Contribute To Bitcoin Economy...

[hilariousandco]

[angry, irrelevant, exaggerated nonsense.]

I am now politely asking you to actually say something that hasn't been said a million times before and shot down every single time.

[caskey4521]

If you don't like the forum go to the other forum or create your own. 

[redsn0w]

If you don't like the forum go to the other forum or create your own. 

Basically .... you can always leave (is this a form of freedom  ?). However this thread is becoming really OT and I don't still understand the real purpose of if. What we're talking about? The buying/selling of forum account or different things?

[TerminatorXL]

>See, the problem is you keep drawing false equivilancies trying to prove your null point.  have absolutely no bearing on anything we are talking about here
Let's take it down to basics:

1. "Rape, murder, etc" - things we do not want to happen. Laws, rules, etc. are created to minimize the occurrence of these these things. (yes/no?)
2. "account dealing" - things we do not want to happen. Laws, rules, etc. are could be created to minimize the occurrence of these these things. (yes/no?)

See the similarity my analogy tries to highlight?
<more>

No, you are using rape/murder's lack of 100% enforcement as justification for your point that even if it is unenforcable, you should try. You say, well rapes and murders aren't 100% solved, but there are still laws! Which is 100% incorrect on all levels.

First, selling accounts whether it is against the rules or not is not a crime, nor is it morally indecent to the same extent a violent crime is. You keep claiming that rape and murder are not 100% stoppable, but there are still laws against them. It is enforcable with life in prison or a death sentence, which is enough to disuade most people. Banning an account wouldn't dissuade anyone who is selling accounts.

Are you saying account banning is pointless, and knowing an account could be banned is not a deterrent? But I thought this forum banned accounts?
Am I mistaken?

Second, if you kill someone, there is a body, forensic evidence, etc. If people didn't publicly post about account selling, there would be absolutely no way of knowing that it was happening. What you propose is that moderators scattershot ban people in a completely unfair way, again to solve such a miniscule problem, or what you percieve as a problem.

You do understand that there are different levels of proof required for different transgressions, right? You must, because otherwise you couldn't possibly ban ban-evading accounts, where's the proof? Where's the due process? And yet, I'm sure it happens. How?
Many transgressions are punished on "more likely than not" basis, such as a 5-yr-old being made to stand in a corner for eating his cookies during class - no trial, no jury.

But all this is strictly irrelevant, because you're simultaneously arguing that there's nothing wrong with accounts being bought and sold, or, to use the wording from my previous post, dealing in bitcointalk accounts is not a thing we do not want to happen.

Please make your position on this clear, since I'm not here to waste anyone's time.
If you think that buying & selling forum accounts is a good thing, and are happy that accounts are being traded, what's the point of discussing enforcement possibilities of rules against it?

[Quickseller]

Security Log isn't enough. People can't truly know whether an account is sold or not. Only way we can assume is to ask a signed message considering Bitcoin address can be sold.

So every time I or any other member trades here should ask the user for a signed message?  

Yes. This is true even if account sales were somehow 100% eradicated as you would still have the possibility of hacked accounts. A signed message is also necessary to prove the terms of a trade with someone to the community in the event of a dispute. (PM's can also be used however it is more difficult and slower to prove content contained in a PM.

2. "account dealing" - things we do not want to happen. Laws, rules, etc. are could be created to minimize the occurrence of these these things. (yes/no?)

I don't see a lot of people saying that we don't want account dealing to happen. Nor have you given any reason or argument backed by facts as to why account trading is bad.

The post was a reply to Salty, I understand that you want to sell as many accounts as possible - you're an account dealer
The reason the "(yes/no)" thingy is stuck in there is 'coz I want to narrow down exactly where Salty [not you] stands on the issue.

If he feels that it's great that accounts are being bought & sold, then all further discussion of plausibility of enforcement is moot, don't you agree?

Hope this clears things up

When arguing a stance on something it is advantageous to make multiple points to back yourself up. That way if/when one of your points are shot down (like all of your points have been so far) then you still have something to back up your position. There are two (primary) points to why there should not be a rule against trading accounts

• It is not possible to enforce such rule and attempting to enforce such rule would create a high level of unfairness among innocent people
• There is no harm in trading accounts (there are actually sever positives to trading them)

[Quickseller]

You do understand that there are different levels of proof required for different transgressions, right? You must, because otherwise you couldn't possibly ban ban-evading accounts, where's the proof? Where's the due process? And yet, I'm sure it happens. How?

It is much easier to tell when someone is the same person as someone else then it is to tell when they are not the same person anymore. There would be evidence that someone sold their account any time they change their password, move, get a new computer, switch ISP's among a number of other things.

Many transgressions are punished on "more likely than not" basis, such as a 5-yr-old being made to stand in a corner for eating his cookies during class - no trial, no jury.

You need to be fair about any punishment/consequence you impose on someone.

[TerminatorXL]

[angry, irrelevant, exaggerated nonsense.]

I am now politely asking you to actually say something that hasn't been said a million times before and shot down every single time.

You are clearly trying to provoke me. Fine.
There are two possible reasons why the things I say appear to be a rehash of things which have been said before:
1. I really am treading over covered ground
2. You opinion re. my writing is as valid as my dog's re. quantum physics.

Now go and be angry elsewhere. I know the market sucks and we're all a bit edgy, but take it somwhere else.
ty.

[erikalui]

Yes. This is true even if account sales were somehow 100% eradicated as you would still have the possibility of hacked accounts. A signed message is also necessary to prove the terms of a trade with someone to the community in the event of a dispute. (PM's can also be used however it is more difficult and slower to prove content contained in a PM.

But a person would not NORMALLY go about asking the person to prove he owns the account while having an exchange/trade. Nobody till date has asked me for the same nor have I seen in other sections of this forum that anyone asks for a signed message openly while trading with them.

Hacking happens now as well and there would be such a possibility whether or not the rules are implemented.

No, you are using rape/murder's lack of 100% enforcement as justification for your point that even if it is unenforcable, you should try. You say, well rapes and murders aren't 100% solved, but there are still laws! Which is 100% incorrect on all levels.

Are you a law abiding citizen? Are you saying that the laws are incorrect at all levels? Sorry if that's the case, it wouldn't be wise enough to tell you to implement rules that can help members from getting scammed.









From all the above arguments, I cannot see how the forum is benefiting from these rules of account selling and creating multiple accounts. These rules are basically helping members to earn/scam other members. If everyone is happy with that, I cannot help but pray for those members who are going to be victims of such scams. More cases like this one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=936429.0 (where the accused had sold his green trust account which was later used to scam a well known scammer) might be reported.

[TerminatorXL]

[...]When arguing a stance on something it is advantageous to make multiple points to back yourself up. That way if/when one of your points are shot down (like all of your points have been so far) then you still have something to back up your position. There are two (primary) points to why there should not be a rule against trading accounts [...]

It's called "arguing in the alternative," and it's a complicated thing best left to grownups. What me and Salty are currently in the processes of is establishing where he stands on account dealing.

If he is happy with accounts being bought and sold, discussing the feasibility of banning the practice is a waste of time, because he doesn't want it stopped.
What's the point of discussing how to stop murder if murder is desirable?
Like that, see?

[theymos]

In addition to the enforcement issue: From time to time people have asked me whether they could sell their accounts or use them as collateral because they have an emergency need for money or have come on hard times. I'm not going to tell them they can't do this. It's your account and you can do what you want with it. I find it pretty distasteful (it's like selling your identity), but the act of selling your account does not itself hurt anyone else, and in fact scams via account sales are very rare.

[TerminatorXL]

[...]What we're talking about? The buying/selling of forum account or different things?

We're talking about buying and selling of forum accounts, and trying to figure out where people stand on the issue.

Initially, I assumed that account dealing was allowed to go on because there is no way to stop it.

Now, it appears that many here think it's not a necessary evil but a good thing, so figuring out how to stop it is a non issue.
We should concentrate on finding new ways to encourage it.
Quickseller is already doing his best

[Quickseller]

Yes. This is true even if account sales were somehow 100% eradicated as you would still have the possibility of hacked accounts. A signed message is also necessary to prove the terms of a trade with someone to the community in the event of a dispute. (PM's can also be used however it is more difficult and slower to prove content contained in a PM.

But a person would not NORMALLY go about asking the person to prove he owns the account while having an exchange/trade. Nobody till date has asked me for the same nor have I seen in other sections of this forum that anyone asks for a signed message openly while trading with them.

People should ask for a signed message when trading with someone and the trade would involve them taking any kind of risk. If there is no risk on a trader's part, then there is no reason to ask for a signed message - for example if you are selling me 1 BTC for 200 LTC and our agreement is that I will send you 200 LTC after I receive 1 BTC from you then I have no reason to ask you for a signed message because I am taking no risk.

It is a good practice to always provide a signed message whenever trading with someone, especially when giving an address to send to as when a dispute arrises you can simply ask your trading partner to provide the signed message you provided and the blockchain should provide the rest of the evidence.

Hacking happens now as well and there would be such a possibility whether or not the rules are implemented.

Correct. This is why you should always ask for a signed message when taking risk on a trade.

[...]When arguing a stance on something it is advantageous to make multiple points to back yourself up. That way if/when one of your points are shot down (like all of your points have been so far) then you still have something to back up your position. There are two (primary) points to why there should not be a rule against trading accounts [...]

It's called "arguing in the alternative," and it's a complicated thing best left to grownups. What me and Salty are currently in the processes of is establishing where he stands on account dealing.

If he is happy with accounts being bought and sold, discussing the feasibility of banning the practice is a waste of time, because he doesn't want it stopped.
What's the point of discussing how to stop murder if murder is desirable?
Like that, see?

No it would not be a waste of time. If/when you can make a strong argument that account trading is bad (you have not presented such an argument), then SS would have a leg to stand on to back his position.

Does the trust list on your "main" account look something like this:

Code:

theymos (1)
Gavin Andresen (1)
jgarzik (1)
Luke-Jr (1)
Miner-TE (1)
Noitev (1)
eleuthria (1)
luv2drnkbr (1)
MemoryDealers (1)
Digigami (1)
gmaxwell (1)
E (1)
zapeta (1)
bitpop (1)
TECSHARE (1)
SebastianJu (1)
ipxtreme (1)
Philj (1)
os2sam (1)
yxt (1)
knybe (1)
sveetsnelda (1)
conv3rsion (1)
bitcoin-rigs.com (1)
BitcoinEXpress (1)
Vod (1)
dtmcnamara (1)
John (John K.) (1)
notme (1)
Mushroomized (1)
greeners (1)
dribbits (1)
echris1 (1)
SaltySpitoon (1)
bitcoiner49er (1)
BadBear (1)
freshzive (1)
arklan (1)
glendall (1)
Pistachio (1)
tarrant_01 (1)
tbcoin (1)
ElideN (1)
TheJuice (1)
Bees Brothers (1)
Christoban (1)
Stale (1)
af_newbie (1)
eroxors (1)
camolist (1)
MrTeal (1)
cncguru (1)
Mendacium (1)
PsychoticBoy (1)
Dabs (1)
mem (1)
Namworld (1)
lky_svn (1)
Xian01 (1)
mr2dave (1)
DobZombie (1)
Adrian-x (1)
gektek (1)
johnny5 (1)
dyingdreams (1)
Zillions (1)
phrog (1)
Domrada (1)
Mapuo (1)
philipma1957 (1)
jborkl (1)
RicRock (1)
jmutch (1)
MonocleMan (1)
b!z (1)
PatMan (1)
CoinHoarder (-1)
absinth (1)
mitty (1)
(^_^) (1)
soy (1)
super3 (1)
iluvpcs (1)
batt01 (1)
AirWolf (-1)
xstr8guy (1)
MJGrae (1)
mobile (1)
nubbins (1)
ThickAsThieves (1)
hephaist0s (1)
Rawted (1)
BitcoinValet (1)
Timzim103 (1)
Rounder (1)
Nemo1024 (1)
TheXev (1)
ibminer (1)
jmumich (1)
Mooshire (1)
Benny1985 (1)
mrbrt (1)
hanti (1)
ssinc (1)
dogie (-1)
Kaega (1)
finlof (1)
elchorizo (1)
fewerlaws (1)
bitterdog (1)
Swimmer63 (1)
locksmith9 (1)
Krellan (1)
Spendulus (1)
MikeMike (1)
statdude (1)
bluespaceant (1)
Hiroaki (1)
keeron (1)
Bigdaddyaz (1)
Polyatomic (1)
palmface (1)
flowdab (1)
SpaceCadet (1)
photon (1)
dwdoc (1)
xzempt (1)
jdany (1)
mackstuart (1)
bmoconno (1)
jdot007 (1)
mrtg (1)
maxpower (1)
Chris_Sabian (1)
xjack (1)
CommanderVenus (1)
daddyfatsax (1)
Plesk (1)
helipotte (1)
aurel57 (1)
gambitv (1)
boyohi (1)
LaserHorse (1)
joeventura (1)
xhomerx10 (1)
slashopt (1)
drofdelm (1)
canth (1)
zackclark70 (1)
cdogster (1)
DBOD (1)
addzz (1)
DefaultTrust (1)
DustMite (1)
pixl8tr (1)
namoom (1)
blblr (1)
Taugeran (1)
arc45 (1)
smscotten (1)
Cilantro (1)
chadtn (1)
kinger1331 (1)
guytechie (1)
rumlazy (1)
fractalbc (1)
fforforest (1)
KyrosKrane (1)
ZBC3 (1)
rj11248 (1)
bitdigger2013 (1)
Damnsammit (1)
jaslo (1)
BorisAlt (1)
ASICSAUCE (1)
sidehack (1)
IYFTech (1)
steelcave (1)
Rotorgeek (1)
buyer99 (1)
daddyhutch (1)
digeros (1)
west17m (1)
Trillium (1)
sbfree (1)
BrianDeery (1)
ziggysisland (1)
devthedev (1)
ryhan (1)
zac2013 (1)
atomriot (1)
metal_jacke1 (1)
Apheration (1)
johoe (1)
spacebob (1)
2byZi (1)
terrapinflyer (1)
cxboyminer (-1)
BenTheRighteous (1)
gsr18 (1)
Paddy (1)
eman5oh (1)
Jennifer Smith (1)
BITMAIN (1)
J_Dubbs (1)
BitcoinFr34k (-1)
00Smurf (1)
firejuan (1)
rikkie (-1)
ldh37 (1)
thomslik (1)
argakiig (1)
Cheeseater (1)
ManeBjorn (1)
redsn0w (1)
Ski72 (1)
cesarm (1)
CoinLearn (1)
suchmoon (1)
Thai (1)
Silverspoon (-1)
NotLambchop (-1)
Spondoolies-Tech (1)
KaChingCoinDev (1)
cathoderay (1)
SpanishSoldier (-1)
mrcable (1)
sjc1490 (1)
Kialara (1)
MobyDick_Poloniex (1)
FACTOM (1)
Ragecat (1)

[redsn0w]

[...]What we're talking about? The buying/selling of forum account or different things?

We're talking about buying and selling of forum accounts, and trying to figure out where people stand on the issue.

Initially, I assumed that account dealing was allowed to go on because there is no way to stop it.

Now, it appears that many here think it's not a necessary evil but a good thing, so figuring out how to stop it is a non issue.
We should concentrate on finding new ways to encourage it.
Quickseller is already doing his best

I think we have received an interesting reply from theymos:

In addition to the enforcement issue: From time to time people have asked me whether they could sell their accounts or use them as collateral because they have an emergency need for money or have come on hard times. I'm not going to tell them they can't do this. It's your account and you can do what you want with it. I find it pretty distasteful (it's like selling your identity), but the act of selling your account does not itself hurt anyone else, and in fact scams via account sales are very rare.

... and I think we can stop here.

[TerminatorXL]

In addition to the enforcement issue: From time to time people have asked me whether they could sell their accounts or use them as collateral because they have an emergency need for money or have come on hard times. I'm not going to tell them they can't do this. It's your account and you can do what you want with it. I find it pretty distasteful (it's like selling your identity), but the act of selling your account does not itself hurt anyone else, and in fact scams via account sales are very rare.

Selling accounts hurts trust, thus hurts everyone.
What's the point of having a trust system, when accounts with positive trust are bought & sold, regularly, right here on the forum?

@redsn0w: Please understand that most here know how to read, and theymos, in turn, knows how to write. No need to interpret what he wrote, or to embolden parts of it like a Red-Letter Bible.

[erikalui]

People should ask for a signed message when trading with someone and the trade would involve them taking any kind of risk. If there is no risk on a trader's part, then there is no reason to ask for a signed message - for example if you are selling me 1 BTC for 200 LTC and our agreement is that I will send you 200 LTC after I receive 1 BTC from you then I have no reason to ask you for a signed message because I am taking no risk.

It is a good practice to always provide a signed message whenever trading with someone, especially when giving an address to send to as when a dispute arrises you can simply ask your trading partner to provide the signed message you provided and the blockchain should provide the rest of the evidence.

I am not talking about already established members/members who already know the meaning of a signed message or how to read it. Scams mainly take place with newbies. Very rarely I have seen established members getting scammed. The scam accusation boards are filled with claims from newbies.

Some don't know the meaning of escrow/signed messages/account sales. They get scammed mainly because of the trust or by an old account that's trusted. I know that it happens very rarely as mainly accounts are bought for Signature Campaigns but some are bought to scam as well and this has been proven to be true as well. A person can go about editing/deleting all his previous messages which reveal the original account holders identity and in that case, a signed message would not work. It would be only theymos who could get back the deleted messages/edited comments.

[TerminatorXL]

[...]
It's called "arguing in the alternative," and it's a complicated thing best left to grownups. What me and Salty are currently in the processes of is establishing where he stands on account dealing.

If he is happy with accounts being bought and sold, discussing the feasibility of banning the practice is a waste of time, because he doesn't want it stopped.
What's the point of discussing how to stop murder if murder is desirable?
Like that, see?

No it would not be a waste of time. If/when you can make a strong argument that account trading is bad (you have not presented such an argument), then SS would have a leg to stand on to back his position.
[...][/quote]

And that's why I explained to you that arguments in the alternative are best left to grownups - they involve complex concepts like temporality.
Since I clearly can't dissuade you from participating, here's a ELI5 version for you:
Before delving into the mechanics of punishing Bobby, it's nice to figure out if what he did was a bad thing, deserving punishment. Just so we wouldn't waste time.

Not all of us are posting just to bump our post count

@erikalui; Quickseller: The trust system is an issue, tho not the one this thread is about.
If you could take the trust discussion to an appropriate thread, that would be nice.

[Quickseller]

I am not talking about already established members/members who already know the meaning of a signed message or how to read it. Scams mainly take place with newbies. Very rarely I have seen established members getting scammed. The scam accusation boards are filled with claims from newbies.

Some don't know the meaning of escrow/signed messages/account sales. They get scammed mainly because of the trust or by an old account that's trusted. I know that it happens very rarely as mainly accounts are bought for Signature Campaigns but some are bought to scam as well and this has been proven to be true as well. A person can go about editing/deleting all his previous messages which reveal the original account holders identity and in that case, a signed message would not work. It would be only theymos who could get back the deleted messages/edited comments.

Do you have any examples of this? It seems that most scams are attempted by low level accounts and accounts that are unlikely to have been purchased.

If you can't get a signed message for any reason then it would probably be best to have that person send first or to use an escrow service to protect your money

[erikalui]

Do you have any examples of this? It seems that most scams are attempted by low level accounts and accounts that are unlikely to have been purchased.

If you can't get a signed message for any reason then it would probably be best to have that person send first or to use an escrow service to protect your money

I posted the case above: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=936429.0 (where the accused had sold his green trust account which was later used to scam a well known scammer).

Krishatnet's account was sold and it had green trust. The person who traded with him trusted him because of the trust rating. But unfortunately, the person who was scammed turned out to be a scammer himself so his case wasn't entertained. There can be more cases as well but they might not have been addressed.

[Quickseller]

Do you have any examples of this? It seems that most scams are attempted by low level accounts and accounts that are unlikely to have been purchased.

If you can't get a signed message for any reason then it would probably be best to have that person send first or to use an escrow service to protect your money

I posted the case above: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=936429.0 (where the accused had sold his green trust account which was later used to scam a well known scammer).

Krishatnet's account was sold and it had green trust. The person who traded with him trusted him because of the trust rating. But unfortunately, the person who was scammed turned out to be a scammer himself so his case wasn't entertained. There can be more cases as well but they might not have been addressed.

What makes you think the account was sold? I see that you had posted in that thread saying you know him from elsewhere, but unless he gave some kind of proof then him claiming it was sold would likely just be him trying to protect his reputation.

The account was likely worth more then 1.3 BTC (the amount scammed) so the scam in question was not economical for the owner of the account. Sure the victim is out $325, however account owners would have incentives to not scam with such accounts.

Also banning the sale of accounts would likely cause the prices of accounts to decline (there would be an additional risk the account get banned if it is discovered to be sold) so the above incentive not to scam would be removed (or lessened)

[TerminatorXL]

Well well, so the stories are true. Just got this from Quickseller:
http://s29.postimg.org/4192qia5z/Capture.png
Yeah, he is a bit touched.
P.S. this is a throwaway account. It's not about making friends or pretense at trustworthiness. My posts stand or fall only by their content.
The neg rating is 100% false tho. Believe it or not