Solid, well defined principles that are followed as much as possible. Not more variables to an equation.
Who's going to enforce those principles and how?
Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 120. (Read 85467 times)
Who's going to enforce those principles and how?
For years I've been unhappy with how DefaultTrust ended up as a centralized and largely-untouchable authority...
What is more centralized and untouchable authority than you unilaterally getting to exclude people from default trust no matter how many others trust them?
I agree. I think we're needlessly complicating an already complicated system even more and I don't see how much different this system is. I think it will probably actually involve more collusion and backroom deals to exclude people to get them off DT. Older users with friends here will benefit more from it whilst newer users will still be flummoxed by it.
It seems like I raised these issues years ago, but I am a bad man and must be ignored. Now, years later, it is suddenly an issue again. The trust system just turns more and more into a nightmarish Rube Goldberg machine with each new "improvement".
You know what the trust system lacks and desperately needs? Solid, well defined principles that are followed as much as possible. Not more variables to an equation.
And I want to insist on my suggestion regarding trust: guest should see some trust. Default trust would make sense but any trust. Non registered users are still being scammed by known scammers because they don't see the tags.
I'd also like to see trust on all boards that show signatures. I'm mainly thinking about user Velkro, who advertises his scam site in his signature and mainly posts on boards that don't show trust ratings.I doubt theymos would change it but I'd like the option to choose at least. Maybe it should be hidden by default but a toggle option to show trust in all sections could be given for those that want it.
For years I've been unhappy with how DefaultTrust ended up as a centralized and largely-untouchable authority...
What is more centralized and untouchable authority than you unilaterally getting to exclude people from default trust no matter how many others trust them?
I agree. I think we're needlessly complicating an already complicated system even more and I don't see how much different this system is. I think it will probably actually involve more collusion and backroom deals to exclude people to get them off DT. Older users with friends here will benefit more from it whilst newer users will still be flummoxed by it.
However, there's a small problem. Complete removal isn't possible without theymoses manual intervention, and this:
Theymoses and his holy default trust commandments.
Have there been cases like this?
Yes. This thread (where I try to warn users to register before dealing, avoid locked or self-moderated threads and check others' trust) gets a lot of "I wish I had read this before. I was already scammed by [tagged/known scammer here]"Thank you Buddy
Hello.
In this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5096004.new#new
I try to deal with a negative attitude towards me and towards a situation in which no one was injured and was not deceived ... except me.
And according to the answers, I am convinced that theymos was right, that several people can put up with negative trust with impunity
In this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5096004.new#new
I try to deal with a negative attitude towards me and towards a situation in which no one was injured and was not deceived ... except me.
And according to the answers, I am convinced that theymos was right, that several people can put up with negative trust with impunity
Theymos, would it be possible to update the trust.txt data dump much more frequent than once a week?
One thing rounding my mind. If a scammer make his won trust network and complete criteria to become DT1 then there is any other way to remove him from DT1 without theymos help ?
You just have to read the first post again.#1
As a special exception to the normal algorithm for determining a user's trust network, if you are on the default trust list ("DT1") but more other DT1 members distrust you than explicitly trust you, then it is as if you are distrusted by the default trust list for all purposes except for this very DT1-composition determination.
So if someone on DT1 is doing something stupid, you can ask other DT1 members to distrust them.
See here for live info on this "DT voting".
As a special exception to the normal algorithm for determining a user's trust network, if you are on the default trust list ("DT1") but more other DT1 members distrust you than explicitly trust you, then it is as if you are distrusted by the default trust list for all purposes except for this very DT1-composition determination.
So if someone on DT1 is doing something stupid, you can ask other DT1 members to distrust them.
See here for live info on this "DT voting".
However, there's a small problem. Complete removal isn't possible without theymoses manual intervention, and this:
@theymos I think that you should tweak DT1 so that the exclusions from excluded DT1 members don't have any effect, the same way that their inclusions shouldn't. If the majority distrusts someone (e.g. a case example would be HostFat), then their trust list shouldn't affect DefaultTrust.
This to me seems like another possibly way to compromise DT over time: Keep getting accounts in that fit the criteria, even though the majority excludes them and suddenly switch once you have the adequate number. Or you could simply be a nuisance by maliciously excluding certain people from DT2 just for the sake of doing so.
While the possibility of DT1 members excluding each others creates more dynamic (by allowing consensus to form), it does not seem fully utilized until out actually means more than 'your ratings aren't trusted by default anymore'. Just a thought. Maybe that could/should also change in real time.
This to me seems like another possibly way to compromise DT over time: Keep getting accounts in that fit the criteria, even though the majority excludes them and suddenly switch once you have the adequate number. Or you could simply be a nuisance by maliciously excluding certain people from DT2 just for the sake of doing so.
While the possibility of DT1 members excluding each others creates more dynamic (by allowing consensus to form), it does not seem fully utilized until out actually means more than 'your ratings aren't trusted by default anymore'. Just a thought. Maybe that could/should also change in real time.
I thought that I had a good idea for limiting each individual truster when handling the last two criteria: set it up as a circulation problem as below, and then find the maximum flow. The "user tX"s through whom flow passes would be the DT1s selected.
(The orders of the users would be randomized on each run.)
There are efficient algorithms for maximizing the flow in problems similar to this, which is why thinking about it in this way occurred to me. However, it turns out that the "exactly 0 or exactly 10" requirement on the rightmost edges makes finding an exact solution too difficult.
Dude, just do what you want and leave us out with your maths spinning Harry Potter skills. We aren't in a maths class here. Besides, if you are going to use the Merit gained as criterion for determining the DT, then it is flawed from the beginning. Isn't merit most times abused here?(The orders of the users would be randomized on each run.)
There are efficient algorithms for maximizing the flow in problems similar to this, which is why thinking about it in this way occurred to me. However, it turns out that the "exactly 0 or exactly 10" requirement on the rightmost edges makes finding an exact solution too difficult.
BTW, so Lauda is suddenly awaken from her slumber?
@theymos I think that you should tweak DT1 so that the exclusions from excluded DT1 members don't have any effect, the same way that their inclusions shouldn't. If the majority distrusts someone (e.g. a case example would be HostFat), then their trust list shouldn't affect DefaultTrust.
This to me seems like another possibly way to compromise DT over time: Keep getting accounts in that fit the criteria, even though the majority excludes them and suddenly switch once you have the adequate number. Or you could simply be a nuisance by maliciously excluding certain people from DT2 just for the sake of doing so.
While the possibility of DT1 members excluding each others creates more dynamic (by allowing consensus to form), it does not seem fully utilized until out actually means more than 'your ratings aren't trusted by default anymore'. Just a thought. Maybe that could/should also change in real time.
This to me seems like another possibly way to compromise DT over time: Keep getting accounts in that fit the criteria, even though the majority excludes them and suddenly switch once you have the adequate number. Or you could simply be a nuisance by maliciously excluding certain people from DT2 just for the sake of doing so.
While the possibility of DT1 members excluding each others creates more dynamic (by allowing consensus to form), it does not seem fully utilized until out actually means more than 'your ratings aren't trusted by default anymore'. Just a thought. Maybe that could/should also change in real time.
Hmm interesting, tho I still haven't fully understood how the system works.
It is still clear to me that not all who were a part of DT1 are not that legible in my opinion. (Basically I am still basing their trust to how they act before). Tho I will be watching this and currently looking forward for a good result
It is still clear to me that not all who were a part of DT1 are not that legible in my opinion. (Basically I am still basing their trust to how they act before). Tho I will be watching this and currently looking forward for a good result
For years I've been unhappy with how DefaultTrust ended up as a centralized and largely-untouchable authority...
What is more centralized and untouchable authority than you unilaterally getting to exclude people from default trust no matter how many others trust them?
Ok. I'm not sure would the "Warning! Trade with extreme caution!" help that much as there are tons of red flags anyway in those dealings. Users falling for those scams are likely not reading much of anything, so how big are chances they'd notice or care about some warnings. I'd guess that people fall on scams like those that are on other websites, too. There simply isn't a way to protect some people from getting scammed.
E.g. in #bitcoin-otc people sometimes got scammed even though they knew perfectly well how to defend themselves against getting scammed. Most often the reason was laziness -- a simple command to a bot would've revealed a scammer. A bot warned about most of the scammers, but still people fell on simple stuff. And bot warns about Paypal and CC's, still people get scammed by chargebackers, and so on..
E.g. in #bitcoin-otc people sometimes got scammed even though they knew perfectly well how to defend themselves against getting scammed. Most often the reason was laziness -- a simple command to a bot would've revealed a scammer. A bot warned about most of the scammers, but still people fell on simple stuff. And bot warns about Paypal and CC's, still people get scammed by chargebackers, and so on..
So because some users are stupid we shouldn't warn any users?
Are you sure your anti-DT vendetta isn't getting in the way of your judgement? YOU'RE IN IT so be part of the solution, stop being part of the problem.
Have there been cases like this?
Yes. This thread (where I try to warn users to register before dealing, avoid locked or self-moderated threads and check others' trust) gets a lot of "I wish I had read this before. I was already scammed by [tagged/known scammer here]"Ok. I'm not sure would the "Warning! Trade with extreme caution!" help that much as there are tons of red flags anyway in those dealings. Users falling for those scams are likely not reading much of anything, so how big are chances they'd notice or care about some warnings. I'd guess that people fall on scams like those that are on other websites, too. There simply isn't a way to protect some people from getting scammed.
E.g. in #bitcoin-otc people sometimes got scammed even though they knew perfectly well how to defend themselves against getting scammed. Most often the reason was laziness -- a simple command to a bot would've revealed a scammer. A bot warned about most of the scammers, but still people fell on simple stuff. And bot warns about Paypal and CC's, still people get scammed by chargebackers, and so on..
Have there been cases like this?
Yes. This thread (where I try to warn users to register before dealing, avoid locked or self-moderated threads and check others' trust) gets a lot of "I wish I had read this before. I was already scammed by [tagged/known scammer here]" And I want to insist on my suggestion regarding trust: guest should see some trust. Default trust would make sense but any trust. Non registered users are still being scammed by known scammers because they don't see the tags.
This is a problem that has no real fix. Scammers will then start sending manipulated screen shots or manipulate user to change victims trust list. Etc.
Again, I think it's good that default trust system gets no more space than it already has. If non-registered visitors saw some trust score / ratings, based on DT obviously, it would give more legitimacy to DT.
The scenario is simple:
- Someone looks for "cheap amazon giftcards" on Google
- A post on bitcointalk appears. He goes there
- An auto-buy link appears (posted by a scammer with red trust, with fake vouches, on a self-moderated, locked thread)
- The user can't see the red trust and doesn't know about self-moderated, locked threads. So he goes ahead and gets scammed without even PM'ing the scammer
There is a solution (maybe not absolute but far better than nothing) and it's simple. Showing some trust for them will drastically reduce the amount of guests being scammed.
Right. My concerns were for the targeted scam attempts. I wonder if threads can be SEO'd to make what you described a significant issue? Have there been cases like this?
And I want to insist on my suggestion regarding trust: guest should see some trust. Default trust would make sense but any trust. Non registered users are still being scammed by known scammers because they don't see the tags.
This is a problem that has no real fix. Scammers will then start sending manipulated screen shots or manipulate user to change victims trust list. Etc.
Again, I think it's good that default trust system gets no more space than it already has. If non-registered visitors saw some trust score / ratings, based on DT obviously, it would give more legitimacy to DT.
The scenario is simple:
- Someone looks for "cheap amazon giftcards" on Google
- A post on bitcointalk appears. He goes there
- An auto-buy link appears (posted by a scammer with red trust, with fake vouches, on a self-moderated, locked thread)
- The user can't see the red trust and doesn't know about self-moderated, locked threads. So he goes ahead and gets scammed without even PM'ing the scammer
There is a solution (maybe not absolute but far better than nothing) and it's simple. Showing some trust for them will drastically reduce the amount of guests being scammed.
I'd also like to see trust on all boards that show signatures
Yes. It makes sense too. And I want to insist on my suggestion regarding trust: guest should see some trust. Default trust would make sense but any trust. Non registered users are still being scammed by known scammers because they don't see the tags.
This is a problem that has no real fix. Scammers will then start sending manipulated screen shots or manipulate user to change victims trust list. Etc.
Again, I think it's good that default trust system gets no more space than it already has. If non-registered visitors saw some trust score / ratings, based on DT obviously, it would give more legitimacy to DT.
And I want to insist on my suggestion regarding trust: guest should see some trust. Default trust would make sense but any trust.
That is an excellent idea - I can add it to the BPIP extension.
Great! But I don't think too many guests will have that extension, unfortunately. The change needs to be made on the forum itself so that it affects people who come here for the first time, probably from Google or other search engines.
And I want to insist on my suggestion regarding trust: guest should see some trust. Default trust would make sense but any trust. Non registered users are still being scammed by known scammers because they don't see the tags.
I'd also like to see trust on all boards that show signatures. I'm mainly thinking about user Velkro, who advertises his scam site in his signature and mainly posts on boards that don't show trust ratings.I'll add another tag, but that doesn't mean anything as long as it's not clearly visible wherever his signature is shown.
Between this post and my tag, he got tagged twice already
My Reference link points at a scam accusation by minerjones. He hasn't tagged this user yet.Beginners & Help should show trust ratings, it's terrible idea not to warn Beginners!
Jump to: