Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 122. (Read 86349 times)

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

What is more centralized and untouchable authority than you unilaterally getting to exclude people from default trust no matter how many others trust them?

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.

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..

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]"

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?

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.

---

Yes. It makes sense too.

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.

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.

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!

That is an excellent idea - I can add it to the BPIP extension.

I've just seen this and I'm liking both the idea and the effects to the DT1 list.

Just one thought: since DT1 can change every month so can the DT2 list, so now it makes more sense for several DT1/DT2 members to tag scammers, just in case any tagger stops being DT2 for a few months (I know the idea is for everyone to customize their trust list, but most newbies will still rely on default trust).

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.

Thanks! I'm slowly starting to grasp this. Not that I'm likely to contribute anything useful, BFS/DFS is about as far as I ever got in search algorithms.


Right, but now any DT rating has the same weight in the score. You're suggesting to amplify weight based on a potentially fake number (risked amount). I think the ability to game your system is higher, even if temporarily until being caught.

Ok good..  

I was confused because I was still seeing someone that was excluded under me coming in and out of my DT view a couple times.
I guess some person(s) higher than the exclusion must have included them and has since excluded them again, maybe a couple times...

It gave me the impression that my sub's exclusions weren't working for my view and must have missed what changes were going on above me at the time.

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.


Like I posted in that post, custom lists arent a solution. You can't just set a custom trust list and live in your own world, so that's why my suggestion forces a decentralized common trust list for everyone. Custom trust lists already mean nothing because only the person using them sees them.

Moderating the trust ratings also becomes the burden of the network itself. Newbies will have little to no weight compared to legendary members, and legendary members also have only a share of contribution compared to trusted legendary members. I honestly think it's possible for the network to calibrate itself. If someone is abusing trust, he's going to be red tagged. If someone is legitimate, he's going to be more and more influencive on the rest of the network and so-on. No centralized trust list needed. If someone's position changes, and he becomes trusted/untrusted after being otherwise, all the ratings specific to this account are going to propagate depending on the change.

Still, I can see that it might be a drastic change and not easy to implement compared to the current solution of updating and reworking the default trust list. Would be fair enough to wait for its results before judging.

My understanding is that it does work up the chain as you're expecting. I'll see member2 striked out unless someone else includes them, and even in this latter case I can still see that YOU excluded member2, which is all that really matters as far as crappiness (or not) of your list.

Besides my depth setting is 1 so it ends at your direct includes and I don't plan to care any deeper.

For DT purposes, member2 would be in DT4, very unlikely to matter to anyone. Even if you get into DT1, member2 would be DT3, still not particularly important.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_flow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonds%E2%80%93Karp_algorithm

Note that you can require a "minimum flow" per edge and still be the same problem, but that refers to requiring that much flow, where 0 is not allowed.

My intuition is that with my "0 or 10" requirement, it becomes the (NP-hard) knapsack problem. There are good approximations for that, though.

---

I was thinking that X = earned_merit intdiv (10 or 250), but I'm not sure.

N = all users who match the current truster criteria, either 10 or 250 earned merit. The "excluding merit sent by the trustee" thing couldn't be added here AFAICT, and would have to just limit users allowed into this step. M = the number of distinct users trusted by the users on the left side.

Partially correct. It also affects the people that have added you to their list.

If you exclude him, he'd be excluded from suchmoon's view (assuming nobody else has inclusions).

It does.

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?

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?".