Topic: [overview] Lauda's DefaultTrust statistics & relevant topics list (Read 2083 times)

Fuck that LOL A lot will be kicked out of the campaigns!

If that occurs, then I'd probably be providing the statistics and requesting a quote from you in a year from now  

Until then, this isn't the case and I don't think it will be. There are many theoretical "what if" scenarios, but personally I'm more interested in "what is" scenarios (the present), as there are enough of them already without needing to speculate on the potential future. If the present scenarios are dealt with then the future will likely follow suit. Speculating too much on the future means you're not focusing on the present imo. Not to say theoretical scenarios are irrelevant, but they might take some time to mature to becoming relevant.


All negative strength users can be found within the "elected" and "un-elected" graphs: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/overview-dt1-positive-negative-strength-statistics-5256829
I wasn't intending to do this per week, as shifting users from sheet to sheet is a bit annoying, but intending to do so after each DT update when more changes occur.

I still think Lauda gets excluded because Lauda stirred up too many users. That's like being the opposite of Switzerland and increases the number of exclusions because more and more different users get a say in DT1. What if in the near future there are 15 users like peloso on DT1? All with DT1-strength -15. And what if they all decide to do this:
They'll all be back on DT1!
Retaliation is not a big problem if only a few users do it, but when it becomes a majority, the DT-system fails.

Any chance you can make a graph on the number of DT1-members with negative strength per week? My gut feeling tells me it's slowly increasing.

I agree with LoyceV on this one, surely the fact that this user is on -15 shows that what they are doing isn't working, and causing more members to distrust him? I could be wrong, but it seems like there are lots of eyes on this users dubious use of the trust system. Specifically, about 22 DT1 & DT1 members, who collectively should be more than capable of reversing any exclusions/inclusions made. Possibly more relevant to the topic, this user's DT2 strength would be -14, as they are excluded by 1 more DT1 member than included. If this "shithead" (as you kindly put it) was dropped or blacklisted from DT1 then they still wouldn't be on DT2 either. This is very different from the cat's inclusions & exclusions, as this feline would still be on -1 DT1 strength if not blacklisted from DT1. See the difference here?


Merit-based exclusions would clearly wreak havoc on the trust system as you considered, probably also dropping the number of eligible members in half I'd imagine. While I know many DT1 members feel that the number of members on DT1 should be reduced considerably, it would be much more prone to trust abuse from merited sock puppets, than the current conditions imo. It'd be easier to generate exclusions than the current conditions of generating inclusions, if merit took precedent over DT1 strength, which is what you're suggesting.

---

Indeed, this was the quote I was looking for. Probably didn't find it as it's nearly a year old now  

Good luck with that voting block idea.   


I was DT1 (-16) just a few weeks ago thanks in part to persons such as your good self who have peddled in accounts here in the BitCoinTalk Forum which causes instability in people's lives here and in real life.  At the moment I'm DT1 (-7) so yes, the current DT system works as it actually distils not strengthens the damage account traders have here in this forum.

Most if not all of those who distrust me have at one point or another peddled BCT UID's, yourself included which is why I am not concerned.  Sixteen is just a number, so is seven.

Maybe, if the intent was to allow such users to extort other DT1 users. They can't directly affect DT ratings but still can do so indirectly, for example by including someone who is at -1 or excluding someone who is at 0 in DT1.

Your graph nicely confirms what I expected to happen back then. And you probably couldn't find it because I posted it from Mobile:

Isn't his -15 DT1-strength evidence of the DT-system working as intended?

I'd like to see data on what would be changed, but unfortunately I don't have the time to make it.

I think this is becoming a joke. There's one shithead with -15 still wreaking havoc in DT1, extorting other members with exclusions/inclusions. I think the idea was that such a person would ultimately stop being eligible for DT1 due to not having 10+ inclusions from merit-earning users but that's clearly not happening and with more and more merit being spread around there will be more merited idiots including other idiots. Perhaps exclusions should count against DT1 eligibility (e.g. if you're excluded by 2 users with 250+ merit, then that negates 2 inclusions from users with 250+ merit) but that probably would open other avenues for abuse.

---

Statistics updated, two new graphs added (and one replaced; total members distrust changed for all trust percentages).
Titles & labels changed for clarity such as "DT1 Inclusions" changed to "DefaultTrust Strength" as well as "ex-DT" corrected to DT1 or "Voting-Only DT1".


Interestingly enough the cat is back with +7 DT2 strength, however remains -2 DT1 strength. Being blacklisted from DT1, means the cat is back on DefaultTrust.
Notably there were 0 changes in inclusions & exclusions since going from -2 to +7 DT2 strength, this was merely caused by a DT update.


The following questions can now be asked:

• Should members be allowed to blacklist themselves from DT1 if it benefits them in order to gain DT2 inclusion?
• Should members who request to be blacklisted from DT1 be blacklisted from DefaultTrust all together, if they would otherwise be excluded if selected as DT1?

I don't think Lauda is only the member here who benefits from not being selected into DT1, and therefore gaining DT2 inclusions. Other members also have higher DT2 strength than DT1 I've noticed. This merely serves as a good example.

LoyceV also asked an interesting question along the lines of whether it's intended that DT1 excluded members can still make inclusions/exclusions to other DT1 members, if they are ultimately distrusted by "acting" DT1 members (cant' find quote though).

edit:

Please do, saves me and others making the same mistake more than once  

That didn't happen. When users drop out of DT1 sometimes the DT2 list is not updated in sync, which causes problems on BPIP. This gets cleaned up eventually.

I feel like I've spent so much time explaining this over the past few months that I should just fix it  

I doubt either one in your examples truly understands the ramifications of their constant manipulations within their own community, much-less the wider BitCoinTalk community. (it has nudged Lauda back to minus three however)

That took just less than 10 minutes 

---

Edit, then this happens:



What's odd is that gospodin doesn't even trust Lauda, in fact the user is distrusted by Lauda 

Figment's sunk to -2 so it would need to be a collaborative thing to manipulate DT more than it already is and given he distrusts me, I'll sit that one out.

That post is about BPIP and doesn't influence this.

Yes. They need one more DT1-inclusion to be on DT1.

That would be a combination of this and this. Although interesting, it's not something I can quickly create.

Is this before or after this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bpip-bitcointalk-public-information-project-back-in-action-5213618

Are you saying by trusting figmentofmyass and willi9974 their votes would push Lauda down?

---

---

Are you able to show what the landscape would look like if all who are able to be on DT1 were instead of 100 being randomly selected?

---

---

The knives are certainly out tonight: https://bpip.org/r/dt1changes.aspx

Lauda being blacklisted from DT1 gives rediculous power to other individual DT1-members to influence Lauda's DT2-status. For example, I could single handedly drop Lauda to 7 DT2-exclusions, or raise Lauda to 2 DT2-exclusions.

Bear with me:
Adding this to my Trust list would drop Lauda from DT2 (-4) to DT2 (-7):

Adding this to my Trust list would raise Lauda from DT2 (-4) to DT2 (-2):

If 2 DT1-members coordinate their Trust list changes, they can push Lauda anywhere between 9 exclusions and 1 inclusion on DT2.

Likewise. A re-test of the DT1 Inclusions "power trend-line" is pretty likely that sits around 4 at the moment, even if it takes until the end of the year. I expect it to act as strong resistance however, after failing to find support from it late last year with a classic "dead cat bounce" scenario. Then continue to follow the linear trend-line down hill would be my estimated outcome.

If Lauda was a shitcoin, I woudn't be investing put it that way  

Updated:

When theymos changed DefaultTrust, Lauda went from being excluded on DT2 straight to being included on DT1. In the last month, Lauda went from 13 exclusions on DT2 to 4 exclusions. I expect Lauda to keep bouncing on and off DT2 for a while.

That's what I'd call "death spiral".

No chance to make a comeback from here probably.