Marketplace trust - page 5. | Bitcointalksearch.org

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: mikeywith on May 29, 2019, 08:37:08 PM

Quote from: Vod on May 29, 2019, 05:14:32 PM

Why would be bother to confirm a rule that is not ambiguous?

I can confirm it's not ambiguous but then the explanation i presented is the valid one, so for the sake of not totally refusing to consider the other possibility, i will just call it ambiguous and needs to be "confirmed"

Here are some of Theymos sent feedback

So unless theymos did trade 100,000.00000000 BTC with sirius or 10,000.00000000 BTC with gmaxwell then my theory is valid, and I highly do believe these numbers were never actually traded, thus the word "you" there is simply a poor choice of words , or Theymos does not follow his own guideline.

You are making a mistake in assuming there are a set of rules that apply to everyone that govern this forum. The rules are whatever those in control say they are at any given time. We don't have rule of law here, we have might makes right.

mikeywith

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 6640

be constructive or S.T.F.U

Quote from: Vod on May 29, 2019, 05:14:32 PM

Why would be bother to confirm a rule that is not ambiguous?

I can confirm it's not ambiguous but then the explanation i presented is the valid one, so for the sake of not totally refusing to consider the other possibility, i will just call it ambiguous and needs to be "confirmed"

Here are some of Theymos sent feedback

So unless theymos did trade 100,000 BTC with sirius or 10,000 BTC with gmaxwell then my theory is valid, and I highly do believe these numbers were never actually traded, thus the word "you" there is simply a poor choice of words , or Theymos does not follow his own guideline.

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

Quote from: EcuaMobi on May 29, 2019, 05:34:43 PM

I think the only important part is that action deserved positive trust so I left it. However I have no issues about updating my trust.

Can I ask why it deserves so much trust? When I took a test drive last year, they didn't put me in their commercials for returning the car. I had no choice as they knew who I was. Sure, if OG would have been able to convert the coin to $$ without red flags, he would be a fugitive for the rest of his life. That's hard with children.

He did what he had to - let's not make it so dramatic.

Let's also remember he was paid very generously (6 BTC a year) to brag everywhere he had all this coin...

OgNasty

donator

Activity: 4760

Merit: 4323

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Vod on May 29, 2019, 06:15:42 PM

I was planning on changing OG's red to neutral tonight, as his social media harassment seems to have calmed down after his little break a few days ago. His account may be ? ? ? to you, but to default trust he has positive trust right now.

Vod, you are such a lying piece of shit. I've never contacted you using any means whatsoever outside of this forum. I used to think you were just a troll, but after this experience I can see you have deep rooted mental issues.

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

Quote from: EcuaMobi on May 29, 2019, 05:34:43 PM

Would you completely remove your counter if we all update our feedback by setting the risked amount to 0? (I don't know if I can convince everyone but I'd try.)

You don't need anyone's cooperation. I can adjust/remove the feedback as needed. Just do what you feel is right.

I was planning on changing OG's red to neutral tonight, as his social media harassment seems to have calmed down after his little break a few days ago. His account may be ? ? ? to you, but to default trust he has positive trust right now.

Sublime5446

newbie

Activity: 11

Merit: 1

Quote from: MICRO on March 03, 2018, 11:26:37 AM

I rly dont like this new merit idea Sad

.

Guys If anyone important is seeing this, I am sublime5447 you guys lost my account and wont give it back to me. Also cost me 1.5 bitcoin back in the day, check my feedback on sublime5447 page. I am working with minds.com and they really need a trust rating system implemented on the site. I can offer some minds tokens for help with getting in contact with theymos and getting him together with the minds team. Of if you have created a reputation keeper somewhere else and would like to contribute to a free speech platform hook it up. Help me out guys I need a templet for how to do this.

EcuaMobi

legendary

Activity: 1876

Merit: 1475

Quote from: Vod on May 29, 2019, 05:14:32 PM

I'm not going to be immature and call any trust I dislike "abusive" or "bullshit", but as the current rules stand, and as we have always done it, four people claiming to have risked 500 BTC is wrong, and Theymos has stated I am allowed to counter it. :-\

I have some questions for you. I hope you answer directly to all of them:

I do think I made a mistake entering BTC500 as the risked amount. I did it without thinking too much about it. But I don't think that's important at all because the reference makes it really clear what happened and because the new algorithm doesn't consider the risked amount to calculate the total trust. I think the only important part is that action deserved positive trust so I left it. However I have no issues about updating my trust.
Would you completely remove your counter if we all update our feedback by setting the risked amount to 0? (I don't know if I can convince everyone but I'd try. Just to confirm, you're referring to Pamoldar, dbshck and me, right?)
If OgNasty didn't have any other DT negative trust and you didn't have any issues with him, would you still have left that (first) negative trust and made his account negative or ??? just because the risked amount is wrong?

MICRO

legendary

Activity: 2464

Merit: 1037

CEO @ Stake.com and Primedice.com

I rly dont like this new merit idea Sad

.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: Vod on May 28, 2019, 02:28:07 PM

Am I wrong?

You are often wrong, but since when has that stopped you?

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

Quote from: mikeywith on May 29, 2019, 12:09:53 AM

on Simple-Language level your theory is right and mine is wrong, but with all the other theories in hand I still think the statement is "poor" choice of words from @theymos ( I hope he does confirm it )

Why would be bother to confirm a rule that is not ambiguous? That would lead to newbies complaining that they thought certain rules meant something else in their opinion. "I still think the statement 'No begging' means constantly asking for money - not just once. Theymos please confirm!"

I'm not going to be immature and call any trust I dislike "abusive" or "bullshit", but as the current rules stand, and as we have always done it, four people claiming to have risked 500 BTC is wrong, and Theymos has stated I am allowed to counter it. Undecided

mikeywith

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 6640

be constructive or S.T.F.U

Quote from: Vod on May 28, 2019, 02:28:07 PM

That is the way it's always been done and I don't think someone can come along and say "well, I think Theymos meant this", when the definition is plain and simple.

Am I wrong?

If you read all the points regarding the subject theymos has not mentioned a thing about leaving a feedback to someone "you" haven't traded with, so if this "You" means what you think it does, then we should only leave feedback to people we have directly traded with , but that is not the case , based on this I do think the "You" there does not mean what it seems to mean.

Theymos also mentioned that

Quote

- If you want to make a rating stronger, increase "Risked BTC". 50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating.

which means even if you haven't really risked 50 BTC but just want to make the rating stronger for whatever reason, you can simply use it.

on Simple-Language level your theory is right and mine is wrong, but with all the other theories in hand I still think the statement is "poor" choice of words from @theymos ( I hope he does confirm it )

Anyhow, this is why i have always wanted to see a clear set of rules regarding the use of the trust system, at this point everyone's interpretation of the proper use of the trust system is different and this is why we have all the drama going on because everyone can say they are right".

@TECSHARE you are a bit off-topic here

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

Quote from: mikeywith on May 28, 2019, 12:43:50 AM

You are right, and I think it does not count anymore, by looking at satoshi's trust and manually calculating the score, it does not look like any of the risked BTC counts neither towards the left nor the right score , his score would have been over 300 if all the >50 risked BTC did count.

Edited: tried to manually calculate Satoshi score to confirm the validity of the 50BTC thing, and if i did the calcautions right, then it does not affect the score anymore.

I'll take your word and that of EcuaMobi. It appears that calculation is no longer used, so I will edit my feedback as promised.

Quote from: mikeywith on May 28, 2019, 12:43:50 AM

If a scammer was tagged by five DT members for scamming one time, it does not make him a five times scammer , am i wrong ? the other 4 tags represent the individual opinions of each DT member, it simply does not mean he scammed five people/ five times,

You are not wrong! Take a look at that feedback, and you'll see the person that was scammed entered a BTC amount, and the rest of the amounts are 0.
That is the way it's always been done and I don't think someone can come along and say "well, I think Theymos meant this", when the definition is plain and simple.

Am I wrong?

xolxol

member

Activity: 241

Merit: 98

Quote from: OgNasty on May 28, 2019, 12:31:01 AM

Vod, you are embarrassing yourself.

He surely getting depressed,karma is digital nowadays Grin

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: Vod on May 28, 2019, 12:10:47 AM

Who cares about non-trusted, but DT members should be held under consistent scrutiny.

If that is the case you should ask everyone to remove you from their trust lists.

mikeywith

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 6640

be constructive or S.T.F.U

Quote from: Vod on May 28, 2019, 12:10:47 AM

Right now it looks like OG could have run away with 2,000 BTC and he did not.

If a scammer was tagged by five DT members for scamming one time, it does not make him a five times scammer , am i wrong ? the other 4 tags represent the individual opinions of each DT member, it simply does not mean he scammed five people/ five times, so I do not agree with your point here , because it does not really look like OG could have run away with 2k BTC , it just shows that four people confirmed the 500BTC point.

However if this "50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating" is still applied and does affect the trust score, then the logic will be different, and i will be leaning towards removing the risked amount and leaving only a positive feedback for OG.

Quote from: EcuaMobi on May 27, 2019, 11:53:06 PM

People has left trust because of it so I consider that important.

You are right, and I think it does not count anymore, by looking at satoshi's trust and manually calculating the score, it does not look like any of the risked BTC counts neither towards the left nor the right score , his score would have been over 300 if all the >50 risked BTC did count.

Edited: tried to manually calculate Satoshi score to confirm the validity of the 50BTC thing, and if i did the calcautions right, then it does not affect the score anymore.

OgNasty

donator

Activity: 4760

Merit: 4323

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Vod, you are embarrassing yourself.

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

Quote from: EcuaMobi on May 27, 2019, 05:55:41 PM

I entered BTC500 as risked amount without thinking too much about it to be honest.

I never believed your amount risked was abuse and that is why I never acted on it, other than a general counter feedback.

But thank you for being mature (vs my stalker) and thank you for requesting confirmation! If it turns out the algorithm has changed, I of course will edit/remove my feedback.

Quote from: mikeywith on May 27, 2019, 11:25:56 PM

I tend to believe that theymos somehow picked the wrong words here, it does not make sense for it to be about only what 'YOU' would have lost, because if it was true, then one can only leave a feedback for members whom they have personally traded with, which is not the case.

I think Theymos stated exactly what he meant. If you are allowed to post risked btc that someone else risked, then the feedback system will turn into a pissing contest as people try to impress those they are leaving feedback for. There are already 115 untrusted profiles that have claimed to have lost 21,000,000 bitcoins. Who cares about non-trusted, but DT members should be held under consistent scrutiny.

Quote from: mikeywith on May 27, 2019, 11:25:56 PM

so as far as your rating on OG goes, i see it as perfectly fit, because technically OG could have ran away with 500 BTC and he did not, does not matter who's BTC is that.

Right now it looks like OG could have run away with 2,000 BTC and he did not.

EcuaMobi

legendary

Activity: 1876

Merit: 1475

Quote from: mikeywith on May 27, 2019, 11:25:56 PM

I tend to believe that theymos somehow picked the wrong words here, it does not make sense for it to be about only what 'YOU' would have lost, because if it was true, then one can only leave a feedback for members whom they have personally traded with, which is not the case.

Yes, maybe. I mostly agree with you. Another option is we can leave feedback but risked amount should be 0 if we didn't risk anything personally.

However the main part of my question is whether "50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating" is still valid or not. People has left trust because of it so I consider that important.

thaayb

full member

Activity: 218

Merit: 104

🥇🥉🎖

merit

mikeywith

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 6640

be constructive or S.T.F.U

Quote from: EcuaMobi on May 27, 2019, 05:55:41 PM

Being stricter I now see "Risked BTC" is how much I could have lost, and since I personally wouldn't have lost anything in this case it seems I was wrong about that. Is that right?

I tend to believe that theymos somehow picked the wrong words here, it does not make sense for it to be about only what 'YOU' would have lost, because if it was true, then one can only leave a feedback for members whom they have personally traded with, which is not the case.

in other words, the proper explanation of the risked BTC would be "How much could the member steal / how much they stole"

so as far as your rating on OG goes, i see it as perfectly fit, because technically OG could have ran away with 500 BTC and he did not, does not matter who's BTC is that.

Topic: Marketplace trust - page 5. (Read 83243 times)