Yes it is. Please do not open up new threads when you identify a spammer. This causes unnecessary clutter. You should either use the 'Report to moderator' feature or PM a moderator directly. |
|
|
|
This would not prevent account sales, as one could easily do it in private or on a external site. I don't see it being a bannable offense anytime soon (even though I would not mind it).
I guess I don't understand this argument. It seems more like clinging to the status quo that, at least with respect to account sales, is broken. The sales may very well take place outside this forum but by banning them here it certainly makes it more difficult, for buyers and sellers. This is not an argument, it is a statement based on a observation. Unless theymos suddenly changes his mind, I don't see account sales being disallowed. I agree that they wouldn't pay. The spamming would cease as the account would have no value if it couldn't be used for signature campaigns. You seem to think people would still pay for accounts if the accounts couldn't generate BTC. They wouldn't.
Exactly. This is what I've been trying to say. These accounts would not be worth as much as they are now (why would they be?) if there was no way to get 'ROI' for the buyer. Over time there would be a huge decline in sales and spam. If you are an idiot and get banned, I don't think you can blame anyone but yourself.
Correct. I do not think that many of the shit-posters would donate and would instead choose to take the short-sided approach of continuing to post while receiving a lower signature payment, which I believe will further decrease the market prices of signatures of lower level members.
The is the part that I don't understand. Exactly how would they choose a "short-sided approach" and receive a lower signature payment when they are unable to have a signature in the first place? |
|
|
|
So they wanted to protect decentralization from a 2MB maxblocksize by pushing soft fork segwit which allows a 4MB multisig attack surface, makes sense.
Apples and oranges. I'll assume that you got that "attack surface" from either /r/btc or one of the "less popular" forums. Can you confirm that Blockstream will not be operating highly connected and well funded LN hubs?
No. You can't forbid anyone from creating a hub, else the system would lose its credibility. |
|
|
|
If there's an added cost of 2 BTC per signature, they risk a lot of money each time they try to spam. It would most likely net them a negative amount as they would be caught before they could ROI.
I disagree. There's nothing really to disagree with in that statement. Unless you think that the staff is not capable of finding those spammers before they reach ROI on that 2 BTC. We're forgetting the main goals of our existence in this forum,we're here for bitcoins and casting our opinions on the subjects rather than investing money for ROI in terms of signature campaigns.
The spammers have forgotten that and are making the 'daily life' on the forum for others worse. Why do I see some campaigns causing less spam compared to other ? Managers ? Rules ? Fixed Posts ? Even though this seems like a complex option but could be analyzed .
If I were to pick one, it would be the manager. A campaign that requires a fixed amount of posts does not prevent spam at all if it has a high amount of participants (as some will likely have multiple accounts in it). I'm saying they wouldn't even pay the 2BTC for the status... they just spam on accounts with no signature until they get high enough to get some type of value for the account, if they get banned for spamming, its just lost time. Eventually they either sell the account without 'Supporter' status or they purchase the 'Supporter' status right before they sell the account, and subsequently mark up the price of the account and advertise it as "having Supporter status"
Again, I have to remind people that there is no such thing as a perfect solution. Something that makes their 'life' harder is all that is needed in order to suppress this habit. There would be a huge difference (especially for the individuals that have a huge amount of accounts) in net profit if they aren't able to participate in signature campaigns until they rank up. I would also question what the advertisers are going to do when they see a drop in people using their advertisements.
The forum offers advertisement slots. They could also come up with workarounds to the situation and start paying people on just mentioning their company name in a post...
No. Off-topic advertising is against the rules (i.e. off-topic posts are in general). |
|
|
|
If so, a 2BTC charge on the 'Supporter' status means they can still technically get or create accounts, and still post nonsense and crap for the purpose of gaining higher status accounts for reselling, just without a signature campaign, obviously making less money in the process, but they should still get something on the account sale which I assume will keep them going.
I disagree that this would be case. The difference here is that when they spam, right now, they don't have to worry much about a ban because either they will: 1) Buy a new account (which does not cost a lot). 2) Create another/use another. If there's an added cost of 2 BTC per signature, they risk a lot of money each time they try to spam. It would most likely net them a negative amount as they would be caught before they could ROI. |
|
|
|
This might have some merit but 2 BTC is too steep. I would like to have a modest signature, I'm not advertising anything, and 2 BTC is way to much for that. Not everyone makes money off their sig.
That depends. It is obviously a 'drastic' measure, but definitely an effective one. While the exact number is debatable (as it will be deemed as high to some), I like the general idea behind it. Having said that, I'd happily give up my signature and avatar if there is a solid permanent solution to this account trade/farming bullshit that's going on right now.
I concur. Although we could still retain the avatar function, but disallow promotional avatars. I'm just not sure if making it more expensive is the solution as it seems to favor those who can afford it (e.g. advertisers) and might make them spam even more to cover the cost.
That's not going to happen. They would not only be risking an account (which is somewhat cheap), they would be risking 2 BTC (which is a lot depending where you live and especially for the majority of signature spammers. If not on bitcointalk,the account sales could easily take place on other places.I'm sure that already exists.
I have to say this on every single suggestion topic on relevant problems: We don't need a perfect solution (this does not exist), we need a good one. We only need to make it drastically harder for people to spam for money. Killing the micro-economy of new users who have found usable amounts of BTC only through sig campaigns may be bad for BTC too.
Disagree. Bitcoin does not gain any kind of 'support' from signature spammers. While there are a few (but rare) examples of decent participants, most of them (99%) just spam for money. |
|
|
|
Just people making less transactions...
No. The amount of spam tends to variate at the moment (as opposed to being constant for some time). If you take a closer look, quite a lot of those blocks are nearly full so I'm not sure what you're talking about. By decreasing the utility of on-chain transacting through artificial scarcity, Blockstream can carve a niche for their products to begin soaking up fees that would otherwise go to miners. They have to earn at least $76 million before their investors from legacy finance see a return. It's not a conspiracy... it's just business.
Disagree. The Lightning Network is the way forward and LN is not a product of Blockstream as there are multiple groups working on the implementation. They are not creating any kind of artificial scarcity but are choosing not to sacrifice decentralization for some capacity. |
|
|
|
Surely you have read enough of this forum being as active as you are to know if I am making off the cuff remarks or if there is weight behind what I am saying.
I'm aware that some people are leaving (or switch to being 'passive'), albeit I disagree that they're leaving because of some "trust police" or whatever exactly you were referring to. The fact you ask for evidence leads me to believe anything stated will be brushed aside anyways,so why waste my time digging up threads and opening up old issues.
That's definitely a no from me. Having a different opinion does not automatically make some one emotional but I find you take things quite literal and honestly find it off putting but have been told this is just your way.
There's nothing wrong in pointing out a fallacy in someones post (if there is one; "appeal to emotion"). You did overreact on that list of reasons. Why would I create a list of members that I enjoy reading when I rather not draw unwanted attention and future problems.
Then I can't verify your claims either. This evidence or shut up is really quite offensive but I have stated what I wanted to say and will let the thread continue down its path.
I don't see anyone telling you to shut up either. Since I hold little power I just state my issue and move on,learned my lesson with the last trust club earlier in the year and will just join others in watching from the sidelines when these type of issues pop up and the forum plays wack a mole.
Interesting. If you are willing to share the story, PM me.
Now back to the thread. There is little reason to not punish people who are engaging in these activities. It is quite rare to see someone to sell their account for a valid reason; I mean why would they? I wouldn't sell mine after departing either. |
|
|
|
Awesome,so are we going to keep branching out and applying negative trust to stuff?
How exciting...
-snip-
Most of the stuff posted is not a valid reason to provide negative trust, ergo you are appealing to emotion and being hyperbolic. This wanting to police the forum is becoming a serious problem and it was kind of funny at first and now truly sad the lengths some of you are willing to go with this crusade.
There is no evidence that supports your statement. If there is, then post it here (else it isn't a "serious problem"). Already noticing some people that I used to enjoy reading that had thoughtful things to say and not trolling have gone quiet.
Post their usernames and let us be the judge of that. The problematic lies in account farming and signature spam. It is becoming hard to find content that is worth reading and replying to. |
|
|
|
One way to solve the signature campaign issue is by making a set of rules which should be mandatory for every new campaign.The managers are allowed to add more rules to the list but can't take out any mandatory rules.
I concur. Now there are two things that need to be done: 1) Decide on the set of rules. 2) Convince the forum administration. I know folks here are obsessed with decentralization and peer to peer stuff but implying a few rules based on everybody's concern won't make a big difference.
This is a privately owned (centralized) forum. Just because it is a forum about a decentralized cryptocurrency, that does not mean that we should force decentralization on the forum moderation. Their obsession is unjustified. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Duplicate.
|
|
|
|
Do you think that by deleting Investor Based Games SubBoard suddenly there won't be any HYIP or Ponzi or other scammy schemes on bitcointalk?
Do you really want that?
If you had read the previous posts (which you didn't), you would have seen that I've already covered that: The first step would be to ban Investor-Based games altogether. That way, no other section would be cluttered up with these threads.
Exactly and then more work for mods to ban users, clean up all of those unwanted topics, just leave them and let them have there little section, anyways most of them get red trust instantly
Again, ignoring problems is not the right answer. |
|
|
|
Whilst I agree that this would be a (rather harsh) solution (and yes, as a campaign manager, my opinion on this is obviously biased), not all campaigns are connected to this/part of the problem.
Some campaigns seem to go with the byname 'xyz spammer' relatively often, while others don't get pulled into the discussion at all.
Correct. There was a point in time where I suggested that we punish both signature campaign managers who don't do their 'job' (along with the service and the members), but that was also unsuccessful. Most of the really bad ones tend to type with broken English.
Sometimes it seems like they've used Google Translate. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Ref. spam.
|
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Ref. spam.
|
|
|
|
Investor-Based Games are as a knife: you could use a knife for eat o you coul use it for kill. Is important that people know the risk of this kind of games.
Following your analogy: Exactly how many people have to cut themselves before we disallow knives (if ever)? Well one thing that could be done would be to remove posting there from the activity count. That was posters would stay as newbies unless they contributed to the real Bitcoin boards.
There was a thread about something of that type created by Theymos, but I don't think it has been 'activated' yet. It's a shitfest, that board.
It is practically useless. The only time that I go there is when I'm handling some report. |
|
|
|
Then, the moderators will start banning people based on biased opinions.
Not necessarily, but that is indeed a possibility and thus scams are not moderated. You should have just ignore the Investor-based games section, IMO.
Ignoring the problem does not make it go away (applies also to signature spammers). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
