Topic: The new DT system, updated 04 MAY 2019 - page 2. (Read 2771 times)
Wow... just noticed how much DT1 has changed. I think having the higher merit requirement is a good idea as 10 merits are not very many. Seems I am now just a regular user without that massive DT1 abuse power
@LoyceV, how difficult would it be to give us some numbers for different scenarios? For example, how many DT1 members would there currently be if the requirements were raised to the following (with the "upper requirement" of 2x 250 merit votes staying the same in all cases):
A) 10x 25 merit votes
B) 10x 50 merit votes
C) 20x 10 merit votes
D) 20x 25 merit votes
The problem with the DT list growing too large is only going to get worse over time as more users set default trust lists and more users earn 10+ merit.
A) 10x 25 merit votes
B) 10x 50 merit votes
C) 20x 10 merit votes
D) 20x 25 merit votes
The problem with the DT list growing too large is only going to get worse over time as more users set default trust lists and more users earn 10+ merit.
Maybe 10+ votes from posters with 10+ Merit’s is OK if you make 5+ inclusions from fellow DT1 Members a necessity too.
If you are included by 5+ DT1 Members I think that’s a good reflection on if you’re trustworthy.
This makes the DT1 list a bit too centralized for my liking. If you need a minimum of a net positive of 5 DT1 inclusions rather than the current equal to or greater than 0, then a small number of DT1 members will effectively be allowed to choose the other DT1 members. It could also result in, for example, a very trustworthy user from a local board being excluded from DT1 despite having many inclusions from their local board, simply because the majority of DT1 users don't frequent that specific board and therefore don't interact with said user. I would rather it stays in the hands of the community, but just have somewhat higher requirements.If you are included by 5+ DT1 Members I think that’s a good reflection on if you’re trustworthy.
I personally think the 10 merits per vote isn’t enough, raise it to 25 or 50 and I’m sure the lists will be vastly different, 25 merits isn’t hard and if you can’t earn that why on earth are they having any sway on the forum ?
Maybe 10+ votes from posters with 10+ Merit’s is OK if you make 5+ inclusions from fellow DT1 Members a necessity too.
If you are included by 5+ DT1 Members I think that’s a good reflection on if you’re trustworthy.
This makes the DT1 list a bit too centralized for my liking. If you need a minimum of a net positive of 5 DT1 inclusions rather than the current equal to or greater than 0, then a small number of DT1 members will effectively be allowed to choose the other DT1 members. It could also result in, for example, a very trustworthy user from a local board being excluded from DT1 despite having many inclusions from their local board, simply because the majority of DT1 users don't frequent that specific board and therefore don't interact with said user. I would rather it stays in the hands of the community, but just have somewhat higher requirements. If you are included by 5+ DT1 Members I think that’s a good reflection on if you’re trustworthy.
we cant have everybody on the forum being DT.
Ehhh....I don't think the number of DT1 members right now is that bad, and by the looks of it there isn't anyone in it that raise red flags in my mind. It's the number of DT2 members that concerns me, and DT1's need to really keep solid trust lists so as not to give power to members who might abuse it (or who don't deserve it).And as I mentioned in another thread, there should be a merit and not-inactive requirement for DT2, same as there is for DT1.
Sounds like a good idea to me. 
Pretty nuts. Honestly I think the number should be capped at 100 total. I don't care if I'm on it or not, but we cant have everybody on the forum being DT.
Agreed. It is becoming unwieldy, and with every update and bunch of brand new inappropriate accounts make their way on to DT2 as well. I'm sure theymos previously said that if DT1 reached >100 users, then each month a random selection of 100 users would be picked from the pool. I'm not sure that's the best option, as you run the risk of scammers losing their warning if all their tags suddenly moved to "untrusted". As I said at the initiation of this new system, I think the requirements are too lax - 10 votes from users with 10+ merit is too easy to achieve. Either the number of votes or the required merit (preferably both) should be increased. And as I mentioned in another thread, there should be a merit and not-inactive requirement for DT2, same as there is for DT1.Maybe 10+ votes from posters with 10+ Merit’s is OK if you make 5+ inclusions from fellow DT1 Members a necessity too.
If you are included by 5+ DT1 Members I think that’s a good reflection on if you’re trustworthy.
Pretty nuts. Honestly I think the number should be capped at 100 total. I don't care if I'm on it or not, but we cant have everybody on the forum being DT.
Agreed. It is becoming unwieldy, and with every update and bunch of brand new inappropriate accounts make their way on to DT2 as well. I'm sure theymos previously said that if DT1 reached >100 users, then each month a random selection of 100 users would be picked from the pool. I'm not sure that's the best option, as you run the risk of scammers losing their warning if all their tags suddenly moved to "untrusted". As I said at the initiation of this new system, I think the requirements are too lax - 10 votes from users with 10+ merit is too easy to achieve. Either the number of votes or the required merit (preferably both) should be increased. And as I mentioned in another thread, there should be a merit and not-inactive requirement for DT2, same as there is for DT1. 
Pretty nuts. Honestly I think the number should be capped at 100 total. I don't care if I'm on it or not, but we cant have everybody on the forum being DT.
New month, new list up to 88 DT1!
NEW LIST DT1 04/05/2019
REMOVED DT1 04/05/2019
| _____________________ | _____________________ | _____________ | _____________ |
| PROFILE | ID NUMBER° | BPIP | NUMBER OF TRUSTS PREVIOUS UPDATE |
| Gunthar | 817682 | BPIP | 5 |
| Hellmouth42 | 1776636 | BPIP | 2 |
| Rmcdermott927 | 289011 | BPIP | 0 |
COMEBACKS AND NEW DT1 04/05/2019
| _____________________ | _____________________ | _____________ | _____________ |
| PROFILE | ID NUMBER° | BPIP | NUMBER OF TRUSTS |
| anonymousminer | 1668017 | BPIP | 13 |
| buckrogers | 189967 | BPIP | 10 |
| polymerbit | 811213 | BPIP | 9 |
| morvillz7z | 1825672 | BPIP | 8 |
| dazedfool | 327499 | BPIP | 7 |
| teeGUMES | 307884 | BPIP | 3 |
| hedgy73 | 162384 | BPIP | 2 |
| JohnUser | 319562 | BPIP | 1 |
| lovesmayfamilis | 1982152 | BPIP | 1 |
| roycilik | 1051955 | BPIP | 0 |
New month, new list. Congratulations to the new members of the club.
Nobody has been removed this month. We have 2 comebacks and 9 new people here.
We now have 80 DT1.
Nobody has been removed this month. We have 2 comebacks and 9 new people here.
We now have 80 DT1.
NEW LIST OF DT1 04/04/2019
RIMOVED DT1 04/04/2019
| _____________________ | _____________________ | _____________ | _____________ |
| PROFILE | ID NUMBER° | BPIP | NUMBER OF TRUSTS PREVIOUS UPDATE |
| NONE | NONE | NONE | NONE |
COMEBACKS ON DT1 04/04/2019
| _____________________ | _____________________ | _____________ | _____________ |
| PROFILE | ID NUMBER° | BPIP | NUMBER OF TRUSTS |
| greenplastic | 160943 | BPIP | 16 |
| EcuaMobi | 169515 | BPIP | 6 |
1ST TIME ON DT1 04/04/2019
| _____________________ | _____________________ | _____________ | _____________ |
| PROFILE | ID NUMBER° | BPIP | NUMBER OF TRUSTS |
| Kryptowerk | 949248 | BPIP | 6 |
| Avirunes | 175302 | BPIP | 5 |
| Foxpup | 55384 | BPIP | 5 |
| Ticked | 129764 | BPIP | 5 |
| malevolent | 23092 | BPIP | 3 |
| nutildah | 317618 | BPIP | 2 |
| Hellmouth42 | 1776636 | BPIP | 2 |
| Anduck | 31931 | BPIP | 1 |
| willi9974 | 216582 | BPIP | 1 |
coinlocket$ - what order do you list them in? Not reg date, not alphabetically...
It looks like it's ordered by number of inclusions, just like https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtviewyeah saw that, deleted my post lol
coinlocket$ - what order do you list them in? Not reg date, not alphabetically...
It looks like it's ordered by number of inclusions, just like https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtview Update with yesterday's new list
This is pretty different than what is in here. Maybe something changed between today and yesterday.
That page should be updated in real time so if anything change after the update will be different from the sheet.
Update with yesterday's new list
This is pretty different than what is in here. Maybe something changed between today and yesterday.
Update with yesterday's new list
THE NEW DT1 LIST 06/03/2019
THE REMOVED DT1 LIST 06/03/2019
| _____________________ | _____________________ | _____________ | _____________ |
| PROFILE | ID NUMBER° | BPIP | NUMBER OF TRUSTS PREVIOUS UPDATE |
| Blazed | 134378 | BPIP | 19 |
| greenplastic | 160943 | BPIP | 9 |
| EcuaMobi | 169515 | BPIP | 5 |
| JohnUser | 319562 | BPIP | 1 |
THE NEW MEMBERS OF DT1 LIST 06/03/2019
| _____________________ | _____________________ | _____________ | _____________ |
| PROFILE | ID NUMBER° | BPIP | NUMBER OF TRUSTS |
| minerjones | 346731 | BPIP | 21 |
| philipma1957 | 64507 | BPIP | 12 |
| bones261 | 452769 | BPIP | 7 |
| ezeminer | 396526 | BPIP | 7 |
| Veleor | 1177936 | BPIP | 7 |
| DdmrDdmr | 1582324 | BPIP | 7 |
| hybridsole | 158444 | BPIP | 6 |
| 1miau | 2143453 | BPIP | 5 |
| chimk | 1202061 | BPIP | 5 |
| LFC_Bitcoin | 379487 | BPIP | 4 |
| MaoChao | 410541 | BPIP | 4 |
| bL4nkcode | 765632 | BPIP | 2 |
| dbshck | 153634 | BPIP | 1 |
I tagged you because you are untrustworthy.
You were part of a group of less than trustworthy people conspiring to manipulate DT
so strange fantasy you have
Quote
by making a bogus trust list & distrusting many elite DT1 posters
it was happend after lauda and tman tagged me without proofsQuote
just to suit your own needs (to get your red trust removed).
If you were successful in your coup to remove the likes of Lauda then it would have opened the way for hundreds of previously red tagged scammers to return to their scamming ways.
You’re not trustworthy & I’m not the first to tag you.
If you were successful in your coup to remove the likes of Lauda then it would have opened the way for hundreds of previously red tagged scammers to return to their scamming ways.
You’re not trustworthy & I’m not the first to tag you.
ok but were is proofs? you forgot what red trust was created for
not for opinion
lauda tagged me for reason that i not agree with she's ooinion
tman tagged me calling me crazy ...
you tagged me for they opinion
but red trust NOT FOR OPINION its only against scammers
so i not scammer
i can remove\edit my trust list at any time and
anyway i just say you abuse trust system
RED trust not for this
P.S
most of stupid users not like my avatar its reason that they not like me
but i know real reason why you tagged me) you did it just for licking Lauda's ass
so you can add ass licking fogot to your signature
Why am I not in your list?
I’m trusted by 16 people, 9 of them have over 250 earned Merit. Am I missing something?
I’m trusted by 16 people, 9 of them have over 250 earned Merit. Am I missing something?
you tagged users without referece
you tagged users with fake reference
you tagged users without proofs
its scammer behaviour
I tagged you because you are untrustworthy. You were part of a group of less than trustworthy people conspiring to manipulate DT by making a bogus trust list & distrusting many elite DT1 posters just to suit your own needs (to get your red trust removed).
If you were successful in your coup to remove the likes of Lauda then it would have opened the way for hundreds of previously red tagged scammers to return to their scamming ways.
You’re not trustworthy & I’m not the first to tag you.
Why am I not in your list?
I’m trusted by 16 people, 9 of them have over 250 earned Merit. Am I missing something?
I’m trusted by 16 people, 9 of them have over 250 earned Merit. Am I missing something?
you tagged users without referece
you tagged users with fake reference
you tagged users without proofs
its scammer behaviour
People can change their trust lists at any time.
True, but the DT1 re-calculation only happens once a month (so far), rather than updating in real time. So if you did become DT1, and then 3 people dropped you from their trust list, you would remain DT1 until the next recalculation.IIRC you didn't get in last month because you didn't have a trust list of at least 10 people.
Correct. Philipma1957's trust list at the start of February (the time of the last recalculation) only contained 7 users. 
I see I am not on the dt1 list.
Which is okay as I did mention I never wanted to be put on it. But did so because I was asked to go on it.
Did not realize thermyos took me off it.
I remember being asked to go on it. Then getting disgusted with accusations I was manipulating the dt1 system. So I don’t mind staying off it for now.
I see I am ranked #14 which is the highest ranked person not on the dt1 list.
Which is okay as I did mention I never wanted to be put on it. But did so because I was asked to go on it.
Did not realize thermyos took me off it.
I remember being asked to go on it. Then getting disgusted with accusations I was manipulating the dt1 system. So I don’t mind staying off it for now.
I see I am ranked #14 which is the highest ranked person not on the dt1 list.
Theymos no longer maintains DT1. The list is generated automatically once a month based on certain criteria described here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/defaulttrust-changes-5095156
IIRC you didn't get in last month because you didn't have a trust list of at least 10 people. Now you do so I'm certain you'll be in DT1 next time it's generated, which should be within the next few days.
Jump to: