Topic: BitcoinTalk++ script - v0.2.96 - page 49. (Read 114219 times)

I confirm!

"the mods"? You mean me? The point is I'm not sure I want to take time to moderate this.
Also, as far as I understand what you propose, it seems everybody would trust everybody. I don't think that's a good thing because yes I fear we underestimate cheaters.


Yeah I shouldn't be coding at that time... Nor replying to anything.

I'll look at this bet then.
No, I won't tag him yet don't worry.



AND... The lists!
Please confirm that you found your list and that it is ok (and that it change when you change your votes!)
http://jackjack.alwaysdata.net/btoplusone/voteslist.php
(the order is random)

Exactly. Easy to use, not confined to people who care.

Too tired to think about this tag attribution for now, going to bed just after that (I'm on vacations, but you know what time it is, too... )


No, I'm talking about another bet with someone else, on that forum, a bet that he lost. But strange as it seems, Runeks didn't claim his due BTC, so I might be missing some pieces.
Don't tag Josh, yet, please. Or just with a "Swearing & stealing child" one.

Et... Dodo. 

Of course, he being the one holding the db was the first concern I raised (in pm, beleive it or not), besides from the use of monkey scripts.
Even though I highly trust him.

I voted for a full disclosure on +1/-1 attributions, even though I understand mods fear a war through it.
But if you check trust ratings of users like John or Tomato, you'll understand the war is actually already going.

People don't use the trust system enough, in my opinion.

The best way I can think of would be to

- Allow people to easily, "one click" tiny-trust rating (0.01)
- Allow people to add a ref link to send a "major-trust" rating (0.1)
- On such "ref link", major trust ratings, allow anyone to up or down vote it, making it become either (0.001) or (10), or anything in between (or below, or above, I don't know).

Just add the possibility to report a "ref link", so the mods can check for abuse and take action.
If anyone abuses the report feature, mods can take action too. And we're good!

Pretty much as transactions are safe thanks to the longest block chain, I think this place would be safe if everyone could single click a trust confirmation, cheaters would have no way to "double-trust".

Or maybe I'm just completely underestimating cheaters.

LOL, wow that was a brain freeze on my part.  I didn't put two and two together, think I'll go make an extra strong coffee

I'm actually very surprised to see you vouch for a "single man" decision system.
As you seem to understand how *funny* it can be, with all the recent examples.

Very solid point there, I'm definitely on the side of it's his program so it's his decision... better to have someone make a final decision than people try to game the system.

Ok I get it, let's get back to English so that everybody can participate

To sum up you want a system like the theymos' one but without a default trust list and easier to use so that people are encouraged to build their trust list.
I'm 100% ok to code that but the problem is that it won't be possible with the current hosting and actually I even doubt any free hosting would be enough.
As I'm still a student for a bit (not long hopefully) I prefer keeping my fiat for paying my flat+cost of living and my BTC just in case.[/baaaaw]
The bottom line is that I can't afford a "real" hosting for now, which makes such a system impossible.

So meanwhile it's either me giving tags with consent of a majority of users or nothing. I understand how this is a problem that I am the final judge but I think it's the better temporary solution. Would giving people veto power to users make the situation better? In any case, trust me, I'd prefer code than discussing who disserve a tag.

I read about this famous 1000BTC donation he promised to a charity but never checked anything. If it is an established fact that he promised this and never delivered, Josh is a good candidate for a scammer tag IMO!

Not for long! The poll seems stuck on the "hidden" option, so the hashed lists are coming soon: everybody will be able to check that his list is genuine

Well, I'll discuss tags here and explain why I take each decision so people can chose to hide the tags if they don't agree to my views
As I said earlier I do see the problem though

Nice workaround!
Name them so that I give them a Censor tag!

---

I plan to publish the number of scammer votes someone has, so anyone would be able to bring our attention on him


Actually I can(will) publish the hash of voters along with their list of votes so if everyone checks his list then it's proved that I didn't modify votes
The only thing I could do is making sockpuppets

Another interesting fact:  Matthew N. Wright has +4/4 as well and he has been a fairly outspoken and controversial member in the past.

But this is his program, and since he has no affiliation with the forum wouldn't be a problem. It would be better if he was hands off, but there's no way to prove he doesn't go into the database and change sometimes. So at the end of the day he will have an executive decision.

Which is exactly what I'm trying to convince him not to get into. Having "executive decision" power sucks.
He should just be allowed to give his opinion, as anyone.

I'm sure it's because you're working too much

Would something like this fit?

yeah, yeah... Just google translate.

Yeah, let's go for that!


Voilà, c'est exactement ce qui me dérange. Tu es le seul juge, là. Et comme tu penses que ces pourritures méritent ce tag (à mon avis, ils méritent bien pire, mais ce n'est pas le sujet ), tu l'accepteras si quelqu'un le soumets, alors que si à l'époque de ce post :
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scammer-kouye-271284
Si je t'avais demandé de tager guoweang, tu aurais probablement pris des distances, à juste titre (et à tort, finalement )

J'aime bien l'idée que chacun puisse donner son avis, que chacun puisse piocher dans les avis des personnes qu'il estime.
En fait, la seule chose que je n'aime pas dans le système actuel est le fait qu'on nous impose une liste de gens de confiance par défaut, au lieu de nous pousser à la construire nous-même.

J'apprécie cependant qu'on puisse retirer qui on veut de cette liste. L'administrateur principal n'est pas dans ma liste, par exemple, même s'il a de grandes qualités, je pense juste qu'il manque de temps et donc de discernement.

Pour finir, je n'aime pas trop l'idée d'une entité centrale qui propagerait ses sentiments à propos d'un utilisateur. Ce misérable imbécile de Josh doit toujours 1000 BTC à Runeks, par exemple, à moins que j'aie raté un truc. Et il n'a toujours pas été banni par la police locale.

Juste... Décentralisation.

Et je le répète, j'ai une parfaite confiance en toi, et c'est quand tu veux pour une bière ou deux... Mais juste, je suis réticent sur le fait que tu sois le seul à avoir accès à la base des +1/-1, et d'autant plus maintenant, si tu t’octroies le pouvoir de décider qui mérite un tag, et quel tag.

Avec tout mon respect!


People complained to theymos, for NSFW (bullshit) reasons, and he removed my avatar.
So I just threw a coin on it to make it more "on topic", submited back, and was granted approval.

MNW == Matthew N. Wright


I'm not sure what bothers you and maybe I wasn't clear enough. (though if I misunderstood you please PM me, it would be clearer using the most beautiful language in the world )
For instance the tag wouldn't be durable nor personal. I would ask people's opinion on this thread beforehand and it would be subject to change.
As for the "why", it was just a synonym to "reference" and rather meaningless. I don't think I'll accept all contributions though. For example I'm thinking about BFL: I won't tag them scammers but a "don't expect their product before next year" tag would be fine IMO.
Also, if discussing with users isn't enough to make everybody confortable with the tags I made the tags hidable (in the settings page, as always).
Finally, the list will soon (in two weeks) be published.

For now 3 people are (negatively) tagged:

• MNW (as "untrustworthy", only humor though)
• narayan (as "Attempted code injection on bitcointalk": https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/narayan-attempted-code-injection-274749)
• anyroll (as "SCAMMER, Phishing", he launched a fake giveaway then sent a phishing PM ("you won, please login to your account through this link to receive it") to everybody who posted in the thread. The original thread was deleted but I was there and received the phishing PM. This is a thread about the giveaway: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--109468)

Anyway, thanks for your post, the script is made to please people so I need this kind of inputs to keep me on the right track


PS: Why did you censor the unicorn?!?

PS2: BTW, HTTPS done

I'm sorry, but I really dislike the fact you would be the final judge on those submissions.
As much as I respect you, absolutely trust you, and am thankful for your work, please stay away from spreading durable personal opinion here.

Either remove the "/why" and accept all contributions, or accept none. Posting this to protect you more than anything else.

Again, cheers for all the great work

If you want me to give spammer/untrustworthy/beware tags to someone, send me (PM or here) username/reference/why

Interesting fact: MNW has +4/4 whereas he as a super dark Ignore button

I know. I just wanted to say sorry, because I don't want to look like a beggers or something like that.

I was only joking! I much prefer receiving many suggestions and interest than not enough
As I told you I will put positive tags once the script reaches enough users

Alrighty and sorry for asking. ;c

Oh no, what have I done?? Tag beggers are coming!

Just joking, though I made this system for negative tags, not positive ones. I mainly want to avoid newbies falling for known/potential scams for now.
IMO positive tags are not necessary until there is a decent amount of users.