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.
Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 122. (Read 85606 times)
Your sweet-talk seems fake, shoo retard.
Ah, you are so correct! I shan't have a contrary position against only theymos. The true path towards a fair system is for every reply to be of dissent, rejection and to throw the pittance of virtue signalling out of this existence! Our qualms needn't be sullied by the burden of agreement, nay, reality demands contradiction. It demands chaos!So I declare unto you: no. I disagree with your opinion.
I expect nothing else from one of lauda's bitches.
Anyone else also know you are vod?
Your sweet-talk seems fake, shoo retard.
Ah, you are so correct! I shan't have a contrary position against only theymos. The true path towards a fair system is for every reply to be of dissent, rejection and to throw the pittance of virtue signalling out of this existence! Our qualms needn't be sullied by the burden of agreement, nay, reality demands contradiction. It demands chaos!So I declare unto you: no. I disagree with your opinion.
cough cough ASS KISSER.
Finally, someone speaks the truth!It behooves all of Bitcointalk to develop a contrarian opinion against theymos, for dissent is king when it comes to debate. No more shall this wretched king reign supreme, striking down all contrary opinions. No more shall we see any agreement towards this malevolent ruler! Down with theymos! Down with theymos!
Your sweet-talk seems fake, shoo retard.
cough cough ASS KISSER.
Finally, someone speaks the truth!It behooves all of Bitcointalk to develop a contrarian opinion against theymos, for dissent is king when it comes to debate. No more shall this wretched king reign supreme, striking down all contrary opinions. No more shall we see any agreement towards this malevolent ruler! Down with theymos! Down with theymos!
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.
~snip
(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.
~snip
(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.
I like this. Seems to be the correct way (If possible to make it work) to make it as decentralized as possible. I'll patiently sit back and see if we have any Mr. Robots that can take it on
cough cough ASS KISSER.
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.
~snip
(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.
~snip
(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.
I like this. Seems to be the correct way (If possible to make it work) to make it as decentralized as possible. I'll patiently sit back and see if we have any Mr. Robots that can take it on
Anyone else want to give it a try?
Yes , Delete the whole DT system , run it that way for a year
It serves no real purpose and stops no one from getting scammed.
Example my red score is high, and I have never traded any coins with anyone on this crap show.
Or rename the Default Trust to what it truly is,
Elites Opinion to Censor Speech and Block Rival Services
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.
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.
(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.
I don't know how many 250+ receivers there are, but if someone is on a mission to get onto DT I guess there will be some stalking/favor currying going on to meet this (and other) criteria.
They'll be the bouncers at the DT club.
Until now there are 146 members who have reached 250 earned merits.For more info https://bpip.org/report.aspx?r=mostmerited They'll be the bouncers at the DT club.
Considering Theymos handed out merits like candy, that were never earned, that is as much a sham as the DT system.
I don't know how many 250+ receivers there are, but if someone is on a mission to get onto DT I guess there will be some stalking/favor currying going on to meet this (and other) criteria.
They'll be the bouncers at the DT club.
Until now there are 146 members who have reached 250 earned merits.For more info https://bpip.org/report.aspx?r=mostmerited They'll be the bouncers at the DT club.
~snip~
You beat me with 9 seconds. 
I don't know how many 250+ receivers there are, but if someone is on a mission to get onto DT I guess there will be some stalking/favor currying going on to meet this (and other) criteria.
Currently 146, the list of which you can see here: https://bpip.org/report.aspx?r=mostmerited. Some of those accounts are banned, however, and some are inactive, so the true number will be slightly lower.
If someone is on a mission to get on DT, they will be getting nowhere near my trust list, since that's the completely wrong attitude to have. But there are enough users with 250+ merit, and always more being made, that I'm sure anyone hell bent on being DT will be able to find a couple of shady users to add them on at their request. I wonder if DT1 exclusions, in addition to removing another user from DT1, should also remove that user's voting power, so serial abusers can be stopped from voting on anyone and everyone.
Everyone should add ~Lauda to their trust settings ,
That should exclude the slut, since her ratings are all biased on the following
1. She does not like you.
2. You beat her in an argument
3. Your Escrow Service is better than her escrow service
4. You point out she is a crook that steal others money.
And let me guess, all of the above apply to you?That should exclude the slut, since her ratings are all biased on the following
1. She does not like you.
2. You beat her in an argument
3. Your Escrow Service is better than her escrow service
4. You point out she is a crook that steal others money.
Theymos is a coward
Vod is a child rapist
Lauda is a known extortionist and her mouth is Theymos personal cock holster
achow101 is a dumb anal dwelling censorship butt monkey.
Tman is a mere dumb ass kissing child.
Vod is a child rapist
Lauda is a known extortionist and her mouth is Theymos personal cock holster
achow101 is a dumb anal dwelling censorship butt monkey.
Tman is a mere dumb ass kissing child.
Hmmm. Maybe there's something you're not telling here.
Looks to me like you printed out , what I was saying.
Now whether you are a dumb ass or not, I imagine we'll find out in your next post.
Everyone should add ~Lauda to their trust settings , & delete the defaulttrust
You should be doing yours first if you believe so.Add mine to yours with a ~, would it matter?
I don't trade directly with anyone here, why would I care.
Lauda steals money from people here all of the time, and red tags on whims
But add ~Lauda & ~Zin-Zang , if you like.
Everyone should add ~Lauda to their trust settings ,
That should exclude the slut, since her ratings are all biased on the following
1. She does not like you.
2. You beat her in an argument
3. Your Escrow Service is better than her escrow service
4. You point out she is a crook that steal others money.
And let me guess, all of the above apply to you?That should exclude the slut, since her ratings are all biased on the following
1. She does not like you.
2. You beat her in an argument
3. Your Escrow Service is better than her escrow service
4. You point out she is a crook that steal others money.
Theymos is a coward
Vod is a child rapist
Lauda is a known extortionist and her mouth is Theymos personal cock holster
achow101 is a dumb anal dwelling censorship butt monkey.
Tman is a mere dumb ass kissing child.
Vod is a child rapist
Lauda is a known extortionist and her mouth is Theymos personal cock holster
achow101 is a dumb anal dwelling censorship butt monkey.
Tman is a mere dumb ass kissing child.
Hmmm. Maybe there's something you're not telling here.
Everyone should add ~Lauda to their trust settings , & delete the defaulttrust
You should be doing yours first if you believe so.The count of people who have 250+ received merit and who have added you to their trust list is 2.
I don't know how many 250+ receivers there are, but if someone is on a mission to get onto DT I guess there will be some stalking/favor currying going on to meet this (and other) criteria.
They'll be the bouncers at the DT club.
Quote
Nah sorry, you're not on my list
The count of people who have 250+ received merit and who have added you to their trust list is 2.
I don't know how many 250+ receivers there are, but if someone is on a mission to get onto DT I guess there will be some stalking/favor currying going on to meet this (and other) criteria.
They'll be the bouncers at the DT club.
Quote
Nah sorry, you're not on my list
Everyone should add ~Lauda to their trust settings , & delete the defaulttrust (it is bullshit anyway)
That should exclude the slut, since her ratings are all biased on the following
1. She does not like you.
2. You beat her in an argument
3. Your Escrow Service is better than her escrow service
4. You point out she is a crook that steal others money.
That should exclude the slut, since her ratings are all biased on the following
1. She does not like you.
2. You beat her in an argument
3. Your Escrow Service is better than her escrow service
4. You point out she is a crook that steal others money.
Yawns!
Complaints and petitions loading...
We await the numerous threads that will grace this forum nextweek starting. Some near reclusive DT members will get busy once more. Good to have a change in the almost draconian DT setting.
It already has started. Did you just woke up? Complaints and petitions loading...
We await the numerous threads that will grace this forum nextweek starting. Some near reclusive DT members will get busy once more. Good to have a change in the almost draconian DT setting.
Just look around the meta and reputation board LOL
So theymos, how they hanging?
I've only every received 88 merits (the first 1000 are auto for being Legendary), so I'm a little unsure how I am on the 250 merit list, unless it's not 100 merits that a person needs to get from one person, but the person *sending* the merits has received 250 merits.
The number of users trusted by 100+-merit users is now over 700. I think that I may modify that to requiring 2 trusters with 250 earned merit.
Number of 250-merit trusters:
Number of 250-merit trusters:
Code:
+-------------------+----------+
| name | trusters |
+-------------------+----------+
| Timelord2067 | 2 |
+-------------------+----------+
| name | trusters |
+-------------------+----------+
| Timelord2067 | 2 |
+-------------------+----------+
I've only every received 88 merits (the first 1000 are auto for being Legendary), so I'm a little unsure how I am on the 250 merit list, unless it's not 100 merits that a person needs to get from one person, but the person *sending* the merits has received 250 merits.
Your answers
-# You have to be At least member rank earned merit 10 (airdrop does not count)
-# 10 people is trusting you with earned merit of at least 10 each (airdrop and merit sent by yourself does not count)
-# 2 people is trusting you with earned merit of at least 250 each (airdrop and merit sent by yourself does not count)
That 2 is the last one.
So theymos, how they hanging?
I've only every received 88 merits (the first 1000 are auto for being Legendary), so I'm a little unsure how I am on the 250 merit list, unless it's not 100 merits that a person needs to get from one person, but the person *sending* the merits has received 250 merits.
The count of people who have 250+ received merit and who have added you to their trust list is 2. The number of users trusted by 100+-merit users is now over 700. I think that I may modify that to requiring 2 trusters with 250 earned merit.
Number of 250-merit trusters:
Number of 250-merit trusters:
Code:
+-------------------+----------+
| name | trusters |
+-------------------+----------+
| Timelord2067 | 2 |
+-------------------+----------+
| name | trusters |
+-------------------+----------+
| Timelord2067 | 2 |
+-------------------+----------+
I've only every received 88 merits (the first 1000 are auto for being Legendary), so I'm a little unsure how I am on the 250 merit list, unless it's not 100 merits that a person needs to get from one person, but the person *sending* the merits has received 250 merits.
Jump to: