Bitcoin Forum
October 26, 2020, 07:42:06 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 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 »
  Print  
Author Topic: DefaultTrust changes  (Read 71507 times)
LoyceMobile
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 799
Merit: 207


Hover mouse above my sig to find many useful links


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2019, 04:38:21 PM
Last edit: March 15, 2020, 10:32:13 AM by LoyceMobile
 #1761

Lauda had (2) net-inclusions on DT1.
Lauda now has 6 net-inclusions on DT2.
Lauda got blacklisted from DT1.

I have 2 scenarios
1: suppose Lauda wasn't blacklisted, but got 3 more exclusions from other DT1 members. That would mean Lauda was removed from DefaultTrust entirely.

2: the current state (Lauda blacklisted from DT1). Now suppose Lauda gets the same 3 exclusions from DT1. That would mean Lauda still has 3 net-inclusions on DT2 and remains on DefaultTrust.

This means it is possible that a DT1-exclusion leads to a member being on DT which wouldn't happen without blacklisting. This is probably caused by the fact that excluded DT1-members can vote against other DT1-members, but they can't vote against DT2-members.
Is that the intended behaviour of the DefaultTrust system?

1603698126
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603698126

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603698126
Reply with quote  #2

1603698126
Report to moderator
1603698126
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603698126

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603698126
Reply with quote  #2

1603698126
Report to moderator
1603698126
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603698126

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603698126
Reply with quote  #2

1603698126
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1603698126
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603698126

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603698126
Reply with quote  #2

1603698126
Report to moderator
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2254
Merit: 1956


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2019, 04:48:35 PM
 #1762

Lauda had (2) net-inclusions on DT1.
Lauda now has 6 net-inclusions on DT2.
Lauda got blacklisted from DT1.

I have 2 scenarios
1: suppose Lauda wasn't blacklisted, but got 3 more exclusions from other DT1 members. That would mean Lauda was removed from DefaultTrust entirely.

2: the current state (Lauda blacklisted from DT1). Now suppose Lauda gets the same 3 exclusions from DT1. That would mean Lauda still has 3 net-inclusions on DT2 and remains on DefaultTrust.

Am I correct here? If so, it is possible that a DT1-exclusion leads to a member being on DT2 which wouldn't happen without blacklisting. This is probably caused by the fact that excluded DT1-members can vote against other DT1-members, but they can't vote against DT2-members.
Is that the intended behaviour of the DefaultTrust system?
No. if Lauda is excluded from DT1, he cannot be on DT2. I think your assumptions as to whose votes count might be flawed.

If you are on DT1, your trust list flows down regardless if your ratings show up or not.

The head executive of the executive office of the department of the redundancy department’s office
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2478
Merit: 5744


https://bpip.org


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2019, 04:57:08 PM
 #1763

No. if Lauda is excluded from DT1, he cannot be on DT2. I think your assumptions as to whose votes count might be flawed.

If you are on DT1, your trust list flows down regardless if your ratings show up or not.

Loyce is right. Excluded DT1 members can't "vote" for (or against) DT2 members. So Lauda gains DT2 "strength" compared to the previous DT1 "strength" because exclusions from TECSHARE et al don't count against Lauda anymore.

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

LoyceV
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016
Merit: 7081


Thick-Skinned Gang Leader


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2019, 04:58:09 PM
 #1764

No. if Lauda is excluded from DT1, he cannot be on DT2.
Lauda is blacklisted from DT1 (not excluded), and is still on DT2 (proof).

The Pharmacist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 3713



View Profile
July 09, 2019, 05:11:32 PM
Merited by LoyceV (1)
 #1765

Whoa, you were fast on detecting that. Is there any official reason why? I do agree with your previous statement in that making the process more democratic a step forward.
Lauda's inclusion and exclusion from DT1 has been a see-saw for quite some time now, so I'm not shocked that he/she's not on it anymore--but that could change. 

I still have not figured out why TECSHARE has me included.  I would not have expected that.  Ever.

There are also many examples of people leaving many controversial ratings over time who are already on DT who see no real pushback against their ratings. There are also examples of people facing retribution in the form of frivolous negative ratings (bill gator), and trust exclusions (bill gator and teeGUMES) for making statements that goes against the "crowd".
I agree with this, and I'd excluded teeGUMES for about 30 minutes before I realized I was making an emotional decision, after which I un-excluded him.  And as far as bill gator goes, I stood up for him and will still do so.  He's a good guy and really didn't deserve the shitty treatment he got.

Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2254
Merit: 1956


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2019, 05:12:49 PM
 #1766

No. if Lauda is excluded from DT1, he cannot be on DT2. I think your assumptions as to whose votes count might be flawed.

If you are on DT1, your trust list flows down regardless if your ratings show up or not.

Loyce is right. Excluded DT1 members can't "vote" for (or against) DT2 members. So Lauda gains DT2 "strength" compared to the previous DT1 "strength" because exclusions from TECSHARE et al don't count against Lauda anymore.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full;dt
A review of the OP and the rules for DT, it appears you are right.

This appears to be a flaw in the logic of how DT1/2 voting works. 

The head executive of the executive office of the department of the redundancy department’s office
nutildah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 3720



View Profile
July 09, 2019, 05:13:27 PM
 #1767

I always thought that was a bit of an odd feature of the whole DT system. Being on DT2 has more power than being on DT1 but being voted off. Excluded DT1 votes don't even count for flags.





.
.




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

█████████░░█████████

█████████▄▄█████████

████████████████████

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

██████▄░░░░░▄▄██████

█████▄▄▄▄███████████

████████████████████

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

███████▌▄▄▄▐██████

████████████████████

████████████████████

░██████████████████░
LoyceV
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016
Merit: 7081


Thick-Skinned Gang Leader


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2019, 05:13:45 PM
Merited by The Pharmacist (1)
 #1768

I still have not figured out why TECSHARE has me included.  I would not have expected that.  Ever.
See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5047060.msg51714652#msg51714652.

Veleor
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1581


Rêlêå§ê ¥ðµr MïñÐ


View Profile WWW
August 02, 2019, 06:16:05 PM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)
 #1769

This month 106 users were eligible. <...>

Removed [13]:
Quote

Added [15]:
Quote


░░░░░░░▄▄▄▄▄▄
░░░░▄██████████▄
░░░██████████████
░░██████▐▌██████
█████░░░░░░░▀█████
██████▄▄░░▄▄░░██████
████████░░▀▀▄██████
████████░░▄▄▄░░█████
██████▀▀░░▀▀▀░░█████
█████░░░░░░░░█████
░░██████▐▌██████
░░░██████████████
░░░░▀██████████▀
░░░░░░░▀▀▀▀▀▀
░░░
||
|
fillippone
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 4365


Merit Rascal


View Profile
August 02, 2019, 06:31:11 PM
 #1770

Interesting thing: being not included in DT1 in one month because random rotation doesn’t mean next month you will be included back.
Very unlucky user Babo was put out of DT1 last month and still outside DT1 also this  month even if he still qualify.
I don’t know if it already happened to someone else.

babo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2310
Merit: 1891



View Profile WWW
August 02, 2019, 06:33:55 PM
 #1771

Ahaha i'm unlucky one
I know my history of luck, or better.. no luck

.freebitcoin.       ▄▄▄█▀▀██▄▄▄
   ▄▄██████▄▄█  █▀▀█▄▄
  ███  █▀▀███████▄▄██▀
   ▀▀▀██▄▄█  ████▀▀  ▄██
▄███▄▄  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▄▄██████
██▀▀█████▄     ▄██▀█ ▀▀██
██▄▄███▀▀██   ███▀ ▄▄  ▀█
███████▄▄███ ███▄▄ ▀▀▄  █
██▀▀████████ █████  █▀▄██
 █▄▄████████ █████   ███
  ▀████  ███ ████▄▄███▀
     ▀▀████   ████▀▀
BITCOIN
DICE
EVENT
BETTING
WIN A LAMBO !

.
            ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████▄▄▄▄▄
▄▄▄▄▄██████████████████████████████████▄▄▄▄
▀██████████████████████████████████████████████▄▄▄
▄▄████▄█████▄████████████████████████████▄█████▄████▄▄
▀████████▀▀▀████████████████████████████████▀▀▀██████████▄
  ▀▀▀████▄▄▄███████████████████████████████▄▄▄██████████
       ▀█████▀  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▀█████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.PLAY NOW.
LFC_Bitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240
Merit: 3828


One of the world's leading Bitcoin-powered casinos


View Profile
August 02, 2019, 06:50:30 PM
 #1772

Ahaha i'm unlucky one
I know my history of luck, or better.. no luck

You’ll be back my friend, don’t worry. It won’t happen again, surely.

suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2478
Merit: 5744


https://bpip.org


View Profile WWW
August 02, 2019, 07:04:32 PM
 #1773

Interesting thing: being not included in DT1 in one month because random rotation doesn’t mean next month you will be included back.

~0.2% chance of that happening two months in a row. Eventually once we get to 250 candidates (or whatever theymos' expectation was) it will be much more frequent.

xenon131
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 743


making something real from dark matter


View Profile
August 02, 2019, 08:56:08 PM
 #1774

No. if Lauda is excluded from DT1, he cannot be on DT2.
Lauda is blacklisted from DT1 (not excluded), and is still on DT2 (proof).

He wiped his trust&distrust lists couple weeks ago and  washed himself out.

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

        ▄     ▀
         █ ▄▀
   ▄▀     █    ▄▀
  ▄   ▄▄  ██▄▄▀
 ▀      ▀▄▄██   ▄ ▄▄▀▀

          ▀██ ▄▀▀▀▄ ▀▄
           ███▀
 ▀▄
  ▄  ▀▄ ██▌  ▀▄
    ▀  ▄  ▐██
    ▄
   ▐██      ▄
     ▀
   ▄███▌ ▄▄   ▀
  ▄▄
▄▄ ▄█████▄ ▄▄ ▄▄
★ ‎‎
‎ ★
UP
TO
15%...CASH BACK
EVERY SPIN

‎ ★
       ▄▄██████▄▄▄
      ██▄▄▀▀█▀▀
     ████▄▀▀▄██▀
     ▄▀▀▄▄▄██▀
    ▀  ▀▀▀▀▀
             ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
          ▄███▄▄▄████▄  ▄▄▀
        ▄████████▀▀▀█▄▀▀
     ▄███▀▀▄▄██▄▄▀▀█████
 ▄▄████▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀████████
▀▀██▀▀▀▄▀███████▄▀████
   ▀▀██████████████▀
       ▀▀▀███████▀▀
.
..PLAY NOW..
bones261
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1823



View Profile
August 02, 2019, 09:04:48 PM
Merited by suchmoon (4), LoyceV (1)
 #1775

No. if Lauda is excluded from DT1, he cannot be on DT2.
Lauda is blacklisted from DT1 (not excluded), and is still on DT2 (proof).

He wiped his trust&distrust lists a couple weeks ago and  washed himself out.

Wiping your trust list only disqualifies you from DT1 when Theymos does his monthly update. It does not instantly disqualify you. However, when Lauda was removed from DT1, it was not the result of Theymos doing an update. Lauda's removal also was not the result of more people on DT1 distrusting her than trusting her.
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3920
Merit: 7952


View Profile
August 02, 2019, 10:15:50 PM
Merited by bones261 (1)
 #1776

~0.2% chance of that happening two months in a row. Eventually once we get to 250 candidates (or whatever theymos' expectation was) it will be much more frequent.

If you're looking at a particular person, their chance of being excluded in both a month with 104 eligible and the next month with 106 eligible is ~0.2%. But the chance that any one or more people already excluded in the first month are also excluded in the second month is, I believe, 1 - [(102 choose 100) / (106 choose 100)] = 99.9997%

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
fillippone
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 4365


Merit Rascal


View Profile
August 02, 2019, 10:54:43 PM
Last edit: August 03, 2019, 12:08:21 AM by fillippone
 #1777

~0.2% chance of that happening two months in a row. Eventually once we get to 250 candidates (or whatever theymos' expectation was) it will be much more frequent.

If you're looking at a particular person, their chance of being excluded in both a month with 104 eligible and the next month with 106 eligible is ~0.2%. But the chance that any one or more people already excluded in the first month are also excluded in the second month is, I believe, 1 - [(102 choose 100) / (106 choose 100)] = 99.9997%
I might be hugely wrong here:
Probability of a single user being excluded from the two DT1 round as defined (100 out of 104 and 100 out of 106) is correct as l’you already found:
4/104*6/106~0,2%.
Probability of any user excluded from first selection to be excluded also from second one:
1-(100/106)^4~20.79%
Please check me

EDIT: typo on the first result
EDIT: already spotted by Quickseller
EDIT: after a little mumbling on Quickseller observations, I stand with my answer. Tomorrow I will double check.

Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2254
Merit: 1956


View Profile WWW
August 02, 2019, 11:00:22 PM
Merited by theymos (5), dbshck (4), Cyrus (3), LoyceV (2), bones261 (2), BitMaxz (1), Upgrade00 (1)
 #1778

~0.2% chance of that happening two months in a row. Eventually once we get to 250 candidates (or whatever theymos' expectation was) it will be much more frequent.

If you're looking at a particular person, their chance of being excluded in both a month with 104 eligible and the next month with 106 eligible is ~0.2%. But the chance that any one or more people already excluded in the first month are also excluded in the second month is, I believe, 1 - [(102 choose 100) / (106 choose 100)] = 99.9997%
The chances of any one or more people already excluded in the first month also being excluded in the second month (when there are 104 eligible in the 1st month and 106 eligible in the next month) is:
4 * [1-(100/106)], or ~22.4%

In other words, it is the chances of a single individual person being excluded in the second month, times the number of people excluded in the 1st month.

edit:
I might be hugely wrong here:
Probability of a single user being excluded from the two DT1 round as defined is 4/104*6/106~0,02%
Your formula:
4/104*6/106
is correct, however you converted into a percentage incorrectly, the chances of a person being excluded two months in a row, one with 104 eligible people and the other with 106 eligible is 0.217%
Probability of any user excluded from first selection to be excluded also from second one:1-(100/106)^4~20.79%
Your exponent should be a multiplication, and there should be an additional bracket because of the order of operations.

The head executive of the executive office of the department of the redundancy department’s office
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3920
Merit: 7952


View Profile
August 03, 2019, 12:22:11 AM
 #1779

The chances of any one or more people already excluded in the first month also being excluded in the second month (when there are 104 eligible in the 1st month and 106 eligible in the next month) is:
4 * [1-(100/106)], or ~22.4%

Damn it, I simulated it, and you seem right. I suppose that my model of the situation was wrong because it actually does matter that the first month has already happened, whereas I was trying to eliminate the specificity of this.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
fillippone
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 4365


Merit Rascal


View Profile
August 04, 2019, 10:09:06 PM
Last edit: August 05, 2019, 01:10:40 AM by fillippone
 #1780

The chances of any one or more people already excluded in the first month also being excluded in the second month (when there are 104 eligible in the 1st month and 106 eligible in the next month) is:
4 * [1-(100/106)], or ~22.4%

Damn it, I simulated it, and you seem right. I suppose that my model of the situation was wrong because it actually does matter that the first month has already happened, whereas I was trying to eliminate the specificity of this.

Guys I am again on this.
I thought about this problem quite extensively during this weekend on the italian riviera.

I think Quickseller formula is not correct as it does allow repetition, while we must find a solution without repetition (if a user is selected, it cannot be taken out again on the same round).
I think Theymos was then on the right path using binomial coefficients, so I am going to use the same technique.

The right probability of any of the 4 excluded in the first round to be excluded in the second round is equal to 1 - the probability of everyone of such 4 to be selected:

1-C(100,4)/C(106,4)=0.210654248

another less intuitive method give the  same exact result:

1-C(102,6)/C(106,6)=0.210654248

(probability of being amongst the 6 excluded from the second extraction chosen by the 100 selected from the first extraction + the 2 new addition).

I am almost sure about this, but please double check me again.
Theymos said he simulated and got a result very similar to Quickseller, this scares me, also because I saw LoyceV and other heavyweight meriting previous solution... shall I go back to school?

EDIT: Forgot to mention, but clearly an hypothesis here: every candidate on the first round is a candidate also for the second round. This simplifies calculations, when we agree on the solution, we'll be able to remove this hypothesis.


Pages: « 1 ... 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 »
  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!