Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 57. (Read 85606 times)

I especially like your cod quasi-legalese jargon.
Did you type the following with a quill stylus?

I don't know why Vispilio slander but i want him to prove his claims. This election was fair and natural, people know Theymos can see all ip logs.

And you are still racist.

Case proven: He only removed the fraud/scammer because I mentioned that I will have to exclude him due to such inclusions, not because the user is actually a scammer. Have fun.

While I will reserve my judgement of the outcome of the new trust system implementations, I must say I find them highly encouraging and I very much support the intent if not the outcome. Good work Theymos.

I wonder what they'll do now, since they can't cry the racism card on you. I'll work with you to get some more input on that exclusion list.

I have to agree this is true, and most of these newly minted hero members of the Turkish forum (and some of their lower ranked buddies) seem to be always acting in lockstep unison, like a hive minded tribe, is that ok & ethical ? I can totally understand why an independent observer wouldn't consider the current state of the Turkish forums democratic, meritocratic or fair in any way...

FACT#2: At least 5-6 guys on the Turkish forums orchestrated tremendous collusion on telegram for the purpose of exchanging merits back and forth between themselves here and then recommending each others' posts constantly to local and global merit sources, is that all right as well (a few of these guys have already been banned for other reasons by the way)?

Now a good number of that same group of people seem to be rooting for each other for DT lists. If these are all valid tactics to become green trusted hero / legendary members with the hopes of landing some lucrative bounties in the future, then congratulations to them I guess

In all honesty, I can guarantee you there are really high quality and intellectual posters on the Turkish forums, but some of them have been discouraged by the strange things going on there (and rarely even post anymore), so a more democratic & organic approach to Merit and Trust distribution for the Turkish section would be hugely appreciated.

I am one of the world's foremost experts on quasi-law, after all. Surely you've read my widely-cited article in the Journal of Laws or Whatever titled, "A new approach to the rigorous design of legal systems: just worry about it later."

I believe I told you about it several times already. You weren't paying attention LFC. I like tou too.

Btw I have no idea how Lauda missed me. On the contrary of what the other guy says, I post in the Turkish forum from time to time. Just not overdoing it. (I am also against the circlejerking gangs)

If anyone cares, this is how I think about the new system:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51430762


Here comes the drama.

"Great power comes with great drama." -uncle theymos

Well, that's a change I'll need some time to process this, maybe probably it's for the better, but it looks like theymos now officially got himself a part-time job as a quasi-lawyer?

It should take a little while for people to get used to, but IMO it will make it more clear when someone is untrustworthy to deal with, and it will make it easier for people to make a determination as to the risk of trading with a person.

The above will result in it being more difficult for those in DT to impose their opinions that others may not agree with, even before accounting for the fact that it has been explicitly said that opinions should not be considered with the new system.

Can't wait to see what'll happen in the coming days/weeks, but my body is ready!

There's been a grenade thrown into this whole trust thing: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/trust-flags-5153344

Made me check the calendar, nope it's not April 1st . If you thought what we had since January was drama, you ain't seen nothing yet.

So would it be fair to call this the Theymos Snap?





I was going to make this its own thread but its not my finest work. Somebody with a bit more time and ps skills should do this better.

Late to the party on this one. I don't think the fear of retaliation is working so far, and I get that maybe in a few years time it could. For now though the negatives don't carry the same weight, if you and your friends aren't in DT, or hang there by a thin line, your feedback soon means little. There are always the discussions people try to have to review feedback or attempt to improve themselves to have negatives reviewed. This generally just leads to more individuals jumping on the original feedback in a very tribal manner.

There's no easy fix but I like the randomizing factor. Have you considered cycling it with an offset? Using something like below would at least increase the frequency that the changes you speak about above could happen. It has the potential to cycle through more of the pool frequently. You'll either see the pool quickly become centralized through exclusions or begin to transform itself.

Spots 1-25 change on the 7th
Spots 26-50 change on the 15th
Spots 51-75 change on the 22nd
Spots 76-100 change on the 30th

Things I still think would be helpful are:
Displaying the Neutral feedback tally in the same way that Positive and Negative are displayed granting it visibility. A lot of BS feedback is personal opinion squabbles, that should be left as a neutral but aren't because it's not visible.
Having yourself lead a discussion topic towards finding consensus. Not as an imposing figure but to actively participate by engaging in 1 thread with everyone by presenting what your expectations were/are. Then using that as a jumping off point. This would be ideal over waiting for the proverbial shit to hit the fan before implementing a fix or making a statement.

Meanwhile, in the cheap seats waaaay up in the nosebleed section...

Talk with Theymos. Other sections which are as crowded as Turkish section have 2 moderator and a few merit sources but we don’t have. There is no DT member, there is only 1 merit source in our section.

Goraset didn’t join the election, he wasn’t active for a long time. Moreover, we didn’t give a trust him. If people doesn’t like someone, they can give distrust but he gave distrust to people who wrote Turkish language. Its not fair. http://loyce.club/trust/2019-06-08_Sat_06.22h/158678.html


He always talks nonsense about the Turks, because he can’t talking about black people who is living in his country. For a racist, this is really pathetic. He should stop dealing with the Turks. We don't even care about Lauda.

  In order for a qualified person to be excluded from both DT1 and DT2, all of the people that are qualified have to not make the random selection too. Using this calculator here are some of the odds with a pool of 250 qualified individuals.

0 others included: 60%
1 other included:  ~36%
5 others included: ~4.5%
10 others included: ~0.3%
20 others included:  ~0.0012%(~1 in 833)
25 others included: ~.000066%(~1 in 15,385)

So yes, there is a chance. However, I think some of the premier DT1 candidates would easily have 25+ other qualified candidates include them. I really don't think many scammers are going to get lucky and find their red scores erased, especially those with double digit red scores and lower.

I "run" on default trust settings and account goraset was DT. I know that because when I logged in yesterday I noticed "visible" tag on my account.

Any particular reason to include to trust network someone who steals other peoples work for their own personal gain and then leaves retaliatory feedback to person who wrote article?

Over inflation of DT members might lead to separation into different groups of DT, whom have very different perspectives. Consequently, over time, such groups, in turn might cause group attacks, when some of their group members get negative trusts from members of other groups. It is what we all see in real life, so it is not different in the forum. Then, groups that have bigger group- / net-effects might win, but unexpected things will pop up with DT drama. So, I think that yesterday's post of theymos shed the lights on potential solutions and prevent such things. I believe it is one of main reasons why theymos manually reconstructs his Trust list with random subset of around 100 users.

Excellent post mikeywith.

Everyone knows this to be true.

Anyone that can not present a strong case for scammer or attempting to scam but has left red trust must be blacklisted. Next month this should come in. 4 weeks to get your trust abuse deleted.



This random selection is an IMPROVEMENT.  A step in the right direction. However, the 3 rules must be adhered to.

The more unpopular any changes are in meta (home to those colluding and creaming off the benefits of gaming the current systems) with regard DT.  The more likely it is that some form of REAL decentralization is creeping in. Of course those gaming it the hardest for their own personal gain are going to be CRYING about it.

The main issue is that it is still built upon the gamed and meaningless metric of merit, which is pretty much controlled by the same colluding gang that had a vice like grip on DT.

MikeyWith is correct though:  blacklist a few blatant trust abusers and watch the rest of the roaches fall in line. It will be a lot less work than you may imagine.

If red trust can ONLY be used as it is intended to be used then who is in DT is less important.

Let's get it taken care of asap.

Well done Theymos at last we see some movement toward creating a transparent and fair environment where every member is treated equally. This is exactly what satoshi would have wanted for the members of this board. He didn't want a copy of the central banking system where a few issue their own power (merit) to use against the general members here to crush (via DT abuse) any resistance and cream off all the spoils for themselves under a 2 tier rules system of their own making.

He wanted bitcoin, where each member operates under THE SAME clear and transparent rules with NO unfair advantage to any person or group of people. You want more bitcoins you have to increase your work, you don't get to make up a 2 tier rule set where you have a huge unfair advantage and have special powers to zap other peoples bitcoins away if they dare complain.

This randomization is a useful tweak, but demonstrates intent in the correct direction even if it is not a solid fix long term.  It seems impossible to create a decentralized system of governance on this board that could compete with the efficiency and fairness of one transparent set of rules enforced (when required) by a central all powerful entity.  

Just demonstrate you are willing to blacklist those that are trust abusing and NOBODY will trust abuse. This will wipe out also a lot of the corruption and gaming of the revenue streams here. MORE importantly free speech will return here and people will express themselves far more naturally without having to consider if it is okay to voice opposing opinions to that of a small group of bullies.

Let's get done with DT.

A FAR MORE interesting experiment of decentralization remains for MERIT, if we are really interested in creating a meritocracy here. This is what would really raise the quality here. If a system rewarded only the posts that added REAL value to a thread,then  the boards quality,  and productivity would go parabolic.

It is strange because we all want bitcoin to succeed, so in that we should be united. It is only the personal greed to ensure we get the max bitcoins compared to others that causes the divisions generally.


@ LFC bitcoin


Do you not understand that after outing yourself as Laudas bitch that your supporting (whining and low functioning spew) means zero. You have admitted you are too afraid of THEM to step out of line.  This is just a lauda proxy account. Pointless to blather on just quote lauda and place ditto marks under it.  The fact you and your master lauda hate this new update is a VERY good sign.