What I was saying there is that DefaultTrust effectively puts 100 people on your trust list (quasi-directly, I mean; I'm not talking about what the final number would be after accounting for depth). I haven't pondered this deeply (maybe there's an off-by-one error I'm making about where in the recursion the 100 inclusions actually happen), but, my point was that accomplishing a similar level of "coverage" (with a completely-custom trust list) is going to be unrealistic for most users.
My gut feeling tells me it doesn't really matter: many users include the same users, so there's an overlap. But more importantly: the users on my Trust list (at Depth 0) add their Trust list to my Depth 1. Based on my years old data, the 23 users on my Trust list give me 183 users on Depth 1. That's already more than DT1. 
Topic: How long does this warning stay on the account profile? (Read 543 times)
I'd say keep the Trust Depth: (...)
Yep. In that scenario I'm already assuming that trust depth would more-or-less still work the same way. What I was saying there is that DefaultTrust effectively puts 100 people on your trust list (quasi-directly, I mean; I'm not talking about what the final number would be after accounting for depth). I haven't pondered this deeply (maybe there's an off-by-one error I'm making about where in the recursion the 100 inclusions actually happen), but, my point was that accomplishing a similar level of "coverage" (with a completely-custom trust list) is going to be unrealistic for most users. (But, as I said later, it's also not obvious to me that that amount of coverage is necessary.)The first thing that comes to mind is how inflexible StarterTrust would be: it will be very difficult for any new user to reach it.
I don't see that as a problem. Remember, its whole purpose is much simpler and more focused than DefaultTrust: it's just something that's meant to prevent new accounts from flying blind. The broader idea is to get everyone (new and old) to start making use of the trust system minus any default component. In fact, to really drive that point home, I'd make it so that you can either have a grayed-out trust list that contains StarterTrust (and nothing else) or have a non-grayed-out trust list that contains a set of manually-picked (excepting StarterTrust) inclusions and exclusions. I'd also make it so that you'd have to move on from StarterTrust at some point (as in, the reminders will eventually force you to curate your own list, even if that means leaving it completely empty). Normally, forcing anything rubs me the wrong way, but on this issue, the pros dominate the cons, I think. In that scenario, I'd have to create a much larger Trust list to see the feedback from users who are now shown already.
That's true... I can't imagine too many users curating ~100 inclusions. I don't have a good answer for that one.Custom Trust lists have large recursive implications because the users you trust directly (Depth 0) make you trust the ones they trust (Depth 1), and the users they trust (Depth 2)
That easily adds hundreds of people. It's not perfect, and I won't agree with everything, but doable.For example, what if instead of "DefaultTrust" (and everything that goes along with it: voting, the lottery, a non-flat user hierarchy, necessarily out-in-the-open trust lists) there were something like "StarterTrust". StarterTrust could be comprised of something like the ~30 users with the most merit that have also posted within the last 30 days. Now, before anyone says "That's bullshit! The people with the most merit are just good at getting merit! They don't necessarily leave good feedback or have good trust lists.", firstly, I'd argue that high-earned-merit-balance is a pretty-accurate heuristic to use for identifying reasonable, intelligent, and well-meaning people, and secondly, StarterTrust would just be about giving new users something to go on.
The first thing that comes to mind is how inflexible StarterTrust would be: it will be very difficult for any new user to reach it.It would be much better if the forum administration took the action of banning the scammer after they are tagged.
That will fill theymos' days:Q: Why haven't you banned
A: Possible (or real, not for me to decide) scams are not moderated to prevent moderator abuse. If we start picking out which ones we call "scammers" and ban, we would make a lot of decisions based on biased opinions.
A: Possible (or real, not for me to decide) scams are not moderated to prevent moderator abuse. If we start picking out which ones we call "scammers" and ban, we would make a lot of decisions based on biased opinions.
That's why I think mods should have the liberty to ban scammers at will.
There are always less clear cases. Who's going to decide who's right?Quote
~ DT could tag scammers as a report (real scammers, not jumping-the-gun preemptive action against probable scammers)
DT could do that right now. But many users tag accounts for a lot less than that, which has reduced the value of negative feedback.Quote
Positive trust is useful. As is neutral trust. But the negative trust is not doing its job.
Positive feedback is also often given for the wrong reasons. The system is far from perfect. 
Ha! Imagine spending a month in jail because you used the Swiss coat of arms in a way that "might offend Swiss national sentiment". How would you even reliably determine that? Another one I like from that article (though I haven't checked if it was properly sourced; these days, most of what I read online often turns out, after recursive investigation, to be incorrect) is the ban on taking a bath with a donkey after seven in the evening... I mean, remind me never to move to Oklahoma, because that ban would really cramp my style (typically, I like to be in the tub with my donkey when I'm shampooing it, sometimes late into the night).
Wow, I didn't expect the Swiss to have thinner skin than us yanks. Anyway....
The thing is, while that observation of yours does give me pause, I still can't shake the feeling that DT, in practice, produces far too many negative consequences in exchange for its benefits. Ask yourself this: What problem is DT (as a concept) meant to solve? All I can come up with is: It's meant to solve the problem of new users having nothing to go on, and mitigate the observed problem of too many established users not bothering to curate their own trust lists. If that really is the problem it's intending to solve/mitigate, then I think it's doing so at hideous expense. I mean, there are other ways to get there that wouldn't have nearly as many knock-on negative effects.
DT is primarily meant to stop people from getting scammed. But clearly, it's not helping since the scam accusations is always getting filled with new topics. It would be much better if the forum administration took the action of banning the scammer after they are tagged.
DTs cannot ban scammers, so since people still get scammed, it's not useful. That's why I think mods should have the liberty to ban scammers at will. Otherwise DT is seen as just an "old boys club", something that is just used to block account monetization (i.e. signature campaigns).
Scamming should be forbidden under the forum rules, but we all know that's never going to happen. But if it did, then DT could tag scammers as a report (real scammers, not jumping-the-gun preemptive action against probable scammers), and they'd be removed from here. Then you'd have a flag appear automatically instead of waiting for someone to create it.
Positive trust is useful. As is neutral trust. But the negative trust is not doing its job.
You could, under the current Trust system, use an alt account for this: (...)
That's true. But it would take more effort than I'm prepared to expend (and anyway make me pretty uncomfortable) to maintain a secret alt account (and if it weren't secret, then I'd expect any reputational consequences to affect my actual account, on the basis that trust is/should-be about people, not accounts).Ha! Imagine spending a month in jail because you used the Swiss coat of arms in a way that "might offend Swiss national sentiment". How would you even reliably determine that? Another one I like from that article (though I haven't checked if it was properly sourced; these days, most of what I read online often turns out, after recursive investigation, to be incorrect) is the ban on taking a bath with a donkey after seven in the evening... I mean, remind me never to move to Oklahoma, because that ban would really cramp my style (typically, I like to be in the tub with my donkey when I'm shampooing it, sometimes late into the night).
In that scenario, I'd have to create a much larger Trust list to see the feedback from users who are now shown already.
That's true... I can't imagine too many users curating ~100 inclusions. I don't have a good answer for that one. That changes my position a bit, and sets my get-rid-of-DT seriousness-level back down to something like 60%. Hmm... I wonder if DT1 being 100-wide is not so much a very-carefully-selected design parameter, but more something that's just as big as it can reasonably be? Because if it's the latter, then it shouldn't be taken as some kind of target to aim for with a custom trust list (which is to say, there'd be no real basis for an argument that goes: "We have to keep DT because most users are never going to be able to achieve that kind of tag/flag visibility-coverage on their own").The thing is, while that observation of yours does give me pause, I still can't shake the feeling that DT, in practice, produces far too many negative consequences in exchange for its benefits. Ask yourself this: What problem is DT (as a concept) meant to solve? All I can come up with is: It's meant to solve the problem of new users having nothing to go on, and mitigate the observed problem of too many established users not bothering to curate their own trust lists. If that really is the problem it's intending to solve/mitigate, then I think it's doing so at hideous expense. I mean, there are other ways to get there that wouldn't have nearly as many knock-on negative effects.
For example, what if instead of "DefaultTrust" (and everything that goes along with it: voting, the lottery, a non-flat user hierarchy, necessarily out-in-the-open trust lists) there were something like "StarterTrust". StarterTrust could be comprised of something like the ~30 users with the most merit that have also posted within the last 30 days. Now, before anyone says "That's bullshit! The people with the most merit are just good at getting merit! They don't necessarily leave good feedback or have good trust lists.", firstly, I'd argue that high-earned-merit-balance is a pretty-accurate heuristic to use for identifying reasonable, intelligent, and well-meaning people, and secondly, StarterTrust would just be about giving new users something to go on. The idea would be that nobody is supposed to keep StarterTrust on their list forever, and that a few smart, well-timed, and well-placed account reminders to curate your own trust list would encourage users to move on from StarterTrust.
So basically half the forum will be shadow-banned from the other half 
Basically. Though, if I'm being perfectly honest, I'd much prefer the more-freedom-less-safety side to (eventually) become the "majority fork".But, thinking about what you said, and comparing it with my own experience(s), I think you're probably right: most people don't want freedom (or, at least, they don't want it when it comes at the expense of safety, and, even more depressing, they sometimes don't even want it when the only thing that it would cost them is convenience).
Mods will go nuts reading 2 different versions of a discussion, where half the participants can't read what the other half wrote.
Haha, yeah. I think what I'd do for composite (0+1+2) mode is give each side's posts a different background color, or something, to help make sense of the two different "channels" of thought. I don't think it'll be as confusing as you might imagine (I mean, it's already the case that multiple, independent post-streams can and often do exist within a single thread). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if, in practice, it turns out to be easier in some cases to make sense of the discussion.I'm not convinced this will be an improvement, but I'd love to see how it unfolds.
Ditto. The thing is, without something in this vein, and with this particular more-freedom-less-safety vs. more-safety-less-freedom issue, I don't see how it would be possible to do better than a some-freedom-some-safety compromise that would leave both sides unhappy (I mean, mutual-unhappiness is usually a sign that a given compromise is fair, but, that's only the high-water mark when it's just not possible to give both sides what they want). ~ I think the best compromise is to just let them keep pursuing their own ideology and keep trying (with far too much zeal, IMO) to tag and flag undesirables, but only amongst themselves (as in, with other users that share their ideology).
How fun would it be to have multiple definitions of "DefaultTrust": one the way it is, but also "DefaultTrustNoPolice" which excludes the "policing" accounts. It's going to be one happy positive feedback fest in that one and only the worst scammers will show red. The problem of course will be who decides who gets into which category, without centralized decision making.The people (like me) that would point-in-time disappear from view from the perspective of the pro-police side, would then be free to do anything permitted by the forum's rules, without ever having to worry about user-to-user power dynamics of any kind (on the no-police side of the forum, there'd be no trust system at all, and therefore no rule-following path that could possibly lead to account ruination; you could say or do basically whatever you like, and if anyone has a problem with it you can just tell them to go pound sand).
You could, under the current Trust system, use an alt account for this:If you're hesitant to say something controversial because you don't want it to be associated with your name, please create an alt account and say it.
I think that they've caused more harm than good, but there's no arguing that they haven't done any good at all (because they definitely have, just, not enough to offset all of the life that I suspect they've choked out of the forum).
From what I've seen, many people aren't ready for freedom. They want someone to control things. This forum offers more freedom than any other forum I know, and I've seen ask people for more rules. I'm sometimes guilty of this myself. Users have asked to ban "offensive" speech, racism, mean words and more. In real life, governments make more and more rules, and it's very rare to remove any of them. So we see an ever increasing government involvement with more and more restrictions. Some are good (driving licenses and speed limits within city limits), other are questionable (you're not allowed to beat a burglar unless he beats you, and (I only found out now) you're not allowed to make fun of the Swiss). Back to the forum: I've never seen rules removed, only added. So I'm quite happy theymos sticks to the forum's mission "to be as free as possible".I am never completely tied to anything, but let's try this for at least a few months and see how it works.
[1] Roughly, posts made before the introduction of this "split" would be marked (in the database) with a 0. Past that point, posts made by the pro-police side would be marked with a 1, and posts made by the no-police side would be marked with a 2. The staff would have a 0+1+2 view of the forum. The pro-policers would have a 0+1 view of the forum. The no-policers would have a 0+2 view of the forum. Initially, everyone's view of the forum would agree, but, over time, old topics would diverge, and new topics would appear just on one side or the other. Probably it makes sense to give users the ability to sometimes see things the same way staff do (0+1+2), but the important point here is that because 0+1 (pro-police) users can't by default see what 0+2 (no-police) users are posting/doing, you can justifiably remove the ability for pro-policers to tag/flag/trust/distrust no-policers (after all, no-police content is meant only for guests and other no-policers, so there's no reasonable argument that a pro-policer can make that they should be able to have trust-wise interactions with users from the other side).
So basically half the forum will be shadow-banned from the other half I've never seen anything like it implemented on any forum (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist).Let's call it the Forum Fork! This will lead to endless discussions about which Fork is the real Bitcointalk
Mods will go nuts reading 2 different versions of a discussion, where half the participants can't read what the other half wrote. I'm not convinced this will be an improvement, but I'd love to see how it unfolds.Quote
I'm thinking about adding some logic to the post editor that warns you when you have unbalanced quote tags.
While you're at it, include the "list" tag: when it's incomplete, the forum adds a tag at the beginning (or end? I'm not sure) of the post to mess up everything. But ... The Trust system doesn't take away anyone's ability to express their opinion. They can still type whatever they want. It just discourages most people from doing so for the sake of earning money.
Yup. That part of what I wrote is a bit confusing. If you change say to do in that particular expression of Voltaire's thinking (which I think is from a biography by Evelyn Beatrice Hall), then you'll end up with: “I disapprove of what you do, but I will defend to the death your right to do it.”, which, while simple-minded in that unqualified form, is more in keeping with the point that I've been trying to make. What I'm saying is: even though I personally disagree (strongly) with a large part of the pro-police side of the forum, I have no (genuine, non-impulsive) interest in stopping them from doing their thing. With that in mind, I think the best compromise is to just let them keep pursuing their own ideology and keep trying (with far too much zeal, IMO) to tag and flag undesirables, but only amongst themselves (as in, with other users that share their ideology). I appreciate that it's headache-inducing to see how that could possibly work, but I suspect it could [1]. The people (like me) that would point-in-time disappear from view from the perspective of the pro-police side, would then be free to do anything permitted by the forum's rules, without ever having to worry about user-to-user power dynamics of any kind (on the no-police side of the forum, there'd be no trust system at all, and therefore no rule-following path that could possibly lead to account ruination; you could say or do basically whatever you like, and if anyone has a problem with it you can just tell them to go pound sand).I wouldn't always call it "damage" done by DT.
Yup, that's fair. I'm just writing a little lazily there (if I had to qualify every thought, then my posts would be twice the size of JJG's).I think that they've caused more harm than good, but there's no arguing that they haven't done any good at all (because they definitely have, just, not enough to offset all of the life that I suspect they've choked out of the forum).
Even if you exclude DefaultTrust, the DT-levels still exist.
In that quote, I'm not talking about excluding DefaultTrust, I'm talking about abandoning the whole concept. I mean, obviously trust depth would still be a thing (though, I have ideas about that, too, which I won't get into here), but trust depth is a concept orthogonal to DefaultTrust.Hey, don't take away my Trust list viewer It's my proudest work here Nobody else ever created one.
Haha, yeah. That thought did cross my mind, and you definitely should be proud of that tool (it's great, and I use it often). It's my proudest work here Nobody else ever created one.
The thing is, I really believe that people would curate better trust lists (as in, more useful to them, which is kind of the whole point) if they didn't have to worry about retaliatory exclusions and getting hassled by the peanut gallery for their choices (really, it's nobody's business who trusts who, and who distrusts who, it's better, in many ways, I think, if people arrive at their trust-related decisions by themselves and based on their own experience of other members). (I mean, I know that there are currently good reasons for trust lists to be out-in-the-open, but, if you imagine the trust system without DT, and therefore without voting and everything that goes along with that, then it becomes harder to justify.)
Remember, between me having no authority to do so, and me anyway being only ~70% serious about nuking DefaultTrust (I mean, I didn't actually send the PM-draft I quoted from), I don't think you have very much to worry about.
My favorite (for now, at least) trust-system-related idea is the one I repeated at the top of this post. I like it because it doesn't take anything away from anyone, the pro-police side of the forum can keep snooping on each other, judging each other, getting in each other's way, doing "investigations" and all the rest of the stupid horseshit that they seem to enjoy doing, and the no-police side can just be a normal forum without everything always having to take place on some kind of a reputational minefield, and without all of this power gradient bullshit. I mean, I say normal, but, obviously things are going to get really wild on that side, with all sorts of things taking place that would give a pro-policer the shits. But, that's fine because everyone on the no-police side knows that they've opted into a more dangerous environment and that they're liable to get scammed in two seconds flat if they're not careful. (Honestly, I think what you'll find is that the no-policers will spend very little time worrying/thinking about what might be happening on the other side, but the pro-policers are going to frequently find themselves really annoyed at the idea that people on the no-police side are beyond their punitive reach.)
I think that to make the no-police side of the forum more than just a complete balls-out madhouse, the ignore system would need to be beefed up. I also think that, even though it's not a very good ideological fit for the no-police side, some kind of federated ignore system could serve as its "trust system" (but those thoughts are too much to unpack here).
[1] Roughly, posts made before the introduction of this "split" would be marked (in the database) with a 0. Past that point, posts made by the pro-police side would be marked with a 1, and posts made by the no-police side would be marked with a 2. The staff would have a 0+1+2 view of the forum. The pro-policers would have a 0+1 view of the forum. The no-policers would have a 0+2 view of the forum. Initially, everyone's view of the forum would agree, but, over time, old topics would diverge, and new topics would appear just on one side or the other. Probably it makes sense to give users the ability to sometimes see things the same way staff do (0+1+2), but the important point here is that because 0+1 (pro-police) users can't by default see what 0+2 (no-police) users are posting/doing, you can justifiably remove the ability for pro-policers to tag/flag/trust/distrust no-policers (after all, no-police content is meant only for guests and other no-policers, so there's no reasonable argument that a pro-policer can make that they should be able to have trust-wise interactions with users from the other side).
BTW, I noticed that pre-edit misquote. I do a lot of Meta back-reading, and I (months ago at this point) bumped into this post by Maged (and the next few after it, too). I enjoy bumping into these really old, long-standing forum problems and then finding ways to now fix/remedy them. I'm thinking about adding some logic to the post editor that warns you when you have unbalanced quote tags. Not sure why I'm bringing it up, but, yeah... I'm just saying.
To be clear: I'm not in the habit of telling people to fuck off (or even thinking it), especially when they're just asking questions (even irritating/uncomfortable/exhausting ones).
Me neither. But I love the fact that I'm allowed to do so, if I ever feel like it.No tags without victims. In this case the victim lost 16 Bitcoins. It's a fine line between questioning good users for no reason, and pointing out the obvious scammers.
if I turn off maximum-tolerance mode (as in, I abandon the philosophy that “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”), then I wouldn't even mess around with any of this "split" user base stuff: I'd just scrap the whole trust system
But ... The Trust system doesn't take away anyone's ability to express their opinion. They can still type whatever they want. It just discourages most people from doing so for the sake of earning money.Like the units of evil: would you have paid to post here?
I wouldn't have. In fact, it's unlikely that I even would have applied to be whitelisted if I hadn't by that point read some of your posts and thought: "Okay, now here's a dude that speaks my language!". Quote
@logfiles: Sorry for messing up your topic.
Sorry But since OP's question seems to be answered and we're still in Meta, I figured it's okay to discuss forum trust I'm just being practical here, I try to accomplish what's wanted with the tools currently available. I've learned a long time ago that's a lot easier than trying to have the system itself changed.
I mean, I can't fault you for that. You can see my confusion when I don't expect you to scam anyone, but still want to respond to questions by telling people to fuck off.
To be clear: I'm not in the habit of telling people to fuck off (or even thinking it), especially when they're just asking questions (even irritating/uncomfortable/exhausting ones). But, what gets me to see red pretty quickly is when I realize that I'm not being asked questions from a completely innocent and harmlessly-inquisitive place. (Honestly, when I consider users like Vod, my thinking is: besides interrogatees being on the wrong end of an often unjustifiable and unfair power gradient, I don't see how some people on DT don't routinely find themselves being impolitely told to go and take a long walk off a short pier. That is, before they've done their damage, I mean: obviously, they're used to getting an earful after they've painted an account.)But when I think about eddie13's post, it makes me think it barely solves anything while it does a lot of damage by scaring away good people.
Yup, that's (very much) my feeling, too...I guess what I'm trying to do is think of some way to accommodate both perspectives (pro-police vs. no-police), but, if I turn off maximum-tolerance mode (as in, I abandon the philosophy that “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”), then I wouldn't even mess around with any of this "split" user base stuff: I'd just scrap the whole trust system on the basis that it's causing (in my view) more total harm than total good. Failing that, I'd just scrap the most damaging part of it: DefaultTrust.
(Hmm... I noticed that Friday was my first-ever selection into DT1. Just thinking out loud here, guys, but, maybe the trust system should be left as-is. I mean, it is actually pretty nifty, after all.)
The below thoughts (an excerpt from a draft of a PM meant for theymos that was never sent) are a little out-of-phase with my current thinking, because they're ~3 months old, but I do still agree with most of it:
Like the units of evil: would you have paid to post here?
I wouldn't have. In fact, it's unlikely that I even would have applied to be whitelisted if I hadn't by that point read some of your posts and thought: "Okay, now here's a dude that speaks my language!". This reminds me there was another reason for a short response:
Haha, yeah. (Feel free to send me your reply, if any, by PM.)Probably this is getting (way) too off-topic here
Sorry @logfiles: Sorry for messing up your topic.
[1] Please don't take this the wrong way, because I do enjoy interacting with you, but here's something to think about: I often find your responses to ideas to be more from the strawman side of the spectrum than the steelman side (as in, you often seem, maybe because you don't have time for the alternative, to want to take advantage of the fact that it's easier to break an argument down or to just quickly say one or two "clever" things than it is to carefully look at something under the most flattering light, patch its flaws, and then try to build it up).
I'm just being practical here, I try to accomplish what's wanted with the tools currently available. I've learned a long time ago that's a lot easier than trying to have the system itself changed.The way I understood your proposal is that you want a Wild West mode in which you don't see Trust ratings, but others can't add it to you either. You have a point that I took the road of a short response, but what I was thinking is that it would be interesting to see how that pans out. I can guess, and I can think of different scenarios, but it would be much more interesting to actually try it, and see what's going to happen.
Another clueless naive new user bites the dust, the forum loses a new user, and Bitcoin loses a potential user forever.
But it seems inevitable, theymos made a good point:Honestly, I think that someone that naïve can't be protected. Even if every inch of the page had been full of warnings, he still might've fallen for it, since he wasn't even thinking about the possibility of being given evil instructions.
We can't protect everyone. In this case it was a very expensive lesson, which makes me think it would have been much better if he would have learned the same lesson earlier for a much lower amount. People lose their guard when they feel protected, for instance when they rely on browser warning popups blocking them from using websites, instead of thinking for themselves.I've always liked that Bitcointalk offers more freedom than any other site I know. But Bitcointalk's image isn't that good already because scams aren't moderated. If a "Wild West" mode forces more people to think for themselves again, that may be a win
This reminds me there was another reason for a short response:
Probably this is getting (way) too off-topic here
Sorry
I mean, yeah, and I figured you'd say that [1], but, that's not really the point I'm trying to make: what I'm saying is that there should be a way (I don't know exactly what that way would be) for each group to feel just as at home and welcome as the other (I mean, right now, one group feels more-or-less completely at home, while the other group feels like they have to be really careful about what they say or do). Using myself as an example, there are a few Bitcoin-related services that I'd probably attempt to build, but not in the current environment... I know myself, and I know that I just don't have the temperament to politely deal with people that figure that they have the right to ask me all kinds of (leading) questions and then tag me when they don't like or agree with the answers I give them: I can't see myself not eventually picking up a bunch of DT-tags and getting frustrated and leaving if I just do what comes naturally to me in those situations and I tell those kinds of people to fuck off.
So, really what interests me about this kind of bifurcated user base idea, is making this particular ideological battleground less asymmetric: right now, one side can (and routinely does) harm and stifle/frustrate the proceedings of the other. I'm not that interested necessarily in being able to return the favor, I'm more interested in finding an effective way to (globally) nerf the over-strong side...
Something like, if I could point-in-time migrate to the no-police side of the forum (as in, my new topics and replies would then only ever appear there), then, why would the pro-police side even need the ability to leave me additional feedback past that point: it's not like it could potentially "save" anyone from anything, because guests can't see trust, and the only members affected by what I post from that point onward would be people that also can't see trust.
(Seriously, I considered editing the post after I made it, but there's only so much energy I can muster for framing everything in a way that leaves absolutely no low-hanging fruit to pick.)
[1] Please don't take this the wrong way, because I do enjoy interacting with you, but here's something to think about: I often find your responses to ideas to be more from the strawman side of the spectrum than the steelman side (as in, you often seem, maybe because you don't have time for the alternative, to want to take advantage of the fact that it's easier to break an argument down or to just quickly say one or two "clever" things than it is to carefully look at something under the most flattering light, patch its flaws, and then try to build it up).
So, really what interests me about this kind of bifurcated user base idea, is making this particular ideological battleground less asymmetric: right now, one side can (and routinely does) harm and stifle/frustrate the proceedings of the other. I'm not that interested necessarily in being able to return the favor, I'm more interested in finding an effective way to (globally) nerf the over-strong side...
Something like, if I could point-in-time migrate to the no-police side of the forum (as in, my new topics and replies would then only ever appear there), then, why would the pro-police side even need the ability to leave me additional feedback past that point: it's not like it could potentially "save" anyone from anything, because guests can't see trust, and the only members affected by what I post from that point onward would be people that also can't see trust.
I'd use a different account to read your topics
I mean, yeah, and I figured you'd say that, too. (Seriously, I considered editing the post after I made it, but there's only so much energy I can muster for framing everything in a way that leaves absolutely no low-hanging fruit to pick.)Scammers are going to love it!
That's an unavoidable consequence of freedom-maximization, and you could say essentially the same thing about Bitcoin itself: Scammers love it! [1] Please don't take this the wrong way, because I do enjoy interacting with you, but here's something to think about: I often find your responses to ideas to be more from the strawman side of the spectrum than the steelman side (as in, you often seem, maybe because you don't have time for the alternative, to want to take advantage of the fact that it's easier to break an argument down or to just quickly say one or two "clever" things than it is to carefully look at something under the most flattering light, patch its flaws, and then try to build it up).
It makes me think that maybe there should be a "wild west" mode that lets people opt-out of the trust system altogether (as in, allow users to fly completely blind: no trust feedback, no trust flags, no trust warnings). If that mode were available (even if it was a permanent account-wise choice), I'd likely go for it myself
This already exists, just edit your Trust settings:Trust list:
Code:
~DefaultTrust
Code:
0
Quote
if I had the ability, at creation time, to mark my own topics such that they'd only be available to members from "my" side, then I'd occasionally do that
I'd use a different account to read your topics Quote
The nice thing about an environment like that (internally, at least; the pro-police side wouldn't be affected) is that the emphasis would have to shift from tagging/flagging (which would no longer be possible) to teaching (as in, user-to-user sharing of the techniques necessary to operate safely within a dangerous environment).
Scammers are going to love it! For every user you teach how to be safe, ten others will join who are still easy victims. People fall for obvious scams, and some scams aren't even that obvious anymore. Especially the part where he uses the word "regulatory" got me thinking. The forum's mission is to be as free as possible. That includes allowing people to hunt scammers, but it makes it very difficult for new users to have the freedom to do business here.
Probably this is getting (way) too off-topic here, but, yeah... I do like a lot of the points made by eddie13 in that post.I (personally) place freedom above just about any other concern, so the forum's mission to reach for that ideal (within reason) resonates with me. I very much like the idea of a forum that can tolerate (and even encourage) the existence of many different attitudes about things. I really don't much like the idea of users settling their ideological differences by trying to "punish" one another. For example, Foxpup and BayAreaCoins evidently disagree on what constitutes appropriate use of testnet coins, but that's seriously not the kind of disagreement that should've spilled over onto BayAreaCoins' trust page. When I'm deciding on whether or not it's safe to transact directly with someone, I really don't need to know that their view on testnet coins is completely at odds with Foxpup's (and probably at odds with nearly every other technically-minded user, too, but that's not germane).
I like the point you're making about freedom cutting both ways: the freedom for people to do what they want, and the freedom for others to condemn them for it. What I don't think Bitcointalk does very well at the moment is provide an equally-hospitable home for both groups (I mean, the pro-police side has clearly found a foothold, and the other side is just hobbling along in the shadow of the first). It makes me think that maybe there should be a "wild west" mode that lets people opt-out of the trust system altogether (as in, allow users to fly completely blind: no trust feedback, no trust flags, no trust warnings). If that mode were available (even if it was a permanent account-wise choice), I'd likely go for it myself: I don't really care for all the forum-cop bullshit that I see, and I identify much more strongly with the set of users that have a live-and-let-live philosophy and that are comfortable taking their safety into their own hands (and, if I had the ability, at creation time, to mark my own topics such that they'd only be available to members from "my" side, then I'd occasionally do that, too: if a scaredy-cat user wants to see all of my stuff, then they'll need to don their big-boy pants and switch sides).
It'd be kind of cool to see how a lightly-moderated Bitcoin community without any reputational "weapons" would develop (I have to imagine that more people would try more things, both good and bad, probably like it was in the very early days). The nice thing about an environment like that (internally, at least; the pro-police side wouldn't be affected) is that the emphasis would have to shift from tagging/flagging (which would no longer be possible) to teaching (as in, user-to-user sharing of the techniques necessary to operate safely within a dangerous environment).
I don't know about email address change.
As far as I know about email changes if a user has changed their account email it shows up as a warning for 30 days. A 30 day warning is there to show who actually changed this email. Who actually changed the account or someone else changed it. If the original user sees it within 30 days, he can log the account if he wants.Seclog (only ranked up accounts woke up, pass change, email change) - https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php (https://archive.ph/CwaV8)
Seclog (including newbie accounts woke up, pass change, email change) - https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php?all (https://archive.ph/3Dnea)
If you want to see the accounts that have changed their email and changed their password and changed their password and email, you can check them from the logfiles suggested links explore then you can see them. Seclog (including newbie accounts woke up, pass change, email change) - https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php?all (https://archive.ph/3Dnea)
I don't give big blames to the evil fees but bullies in the forum. Some DT bullies who goes around tagging newbies and lower members for some stupid reasons. It also scare new comers.
It's been like that ever since I joined Bitcointalk. As a Newbie, this was a scary place. It makes your account feel insignificant, and you see people left and right getting tagged for the smallest things.That's what makes eddie13's post so good: tiny things get a harsh treatment, while the huge altcoin, ICO, Defi and NFT money makers designed for pump and dump are left alone. The only thing that got some backlash were Bitcoin Forks.
The only thing that got some backlash were Bitcoin Forks.
Because they tried to be "Bitcoin killers" and all failed or dead projects in 2024.A first fork is Bitcoin Cash, failed to kill Bitcoin and that shitcoin forked itself again to have Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV, another failed fork.
How many Bitcoin forks are there?
Today I randomly found this book when searching about Bitcoin, but this book is from Roger Ver.
Hijacking Bitcoin: The Hidden History of BTC.
Do anyone read this book yet?
I guess many lies in it.
Tyke, a Bitcoin forum member, spent his time to write a better book, The Bitcoin History Book 2008-2024 [Paperback/Hardcover/eBook]
https://read.amazon.com/sample/B0DJ2J4D7C
I don't give big blames to the evil fees but bullies in the forum. Some DT bullies who goes around tagging newbies and lower members for some stupid reasons. It also scare new comers.
It's been like that ever since I joined Bitcointalk. As a Newbie, this was a scary place. It makes your account feel insignificant, and you see people left and right getting tagged for the smallest things.That's what makes eddie13's post so good: tiny things get a harsh treatment, while the huge altcoin, ICO, Defi and NFT money makers designed for pump and dump are left alone. The only thing that got some backlash were Bitcoin Forks.
Especially the part where he uses the word "regulatory" got me thinking. The forum's mission is to be as free as possible. That includes allowing people to hunt scammers, but it makes it very difficult for new users to have the freedom to do business here.
I think we need to have some kind of balance between giving total control and total freedom for everyone to write whatever he wants.Speaking about scams in forum, I think that situation is better now than it was few years ago, there is less stupid scams, but forum activity is also lower.
And I also know genuine users who got scared by evil fee during registration, and they never wanted to fully join bitcointalk.
I don't give big blames to the evil fees but bullies in the forum. Some DT bullies who goes around tagging newbies and lower members for some stupid reasons. It also scare new comers.
Especially the part where he uses the word "regulatory" got me thinking. The forum's mission is to be as free as possible. That includes allowing people to hunt scammers, but it makes it very difficult for new users to have the freedom to do business here.
I think we need to have some kind of balance between giving total control and total freedom for everyone to write whatever he wants.Speaking about scams in forum, I think that situation is better now than it was few years ago, there is less stupid scams, but forum activity is also lower.
And I also know genuine users who got scared by evil fee during registration, and they never wanted to fully join bitcointalk.
I guess it's necessary (though I'm not convinced it is) on a forum like this for there to be so much focus on rooting out bad actors. But, I also can't shake the feeling that not much can grow in this soil, if you know what I mean? There's a concrete community-wise cost to the forum's culture of suspicion, and I sometimes find myself wondering if that cost is truly worth the actual (rather than supposed) upside it produces.
Have you seen the great post by eddie13 on this subject?Should never have put the temporary illusion of safety above personal liberty..
ie tagging and chasing away “likely scammers” and crushing the unique economic dynamic of account sales..
This forum started acting like protecting idiots is more important than letting users express their free wills..
How many countless good and intelligent users have been chased away because they “might” scam..
A new startup can’t come here and start a signature campaign for example without completely being bullied into “trusting” some escrow they have probably never heard of, so heaven forbid they couldn’t possibly scam some users willing to take the risk..
A new user can hardly post anything for sale here without being bullied into some 3rd party “idiot protection” scheme because OMG they might try to scam you..
A new user here can’t start lending on any sort of collateral because holy shot they might scam the collateral..
All new economics here CRUSHED by regulatory bullying in the name of “protecting idiots”...
~
I’m glad y’all saved sooooo many imbeciles from getting “scammed” by shutting that entire thriving economy down..
Oh right, the morons probably just threw their (saved from scam) money at one of the great 2017 ICOs instead..
I’m sure their filthy rich now thanks to all that saving grace..
ie tagging and chasing away “likely scammers” and crushing the unique economic dynamic of account sales..
This forum started acting like protecting idiots is more important than letting users express their free wills..
How many countless good and intelligent users have been chased away because they “might” scam..
A new startup can’t come here and start a signature campaign for example without completely being bullied into “trusting” some escrow they have probably never heard of, so heaven forbid they couldn’t possibly scam some users willing to take the risk..
A new user can hardly post anything for sale here without being bullied into some 3rd party “idiot protection” scheme because OMG they might try to scam you..
A new user here can’t start lending on any sort of collateral because holy shot they might scam the collateral..
All new economics here CRUSHED by regulatory bullying in the name of “protecting idiots”...
~
I’m glad y’all saved sooooo many imbeciles from getting “scammed” by shutting that entire thriving economy down..
Oh right, the morons probably just threw their (saved from scam) money at one of the great 2017 ICOs instead..
I’m sure their filthy rich now thanks to all that saving grace..
Click for the full post.
Especially the part where he uses the word "regulatory" got me thinking. The forum's mission is to be as free as possible. That includes allowing people to hunt scammers, but it makes it very difficult for new users to have the freedom to do business here. Jump to: