Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 126. (Read 85461 times)

So - has anyone created a "DT for Dummies" guide yet?   I think it would get a lot of merit.

Many people don't have time to read through all these posts to determine what they need to do to stay relevant in the trust world...

not true, most members use default trust setting, the majority of members who will now switch from dt list to custom list are those who are trying to "vote" or "be on DT". as for the majority of members will always be too lazy to create their own custom trust list.

also a lot of people who use custom list still have default trust on their list.

I see that you guys are putting a large amount of work into this right now and that is good, but come Monday I expect DT to drastically change again and become much bigger, possibly bigger than it ever has been before, so I hope you are pacing yourselves..

I myself am not sure what I am going to do with my list yet. I am probably just going to leave it blank other than brief experimenting for now, likely through past the recalculation Monday and see what that brings.

I am tempted to set at least a very conservative list of 10 now to be eligible for DT1, but I don't think I want anywhere near that so early on in the chaos.

Now that this is going to be a very big list (I think) and in many more people's hands, I half want to create quite a big trust list of users just that I somewhat trust to try to do what they believe is the right thing to do, and give them a chance. Users that have been here a good while and not used whatever reputation they have made to scam, and have interest in the good of crypto, might deserve a chance on my list..

I tested a list of a good amount of the most recognized users on BPIP, and I quite liked it..
It makes for a lot more ratings and I found that mostly the decent ratings came up to DT and the worst of them stayed in untrusted..
I am one to go through untrusted feedback when I am trying to make a decision on anyone anyway, and this really helped to distinguish the best part of untrusted feedback from the worst that stayed untrusted.
With just a few exclusions of (mostly unheard of users) bad ratings that leaked through, to me it looked pretty good..
For example ThePharmacist, out of his gazillion spam untrusted retaliation feedback, only 2 or 3 slipped into the trusted feedback. Which I think is pretty good results simply fixed with a couple exclusions.

I would like for DT to be much more decentralized and in much more people's hands.
DT being so small and rare makes all DT ratings overly powerful IMO. I think DT being a lot larger and more common, reducing the power of any single rating, would make for a better trust system.

I do not like how, a user with an extensive positive history, is close to destroyed by just one very powerful negative rating. In a more dispersed trust system a single negative is much less powerful among an extensive positive history, and could help people not make such a big deal and fuss about their disagreements.
If many agree with the importance of an issue they can always step in and add their own/more negatives rather than a single one being so massive.
I also would like to see a lot more positive ratings out there. DT is too focused on negative ratings and their are a lot of good positive rating out there that don't make it.

But a big list such as this too soon would make me no friends and probably get me excluded by many and generally be a problem for me, because if most anyone who is anyone is on my list that means that their enemies likely are too, and everyone from all sides will be pissed about it..

Even with a small list, if I add almost anybody their is going to be someone out there that is going to be pissed that I added that person, especially with a small list.
It's like any small list is choosing sides, a big list is choosing decentralization, and no list is choosing to be a poor member..
I feel I need to wait for more data to make a decision..


I see that @suchmoon has me on their list. I guess thanks, I'm flattered and appreciate the recognition.
I think you can trust me to always try to do whatever I think is the right thing to do..
But I think it is very fragile and likely to be short lived. Probably as soon as I make a decentralized trust list some enemy(s) of suchmoon will make it on there and I will be excluded..
Even if I put suchmoon and many of his friends on my list, which surely would be, I'll probably be discluded if I add anyone that suchmoon disagrees with.. And if I don't, I'll be discluded by anyone who disagrees with suchmoon..

I need to see what this actually tuns into before I do too much and open myself up to who knows how much drama.

This sure is an interesting and exciting happening though!
I really hope this turns out well for the future Bitcoin and cryptocurrency..

Good luck to all and I hope that this can ultimately help people put their differences aside to build a great trust system!  

(while you were typing 27 new replies have been posted)

That is the point, though. If your network consists of some static list that you're just "supposed" to trust then it's rather unreliable.

Your network should consist of those that you trust. In the old DT system, capricious individuals could hand out ratings that you may have disagreed with. To that end, it would be advised to set your depth to 1 in order to truly keep it personalized.

I don't necessarily see the detriment inherent within losing the meaning currently upheld by Default Trust. It has been serving a necessary purpose, but decentralizing the trust system without needlessly ruining it would seem to be a feasible goal. Default Trust makes this damn near impossible, and so maybe a few tweaks that lessen the weight put upon Default Trust would be good for the community as a whole. Default Trust members are bombarded with accusations, responsibilities and decisions that are much more heavily scrutinized; this is not something that any of them enjoy as far as I know. Maybe I am missing something, but default trust losing some of it's influence would seem to be a positive as long as there is still some kind of feasible "reputation" system.

Mine was already customised, but seems I had a greater number of users excluded from my trust list than I had included.  I think it must be that psychological factor where negative impressions tend to be more memorable than positive ones.  All updated now.

Correct.  But many people (out of 225,000 active users) are just lazy or don't care enough.  I'm one of them - I choose to trust Theymos because he spends more time on this forum than anyone else.

But with this new system, I might have to actually take the time to build my own list.  While trying to step away from the politics and into more project development.

Sounds like you want access to this button. 

I have the same problem. For example: at the moment my trust setting shows theymos with 1 red tag. However, if I were to become DT1, my "subordinates" on DT2 are only the ones I picked directly. The annoying part is that my own trust looks different because those "subordinates" are counted towards my own trust view. I would like to see the same trust settings as a user without a custom list, while at the same time being able to create my own list of "subordinates".

That would eventually lead to a centralized system with old users on DT, which I think is what theymos is trying to change.

Time for some excluding

My bad, edited.


Probably so.

I cannot follow this DT.... have to read it very slowly

till I know I just consider every member wearing a XhomerX HAT to be trustworthy, don't think he would ever make one for a scammer etc

(but still gonna read this through and try to make something of it, thx for the effort anyway)

The Pharmacist is still on that new list.

I am 100% sure it doesn't count inclusions/exclusions inbetween the DT1 members. There's no way Hostfat is going to be in; his judgement is completely backwards at best.

So, the 3 in/outers would be in **
9 new *
out from previous DT1: The Pharmacist.
What does that mean?

Would be nice, and in that case might as well let each user choose how many votes they want to use, from 0 to max e.g. 10.


Or this, allowing up to 10 users to be prefixed this way.

We can make it very complicated very quickly, no doubt about that

Perhaps something along the line of prefixing an * if you wish to vote for the user for DT1 in addition to adding them to your trust list?

Good suggestion.

There has to be some way to order your list if the above is implemented.

Another thing to consider is a limit on votes per user. For example if someone adds 200 users to their list they would be voting for all 200. Perhaps there should be a limit of counting only 10-20 of those 200 votes. This would prevent abusers from propping up unlimited numbers of sockpuppets. Not sure how to choose which 10-20 of 200. Alphabetical or ID order doesn't sound right.

This. Then make it 300 merits next month and keep stepping the requirement up monthly