Bitcoin Forum

Preface

There has been an itch that has been incongruous with my desires of the forum to which I have vocalized to a few individuals prior to the completion of this text. As once said, brevity is the soul of wit thus I shall concisely examine the renegade philosophy that has clashed against my previous actions. This is, of course, regarding the use of alternate accounts in campaigns, whether they are both within the same campaign or not. The status quo has been to prevent the registration of alternate accounts, however, I have reason to believe that this is merely a surface-level bandage rather than something that can be continued in a long-term setting.

Rationale

Why would I—an anti-spam advocate—suddenly twist zhopself inside-out and begin protesting against the current measures against spam? The intent behind the anti-alt rule is simple: to prevent spam induced by a user's division of labor through a higher frequency of posting.

If one follows the logic without question, then one would come to a similar conclusion only without considering any other factors. We are under this asinine presumption, wherein one expects a user to solely post without regard for their quality when they are using multiple accounts. We do, in fact, have an example of a user who participates in multiple campaigns with publicly-announced alternate accounts: hilariousandco, hilariousetc.

A sweeping generalization can be okay to begin with constructing an idea, though it means that you have the foundation built upon some unsteady scaffolds. Much like an Italian Jenga tower, it will start leaning until it cannot handle the weight of the task upon its unsteady roots.

If we simplify the equation of post quality into the following:

P := post quality
A := number of accounts enrolled

One will usually assume that P and A are inversely proportional. I will, in fact, agree with this metric. However, to use this as the reason for restricting entry is merely a form of fallacious argumentation. The underlying reason that someone is creating poor quality posts is simply that: they cannot create better-quality posts.

If you consider each account independent of the actual cryptographic identity (i.e. hilarious is a cryptographic identity, whereas they own multiple accounts) then you are able to isolate the post quality to each account. We should not be conflating the possibility of spam with the evidence of spam.

There is but a simple solution: abolish the rule.

If, in the event, an individual does enroll with multiple accounts but maintains stellar post quality, it is no different than if a separate cryptographic individual has enrolled with a single account. One may argue against this in lieu of active spam protection, but if spam is a problem then you should eliminate users because they are spamming, not because they might spam.

Moreover, this rule falls in the same way that most legislation does: adaptability. It is quite evident that there are clandestine alts, much like there are public alts. And, yes: they do get caught... but remember, if they were already spamming, then why were they still in the campaign?

TL;DR

Preventing alternate accounts from enrolling in campaigns is stupid. It does not prevent people who secretly use alts and it does not prevent spam. Preventing someone from joining because they have poor post quality is better than preventing someone from joining because they might have poor post quality because of the multiple accounts.

Are you saying that if I joined with 10 alt accounts, that QS & co. wouldn't troll the fuck out of the forum? ::) Quality posts are trivial unless you're a baboon like the supermajority of the forum; single user could handle whole campaigns that way. :D

What is the pragmatic difference of using the rule vs. not using the rule? I don't see one.

I am willing to hear out your ideas, of course. I am still actively contemplating this as it has crossed my previous ideals.

Interesting, but why could this not happen right now?

The forum is broken either way, so no difference to you nor me really. Until theymos is replaced, you can ignore most rules and dance around like CH & trolls do. I have nothing against your suggestion, other than the increasing visibility of forum staff mostly being worthless.

Because an army of imbeciles would attack the user once found out. Even if this rule were to be dropped, in special cases (e.g. me) you'd have an infinite number of threads and posts bashing the user.

Then I see no reason to keep the rule active.

For what purpose?

And in this instance, if the user is found out, this is irrespective of whether the rule is implemented or not. Any retaliation against the activity would be that of a community action. In this case, I would rather know the public alternate account linkages between identities rather than create an incentive for people who do in secret.

This is precisely something that I have been arguing for years.

The counter argument I have received is someone is less likely to be able to make x*2 good posts, with x being the number of required posts. This obviously doesn’t account for the possibility that someone will enroll in two different campaigns.

I have long argued that the rule was a way for campaign managers to receive a higher trust score. If someone has two accounts, they are likely to enroll their higher trusted account into the higher paying campaign, higher trusted accounts tend to be on DT at a higher rate, and as such, there is a greater chance any positive rating the campaign manager receives will be from someone on DT.

There is also the tendency of those in power currently (especially those with the loudest voices) to be left leaning, or far left (as in the case of lauda), or willing to support left leaning ideas supported by the ‘mob’ in order to keep his income (such as DireWolfM14), and the idea that income and ‘opportunity’ is spread around even if this is being given to less deserving people is a left wing concept.

What is this naive question? Use your head and base off of past instances of this occurring (campaign related or not).

Are you going to fight those who attack users that enrol several accounts in campaigns actively? If there are no such users, keep the rule. Like I said, this is trivial; I could fill probably half of all decent BTC running campaign without blinking. Is such a case a desired outcome? At least with a rule, there's a deterrent in the form of punishment (you'd get kicked out and likely neg. rated afterwards ruining your accounts).

Cute little wanker you are. :D :D :D

This is more a social norm than a rule. The forum has nothing against multiple accounts in a campaign, it's indifferent at best to the whole system. This rule is in place by individual campaign managers, and the companies that hire them. The latter is why the rule would stay in place. They are paying an individual for their service - advertise this signature with that account for whatever period of time.

If you choose to enroll multiple accounts in one campaign you are essentially ripping off your employer. Most campaigns have a minimum post count to qualify for payment, that doesn't mean that is the full scope of work for the week. That is just the bare minimum. Reaching this doesn't mean the company is getting fair value for their advertising dollars if you were to say load in account 2 then 3 for a total of 75 posts being paid 3X. When in reality they should have received the 75 posts under 1 account for 1X payment.

Now enrolling in separate campaigns can be likened more to holding several different jobs. There is no issue there, you can offer to only advertise for 1 campaign for a larger payrate(unlikely) or continue to manage multiple accounts in separate campaigns.

This question is intended as a question for you. I do not know your thoughts in their entirety and this is merely an act of communication: no ulterior motive. I just want to make sure I understand your whole argument rather than create an accidental strawman.

Sure: after all, as of the time writing this post, I still see no logical precursor for this rule.

I don't follow. The situation you are creating is one where the rule is implemented either directly via a genuine rule or indirectly via retaliation from other users.

It is equally trivial to prevent your accounts from being linked. Again, I fail to see the practicality of the rule -- I might understand the rationale once you indicate the negatives of an individual's account list encompassing a significant portion of the signature campaign.

---

This is under the assumption that users exceed the maximum. You might get a few extra posts from those that are borderline spammers (take a look at some of the lower-end campaigns) but most of the time you will see people just post up to the cap and stop.

Moreover, if they wanted more posts, they could simply ask for that post requirement. Am I wrong?

Quite unfortunate.

All I am asking is if you, and people who are supporting this, are going to defend the people who are going to use it and get attacked for using it. Simple as that.

Given the amount of people that got caught "trivially preventing account-linking", this argument does not stand.

How about the variety of posts. DarkStar_ for example has in some cases specifically requested applicants from certain boards apparently because Chipmixer wants more exposure in those boards. On the flip side, I don't think they want to spend too much of their budget on one user who posts e.g. entirely in Gambling.

And don't start with the bullshit of a great poster being able to post all over the forum LOL. Or being able to make 100+ posts per week without negative effects on quality.

In the end it's a business decision despite some account farmers suggesting that it might have something to do with politics. If some entity, like Yobit recently, thinks it's ok to have a massive campaign with a 20-post daily limit, they'll do it. And then they'll reduce it to 5 posts per day, I wonder why.

Even 2 accounts is an undesirable outcome practically for everyone. Who'd want me (or anyone else for that matter) to post several thousand posts per week over tens of accounts? Businesses? Users? Nobody.

You're most likely right, Lauda.  On the other hand, I wouldn't want to see bitcointalk run like some other forums I've been a part of, where you can't use profanity and even the slightest controversial post is deleted.  The forum wouldn't have to become like that if there was a different admin, of course, but I've come to appreciate the freedom here.  There's a certain laissez faire mentality from up top that I appreciate, and if that means campaign abusers don't get banned by the mods, so be it.  It's always been the community that's taken care of those idiots via negative feedback or whatever, and personally I'm cool with that.

100 posts is pushing it, definitely.  There are members who might come close, but they'd have to spend an awful lot of time creating those posts and the average person just isn't going to do that.  Especially not someone with multiple accounts enrolled in a campaign or campaigns.

And Jesus, actmyname....reading the OP here makes me feel like I'm back in college in statistics 101.  That was such a long time ago I'm too embarrassed to admit how long ago it really was.

1.) Preventing alternate accounts from enrolling in campaigns is good.
2.) Preventing users with poor post quality from enrolling in campaigns is good.

These things should not be contrasted; they are beautiful when applied simultaneously.

My opinion on alternative accounts: even if the user is a genius and can write great posts from multiple accounts he robs other campaign participants since the payment is intended for the user, not the account.
Bounty campaigns sets limits on paid posts for one purpose: they set some maximum that they are willing to pay one user. Using alternative accounts helps disrupt these plans.

Most learn to exceed it by a minimum of 1 or 2,  otherwise they risk not getting paid should a post get deleted before the final count is in. I believe a decent amount of these users do have other accounts they are either still trying to grow, or are registered in a different campaign. So they move to that account to complete the posting; sometimes they alternate between and talk to themselves.

You are right that any campaign could increase the post count they are looking for, but this also comes with the risk of passing over quality posters with lower frequency of posts. It's silly that a post buried in the page 26 carries the same weight as say an OP that gets read viewed 100+ times. It's just the advertising metrics you can work with here on the forum.

So I still just fall back on the issue with multiple accounts in a single campaign being that the participant is already being paid to post for that campaign to a minimum. This minimum though shouldn't be viewed as "piece work" where you can come along with a second account to get paid for recreating it. Minimums are generally in place because people have varying talents and abilities, and when you employ someone you have a set minimum that makes them worth employing.

In this hypothetical are the alt accounts supposed to identify that they are an alt? Not sure if I missed that. If not this opens up further cheating potential  against the  advertiser. The multiple accounts could reasonably recreate say 60% of their posts in a similar fashion, or just "conversationally" post their own back and forth.

My entire stance is from the perspective of someone paying to advertise on the forum. I don't think that this campaign standard has anything to do with spam suppression. I see it solely as people not being able to grab a second paycheck for 1 job.

What has always confused me... is the fervour with which some folks seem to hunt out these alt accounts who are "abusing campaigns"... I'm not sure if they see it as an "easy" way to score some merits, as opposed to other forms of contribution to the forum? ???

Surely, it is up to the campaign managers to decide whether or not people should be allowed to enrol with alts... in addition, it should be the campaign managers, who are actually paid to be managing the campaign in the first place to be actively managing and checking for this... if required by their campaign rules.

I suspect in the majority of the ICO/IEO/altcoin campaigns, neither the project owners nor the campaign managers really care... about alts or spam... they just want maximum exposure for the 0.00000002BTC worth of tokens they're going to have to give out to the participants... if they even bother to give any out ::)

The current system of linking all these accounts and redtagging them is generally just a never-ending game of "whack-a-mole" with low rank spammers/bounty hunters... personally I find the "report to moderator" system works quite well, as that is what is most likely to have the greatest (monetary) impact on these accounts... having their posts deleted and their post count reduced.

Interesting argument..

To me it breaks down to: Is a user breaking a campaign's rules scamming the campaign? Should they be tagged for scamming? Is it a deceptive breach of contract?
I think I would trust someone less if I knew them to break such petty contracts..

I don't think it should be a forum rule and that campaigns should be able to make it a private rule for their campaign, or not..

Some can post well from multiple accounts, like TP..


I have thought about this also... It seems like an effort that can be made to increase social status, and maybe some just really like lording over others..

One could also see it as battling spam, which it may in many cases, but may not in all cases..

TP could have HB on chipmixer and it wouldn't bother me a bit unless TP was breaking contract with CM by doing so..

The forum rules about alts leave a lot of room for freedom and abuse, obviously.  I don't see an issue with campaign managers implementing no-alt rules for their campaigns.  It might be primarily an effort to reduce spam (which we can all agree is a good thing,) but we can't say that's the only reason.  I'd like to believe that the more successful managers also have an inherent belief in fairness.  There's also the level of exposure, as others have mentioned.  There are a lot of good posters on this forum who frequent different parts of the forum.  Spreading positions around will only help the campaign reach more boards and therefor expand exposure.  That's unlikely to happen if one user enrolls several alts.



That's an expected result of a decentralized trust system.  Some members are certain to be more concerned about some types of abuse than others.  In my opinion this is a sign that the system is working.  It's also fair to point out that enrolling alts in the same campaign isn't the only way alts are abused.  It may be the most common way to justify a red-tag, which can then prevent the alt from being abused in other ways.  Fattening up alt accounts with rank and trust to be sold, used to scam, or to provide self-escrow are only some examples.  Nipping these alt farms in the bud could prevent a lot of pain for the community later.



I can't disagree with this sentiment.  But the accounts enrolled in these shit-coin shilling schemes aren't likely to ever rank up and become problematic in other ways.  The merit system has pretty much solved that issue.  There are still a few sophisticated account farmers who are able to rank up alts despite the merit system, which in my opinion is the bigger issue.

If you don't have some order on the forum then chaos will ensue. IMO the not enrolling or allowing multiple accounts in a campaign is an excellent rule.

If campaign managers open campaigns up and allow anyone to have alts enrolled too, we open the forum up for more corruption then people already believe there is.

Certain mangers will open a campaign and most certainly fill it with their accounts only. Other members will be left in the dust.

It really would turn into a monopoly of sorts. Keep the status quo as is and at least the selection process is somewhat fair.

Campaign managers can make exceptions to their rules as well. This sometimes happens with red trust. It can happen with alts too. If someone wants to hire an account farm despite the rules saying "no alts" - they can. I think the real problem some account farmers might have is that they don't want to disclose their alts so they can't ask for an exception. They want the "no alts" rule to not exist at all so that it doesn't bite them a years later if the alts are uncovered.

Another option would be to ask for a higher post limit and/or a higher payment, or essentially to take two or more spots in a campaign by one user. Lifting the post limit for everyone is probably not going to happen since it would blow the budget of a campaign. But getting one personal exception from one campaign manager if you're an exceptional poster should be easier than convincing everyone to change their campaign rules for every participant, right?

This is a good point, but imagine the cataclysmic fallout if DarkStar_ were to allow both of Hilarious' accounts into ChipMixer.  The kvetching would lead to countless threads by numerous trolls across half a dozen boards, and would last for months.  There would be accusations of favoritism, inside dealings, conflicts of interest, and who knows what else.  To a large extent it would be difficult to justify and harder to defend against the allegations.

If the accounts were not publicly known as alts, but the manager allowed the exception he would be at the mercy of the user keeping the accounts' connection a secret.  Should the manager accept risking his reputation to allow one exceptional user to register an alt?  If the accounts and the exception ever do become exposed the fallout would be even more cataclysmic in proportion.

Might be true. Trolls are trolling even now so it's hard to say if a transparent logically justified exception would make much of a difference (come to think of it, I don't really know why hilarious uses two accounts).

Along those lines, simply raising/removing the limit of paid posts might be less cataclysmic - some campaigns would probably disappear since they couldn't afford to pay farmers churning out posts 18 hours a day, and some would have to drop a few (or a lot of) users to make space for the farmers.

Bottom line: it makes business sense for the campaigns to do what they're doing. Whether its for budget management purposes, or for better ROI, or for better quality - it's up to the campaigns.

I can accept that, but from a reputation standpoint, I'm still somewhat standing in my original soil - I'm going to let these ideas fester for a bit from an external perspective and analyze the discussion before making any further replies.

I'm open to changing my mind on this  - just wanted to make sure you knew this was in regard to the negative feedback (and perhaps flags, though I have not done full dives on trust yet) that was created because of this communal consensus against alts.

I can accept this as a sensible solution if we are strictly talking campaign-side (that of business and not of ideological values).

About that - considering that most reputable campaign managers are in DT, it would probably make more sense if it went like this:

Someone spots alts in a campaign -> informs the manager -> manager tags and/or flags them (or not) -> others tag them and/or support the flag once the manager confirms they're abusing the campaign.

Instead of:

Someone spots alts in a campaign -> TAG!!!!!

But a neutral rating is fine and probably desirable in either case, as is public shaming. I would definitely want to know about users sockpuppeting their way into sig campaigns, regardless of how lenient the manager is.

You forgot to add hilarious* u=1424594 is an alt of hilariousandco u=164822 and also has a confirmed second alt of hilariousetc u=397737

http://archive.is/p50G7#selection-5631.0-5631.63 / http://archive.ph/EtcLc#selection-10385.0-10393.57

The problem you ultimately have with alts / known or otherwise is that they will eventually give each-other merits, or trust wall/feedback (or even default trust) and put themselves onto DT to get a higher payout from any campaigns they are posting in.

As we've seen once someone is on DT as hilarious is, they then use their only bargaining chip to slap others with distrust such as when I posted (the already known) information on his trust/feedback wall.

---

(before hilarious clicks reply to re-flame and or troll (https://web.archive.org/web/20191201234406/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5197305.msg52930800), perhaps he should go and read these posts http://archive.ph/mXJMk#selection-5735.0-5743.56 / http://archive.ph/BRI0o#selection-8803.0-8833.3 / http://archive.ph/hrHEv#selection-2365.0-2789.2 / http://archive.ph/Pqj9p#selection-9093.0-9111.2 / http://archive.ph/e3EyL )

With bitcoin based payouts it does not really matter. Although to me it does not seem fair if the places are highly desirable and limited.

With tokens then you should not allow alts if it is possible to prevent them. That is not to say from a reputation pov that they are essentially untrustworthy but only that it should be strongly discouraged.