DefaultTrust changes

[Anduck]

I don't think exclusion behavior has changed.

I mean the list published in theymos' post shows Og and zazarb, both of which I think are excluded.

They're on DT1 by the algo, but excluded by the live (so can change any time) inclusions/exclusions system.

[EcuaMobi]

I'm honored to be DT1 too! I'll re-check my trust list again.

I'd like to propose a change to discourage DT1 members from adding users to DT2 just to improve their own trust:
-snip-

That doesn't discourage it, it completely eliminates it!

Well, yes, you're right. Improving our own default trust shouldn't be a factor to add someone to DT2 at all.

[Lauda]

I don't think exclusion behavior has changed.

I mean the list published in theymos' post shows Og and zazarb, both of which I think are excluded.

Correct. The thing that I have requested has not received a response so the behavior remains the same.

I'm honored to be DT1 too! I'll re-check my trust list again.

I'd like to propose a change to discourage DT1 members from adding users to DT2 just to improve their own trust:
-snip-

That doesn't discourage it, it completely eliminates it!

Well, yes, you're right. Improving our own default trust shouldn't be a factor to add someone to DT2 at all.

Yeah, but if you completely eliminate it then you might also hurt legitimate users.

[EcuaMobi]

I'm honored to be DT1 too! I'll re-check my trust list again.

I'd like to propose a change to discourage DT1 members from adding users to DT2 just to improve their own trust:
-snip-

That doesn't discourage it, it completely eliminates it!

Well, yes, you're right. Improving our own default trust shouldn't be a factor to add someone to DT2 at all.

Yeah, but if you completely eliminate it then you might also hurt legitimate users.

Why? Can you give an example?
Note I'm just referring about the case when that DT2 was added only by that single DT1 user, so they would't be DT2 otherwise.

[Lauda]

I'm honored to be DT1 too! I'll re-check my trust list again.

I'd like to propose a change to discourage DT1 members from adding users to DT2 just to improve their own trust:
-snip-

That doesn't discourage it, it completely eliminates it!

Well, yes, you're right. Improving our own default trust shouldn't be a factor to add someone to DT2 at all.

Yeah, but if you completely eliminate it then you might also hurt legitimate users.

Why? Can you give an example?
Note I'm just referring about the case when that DT2 was added only by that single DT1 user, so they would't be DT2 otherwise.

I really can't. I'm just playing devil's advocate on your idea. Maybe the DT2 member was only added by the DT1 user for a legitimate reason, and that DT2 member happens to have left a trust rating for a legitimate reason to the DT1 member. Anyways, I don't think we will see extensive cases such as the case of CITM's idiocy (who's not the brightest fellow around). However, given that DT2 is growing too large for my liking you may have a point (keeping track of everyone will be very difficult).

[TheFuzzStone]

I'm honoured and surprised that I have become a DT1.

Me too. I have never participated in bounty, shady stuff or etc., and I will not. Congrats to all.

there are some names that make no sense (e.g. this guy).

Please do not start. You did not even know about my existence before creating this topic. And as I said before, if you want to find a person to quarrel, then you need to find another user, because this is not for me.

[Lauda]

there are some names that make no sense (e.g. this guy).

Please do not start. You did not even know about my existence before creating this topic. And as I said before, if you want to find a person to quarrel, then you need to find another user, because this is not for me.

There's no quarrel, I already excluded you. You have no place being in DT, especially not when you reject the idea behind it. Now move along, this is beyond your belief system.

[cryptohunter]

This loos like quite a step backwards in terms of decentralization.

Given the previous size of the DT list, it really isn't.

To reduce the size of the DT1 list it could easily have been changed to 30 10 merit votes and 5 100 merit votes or something rather than greatly centralizing voting power.

I get the 10 merit standard, 100 merit standard, even the 250 merit standard, but anything over 500 merits is rediculous and depends too much on where you post, what you post about, and who your friends are..

I like LoyceV just fine but 6X as many votes as SaltySpitoon? lol no..
Is LoyceV 6X more trusted to make good votes than SaltySpitoon?

I think the DT1 list would be nice with around 50 members on it anyway..

Does the algorithm decide "most useful" before taking into account how many exclusions a member must overcome to stay on DT1 or after?

Exclusions are processed at the very end.

That is no good IMO..
What about all the extra votes someone needs to overcome rival exclusions?

oh no someone waking up....welcome to wonderland how did that red pill taste.

100 persons approx (250 earned merits I mean screw the old legends and posters who cant hang around meta all day) who derive the fact they deserve like 70% + of their merit from THEMSELVES are therefore now in control of both the merit system of control and the trust system of control. These now control every members ability to be paid2post and trade as a non tagged scammer. Some wanting themselves 2 paid2post accounts to sig spam cos 1 was not enough... details below.

Pull up on bpip  pharmacist,suchmoon locyev, o_e_l_e_o, foxpup tman, lauda, owlcatz, iasenko , all their "pals" then check their top 10 fans and receivers ....LOL  out of 150k users they just all happen to be riddled amongst each others others top 10s

then look who voted who on here - what the same people all meriting the same people all voting for the same people in DT

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtview

Wow can't see any connection can you?

NO COLLUSION??

Merit = trust? when the merit is gained subjectively from themselves?? then deciding they are also the most trustworthy?? hmm

Then look on the

Proven liars , Proven double standards, people proven to  start 2x accounts and get busted sig spamming and trolling for real.. for extra  btc dust,

Now with the  new algo I see more people added - that's great news lets take a look. Oh shit they seem (read their post history and look on BPIP ) as obvious friends and sympathisers of these colluders.

earned merits = honey trap to find colluders to avoid putting in any positions of trust?

LoyceV the most merited (except special characters) show me 10 of his best posts right here NOT JUST SOME STATS HE PULLED OFF THE SERVERS AND PRODUCED IN LISTS OR GRAPHS.  Show me some great insights he has made original posts then do the same for the pharmacist AKA HUGE BLACK WOMAN  sig spammer got busted for trying to get on a higher rate of SIG SPAMMING.

Or if you want to pull this FACT BASED post apart which discusses the new algo to find the most suitable persons for the DT lists then I look forward to that.

Likely it will be deleted because of off topic or annoying, too long to read, does not agree with us, trolling aka bringing facts.

Wanna fix it quick, change it to activity 1500 + earned merits 100 max and black list anyone who has proven or been implicated in any financial wrong doing, proven to lie etc... no point starting with a ton of bad eggs you will just get more people who are ....bad eggs.

[TMAN]

~snip~

get back on the meds, leave the grown ups to talk

xxxx love ya sweet cheeks xxxx

[cryptohunter]

~snip~

get back on the meds, leave the grown ups to talk

xxxx love ya sweet cheeks xxxx

Disprove anything my post says.. I will not be silence by you.

This is a forum.  I will reserve the right to produce evidence that supports my view. If you do not like it slap me some more red trust. It is the fuel upon which I run. Mr trustworthy poster boy for DT1  haha

[Lauda]

Not only the DT2 is too large but not any more so relevant for something "to trust", let's be honest. Take a look at the list and tell me then how many users do you trust? 2-3? I know you will say to add the ~ but it's not funny if everytime week I have to check the DT list

Need someone to compile old vs. new DT2 list again to make it easier. Plus it isn't a weekly rotation anymore and the changes should be less drastic moving forward.

Also, some people can be red tagged today, green tomorrow, red again and so on.

This was always the case.

[cryptohunter]

Also, some people can be red tagged today, green tomorrow, red again and so on.

This was always the case.

Well exactly like you for instance red tagged for being untrustworthy before , now somehow off the hook and not only trustworthy again but deciding on who is trustworthy... sounds like a fun system that people can place a lot of faith in.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

What’s the criteria to be in DT2?

I think I have only 1 person with 250+ earned Merit ‘trusting’ me?

[Lauda]

What’s the criteria to be in DT2?

I think I have only 1 person with 250+ earned Merit ‘trusting’ me?

None other than a net positive number of inclusions by DT1 members. Those merit criteria are for DT1 only.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

What’s the criteria to be in DT2?

I think I have only 1 person with 250+ earned Merit ‘trusting’ me?

None other than a net positive number of inclusions by DT1 members. Those merit criteria are for DT1 only.

Thanks Lauda.

[LeGaulois]

Not only the DT2 is too large but not any more so relevant for something "to trust", let's be honest. Take a look at the list and tell me then how many users do you trust? 2-3? I know you will say to add the ~ but it's not funny if everytime week I have to check the DT list

Need someone to compile old vs. new DT2 list again to make it easier. Plus it isn't a weekly rotation anymore and the changes should be less drastic moving forward.

Also, some people can be red tagged today, green tomorrow, red again and so on.

This was always the case.

(sorry, you were fast to reply)

Yes that's was the case, but it happened rarely. Where I can find the old list of the DT1/2 now?

[hugeblack]

The main reason that I went for this solution rather than forcing custom lists is that I would like to show some trust indicator to guests. But before doing that, I want to see whether these modifications can actually be made to work. If not, then I may go to the force-custom-lists solution, and that's incompatible with guests seeing any trust indicators.

What about showing trust in local boards? Especially those containing sections that have a link to the marketplace "Altcoin ANN, services, mining,...etc."

Have all members "added to the DT trust list" been warned to review their ratings? There are many positive or negative feedbacks without citing sources

[Lauda]

Yes that's was the case, but it happened rarely. Where I can find the old list of the DT1/2 now?

This is the old list (i.e. the list from a few days ago, not from the old system). This just contains the new members from the new system.

New members of DT2, who were not in the "old" DT2 or DT1. No user ID on the trust page, so I couldn't create profile links, sorry. Please review and make adjustments if needed. This is based on coinlocket$'s snapshot of the old system vs the current DT2 list as of a few minutes ago. Things change quickly so feel free to yell at me if something is wrong.

Code:

A-10
aacoins
Adriano
Aerys2
Akka
alp
AltcoinSteps
Anduck
Anon11073
anonymousminer
asche
Astro
AT101ET
Barcode_
BG4
bill gator
BiPolarBob
BitcoinNewsMagazine
bittawm
Branduardi
buckrogers
Carlton Banks
Carra23
ChiBitCTy
chimk
Chris!
chronicsky
comit
Corrosive
cryptoheadd
cryptonic21
CydeWeys
DaveF
dazedfool
dbshck
DebitMe
digicoinuser
dolphriends
dozerz
eddie13
elianite
Ente
Entropy-uc
Eodguy149
ezeminer
F2b
Fattcatt
fhh
fluffypony
forrestv
Fortify
franckuestein
frankenmint
gocoins
guigui371
Gunthar
gwillen
Halab
HCP
hephaist0s
Hiroaki
Hox
hybridsole
IdiotCoder
iron77
Jet Cash
JoelKatz
Kialara
kingscrown
klaaas
kneim
Kryptowerk
Kushedout
LeGaulois
Lesbian Cow
m4nki
Matt Corallo
Meni Rosenfeld
micromen
midnightmagic
miffman
mike
mikeywith
minifrij
Minor Miner
Mister k
montreal
mrkent
MrLehmann
ndnh
ninjarobot
o_e_l_e_o
OmegaStarScream
Otoh
Pieter Wuille
Pistachio
pmorici
Poloherb
polymerbit
PsychoticBoy
Raoul Duke
rdponticelli
RealHummer
rickbig41
risho
romanornr
rusbitcoinuser
Saint-loup
saveawedge
SFR10
SgtSpike
Shitcointalk
SolarSilver
Spazzer
squall1066
ssateneth
start the art
Sylon
teeGUMES
TheAnalogKid
TheBanksLife
TheNewAnon135246
Ticked
tmfp
TommyBitcoin
tothemoonsands
Tramirostronix
twbt
vanycon
vizique
Vladimir
welshcollectibles
wheelz1200
WOLTAN78
Xal0lex
xhomerx10
Xprim777
yakuza699
yogg
zefir
zekoroger
Zepher
ZipReg

[tmfp]

Not only the DT2 is too large but not any more so relevant for something "to trust", let's be honest. Take a look at the list and tell me then how many users do you trust?

DT2 members are there because they are trusted by DT1 member(s).
DT1 members are there because they are trusted by others.
If you trust a DT1 member's judgement, why shouldn't that trust extend to those that he/she in turn trusts (unless specifics indicate otherwise) whether you personally know them or not?

[DdmrDdmr]

<...> Where I can find the old list of the DT1/2 now?

I think coinlocket$'s older version of DT contains that. See Is the Default trust system still working/active?. It was created on the 5th of December 2018, so that should be the old version.