theymos

Legendary



Offline



Activity: 3878

Merit: 7917







AdministratorLegendaryActivity: 3878Merit: 7917 DefaultTrust changes January 09, 2019, 06:03:26 PM

Last edit: January 14, 2019, 01:10:46 AM by theymos Merited by Foxpup (12), Lauda (10), dbshck (10), TookDk (10), Anduck (10), maronk (10), suchmoon (7), Stunna (6), owlcatz (5), SFR10 (5), Mr. Big (5), TMAN (5), chimk (4), S_Therapist (4), mprep (3), Welsh (3), yogg (3), Avirunes (3), monbux (3), condoras (3), lightlord (2), LoyceV (2), redsn0w (2), DdmrDdmr (2), sncc (2), actmyname (1), bones261 (1), Wapinter (1), bL4nkcode (1), Lafu (1), leowonderful (1), TheFuzzStone (1), Kryptowerk (1), bill gator (1), krogothmanhattan (1), bitcoin revo (1), fitraok09 (1), shasan (1), Harkorede (1), Financisto (1), mdayonliner (1), Hanako (1), petestheman (1), Boris007 (1), kemoglo (1), xha-256 (1) #1



#1

As a special exception to the normal algorithm for determining a user's trust network, if you are on the default trust list ("DT1") but more other DT1 members distrust you than explicitly trust you, then it is as if you are distrusted by the default trust list for all purposes except for this very DT1-composition determination.



So if someone on DT1 is doing something stupid, you can ask other DT1 members to distrust them.



See



#2

You can view any page as if you were using the default trust settings by putting ;dt at the end of the URL. Eg.



#3

I will periodically (maybe every month) be reconstructing the default trust list to include everyone who matches these criteria:

- If rank was determined solely using earned merit, then you must be of at least Member rank.

- You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days.

- Your trust list must include at least 10 users, not including ~distrust entries.

- You must not be banned or manually blacklisted from selection.

- You must have posted sometime within the last 30 days.

- You must have at least 10 people directly trusting you each with an earned merit of at least 10, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are

- You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least 250, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are



Unlike the previous policy, I will not generally be trying to cultivate a good list; that will be left to the DT1 members themselves. However, I reserve the right to remove you and blacklist you from future selection if you engage in egregious and obvious abuse, or if multiple known alt accounts could be selected.



Currently not that many users are eligible. If hundreds of users would be selected in the future, I plan to instead choose a random subset of about 100 eligible users each time. This DT1 reconstruction may even automatically happen on a schedule in the future, but it doesn't currently.





A major goal of this is to allow retaliatory distrusts and ratings to actually have some chance of mattering so that contentious ratings have an actual cost. If someone is obviously scamming, then any retaliatory rating should not last long due to the DT1 "voting", but if you negative-rate someone for generally disliking them, then their retaliation against you may stick. In borderline cases, it should result in something of a political battle.



This is inspired partly by something that David Friedman said once (though I can't find the quote), that one of the requirements for a peaceful society is the credible threat of retaliation in case you are harmed. As DT was organized previously, one or both sides of a dispute was usually unable to effectively retaliate to a rating, at least via the trust system itself. Now your ability to effectively retaliate will tend to increase as you become more established in the community, which should discourage abuse generally. (Or that's the idea, at least.)



All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have. Also, it's best to make your own custom list, and you must do this if you want to be on DT1.



I am never completely tied to anything, but let's try this for at least a few months and see how it works. For years I've been unhappy with how DefaultTrust ended up as a centralized and largely-untouchable authority, but I was reluctant to change it because the alternatives seemed too messy. However, I've finally decided to try some changes, and we'll see how it works.As a special exception to the normal algorithm for determining a user's trust network, if you are on the default trust list ("DT1") but more other DT1 members distrust you than explicitly trust you, then it is as if you are distrusted by the default trust list for all purposes except for this very DT1-composition determination.So if someone on DT1 is doing something stupid, you can ask other DT1 members to distrust them.See here for live info on this "DT voting".You can view any page as if you were using the default trust settings by putting ;dt at the end of the URL. Eg. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=35;dt I will periodically (maybe every month) be reconstructing the default trust list to include everyone who matches these criteria:- If rank was determined solely using earned merit, then you must be of at least Member rank.- You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days.- Your trust list must include at least 10 users, not including ~distrust entries.- You must not be banned or manually blacklisted from selection.- You must have posted sometime within the last 30 days.- You must have at least 10 people directly trusting you each with an earned merit of at least 10, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited - You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least 250, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited Unlike the previous policy, I will not generally be trying to cultivate a good list; that will be left to the DT1 members themselves. However, I reserve the right to remove you and blacklist you from future selection if you engage in egregious and obvious abuse, or if multiple known alt accounts could be selected.Currently not that many users are eligible. If hundreds of users would be selected in the future, I plan to instead choose a random subset of about 100 eligible users each time. This DT1 reconstruction may even automatically happen on a schedule in the future, but it doesn't currently.A major goal of this is to allow retaliatory distrusts and ratings to actually have some chance of mattering so that contentious ratings have an actual cost. If someone is obviously scamming, then any retaliatory rating should not last long due to the DT1 "voting", but if you negative-rate someone for generally disliking them, then their retaliation against you may stick. In borderline cases, it should result in something of a political battle.This is inspired partly by something that David Friedman said once (though I can't find the quote), that one of the requirements for a peaceful society is the credible threat of retaliation in case you are harmed. As DT was organized previously, one or both sides of a dispute was usually unable to effectively retaliate to a rating, at least via the trust system itself. Now your ability to effectively retaliate will tend to increase as you become more established in the community, which should discourage abuse generally. (Or that's the idea, at least.)All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have. Also, it's best to make your own custom list, and youdo this if you want to be on DT1.I am never completely tied to anything, but let's try this for at least a few months and see how it works. 1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD