What is the logic of lichess rating giving system ?

If you are still doubtful, consider the possibility a proposition is true and look for evidence that chess players' behaviour reflects that truth. If you don't see such evidence then in all likelihood the proposition is false.

Regarding the op question:

see here: https://lichess.org/faq#ratings

gain or loss depends on your rating and your opponent's rating and also your volatility (whether your rating is well-established or tentative).

Regarding the question: do you gain rating faster playing stronger or weaker players?

Check your Chess Insights analysis :

for example:
https://lichess.org/insights/EmaciatedSpaniard/ratingDiff/opponentStrength
https://lichess.org/insights/Blundered_the_queen/ratingDiff/opponentStrength

It is available from your profile page just below the text about you.

I tend to gain rating playing stronger players and lose rating against weaker players

No logic.

meta chess

In the 1 0 pool Lichess ratings between 1700-2200 are completely meaningless. There is no major discernible difference between the quality of play. EVERYTHING is wrong. The whole rating pool is completely compromised. I estimate that at a minimum 60% of the population are either bots or hybrids.

Basically human players are being used for AI experiments both directly and indirectly on this site. Internet chess is a complete fraud and you should never take their rating systems seriously. Recently I received a notice for resigning short games. How absurd is that? If you are lost straight out of the opening there is no point in continuing in my mind. The choice to continue playing a lost position is my choice not Lichess' choice.

The idea that you should be pushed to fight every game is pathetic. It is even even worse if the site is deliberately psychologically manipulating its player base to supposedly improve them. Unethical.

lots of claims without any strong evidence to back it up. Just your hunch.
As for resigning out of the opening, when you are playing someone who may blunder in the middlegame, how smart is that?

@EmaciatedSpaniard said in #16:

lots of claims without any strong evidence to back it up. Just your hunch.
As for resigning out of the opening, when you are playing someone who may blunder in the middlegame, how smart is that?

Maaatee ....the 1 0 games are basically unplayable. I recently has a game where my opponent played 17 opening moves in 6 seconds, whilst I played as fast as I could included pre-clicking and it took me 15 seconds. In the long rung,that is not tenable as a competitive competition. It will never become as popular as it should be whilst these polarising discrepancies exist in the playing pool.

I think you misunderstand my comment. If I have a lost position early in an opening simply because my opponent pre clicks an unsound opening and I fall for it then kudos to them. I shouldn't be forced to play on in positions that are lost. Once you get a bit stronger you should be able to understand that it is a pointless waste of your time. You should never be forced to play such positions with coercive threats.

I understand if you are playing a strong opponent that your chances to win are lower once you lost a pawn or even a minor piece but in fast time controls mistakes can still happen.

anyway, I guess play over the board if you think people are cheating here and it isn't being punished.

@EmaciatedSpaniard said in #18:

I understand if you are playing a strong opponent that your chances to win are lower once you lost a pawn or even a minor piece but in fast time controls mistakes can still happen.

And what is the probably of success, at that level, from such positions? 1 in 20?? It is easily measurable and based on my experience it is a waste of time continuing to play on. I have agency and can push the resign button. That is a feature that Lichess provide. So why does Lichess complain when you resign losing positions? Makes absolutely no sense. It is not sandbagging. If anything it is polite realism.

anyway, I guess play over the board if you think people are cheating here and it isn't being punished.

I don't think a lot of the players are human. I would be careful offering advice to people about actions they should take when its not based on the wisdom of experience or empathy. I mean that is the best thing about chess, you alone make the decision. Lichess shouldn't send message to people about resigning short games without examining the games!

@Blundered_the_queen said in #7:

So the question is, purely from a rating gain rather than chess improvement perspective, what is the best strategy for a rating-obsessed player? Should he play lots of lower-rated players and hope he can win consistently, or should he play against higher-rated players and hope they don't win as consistently as they ought to?

This question was best answered by Najdorf when discussing Alekhine playing in Germany during WW2. Alekhine was forced to play much weaker opposition and his chess ultimately suffered because of it. Therefore in the long run you will get weaker and thus lose playing strength, hence rating points.