Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 130. (Read 85606 times)

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....

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

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?

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.

This explains confusion about krogothmanhattan case, I guess zazarb did the same?

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

He was using the system wrong; people pointed this out to him.

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)

---

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?

back on my list dude, thanks for taking it seriously

List cleaned up. Removed almost everyone with the exception of 11 people

I can only say that I included 18 accounts yesterday and 2 accounts before, but when I look which accounts I included yesterday, 17 have already been part of "old" DT.
Perhaps old "system" was fine and it needed "upgrade" with new members, I don't know, I am thinking out laud.

This would be really nice. I'm already finding myself switching back and forth regularly to see how things are changing - I can see it becoming very tedious in the coming weeks or months to keep doing this. Maybe even a check box somewhere that turns on ";dt" view until you turn it off again?

I really like what you did and what it implies for the trust network.

A whole lot of new users will have something else than an empty trust rating!

At the very least this will increase the awareness of the functionality.

I also like the "see with dt settings" possibility.
About that one, would it be possible to make it stick when clicking on links on a page you loaded with the dt suffix.

For instance I want to see a post using the dt suffix, and then want to click on the trust ratings of someone in the thread, without having to add the dt suffix each time again.

I dont know he would. He doesn't seem to like default trust anyway but it's what we have to put up with.

Maybe adding a rogue one or two will give people the incentive to start making up their own lists.

The merit bits aren't currently avaliable also thatd have to be outsourced. I mean it's east to do if someone has all the dumps.

Maybe it'd help work out if akne of the dts have gone rogue also.

I completely agree with you. My reason for suggesting it was that it would help stop the theoretical case of abuse as outlined by LoyceV here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49144081. DT1 members would be able to see who is close to reaching DT1 status before they do reach it, and could then pre-emptively decide whether to exclude that person, rather than having to react to it after it has happened and spend a month or so with their inaccurate ratings being part of DT. All these data are already publicly available on the trust.txt.xz file - it would just be a case of reformatting it to make it easier to read.

Having said that, the scenario in question is unlikely enough itself, and theymos would likely step in to prevent an abuser becoming part of DT1 before they did anyway.

It's quite self contained as is. Just pull out the line and do a while loop through it.

I think this is quite a bad idea to do anyway. People shouldn't be working towards dt. If it's a goal you need to untrust yourself I'll n your list and do us all a favour.

Nice to see Lauda back in DT1, long time he/she was on my trust list with his thousands red trust (for alt account most of the time).

I would rephrase 'some' to 'most'. If you tag someone you get blamed, if you don't tag someone you get blamed, the same goes if you remove a rating or don't remove a rating. Quite the nuisance at times.

This should have always been the case as there were plenty of bad DT ratings.