Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 120. (Read 86349 times)

Theymos has already explicitly stated that he's more or less neutral towards Lauda so I assume this means there will be no blacklisting. With the new DT system your only chance is to exclude Lauda from your trust list. I mean with your real account. This newbie one won't affect anything.

Trust list will reset today as per the criteria and we could see a lot of changes in the trust scores and DT1 today. Hoping for a better change this time.

This is the only place where extortionist are being praised by people.Lauda has done shady things in the past why is she still given a good position here? Theymos you should exclude this people or else more and more people will quit at bitcointalk you know the gang here very well,who abuses trust system.I dont know if you are still listening to the users or you are just catching the big fishes all at once like in mind games.

I might help out and spend a day thinking about it but the explanation from the graph is a bit confusing.

Can you dumb it down even further? Just a short description of what are the inputs exactly, and how do you want the output. Better if it's just an example with 5 users or something.

Right. Also, for these calculations you're not counted as trusting someone if the merit they've given you puts you below the 10- or 250-merit threshold.

The 250-merit thing happens at the very end (after the 10-merit one) when there are only about 50 people in consideration (currently), so 2 votes is not insubstantial there, and you're not that likely to actually be limited.


Right.

simply put, the user with the 10 earned merit will decide to whom his vote goes to, regardless of how many users are on his trust list and how close/far they are from becoming DT1.

this could be done by giving the vote to whoever is at the top of your list ,indeed after the current sort-by criteria is changed to allow full control of ordering.

---

the hard part with be " assuming this is accurate"


what if i want to give my 10 merit vote to someone while giving my 250 vote to someone else?

I think you're right. I had assumed the opposite - a combined total - but on re-reading theymos' post, I am probably mistaken.

Which one?

I assume both can be used in full, i.e. using the 250-votes doesn't reduce the number of available 10-votes (or maybe I should call them "ballots" to not confuse with the person getting the votes).


Lauda gets it.

Presumably they could also have some combination of 250-votes and 10-votes to bring them up their earned merit limit.

My question is, let's say a hypothetical user with 10 earned merits has two users on their trust list, and both these users are one vote away from becoming DT1. How does the system decide who gets it?

So for example, someone with 518 earned merits could cast up to 2 votes in the 250-merit criteria and up to 51 votes in the 10-merit criteria, if I'm getting this right.

Someone with 72 earned merits could cast up to 7 votes in the 10-merit criteria and obviously none in the 250.

Do you want an example? Read this if you have some spare time and patience: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.33253868

Curiously it was just ignored.

Each user's number of "votes" in the last two criteria will be limited to floor(earned_merit / (10 or 250, depending on the criteria)). If you trust more people than your limit, then you will vote for the people to whom your vote will be the most useful, more-or-less.

I wasn't able to find either an optimal or low-error-approximate solution to this problem. My current algorithm is sub-optimal in general and could produce results uncomfortably far from the optimal solution, but the current data doesn't actually present a scenario where it matters: my current algorithm is optimal with the current data. Long-term, if I can't find an algorithm that I'm happy with, I could make the trust lists ordered as some have suggested.

When building your trust list, I tend to encourage people not to worry about little details like this, and instead just think about the system in broad strokes. If this results in poor outcomes, then that's a problem on my end.


The main reason that I went for this solution rather than forcing custom lists is that I would like to show some trust indicator to guests. But before doing that, I want to see whether these modifications can actually be made to work. If not, then I may go to the force-custom-lists solution, and that's incompatible with guests seeing any trust indicators.

I understand why you assumed they would be seen as soft negative.

In fact they should be seen as just what they are a feedback that was left but didn't have enough weight to be considered completely positive or negative. Whoever leaves the feedback is responsible for the facts and it leaving uswith an overall impression of the interaction.

I am always surprised when people say they'll have to open up the profile to read them. They shoukd be doing this for any and all feedback anyways. This is why i want the neutral tally, it gives neutrals visibility and then those feedbacks can be used more freely.

Again i suggest this so that red tags can have more merit as well( there i go keeping it negative). Unfortunately i find myself struggling with what some people leave as red as opposed to a neutral.

* mobile response

I did not fully understand it, but I went to the Forum in the morning to look at the Negative trust I have. We didn't have it before. I think this system will show us what time it will bring.

Says the dude who is all in for private ownership.

That's capitalism for you babe. He built the best crypto forum. He does whatever he wants with it. You can just obey. Cheers.

Could you give me a few examples?

---

There are rules set for this forum, as well as guidelines. If they are not followed and a new member gets negative trust for something that was against that, is it not deserved? I'm not really sure that it affects as many people as you paint it out to be.

I'd also like to request an example of organized crime that is being protected by the current trust system as that sounds like a conspiracy theory at best.

The trust system is constantly abused for political as well as likely organized criminal purposes. It provides cover for these people to abuse honest contributing members of the forum with impunity. The question is not if they help, it is at what cost? The cost is consistently driving away MANY new users who simply didn't understand the unwritten mob rules enforced here. The thief simply spends a few bucks on a new account and is back in minutes. Legitimate users burned this way don't come back, perpetually putting us in a feedback loop of driving away the decent user base while providing cover for the cons.

Blindly following the trust is a HUGE issue. There is no way to even know if the same person is truly in control of the account any more at the end of the day, and purporting otherwise is disingenuous and only harms the people it was designed to protect most, the newer users. It is at its best little more than a notification system for people to warn others of suspect behavior, and at worst a system of protecting organized crime and mobbing cliques.

"The only people you see complain are mostly the ones that have actually been caught with doing something bad.."

That sounds like something dirty cops say when some one tries to get the cop to follow the law too... the rules are for thee and not for me.

That's not what I want at all. I've been advocating to use custom trust lists for years and I don't see how the things you suggest would improve that. All I get that you don't like DT.

I don't think it's quite that easy. There's plenty of people who have a bad trust rating here yet they are still able to do business without much of an issue. I'm not sure the change you are proposing would have any real effect.

As for the self proclaimed scambusters, I appreciate their work around here. It helps me when I'm managing signature campaigns and looking for users to enroll. Blindly following the DT is not really an issue IMO. The only people you see complain are mostly the ones that have actually been caught with doing something bad..

Nothing stopping everyone from leaving neutrals or making scam accusation posts. Again, if you are teaching users to due SIMPLE due diligence (like reading a trust rating page), this is not an issue. What you want is pretty numbers that everyone is taught to blindly trust. The trust rating should be a QUICK REFERENCE at most, not a rule by which to judge some one trustworthy. At the end of the day the trust becomes BENEFICIAL for thieves if the standard is the trust rating should just be followed blindly. This way they can PERPETUALLY just buy burner accounts and no one ever gives it a second thought. IMO the only reason this wasn't done long ago is complaints from obsessive self proclaimed scambusters who have no other way to raise their public image here than to search for people to harass to give the impression they are fighting fraud. THIS is the primary problem of the trust system and THIS is what needs to end.