This should be a forum where Bitcoin is discussed, not where personal wars are waged the way people play with something called the DT system. The system we have now is quite satisfactory, but some individuals think that it is not good enough for them, or rather, they do not have enough influence to manipulate it.
A system in which the most influential would elect themselves and set the rules would obviously be tailored to those who are currently the loudest.
A system in which the most influential would elect themselves and set the rules would obviously be tailored to those who are currently the loudest.
Actually imho it could make sense to change this or that to give less powers to some.
This could maybe give some less room for manipulations.
I'd say the minimum should be DT2 strength (2). That removes about half the users, and makes it less of a "burden" to include someone.
This is a very interesting idea. I like it. Can we do this, please?
I still think "protesting" against DefaultTrust by emptying your Trust list is counter-effective. It may be better to remove DefaultTrust and leave your custom list.
I agree.
Something I've been thinking on was that it may be helpful to differentiate between "whose trust rating you want to see colored" and "who you want to vote for".
This way the votes will also be clearer, this way people won't say that they trust this or that account because of some trades done and so on.