Bitcoin Forum
February 17, 2020, 01:38:09 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting  (Read 1085 times)
Veleor
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 1443


Èñj𥠆hê §ïlêñ¢ê


View Profile
March 05, 2019, 07:06:14 AM
 #61

Imagine you can some day become a REAL legend.

The only legendary that you have is ego, you're so self-centered that nothing else seems to bother you. Speaking of 'ass kissing', you're fully comply with this definition, because you're ready to support fraudsters any day if they have the same political views on 'Default Trust' as you.
You are a hypocrite, acting like a baby whose toy was taken away. With no doubts, it is better to be a newbie than such a "pro" as you are. You're a disgrase, not a legend.
1581946689
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1581946689

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1581946689
Reply with quote  #2

1581946689
Report to moderator
1581946689
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1581946689

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1581946689
Reply with quote  #2

1581946689
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2226
Merit: 4733


https://bpip.org


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2019, 01:28:41 PM
 #62

After re-reading the whole dialog I have to apologize to cryptohunter. I didn't realize Veleor is "assmuncher".

Fuck you are dumb. Look to his post above my own it says it clearly there in your assmunchers post above my own.

Is that his real name? Does this count as doxing? Getting awfully personal here.

Foxpup
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2828
Merit: 1856


Vile Vixen


View Profile
March 05, 2019, 03:41:47 PM
 #63

If you don't understand how I of all people have fought scammers then you should not even be speaking to me.
Not willing to wade through your entire post history, I'm just going to take a guess and say "by ranting incoherently about it and wondering why nobody listens". Am I close?

Will pretend to do unspeakable things (while actually eating a taco) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4
LoyceV
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 5786


Most of loyce.club works again


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2019, 03:48:00 PM
Merited by suchmoon (4)
 #64

I'm locking this (this is now post #67) until a Mod handles my reports.

I'd like to forward everybody who fed the troll to A boycott of replies to the recent extensive trolling by cryptohunter.

LoyceV
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 5786


Most of loyce.club works again


View Profile WWW
April 22, 2019, 03:24:58 PM
 #65

Unlock and bump! Please stay on topic Smiley

dragonvslinux
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 616
Merit: 205



View Profile WWW
May 28, 2019, 01:49:06 PM
Merited by LoyceV (1)
 #66

Back on topic, some food for thought. Yes, I had too much time recently and wanted to learn more about DT groups and how they function.

I understand the idea of proposed changes to DT is for the benefit of decentralization of this group, and while I don't believe hierarchical structures can become decentralized, I think they can become more accountable. Arguably, this would help make the default trust group more decentralized to some extent, as it would be accountable from the ground up, as opposed to predominantly horizontally.

For the purposes of the following, the ratios are mere examples and not proportionate, this is more theoretical mathematics than practical.

I'm wondering how a scenario would look if to be in DT1 you additionally require;
  • A minimum of <1:2 ratio of inclusions from DT1 verses exclusions from DT2.
  • This could go further and require <1:3 ratio of DT1 inclusions verses DT3 exclusions
  • And so on, <1:4 ratio of DT1 inclusions verses DT4 exclusions

Or alternatively, continue with <X:X ratios, so that to be in any of the DT groups, you require less than X:X ratio of inclusions from your DT.X group verses exclusions from DT.X(-1). Example: to be in DT2 you require <1:2 inclusions from DT2 verses exclusions from DT3. Note how DT2-4 would be less determined by DT1 in this scenario, and therefore much more experimental and unpredictable, as it would empower an exponential amount of members in 2-4 trust groups. I'm not recommending this at the moment, but more as as a direction to follow for the future, in the spirit of decentralized accountability.

In summary: if someone is proportionally un-trusted twice as a much by the trust group "below" them, as they are trusted by their own DT group, they would be demoted from that DT group. Although these ratios presumably would be better applied based on the ratios of numbers of members in DT1,2,3,etc. For example, if there is 4x more members in DT2 than DT1, then the ratio would be better set to 1:4 (proportionate % based ratios). I hope that makes some vague sense, without doing the calculations I have no idea what this would look like, but you get the idea: lower DT groups make the higher DT groups accountable.

If the DT problem isn't based on the majority of DT1 being untrustworthy but a handful of "bad apples", which I believe is probably the case, then this could remove these bad actors. I'm certain there would be some trusted DT1 members that would be maliciously removed by DT2 as a result, but it's a small sacrifice for the benefit of accountability in my opinion. Ideally, malicious DT2 actors can then be held accountable by DT3 members, and so on. I recognize there would be a need for enough members to have custom trust lists for this to work, and that probably these ideas are still too premature to implement, but there you go.

o_e_l_e_o
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 3614


Decent


View Profile
May 28, 2019, 02:02:41 PM
Merited by LoyceV (1), dragonvslinux (1)
 #67

It's an interesting thought experiment, and it would be interesting to crunch the numbers and see what changes it would have on the DT1 list.

If it were to be implemented, I would suggest changing it slightly. Let's say we have a user with 10 DT1 inclusions. As per your system, they could be excluded by 10 DT1 users and 20 DT2 users and 30 DT3 users and so on, and still be part of DT1. Surely it would make more sense to have an overall "inclusion/exclusion score". Each inclusion from a fellow DT1 would give +1 to that score. A DT1 exclusion would give -1, a DT2 exclusion would give -0.5, a DT3 exclusion would give -0.33, and so forth. They would need an overall score >0 to remain on DT1.

Having said all that, it would currently be open to massive abuse, and that would need addressed first. A DT1 user could simply add 100 sock puppets to their own trust list therefore making all those sock puppets DT2, and then exclude anyone they wanted from DT1. Perhaps some kind of counter voting system using the same or stricter merit requirements for the current voting system would work better?

dragonvslinux
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 616
Merit: 205



View Profile WWW
May 29, 2019, 08:09:29 AM
 #68

I appreciate your input, it's to the point and expands on the brainstorming I was looking for.

It's an interesting thought experiment, and it would be interesting to crunch the numbers and see what changes it would have on the DT1 list.

My thoughts exactly, emphasis on thought experiment and what the potential outcome would be.

If it were to be implemented, I would suggest changing it slightly. Let's say we have a user with 10 DT1 inclusions. As per your system, they could be excluded by 10 DT1 users and 20 DT2 users and 30 DT3 users and so on, and still be part of DT1. Surely it would make more sense to have an overall "inclusion/exclusion score". Each inclusion from a fellow DT1 would give +1 to that score. A DT1 exclusion would give -1, a DT2 exclusion would give -0.5, a DT3 exclusion would give -0.33, and so forth. They would need an overall score >0 to remain on DT1.

I like this for the simplification, it's very similar to the second part of my suggestion, but without the requirement for a minimum un-trusted threshold from one particular DT group.
It would also be much easier to calculate overall +/- trusted/untrusted values from DT members than my suggestions, from a math/programming perspective I imagine.

Having said all that, it would currently be open to massive abuse, and that would need addressed first. A DT1 user could simply add 100 sock puppets to their own trust list therefore making all those sock puppets DT2, and then exclude anyone they wanted from DT1. Perhaps some kind of counter voting system using the same or stricter merit requirements for the current voting system would work better?

Yes, I couldn't agree more. While sock puppets is a problem of sock puppets, it would easily destroy any attempts of DT decentralized accountability.
I also completely agree that a minimum merit/rank requirement would be necessary before considering to implement any of these suggestions.
This could still do with more brainstorming though, ideally from a more qualified mathematician in my mind.

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!