Topic: DT trust padding instances (Read 661 times)

The current owners of that website/thread have made it abundantly clear they don't want me to participate or contribute - Little wonder I never saw that mostly vague post by another user.


who along with bountydetective all choose the same week to trust the subject of the thread - RaltcoinsB - thoughts anyone?

The truth is that it was meaningless and that you projected your own ideas onto all language others write. Well, "your" collected experiences and perceptions alongside a few genetic and temporal anomalies.

Everything is real if you give up finite constructs - a necessary axiom.

---

Should also point heads towards the direction of a less direct padding concept.

Certainly, it would be terrible if we had a DT1 root add someone to their list to pad their trust: plenty of users keep their eyes out for this behavior. An additional premise would be to share and swap 'idealized lists' with other DT1 users, fragmented or whole and coordinate to ensure a particular user benefits. The problem is with the detectability of this: any DT1 user could simply feign ignorance and the highly-trusted user could similarly deign to respond to farfetched conspiracies.

What a beautiful system we have. Certainly better than the old hand-picked DefaultTrust system - now we show users which should definitely be trusted by default.

I thought it was a Black Mirror^* reference.

---

^* which is obviously real life because it's on TV... or laptop... or phone.

Well you deserve an explanation, which is, I don't believe the forum to be "real life." I'm aware that, etymologically speaking, "real life" has always included abstract creations without a physical structure (such as the forum). So its more or less derisive when I refer to the trust list as not part of real life. However, since Vispilio was explicitly talking about non-forum interactions, I felt such an obvious distinction was permissible.

Then what are those numbers hovering over your head?

---

FWIW although unscrupulous use of the trust system is not typically met with punishment I see some people dismiss "bad uses" of the trust system when they aren't involved in the DT network. Dangerous precedent.

Any dilution of the justification for leaving positive and negative feedback leads to a degradation of trust values. This occurs naturally by way of the 100-strong court of DT1s and their apostles.

I don't think it's necessary to undermine your comment with the easy "argumentum ad populum" concept applied to ideology and culture: you can probably work it out yourself. Proof is trivial and left to reader as an exercise.

There is no "trust list" in real life with inclusions and exclusions -- its something that exists only within the forum. You are vouching for somebody's ability to leave accurate trust feedback without them having ever left a feedback, which makes no rational sense as there is nothing tangible to base such a judgment upon.

The "vast majority" is an a priori assumption because that's a commonly accepted way trust relationships work in real life, and that's the way in which the Trust system will make sense to most rational people.

In the current situation, there is only 1 sacred rule for DT and all the rest is petty technicalities: "Only include people who will conform to the cult and toe the party line, so that the signature cultists will continue to have the cleanest trust sheets under all circumstances to keep getting their salary hand outs..."

Anyways these are minor issues and not really my concern, I just responded here for the staff's and @theymos's benefit in case they want to fix the broken forum systems at some point. Take care.

That means you DO think they're owned by the same person or not?  The way you phrased that sent my mind spinning for a second there.

Absolutely agree with that, but obviously some people don't have the same amount of respect for the DT system and probably don't understand how important it is--or how easily it can be abused to scam people.  So yeah, I would think that RaltcoinsB (whom I've never heard of before) probably should not be on DT at any level.

This is the Turkish section if I'm not mistaken (haven't read the whole thread yet), so the suspected merit abuse aspect of this situation doesn't surprise me at all, given how incredibly nationalistic certain members are in that section. 

Your use of the term "vast majority" here is pretty unfounded as you're not backing it up with any actual data. Regardless, if people took your definitions to heart they would all be wrong, even if they are the "vast majority" (which they're not). It's impossible to know how good somebody is going to be at leaving trust ratings if they've never left one before. And I certainly don't trust anyone who says otherwise, especially when reciprocally including trust rating virgins boosts their DT net inclusion score.

It's a shame that your free and independent sockpuppets can't read:

That's your opinion and chances are astronomically high it stems from your extremely conformist `police state` upbringing (not you in particular but this is the root cause of the political correctness culture permeating DT1 in general),
I would comment that crypto space and libertarianism in general are far more inclusive of different rationales and perspectives than such a narrow interpretation of the human experience.

The vast majority of free and independent thinkers view the Trust System in the following manner:

⭐ If you do good deals with someone constituting considerable value, leave them a + feedback.

⭐ If you know someone well enough to believe in their sound judgement and good character, include them in your trust list.

Narrow-minded bigots in DT1 who ruin the forum with their petty manipulative guidelines should carve the preceding maxims in granite and pin it at the top of Meta / Reputation,

maybe @theymos can also step in every once a in while to help broaden their horizons if he wants to save this forum.


Happy Holidays

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.55898447

While I believe that using proper terminology will help avoid confusion, it won't stop attacks that are made just to attack...

Well Vod, here's the thing.

I've had other well meaning users become very insistent I (and others) use terminology such as the following:

• Trust Feedback when describing making a comment, good, bad or, indifferent about another user.
  
• Default Trust (or, at a pinch DT Trust ^{1}) when referring to the cloak-and-dagger goings on behind smoke and mirrors here in the forum.

I won't bore you with how indignant or militant they are in their insistence that everyone refrain from using other kinds of terminology, suffice to say misunderstandings do tend to creep in when people aren't using the same (or even similar terminology) as others.

Please let me know what kind of definitions you three would like to use and I'll see if I can accommodate.

---

---

^{1}(Kind of like the redundant Machine in ATM Machine or Comics in DC Comics)

"Are you kidding me?" Nutildah asked the question, but everyone knew it was rhetorical. The next question, however, wouldn't be. "How am I trolling you when you're the one generating nonsense my thread?"

Nutildah couldn't understand how Timelord could confound "tagging" with "trust list exclusion" in the first place, much less why he would accuse him of trolling for pointing out the fact that the two things were indeed different.

Not sure what preference you mean.  I just pointed out that adding someone to your distrust list is not tagging them.  

So instead of focusing on my contribution and examples provided, you turn to Trolling instead?

And you wonder why you had to start this thread.

"Yes, it's entirely true," he responded, slightly miffed that such a response was required of him in the first place. "Tagging an account is not the same thing as excluding an account from your trust list in any way, shape or form. Why you would bother to take the time to express otherwise is entirely beyond my comprehension."

Nutildah had grown beyond tired of Timelord2067's illogical assertions, insinuations and connections over the years, but he had learned an effective trick for dealing with the situation: from hereon out he would respond to his posts in third person narration. Nutildah found it introduced a relieving disconnection between himself and Timelord, and perhaps more important, he found it to be funny.

First you distrust that user, then you remove your distrust.

What part of my question did you not understand?


What would you prefer?

I think you are wrong here.  "Tagging" means leaving trust.  nutildah doesn't distrust this user, only who the user trusts (BPIP wording could be changed).

The trust network is meant to be viewed by everyone.   The DT inclusions/exclusions are semi-private.   You tag the public side, right?

Normally in situations like this I would ask "what the fuck are you babbling about" but this is so clearly made up that I can just advise you to fuck off.

Well... that's not entirely true:




Why the sudden back peddling from both of you (and suchmoon's distrust, then indifference?)

True, but RaltcoinsB having Vispilio and wolwoo in their trust is RaltcoinsB's responsibility, and including someone for being a merit source or respected or successful is making trust lists into twitface "likes".

Thanks for stopping by with your explanation. I'm not going to tag your account or anything but it's curious to me that Vispilio and wolwoo would add you to their trust network even though you never left a trust rating. It's not your fault that they added you, their behavior sort of goes against what DT is supposed to be about.

If I'm wrong here, I'm open to other interpretations.

When all else fails, turn to the tried and true methodologies:

Date Registered:    2013-07-26, 23:57:08   EFS

Date Registered:    2014-01-01, 07:44:21   funchiestz

Date Registered:    2015-02-06, 18:34:52   mhanbostanci

Date Registered:    2015-03-21, 23:20:40   Kalemder

Date Registered:    2017-03-02, 03:08:41   bobita

Date Registered:    2017-04-10, 12:03:24   Vispilio

Date Registered:    2017-05-16, 09:30:37   wolwoo

Date Registered:    2017-06-02, 16:42:41   Blacknavy
Date Registered:    2017-06-08, 20:46:14   RaltcoinsB

Date Registered:    2017-07-18, 04:06:42   PHI1618

Date Registered:    2017-08-13, 01:47:29   lossnet

Date Registered:    2017-10-04, 07:40:44   gumusi

Date Registered:    2017-10-28, 08:00:26   Xday123

Date Registered:    2017-11-19, 21:03:51   koincik
Date Registered:    2017-11-23, 04:10:37   gospodin

Date Registered:    2018-01-25, 16:28:05   Hovarda

Date Registered:    2018-02-15, 06:33:11   Bthd

Date Registered:    2019-02-14, 05:34:20   mandown

Date Registered:    2019-10-15, 20:22:35   BountyDetective

Date Registered:    2019-11-16, 21:23:57   Tom Bombadil

Date Registered:    2020-05-07, 05:28:16   kriminall
Last Active:    2020-05-12, 18:43:21      Xday123

Date Registered:    2020-10-17, 00:41:31   osmanucal
Date Registered:    2020-10-17, 00:50:37   cryptoinfal

---

---

What are the odds of those who are on their DT trust list for the most part having been created roughly one month apart in early 2017 through 2018 (and a couple of examples in 2015/2019 as well?)

What are the odds of two users being created less than ten minutes apart then going on to trust the same user?

---

---

Week 98 - https://loyce.club/trust/2020-11-29_Sun_14.19h/1024933.html



Week 98 - https://loyce.club/trust/2020-11-29_Sun_14.19h/2695747.html



Week 98 - https://loyce.club/trust/2020-11-29_Sun_14.19h/2866246.html



Week 98 - https://loyce.club/trust/2020-11-29_Sun_14.19h/2866248.html

first of all hello and sorry that my english is not very good i will use translation.  I never had a goal of becoming a dt member.  I did not pressure or suggest any user to put me on their trust list.  I am working as a police officer in Turkey already now.  I had a close friend who was interested in this forum: Xday123.  we were working together.  We occasionally sent tokens to each other in some of our accounts.  I even exchanged tokens with his help, since he had an account on some exchanges and did not have my account.  Which of us haven't done that?  Xday123 is currently working in another city and when we spoke on the phone he told me that he could not enter the forum for family reasons.  He even asked about the signature campaign, and I told him about bitvest / 777 campaigns and told him that he had to pay Bitcoin.  He himself applied, but did not enter the forum afterwards.  I explained what happened with all its reality. 
 Vispilio, our club has merit resources and very useful messages.  He is a respected person in the Turkish forum.  wolwoo was a very successful member when he shared like that, he was a little more deactivated these days.  These members are already on the trust list of most Turkish users.  If you have an objective member from the Turkish tavern that you trust, you can check what I wrote.

Helana hasn't posted since 2018-11-10, 07:13:37 (so it's getting a little off topic) and has given no trust feedback (ever)


You might "trust" both, however, you aren't on either's list of users trusted by them: https://loyce.club/trust/2020-12-19_Sat_04.07h/698159.html or https://loyce.club/trust/2020-12-19_Sat_04.07h/543626.html

Most of the Trust relations on the Turkish local board seem to be based on nationality instead of their good judgement. This has been going on for a while.

Most of the users who included (or are included by) RaltcoinsB have negative feedback:

Jet Cash is DT1 member, so his inclusion make Helana DT2 member. An user who never have sent feedback is unlikely to be seen in DT2 list.
If this thread wouldn't exist, I would never share it anywhere, used only another of this example. I trust both users jackg and Jet Cash.

There's only one of two reciprocal trusts and we don't know that it wasn't Helana that reciprocated trust of the other two first...

I think what I was getting at is that these users' situation hasn't changed in over 100 weeks - if both were going to trust/betrusted, it would have happened by now.


I trust jackg and have no reason to distrust Jet Cash - abuse of the system?  I doubt it.  They might have both encountered that user early on and haven't given any thought to that user since.

jackg only trusts eight users, so they like Helana aren't in contention for DT1 at this point.

I take it you haven't reached out to either, if you had you would have mentioned it already.

Yes, but there is little point to trusting the user when the lack thereof has the same net effect on everyone's trust settings.

The only time something changes is when:

Helana updates their trust list and becomes trusted by others, thereby potentially affecting DT1
Helana adds new trust feedback

---

But who adds someone to their trust list in expectation of either of these?

You did ... in week 70 only to remove that distrust in week 99.

---

---

RaltcoinsB first created their DT trust list in week 69 then the following week, week 70 the two UID's you mention reciprocate DT trust-for-trust.

---

---

The two users you mention haven't changed their trust in over 101 weeks; they trusted Helana prior to week one and their trusts are unchanged now in week 101.

I totally agree that this is a misuse of custom trust list, this is not the purpose of building a trust list. It would be little off topic but I think I should have mentioned Jet Cash (DT1) and jackg who include Helana on their trust list who never sent any feedback, never received any feedback.
Trust list for Helana- https://loyce.club/trust/2020-12-19_Sat_04.07h/2359691.html
Profile of Helana- https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/helana-2359691
I wouldn’t say Jet Cash and jackg are abusing the system. In fact, they are not much active in the feedback system but this inclusion is clearly misuse or wrong use.

There is pretty much no chance of getting Vispilio and wolwoo out since they have martyr status on the Turkish board and will be voted in against any DT guidelines. And I doubt that other suggestions - like increasing the eligibility requirements, or restricting DT1 peer voting for deeply-excluded users - would ever be implemented so all we can do is play whack-a-mole with these new shitheads once they pop up.


Ah fuck... will you stop doxing me.

Started a thread specifically for this subject. It is self-moderated but I probably won't delete your post unless you are a douche.

Today I was looking at the Default trust breakdown and noticed somebody for the first time:

RaltcoinsB: 2
Trusted by:

• Vispilio
• wolwoo

RaltcoinsB has never left or received a trust, but they do have a trust list with Vispilio and wolwoo on it.

With no trust system experience whatsoever, is this really the kind of user that should be on DT1?

Well, if there was any doubt, it would appear they've also been cheating bounties with an alt as well.

RaltcoinsB used this ETH address for an airdrop. The address sent PundiX tokens to another address, which contains another incoming PundiX transaction of the exact same amount from this address, which belongs to Xday123.

Both addresses also moved Medical Token to the same address, as well.

And the cherry on the top is that they sent each other 3 merits, which isn't so much, but there's little doubt in my mind that these aren't owned by the same person. Xday123 has been inactive since May after being unable to land a signature campaign gig.

I don't want to get too snarky or judgy (only a little bit), but we should be diligent about not letting this kind of thing creep into DT1, which is basically flagrant disregard for what DT is supposed to be about. Its unapologetic nepotism at the most basic level and there are some otherwise decent folks that let it happen by continuing to include obvious trust system abusers, for whatever reason.