Pages:
Author

Topic: Lauda has Broken the GuideLine of the Trust System by theymos own words, ban her - page 2. (Read 3700 times)

member
Activity: 65
Merit: 10
In other words, social behaviour is locked in by a consensus mechanism that became immutable. You can always try to fork off, you will get a 51% attack on your nose.

I will find the post (in the “Bitcoin killer” thread) where I explained how to attain a Nash equilibrium without proof-of-work by leveraging the crab bucket mentality of human nature! (well that might be construed as ban evasion so you will have to go find it)

The end of the fungible, economies-of-scale, tangible winner-take-all, tragedy-of-the-commons age and the ushering in of the Inverse Commons knowledge age changes the paradigm:

A reminder to moderators, @dinofelis and I are continuing this discussion because it pertains to the ban and the fact that BCT does not allow formation of groups.



I'm not saying that a decentralized system cannot implement dynamics that naturally evolve towards forms of leadership, but I consider then that they centralize ; unless they also contain dynamical rules that destroy these leaders, so that leadership is an ephemeral phenomenon.

You are concerned that any system which can centralize will grow ever more centralized.

Actually that is an incorrect fear about the way nature is. That happens in fungible finance because fungible finance is a winner-take-all paradigm:

Edit: we are having a discussion over at slack and Craig Wright (@csw) the self-proclaimed Satoshi Nakamoto is participating. I am posting there as @anonymint:

https://pastebin.com/S6quvGMk

tula [3:05 AM]
@anonymint ok thx.. so it was as i thought ..you assume unregulated blocksize leads to 100% centralization ..because bigger pools have an advantage over smaller pools (no shit)
thus "proving" that bitcoin does not work (is a ponzi scheme) and we need a central bank.
also mathematically proving that generally free market capitalism does not work and thus the only system that works is communism (this should give you a hint where i think you made a mistake) (edited)

anonymint [9:59 AM]
@tula correct fungible finance is always a winner-take-all paradigm. Marxism rose up (as promoted by the shadow elite to give us a way to deceive ourselves and keep  us preoccupied) as a false antithesis because it is also a loser-take-all paradigm. Neither of these are the solution. But I have good news for you. Both of those paradigms are dying and I know the solution. The death of fungible money is underway and the rise of Inverse Commons in the knowledge age is coming (see links below for more details). My project is all about this. This is why @dinofelis says I have a confirmation bias on my conspiracy theories, yet my math and logic is cogent.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18526830
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18505797

But humans actually refuse to remain in groups larger than their Dunbar limit. They can only be enticed to do so by massive debt-based bribes of socialism, but this is not sustainable.

Quote
The masses want hierarchy, bosses and central authority.

Nope they will kill each other if locked into a single grouping and they can not fork off into tribes. That is why the future of the EU is going to be so horrific because the EU refuses to allow the different groups to have their own governance.

I'm not talking about a SINGLE grouping, but *every* form of sustained grouping.  Tribal groupings are also, as I said, centralized from the point of view of a tribe member.  Whether you have to obey to your tribe leader, or you have to obey to the king of the world, doesn't really matter from the point of view of a member.

Users will have the freedom to join different groups and even create their own groups, as they do on Twitter.

P.S. more links on why EU is going to have a hard crash landing:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/hunting-tourists-in-europe-for-fines/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/french-elections-a-sell-signal-long-term-for-the-eu-regardless-of-who-wins/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europes-current-economy/poland-the-next-crisis-for-the-eu-independent-sovereignty-is-the-issue/



I view you as a pessimist curmudgeon. You dislike humanity and wish they’d all be culled (except as you said some of your friends which means you are tribal). But humanity is actually fantastically creative.

I still am inspired by humanity. Of course I would like to be able to filter the trolls from my group, but I would not want to ban them from the view of others who wish to see their posts.



Quote from: anonymous
Quote from: the_end_is_near
Quote from: anonymous
Not yet, had to deal with gov't today. Very unpleasant.

I remember some of the inane interactions with the IRS in 2002. Since I have not dealt with that for many years, perhaps I do not quite understand your extreme motivation to relocate to a more sane governance. Your tax and business jurisdiction does not need to be the same as your residence jurisdictions.

If you're familiar with Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, the orcs had essentially a purely competitive and ruthless capitalist social structure. Promotions were obtained by destroying those above you, resulting in a crab-in-bucket situation where only the strongest and most destructive survived at the top and any below were abused. So the incentive to rise was imperative; that to me is hell

Very much like government and politics, and that seems to have creeped into the corporate world to a large extent

The winner-take-all power vacuum of fungible finance, usury, and the tangible (economies-of-scale) industrial and agricultural ages enables that paradigm. The Inverse Commons will break us out of this.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
Four wrongs do not make it right, rather it is a clusterfuck.

1. Centralized de facto trust list for most users.
2. @Lauda knows this thus can abuse @kiklo.
3. @kiklo is told to accept this abuse, so he lashes out.
4. You guys have the wrong of blaming the clusterfuck on @kiklo accusing him of being a hypocrite.

Big mess all made by very poorly contemplated design of a forum system.

Humans are social animals, which means they are designed to abuse, or be abused, to dominate, or to be dominated, to rule, or be ruled.  The abused, dominated and ruled want others to be abused, dominated and ruled too, apart from their abusers, dominators, and rulers.  That's the essence of social behaviour: if you're beaten up, you want others to be beaten up too.

Social behaviour is perpetuated, because it is in the advantage of the deciders for it to be perpetuated (the progenitors, the rule makers, and the economically privileged), and they keep the speculative dream alive of the dominated, to be one day the dominant (which almost never happens, but it is the belief that counts).  As such, the dominated, too, want this to be perpetuated, waiting for the moment (in vain) when they will be the dominators.

In other words, social behaviour is locked in by a consensus mechanism that became immutable.  You can always try to fork off, you will get a 51% attack on your nose.

So all this is in perfect agreement with human nature.
member
Activity: 65
Merit: 10
@ImHash was on my ignore list when I was @iamnotback. And here is yet another justification for why he was on my ignore list.

84 years old?

When I received a negative from Yahoo, I started to PM admins and DT members after 10 PMs to Yahoo first, but I never bothered theymos because he is the red line and should be for everyone, please don't involve him, if you have to deal with Lauda, he (theymos) has to deal with hundreds of thousands people.

He involved @Theymos because the Trust system design is broken. If it were not broken, nobody would need to complain to Theymos about it.

Theymos is the one who took $50,000 in BTC donations (back when BTC was 1/50th of its current value, so really he took $2.5 million in donations) and promised to improve the forum but never did. I read on Coindesk that he had contracted (afair in 2016) some Blockstream engineers and was spending $50k per month. One can only speculate about the incompetence or corruption that might (or might not) be going on. What ever the case may be, the forum has never been improved.

84 years old?
My man you need to think about what's important in your life, have you prepared yourself for the day you want to meet your maker?

How do you know he has not done that? That is his personal life and he is not obligated to communicate his preparations publicly. It is an orthogonal issue that has no bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand. You’re constructing a strawman argument.

Ridiculing an 84 year elder is despicable.

Why do you care how/what people think of/about you? only thing you should care is how God sees you.

He is running an altcoin thus has a duty to care what people see as red text slandering his forum avatar.

How do you know he does not care about his spiritual situation.

You should know better; forgiveness is a virtue, if they wronged you then try to reply with goodness.

Bearing false witness is not a virtue. Even Jesus said he came bearing a sword against the corrupt, unrepentant ones. @Lauda is not repentant. I quoted him upthread saying he derives great pleasure from dictatorial actions.

I agree @kiklo did lash out and I did write that 4 wrongs do not make it right. But note my point about aliasing error.

See how is that working for opposition, bitcoin is the king and you don't go curse and trash talk in his castle.

Note, the king means there is no democracy here, either work your ways around or try to not invoke the wrong people.

Pride cometh before thy falleth.

Well some of us do not want be part of such a groupthink clusterfuck and we are busy working to form an escape before your clusterfuck collapses.

This is the story just like Ver and Gavin gang saying this forum is censoring but they went and made their own bitcoin version instead and trying to take over the throne all together, I'd suggest you to join them grandpa.

Well they tried to replace centralized idiocy with worse centralized idiocy.

But I am different breed.

For all you Bitcoin maximalists, note Bitcoin’s share of the total crypto marketcap has fallen to 54%. It is about time for you to wake up to reality.
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 506
84 years old?
When I received a negative from Yahoo, I started to PM admins and DT members after 10 PMs to Yahoo first, but I never bothered theymos because he is the red line and should be for everyone, please don't involve him, if you have to deal with Lauda, he (theymos) has to deal with hundreds of thousands people.

84 years old?
My man you need to think about what's important in your life, have you prepared yourself for the day you want to meet your maker?
Why do you care how/what people think of/about you? only thing you should care is how God sees you.
You should know better; forgiveness is a virtue, if they wronged you then try to reply with goodness.

Btw before I go, US a powerful country claiming to be a democratic government Cheesy Cheesy
See how is that working for opposition, bitcoin is the king and you don't go curse and trash talk in his castle.

Note, the king means there is no democracy here, either work your ways around or try to not invoke the wrong people.

This is the story just like Ver and Gavin gang saying this forum is censoring but they went and made their own bitcoin version instead and trying to take over the throne all together, I'd suggest you to join them grandpa.
member
Activity: 65
Merit: 10
Apparently most users are using the default trust list, because trust is not related to anything they would actively need to configure for their priority use cases.

This is a difficult case to solve. Older members complain that the Default Trust system is flawed (which it is to a degree), but if this trust system was removed then newer members would likely complain that there was nothing in place to stop them getting scammed. theymos did want to replace this system, however this replacement system had the downfall of requiring newbies to choose members that they have never interacted with to trust.

Thus as I said, a centralized GUI presentation of the trust as red text on @kiklo’s avatar on all his posts in the Altcoin Discussion retroactively into the past.

I can agree on this somewhat, however it's arguably useless to try and implement for the use that it would get.

There are some quick and easy solutions available.

1. This site is first and foremost a forum and not a site for doing trade deals between individuals (or at least many users join with that perspective). On localbitcoins, I see a trust rating by default, because trading is the primary function of that site and there is no forum. The most egregious flaw is the putting red text on the avatar of the forum identity (apparently only in some sub-forums such as Altcoin Discussion) accusing of being a scammer. This then affects all the forum activity (even retroactively to all historic posts!) which has nothing to do with trades. For example, myself and others have had their past accounts hacked (accounts where I had scrambled the password), then our archive of posts now has bullshit red text on them even though that has nothing do with the activity when I was posting using those account. One of my angel investors has red text all over his past posts because that account got hacked (he quit the forum since that because it is a clusterfuck of waste). It is the conflation of these two activities (forum posting and trading) which is such an egregious clusterfuck. Thus there is no reason to have that red text there. Anyone who does a trade without checking the Trust system for the user who they are trading with, thus has no awareness of the Trust system and thus thinks BCT is only a forum. The forum is not liable, because the Trust system is available and is documented. Remove that damn red text for those who are using the default trust list!

2. Show the trust list blatantly on the Trust page. The “Trust settings” link is not conspicuous enough and clicking it gives no clue what the “Default trust” is about or even how to use it.

Incorrect. Because afaik we start with a default list and have to proactively go edit out and nearly no one knows that.

The de facto trust list is centralized.

Admittedly it could be easier to find, but there is a fair amount of documentation available to anyone interested in the trust system outlining what it is and how it can be used. It's a problem with the users that they do not care to find or read it.

Never is the problem the fault of the users. Until you accept this reality, you will never be a world class software developer. Never blame the users. Those who are offended by my expertise … oh well …

Four wrongs do not make it right, rather it is a clusterfuck.

1. Centralized de facto trust list for most users.
2. @Lauda knows this thus can abuse @kiklo.
3. @kiklo is told to accept this abuse, so he lashes out.
4. You guys have the wrong of blaming the clusterfuck on @kiklo accusing him of being a hypocrite.

3. kiklo was told exactly how to go about trying to change the trust left by Lauda,

And I think he was 100% correct to not waste his time on a broken piece-of-shit design. Why should he beg to @Lauda? Lauda should never have this power to put red text all over his forum avatar.

It is not the fault of the system, nor the people of the forum that kiklo decided to disregard that advice and throw his toys out his cot.

It is the faulty design of the system. And @kiklo was pointing out to the other users how arbitrary the system is and how the fault can waste their time too. Because the nature of collectivized clusterfucks (i.e. tragedy-of-the-commons) is that no one cares until they are affected:

4. Complaining that a user that you have never traded with has left you negative trust, then leaving negative trust to people you have never traded with makes you a hypocrite. Complaining about defamation of your character, then going to to defame the characters of people not involved makes you a hypocrite.

That is aliasing error akin to looking up at a stopped clock at 6am and 6pm and concluding the clock is functioning properly.

If you just looked at his action as a point sample then yes you could argue that, but taken holistically, then clearly @kiklo was trying to inform others how the system could harm them arbitrary.

Being part of the groupthink, you slander his motives while protecting your collectivist system. Rather than looking objectively at the problem holistically.

Cover your right eye with a patch and try to function (I was blinded in my right eye in 1999). Consume enough rat poison each day to not kill you but to be so sick that you can not think clearly, have a failing liver, have delirum, headaches and barely enough energy to get out of bed. Remove all your finances and all the people who could help you, so that you are forced to work in this condition. Welcome to my life the past years. Until you’ve actually experienced this, then you can not comprehend the reality of it. Even words do not describe what it feels like day after day after day for years, with no respite.

And the fact that you can come here and have a sensible conversation with me about these problems, even after all of the things that you have suffered through, gives kiklo no excuse to act like a child about it. Do you not agree?

I am coming cured from TB and so am having some lucid days (also still some bad days), so I have always tried to not let my illness impact my rationality and perspective, but the fact it that it did many times. And there was not a damn thing I could do about it, even though I tried everything I could to overcome (before I was diagnosed with TB so I did not know about any curative medicine for some years). Physical suffering is physical suffering and even the mind is impacted. You will never understand this until you are chronically ill with a condition that persistently painful or delirious. I was very strong before I got ill with TB, so I also was cavalier and incompassionate as you are (well maybe not totally but I did not have the understanding of chronic illness that I have now). So I do not entirely blame you. I had even asked my (now ex-) wife and others close to me to wear a patch on their eye for a day to know my new life after I was blinded. They all tried it for 15 seconds and refused to do it. Lack of compassion and selfishness is a human nature. Jesus spent his time among the afflicted and suffered immensely. It is something I also tried, but I admit it is horrible.

Eventually I will blog about perhaps we can leave this physical dimension and move onto the informational plane of existence. Yet I think we will also miss this physical existence?

In short, I do not blame you for your perspective. I am informing you about another perspective.

My generation X had to fight for everything (not spoiled, not sheltered)

And due to certain circumstances in my life, I do not believe that I fit either of those descriptions.

Okay I understand the world is diverse and we can not absolutely stereotype. And I will cheer any youth that I find to be interesting and valuable. Yet we perhaps draw some generalizing trends between generations, but of course I hope I can relate to all age groups, because diversity makes life interesting. I am skeptical (because I am so skeptical of anything the boomers and collectivism/socialism created, although I recognize every stage of human development is a prerequisite to the next one) but also I do have some friends in all age groups.

I give respect to people that give respect to others. kiklo has shown through is mass amount of threads, negative feedback spam and threats of legal action that he is incapable of giving respect to others. Therefore, I see no reason to give respect to him.

@kiklo and I also butted heads in forum discussion in the past. He is a feisty or obstinate one (and I am too but I do not put blue text in all my replies when I am agitated). I joked with @kiklo in a PM that I can only imagine what he was like as a teenager if he has this much fight in him at age 84, lol. But it is not my nor @Lauda’s value to decide for everyone else. We need a decentralized moderation system so that we have a more accurate appraisal of the value of the posting to a wide diversity of readers.

And so then if @kiklo finds he is Ignored every where, he will realize it is his fault and can not blame any centralized moderators. I am not assuming he would be. He has his style and he did point out some technical details sometimes. IMO, he was not a worthless poster.

@kiklo was angry because he is/was marketing his altcoin here and the red text on his avatar slandered all his Altcoin Discussion posts. I think this was justifiable and actually he could perhaps justify a lawsuit but these things are difficult to win especially he voluntarily participated in the system. Nevertheless, the system remains broken. Somebody even posted here in Meta, belittling his altcoin as if he is not justified to have that as an economic reason to be angry about the abuse.

I couldn't care about what kiklo does providing he does it in a decent manner. However, he isn't.

Political correctness is a trait that I vehemently hate.

I rather like diversity and indecent behavior when justifiable. Makes life more interesting.

"Give me liberty, or give me death!" — Patrick Henry

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." — Thomas Jefferson
member
Activity: 65
Merit: 10
I think that a guideline is not a rule, so banning someone for not following guidelines is a bit too much.

In my other posts (just click my profile as I do not have so many posts), I have explained some details about why banning anyone is entirely unnecessary with a sufficiently designed decentralized system with decentralized moderation.

Of course the trust system is being spammed and abused, and I don't agree with people giving negative trust to people they don't like or consider spammers. Spamming is bannable, so these people should be reported and it's up to a mod to decide their fate.

Banning spamming is analogous to banning any activity that is economic yet some people find offensive (a subjective matter thus can only be properly handled with decentralized moderation and economics, not dictatorial, totalitarianism). Collectivists always think they can ban economic activity and then wonder why it never works, because they flunked Economics 101. Global banning (as opposed to decentralized moderation) is Sisyphean, worse-than-useless (i.e. iatrogenic) busywork for twits who like to be in positions of corrupt, privileged power and authority.

Note I wrote a post and the mods deleted it and didn't even send it to my PM folder (Edit: note it later appeared in), so more of same totalitarian shit ongoing. This time I will archive this thread so I have  record of all their worse-than-useless corruption. I find it hilarious to see these useless mods doing activity which is analogous to the slaves digging the labyrinths of the pyramids with spoons.

Have all of these been permanently banned? Just the thought of that.. is so pleasing.

Hilarious to see these self-important, dictatorial mods doing needless busywork and feeling proud of it, sort of analogous to slaves being proud of digging the labyrinths for pyramids with spoons.

There are simple decentralized solutions to the relativistic interpretation of spam content, so that no one is ever perma-banned and centralized authoritarian mods are not needed nor desirable.

What will you Sisyphean twits do to feel important in the new paradigm? Maybe you'll actually have to learn to do some real productive work. Shudder.

With decentralized moderation, then the group leaders will delete the spam from their threads and even set spammers on Ignore so that they do not have to repeat the effort. No need for perma-banning globally.

You might argue this is a duplication of effort, but there is a great cost to totalitarianism. Collectivism/groupthink fails catastrophically in clusterfucks.

And when every post has to attach a small micropayment then spammers have to do an economic activity. An economic activity is not spam, regardless if some people are offended by the activity. Decentralized moderation anneals to the fitness of the diversity of subjectivity.

Why would people pay to post? Because they will earn more from posting than they do from not posting. And because the payment is so miniscule compared to the benefits attained. Why would they not then prefer a free option? Because the free option will be laden with totalitarianism, circle-jerking echo chambers, and/or uneconomic spam (e.g. the negative value of Facebook Likes). Note the onboarding paradigm will provide a means for those without money to earn their way into the system in way that is not a road block or discouraging (and is actually encouraging).

Tada! It’s magic.

More magic coming to blow your fucking minds. And to value twits at their actual negative economic value and not the one of delusions of self-importance. An no, I do not respect those who destroy value. Why should I? They have not even exhibited any redeeming humane qualities. It’s always been their dictatorial (“for the lolz” power trip) way or the banned highway.
legendary
Activity: 3500
Merit: 6981
Top Crypto Casino
You dont need to use the default trust.
You can make your own trust list.
Majority of people here are just to lazy to do it.

Somehow i dont see much difference or any advantage over your own private trust list?
I do this myself, great idea to do so.

Now I have to say, even though I don't have negative trust from a DT member, I just had my trust score thrown in my fucking face a few hours ago while trying to sell some bitcoin.  I refused to send the bitcoin first, and the dude says he's got better trust than me and blah blah blah.  So having a lot of untrusted negatives does have an effect if you're trying to do deals.  Other than that, this is just a chat forum with a feedback system that allows anyone to neg anyone else, and overall it should be a very small part of anyone's life and shouldn't be a cause for ear-smoking.  Kiklo went off the deep end, just like mixan did.  I'm not surprised he got banned.
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
You dont need to use the default trust.
You can make your own trust list.
Majority of people here are just to lazy to do it.

Somehow i dont see much difference or any advantage of your proposal over the private trust list.
legendary
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1267
In Memory of Zepher
It is interesting that with a admitted flawed trust system, and an over aggressive ex staff member,
that all of you want to blame the one pointing out the flaws and instead of agreeing something needs to be done to fix the system
Please, enlighten us on how we can fix the system.
It's extremely easy to say that a system is broken. Providing a fix that makes sense and doesn't just move the issues somewhere else is significantly harder.

you all just want @kiklo to shut up and be quiet.
Which he refused to do (many older people stand their ground) and was banned for it (which is further punishment for what many people see as @Lauda's overly aggressive nature.)
I couldn't care about what kiklo does providing he does it in a decent manner. However, he isn't.

When you call @kiklo a hypocrite for hitting everyone associated with @Lauda with negative trust,
I went to look at his account and see for myself: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=357609
their are no other negative feedbacks save the one against @Lauda.
kiklo's other negative feedbacks were removed. You would have to ask an admin why.
Previous to this, kiklo left negative feedback to Mitchell, phantastisch, qwk, Zepher, Lutpin, monbux and many others simply because they had relations to Lauda in some way. This isn't a fair way to go about doing things, and is extremely hypocritical when you're complaining about negative feedback being given for little to no reason.

Yet to the casual looker @Lauda is completely trustworthy while @kiklo is covered in red / untrustworthy, when numerically he has less complaints.
Who would have thought, little interaction with the trust system = very few trust scores. Truly groundbreaking analysis.

It would be interesting to see how many of you , have the will to do the same when you believe you have been wronged.
I was given a negative trust when I first started using this forum. You want to know what I did about it? I had a sensible, private discussion with the user that gave me it and we worked out terms on what I had to do to have it removed. What a crazy idea, right?

@The End is Near, has been the only other one with a will strong enough to argue with the peer pressure exerted against @kiko because of a defective trust system
You're a fool if you think that kiklo handled this in a good acceptable way. He may have gotten more people on his side if he acted like an adult.

Normally , I don't have much to say, but seeing a group of elitist attack an 84 year man , that refused to buckle was more that I can in good conscience tolerate.
I truly can't understand why people are constantly bringing up kilko's apparent age as an argument. If anything, I think that it's rather demeaning that the only reason that you are sticking up for him is because he is seen as some frail old man that is incapable of fighting his own battles.
If you're someone that can't handle some punk saying something bad about you online then turn off the computer. Otherwise, age (along with wealth, social status, gender etc) is irrelevant here.

Does @Lauda continue his/her negative rating rampage and the rest continue to assault a man that was banned for life.
I shouldn't think he would be banned for life unless he broke a different rule. I expect him to be back eventually.



Because if it is not , don't expect him to be the last peasant that gets pissed off over a broken trust system.
Once again, please give us this magical fix that will make the trust system great for everyone involved.

Because if it is not , don't expect him to be the last peasant that gets pissed off over a broken trust system.
These people come and go every so often, it happens.

Because he made have been the 1st to go off this loudly, but a broken trust system will guarantee their will be more.
kiklo isn't the first big 'revolt' over the trust system and absolutely won't be the last. All that kiklo has accomplished is making a complete and utter fool of himself over some red text.



I don't view it as anything even close to a crisis, and it doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're telling me that some meaningless red text on an internet forum about magical money isn't you're number 1 priority right now? How insane.
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
Uhm lauda doesnt rule over anyone.
You people just give way too much credit to the trust system.

Older members know that you have to take the trust system with a grain of salt.


Btw. Im missing the reference though.

@lauda

Tagging without reference is meh... if you could please update your rating with a reference so users can check for themself it would be much better!
legendary
Activity: 3500
Merit: 6981
Top Crypto Casino
wall of bla
Bro, I tend to agree with you that the trust system is broken.  I've said it before, this is why eBay did away with the whole "you can leave feedback for anyone, anytime" thing.  It's just silly IMO.

But there are an astounding number of users on this forum who are not to be trusted, and Lauda has tagged a lot of them.  As have I, with account dealers.  I don't trust any of them (with a few exceptions).  The current system allows this, and it doesn't look like it's ever going to change.  So we all just have to suck it the fuck up and deal with it.  I was pissed the first time some stoonahd left me a neg because he didn't like something I wrote.  I got over that extremely quickly.  I don't think kiklo is the virgin Mary here, by any means.

I have no intent to argue with anyone here, just pointing out what should be noted.

In your rush to persecute @kiklo for his beliefs, you admit the trust system is broken,
but you have not the will to fix it and prefer that @Lauda rule over you, by rating others how he/she sees fit.
Which is your decision, and if everyone feels the same way nothing changes.

But I would say this Forget @kiklo , he is banned and forever gone, so any further complains about him , is just demeaning yourself.
(That Train has left the station.)
 
Focus on the real question to all of this , will the trust system be fixed or left broken, that is the only thing left to be decided.
Because if it is not , don't expect him to be the last peasant that gets pissed off over a broken trust system.
Because he made have been the 1st to go off this loudly, but a broken trust system will guarantee their will be more.

╥AztekPhoenix
Perhaps I'm really old school, but I don't get why people use the @ symbol here.  Is that a Twitter thing?  I honestly don't know what it means.

The way I view the whole thing is that yes, the trust system is broken.  It is what it is.  This is just a frigging forum, and it's just a silly, broken trust system on that forum.  I don't view it as anything even close to a crisis, and it doesn't keep me awake at night.  If nothing changed, I'm totally OK with that--and look at all those red trusts fuckers left me.  I'm so past it.
legendary
Activity: 3500
Merit: 6981
Top Crypto Casino
wall of bla
Bro, I tend to agree with you that the trust system is broken.  I've said it before, this is why eBay did away with the whole "you can leave feedback for anyone, anytime" thing.  It's just silly IMO.

But there are an astounding number of users on this forum who are not to be trusted, and Lauda has tagged a lot of them.  As have I, with account dealers.  I don't trust any of them (with a few exceptions).  The current system allows this, and it doesn't look like it's ever going to change.  So we all just have to suck it the fuck up and deal with it.  I was pissed the first time some stoonahd left me a neg because he didn't like something I wrote.  I got over that extremely quickly.  I don't think kiklo is the virgin Mary here, by any means.
legendary
Activity: 2744
Merit: 1174
I think that a guideline is not a rule, so banning someone for not following guidelines is a bit too much.

Of course the trust system is being spammed and abused, and I don't agree with people giving negative trust to people they don't like or consider spammers. Spamming is bannable, so these people should be reported and it's up to a mod to decide their fate. Trust comments should be given only if you transacted with that person or were a witness of an obvious scam attempt.
legendary
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1267
In Memory of Zepher
Except if I am not mistaken, there is a global default trust list, and @Lauda is on that list.
Yes, you're correct.

Apparently most users are using the default trust list, because trust is not related to anything they would actively need to configure for their priority use cases.
This is a difficult case to solve. Older members complain that the Default Trust system is flawed (which it is to a degree), but if this trust system was removed then newer members would likely complain that there was nothing in place to stop them getting scammed. theymos did want to replace this system, however this replacement system had the downfall of requiring newbies to choose members that they have never interacted with to trust.

Thus as I said, a centralized GUI presentation of the trust as red text on @kiklo’s avatar on all his posts in the Altcoin Discussion retroactively into the past.
I can agree on this somewhat, however it's arguably useless to try and implement for the use that it would get.

Incorrect. Because afaik we start with a default list and have to proactively go edit out and nearly no one knows that.

The de facto trust list is centralized.
Admittedly it could be easier to find, but there is a fair amount of documentation available to anyone interested in the trust system outlining what it is and how it can be used. It's a problem with the users that they do not care to find or read it.

Four wrongs do not make it right, rather it is a clusterfuck.

1. Centralized de facto trust list for most users.
2. @Lauda knows this thus can abuse @kiklo.
3. @kiklo is told to accept this abuse, so he lashes out.
4. You guys have the wrong of blaming the clusterfuck on @kiklo accusing him of being a hypocrite.
3. kiklo was told exactly how to go about trying to change the trust left by Lauda, by Lauda themselves. It is not the fault of the system, nor the people of the forum that kiklo decided to disregard that advice and throw his toys out his cot.

4. Complaining that a user that you have never traded with has left you negative trust, then leaving negative trust to people you have never traded with makes you a hypocrite. Complaining about defamation of your character, then going to to defame the characters of people not involved makes you a hypocrite.

Cover your right eye with a patch and try to function (I was blinded in my right eye in 1999). Consume enough rat poison each day to not kill you but to be so sick that you can not think clearly, have a failing liver, have delirum, headaches and barely enough energy to get out of bed. Remove all your finances and all the people who could help you, so that you are forced to work in this condition. Welcome to my life the past years. Until you’ve actually experienced this, then you can not comprehend the reality of it. Even words do not describe what it feels like day after day after day for years, with no respite.
And the fact that you can come here and have a sensible conversation with me about these problems, even after all of the things that you have suffered through, gives kiklo no excuse to act like a child about it. Do you not agree?

My generation X had to fight for everything (not spoiled, not sheltered)
And due to certain circumstances in my life, I do not believe that I fit either of those descriptions.

I give respect to people that give respect to others. kiklo has shown through is mass amount of threads, negative feedback spam and threats of legal action that he is incapable of giving respect to others. Therefore, I see no reason to give respect to him.
member
Activity: 65
Merit: 10
Make a post in Altcoin Discussion and see what I did to your avatar because of this centralized decision to marry decentralized ratings with a centralized choice of shitting on avatars.

Only people who trust you can see your feedback by default on actmyname's avatar. Otherwise, it falls under 'Untrusted Feedback'.
Unlike what people like kiklo seem to think, these aren't directly hidden by theymos. Who can post a feedback that is trusted by default is decided by the user's personal trust list and/or the trust lists of those in the DT network. I can go further into detail about it if needed.

Except if I am not mistaken, there is a global default trust list, and @Lauda is on that list. Apparently most users are using the default trust list, because trust is not related to anything they would actively need to configure for their priority use cases.

Thus as I said, a centralized GUI presentation of the trust as red text on @kiklo’s avatar on all his posts in the Altcoin Discussion retroactively into the past.

With a decentralized interpretation of Trust, then each user would in effect enable moderation of their choice on Trust ratings. So thus those users who think @Lauda is abusing the system by complaining about the way @kiklo posts, would tend to remove @Lauda from their trusted Trust raters list.

That is how the trust system works currently, which is what a huge amount of people seem to forget.

Incorrect. Because afaik we start with a default list and have to proactively go edit out and nearly no one knows that.

The de facto trust list is centralized.

Complaining about the way people debate and discuss in a Trust system is inane.

Precisely, which is why when users such as @kiklo complain about it constantly they are not met with open arms. Being an enormous hypocrite in whilst doing this doesn't help the case whatsoever.

Four wrongs do not make it right, rather it is a clusterfuck.

1. Centralized de facto trust list for most users.
2. @Lauda knows this thus can abuse @kiklo.
3. @kiklo is told to accept this abuse, so he lashes out.
4. You guys have the wrong of blaming the clusterfuck on @kiklo accusing him of being a hypocrite.

Big mess all made by very poorly contemplated design of a forum system.

Now I understand that @kiklo is 84 years old and has chronic back pain, so that explains why he gets so agitated when he feels someone is wrong or offended his sensibilities. If he can find a way to improve his physical quality of life, probably he will be less agitated more often.

Physical factors in a person's life shouldn't affect the way that they treat others.

Well they do.

You apparently have no comprehension based in actual experience of chronic health issues and effects.

Like most things in life, until you’ve walked in the shoes of another, it is impossible to understand and judge correctly their situation.

Cover your right eye with a patch and try to function (I was blinded in my right eye in 1999). Consume enough rat poison each day to not kill you but to be so sick that you can not think clearly, have a failing liver, have delirum, headaches and barely enough energy to get out of bed. Remove all your finances and all the people who could help you, so that you are forced to work in this condition. Welcome to my life the past years. Until you’ve actually experienced this, then you can not comprehend the reality of it. Even words do not describe what it feels like day after day after day for years, with no respite.

Kiklo wouldn't, and shouldn't, get a pass for spamming the forum like a child about some red text even if he was a war veteran with terminal cancer.
If after 84 years of living you haven't managed to grasp the concept that moaning, threatening and abusing the people and systems put in place to try and help you isn't a good way to carry yourself then I don't believe you deserve any respect.

Sorry but this is the sort of attitude from millennials that makes me want to throw them under a bus.

We can co-exist in a decentralized system where your idealistic collectivist rubric need not interfere with my self-reliant, cynical view of collectivized (group) action.

Compared to previous generation, Millennials focus on larger societal needs rather than individual needs.

Millennials are this strange mix of idealizing the collective, while also being so sheltered and spoiled that they often do not perceive reality.

My generation X had to fight for everything (not spoiled, not sheltered), thus we do not trust the collective and do not place a high value on the collective.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-Generation-X-and-Millennial-Generation/answer/Anne-K.-Halsall
http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t9p555-inflation-or-deflation#4735
(https://web.archive.org/web/20170513102106/http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t9p555-inflation-or-deflation#4735)
legendary
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1267
In Memory of Zepher
Make a post in Altcoin Discussion and see what I did to your avatar because of this centralized decision to marry decentralized ratings with a centralized choice of shitting on avatars.
Only people who trust you can see your feedback by default on actmyname's avatar. Otherwise, it falls under 'Untrusted Feedback'.
Unlike what people like kiklo seem to think, these aren't directly hidden by theymos. Who can post a feedback that is trusted by default is decided by the user's personal trust list and/or the trust lists of those in the DT network. I can go further into detail about it if needed.

With a decentralized interpretation of Trust, then each user would in effect enable moderation of their choice on Trust ratings. So thus those users who think @Lauda is abusing the system by complaining about the way @kiklo posts, would tend to remove @Lauda from their trusted Trust raters list.
That is how the trust system works currently, which is what a huge amount of people seem to forget. If you do not want to see someone's trust ratings (whether they be trusted or untrusted by default) you can remove them on this page by inputting a ~ followed by their name. For example if you wanted to remove any ratings from Lauda being trusted by default to you, you could add this line to the trust page.
Complaining about the way people debate and discuss in a Trust system is inane.
Precisely, which is why when users such as kiklo complain about it constantly they are not met with open arms. Being an enormous hypocrite in whilst doing this doesn't help the case whatsoever.

Now I understand that @kiklo is 84 years old and has chronic back pain, so that explains why he gets so agitated when he feels someone is wrong or offended his sensibilities. If he can find a way to improve his physical quality of life, probably he will be less agitated more often.
Physical factors in a person's life shouldn't affect the way that they treat others. Kiklo wouldn't, and shouldn't, get a pass for spamming the forum like a child about some red text even if he was a war veteran with terminal cancer.
If after 84 years of living you haven't managed to grasp the concept that moaning, threatening and abusing the people and systems put in place to try and help you isn't a good way to carry yourself then I don't believe you deserve any respect.
member
Activity: 65
Merit: 10
Guidelines are not damn rules, they're guidelines.  Not only does theymos give the guideline that it's OK to give trust for a person, not a trade, it's also not actually abuse of the system to use it for anything at all.  The system allows anything to happen.  You can decide not to trust the feedback of someone if you want, but that doesn't stop them from making the damn feedback.  Grr.

Decentralizing the trust is good, but not when the GUI choice of red text is centralized:

The only reason anyone cares about abuse of the Trust system, is because the database for it is interpreted in one centralized way by the GUI of the system.

Again I posit that my plans for a decentralized database (on a blockchain) for a Bitnet forum will remedy this problem, because we will all choose GUI clients which we want to choose. So the data will be displayed according to what people think it is rational. Thus of course nonsense data in the Trust system will not be highlighted as red by most participants’ clients.

Yoda says trust the decentralized Force, as it is the powerful ally of truth and production and the enemy of time wasting trolls, scammers, and other forms of waste.

The trust system is unmoderated and sucks. The red crap does not show on your avatar on right side of posts, when you are not posting to Altcoin Discussion.

You can not claim you have a decentralized system and that no moderation is necessary, when you have a centralized shitting on others by the fact that GUI is forced on everyone to be one way and that one way is to put really shitty read "Do not trust this person" on their avatar when posting in Altcoin Discussion.

Since I and @kiklo were posting often in Altcoin Discussion (given we are altcoin developers), we did not like the fact that Bitcoin maximalists could put a red crap on our avatar in Altcoin Discussion. We do not like the centralized shitting on altcoiners.

If you had slaved away to develop an altcoin and then some idiot could put this highly conspicuous "Do not trust this person" by default on your avatar and digital reputation/identity that everyone sees, then you also would not be happy about it and would not invest in BCT.

But am I wrong in saying that prophylactic trust feedback is a good thing?

If someone is known to have scammed someone, is it wrong to say that such an individual is a scammer?

Agreed that sharing information about others can be a good thing, but it needs to be entirely decentralized otherwise really abhorrent centralized outcomes manifest, as explained above.

Make a post in Altcoin Discussion and see what I did to your avatar because of this centralized decision to marry decentralized ratings with a centralized choice of shitting on avatars.

I understand the reason they put the shit on the avatar in Altcoin Discussion is that they thought altcoin discussion has more scams. But then it is no longer is congruent with an unmoderated Trust system. It is just improperly contemplated centralized design.

With a decentralized interpretation of Trust, then each user would in effect enable moderation of their choice on Trust ratings. So thus those users who think @Lauda is abusing the system by complaining about the way @kiklo posts, would tend to remove @Lauda from their trusted Trust raters list. Complaining about the way people debate and discuss in a Trust system is inane. Form decentralized groups for discussion instead (except there are no features for that on BCT). I too do not like the way @kiklo uses blue text when he replies thus trying to focus the readers eyes only on his posts (@Dorky is even worse as he embeds his blue text in the quotes he is replying to which is really discombobulating and difficult to quote). He doesn't do that occasionally but nearly always when he is agitated. I would delete his posts from my moderated view (and users who follow my moderation) when they contain that blue text. He would eventually learn not to do that in threads where I am the prominent moderator trusted by most of the readers. There are decentralized ways to anneal these issues without turning the Trust system into a clusterfuck of purposes for which it is not ideally suited.

(Now I understand that @kiklo is 84 years old and has chronic back pain, so that explains why he gets so agitated when he feels someone is wrong or offended his sensibilities. If he can find a way to improve his physical quality of life, probably he will be less agitated more often. I have some empathy and understanding for aging and chronic health problems+pain)

P.S. if you get the point and need me to remove it, just ask in PM. Having you ask is to impart upon you the inefficiency and lack of individual degrees-of-freedom of the current design of it.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
ClaimWithMe - the most paying faucet of all times!
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

guideline
noun [ C usually plural ] UK ​ /ˈɡaɪd.laɪn/ US ​ /ˈɡaɪd.laɪn/

C1 information intended to advise people on how something should be done or what something should be

Guidelines are not damn rules, they're guidelines.  Not only does theymos give the guideline that it's OK to give trust for a person, not a trade, it's also not actually abuse of the system to use it for anything at all.  The system allows anything to happen.  You can decide not to trust the feedback of someone if you want, but that doesn't stop them from making the damn feedback.  Grr.
copper member
Activity: 2562
Merit: 2510
Spear the bees
(though the first wasn't a wrong, to begin with)

Oh really. Great. Check your Trust rating now.

Let’s clusterfuck.
That's fine and dandy. You don't have to trust me and you have the right to post that feedback. But am I wrong in saying that prophylactic trust feedback is a good thing?

If someone is known to have scammed someone, is it wrong to say that such an individual is a scammer?
qwk
donator
Activity: 3542
Merit: 3413
Shitcoin Minimalist
Quote
On feedback pages, you can leave trade feedback. There are no rules for this, but here are some guidelines:
- List all of the trades that you do with people (or at least the major ones). This is not like #bitcoin-otc where you give people just one score.
- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.
- Older ratings count for more, so don't delete old ratings if you can avoid it.
- "Risked BTC" is how much money you could have lost if the person you're rating had turned out to be a scammer. Or, if they are a scammer, it's how much you lost. Use the BTC value at the time of reporting.
- It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a specific trade.
- If you want to make a rating stronger, increase "Risked BTC". 50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating.
Pages:
Jump to: