Topic: New reputation system integration on bitcointalk. Questions for people. (Read 3461 times)

If it encourages more useful posts, then the ends justify the means. Provided spamming is discouraged or even punished by the system.

It's a p2p system, the money comes from the users. You're giving and receiving money that also counts as reputation. If you're a good poster and make well thought out posts some people might want to mark that post as a way to acknowledge it. It incentives good content and rewards people for contributing.

Trust systems are on the agenda but there's much to do before then. Sirius(https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/sirius-4) is finishing his identi.fi system and our lead developer has discussed us integrating it in with our marking system to provide a layer of trust above the raw reputation scores.

I don't think it should have the added bonus of money with it, maybe other incentives? It shouldn't feel like the users are being squeezed for cash or they will quickly leave in droves. I assume it would be more donation based? Where is the source of income coming from? If Bitcointalk had some ad revenue system going on as well maybe they could buy BTC with the ad revenue?

Why not just have a permanent amount of trust in which people can get up/down voted with more weight to senior active members who have been a part of the forums for a long time. If you have an older account that is misusing trust and it gets banned, it takes a long time to get back up to where it was before.

IMO the trust system needs a lot of improvement, maybe it would be good to look into how Silk Road did their trust system too since it worked well in practice.

sorry forum, but rep will mean dick all here given the way crypto and alts work, it's a fuck fest of scammers and fake accounts by people left and right.  im sure there's legit folks too but it's few and far between.  i may not have the time in alts that many others have, but hell yes i can see how disgusting this industry is already with the kids who play games.

The point of developing the algorithm is to mitigate things like that. It's one thing to buy ten accounts, but it's another thing to buy ten accounts that have all been active recently and have a enough of a reputation themselves for their markings to be weighted heavily enough to make it worth it.

Also, this isn't meant to be a trust system in the first iterations anyway. Later on with further integrations with trust systems like identi.fi, then maybe. But not yet.

Think of early versions more like reddit karma, but with the added bonus of money. Gaming this type of system at this point shouldn't really have much of an incentive.

If you have a marking system, you could buy and build accounts in order to boost your rating so you could get some kind of pool of accounts as a paid marking service to boost rep which is not really any different than it is now.

wish defaultlist was updated here finally

It's not meant to be a definitive system.

I'm not claiming at all that people should give people who mark a lot more presedence over others. The questions are just meant for discussion. Perhaps someone has an argument that someone should receive a small portion of reputation for their marking activity. Maybe they think otherwise. That's why I'm asking the community.

In one implemenation, marks given is a recorded stat on the public ledger. On Poloniex's implementation I don't believe there is any way to see how many marks have been given by someone without scraping the data yourself. So we have different approaches. The point is to tailor marking for each community to make it do whatever it is you want it to do and show whatever data you want it to show. It's a flexible system with no predefined way of doing things.

An example of one users ledger. Scroll allllll the way down to see the raw statistics. There is no algorithm implemented on this implementation:

http://klaranet.com/recent?uri=https%3A%2F%2Fprojectbitmark.slack.com%2Fteam%2Fmelvincarvalho%23this

Keep in mind that in general I do not give a damn on these reputation numbers, and you do not either. We both use that "human judgement" as only safe way.

And 'marking whales', seriously? What devilish kind of 'marking whale game' is up to plot? Do I have to believe the guys with the impressive big numbers, anything they say? Nope, woun't happen. Couldn't care less.

Nah I'm always on topic, its you that's not - you just dont realise it LOL.

But its all good buddy - I love ya. Your always good for a laugh 

did you really have to quote me ?
to make up a lie ?
i have said 100 times probably i use one account and on some sites i used the name Greenhorn *instead.
how many have you used here Oldminer ?

and congrats on saying something on topic 

LOL...just keep changing your name & address Sputters...it will all work out

For damn suuuure

strap this one on..

anything related to a reputation here where you up or down vote peoepl or their posts etc is a dumb idea.
why ? well there is many of course but here is yet one more..

it is a crystal clear fact that many of the Cloners and their Bag Holder supporters here create many alternate accounts to Troll and Advertise
i know on average i get about 2 new accounts a day coming after me..

i have seen this turn into an epidemic around here since OCT/NOV 2013
someone criticizes a coin and a new account is created a few minutes later spouting off nothing but insults.. Trolling hard.
And guys like me are STILL using the same account.
Get it ?
Guys are gaming abusing the system hard so no wonder some of you are pushing for a rep system LOL 
i bet my left nut your the same trolls / shills here with dummy accounts advertising etc.. hiding and polishing your Main account.

Wanna see something funny ?
I got two PM's (months ago) at the same time one day randomly and guess who was involved.. PM is saved = http://pastebin.com/sDV6rWiB

I see how this could be irritating to the occasional false positive, but for the most part Vod is actually providing a service to newer members and the forum in general. He's been here for a long time and he knows that an exceedingly high percentage of new users who post ads for loans (BTW whats a new user doing asking for a loan in the first place?) never repay the loan nor had any plans to repay the loan.

I am a vocal critic of the trust system for 2 reasons: 1 - accounts can be bought and sold and along with it their trust, 2 - you can post a "trust" rating for any old reason. You don't like that guy's jokes, this other guy made you cry, etc... has nothing to do with asking you to trust them.

But in Vod's case its a simple matter of statistics... If 70-80% of all noobs never repay their loans, a noob asking for a loan is likely to be a scammer. He feels this is the way to make people think twice before accepting to provide the loan, which, 70-80% of the time, is a good idea.


Bitmark sounds like a novel idea to me and I think it should be tried for the sake of experimentation. But it would work better if BTMs didn't actually have BTC value, in my opinion. People tend to get more honest about things once you remove the profit motive from the equation.

You don't have to trust this website specifically. The implementation would be a microtrust provider. You would be dealing with a handful of cents at a time, free to deposit and withdraw at will. The trust issue is basically a non starter as the implementation itself isn't meant to function as a wallet to hold your BTM. You would just send and withdraw small amounts of marks as needed.

Also, there are trustless implementations being looked in to too at the moment. Mainly trustless micropayment channels. But for something like this it's probably overkill. Might happen in the near future though.

i personally would never trust transferring  'crypto' on this website.

I don't think you understand the point of this. It's not about the alt section at all. Those things you mentioned are irrelevant to marking and marking has nothing to do with any of those things.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say. This is just about being able to instantly transfer crypto among people on Bitcointalk in a way that's also recorded on a public ledger. Each marking also acts as a method of bookmarking posts that you've found insightful or funny.

This isn't supposed to be a replacement for the (very bad)trust system that's currently implemented. That might come later, but what I'm talking about here isn't that.

You make a fair and valid point, to be able to say I am no longer domain/user is an important part of the system.

I would invite you to consider a reputation system which does not expose ones reputation, which is not invasive, and does not create noise.  Let's say that on some website which allows the marking of any url, and where you and I both have accounts, that I may mark you 500 marks for slipping "moot" in to this post.  Now let's say some others do the same thing.  In such a system no change is needed to bitcointalk, nobody considers you to have more reputation, nobody has even seen you have been marked on the forum, but you have been given transferable kudos by some people that you can use to buy a coffee or to give to some others for things they've done that you 'like'.  Even without the reputation metric exposed the system has merit.

If we now add in the reputation metric, and say you have a user page on this marking website which lists that you are Spoetnik on Bitcointalk with reputation XXX, and RandomJoe on otherwebsite with reputation YYY, and so forth, then people may view you as knowledgeable or skilled in some domain, but not in some other, that you may know some things about crypto currency but may not be a great babysitter.  Under such a system it is in your own best interests to keep your usernames up to date, if you've sold an account or swapped usernames this should be reflected and there is some incentive to do so, as the next paragraph will hopefully explain.

Reputation is not trust.  We plan to leverage identifi to allow people to make trust statements about others.  The combination of these two systems allows far more information to be exposed about a persona, it can openly be asserted that SomeUsername on Bitcointalk has gained reputation for technical knowledge, for some code committed, but has negative trust statements related to managing peoples money.  Thereby allowing people to see that SomeUsername is a good person to have on a development team, but shouldn't be trusted with a 2000 BTC ICO.

Sure, systems can be exploited in various ways, exploits will be found and patched over time, some technical some social.  The ability to make statements, to assert positive or negative trust for some purpose, and to pass transferable divisible cryptographic reputation from one person to another, has a lot of merit and will surely serve to let people make more informed decisions.  Hopefully some people will be rewarded fairly for things they've said/created/done/shared where they currently aren't.  As melvster says, currently you get liked for something but (facebook/youtube/reddit/major-site) get all the rewards, in marking you get them.

All we need is Spoetnik opinion.

if you can buy and sell accounts then any rep system is a moot point i think !


PS: i was just dying to use the word "moot" somewhere