Pages:
Author

Topic: Default Trust Visualisation [Picture Heavy!!!] [14th Sept] - page 6. (Read 10242 times)

legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1185
dogiecoin.com
Here's the complete trust network if you want to make a larger graph:
https://bitcointalk.org/trust20150516.txt.xz

-> is "trusts", -/> is "distrusts".

Are you trying to break my computer? Because this is how you break my computer. I can transform that file into the edges [lines], but I'll need a list of nodes to generate the Depth level. Ie theymos is depth 1 yada yada. Without that I can generate the nodes but it won't be tiered. Also still going to have to delete the distrusts because its just breaks the diagram, there is no good way to represent that someone is being distrusted, while probably also trusted, while also in a Depth level.

Added depth 3 graphs for now.


I like the idea of colors depending on how trusted someone is. So default trust = 1 color -> Someone trusted by multiple defaults = a 2nd color -> Trusted by 1 default = a 3rd color -> excluded = 4th color etc..
I can control color / size based on any metric we want, so at the moment its done on depth level. I'm not sure how it works when we add multiple variables, and I'd also need a source to read people's default trust ratings which I don't currently have.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
Can I ask you who is "1heymos" and why he has this trust list:

Maybe it is a stupid question, but I would like to know if you have some information. Thanks.

According to trusted feedback, it's a Scammer imposter of theymos.

He probably just copied and pasted a list of names into his trust list.

He never used the account to actually post anything.  Is he on level 1 or 2?
legendary
Activity: 1778
Merit: 1043
#Free market
Here's the complete trust network if you want to make a larger graph:
https://bitcointalk.org/trust20150516.txt.xz

-> is "trusts", -/> is "distrusts".

Can I ask you who is "1heymos" and why he has this trust list:

1heymos
    sirius
    theymos
    allinvain
    HostFat
    Gavin Andresen
    jgarzik
    nanotube
    Stefan Thomas
    mikegogulski
    casascius
    Light
    Luke-Jr
    bitdragon
    dooglus
    Raize
    Miner-TE
    Ryland R. Taylor-Almanza
    ADgordo
    grue
    Maged
    will
    eleuthria
    luv2drnkbr
    Bogart
    MemoryDealers
    Digigami
    Sukrim
    gmaxwell
    E
    Kluge
    piotr_n
    evoorhees
    datafish
    zapeta
    Isepick
    NielDLR
    kjj
    adrd
    smooth
    bitpop
    rb1205
    majamalu
    Mousepotato
    jwzguy
    paci
    Carnth
    TECSHARE
    Caesium
    tysat
    dilatedPixel
    Graet
    dserrano5
    piuk
    haploid23
    phantastisch
    OgNasty
    CanaryInTheMine
    SebastianJu
    ipxtreme
    Stemby
    tulkos
    zvs
    -ck
    Rassah
    Otoh
    jackjack
    CecilNiosaki
    Philj
    Lord F(r)og
    malevolent
    Eisenhower34
    GoWest
    os2sam
    yxt
    qwk
    knybe
    the joint
    aigeezer
    CrazyGuy
    smoothie
    sveetsnelda
    conv3rsion
    btc_jumpnrl
    ziomik
    bitcoin-rigs.com
    Korbman
    paraipan
    burger
    BitcoinEXpress
    usagi
    Vod
    dtmcnamara
    etotheipi
    John (John K.)
    ercolinux
    Unacceptable
    Michail1
    danieldaniel
    notme
    Mushroomized
    wallet.dat
    greeners
    kano
    dribbits
    echris1
    maxmint
    dree12
    Tomatocage
    Mushoz
    SaltySpitoon
    bitcoiner49er
    ineededausername
    Deprived
    DeaDTerra
    DeathAndTaxes
    BadBear
    freshzive
    arklan
    El Cabron
    CIYAM
    glendall
    Pistachio
    tarrant_01
    Koekiemonster
    tbcoin
    ElideN
    Timbo925
    friedcat
    TheJuice
    Bees Brothers
    Christoban
    Stale
    af_newbie
    eroxors
    camolist
    Blazr
    LouReed
    MrTeal
    cncguru
    xkrikl
    vgo
    Mendacium
    Cablez
    BCB
    PsychoticBoy
    Dabs
    DiamondCardz
    mem
    Namworld
    Winterfrost
    Xenophon
    lky_svn
    diego1000
    btharper
    davecoin
    Choroid Plexus
    burnside
    DannyHamilton
    420
    strello
    LoweryCBS
    mr2dave
    DobZombie
    Adrian-x
    lophie
    gektek
    johnny5
    dyingdreams
    Zillions
    phrog
    demcoins
    Domrada
    Mapuo
    philipma1957
    jborkl
    RicRock
    Ago_Solvo
    jmutch
    MonocleMan
    stenkross
    tolan77
    Benson Samuel
    $username
    buysellbitcoin
    b!z
    CoinHoarder
    absinth
    nonnakip
    LuisCar
    KWH
    mitty
    johnniewalker
    (^_^)
    soy
    GIANNAT
    super3
    subvolatil
    iluvpcs
    batt01
    crashoveride54902
    bertani
    Cripto
    VJain
    escrow.ms
    shiftybugger
    xstr8guy
    uhnonamiss
    davos
    MJGrae
    mobile
    nubbins
    Vezunchik
    ThickAsThieves
    cooldgamer
    hephaist0s
    Rawted
    BitcoinValet
    Timzim103
    Stunna
    Rounder
    shawshankinmate37927
    Nemo1024
    TheXev
    fluidjax
    ioxoi
    ibminer
    Mooshire
    Benny1985
    Wardrick
    mrbrt
    hanti
    vitalemontea
    lazlopanaflex
    byt411
    ssinc
    Kaega
    finlof
    Chainsaw
    rottenchris
    elchorizo
    BladeRunner
    Boelens
    fewerlaws
    btclvr
    bitterdog
    BigBitz
    Swimmer63
    locksmith9
    buysolar
    Krellan
    binaryFate
    SilentSonicBoom
    markj113
    Spendulus
    MikeMike
    statdude
    xetsr
    bluespaceant
    Hiroaki
    keeron
    Dragooon
    Bigdaddyaz
    TomUnderSea
    Polyatomic
    Evilish
    tyrion70
    palmface
    rarkenin
    gudmunsn
    flowdab
    SpaceCadet
    photon
    dwdoc
    spartan82
    xzempt
    jdany
    mackstuart
    bmoconno
    jdot007
    mrtg
    TookDk
    Badman0316
    goose20
    maxpower
    Chris_Sabian
    xjack
    Equate
    CommanderVenus
    Mitchełł
    idee2013
    daddyfatsax
    Plesk
    helipotte
    aurel57
    gambitv
    Jgguy
    boyohi
    LaserHorse
    joeventura
    nkocevar
    Tywill
    xhomerx10
    ghibly79
    slashopt
    drofdelm
    canth
    zackclark70
    cdogster
    DBOD
    addzz
    ks1
    DefaultTrust
    DustMite
    pixl8tr
    namoom
    blblr
    Taugeran
    stex2009
    arc45
    smscotten
    Cilantro
    chadtn
    Taras
    kinger1331
    guytechie
    rumlazy
    fractalbc
    fforforest
    KyrosKrane
    ZBC3
    rj11248
    bitdigger2013
    Damnsammit
    jaslo
    Sampey
    BorisAlt
    ASICSAUCE
    favdesu
    sidehack
    steelcave
    Rotorgeek
    buyer99
    daddyhutch
    digeros
    west17m
    Trillium
    Stratobitz
    Blazedout419
    BrianDeery
    ziggysisland
    devthedev
    ryhan
    BayAreaCoins
    zac2013
    nachius
    atomriot
    metal_jacke1
    Apheration
    johoe
    spacebob
    2byZi
    terrapinflyer
    marcotheminer
    cxboyminer
    BenTheRighteous
    gsr18
    Paddy
    Jennifer Smith
    LazerViking
    MoreBloodWine
    BITMAIN
    bobtaj
    Sovereign_Curtis
    J_Dubbs
    hilariousandco
    00Smurf
    instacash
    firejuan
    Clayce
    ldh37
    MadZ
    thomslik
    IronMarvel
    argakiig
    shorena
    artw1982
    Cheeseater
    KCmining
    Powell
    ManeBjorn
    mitzie
    redsn0w
    Ski72
    suchmoon
    crowetic
    pcfli
    Thai
    jonald_fyookball
    Zoomhash_michael
    Jaaawsh
    KaChingCoinDev
    shdvb
    SDRebel
    sjc1490
    OldScammerTag
    LYCAN
    Quickseller
    Kialara
    Spodermen
    MobyDick_Poloniex
    FACTOM



Maybe it is a stupid question, but I would like to know if you have some information. Thanks.
legendary
Activity: 2128
Merit: 1119
I like the idea of colors depending on how trusted someone is. So default trust = 1 color -> Someone trusted by multiple defaults = a 2nd color -> Trusted by 1 default = a 3rd color -> excluded = 4th color etc..
administrator
Activity: 5222
Merit: 13032
Here's the complete trust network if you want to make a larger graph:
https://bitcointalk.org/trust20150516.txt.xz

-> is "trusts", -/> is "distrusts".
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1185
dogiecoin.com
It will be good if you use different colors for different users in depth 1 to know who they trust. Now it is hard to differentiate.

Colors are best kept for depth level otherwise it really does become a mess. You can see who in depth 1 is trusting who by the names nearest to them. Those on the periphery of forced atlas are trusted by one person, those towards the centre often multiple people. The same goes with Yifan Hu which is meant to represent that.

Thanks but using a light colors won't be a mess. I was talking about



It is hard to differentiate trust list on a user basis in this image. It will be good if you test with different colors with your software and if it is messy, avoid it.

On the levels version it sort of works but I can't get it to implement. There is too much cross promotion within Depth 1 which keeps overriding the colours, and then any Depth 2'ers who are shared get weird colors. The Yifan Hu is a better representation of Depth 1 -> 2 groupings, levels are meant to represent the relative sizes of levels and distribution within levels.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
It will be good if you use different colors for different users in depth 1 to know who they trust. Now it is hard to differentiate.

Colors are best kept for depth level otherwise it really does become a mess. You can see who in depth 1 is trusting who by the names nearest to them. Those on the periphery of forced atlas are trusted by one person, those towards the centre often multiple people. The same goes with Yifan Hu which is meant to represent that.

Thanks but using a light colors won't be a mess. I was talking about



It is hard to differentiate trust list on a user basis in this image. It will be good if you test with different colors with your software and if it is messy, avoid it.
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1185
dogiecoin.com
It will be good if you use different colors for different users in depth 1 to know who they trust. Now it is hard to differentiate.

Colors are best kept for depth level otherwise it really does become a mess. You can see who in depth 1 is trusting who by the names nearest to them. Those on the periphery of forced atlas are trusted by one person, those towards the centre often multiple people. The same goes with Yifan Hu which is meant to represent that.
legendary
Activity: 2422
Merit: 1451
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
Thanks for this visualisation. It helps people realise who they're 'trusting' if they follow only vanilla default trust. DeaDTerra is a great example of how the trust list can be outlandish at times. He hasn't been active in the forum for almost a year, which means that his list hasn't been updated for a long, long time, it could include scammers, sold accounts and such. Yet, it's still affecting people that choose to put default trust in their trust field.
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000
I personally think a better reaction would be to exclude them from your trust network and to ignore their future comments.

Have you done that with everyone that has written false things about you?   You haven't left any negative feedback to someone who hasn't scammed?

His negative rep on me is classic lies and libel. Anonymous people running escrow have little or no standing to offer up trust ratings especially when they support proven frauds like dogie. This time Mr. STANFORD and his protégé QS picked the wrong ethical person in me to mess with. I have actually held money for people and can be trusted and like you VOD a wonderfully red trust rating for attacking known fraudsters like dogie, loshia, marto. Dogie and QS are far from ethical spectrum you or I think of. Being wrong is OK in our books not in theirs.
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
I personally think a better reaction would be to exclude them from your trust network and to ignore their future comments.

Have you done that with everyone that has written false things about you?   You haven't left any negative feedback to someone who hasn't scammed?
Everyone hasn't gotten to that point but once they get annoying enough they do make their way onto my ignore list after I explain why they are wrong.

I have not given negative trust to anyone that has not scammed, tried to scam, acted in extremely unethical ways, or showed strong evidence of the above.

If they slander myself (or someone else) then they just lost all of my respect, and would trade/interact accordingly.
legendary
Activity: 1778
Merit: 1043
#Free market
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
I couldn't have said it any better, i agree with this, trust system as it is now is terrible. Like you said, one would have to do trades with higher tiered users to get green rating,

I have done trades with hardly any one, yet I have a positive 40 trust, so that statement is not entirely correct.   Undecided

In my case, I received my trust and my position on default trust, by my ethics and actions in being aggressive against scammers.

I can't tell you how many times I have been told "If you don't like what I'm doing, you don't have to trade with me!".  That's not the way I work - if I see a scammer I call them out. I don't just turn my back on someone being raped either.  I actually volunteer with the Guardian Angels society in Edmonton.  And my real life identity is well known!

"The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing"

Edit:  Funny but relevant, the Facebook "On this Day" feature tells me I posted this link five years ago today.  Smiley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1000
Satoshi is rolling in his grave. #bitcoin
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1032
RIP Mommy
Someone that, over time, slanders others, will eventually make their way onto people's ignore list. If you really are as honest as others believe you to be (and as I believe you to be) (and as you present yourself to be) then no one will take such slander without proof.

Just because proof is an absolute defense to libel/slander does not mean that libel/slander lacking proof isn't a revocation of trust-worthy offense in any just society.
Well my point is that just because someone is libeling you does not make them a scammer. There are plenty of examples both here and in the real world when people have libeled others, could not back up their claims with facts and then lost credibility. (FWIW, you still appear in my trust list and I have not excluded you from my list- therefore I personally find your ratings credible)

And as I said back then...
If someone is willing to damage someone's reputation by lying about their commission of the ultimate individual crime of violence (second overall only to mass murder), that's far worse IMO than simply committing property crimes, aka scamming. Perhaps there should be a double negative rating that covers accusations and defenses of heinous violent crimes.

To make it absolutely clear...
Murder>Theft

Well my point is that just because someone is libeling you does not make them a scammer.

Maybe not a scammer, but certainly untrustworthy.  TS for example, tried for months to damage my credibility with libel.  In my mind, that makes him untrustworthy and I left the appropriate trust.

So as we can see here, Vod's general reasoning on libel and neg trust is functionally indistinguishable from mine. I wonder what would have happened if my libeler targeted Vod instead of or in addition to me? Would Vod, like me, have been wiped off the trust map entirely because 1) THAT libeler is special 2) no other libeler in Vod's opinion, appears to be special enough to wipe him 3) Vod doesn't believe himself to be "protected"?

this was my final edit, you can quote safely now
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
I personally think a better reaction would be to exclude them from your trust network and to ignore their future comments.

Have you done that with everyone that has written false things about you?   You haven't left any negative feedback to someone who hasn't scammed?
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
Well my point is that just because someone is libeling you does not make them a scammer.

Maybe not a scammer, but certainly untrustworthy.  TS for example, tried for months to damage my credibility with libel.  In my mind, that makes him untrustworthy and I left the appropriate trust.
I personally think a better reaction would be to exclude them from your trust network and to ignore their future comments.

While I don't think TECHShARE makes valid points regarding the trust system, I don't think he is a scammer and would trust him with my money. I think giving him negative trust only gives more people an incentive to troll you
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
Well my point is that just because someone is libeling you does not make them a scammer.

Maybe not a scammer, but certainly untrustworthy.  TS for example, tried for months to damage my credibility with libel.  In my mind, that makes him untrustworthy and I left the appropriate trust.
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
Someone that, over time, slanders others, will eventually make their way onto people's ignore list. If you really are as honest as others believe you to be (and as I believe you to be) (and as you present yourself to be) then no one will take such slander without proof.

Just because proof is an absolute defense to libel/slander does not mean that libel/slander lacking proof isn't a revocation of trust-worthy offense in any just society.
Well my point is that just because someone is libeling you does not make them a scammer. There are plenty of examples both here and in the real world when people have libeled others, could not back up their claims with facts and then lost credibility. (FWIW, you still appear in my trust list and I have not excluded you from my list- therefore I personally find your ratings credible)
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1032
RIP Mommy
Someone that, over time, slanders others, will eventually make their way onto people's ignore list. If you really are as honest as others believe you to be (and as I believe you to be) (and as you present yourself to be) then no one will take such slander without proof.

Just because proof is an absolute defense to libel/slander does not mean that libel/slander lacking proof isn't a revocation of trust-worthy offense in any just society.

In a libel action, unless the plaintiff is a public official or public figure, the plaintiff does not need to prove financial damages. The common law has made a policy determination that the publication of defamatory statements in a transmittable, affixed form that is capable of widespread and simple dissemination will certainly cause damage and therefore damage to one's reputation or character is enough for a court to impose damages.

The libel was complete regardless if anyone will admit to believing in it.
Pages:
Jump to: