░░░░░▄▄██████

█████▄▄▄▄███████████

████████████████████

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

███████▌▄▄▄▐██████

████████████████████

████████████████████

░██████████████████░
TheNewAnon135246
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1937


฿uy ฿itcoin


View Profile
June 11, 2019, 07:15:18 AM
 #1674

I think it's an odd choice to randomly select them instead of looking at trust level, in/exclusions etc.
Theymos wants to (more or less) decentralize DT1. By looking at trust and inclusions, the list would be mostly the same each month.
It's not ideal, but this at least gives more different users a chance to reach DT1.

I think trust level should be one of the main requirements for being DT(1). There are now several users in DT1 with a neutral trust level and no notable untrusted feedback, which is strange imo.

Yeah I saw that post but it doesn't mention anything about new requirements, besides randomly selecting 100 users?!.
I don't think anything changed: DT1 is selected in the same way, then reduced to 100 members.

Yeah, I figured that. I think it's an odd choice to randomly select them instead of looking at trust level, in/exclusions etc.

I agree. Should definitely be based on rank of eligibility if capped at 100 members. Random just means peoples' trust ratings could fluctuate pretty intensely from month to month... Whatever, I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.

Yeah true, I don't mind Theymos trying out several things to figure out what the best option is. I don't envy him for having to create a trust system Grin.
klaaas
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 542



View Profile
June 11, 2019, 07:29:00 AM
 #1675

but this at least gives more different users a chance to reach DT1.
A month or 2 or 3 and then off the list and back on it again if you are lucky. To pick this list random is a bit of a weird solution, make spot 80/90 to 100  random for latest dt1 entries would fit better.

Shopping online and stekking sats (satsback) via Lightning
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3948
Merit: 7964


View Profile
June 11, 2019, 08:14:06 AM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)
 #1676

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+.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
LoyceMobile
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 807
Merit: 207


Hover mouse above my sig to find many useful links


View Profile WWW
June 11, 2019, 08:19:31 AM
 #1677

IMO it'd be nice if in the future it's a subset of 100 among a pool of 250+.
Any plans to promote custom Trust lists? A banner like April fool's day on top of all pages can create much more awareness.

Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2792


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
June 11, 2019, 10:20:30 AM
Last edit: June 11, 2019, 03:31:30 PM by Lauda
Merited by Foxpup (2), mindrust (2), JayJuanGee (1)
 #1678

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.
Or it enables semi-random accounts to permanently keep you tagged because they ran an "election" in some local section. I think you've underestimated how evil your forum members are, given the right opportunity.

A good case:
1) I've excluded a big bulk of people from a "turkish election" (this is not decentralized in any way and if I did something similar, you'd have 10x the gang threads you have right now) here: thread.
2) I have been retaliatory tagged by a verified scammer a long time ago: profile.
3) The user seems to find themselves now in DT2 due to his buddies. Quite a trustworthy list indeed.
4) A few users have been PM'd about this, some of which are in the exclusion list[1].

[1] I took the opposite path of getting adequate number of exclusions and went straight to the root of the problem. You can follow this in order to see how pawns will not behave according to your theory.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 5935


https://bpip.org


View Profile WWW
June 11, 2019, 02:02:49 PM
 #1679

Theymos updated DT1 today. I made a new list of DT1 and DT2 members (unfortunately, DT1 and trust scores are still based on last Saturday's Trust data dump, I will update this next Saturday).

Would this be possible:

A list of former DT2 members who are no longer in DT2 because their "sponsors" got randomly excluded from DT1 (or got banned, which seems to be the second most common cause of departure). Particularly ones that were sponsored by more than one DT1 member. There might be some good people among them who deserve to be considered by other DT1 members.

The-One-Above-All
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 56


View Profile
June 11, 2019, 04:10:38 PM
Last edit: June 11, 2019, 04:20:53 PM by The-One-Above-All
 #1680

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.
Or it enables semi-random accounts to permanently keep you tagged because they ran an "election" in some local section. I think you've underestimated how evil your forum members are, given the right opportunity.

A good case:
1) I've excluded a big bulk of people from a "turkish election" (this is not decentralized in any way and if I did something similar, you'd have 10x the gang threads you have right now) here: thread.
2) I have been retaliatory tagged by a verified scammer a long time ago: profile.
3) The user seems to find themselves now in DT2 due to his buddies. Quite a trustworthy list indeed.
4) A few users have been PM'd about this, some of which are in the exclusion list[1].

[1] I took the opposite path of getting adequate number of exclusions and went straight to the root of the problem. You can follow this in order to see how pawns will not behave according to your theory.

The reader should be aware that LAUDA is a VERIFIED SCAMMER himself.  He is also a VERIFIED TRUST ABUSER who uses red trust to silence whistle blowers that present observable instances of his own lying and scamming. If the reader wants evidence then just ask.

This is highly relevant here because of course THEYMOS's suggestion of actually trying to introduce some REAL variance and decentralized governance in DT (not just some pseudo decentralization with numerous colluding accounts all working together as one single gang) is being met with displeasure. You notice fox poop the person who merited vod for doxxing OG is again meriting this bogus and far less important EXCUSE for lauda not wishing for people to give him retaliatory feedback for his trust abuse.

Some REAL decentralization will perhaps improve things in the short term but will always collapse into factions of people that will still abuse everyone else except other factions that have the power to retaliate. Only a central power can ensure the FAIREST and most optimal environment here.

Forget this decentralized self governing nonsense Theymos. Such a notion is never going to work. On an anonymous forum a centralized power YOU is always going to be required to enforce RULES for ALL members EQUALLY.  I understand your reluctance to be responsible for ALL rights and wrongs here. That opens you up to all kinds of criticisms and perhaps even legal responsibilities. Appoint us to do it.  If at ANY point you consider ANYTHING we have done to be UNFAIR then remove us and give someone else a chance.

Or if not us just give ONE person who is ACCOUNTABLE the DT blacklisting power who will use it.


Give us/them 1 admin power - a black list button for DT  

1. Proven scammer = red trust
2. Strong case is a scammer or intending to scam = red trust
3. If you are shown proof or strong case of scamming or intending to scam you MUST red trust ANY PERSON (no pals rules)

Stick to that and do not give red trust outside of those 3 rules  OR ELSE  you get black listed.

Why are we still messing around with this nonsense. You want rid of scammers, you want rid of trust abusers?  let's do it.

Free speech is the most important thing on this board, far more important than people gaming all of this for the best sig spots, campaign manger spots, escrowing positions.  These systems of control are crushing free speech. Merit is the carrot to encourage group think, red trust is the stick to create an echo chamber and silence legitimate criticism.

Both are garbage simply dangerous in their current form.

Let's remove the jack boot of red trust from the throat of legitimate and verifiable criticism. Then work on making merit mean something other than you agree and support those giving the merits out.

Next I would introduce a standard that encourages the REQUIREMENT to present observable instances for ANY accusation directly related to behavior on this forum. If you can not present observable instances to substantiate your claims then you must NOT repeat them because that is lying and deliberately proliferating FALSE information. The last thing you want is a forum full of bullshit and propaganda. If you make a claim regarding some persons actions directly related to this board then you MUST be able to present the observable instances you are referring to.

Let's turn bitcointalk in to a real meritocracy. Where each member is treated equally and measured against a transparent set of fair rules for their recognition.

So therefore forget about tweaking the mechanisms of DT selection. Worry more about how they act when they are elected than the process of electing them. People change when they get some power, people change more when they believe they are entrenched in positions of power. Therefore any ELECTION process is far less important than the REMOVAL and BLACKLISTING they KNOW they will face for abusing their position. This MAD notion where mutually assured destruction will pull the entire thing inline will only work for those in DT everyone else with no RED to fire back will just get abused still. It may help but it is not a fix and is weak sauce compared to the 3 strict rules that all DT must abide by.

Give a 2 month amnesty to get all their Red trust in order then enough is enough.

100 selected people from "seemingly" different factions will soon enough collapse into a few factions all abusing everyone else but the other factions capable of retaliation.  

Better to just rip the band aid off now.


Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!