Marketplace trust - page 5. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Sublime5446

newbie

Activity: 11

Merit: 1

Quote from: MICRO on March 03, 2018, 12:26:37 PM

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: 1862

Merit: 1469

https://Ecua.Mobi

Quote from: Vod on May 29, 2019, 06:14:32 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: 1958

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: Vod on May 28, 2019, 03:28:07 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, 01:09:53 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: 2170

Merit: 6279

be constructive or S.T.F.U

Quote from: Vod on May 28, 2019, 03:28:07 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, 01:43:50 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, 01:43:50 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: 97

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

Vod, you are embarrassing yourself.

He surely getting depressed,karma is digital nowadays Grin

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 1958

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: Vod on May 28, 2019, 01:10:47 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: 2170

Merit: 6279

be constructive or S.T.F.U

Quote from: Vod on May 28, 2019, 01:10:47 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 28, 2019, 12:53:06 AM

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: 4732

Merit: 4240

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, 06:55:41 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 28, 2019, 12:25:56 AM

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 28, 2019, 12:25:56 AM

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: 1862

Merit: 1469

https://Ecua.Mobi

Quote from: mikeywith on May 28, 2019, 12:25:56 AM

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: 216

Merit: 104

🥇🥉🎖

merit

mikeywith

legendary

Activity: 2170

Merit: 6279

be constructive or S.T.F.U

Quote from: EcuaMobi on May 27, 2019, 06:55:41 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.

jademaxsuy

full member

Activity: 924

Merit: 220

Quote from: Lieldoryn on January 27, 2018, 02:14:53 PM

"DO NOT JUDGE PEOPLE ON THE QUALITY OF THEIR POSTS"
I received negative trust for bad English. What's it? My opinion is abuse. Why are some members arrogated to themselves the right of moderation? I can see it becoming a mass phenomenon. Why there is no appeal mechanism?

I do not see any negative feedback on your account and it seems alright since it was neutral and has no feedback about it. I do not think also that a DT user will give you red trust because of your Bad English grammar construction. If it do then probably you must be PM first advise not to post in english sections to avoid becoming a shit poster because of using english with bad grammar construction.

EcuaMobi

legendary

Activity: 1862

Merit: 1469

https://Ecua.Mobi

I have a couple of questions about this, considering the changes made to the trust system over the years:

Quote from: theymos on May 21, 2013, 07:23:33 AM

- "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.

I've recently left positive trust to OgNasty because he returned the 500 BTC he was holding as treasurer. I entered BTC500 as risked amount without thinking too much about it to be honest.
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?

However, I think that's not important at all. And that takes me to the next point, which I think is no longer valid and needs to be updated:

Quote from: theymos on May 21, 2013, 07:23:33 AM

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

AFAIK, this is no longer true since a long time. Trust is now calculated in a different way, without taking the risked amount into account at all. Therefore "Risked BTC" is much less important than before.
@theymos, please correct me if I'm wrong, or update OP if this point is no longer valid.

I'm posting this because of Vod's negative counter feedback left on OgNasty's profile: "Just a friendly counter to the 1,500 BTC that three members did not risk with OG, based on Theymos' comments in the reference link. 'Each 50btc risked will count as an additional rating' " with a risked amount of BTC1,500.

I've seen other trust actions taken (or at least justified) based on "50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating". This thread is a reference and I think it's very important to keep it up to date.

Update:
Note all the previous posts of this thread are more than one year old. Most probably you don't want to quote or reply to any of them, like jademaxsuy did.

GuardiumSupport

newbie

Activity: 6

Merit: 0

I think that's a really cool idea. It's like post count 2.0.

BitcoinHome

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

I have done nothing for which I could leshit doery! how do I get it back now?

Deena

member

Activity: 238

Merit: 49

Quote from: minifrij on January 27, 2018, 03:06:16 PM

Trust moderation doesn't exist, by design.

Call it as you like. Tagging negative is a form of punishment with which only a couple of members are installed.

Quote from: Deena on January 27, 2018, 02:55:59 PM

Nowhere in the forum rules does it say that you cannot scam people. There are no 'trust instructions', there are guidelines. Guidelines that were written in a time where spam wasn't such a big of an issue. Guidelines that are just advice, not rules.

I like your comparison of the trust system with scam. For which it in the present situation is used.

Quote from: Deena on January 27, 2018, 02:55:59 PM

I can absolutely agree that tagging isn't the best way to do it, and I hope that these taggings will decrease as the merit system finds it's feet. However, when left with no other option, the worst one sometimes becomes the best.

That's easy talk from your comfortable position. Accounts of members who did nothing wrong are pointlessly destroyed and they are treated in a very respectless manner. Often a lot of time and efford have been spent in such accounts. I have spoken with members on Telegram who actually cried for it. They were positively engaged in normal forum activity and they did nothing wrong. I really can't understand how so many members support such harsh abuse and destruction.

Topic: Marketplace trust - page 5. (Read 82947 times)