DefaultTrust changes

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

Presumably they could also have some combination of 250-votes and 10-votes to bring them up their earned merit limit.

My question is, let's say a hypothetical user with 10 earned merits has two users on their trust list, and both these users are one vote away from becoming DT1. How does the system decide who gets it?

[1713958787]

1713958787

[1713958787]

1713958787

[suchmoon]

Presumably they could also have some combination of 250-votes and 10-votes to bring them up their earned merit limit.

I assume both can be used in full, i.e. using the 250-votes doesn't reduce the number of available 10-votes (or maybe I should call them "ballots" to not confuse with the person getting the votes).

My question is, let's say a hypothetical user with 10 earned merits has two users on their trust list, and both these users are one vote away from becoming DT1. How does the system decide who gets it?

Lauda gets it.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I assume both can be used in full, i.e. using the 250-votes doesn't reduce the number of available 10-votes (or maybe I should call them "ballots" to not confuse with the person getting the votes).

I think you're right. I had assumed the opposite - a combined total - but on re-reading theymos' post, I am probably mistaken.

Lauda gets it.

Which one?

[mikeywith]

My question is, let's say a hypothetical user with 10 earned merits has two users on their trust list, and both these users are one vote away from becoming DT1. How does the system decide who gets it?

simply put, the user with the 10 earned merit will decide to whom his vote goes to, regardless of how many users are on his trust list and how close/far they are from becoming DT1.

this could be done by giving the vote to whoever is at the top of your list ,indeed after the current sort-by criteria is changed to allow full control of ordering.


the hard part with be " assuming this is accurate"

I assume both can be used in full, i.e. using the 250-votes doesn't reduce the number of available 10-votes (or maybe I should call them "ballots" to not confuse with the person getting the votes).

what if i want to give my 10 merit vote to someone while giving my 250 vote to someone else?

[theymos]

So for example, someone with 518 earned merits would get up to 2 votes in the 250-merit criteria and up to 51 votes in the 10-merit criteria, if I'm getting this right.

Someone with 72 earned merits gets up to 7 votes in the 10-merit criteria and obviously none in the 250.

Right. Also, for these calculations you're not counted as trusting someone if the merit they've given you puts you below the 10- or 250-merit threshold.

The 250-merit thing happens at the very end (after the 10-merit one) when there are only about 50 people in consideration (currently), so 2 votes is not insubstantial there, and you're not that likely to actually be limited.

I assume both can be used in full, i.e. using the 250-votes doesn't reduce the number of available 10-votes (or maybe I should call them "ballots" to not confuse with the person getting the votes).

Right.

[KingZee]

I wasn't able to find either an optimal or low-error-approximate solution to this problem. My current algorithm is sub-optimal in general and could produce results uncomfortably far from the optimal solution, but the current data doesn't actually present a scenario where it matters: my current algorithm is optimal with the current data. Long-term, if I can't find an algorithm that I'm happy with, I could make the trust lists ordered as some have suggested.

I might help out and spend a day thinking about it but the explanation from the graph is a bit confusing.

Can you dumb it down even further? Just a short description of what are the inputs exactly, and how do you want the output. Better if it's just an example with 5 users or something.

[burakike]

This is the only place where extortionist are being praised by people.Lauda has done shady things in the past why is she still given a good position here? Theymos you should exclude this people or else more and more people will quit at bitcointalk you know the gang here very well,who abuses trust system.I dont know if you are still listening to the users or you are just catching the big fishes all at once like in mind games.

[petestheman]

I'm going to reconstruct DT1 again using the published criteria on Monday, so set up your trust lists before then.

Trust list will reset today as per the criteria and we could see a lot of changes in the trust scores and DT1 today. Hoping for a better change this time.

[suchmoon]

This is the only place where extortionist are being praised by people.Lauda has done shady things in the past why is she still given a good position here? Theymos you should exclude this people or else more and more people will quit at bitcointalk you know the gang here very well,who abuses trust system.I dont know if you are still listening to the users or you are just catching the big fishes all at once like in mind games.

Theymos has already explicitly stated that he's more or less neutral towards Lauda so I assume this means there will be no blacklisting. With the new DT system your only chance is to exclude Lauda from your trust list. I mean with your real account. This newbie one won't affect anything.

[DabLjat]

Each user's number of "votes" in the last two criteria will be limited to floor(earned_merit / (10 or 250, depending on the criteria)).

So for example, someone with 518 earned merits could cast up to 2 votes in the 250-merit criteria and up to 51 votes in the 10-merit criteria, if I'm getting this right.

Someone with 72 earned merits could cast up to 7 votes in the 10-merit criteria and obviously none in the 250.

If I have 20 earned Merit do I vote for only 2 people? And these 2 people will be chosen from my list of 20 people? For example, the first in my list are satoshi and theymos (to determine the order of users in the list I can not). Then they get one vote for 10 Merit and the rest get nothing? Am I right?

[actmyname]

If I have 20 earned Merit do I vote for only 2 people? And these 2 people will be chosen from my list of 20 people? For example, the first in my list are satoshi and theymos (to determine the order of users in the list I can not). Then they get one vote for 10 Merit and the rest get nothing? Am I right?

Whoever needs your vote the most gets it. It depends on who is on your list, not the order of their placements.

[DabLjat]

Whoever needs your vote the most gets it. It depends on who is on your list, not the order of their placements.

I.e. I can't determine who needs my 2 votes? And also I don't know who got my 2 votes in the end?

[suchmoon]

Whoever needs your vote the most gets it. It depends on who is on your list, not the order of their placements.

I.e. I can't determine who needs my 2 votes? And also I don't know who got my 2 votes in the end?

Correct. The idea is that you shouldn't be worrying about that. Include people whose judgement you trust. The vote should reflect trust relationships and not be manipulated directly. I kinda wanted the same thing (fine-grained control of voting) earlier in the thread but now I'm thinking that's not that important. We'll see how it works in the next round.

[DabLjat]

Correct. The idea is that you shouldn't be worrying about that. Include people whose judgement you trust. The vote should reflect trust relationships and not be manipulated directly. I kinda wanted the same thing (fine-grained control of voting) earlier in the thread but now I'm thinking that's not that important. We'll see how it works in the next round.

And will not such a system lead to a reduction of trust lists to 2-3 people, for whom (and only for whom) I would like to vote at some stage?

[S_Therapist]

Whoever needs your vote the most gets it. It depends on who is on your list, not the order of their placements.

I.e. I can't determine who needs my 2 votes? And also I don't know who got my 2 votes in the end?

Correct. The idea is that you shouldn't be worrying about that. Include people whose judgement you trust. The vote should reflect trust relationships and not be manipulated directly. I kinda wanted the same thing (fine-grained control of voting) earlier in the thread but now I'm thinking that's not that important. We'll see how it works in the next round.

I have 214 earned merits. Let's assume I have included 30 persons in my trust list. How will system choose my vote, I mean by which criteria, since I have capability of voting for 21 member. How someone from my 30 members will be excluded/included?

[OgNasty]

I have 214 earned merits. Let's assume I have included 30 persons in my trust list. How will system choose my vote, I mean by which criteria, since I have capability of voting for 21 member. How someone from my 30 members will be excluded/included?

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

When building your trust list, I tend to encourage people not to worry about little details like this, and instead just think about the system in broad strokes. If this results in poor outcomes, then that's a problem on my end.

[DabLjat]

For example, someone wants his voice exactly got User10 and User11. It removes all participants from its trust list (from User1 to User9) and leaves only User10 and User11.

Trust lists will be reduced to a very narrow circle. Perhaps it would be more correct if the user could specify for whom he 250-votes and 10-votes?

I don't think it's very difficult to implement:

satoshi
theymos
qwk
Cyrus
xandry
Vadi2323
klarki
10-TheFuzzStone
dariloff
10-poptop
be.open
xenon131
Goran_
Veleor
chimk
temarazin
Alex_Sr
esmanthra
taikuri13
Nikisa

[suchmoon]

Correct. The idea is that you shouldn't be worrying about that. Include people whose judgement you trust. The vote should reflect trust relationships and not be manipulated directly. I kinda wanted the same thing (fine-grained control of voting) earlier in the thread but now I'm thinking that's not that important. We'll see how it works in the next round.

And will not such a system lead to a reduction of trust lists to 2-3 people, for whom (and only for whom) I would like to vote at some stage?

I don't know if it will. I'm not changing my trust list because of that. Someone with fewer votes might consider that but I think they would be doing themselves a disservice by not including people useful for their day-to-day forum usage (trust ratings etc) and focusing on the vote with a very low chance of putting someone they like into DT1. It's possible that some people will try to change their trust lists temporarily just before theymos recreates DT1. I think all these manipulations will have very little effect in the grand scheme of things but I have no data to support that opinion.

[The Cryptovator]

If I understand the last update of theymos, each 10 earned merit holder can vote 1 person only. So if someone earned 100 merit he can vote 10 person only. If he add more then 10 person then admin/sript will choose the candidate randomly. Seems theymos had edited OP with new updates.

Sound like decentralization, and it's right decision. Now trust system can't be manipulate easily. And DT1 list will perfect now as I believe.

[theymos]

I might help out and spend a day thinking about it but the explanation from the graph is a bit confusing.

Can you dumb it down even further? Just a short description of what are the inputs exactly, and how do you want the output. Better if it's just an example with 5 users or something.

G = (U, V, E) is a bipartite graph with edges from the left side, U, to the right side, V. There are N vertices in U and M vertices in V. A "capacity" function c: U -> Z is defined for every vertex in U. A constant integer "target value" T exists.

Candidate solutions are subgraphs S = (U_S, V_S, E_S) of G satisfing the following requirements:
 1. For each vertex u in U_S, the number of edges attached to u must be less than or equal to c(u).
 2. For each vertex v in V_S, the number of edges attached to v must be greater than or equal to T.
 
Find an S such that the number of vertices in V_S is maximal.

Example:


Note that this graph is depicted as directed, but that doesn't actually matter.

Note:

 - To satisfy requirement #1, you must exclude at least two of (u1, v1) or (u1, v3) or (u1, v4).
 - To satisfy requirement #1, you must exclude at least one of (u2, v1) or (u2, v2).
 - To satisfy requirement #1, you must exclude at least one of (u3, v1), (u3, v2) or (u3, v3)
 - To satisfy requirement #2, you must exclude at least v4 (since it cannot possibly get T=2 edges), and possibly more depending on the rest of S.

In a very naïve greedy algorithm, you might just fill up vertices on the right from top to bottom until you can't do anything else. That'd give a candidate solution of:
(u1, v1)
(u2, v1)
This is a valid candidate solution, but it's non-optimal because it includes only 1 vertex in V whereas 2 are possible. In order to achieve an optimal solution, you need some backtracking, at least. In this case there are two equally-good optimal solutions:
(u1, v3)
(u3, v3)
(u2, v2)
(u3, v2)
or:
(u1, v1)
(u3, v1)
(u2, v2)
(u3, v2)

It becomes more complicated as the graph gets bigger.

Writing it down in this way reminds me a lot of the stable marriage problem, which gives me hope that it can be solved exactly.