Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 121. (Read 85461 times)

And I want to insist on my suggestion regarding trust: guest should see some trust. Default trust would make sense but any trust.

~

It's still a manual verification. Just like you can red-tag someone caught posting a fake trust rating, you can red-tag someone who posted a trade with an amount that never happened. I really don't see how such a detail fundamentally changes anything. Every single part of information written in a trust rating cannot be automatically verified.

It does.

How?


You can check the reference link and other proof presented in the feedback and everyone can decide on their own what level of verification is needed/acceptable.

It's an interesting idea, but I think that trust ratings and trust lists are fundamentally different concepts which shouldn't be mixed. Just because you had a good trade with someone doesn't mean that you trust their judgement generally. For example, your system would tend to strongly amplify long cons like pirateat40, I think.

Also, we're not going to moderate things like "did a trade actually occur, and with x value?".

I am still unsure of the workings of exclusions, or want to clarify my understanding..

From what I think I understand exclusions do absolutely nothing for anything other than your own personal view unless you are on DT1?
An exclusion does not have effect on anyone's trust view other than your own?

Example: Suchmoon adds me to his list and I add member1. Member1 has added member2 but I think member2 has bad ratings so I exclude member2 from my DT1 view..

Member1 is my DT0 and is Suchmoon's DT1
Member2 is my DT1 and is Suchmoon's DT2  Excluded from my view but not from Suchmoon's view?

I exclude member2 to take his bad ratings off of my DT1 view but my exclusion of member2 does not exclude member2 from Suchmoon's DT2 view?


I think this is how this is working but I think it would work better if my exclusion from my view worked up the chain and also excluded member2 from Suchmoon's view..

If not, my work weeding out the bad ratings that slip through only fix my view, but Suchmoon's view of DT2 is still going to look like crap from my "subordinates" that I have actually excluded but still look included to Suchmoon, and therefore my trust list to him still looks like crap.. Right?

Crap, I wish I had paid more attention in my CS classes. No recollection of max flow whatsoever. Google is extremely unhelpful. So what's the range for X and how does it depend on merit? Can it be negative? How big is N - that's only users who have custom trust lists, right? I feel like I'm missing something obvious here.

From what I think I understand exclusions do absolutely nothing for anything other than your own personal view unless you are on DT1?
An exclusion does not have effect on anyone's trust view other than your own?

Example: Suchmoon adds me to his list and I add member1. Member1 has added member2 but I think member2 has bad ratings so I exclude member2 from my DT1 view..

Member1 is my DT0 and is Suchmoon's DT1
Member2 is my DT1 and is Suchmoon's DT2  Excluded from my view but not from Suchmoon's view?

I exclude member2 to take his bad ratings off of my DT1 view but my exclusion of member2 does not exclude member2 from Suchmoon's DT2 view?

@theymos No comment on this suggestion? I have a nice graph too

It CAN be verified manually.

You speak as if in the current state, you can verify anything at all in trust ratings?

Using amount risked in any calculation does not work for several reasons:

1) It can't be verified, thus it can be easily abused.
2) Sometimes users want to keep amounts private.

3) Positive trust for reasons other than trading.

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.

https://i.imgur.com/JFDH3Qg.png

(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.

I might try to write an algorithm for finding an approximate solution to this, but I probably won't get to it in the near future. Anyone else want to give it a try? You might also be able to structure it as a knapsack problem or something else, but I haven't gotten around to thinking about that yet.

Could you link your other accounts, please? I won't do anything, pinkyswear!

Well you lose that BTC, because actmyname=vod

Dude, you have no idea of my true mindset, so keep your bad dime store shrink analyses to yourself, because frankly you're not very good at it.



 

I would be willing to bet a couple BTC that Vod and actmyname are not the same person.

You called Hhampuz an ass-kisser for enjoying the change in Default Trust, which is baffling to me; everyone who approves of the change is an ass-kisser?
It's easy to make a monster out of the person calling you on your nonsense, but in reality (where the rest of us are) it's more likely than not something about your behavior and personality that is accumulating so much distaste. You're experiencing something along the lines of delusional referencing.

Similar to a young man that is unable to get laid, it's not everybody else, so let's stop pretending.

@theymos No comment on this suggestion? I have a nice graph too
-snip-

It's a good idea but a shame that so many people promote custom trust lists to solve a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.

If the majority agrees that DT is a select group of people that might not reflect the true list of actual most trusted people in the forum, then doesn't keeping DT as it is make it even more of a problem? Custom lists might look like they're solving the problem, but they're really not because the majority of the forum uses default trust. So in the end you're going to be living in your own echo chamber by removing default trust from your list, because you're completely oblivious to how everyone else actually sees you.


This can easily be fixed if the risked amount is also taken into account (Why is it there in the first place if it's not?). In my opinion, someone with a few trades is more trusted than someone who posts all day on the forums, because at the end of the day, someone who had money risked through their hands means that they're not tempted to scam at least that much. Of course, account rank also comes into play, because a legendary hero wouldn't scam someone off a few dozen bucks simply because their account is worth more through sig campaigns.

Actually, using just 3 variables :
1. Account rank
2. Account current trust
3. Amount risked

I can come up with a system that won't depend on a centralized default trust, and at the same time gets updated in real time depending on member's trust over time :



If any of these 3 members get negative trust, then all their network is going to have less trust points because that person becomes shady.
If User 1 has biased vendetta against User 2, because there's a risked amount variable then baseless claims will have little effect.
This can't be spammed using multiple accounts because newbie ranks and risked amounts are too little to matter.

So in the end the only issue becomes actually verifying that the trust, risked amounts, and if the trades actually happened. Which wouldn't be a hard task because you'd only need to check people with a suspiciously high amount of trust.

This cliché of me pitching up ideas is getting rather old, is btctalk hiring?