Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 80. (Read 85467 times)

Yes, the thread appears here. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/remove-corruption-from-dt-union-trust-list-9604-5103988 Basically, if you list Lauda on your trust list, these people distrust you on their trust list.

I put a certain established poster here in my personalised trust list last night. I’ve signed into btctalk.org today & checked who trusts me etc & it seems the following users have distrusted me presumably as a result of putting said established poster in my trust list -

LFC_Bitcoin is Distrusted by:
Thule (20 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
endlasuresh (3 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
DutchFinity (2 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
Danica22 (0 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
ac2eugenio (1 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
Bazinga442 (21 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
Deena (37 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
mr.creampie (10 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
chickinini (11 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
cryptorgasm (4 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
TinaMoran (10 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
Pablojob (10 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
PiningGarcia (10 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
PingGermoco (10 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
NilaMutac (10 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
cryptopov (4 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
poypototoy (10 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
Zin-Zang (10 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
H8bussesNbicycles (5 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
gwsukabokepjepang (0 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)

I’d like to make it clear that I don’t believe I’ve interacted with any of these cunts.
I now have more people distrusting me than people who trust me.

Anybody else been a victim of a ‘mass distrust’ in a short period of time despite being a perfectly honest member of the community?

I've suggested a completely decentralized system multiple times. The more people keep arguing on trivialities here, the more I'm starting to think it's better than the current system.

The "problems" everyone keeps bringing up with my system :

1. You can't verify that transactions happened. Some people can leave fake feedback for money that was never risked. You gave an example with Ebay, well Ebay transactions are all true. Imo that's a valid concern, but then again, no one is stopping current DT1/2 members from straight up lying as well and leaving fake positive feedback. Who's going to verify those txes?

2. Leaving feedback for non-money transactions. You know, you have to tag ponzi scammers and funny lending section sobbers. (For my system) It's possible to create a default "empty shell" feedback for similar tags. If a high trusted member leaves an empty shell, it means something, unlike if a newbie does it, and so on.

But good luck convincing people that the current system is heading towards a centralized DT controlled by less people than it actually looks like. But maybe I'm wrong, it's only been a few weeks, and so far there's still a diverse amount of people in control that I hope it won't be the case.

Yes ofc thinking loud about an ideal system with a community that reached its maturity: there are many filters to apply while this process grows, some of them are already in here, i.e. a minimum membership rank/merit/trust point in order to be able to tag someone (green or red doesnt matter)

That is because of the current trust system. I believe Gunthar was trying to address a system without any form of DT, just community feedback (similar to eBay).

I don't understand how someone can wreck your trust level using alts. Feedback left by nobodies is disregarded in counting your points (you can look at my own trust page for examples).

If someone manages to create enough sockpuppets, gives them voting rights, and unlegitimately include people in DT1 just so he can tag you in red, without getting blacklisted in the process, not only we could consider the trust system flawed, but also ask what in the hell did you do to piss off this person.

Then again this is biased.

Like in every situation people are more likely to speak up if they had an issue, or for the matter a trust breach, than a good experience, or say a trust proof.

The score average would be deeply negatively biased.

I don't think that would work. Let's say I piss off a scammer by sending negative feedback, what would stop him from creating/using a bunch of alt-accounts to wreck my trust level? I like the idea of a non-DT system since the latest DT changes have caused a lot of childish behaviour.

I agree with this, the more people adopt this system the more it will balance itself. Initially it might appear a Cats vs Dogs drama, the more people adding their trusts/distrusts the more our personal "reputation" would form based on objective observations from the community. I might be able to plot with a bunch of people against Cats for 1 month, maybe 2/3/6 months, but the real value of cats and dogs will come out overtime. Personally I woudnt even give power to any DT level indeed: the sum of someone Trust would then come out based on the entire community feedback. Scary? Behave then...

No need in calling names.

Also Hhampuz has a point here.

If you are not refering to Lauda, mixed up quoting or not, who are you refering to? And how is it relevant?

Kindly GTFO

A mistake is a Mistake...Fuck you. you impatient little fuck.

Then say that what you meant instead of spewing out shit posts that adds nothing to the discussion.

EDIT; Most people on current DT have substantial trade history of physical goods over long periods of time. Others are on DT for being trustworthy in a sense where their judgement is always on point and their contributions to this forum goes above and beyond.

---

I wasn't even implying that your failed quotation was the shitty post. Your post that I initially replied to was the shit post that adds nothing to the discussion (where you spew out lies with nothing to back it up with).

Fucked that response up but you feel me.

Lol. I was just trying to point that out myself. This guy is trolling lol...

Hmm.. I've sold/bought things from Lauda over the last two years. Physical goods for BTC. Never used any escrow from either side so you are wrong.

EDIT; Are you just trolling or are you actually unable to check who is on DT? Most people there have made trades for tens of thousands of $ in BTC.

What have you traded,sold,bought??    Nothing... Kindly STFU

How highly-ranked?  Who are you talking about?  Feel free to post the list in LoyceV's thread on undermerited posts and I'll be happy to take a look at it.

That video was funny, IMO and deserved every merit it got.  Get a sense of humor.  

You should have made the list before merit had a political function. Merit sources were asking for merit worthy posts in meta for months.

At the end of the day the forum is Theymos's personal property, even if he and the community largely see it as something he is entrusted with on behalf of the community. The question is not if they will be able to interfere, ofc they will be able. I don't think they will need or want to for the vast majority of instances.

We already uphold certain standards for what is not acceptable to rate people for without staff intervention. Any disputes or judgement calls would be handled by community analysis and judgement in public as it always has been. This can be done with ratings, trust lists, and general ostracism.

The problem is no one except Theymos will ever be able to get such a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws in to effect, because it goes against the interest of those already in control of the system. He doesn't need to personally nit pick every case, or really any, but by setting a comparatively very objective standard for leaving a negative rating the VAST majority of conflict is simply avoided.

There will be no hindrance of stopping scammers, but in fact it will be easier to spot them as they don't blend in in a sea of red. Also people will feel more comfortable contributing to a community where they don't have to worry about everything being taken away over some petty squabble at any instant.