Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on January 10, 2019, 10:11:12 AM

Quote from: jackg on January 10, 2019, 09:57:15 AM

People shouldn't be working towards dt. If it's a goal you need to untrust yourself I'll n your list and do us all a favour.

I completely agree with you. My reason for suggesting it was that it would help stop the theoretical case of abuse as outlined by LoyceV here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49144081#msg49144081. DT1 members would be able to see who is close to reaching DT1 status before they do reach it, and could then pre-emptively decide whether to exclude that person, rather than having to react to it after it has happened and spend a month or so with their inaccurate ratings being part of DT. All these data are already publicly available on the trust.txt.xz file - it would just be a case of reformatting it to make it easier to read.

Having said that, the scenario in question is unlikely enough itself, and theymos would likely step in to prevent an abuser becoming part of DT1 before they did anyway.

I dont know he would. He doesn't seem to like default trust anyway but it's what we have to put up with.

Maybe adding a rogue one or two will give people the incentive to start making up their own lists.

The merit bits aren't currently avaliable also thatd have to be outsourced. I mean it's east to do if someone has all the dumps.

Maybe it'd help work out if akne of the dts have gone rogue also.