How does the ~ (exclusion) work in the new Default Trust?

[Vod]

I never modified my trust list before the new system - I always trusted Theymos to know what was best.

Now I am using it, and I am confused about how the tilde works.

Before, if a person had more exclusions than inclusions, their trust entries against other people would be nullified.   Is that still the case now?

Another person more familiar with the system told me 

"No, it doesn't work like that. You as an individual can only exclude someone once (even if the number of inclusions is greater, your direct exclusion removes him from your own view); excluding everyone who includes (another person) is just unfair towards everyone else and doesn't do anything.."

Can someone explain it better?   

[1713571896]

1713571896

[1713571896]

1713571896

[1713571896]

1713571896

[1713571896]

1713571896

[1713571896]

1713571896

[suchmoon]

If you're in DT1 (which you are), if you exclude a DT1 or a DT2 member your exclusion counts against them, i.e. if that person has more exclusions by DT1 members than inclusions by DT1 members - they're out of DT and their posted ratings won't count in the default trust scores. This works exactly as it used to, except now it applies to DT1 as well. Previously it didn't.

In addition to that - same as before - an exclusion removes the excluded person's ratings from the trust scores that you see. That works the same for anyone (DT member or not).

[Vod]

If you're in DT1 (which you are), if you exclude a DT1 or a DT2 member your exclusion counts against them, i.e. if that person has more exclusions by DT1 members than inclusions by DT1 members - they're out of DT and their posted ratings won't count in the default trust scores. This works exactly as it used to, except now it applies to DT1 as well. Previously it didn't.

So if a scammer made it onto default trust (it is inevitable in a decentralized system rife with scammers), would excluding everyone that included that scammer remove the scammer from default trust?

[Qulian]

AFAIK if a scammer reaches DT1 then other DT1 users can exclude that scammer and he would be off DT1. No need to exclude everyone who included him.

If the scammer is on DT2 then he will be off DT2 when more DT1 users exclude him than those who include him.

[theymos]

So if a scammer made it onto default trust (it is inevitable in a decentralized system rife with scammers), would excluding everyone that included that scammer remove the scammer from default trust?

If you ignore the "DT1 voting":
 - ~ing everyone who trusts user X without ~ing X himself often won't result in X being excluded from trust networks.
 - ~ing X himself without ~ing anyone who trusts X might result in X being excluded from trust networks.
 - ~ing X himself and everyone who trusts him might result in X being excluded from trust networks, but to the exact same degree as the above option. It doesn't function as some sort of "super-exclusion".

If you take DT1 voting into account, then there's one exception: if you're on DT1 and your exclusion causes someone to drop off of DT1, then this could help you in your goal.

[suchmoon]

So if a scammer made it onto default trust (it is inevitable in a decentralized system rife with scammers), would excluding everyone that included that scammer remove the scammer from default trust?

If the scammer is in DT2: it seems to me that excluding the scammer directly is a more effective way of achieving that goal. Also easier to petition other DT1 members to do the same, which may be necessary - by definition a DT2 member needs at least two exclusions.

If the scammer is in DT1: excluding everyone who included the scammer won't change anything, you (and other DT1 members) have to exclude the scammer directly. Exclusions don't matter for DT1 "election". The users you exclude would still be able to cast their 10-merit and 250-merit votes and elect the scammer.

[theymos]

To illustrate, consider this trust list with max-depth 3:

Code:

A
  B
    C
      X
D
  E
    X
F
  X

The system processes it by depth. So it goes through this as first (A, D, F), then (B, E, X), then (C, X), then (X).

If A or D exclude X, then X will still have 0 net inclusions (+1 from F) and therefore be included. If they exclude F, then this doesn't help because F is at the same depth. If A and D exclude X, then X will have -1 net inclusions and therefore be excluded. Excluding F still doesn't help/hurt.

If F changes his trust of X to distrust of X, then X has -1 net inclusions at depth 1, so his net inclusions of 1 at depth 2 and 1 and depth 3 don't matter: he's excluded at depth 1. Whether or not B, C, or E are included/excluded by anyone here doesn't matter.

If instead E and C both change their trust of X to distrust of X, then X still has 1 net inclusions at depth 1, so his net inclusions of -1 at greater depths don't matter.

[The Cryptovator]

So if a scammer made it onto default trust (it is inevitable in a decentralized system rife with scammers), would excluding everyone that included that scammer remove the scammer from default trust?

No, exclusion of voter will not effect on DT1 network. If scammer become DT1 by voting system and he trusted by 5 DT1 but if you want to remove him from DT network then 6 DT1 should be exclude him. Its same for DT2 as well.

For example you are trusted by 31 DT1 members. If someone like to exclude you from DT network then 32 DT1 have to exclude you.

Exclusion of DT2 and other members will not effect on remove from DT network.