655800+ entries in 0.419s
punkman: kakobrekla, so what if you had
to pay $500
to download bitcoin.exe
then?
kakobrekla: but when bitcoin started,
there werent enough people for
that as well, just a circlejerk
rithm: right
then we just devolve into some sort of ruling wot class
ThickAsThieves: i'd donate money
to a proper effort
to make such
things
jurov: the solution is
to not have one global wot for everything
punkman: rithm, not enough people for
that I
think
danielpbarron: maybe require
that all WoT users have a Bitcoin address associated
that has a balance of X amount
rithm: a
token of some sort
rithm: pay a fee
to enter
rithm: this whole WoT
thing has gotten complex over
time and usage. but I basically am on
the mpoe side of
the fence and i
think
these "bitcoin wot's" need
to be pay-to-pay
jurov: ThickAsThieves:
this already happens as rap sheet and various no-fly blacklists, etc.
rithm: but some people do not have
this moral compass
rithm: right artifexd. i sortof behave here because my peers are watching and i'd hate for someone
to
think I'm not a person of my word
danielpbarron: bump me from a -2
to a -3 and i can't rate anymore :<
artifexd: <rithm> some people can't behave << Especially when
they are on
the internet and feel like
there are no repercussions
ThickAsThieves: now, suppose
that requirement come at request of governments
ThickAsThieves: Say
the WoT is decentralized, supports more fields of data, has full API for integration for
things like logging in
to facebook or visiting Italy.
The stronger and more prevelant
the WoT gets,
the more likely it is
to become a requirement
danielpbarron: rithm, it already is gaurded; you need
to be in nanotube's L2
to be able
to give a rating apparently
rithm: i hate
to be exclusionary but
rithm: i do not have a solution but i
think entry into
the wot should be guarded
ThickAsThieves: i dislike
the extreme which becomes possible with a "better" wot
jurov: ThickAsThieves i understood it as you dislike
the need not
to be anonymous for web of
trust
to work
danielpbarron: it's already solved; none of your shills are in my L1 (i
think)
rithm: but how do you implement
that
rithm: idenitity verification, not allow multiple accounts of some sort is
the only solution i know of
punkman: rithm, so how would you stop
the shills?
mike_c: danielpbarron: it is. l2
to nanotube
jurov: ThickAsThieves> one problem i have... etc..<< you seem
to dream about some opaque oracle
that will issue
trustable rating info for anonymous identities
danielpbarron: well nanotube should make it so you can always give ratings, or maybe base it on an L2
thing like assbot does
rithm: and if
that person made 7 more shill accounts
danielpbarron: well, it sorta does make a difference at
the moment, because nanotube won't let you even give a rating if your score goes negative (i
think)
rithm: so my cumulative is -70 because of bullshit joe schmoes with sand in
their vagina
gribble: Currently authenticated from hostmask rithm!~rithm@unaffiliated/rithm . CAUTION: irc nick differs from otc registered nick. User jcpham, rated since Fri Nov 11 12:35:04 2011. Cumulative rating 147, from 101
total ratings. Received ratings: 95 positive, 6 negative. Sent ratings: 101 positive, 21 negative. Details:
http://b-otc.com/vrd?nick=jcpham rithm: lots of joe schmoes
tagged me
rithm: so in
theory i agree with you because it's already happened
to me and no fucks were given
rithm: so
this is a L1/L2 difference of opinions
mike_c: rithm: but it's only harmful if 'total points' is a
thing. joe schmoe isn't going
to change
thhe gettrust between you and others.
danielpbarron: rithm, joe schmoe isn't in my L1.. what's
the problem??
danielpbarron: scammers aren't in my L1; I don't care what ratings
they give..
rithm: but letting joe schmoe leave ratings for people who've been around
the block for x years is moronic
rithm: that's stupidiest
thing i've ever heard come from
this channel
danielpbarron: anyway;
the WoT isn't harmed by scammers or
trolls; it harms nothing
to let anyone give a rating
rithm: why would you want
to initiate it here
rithm: no one will document
that and
take it seriously
danielpbarron: mike_c, yeh;
that was my bad; I know
them IRL; lesson learned
there..
rithm: i can walk into
the NYSE and call people idiots
rithm: not every person, bot, or program gets
to leave some ratings
trail
mike_c: you did let
those
two idiots
talk in here yesterday daniel..
chetty: <rithm> where does
this everyone has a voice mentality come from?//equality notions
Blazedout419: well danielpbarron not going
to beat
the dead horse here, but your ratings are a joke
rithm: where does
this everyone has a voice mentality come from?
gribble: Currently authenticated from hostmask danielpbarron!~dpb@c-71-232-150-212.hsd1.ma.comcast.net . User danielpbarron, rated since
Thu Mar 21 17:26:04 2013. Cumulative rating 1, from 28
total ratings. Received ratings: 21 positive, 7 negative. Sent ratings: 78 positive, 18 negative. Details:
http://b-otc.com/vrd?nick=danielpbarron danielpbarron: i'm on
the verge of not being able
to rate anymore because of idiots like you ( Blazedout419 ) in -otc
rithm: <danielpbarron> +i
think all users should be able
to give ratings; doesn't matter if
they are
trolls or scammers
Blazedout419: nano is very fair
though so it has not been an issue from what I have seen
danielpbarron: i
think all users should be able
to give ratings; doesn't matter if
they are
trolls or scammers
danielpbarron: but
that's something he can easily remove without changing how
the WoT works
danielpbarron: the one potential problem I see happening with nanotube's WoT, is
that a small majority can prevent a user from even giving ratings..
ThickAsThieves: one problem i have for my vision of a decentralized wot, is when i simulate it in my end, it
turns into a sort of international passport system over
time and could
totally remove anonymity from so many areas of life, and well, is
that what we really want?
danielpbarron: if you rate someone +5, and
they rate someone else +10, only up
to +5 will get passed along
to
the L2
Blazedout419: I just
think for a business
the scores matter more
gribble: WARNING: Currently not authenticated. User BigBitz, rated since Fri Apr 26 11:13:53 2013. Cumulative rating 430, from 213
total ratings. Received ratings: 202 positive, 11 negative. Sent ratings: 186 positive, 59 negative. Details:
http://b-otc.com/vrd?nick=BigBitz danielpbarron: Blazedout419,
the
total score is practically meaningless
danielpbarron: ThickAsThieves,
the points already *are* weighted; a user in your L1 can only pass along as much rating
to someone's L2 score as you have given
them
ThickAsThieves: well 10 points from mp is not
the same as from ninjashogun
Blazedout419: how 1 mad person can wreck a
total score...and most are
too dumb
to notice it
Blazedout419: not me BigBitz
talking about rtings abuse and
the WOT
nanotube: mike_c: grandfathered in from
the early days. :)
danielpbarron: Blazedout419, most are idiots; why should
they be
the rule instead of
the exception?
chetty: failure
to do your DD is no excuse
mike_c: nanotube: why show "total points" on rating page? i
thought
that was supposed
to be a meaningless number.
assbot: #bitcoin-otc Web of
Trust -
Trust graph
Blazedout419: danielpbarron
true, but many only look at L1 and ratings
ThickAsThieves: i was about
to say, but how does a business claim it's listing?
danielpbarron: if your "business" is harmed by
the ratings of
trolls, your business was probably going poorly anyway
Blazedout419: for example in OTC some scammers will make new accts over and over just
to crush someones wot score
ThickAsThieves: it's certainly a
topic
that could use more discourse and work \
Blazedout419: for a business bad ratings can hurt more
than for a regular user