The DT system needs to change.

[Poker Player]

It is not my idea, it is an idea that circulates quite a lot in the Reputation section, to the point that some DT members have cleared their trust list, and others say they are thinking about it.

DireWolfM14's thread is indicative of the community's thoughts on the subject of requirements for DT2, resulting in the most popular of the choices: Net of 1, but with a minimum of 2 DT1 Inclusions.

I don't know if even now that will seem too little.

I open the thread to comment on the issue and hope that theymos ends up taking some action or at least saying something in the thread about what he thinks.

[1714520073]

1714520073

[1714520073]

1714520073

[1714520073]

1714520073

[Upgrade00]

resulting in the most popular of the choices: Net of 1, but with a minimum of 2 DT1 Inclusions.

About 27 users joined that poll, which is a low number to generalize the opinion of the community.
But, I would expect majority of the community to be in agreement with a net inclusion of 1 and minimum of 2 inclusions. This would help curb users getting placed into DT2 by increasing the entry barrier.
Maybe theymos organizes a more publicized poll to reach a decision.

Some honest users might be affected by such a cut, but if their judgement can be trusted by one DT1 users, then they can always be trusted by another overtime, as long as they are active in the trust system.

I don't know if even now that will seem too little.

Higher than the above suggestion may make it too steep for new users to get included.

[Solosanz]

Am just thinking how important is this? I understand it will reduce significant number of DT2 users and their feedback wouldn't appeared on trusted feedback. But what I mean is, which those DT2 users are leaving a wrong feedback that theymos need to adjust the current DT system with this one? AFAIK I don't see that problem.

It's a good proposal, but currently we're not really need it. The same happen like the problem of self scratching it's still not a big issue.

[Poker Player]

Any better DT system are you people proposing?

For DT2, net of 1, but with a minimum of 2 DT1 inclusions seems like it would be an improvement to start with. DT1 is more complicated, I guess it is difficult and no one has a 100% clear idea.

[Killredillla]

I don't think that DT1 trust feedback really matters. I mean, it does indeed mark your account in red and it looks bad, I guess, but so what ?

Personally, I don't really care about the rank or status of the person who gave someone a red tag, but rather the comment given and the reference link are far more important to look at, and if someone is going to make a trade with another forum member, simply looking at their green to red ratio on their profile is not a good indicator of that person's legitimacy.

[Lucius]

This should be a forum where Bitcoin is discussed, not where personal wars are waged the way people play with something called the DT system. The system we have now is quite satisfactory, but some individuals think that it is not good enough for them, or rather, they do not have enough influence to manipulate it.

A system in which the most influential would elect themselves and set the rules would obviously be tailored to those who are currently the loudest.

[Solosanz]

I don't think that DT1 trust feedback really matters. I mean, it does indeed mark your account in red and it looks bad, I guess, but so what ?

When you get a red tag by DT members, it literally mean your account already destroyed since many users will think you're a scammer, bad person, etc etc that would make you not cool in this forum. It's very important even though you're not participating a signature campaign, but it will damage your reputation and if you have a services, anyone will think twice before hiring you.

Of course a negative feedback wouldn't stop anyone to contribute in this forum, but it's very important for the other things that need a reputation score.

[_act_]

For DT2, net of 1, but with a minimum of 2 DT1 inclusions seems like it would be an improvement to start with. DT1 is more complicated, I guess it is difficult and no one has a 100% clear idea.

If only 1 DT1 inclusion is needed for DT1 to get to DT2, it is not bad at all, I am okay with that, some members will be okay with that too, but if the community support a minimum of 2 DT1 inclusions, it may also not be bad too, but just that it will be harder for people that are in DT1 to get to DT2. DT2 may become more centralized. What I think is that DT system can not be totally accurate, it will be faulty to an extent, but the good side of the one we are using now is much more than the bad side, like 80% or more good side.

Theymos can try and make a poll about this, but I do not think it is necessary. I do not want more power to be among some people that can make DT2 more centralized. Some people want this just because they are unable to manipulate the DT2, I do not know but that is what I am thinking, which makes me like this current DT system. I am not supporting this proposal.

This present DT system is good.

[LoyceV]

if the community support a minimum of 2 DT1 inclusions, it may also not be bad too, but just that it will be harder for people that are in DT1 to get to DT2.

That's not how it works, DT1-members are above DT2.

This is how the number of required DT1-inclusions influences the number of users on DT2:

I counted DT2-inclusions on Trust settings: there are 33 users with 0 (net) inclusions on DT2, and 308 with 1 inclusion.
Longer list (Update: this list includes DT1-members (when included by another DT1-member, they're on DT2 too)):

Code:

-6: 13
-5: 20
-4: 36
-3: 89
-2: 284
-1: 2723
0: 33
1: 308
2: 94
3: 61
4: 34
5: 23
6: 15
7: 9
8: 7
9: 9
10: 10
11: 7
12: 4

I'd say the minimum should be DT2 strength (2). That removes about half the users, and makes it less of a "burden" to include someone.

I still think "protesting" against DefaultTrust by emptying your Trust list is counter-effective. It may be better to remove DefaultTrust and leave your custom list.

[Poker Player]

This should be a forum where Bitcoin is discussed, not where personal wars are waged the way people play with something called the DT system. The system we have now is quite satisfactory, but some individuals think that it is not good enough for them, or rather, they do not have enough influence to manipulate it.

Hey Lucius, I hope you realize that this is a fallacy. There are parts of the forum in which to talk about Bitcoin, and other parts that are not for talking about Bitcoin, such as Meta, Reputation, and others. Talking about the trust system does not preclude talking about Bitcoin in other parts.

A system in which the most influential would elect themselves and set the rules would obviously be tailored to those who are currently the loudest.

Another fallacy. That is not the only alternative. Starting with 2 inclusions minimum, and 1 net to get into DT2 seems like some sort of oligarchy to you?

I'd say the minimum should be DT2 strength (2). That removes about half the users, and makes it less of a "burden" to include someone.

I still think "protesting" against DefaultTrust by emptying your Trust list is counter-effective. It may be better to remove DefaultTrust and leave your custom list.

I understand you would make that change for DT2 but the rest you would leave the same?

[noormcs5]

It is not my idea, it is an idea that circulates quite a lot in the Reputation section, to the point that some DT members have cleared their trust list, and others say they are thinking about it.

DireWolfM14's thread is indicative of the community's thoughts on the subject of requirements for DT2, resulting in the most popular of the choices: Net of 1, but with a minimum of 2 DT1 Inclusions.

I don't know if even now that will seem too little.

I open the thread to comment on the issue and hope that theymos ends up taking some action or at least saying something in the thread about what he thinks.

This debate is getting strong now but I don't see any reply of theymos on this discussion on any of these threads. This is the most sensitive matter and I hope he will tell his point of view on this matter. No matter how many proposals we have, if theymos is not interested nothing is going to change.

[stompix]

A system in which the most influential would elect themselves and set the rules would obviously be tailored to those who are currently the loudest.

Another fallacy. That is not the only alternative. Starting with 2 inclusions minimum, and 1 net to get into DT2 seems like some sort of oligarchy to you?

Since you're restraining access to DT2 this way, yeah it turns into an oligarchy by definition since it will be a smaller number of members with deciding power, and don't argue with me argue with the dictionary  
Lucius is perfectly right, if the system changes right now, will we have some democratic vote or it will be just because the most influential and the loudest voices will impose their opinion? And if after 6 months this side loses its members and the other is growing louder and bigger do we reshuffle it again?

Abolish the damn thing altogether, bring bag the scammer tag and let's be done with it!
Oh, wait, who will decide on the tag...shit!  

[Zarfund]

Abolish the damn thing altogether, bring bag the scammer tag and let's be done with it!

Remove the trust feature altogether and start a true freedom world 

[Poker Player]

Since you're restraining access to DT2 this way, yeah it turns into an oligarchy by definition since it will be a smaller number of members with deciding power, and don't argue with me argue with the dictionary  

You like to be categorical.

Where does the dictionary say that 500 is not an oligarchy and 250 is? 

I don't see any of that:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oligarchy

Those who are not now in DT could say the same, that the 500 in DT2 plus those in DT1 are an oligarchy.

[NeuroticFish]

This should be a forum where Bitcoin is discussed, not where personal wars are waged the way people play with something called the DT system. The system we have now is quite satisfactory, but some individuals think that it is not good enough for them, or rather, they do not have enough influence to manipulate it.

A system in which the most influential would elect themselves and set the rules would obviously be tailored to those who are currently the loudest.

Actually imho it could make sense to change this or that to give less powers to some.
This could maybe give some less room for manipulations.

I'd say the minimum should be DT2 strength (2). That removes about half the users, and makes it less of a "burden" to include someone.

This is a very interesting idea. I like it. Can we do this, please?

I still think "protesting" against DefaultTrust by emptying your Trust list is counter-effective. It may be better to remove DefaultTrust and leave your custom list.

I agree.


Something I've been thinking on was that it may be helpful to differentiate between "whose trust rating you want to see colored" and "who you want to vote for".
This way the votes will also be clearer, this way people won't say that they trust this or that account because of some trades done and so on.

[LoyceV]

There's another thing the forum needs:

I encourage anyone to create their own custom Trust list!

Advertise this! Can it be on top of each page (like "News" once in a while? I just counted: only 5053 users (except for users with no posts) have a custom Trust list. That could be much more.

[autumnleaf]

What is the meaning of DT? is it DefaultTrust? Are they merit source?

[yahoo62278]

What is the meaning of DT? is it DefaultTrust? Are they merit source?

Correct, DT=default trust and some are merit sources but being on DT doesn't make you a merit source. It's a totally different thing.

[darkangel11]

Abolish the damn thing altogether, bring bag the scammer tag and let's be done with it!

Remove the trust feature altogether and start a true freedom world  

Says the guy with negative trust. Of course if you ask around the forum 99/100 people with red trust will say it should be removed because they did nothing wrong or were a target of abuse.
The best part is that you want it to be removed because of "freedom". Red trust is exactly that. People can leave their comment on your profile if they think you did something wrong and you are free to do the same to them, or to ignore it.

[DireWolfM14]

The system we have now is quite satisfactory, but some individuals think that it is not good enough for them, or rather, they do not have enough influence to manipulate it.

The system is most certainly not satisfactory for the exact reason you cited.  Any newbie can be added to DT2 just because one DT1 member includes him.  That is a recipe for abuse, and it's been happening a lot.  Go trough any drama thread and look for newbies that took the side of a DT1 member, next thing you know that DT1 member is adding that newbie to his trust list, and BAM newbie on DT2.  Suchmoon's proposal in the thread linked by Poker Player would mitigate a lot of that.  It won't prevent it from happening, but it would make much less likely.

Making it more difficult to be included in DT2 is very likely to prevent DT cliques from developing, and reduces any one DT1 member's ability to manipulate the system.

I still think "protesting" against DefaultTrust by emptying your Trust list is counter-effective.

^This!

@yahoo62278 and @dkbit98, I really hope both of you will reconsider.  I understand your rationale, and often I think being in DT1 is not worth the headache.  But that headache is exactly why we need people like you; rational, thoughtful, restrained individuals to counter balance those who revel in the power.  If more people like you quit DT you'll be leaving the trust system to the abusers.

@suchmoon, we need you back too!