- Why is maximum trust depth 4?
Probably to avoid using up too many system resources for calculation as it gets really wide later on(?). Imagine XYZ accounts switching their settings between depth 8 and 10 every few seconds. 
Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 128. (Read 84344 times)
Let me give you a hypothetical example.
I can trust Loyce:
- with data analysis
- with money.
I may not trust Loyce:
- views he has about religion.
So overall what should be my stand for Loyce?
I can trust Loyce:
- with data analysis
- with money.
I may not trust Loyce:
- views he has about religion.
So overall what should be my stand for Loyce?
Then you trust him financially - there would be a reason for that, give him positive trust and add a reference.
you do not trust his views - so why add him to your trust list?
2 different things here that people are confusing and I get it, it took me a while to get my head round it. You trust someone with money - usually there is a reason for that and it is totally separate to trusting someone and how they act/post/react on the forum.
- Why are we encouraged to set trust depth: 2 ?
Who's encouraging that? If you're using a full custom list set it to 0 or 1.
Code:
Defaut Trust
Trust Dept: 2
Can anyone explain please:
- Why do we have DT2?
- Why are we encouraged to set trust depth: 2 ?
- Why is maximum trust depth 4?
I may missing some basic information. Reference
- Why do we have DT2?
- Why is maximum trust depth 4?
I may missing some basic information. Reference
~
I guess we need a clear set of guidelines to leave feedback to each others and also some guidelines to add someone to our trust network. I guess the problem is - how we see the trust system. My priority is the marketplace first for trust system then forum actions. But your priority is forum actions first?
It's simple really:Marketplace first (is likely safe to deal with; does not necessarily have good judgement) -> positive feedback.
Forum actions first (unknown trade safety; has shown good judgement) -> trust list.
Marketplace && forum actions (is likely safe to deal with && has shown good judgement) -> positive feedback && trust list.
Given that a huge amount of trust is handed over for very small trades, I'd prioritize longterm forum activities anyday.
Most of the people that are on my trust list are people that I'd trade with using escrow. Which is fine. You should generally really only trust a very small subset of people here.
- Why are we encouraged to set trust depth: 2 ?
Who's encouraging that? If you're using a full custom list set it to 0 or 1.
Let me give you a hypothetical example.
I can trust Loyce:
- with data analysis
- with money.
I may not trust Loyce:
- views he has about religion.
So overall what should be my stand for Loyce?
I can trust Loyce:
- with data analysis
- with money.
I may not trust Loyce:
- views he has about religion.
So overall what should be my stand for Loyce?
Would LoyceV ever post trust feedback on religious grounds?
You might be confusing opinions and disagreements with trust. I can vehemently disagree with someone on religion, politics, socks with sandals, but still trust them (1) with money, therefore leave then a positive trust rating, or (2) for their judgement regarding trustworthiness of other users, therefore add them to my trust list.
Can anyone explain please:
- Why do we have DT2?
- Why are we encouraged to set trust depth: 2 ?
- Why is maximum trust depth 4?
DT2 is just part of the entire trust system, it's the default choice, and if you don't like it you can choose anywhere from DT1 to DT4.- Why do we have DT2?
- Why are we encouraged to set trust depth: 2 ?
- Why is maximum trust depth 4?
I've tried DT4 before, and it was slow already. The amount of data increases exponentially with depth, I haven't tested how long it takes to load now. DT5 and deeper would become very large.
If you don't trust someone's judgement, you shouldn't include him in your trust list.
I don't think technically it's correct. Let me give you a hypothetical example.
I can trust Loyce:
- with data analysis
- with money.
I may not trust Loyce:
- views he has about religion.
So overall what should be my stand for Loyce?
If, however, you trust my ability to judge others, and agree with the majority of feedback I left, you could add me to your trust list.
(and until recently I didn't know this also includes my ability to add users to my own trust list, so I'm still experimenting with the right users there)
Correct me if I am wrong here fellas, but if everyone creates their own custom trust lists Default Trust will have little to no meaning....
You can (and probably should) keep DefaultTrust on your own trust list, so you have the full force of DT1 and DT2 to add to your own trust ratings. Actually it is the only kind of correct. That's what the trust list is for. You trust their judgement (as loyce pointed out), you do not necessarily trust them with e.g. money.
But trust system should reflect both trading in Marketplace side and Justification for forum activities side too? My criteria to understand the trust system is:- I don't have to trust their judgement 100% to add them in my trust network.
I.e: I trust some of the judgement of hilariousandco but I did not like his red mark because I made a mistake offering an escrow. The justification could be giving a warning IMO, people can be mistaken. But this does not mean that I don't trust hilariousandco's judgement entirely. I do trust him and he is one of the user in my trust network.
- If I can not trust someone 100% with my money then there is no way I will add them in my trust network.
I guess the problem is - how we see the trust system. My priority is the marketplace first for trust system then forum actions. But your priority is forum actions first?
You trust their judgement (as loyce pointed out), you do not necessarily trust them with e.g. money.
this x 100000
marlboroza
Gunthar
achow101
ibminer
KWH
qwk
gmaxwell
all on my list due to the way they handle themselves on the forum - never traded, would trust them to make accurate judgments to make this forum a better place all day long though.
Some of us Physical collectors are in a unique situation where we have traded BTC for physicals with no escrow, deals in the $100K plus region and therefore trust each other with finances, but through those relationships we have built up enough to trust judgement as well.
Correct me if I am wrong here fellas, but if everyone creates their own custom trust lists Default Trust will have little to no meaning....
There are only a few thousand users that have a custom trust list. This is not something that you have to worry about.If you don't trust someone's judgement, you shouldn't include him in your trust list.
I don't think technically it's correct. 
Hilariousandco: Definitely yes. I've already got him on my list.
SaltySpitoon: Yes. I don't know him at all, but I've read some of his recent posts and seems very level-headed and cogent. An old-timer who used to be on DT1 who has no history of scamming? That's a no-brainer.
The rest of them I'm not all that familiar with, except BadBear just by reputation and he's on my list as well.
SaltySpitoon: Yes. I don't know him at all, but I've read some of his recent posts and seems very level-headed and cogent. An old-timer who used to be on DT1 who has no history of scamming? That's a no-brainer.
The rest of them I'm not all that familiar with, except BadBear just by reputation and he's on my list as well.
I added BadBear on depth 0, look how someone's reputation has changed:
Oh, and that someone is you!
Correct me if I am wrong here fellas, but if everyone creates their own custom trust lists Default Trust will have little to no meaning....
No, and I have no idea why you'd even recommend something like that. Why should we have moderators when everyone can be a global mod. or even admin? 
Not sure if I understood
Anyway,
Can anyone explain please:
- Why do we have DT2?
- Why are we encouraged to set trust depth: 2 ?
- Why is maximum trust depth 4?
I may missing some basic information. Reference
If you don't trust someone's judgement, you shouldn't include him in your trust list.
I don't think technically it's correct. Let me give you a hypothetical example.
I can trust Loyce:
- with data analysis
- with money.
I may not trust Loyce:
- views he has about religion.
So overall what should be my stand for Loyce?
Quote
DT2 is a derivative of DT1, if you don't like it, you can change your Trust depth to 1 instead of the default 2. Or exclude specific users.
My interpretation of trust depth system is trust dept 1 and seems it's working although default trust with dept 2 is conflicting my rating.Quote
I think krogothmanhattan confused those, and added users to his trust network after a trade.
This explains confusion about krogothmanhattan case, I guess zazarb did the same? 
That's sorted out but there's still a challenge for LoyceV: get a list of removed DT2 members.
I didn't keep track of who was on DT, but there's a list of DT1 and DT2 members created by coinlocket$.
I didn't keep track of who was on DT, but there's a list of DT1 and DT2 members created by coinlocket$.
I will probably do an update on it but before I need to know how often the lists will be updated to avoid useless work on it.
I think krogothmanhattan confused those, and added users to his trust network after a trade.
Correct. He was adding pretty much anyone he had some succesful deals with. He's not the first person to have made this mistake.Hey LaudaM you scam enabler stop avoiding my questions.
I want you to present a full factual case for my red trust now or be removed from DT.
Now you scamming skank
legendary
Activity: 2506
Merit: 3235
The Stone the masons rejected was the cornerstone.
I think krogothmanhattan confused those, and added users to his trust network after a trade.
Correct. He was adding pretty much anyone he had some succesful deals with. He's not the first person to have made this mistake.That's exactly what I was doing.
Now that I am at another level and aware of the seriousness of the Trust system I have taken the appropriate steps and will not repeat that mistake ever again.
I think krogothmanhattan confused those, and added users to his trust network after a trade.
Correct. He was adding pretty much anyone he had some succesful deals with. He's not the first person to have made this mistake. If I pick someone then he become my DT1 and I automatically trust those who picked by my DT1 and they become my DT2. I never agree with this. My DT1 could pick someone who I don't trust. So I never bothered or got encouraged to have my own trust list.
If you don't trust someone's judgement, you shouldn't include him in your trust list.DT2 is a derivative of DT1, if you don't like it, you can change your Trust depth to 1 instead of the default 2. Or exclude specific users.
My question is if the trust system is to provide feedback for a trade then why some members are asking krogothmanhattan and zazarb to remove some users from their trust list? They may had a good deal with those people hence they left the feedback (positive, negative or neutral should not matter).
You seem to misunderstand an important thing:Trust is Positive/Neutral/Negative: this means you do or don't trust the user himself in for instance a transaction.
Trust settings > Trust list: include or exclude users: this means you do or don't trust the user's judgement on other users.
I think krogothmanhattan confused those, and added users to his trust network after a trade.
I think the current system do not need DT2 level since it is a dynamic list. Only DT1 level should be enough and this will encourage people to create their own custom trust list. Default trust > DT1. Any thought?
No, and I have no idea why you'd even recommend something like that. Why should we have moderators when everyone can be a global mod. or even admin? List cleaned up. Removed almost everyone with the exception of 11 people
When you cleaned up the list what was your motivation? And when you were adding those people in your list then what was your motivation?
Help me to understand few things:
#Why do we need DT2 level anymore?
#The original trust system reflects Marketplace Trust meaning If I trade with anyone I have the right to leave a feedback(It can be anything: Positive, Neutral or Negative).
DT2
The trust network used to be static before. It was not possible by theymos to update his trust setting with the name of a long list. So, it used to be Default Trust > Some picked up DT1 > Let the DT1s to spread the tails meaning DT2. This was our old trust network.
Since it was static we sure had a grip (but I was not comfortable) on who to pick for our custom trust setting. If I pick someone then he become my DT1 and I automatically trust those who picked by my DT1 and they become my DT2. I never agree with this. My DT1 could pick someone who I don't trust. So I never bothered or got encouraged to have my own trust list.
What I understand is the current change of the trust system is dynamic. It will change based on some parameters explained here. Meaning we can easily eliminate the hassle for theymos to pick up a long trust list manually (DT1). Default trust > Picked up DT1s filtered through the parameters. Why would we need DT2 anymore then?
When it comes to DT2 then it conflicts the interest. I can trust user A,B,C and I add them to my trust list. User A trust X, Y, Z that does not mean that I have to trust X, Y, Z. Is it practical? User Z could be someone who has problem with me or I have problem with him. They could be someone who I don't trust. This does not encourage me to create my own trust list again.
Let's have a look on my case...
My profile page:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/mdayonliner-1432468
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/mdayonliner-1432468;dt
My trust page:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1432468
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1432468;dt
To speak the truth, I will trust (If I do any financial deal)/agree (in some cases) with jackg, moronboroza AKA marlboroza (), hilariousandco, Lutpin, mnightwaffle but with other two - I have issues. I don't think they will ever be in my trust list.
I think the current system do not need DT2 level since it is a dynamic list. Only DT1 level should be enough and this will encourage people to create their own custom trust list. Default trust > DT1. Any thought?
Marketplace Trust
I thought the trust system is to feedback users for a trade. I don't deny the fact that the same system also works to send feedback for forum activities too(any shady activity to prevent scamming).
My question is if the trust system is to provide feedback for a trade then why some members are asking krogothmanhattan and zazarb to remove some users from their trust list? They may had a good deal with those people hence they left the feedback (positive, negative or neutral should not matter). Does that mean that when it comes to marketplace, we are denying the trust system? (I am not suggesting to leave feedback for a $1 trade or even $10 to $20)
#Why do we need DT2 level anymore?
#The original trust system reflects Marketplace Trust meaning If I trade with anyone I have the right to leave a feedback(It can be anything: Positive, Neutral or Negative).
DT2
The trust network used to be static before. It was not possible by theymos to update his trust setting with the name of a long list. So, it used to be Default Trust > Some picked up DT1 > Let the DT1s to spread the tails meaning DT2. This was our old trust network.
Since it was static we sure had a grip (but I was not comfortable) on who to pick for our custom trust setting. If I pick someone then he become my DT1 and I automatically trust those who picked by my DT1 and they become my DT2. I never agree with this. My DT1 could pick someone who I don't trust. So I never bothered or got encouraged to have my own trust list.
What I understand is the current change of the trust system is dynamic. It will change based on some parameters explained here. Meaning we can easily eliminate the hassle for theymos to pick up a long trust list manually (DT1). Default trust > Picked up DT1s filtered through the parameters. Why would we need DT2 anymore then?
When it comes to DT2 then it conflicts the interest. I can trust user A,B,C and I add them to my trust list. User A trust X, Y, Z that does not mean that I have to trust X, Y, Z. Is it practical? User Z could be someone who has problem with me or I have problem with him. They could be someone who I don't trust. This does not encourage me to create my own trust list again.
Let's have a look on my case...
My profile page:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/mdayonliner-1432468
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/mdayonliner-1432468;dt
My trust page:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1432468
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1432468;dt
To speak the truth, I will trust (If I do any financial deal)/agree (in some cases) with jackg, moronboroza AKA marlboroza (
), hilariousandco, Lutpin, mnightwaffle but with other two - I have issues. I don't think they will ever be in my trust list.I think the current system do not need DT2 level since it is a dynamic list. Only DT1 level should be enough and this will encourage people to create their own custom trust list. Default trust > DT1. Any thought?
Marketplace Trust
I thought the trust system is to feedback users for a trade. I don't deny the fact that the same system also works to send feedback for forum activities too(any shady activity to prevent scamming).
My question is if the trust system is to provide feedback for a trade then why some members are asking krogothmanhattan and zazarb to remove some users from their trust list? They may had a good deal with those people hence they left the feedback (positive, negative or neutral should not matter). Does that mean that when it comes to marketplace, we are denying the trust system? (I am not suggesting to leave feedback for a $1 trade or even $10 to $20)
List cleaned up. Removed almost everyone with the exception of 11 people
When you cleaned up the list what was your motivation? And when you were adding those people in your list then what was your motivation? List cleaned up. Removed almost everyone with the exception of 11 people
back on my list dude, thanks for taking it seriously
Jump to: