Topic: Who exactly told theymos to change the threshold to 250 cycled merits? (Read 1601 times)

Mikey? did you get the point I am making or not. I have not heard back from you since the last post that I made.

Do you understand now how "less" in number can actually = more decentralised in real terms pf diversity that is relevant and useful and the reverse?

Whoa! I got a shout out! I feel honored. lmao

You have to ask yourself if those things are happening (which they are I can prove anything I have said else everytime I ask someone to present to me a lie i have made they would be presenting them I can assure you)

Now WHY is this allowed to happen by like 20 persons with no comeback on those that are doing it and they are still included here?  why?

The answer is clearly because they allow it when they know they should NOT. This is called collusion. They have histories of co-operation and all know each other well , all merit each other, all group together on here, histories of working together in "under cover agents attempts" it is a group who are very familiar with each other on here and are working together and also have no desire to rock the boat and stand out from the crowd.

NOW if we say okay let's not START off a decentralised system with people that are Observably colluding as a group already. I mean that is the opposite of what you want.  We want persons that are as unconnected as possible and are not afraid to lose their "pal" status by saying "WTF you just red trust some person for telling the truth. That's not right I insist you remove that red trust else I will exclude you and also I will counter that red trust so this HONEST person is not getting a scam tag from YOU a dishonest person.

This is what will keep the sytem in check you see. That is why you want to lower the merit threshold because the colluding group have one thing in common -- they have grabbed enough cycled merit (proven if you look at their recipients and fans) and that is their current "upper hand to force themselves together into a big DT untouchable group. Take this away and allow "others" outside of the group to ender the key positions and they are no longer "untouchable" being vulnerable will make them treat red trust with respect because if they flagrantly abuse trust they will get red trust from other DT members and their accounts will then be vulnerable to getting them kicked off their highly paid sig campaigns they love to spam.

This is how a decentralised system works you have to assume everyone will act as selfishly as they can to the point they still get their optimal rewards. Their rewards will be crushed if they are too selfish or too abusive with red trust because they will get a red flag and they may even get excluded.

Theymos seems to believe you can create a decentralised system where you assume everyone will just act non selfishly.

I would even consider moving the merit down to 70 actually since i have basically a very low respect for the merit metric except that it is good for preventing account farmers.

If you still don't get what I mean just ask me to explain it more. I would advice like I said to read that thread of the year the entire thing even though some is boring and see if you get how the systems REALLY operate.

Honestly though nobody should be allowed on a trust system if they have any history dark financially motivated shit on them. That just stands to reason.

I will assume that everything mentioned above is true , how is that going to be solved if DT members are changed? let's ignore LoyceV's data > https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scenarios-changing-merit-and-activity-requirements-for-dt1-voting-5116287 and pretend that 100 new members will take over from here, NON of the above issues will be fixed, unless the new members are some aliens or robots, but as long as they are humans, every possible issue we have now will still be there, it may get a little better, or a lot worse , nobody can tell for sure.

I think the solution here is to try and push for some changes in how the ratings are conducted, instead of trying to replace current DT members, i am not defending anyone in particular here, but from my own point of view things are not that bad at all, they just need a little tweaking here and there, i don't know if we are ever going to see that happen, but i am sure as hell the trust system will never be perfect and will never be agreed upon by every single user.

Since this is the only real attempt on THE ENTIRE THREAD at a debate then I will answer this after I have a few more hours sleep. I only woke up for a snack now going back to bed. However it is sad to see you capitulated to sig spamming with the rest in the same campaign as most of the meta-merit gang.

However I will still answer your points whilst ignoring the thrashing around of the other morons and snakes here. I notice actually this sirizamouth is a suchmoon pal from some time back now. Funny it should rear its head in meta so often lately. I guess they need to summon all the swamp creatures to the battle that they can muster now that I am here to drain this filthy pit.

So anyway yes I got some sleep but I was distracted my loyceV posting a link to "his" new thread where he decided to place the basis for his opinion rather than on here along with some false claims regarding my motive and also I believe specious conclusions on the upgraded system. So i needed to defend those claims although apparently I am not allowed to post there to defend myself. Anyway so on to the answers.

problems...

"1- a good number of known scammers are not being tagged.
2- an abuse by a large number of DT members , like giving a positive feedback for scammers.
3- DT member/s taking bribes to look the other way."

well how about

1 - innocent persons speaking the truth about wrong doing getting their accounts red tagged
2 - other innocent persons that see this need to think and worry about themselves speaking "the truth"
3. DT members with provable dirt and untrustworthy actions on their histories punishing others for the same or lesser deeds - this just will not be tolerated by people and causes resentment and anger.
4. DT members sanctioning and not attempting to reverse observable and provable abuse
5. DT members willingly and knowingly including and supporting proven liars and greedy devious financially motivated puppet account users... this is widespread abuse of trust positions.

The worst part of the entire thing and a problem that nobody can even deny is the problem I described in the thread of the year. It is that the system motivates selfish gaming  of a wide open system with no punishment allowing more entrenched and untouchable control. This is undeniable.It is undeniable that free speech is hugely vulnerable as they operate right now.

If you go back and study that thread you will understand far more. You can not use anecdotal and personal experiences to understand fully the mechanisms of systems that you operate within.

I mean do you think it is coincidence that all of these DT and merit sources that openly collude are spamming the same sigs?

It is not a matter of increasing key position numbers, it is a matter of making sure collusion does not take place between them because they you do not have decentralisation. This is very important to understand.

I do not think LoyceV simulations are correct anyway since of course trust lists will change when/if the trust mechanisms change.

I mean I totally advocate other sensible rules for key positions like - no observable dirty deeds in your past at all. Anything related to financial greed or deception or scamming. Why would anyone accept these people even in DT at all?

If I said to you "I think it is terrible that you swear at other members and call them names like spoiled petulant child mikey" and told you I will report you.

I guarantee the first thing you would say back to me from pure human instinct is " well how come you think you can do it cryptohunter?" I think it is double standards you do it but seek to punish me.

This is why it will cause a lot of trouble to have anyone with a dirty past giving out red.

I mean I see The pharmacist aka huge black woman just the other day lecturing people and saying " oh yeah 2017 was terrible for puppet accounts spamming sigs everywhere" I mean how the fuck is it possible for persons busted for this themselves to think they can then lecture others for doing the same thing. It is completely insane.

I see lauda telling people they are liars (including me although he could not present one lie EVER) he called me it 3x and could not present anything. I say if you keep saying that I will encourage others to examine his post history where he is a proven liar and BOOM red trust for being a threatening person. LOL  This is fucking insane other DT condone sanction and support this person on DT and give him a key position. YOu tell me there is no problems right now?

Tman admits " i can I will and I just have given red trust for me presenting facts and observable events? this fool is still DT and getting support.

I tell Tman remove that  red trust else because if not then I will point out this trust abuse (that you admitted in black and white) forever . BOOM their known PAL YOGG slaps some more red trust because telling a person to undo their abuse right now or else you will report it to everyone at every opportunity is actually blackmail.

So if someone grabs your phone out of your hand on the bus tomorrow and you say give it back now or else i will report you to the cops.... you are a blackmailer and you will be the criminal. Presumably made to use your 1 phone call from jail to call up "the thief" on his nice new phone and say sorry for being a blackmailer.

LOL this bunch are clearly who should be in positions of trust. I mean it is all working great atm no need for changes at all.

Only in meta do the powers that be think this is completely normal and acceptable practice.

Please could you provide a depth chart for this.

Going by the observable evidence, which is a requisite for compliance to the thread's Local Rules, I predict a strong red anti-dildo to form in the near future, as the technical merits of this thread (or lack thereof) rendered it doomed from the get go. Frankly, if I may, I find it to be just another derivative CH thread without its own legs to stand on, and therefore is fundamentally unsound.

Here you go: [scenarios] Changing Activity requirements for DT1-voting

Now I wonder what's the next thing you'll complain about

I think it is time for some technical analysis on this thread. At the moment it seems to be heavily in a bull phase, and we need some bare facts. I don't think this will happen until the daily exponential posting average crosses below the one week EPA. We also seem to be in an ItchyPokeU cloud, and we need to break out of that. The Bollinger band seems to dominate much of the posting, and although Bollinger is my favourite champagne, maybe we should switch to coffee to improve concentration.

We need a good head and shoulders to get to the bottom of the matter, and then we can see a reversal to get through the resistance to improve support.

Perhaps we should make some of these a mantra.

OOOM OOOM

Or better yet.... how about Legendary Whiny Bitch?


Are you drinking or something? You seem to be repeating yourself.


Same old, same old...  

Quote from: LFC_Bitcoin on March 02, 2019, 03:32:02 PM

When do we stop responding to cryptohunter’s walls of repetitive bull shit?
 

I kinda like it actually....
He/she gives me a chuckle on a Saturday nite after I've had a few and I post a snarky reply...

cryptohunter does have some valid points in his discussion , but the way he presents his ideas is just annoying, it's like when you wrap a gift in a dirty cloth, and you try to rub it in everybody's face 3 times a day for a whole month.

i am sure most members would have taken this discussion more seriously if it was brought up by another member who has better communication/writing skills.


I think what cryptohunter wants is a shift of voting power , that's a legit request, but we first need to know "what is the problem you are trying to solve ? "

see, if you can't convince us that there is actually a problem, then this is a problem to begin with.

here is what i consider serious problems that everyone with a bit of logic and ethics would stand up for a major change in DT system.

1- a good number of known scammers are not being tagged.
2- an abuse by a large number of DT members , like giving a positive feedback for scammers.
3- DT member/s taking bribes to look the other way.

These are some major issues that would really need a whole change of plans, but non of these is currently valid.


Now let us discus the real issues we have , and here is what i think.


1- some DT members "misuse" the trust system and use it on things that have nothing to do with trust ! .

notice how i typed the word "misuse" there, it stands for what I personally think, but this does not mean my view is the ultimate guide for everybody else,  some people think you can be tagged for using the word "Lemon", i have always sided your statements when it comes to this particular point.

 but why do i think you are wrong now ? because even if you were to bring a whole fresh list of new DT members, the same problem will still present itself unless theymos manually monitors DT feedback after having stated a complete set of rules.


another thing that you seem to be missing, is that the number of merit does not really represent trustworthiness, but it's more or less an indication of some validity/accuracy related to the user's vote.
  

 

Oh please. If he returned, he'd be so venerated that whatever he said would be considered scripture. His very presence would throw out any hopes of decentralization, since he'd call all of the shots around here. It's probably best he stays away.

Yes? what? you are agreeing with a cowardly sock puppet snivelling wretch who is obviously untrustworthy for needing a puppet account which is making observably false accusations.

He would not if he pushed for a real decentralised board you can guarantee that. Probably be red trusted and called a troll lol.

Yes, under the CH system, if satoshi himself ever returned, he'd have to post regularly for over two years to gain the activity necessary for a supervote. However, with the current system, satoshi already has 7 supervotes. (And I'm sure if he returned and started regularly posting, he'd have more merit than God in short order.)

Suchmoon is here (again) or is it huge black woman? I don't bother speaking to cowardly scum that dare not use their own account usually.

Now substantiate your claim else I will have it deleted you imbecile. Please read the entire thread first so as not to look more stupid and COWARDLY  than you already do you pathetic slobbering chicken shit.

What is your real account coward? I challenge you to reveal it or I will just refer to you as COWARD ...could you bunch sink any lower ....yuck!!

>Complains the "broken" system isn't "fair" enough
>Wants to skew the system entirely for his own benefit

LOL so you show up to tell me I am  the guy that would not shut up about the grossly unfair and stupid initial distribution of byteball ....... .haha that is a great ploy to discredit me here then. Thanks. Please feel free to show up and voice your rebuttals anytime that you like. I notice if you read that thread all the turds that pushed for the original distribution model came back crying it  WAS INDEED a terrible idea haha and screaming it was being perma dumped by the handful of whales that scooped it all on on the back of other peoples btc they were holding at the time

Yeah that proves you should never listen to what I say for sure.  That is exactly why you do NOT want a centralised narrow distribution of power. It crushed that project which was according to AM a novel and interesting one.

Thanks for that nice reference of me being both fair and wise.

Also your post is incorrect. I am telling you clearly that we should have a debate on which is better. I am waiting for 1 person to provide insight into why they think 250 earned merits is better over what I suggested.

I am still waiting.

Some users are happy. The people that benefit greatly from the broken systems of control. That is no reason not to improve them for a fairer environment for all.

Now that you mention it, this is how you first appeared on my radar.  You were that guy who literally wouldn't shut up about distribution.  Thing is, you might believe you're doing the honourable thing in situations like back then and also here in this topic now, but all these great injustices you perceive are not a valid excuse to constantly annoy the shit out of everyone because you aren't getting your own way.  It's just petulance.  Try being less of a control freak and accept that your opinion is not the only one.  

You act as though if people don't provide a justification which meets your approval for why the current trust settings are what they are, that it somehow invalidates the current system.  But what you might find is that it's not actually your call to make.  Some users are actually quite happy with how this new trust system is going and it's ultimately up to theymos if this is how we keep it or if it gets changed again. 

The onus is not on us to satisfy your requirements and justify the current system.  People have already demonstrated the effect it would have if we lost ~100 trust list "voters" and I'm quite content with their responses.  If you aren't content, well then that's just too bad.

Says the skanky snitchy bitch suchmoon as she breaks my local rules and go into off topic false accusations with zero grounding. I reported your post for breaking my local rules let me see if the mod deletes it or NOT.

If it is  NOT deleted then I will wonder why my on topic and relevant posts containing FACTS and observable events WERE deleted when your false accusations with nothing on topic or relevant to the OP is NOT.

Present now then the posts I have made that contain incorrect information and "trolling" or stfu imbecile.

I am about to take my early lunch I will see what happens to your post and if it still exists there upon my return.