Bitcoin Forum

theymos, please BAN all common IP sockpuppet accounts.

...that is all.

thanks.
bitlane


<EDIT>
I should add, I have a previous account that I abandoned BEFORE creating this account over 1 year ago, after the Mt.Gox hack....as I got tired of the SPAM emails etc with user lists.

+1

You realise this would affect people sharing the same house, posting from the same school/workplace/hotspot, and people whose ISPs use a common gateway.  It's also going to have limited usefulness with regard to people who have dynamic IPs (most people I know use some kind of wireless internet access).

I don't have a problem with alt accounts as long as they're not used for evading bans. If you're hesitant to say something controversial because you don't want it to be associated with your name, please create an alt account and say it.

Although I appreciate the 'free hand' in the matter, I would rather people know exactly WHO said what when they come looking for me at my house.

IMO this problem needs to be attacked where it occurs, not by banning alternates. Not only do alternate accounts serve a legitimate purpose, but at the end of the day trolls will simply use a VPN or another form of anonymizer to change their IP anyways, creating a lose lose situation.

What are the names of your sock-puppets?
(waits for evasive response)

/me sees a ban in yogi's future for talking back to an admin

Oh no! I should have used a sock-puppet.

If there is something you're not comfortable saying associated with your name, maybe you should reconsider saying it at all.

I doubt many usernames here are associated with names anyways, so this doesn't apply to the average user. Company representatives (like MagicalTux) or Bitcoin core developers (like Satoshi) should use alt accounts to avoid tainting their name.

That's my point. You don't want to taint your name, don't say it.

I think there is a more serious point here. You can use sock-puppets to create false credibility, such as positive feedback on a fake investment opportunity. You can then use that credibility to con people out of their money.

That's a pretty naïve view, IMO. A person isn't composed of just one personality. You're a different person in different places and situations, and it's uncomfortable to mix all of these personalities into one.


I sometimes do react to stuff like this when I see it. Readers should really judge posts purely on the merit of their arguments, though, and not based on how many people said something or how many posts someone has.

No, I am always the same person in any situation. A mature person is comfortable with who he or she is, and accepts all facets of his or her personality. If you are not comfortable with something about yourself, perhaps you need to examine why.

A PR official cannot afford to discuss controversial topics, even if the person behind it knows that that is their viewpoint. You are assuming personalities necessitation sockpuppets, which as you point out is weak at best. However, positions and jobs do necessitate sockpuppets. That freedom is why I prefer BitcoinTalk over other forums.

A "personal" account and a "business" account is one thing. That's not a sockpuppet, it's separation of yourself and your job. Not wanting to tie an unpopular opinion to your business is fine, but creating a sockpuppet to avoid owning your opinions is disingenuous at best, and fraudulent at worst.

I don't see how having more than one account, besides the possibility for misuse such as creating fake investments and fake credibility, can be a bannable offense. If I wanted to have another account, as long as that account isn't doing anything wrong, and my other account isn't doing anything wrong, whats the problem? If someone is making 500 accounts so that they can scam people, sure, ban them. But what if I wanted an account to represent my honest beliefs, and then another account to relax and mess around a bit more on. I've been known to kid/mess with people, but if I ever wanted to maintain a serious status for whatever reason, I would have a hard time doing that, because of my tendency to heckle. So again, explain to me what is wrong about having one account to be a bit less uptight, and another one to keep a professional stature with as long as I'm not being abusive on either account?

People that need more than 1 account are the same people that need the 'ignore' feature....COWARDS & CRYBABIES

When fraudulent, correction is not only acceptable but advisable. But before fraudulence, the freedom to create and utilize sockpuppets adds, not detracts, from the forum experience.

Pretending to be someone else is an act of dishonesty.

+1

Your name probably isn't "yogi" and your forum avatar isn't a real photo of you.
Therefore you are pretending to be someone other than who you really are, and are dishonest.  Seriously?

Using an online handle is not the same as making a sockpuppet. One pseudonym is common online practice. Multiple pseudonyms so as to hide that you are the same person presenting two different faces is an act of dishonesty. My name is not Myrkul, either, but in fact, I use that name (or slight variations) on every online forum I have been on, and this icon is my "face" everywhere I go.

It seems more that you want to attack the person behind the arguments, and not the arguments themselves. Your latest posts seem to support this. Just another form of trolling, and probably contributes to why people use alt accoints in the first place.

Is this in response to me? No, I don't attack the person making the arguments, as I've said before, resorting to ad hominem attacks is the surest sign that you're losing a debate. But if you're not willing to stand by your arguments, you shouldn't make them, rather than making a sock puppet to spout your fallacies for you.

Imagine if a senator yielded his time to one of his aides, so the aide could rant and rave, and the senator's reputation remained unsullied? Would that be considered right and proper, or just plain stupid?

No, I meant Bitlane, sorry. I've never seen anything like that from you.

I do see how it could be frustrating, but I see it kinda like the arguments for DRM in video games. While trying to make it harder for pirates to pirate games, all they're doing is making it more frustrating for legitimate users, since pirates are going to bypass any restrictions anyway.

True, which is why I haven't stated that I'm in favor of banning people for sockpuppetry... it would do no good. How many accounts has Atlas had?

Outing the puppeteer is much more effective, and fun, too.

So, you're not a big fan of accountability at it's most primal levels ?

Was Darwin wrong ? Do the most cowardly really get to continue in life, unopposed ?

Aren't we all simply animals anyways ?

In the end it isn't about me, or any other mod or admin. It's about the forum, and allowing everyone the ability to express themselves freely. The only reason there should be any moderation is to keep the forum categorized properly for easy reading, removal of disruptive posts, and dealing with trolls and spam. 
If people need a second account in order to get their ideas across, then that's their decision.


Would you go up to someone in a public park and gag them because of whatever suspicions it is you have? Because that's what you're asking for.

Theres a difference between accountability and unwarranted forced identification, If someone has two accounts, and one of them gets in a bit of trouble for having an unpopular idea, the accountability is right toward that account, its not towards their other account, which may or may not be their "main" account, but if I created an account named ASDFGHJKL, and I say something offensive on that account, ASDFGHJKL is still in trouble, and so am I. This account (Saltyspitoon) may not be effected, but since ASDFGHJKL is still my account, I'm still accountable. So if I decided that I was going to start up some controversial yet allowed topics on the forums, I might not want my name associated with it, for example, if I started talking politics, and stated my opinion on abortion, or something like that, those people that disagree with me strongly may never work with me again, because of my opinion there. If I wanted to start a business, or work on a project, I could have screwed myself over with that one statement.

Yes, in a society, Darwin is wrong. We are animals, but we aren't animals that need to survive based on our strengths and valor. If I wanted to be an IT Tech or a software engineer, can't I be an introvert? Or will I not be able to survive because I'm not outgoing and brave?

Until the forum requires your real name, your real address, and all of you credentials/papers, we get to maintain some level on anonymity. Now, if you cheat someone out of some money or something like that, someone will do research into you, and put pressure on you that way, but Bitcoins are supposed to be anonymous, forcing rules like no alternate accounts is asinine. I say feel free to change your Username from Bitlane, and use your real name, and make sure you have your address listed, all confirmed with bills and gov ID, but I doubt there is anyone on the forum who would volunteer to do that.

No method of artificial selection has yet proved as important as social selection. The most cowardly are socially rejected, and therefore socially selected against. Neither throttling nor assisting this process has proven beneficial to the gene pool.

BitcoinTalk represents, at present, the core market place of the bitcoin economy. Economies are build on trust, and dishonesty here damages the future prospects of bitcoin itself. It is no wonder that outsiders see it as a paradise for scammers when subterfuge is not only accepted but expected.

Dishonesty and fraudulence should be punished, not merely rejected. But an acceptable level of sockpuppetry is constructive to the greater intelligence of this community, and does not imply dishonesty.

Meaningless sentence is meaningless.

Redundant sentence is redundant.

I argue that intelligence can only be achieved with uninhibited discussion, and uninhibited discussion can be sparked by sockpuppetry. Until and unless fraudulent or dishonest, acceptance is optimal.

Wow, thank you sockpuppet for adding to the intelligence of this community.

People who falsely accuse anyone with different opinions then them of being puppets should be banned.

Who's sockpuppet are you ?

You already know I'm pirate. Thanks for the new condo in paradise buddy! Next drink is to you.

https://i.imgur.com/rNzH7.jpg

What you are proposing is not technically feasible. Wikipedia learned very early that banning sock puppets based on IPs just does not work. AOL for example mixing up all of its users in the same IP pool, multiple users in different houses will post from the same IP. What is more anyone with a whit of sense can bypass such blocks using TOR or VPNs or even just a web based anonomizer if they are not technical.

It is an endless game of whack-a-mole with no winners and plenty of innocent losers. Best to just judge people on the content of their arguments instead of some concept of identity.

Identity as a basis for trust is over rated.

When people change their identity it is not possible to judge them on the content of their argument as when they changed their identity they also dissociate themselves with their previous arguments.

A way to do it, that I'm sure is going to be deeply unpopular, is to charge a registration fee. Although this would not completely remove sockpuppets it would at lest impose a cost on them. The fees could be used for the good of the community.

That would result in a much, much smaller forum.

Yes, previous arguments are very relevant to future and different arguments. People should fully live under the burden of their history. Nothing should be forgiven or forgotten.

Forgiveness will only lead to a society without justice.

Forgiveness is a vital component of justice. If nothing is ever forgiven, no justice can be had.

People should stand by their previous statements, and own the ones they want to make, but if we never forgive, how can we move on? It's the simple wisdom of "Apology accepted."

My point exactly. I was being sarcastic.

That won't only hamper sockpuppets. Potential real users will not want to come. Registrations will plummet to zero. Blogs pick it up. I can see the headlines: "BitcoinTalk worst forum ever; discriminates against free registrations".

Ahh. My mistake.

I am going to use your quote, completely OUT OF CONTEXT ;)   (so please bear with me.....lol)

To address the OP, using your reply above: Wouldn't it be nice to see the actual number of people registered and active ? I am sure the stats look impressive, with thousands of user accounts, but I fear that those 'thousands' of user accounts are controlled by only 'hundreds' of actual users...lol

You mean a block to show all users who logged in during the past 24 hours?

I don't think it's quite that bad, but yeah, I'd wager the forum's actual membership is a noticeably smaller number than it's registered users.

Numbers a bit outdated, but this paints the picture.

Administrator: 2
Brand new (SPAM): 41547
Donator: 76
Founder: 1
Full Member: 996
Global Moderator: 5
Hero Member: 363
Jr. Member: 7612
Newbie (SPAM?): 11220
SCAMMER: 101
Sr. Member: 447
Staff: 18
VIP: 28
Whitelisted: 1

You forgot the most important metric: Atlas alt-accounts. Un-fuckin'-forgivable!

Do you realize that banning ip is idiot and useless?
My question apply to you too.

Dynamic IP, restart the router and someone else will use the banned IP. Result: the sockpuppeter will keep make new accounts and someone else will have problems with the forum because the ip is banned.
Really you don't know that? The INTERNET DETECTIVE?

This argument is pretty much the same as the people who are pro anti gun legislation. Take away the right from everyone because of the potential for misuse by some. So when all sockpuppets are banned, except for the people that figured out how to get around any restriction there is that is, 100% of those sock puppets will continue to be dishonest, scam, what have you, while people are lured into a false sense of security because of course there are no sock puppets because there are measures to reduce them!

Scamming sock puppets = bad
regular sock puppets = who cares?

I have to agree.


An outright ban obviously won't work but from an admin side users with more then one user names can be quite obvious.  Iv'e seen this without the ability to see ip addresses, where a trader or a newbee creates multiple accounts to publicly discuss a trade  with themselves  to make a non-existant trade look legitimate.  I'm all for freedom of speech and you can say whatever you want as whoever you want, but when the this ability has a financial impact I'd like to see the admins be more proactive about it.

I'm all for striving to create a safe and responsible trading community.  

Otherwise we all look like idiots.

http://www.dailytech.com/Pirateat40+Makes+Off+56M+USD+in+BitCoins+From+Pyramid+Scheme/article25538.htm

I agree with this.  As long as scamming isn't involved, if people want to be anon when they give their opinions so they are not linked to their business or dealings they have on the forum or in the community in general, let them.

All voices should be heard no matter how unpopular those opinions may be.

So you're saying admins should be tasked with determining what is a scam and what isn't? 

That's a nice idea.  Maybe they should be in charge of all the coins too so they can return them when you get scammed. 

So you're saying admins should be tasked with determining who is a sockpuppet and who isn't?

That's a nice idea. Maybe they should be in charge of all the people too so they can imprison them if they are sockpuppets.

Lets open up a "Sockpuppet internment camp" Subforum. You are restrictes there until you proofe you are not a sockpuppet

I think this thread, and others calling for unreasonable regulation of the forum, highlights the problems inherent within current government structures.

Additional laws are often a product of misguided optimism and a general frustration with the status quo. Most of the time, the appropriate response is to do absolutely nothing. But politicians who do nothing would not be successful politicians.

And the red heads too ban them.
/me looks around knowingly at all you ginger lovers.

I typically post from two differnt IPs and sometimes roaming services.  WifeofStarfish has her own computer (separate from the mining farm) as does daughterofstarfish (depending on when she's home), so the same IP would show for at least two accounts here (but different mac addresses - but I have a couple of dozen computers so meh).

But, it looks like some new sock-puppet accounts are wading into lengthy battles on various topics - maybe I'm just been here a while and don't like the repitition.

(btw - good topic Bitlane)

MAC addresses won't help as they don't make it to the Internet.

I volunteer to be a prison guard in this camp, when the accusations over atrocities come I'll just say I was following orders.

Guys do you realize that banning ip do not ban sockpuppets? Speaking about "sockpuppets are good or bad or if to ban them or not" is useless, since banning ip is USELESS

Ah, right, only local network stuff, and it wouldn't get around the issue either.  Plus you've also got people running multiple virtual machines to contend with.

Maybe we can get a moderator to wipe our asses for us too.

There are plenty of users who have lots of IPs, just as there are plenty of IPs that have lots of users. IP banning is a broken concept. I don't know how many people may have accessed Bitcointalk from the same IP(s) as I, and AFAIK none of us has used sockpuppets. Yet. :P

I have a second account that has never posted merely to prevent my OTC rating from being exploited on the forums, but aside from that, I don't have a sockpuppet. I would be against banning sockpuppets because while they are handy for scammers, I can see them being VERY handy for those of us trying to identify them as well.

Theymos, please ban Matthew N Wrights ip and all of his sock puppet accounts.

IP bans don't work, banning scammers doesn't work.

I know, I know.  Just wishful thinking....  There are so many smart people with interesting ideas on this board, yet most of the intelligent conversations get drowned out but the drama.

+1

Its hard to find the gems underneath the torrents of drivel.

How about a verified users section?