DefaultTrust changes

[yahoo62278]

It doesn't really matter anymore if DT1 or not really. Most of the people who are or have done good for the forum are still on DT2.

Long as it doesn't get too crazy where 100 new users are selected it should be fine.

[Alex_Sr]

This criterion is no longer relevant?

#3
I will periodically (maybe every month) be reconstructing the default trust list to include everyone who matches these criteria:
...
 - You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days.
...

Or were there changes?

[LoyceV]

This criterion is no longer relevant?

#3
I will periodically (maybe every month) be reconstructing the default trust list to include everyone who matches these criteria:
...
 - You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days.
...

Or were there changes?

Which user on DT1 wasn't online in the past 3 days?

[Alex_Sr]

Which user on DT1 wasn't online in the past 3 days?

Yes, it looks like it is:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1202061

[alani123]

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 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?

I was reminded about this by The-One-Above-All.
It turns out LoyceMobile's scenario became reality:
According to IsLaudaStillOnDT.tk:

YEP.

Lauda is on DT2 with 1 inclusions.

Now check Lauda's Trust inclusions and exclusions from DT1 (data from last Saturday morning's data dump):

Trust list for: Lauda (Trust: +34 / =3 / -1) (1209 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP) (created 2019-11-23_Sat_06.13h)
Back to index

Lauda Trusts these users' judgement:
-

Lauda Distrusts these users' judgement:
-

Lauda's judgement is Trusted by:
5. qwk (Trust: +13 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (23) 1191 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
7. Anduck (Trust: +19 / =2 / -1) (DT1! (4) 55 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
8. DiamondCardz (Trust: +9 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (2) 86 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
9. philipma1957 (Trust: +24 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (17) 980 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
24. hybridsole (Trust: +19 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (10) 259 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
27. hilariousandco (Trust: +17 / =2 / -0) (DT1! (37) 688 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
28. Avirunes (Trust: +10 / =2 / -0) (DT1! ( 265 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
34. owlcatz (Trust: +40 / =0 / -1) (DT1! (23) 240 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
36. sapta (Trust: +10 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (7) 177 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
37. BitcoinPenny (Trust: +42 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (17) 569 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
44. ezeminer (Trust: +23 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (9) 95 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
57. asu (Trust: +2 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (2) 508 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
69. finaleshot2016 (Trust: +1 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (3) 548 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
71. crwth (Trust: +2 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (5) 471 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
78. roycilik (Trust: +6 / =2 / -0) (DT1! (4) 1055 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
83. Silent26 (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (4) 224 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
97. pandukelana2712 (Trust: +3 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (2) 923 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
99. asche (Trust: +7 / =1 / -0) (DT1! ( 803 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
104. TalkStar (Trust: +7 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (4) 390 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

~Lauda's judgement is Distrusted by:
1. theymos (Trust: +26 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (59) 5786 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
4. gmaxwell (Trust: +14 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (19) 1742 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
6. TECSHARE (Trust: +37 / =4 / -1) (DT1 (-3) 540 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
10. OgNasty (Trust: +84 / =2 / -5) (DT1! (5) 741 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
18. babo (Trust: +6 / =2 / -0) (DT1! (5) 285 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
25. TookDk (Trust: +30 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (9) 39 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
42. arulbero (Trust: +6 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (5) 337 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
44. mindrust (Trust: neutral) (DT1! (4) 619 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
52. redsn0w (Trust: +8 / =2 / -0) (DT1! (6) 40 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
58. Rmcdermott927 (Trust: +26 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (1) 47 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
64. nutildah (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (10) 1471 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
80. zazarb (Trust: +23 / =0 / -1) (DT1 (-3) 482 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
90. WhiteManWhite (Trust: neutral) (DT1! (5) 85 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
101. kzv (Trust: +2 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (0) 555 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
104. TheFuzzStone (Trust: +3 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (11) 736 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
125. bobita (Trust: +3 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (1) 351 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
142. Goran_ (Trust: neutral) (DT1! (2) 832 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
178. chimk (Trust: +2 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (9) 696 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
212. fillippone (Trust: +7 / =1 / -0) (DT1! ( 1703 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
213. taikuri13 (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (11) 1042 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Source: LoyceV's Trust list viewer.
Get your own Trust list in BBCode at loyce.club/trust.

The result:
19 inclusions
20 exclusions

The reason: TECSHARE and zazarb are on DT1, but excluded by other DT1s. That means they can still vote to exclude other DT1-members, but they can't "downvote" DT2-members (because their vote doesn't count there).
I've posted before asking if this is the intended behaviour, but theymos never responded. I'm still curious to know if this is a a flaw or done on purpose.

Note that Lauda wouldn't be on DT1 even without being excluded by theymos: emptying your own Trust list disqualifies you already.

Am I getting this right, if somebody gets excluded from DT1 by "vote", then this vote can only count directly against their exclusion from DT1, still allowing for that person to have a spot on DT2 and no way to directly vote them out.


IMHO, even if that's not a bug, it sounds very much like the opposite of a desired effect. If I understand this correctly, the only way to vote against DT2 participants is to exclude all their DT1 trusters? That's also a big disincentive against using DT at all.

[LoyceV]

Which user on DT1 wasn't online in the past 3 days?

Yes, it looks like it is:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1202061

Indeed:

Last Active:    November 28, 2019, 09:44:15 PM

(Amsterdam time)

I'd like to see theymos comment on this.

Am I getting this right, if somebody gets excluded from DT1 by "vote", then this vote can only count directly against their exclusion from DT1, still allowing for that person to have a spot on DT2 and no way to directly vote them out.

You're wrong: someone who's on DT1 but has a net-exclusion from other DT1-members can't be on DT2.
The scenario I painted is for someone who isn't on DT1.

the only way to vote against DT2 participants is to exclude all their DT1 trusters?

You can just exclude the user by yourself, that "overwrites" all DT1-votes as you exclude that user on your Depth 0.

[cabalism13]

Is it possible to remain on DT1 when you're just sitting around quietly? And also would it be possibe to be on DT2 even if you're removed from DT1?...
Am so glad to be a DT1 now, I just hope I can remain here.
I already achieved being a DT and a Merit Source, Only 1 goal left in me... And that is to be a Legendary Member. Thanks for those who have their trust in me. And also welcome bashers...

[marlboroza]

This is third time this scammer (thread) become DT member so I am going to bump this post:

Which moron added https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=158678 to DT?

@Theymos don't you think it is good time to blacklist some people from default trust network, for example accounts who are including scammers to their trust list?

[eddie13]

This new bizarre DT1 seems to be going in the opposite way than the "fear of retaliation" idea expressed in the OP. The chances of someone being excluded are decreasing significantly with more new members joining. Correspondingly the chances of retaliatory feedback from less-rational members are increasing, whereas more-rational members would refrain from retaliating. Or are we supposed to use red trust in retaliation? Red doesn't really matter that much after the first one, since there is no red warning and no exponential score anymore.

I think retaliation is "tacky" and not the best first method of resolution..

Even if you have been wronged, retaliating with negative trust that is also wrong or unfounded, is also wrong..
2 wrongs don't make a right..

However I think "This user abuses the trust system" in retaliation to trust abuse, is probably correct..
But I still think it would be somewhat "tacky" if it is seen as retaliation..

I think the new trust system should balance out by DT observers kicking out trust abusers, without the abused having to retaliate at all..
The centralization of merit as it relates to DT is what I think is disrupting this favorable outcome..

@Theymos don't you think it is good time to blacklist some people from default trust network, for example accounts who are including scammers to their trust list?

And clear trust abusers, and possibly those including clear trust abusers on their lists..

[LoyceV]

I think the new trust system should balance out by DT observers kicking out trust abusers

Interesting idea, but who are going to be those DT observers? Isn't that the task of all DT1-members already?

[suchmoon]

I think the new trust system should balance out by DT observers kicking out trust abusers

Interesting idea, but who are going to be those DT observers? Isn't that the task of all DT1-members already?

Right on. Do it

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Is it possible to remain on DT1 when you're just sitting around quietly?

I've been wondering that about myself lately.  I haven't been nearly as active in busting scammers, account sellers, or anything as I have been in the past--there's a real-life reason for that which I won't go into, but I don't know that I'm actually sitting around quietly.  There have been DT members who've been inactive for long periods of time and have been removed because of that.  I think that's a bit different.

I think retaliation is "tacky" and not the best first method of resolution..

Even if you have been wronged, retaliating with negative trust that is also wrong or unfounded, is also wrong..
2 wrongs don't make a right..

I generally agree with that, and I don't think there's much retaliation in my sent feedbacks.  Most of the negs I've been given were in retaliation for tags I handed out, and there are members who've left me red trust even though I never had any dealings with them and never red-trusted them. 

Not only don't I leave retaliatory feedback, but I rarely even check my trust page anymore.  I don't think I've actually looked at it in many months. 

[eddie13]

I think the new trust system should balance out by DT observers kicking out trust abusers

Interesting idea, but who are going to be those DT observers? Isn't that the task of all DT1-members already?

Right on. Do it

I would rather get through my situation while doing the least that could be perceived as retaliation on my part as I can.. Actions by me could easily be seen as personal bias, a conflict of interest, or petty retaliation..
For now I'll keep my faith in the greater community to do what is right..
Do you think this is a poor choice of action?

I do not think it is up to DT1 members alone, but also DT2, aspiring DT users, and basically everyone in the community that may be interested, are entitled to their opinions and trust list choices..
Exercising these choices is what will get you onto DT in the first place right?

[suchmoon]

Do you think this is a poor choice of action?

Just to make it clear - I was not directing that at you, merely trying to nudge Switzerland off the fence

I think it's correct to not retaliate on your own and it should be the responsibility of other users to determine the outcome. There is a good reason jury selection IRL is the way it is. Whether this works in this random DT - I have some doubts.

[LoyceV]

Just to make it clear - I was not directing that at you, merely trying to nudge Switzerland off the fence

I still like that nickname
I'm amazed how Lauda (see http://www.islaudastillondt.tk/) went from 1 inclusion before the DT1-update to 11 inclusions yesterday and 12 inclusions now.
I remember eddie13 considered a challenge to see if Lauda would get excluded after a red tag, but by the looks of it, I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

[marlboroza]

I think everything is very nice, birds, insects, water sounds, songs ...paradise

I've been elected twice. thanks to everyone

Exactly, insects, you got that right, seems that I missed your post, so you are the one who included scammer and ban evader to your trust list:



Second DT1 account which included scammer to trust list is:




And yes, you will see me very very active because I am very very pissed right now. Fucking scammers and ban evaders becoming DT1 members.

[suchmoon]

I remember eddie13 considered a challenge to see if Lauda would get excluded after a red tag, but by the looks of it, I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

IIRC he was offering a bet on flag support. I think he would win it. Unless you switzer on that as well

[eddie13]

I remember eddie13 considered a challenge to see if Lauda would get excluded after a red tag

That was to make a flag against me for advocating free speech and get it supported, after them threatening to do so..
"you will not get a flag supported against me for advocating freedom of speech.. @ 1 week after your flag creation"
And offered to escrow 1/4BTC bet on the outcome..
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5201132.msg53075894#msg53075894


Not getting a flag supported is a lot safer bet than removed from DT IMO, which is much more difficult..
Lauda has how many failed flags? Good odds on them, lol..

[wolwoo]

I think everything is very nice, birds, insects, water sounds, songs ...paradise

I've been elected twice. thanks to everyone

Exactly, insects, you got that right, seems that I missed your post, so you are the one who included scammer and ban evader to your trust list:



Second DT1 account which included scammer to trust list is:




And yes, you will see me very very active because I am very very pissed right now. Fucking scammers and ban evaders becoming DT1 members.

you are a shooter marlboroza
I've been writing locally for years
do I ask you who to trust
You open your titles and continue to receive merits from suchmoon. Bravo to you


I added you to my trust list, why don't you show it? of course i have now

[marlboroza]

do I ask you who to trust

I am allergic to scammers shitting on my trust wall and you have one of that kind in your trust network. Are you going to remove them since it has been pointed to you or you will just ignore that they are scammer and keep scammer in your trust network?