Topic: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting (Read 1356 times)

I appreciate your input, it's to the point and expands on the brainstorming I was looking for.


My thoughts exactly, emphasis on thought experiment and what the potential outcome would be.


I like this for the simplification, it's very similar to the second part of my suggestion, but without the requirement for a minimum un-trusted threshold from one particular DT group.
It would also be much easier to calculate overall +/- trusted/untrusted values from DT members than my suggestions, from a math/programming perspective I imagine.


Yes, I couldn't agree more. While sock puppets is a problem of sock puppets, it would easily destroy any attempts of DT decentralized accountability.
I also completely agree that a minimum merit/rank requirement would be necessary before considering to implement any of these suggestions.
This could still do with more brainstorming though, ideally from a more qualified mathematician in my mind.

It's an interesting thought experiment, and it would be interesting to crunch the numbers and see what changes it would have on the DT1 list.

If it were to be implemented, I would suggest changing it slightly. Let's say we have a user with 10 DT1 inclusions. As per your system, they could be excluded by 10 DT1 users and 20 DT2 users and 30 DT3 users and so on, and still be part of DT1. Surely it would make more sense to have an overall "inclusion/exclusion score". Each inclusion from a fellow DT1 would give +1 to that score. A DT1 exclusion would give -1, a DT2 exclusion would give -0.5, a DT3 exclusion would give -0.33, and so forth. They would need an overall score >0 to remain on DT1.

Having said all that, it would currently be open to massive abuse, and that would need addressed first. A DT1 user could simply add 100 sock puppets to their own trust list therefore making all those sock puppets DT2, and then exclude anyone they wanted from DT1. Perhaps some kind of counter voting system using the same or stricter merit requirements for the current voting system would work better?

Back on topic, some food for thought. Yes, I had too much time recently and wanted to learn more about DT groups and how they function.

I understand the idea of proposed changes to DT is for the benefit of decentralization of this group, and while I don't believe hierarchical structures can become decentralized, I think they can become more accountable. Arguably, this would help make the default trust group more decentralized to some extent, as it would be accountable from the ground up, as opposed to predominantly horizontally.

For the purposes of the following, the ratios are mere examples and not proportionate, this is more theoretical mathematics than practical.

I'm wondering how a scenario would look if to be in DT1 you additionally require;

• A minimum of <1:2 ratio of inclusions from DT1 verses exclusions from DT2.
• This could go further and require <1:3 ratio of DT1 inclusions verses DT3 exclusions
• And so on, <1:4 ratio of DT1 inclusions verses DT4 exclusions

Or alternatively, continue with
In summary: if someone is proportionally un-trusted twice as a much by the trust group "below" them, as they are trusted by their own DT group, they would be demoted from that DT group. Although these ratios presumably would be better applied based on the ratios of numbers of members in DT1,2,3,etc. For example, if there is 4x more members in DT2 than DT1, then the ratio would be better set to 1:4 (proportionate % based ratios). I hope that makes some vague sense, without doing the calculations I have no idea what this would look like, but you get the idea: lower DT groups make the higher DT groups accountable.

If the DT problem isn't based on the majority of DT1 being untrustworthy but a handful of "bad apples", which I believe is probably the case, then this could remove these bad actors. I'm certain there would be some trusted DT1 members that would be maliciously removed by DT2 as a result, but it's a small sacrifice for the benefit of accountability in my opinion. Ideally, malicious DT2 actors can then be held accountable by DT3 members, and so on. I recognize there would be a need for enough members to have custom trust lists for this to work, and that probably these ideas are still too premature to implement, but there you go.

Unlock and bump! Please stay on topic

I'm locking this (this is now post #67) until a Mod handles my reports.

I'd like to forward everybody who fed the troll to A boycott of replies to the recent extensive trolling by cryptohunter.

Not willing to wade through your entire post history, I'm just going to take a guess and say "by ranting incoherently about it and wondering why nobody listens". Am I close?

After re-reading the whole dialog I have to apologize to cryptohunter. I didn't realize Veleor is "assmuncher".


Is that his real name? Does this count as doxing? Getting awfully personal here.

The only legendary that you have is ego, you're so self-centered that nothing else seems to bother you. Speaking of 'ass kissing', you're fully comply with this definition, because you're ready to support fraudsters any day if they have the same political views on 'Default Trust' as you.
You are a hypocrite, acting like a baby whose toy was taken away. With no doubts, it is better to be a newbie than such a "pro" as you are. You're a disgrase, not a legend.

Thanks, that is comedy gold.
That is up there with a suchmoon level admission.
Don't blame me if you're late and they start moaning. More back stabbing coming your way.

Why would you ask if I wanted them if you weren't going to deliver? You know it's not nice to get people's hopes up like that.

You don't dictate my schedule.

No. You're omitting entire words and phrases:
I'm still waiting.

FFS every attention seeking vixen and snitchy bitch wants my attention. I am on vacation right. Wait your turn. I asked if you wanted those threads I did not say you would be getting those threads. Are you not late for your next merit sprinkle on some untrustworthy scum bag you support.

1. I am not complaining, such moon is complaining it does not understand.
2. I am simply telling her and you if you are unable to understand then you must fall in to the category of sub human intelligence that can not fill in the tiny missing gaps and errors.
3. I am not going to spend time reading over it after i hack it out, nor spell check it. If you can not use context to place a meaning to a word spelled incorrectly or a missed comma then get back to school.


get it now?

I thought you were going to make a new thread for The Pharmacist and his purported "pals"?

You like failing to communicate properly? Okay, but stop complaining about people not understanding you when you've just admitted it's your own fault.

No you are just being stupid and are unable to discern a simple instruction.

You said "who said anything about writing style".

I said well your ass kissing pal did in his post.

Sorry if the complexity is getting too much.

If you can't get that now don't worry about it. Just get back to snitching or knitting or reading about my illustrious past imagining you could date someone of my calibre one day.

You're out of your depth here.

Anyway why am I wasting time here now that I have you back

Here now you answer my questions suchmoron.

Since your obsessed with sock puppets. What is your reasoning behind supporting a proven sock puppet greedy and sneaky racist trolling sig spammer like your pal the pharmacist?  I mean you approve obviously? haha

More questions on the way. I mean since you have totally derailed the entire thread then I may as well just use it to ask you questions whilst you are here insisting on derailing.

Of course when you type at the speed I do you will make a few small errors and I will not check shit for you as I have told you before. I like that you need to read my scraps. Although most people with any kind of human level intelligence would be able to fill in any small gaps, errors to gain the meaning. I like that it requires you to struggle and often fail.
 

Drinking at breakfast again? You're making less sense than usual and that's quite an achievement. I would suggest using some punctuation and more English words, maybe a spellchecker or something like that.

Fuck you are dumb. Look to his post above my own it says it clearly there in your assmunchers post above my own.
Says hilarious claims its the same. Although I never see hilarious and co say it is the same just speculates it is me for some reason that he is quite free to express now.

Can you see it NOW ?? ScumBuster?? far more likely you are a puppet user you dirty skank. I don't say you are ScumBuster yet but one day you will trip yourself up. Not that I need anything other than your willing support of proven of liars and supporters of scams, and self confessed trust abusers, and greedy sneaky sig spamming sock puppet trolls. I mean I have enough dirt on you.

Who said anything about "writing style"? Oh wait...

The first part is laughable and pulled out of your ass.


Next

 I have no care for what anyone "thinks" who is supporting proven liars and trust abusers. I care what they can PROVE only. Their judgement is already called into question by overtly choosing to trust proven scum.

70% chance is

1. incorrect and likely 2%
2. not 100% so is speculation.

I would not use a puppet and never have used a puppet account.


So even considering your dumb shit calculations you pulled out of your ass. You do not get to call me a liar. You have zero proof. I will start calling suchmoon a liar and say that dumb bitch is ScumBuster then by your standards of evidence.

Let me reiterate this for the last time. I do not need sock puppets since

1. anyone can see a sock puppet is a SOCK PUPPET so reduces its credibility to next to zero because people will speculate it is you.
2. I prefer to keep all of my effort locked down to this account. When reflecting upon my past I feel winning battles alone against multiple scum bags have always been the most satisfying. Hence why I prefer tennis to team based sports.

Now shove your fake 70% up your ass. Speculation and false accusation and nothing more.

Now back to begging for merits and dreaming about becoming a REAL legend. Go trawl read my post histories that range from forcing 2 BILLION dollar airdrops from scammers with armies of scumbag supporters, to being quite plausibly responsible for keeping BTC as number 1 in market cap, on to  making paupers into millionaires, and being lauded for my works. Asked by super legends and super brains to help them fight scams.  Imagine you can some day become a REAL legend. Let me quickly calculate on your little point scale the chances of that ever happening......0%. Oh well, imagination can be a useful thing give it a try or just go full on fantasy as you have been.

To prove that you're a liar, it should be confirmed that you're writing from another profile.


Let's take a 6-point scale: ▮▮▮▮▮▮

In order to state with full confidence that profiles cryptohunter and Chosen Username are belong to the same person, it's necessary that there are 6/6 matches, which means 100%.

On December 20, 2018 a report on cryptohunter's plagiarism was published. On the next day Chosen Username had registered and claimed that s/he has a Legendary account which could be banned for plagiarism.
▮▮▮▮▮▮ [3/6 = 50%]

Chosen Username has the similar writing style as cryptohunter and this was noticed by the moderator hilariousetc.
▮▮▮▮▮▮ [4/6 ~ 70%]

Maybe no thanks, but 14 merits.  

Excellent work as usual, Loyce. 

70% chance of being a liar   - can you produce your calculations I want to check through those.

You have it the wrong way around. You GAIN credibility insulting proven liars and trust abusers and greedy sock puppet sig spammers and their supporters. You LOSE credibility by ass kissing them for merits and other favourable scraps.


I am ONLY insulting those that are PROVEN liars and those that support other PROVEN trust abusers and their ass lickers like you you. 100% chance of you being included in that bunch. ONLY when they start poking their nose in and attacking me first.
Start to get that now? don't make me out to be unreasonable and vicious to people for NO GOOD reason.

I wouldn't ever attack a person first. I simply do not believe in operating like that.

@suchmoon

You can dream, hope, pray, beg but since it never happened it is as realistic as dreaming about dating Bradley Cooper in your state.