Account Farmers are the new Ponzis

[Lauda]

The OP and some of people in this thread were suggesting negative feedback bombing people who sell acounts or who are involved in any way that is what i was referring to.  I would suggest if that ends up happening to first warn people first for a while - "stop selling accounts or else etc" if newbie account it doesn't mean anything, might aswell negative feedback bomb.

Okay, that makes more sense. I initially though you were referring to banning account sales and/or removing signature campaigns/signatures.

If you are banning account sales and its an official forum decision then yeah discussion is over, you just delete topic, everyone has to agree

While technically true, I doubt theymos would make such a radical change if everyone is against it.

If you ban signature campaigns then account sales will probably drop to almost nothing but forum activty also drops, does that matter? i dont know.

Quality over quantity. I'd rather have 10 useful posts a day, than 1 000 useless ones.

[1714226871]

1714226871

[1714226871]

1714226871

[Amph]

just do the math a guy with 10 account on yobit, can do 0.04 per account every week, so 0.4 with 10 of those spamming 200 post a day, this is a no-brainer, it's highly profitable more than mining or anything else

we are talking about 1.6 btc a month, which is more than a par time nowadays...this can easily be fixed by allowing only 10 members per signature and they must be all hero, this will put a serious deterrent in account farming for the sole purpose of signature

[Blazed]

Nothing will change as this conversation has been done 100 times already. The only solution is ban paid campaigns...period. The forum wants the activity so this will not happen.

[Chris!]

Nothing will change as this conversation has been done 100 times already. The only solution is ban paid campaigns...period. The forum wants the activity so this will not happen.

I would have to think that the 'value' of the forum is higher because there is money exchanging hands just from typing out little blurbs of information. I couldn't see Theymos changing it unless it was financially beneficial to him.

The issue I was thinking if was:

Let's say tomorrow signature campaigns are banned somehow. Everyone's signature is blank and you get a notice that if you advertise you'll have 1 strike (1 or 2 month ban) then a permanent ban.

Would this also apply to avatars? If you got rid of avatars that's just a huge step back in time. I like instantly putting a 'face' with a name. Oh it's the donkey from Shrek... That's Suchmoon. Oh it's the cat with the tiny mouth trying to eat a huge Big Mac. You can't fit that in there kitty!

Would you guys suggest the rules overflow to avatars and personal text? People will just switch to advertising on those if the bottom 'banner' isn't an option.

[actmyname]

If you ban signature campaigns then account sales will probably drop to almost nothing but forum activty also drops, does that matter? i dont know.

You decrease the activity of the spammers, which is something that is good to see. Think about forum activity in the bigger picture for a second here. Those threads with hundreds of pages in Economics, Gambling, even Bitcoin Discussion are filled with one-liners and repetitious content that offers no substance to the forum. So what are we really missing out on?

[OgNasty]

1.) Negatives for all sellers/buyers of accounts is potentially not effective for targetting account farmers:

That would mean everyone gets hit.... big sellers, small sellers, escrows

That's the point...  Account farming is dishonest and destructive to the forum.

As someone who feels he probably has a better handle on the escrows of this forum, let me say that any escrow effected by the banning of account sales deserves to be effected...  I do not touch account escrows because I think it is dishonest at best, and perpetuating scamming at worst.  The entire business of - 1) register fake account, 2)spam crap all over people's threads making them respond to stupid questions, 3) sign up for signature campaign promoting ponzi scheme or gambling operation, 4) sell account to someone who will continue posting garbage on the forum, or use the account to scam honest traders - is one that should be stopped.  Not only for the good of Bitcoin, bitcointalk, and the honest members here who have their time wasted, but for the kids spending weeks chasing a few dollars when they could be out mowing lawns, or learning, or starting businesses to earn real money and contribute.

If "everyone" in that little micro-economy "gets hit" it would be the best thing for everyone (except those running ponzi's and questionable gambling sites).  I'm convinced of this.

Nothing will change as this conversation has been done 100 times already. The only solution is ban paid campaigns...period. The forum wants the activity so this will not happen.

I don't think banning paid campaigns is the answer.  There is obviously a demand there.  Revenue just needs to be directed into the appropriate recipients.  They aren't the major bother anyway (although I would like to see their numbers reduced).  It's the accounts spamming to wear the signatures themselves, as they are basically paid spammers.  Seems like if they want to do that, it would be even more lucrative for them if they had to pay 2 BTC for the right to wear a signature.  That would drastically reduce the amount of signatures out there and make it much more profitable (I would assume) for those that do pay the 2 BTC in order to be able to have a signature as advertisers would have much more competition for those few signatures.  I imagine those that do pay the 2 BTC would also have a 2 BTC incentive not to spam and lose their account.

The only losers here are people who want to get something for nothing.  Take away their regular income for spamming and selling different accounts, and as a side effect you might see some of them "move to greener pastures" which I imagine will reduce scam attempts as well.

[KenR]

Seems like if they want to do that, it would be even more lucrative for them if they had to pay 2 BTC for the right to wear a signature.

Okay,assuming your rule of 2BTC deposit is implemented.Let's assume somehow roughly 50 members make the deposits to the forum (now the revenue of the forum becomes 100BTC).Forum makes a lot of money this away,great.What about the people who have donated 2BTC ? The signature campaigns hardly pay 0.05 btc a week ? It will take ages to recover their initial deposits.

On the other side : How many members will a signature campaign have ? 2 ? 4? They will surely have a nice promotion ,isn't it ? Dissolves the entire damn point of running signature campaigns.As I have stated earlier,this sounds very illogical to me.

just do the math a guy with 10 account on yobit, can do 0.04 per account every week, so 0.4 with 10 of those spamming 200 post a day, this is a no-brainer, it's highly profitable more than mining or anything else

Banning Yobit signature campaigns will reduce 70% of the spam around the forum.

[Lauda]

Dissolves the entire damn point of running signature campaigns.As I have stated earlier,this sounds very illogical to me.

That is the exact point behind this. The result will be a insane reduction of signature campaign (there might be a possibilities of a few members remaining (that do pay)).

[OgNasty]

Seems like if they want to do that, it would be even more lucrative for them if they had to pay 2 BTC for the right to wear a signature.

Okay,assuming your rule of 2BTC deposit is implemented.Let's assume somehow roughly 50 members make the deposits to the forum (now the revenue of the forum becomes 100BTC).Forum makes a lot of money this away,great.What about the people who have donated 2BTC ? The signature campaigns hardly pay 0.05 btc a week ? It will take ages to recover their initial deposits.

I'm not even a mod around here.  Let's call it my "idea."  

The signature campaigns would have to pay more to fewer members to run their campaigns.  This is by design to raise the barrier of entry and encourage honest participation in the forums.  The goal is to eliminate account farming and spam posts I thought, so those things need to be disincentivized.  You shouldn't need to post a ton of spam before you earn the right to advertise and your only reason for donating to a place that so many spend so much time shouldn't just be to get a good return on your investment.  I'd like to think there's a self respect element that comes along with it.

When I first came to these forums, everyone had their address in their signature.  This was because they would help someone with a problem and receive tips from users for being helpful.  It was great.  The forum was full of helpful people growing interesting ideas and quality conversation.  Now, users are incentivized to ask dumb questions and disappear or fake goods sales to their alt accounts wasting everyone else's time who responds to their threads.  Wouldn't it be better if we as a community got back to tipping people for being helpful instead of paying them to spam us?

Perhaps even a "community tipper" of some kind could be introduced, where a portion of the donations received is paid back to helpful members of the community.

[KenR]

When I first came to these forums, everyone had their address in their signature.  This was because they would help someone with a problem and receive tips from users for being helpful.  It was great.  The forum was full of helpful people growing interesting ideas and quality conversation.  Now, users are incentivized to ask dumb questions and disappear or fake goods sales to their alt accounts wasting everyone else's time who responds to their threads.  Wouldn't it be better if we as a community got back to tipping people for being helpful instead of paying them to spam us?

Perhaps even a "community tipper" of some kind could be introduced, where a portion of the donations received is paid back to helpful members of the community.

Totally agree ,clever point being made there.Unfortunately,signature campaigns bring in a lot of traffic which serves as an ideal condition for advertisers .One way which forum makes money is by advertisements.If we cut down on the traffic ,it establishes a wide gap between the forum revenue and the advertisers.Money is an important aspect which can't be ignored.To run the forum or say pay the mods ,the only source are the advertisers IE the signature campaigners.I'm afraid,cutting down on them will have a greater impact on the forum's revenue. On the brighter side,yes we will have intelligent posters and  less scammers around. 

[Blazed]

When I first came to these forums, everyone had their address in their signature.  This was because they would help someone with a problem and receive tips from users for being helpful.  It was great.  The forum was full of helpful people growing interesting ideas and quality conversation.  Now, users are incentivized to ask dumb questions and disappear or fake goods sales to their alt accounts wasting everyone else's time who responds to their threads.  Wouldn't it be better if we as a community got back to tipping people for being helpful instead of paying them to spam us?

Perhaps even a "community tipper" of some kind could be introduced, where a portion of the donations received is paid back to helpful members of the community.

Totally agree ,clever point being made there.Unfortunately,signature campaigns bring in a lot of traffic which serves as an ideal condition for advertisers .One way which forum makes money is by advertisements.If we cut down on the traffic ,it establishes a wide gap between the forum revenue and the advertisers.Money is an important aspect which can't be ignored.To run the forum or say pay the mods ,the only source are the advertisers IE the signature campaigners.I'm afraid,cutting down on them will have a greater impact on the forum's revenue. On the brighter side,yes we will have intelligent posters and  less scammers around. 

This is why the campaigns will never get banned. This forum would have excellent content, but probably not even half of the traffic. I think banning yobit's campaign would be good. Make the campaigns know if they do not curb the spammers they will be banned. Hilarious has told them plenty of times to clean it up IIRC.

[brituspol]

This is why the campaigns will never get banned. This forum would have excellent content, but probably not even half of the traffic. I think banning yobit's campaign would be good. Make the campaigns know if they do not curb the spammers they will be banned. Hilarious has told them plenty of times to clean it up IIRC.

Well funny thing, Hilarious is the one currently being paid by Yobit to clean it up since more than a month. Yobit is no-longer the spammiest campaign due to that even thought hilar does miss some. That title currenty belongs to Bitmixer with similarly worded posts to make it seem as if they are not spamming

[ibminer]

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 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.

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.

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.

The point I had been trying to make was that they would still continue their same process which you outlined in a recent post, just without the paid signature campaign part, and obviously at a lower "income". I don't participate in account sales and I've never bought one but it seems like accounts themselves still have some value if your just selling accounts with ranks?  It even seems like right now they have more value if they are not part of a signature campaign?   Maybe this is where I am not thinking correctly?

Since they seem to have so much time on their hands, I would think they would continue doing what they know best (registering accounts and posting useless content to try and sell them) and take the loss but wouldn't they still have some type of market?  Primarily newbies (or scammers) wanting to get a jump on the rank process... or someone who actually wants to pay the 2btc and participate in a campaign but they don't want to start with a brand new account (why would they want to pay the 2btc? I'm just assuming payouts will increase with a change like this and entice them back). If that happens, now they would even get a cool new rank of "Supporter" that they can use for scamming or posting more useless content.

I realize there is no perfect solution, and I'd say this is the best idea I've seen... making it harder for them would be better than nothing. And maybe they just don't see it as worth there time and move onto something else, I can try to be optimistic    

[Lauda]

Okay so what I see happening:

• The value of accounts and the number of sales drastically drops due to no incentive and way to ROI on bought accounts.
• 99% of Signature campaigns disappearing.
• Value boost for accounts with Signatures (Supporters), and campaigns for them.
• Drastic spam reduction

Reasoning per point:

• Accounts have higher values due to potential ROI and profit; joining signature campaigns is the top incentive to engage in account sales
• Simple, as there would barely be any users that have Signatures or want that participate (as a portion of those that have don't want to promote other services)
• This is obvious as there would still be a small percentage of potential spam
• Multiple reasons; unable to wear a signature, unable to join a signature campaign; spamming becomes risky (risking 2+ BTC).

[suchmoon]

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 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.

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.

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.

The point I had been trying to make was that they would still continue their same process which you outlined in a recent post, just without the paid signature campaign part, and obviously at a lower "income". I don't participate in account sales and I've never bought one but it seems like accounts themselves still have some value if your just selling accounts with ranks?  It even seems like right now they have more value if they are not part of a signature campaign?   Maybe this is where I am not thinking correctly?

Since they seem to have so much time on their hands, I would think they would continue doing what they know best (registering accounts and posting useless content to try and sell them) and take the loss but wouldn't they still have some type of market?  Primarily newbies (or scammers) wanting to get a jump on the rank process... or someone who actually wants to pay the 2btc and participate in a campaign but they don't want to start with a brand new account (why would they want to pay the 2btc? I'm just assuming payouts will increase with a change like this and entice them back). If that happens, now they would even get a cool new rank of "Supporter" that they can use for scamming or posting more useless content.

I realize there is no perfect solution, and I'd say this is the best idea I've seen... making it harder for them would be better than nothing. And maybe they just don't see it as worth there time and move onto something else, I can try to be optimistic    

Accounts don't have much value other than for:

1) spamming (sig campaigns) - if that goes away the value will drop
2) scamming (high rank/trust)

Farming accounts for rank requires only 1 post per day on average - a lot less than 20 (?) posts for Yobit. So even if #2 remains the amount of spam would drop significantly and could be easier controlled via moderation.

[achow101]

I like OgNasty's proposal, although I do agree with others that 2BTC is a fairly high barrier. With my current sig campaign, that would take me 20 months to earn. I think something between 0.75 to 1BTC is more reasonable and more attainable.

I also think that we need to be harsher on campaign managers to enforce their rules more strictly and have stricter rules about spam. I think that punishing managers for their campaigners' spammy behavior would be a good incentive to get them to be stricter. Perhaps giving out bans to managers if their campaigners are being spammy and nothing is done about them after they are informed of spammers.

[botany]

I like OgNasty's proposal, although I do agree with others that 2BTC is a fairly high barrier. With my current sig campaign, that would take me 20 months to earn. I think something between 0.75 to 1BTC is more reasonable and more attainable.

I also think that we need to be harsher on campaign managers to enforce their rules more strictly and have stricter rules about spam. I think that punishing managers for their campaigners' spammy behavior would be a good incentive to get them to be stricter. Perhaps giving out bans to managers if their campaigners are being spammy and nothing is done about them after they are informed of spammers.

The amount of course will have to vary based on the USD-BTC exchange rate. Signature campaign payments are linked to USD and of course, this payment would have to be linked to USD as well.

[achow101]

I like OgNasty's proposal, although I do agree with others that 2BTC is a fairly high barrier. With my current sig campaign, that would take me 20 months to earn. I think something between 0.75 to 1BTC is more reasonable and more attainable.

I also think that we need to be harsher on campaign managers to enforce their rules more strictly and have stricter rules about spam. I think that punishing managers for their campaigners' spammy behavior would be a good incentive to get them to be stricter. Perhaps giving out bans to managers if their campaigners are being spammy and nothing is done about them after they are informed of spammers.

The amount of course will have to vary based on the USD-BTC exchange rate. Signature campaign payments are linked to USD and of course, this payment would have to be linked to USD as well.

Not all campaigns are linked to USD. Many campagins, such as betcoin's, are Bitcoin only. This forum is Bitcoin only. I see no reason as to why the rate of the payment should be linked to a fiat currency. If it were to be linked to something, I would rather that it be related to the campaign rates and only change when campaign rates shift dramatically, as they did with the last big increase we had a few months ago.

[bones261]

I also think that we need to be harsher on campaign managers to enforce their rules more strictly and have stricter rules about spam. I think that punishing managers for their campaigners' spammy behavior would be a good incentive to get them to be stricter. Perhaps giving out bans to managers if their campaigners are being spammy and nothing is done about them after they are informed of spammers.

Unfortunately, one of the most notorious signature campaigns, (the one I am currently involved in at the moment,) has the help of a Global Moderator, and it is still heavily abused. Poor guy has to keep playing wack-a-mole and have hundreds of accounts banned from the campaign, and the spammers still crop up like so many weeds.
With my short experience with the current signature campaign, I must admit, the temptation to post absolute crap definitely keeps nagging. Overall, it has been a good experience for me because it has actually made me expand my reading outside of the altcoins announcement forum. I have actually leaned quite a bit. Unfortunately, I think most in the sig campaigns do not actually take much time reading the content of the thread before posting.

[Evildrum]

This is why the campaigns will never get banned. This forum would have excellent content, but probably not even half of the traffic. I think banning yobit's campaign would be good. Make the campaigns know if they do not curb the spammers they will be banned. Hilarious has told them plenty of times to clean it up IIRC.

Hilarious is actually cleaning house on close to a monthly cycle now that he is in charge. They no longer take Jr. members and this will help cut the garbage posting down, since it was to easy before to just start a new account.

Sometimes I think blaming signatures is a attempt to not see things for what they are, being that there is less draw to this forum for a lot of people due to tiffs, disagreements and lack of depth.
The push to get rid of signatures has allowed people to dictate how they want the forum as opposed to hearing what the majority may want.
No one knows because the loudest bark wins out more than not.
So imagine signatures are gone because so many here that have established accounts look at it as filth. You honestly think posts will improve? Lot of the members I see over and over frowning on signatures do not post indepth threads. They may run business here but is that being part of the community or exploiting them? Think a lot of the services here are the latter, so where is this community that will suddenly reestablish its self!

Signatures attract new people and give them coin to figure the ropes out. I know there is a lot of spammers that come out of it as well and agree something should be worked out, but I do not think you will get this sudden utopia once signatures are gone.
Personally think limiting to full member and up is fine but maybe setup something for newer accounts to get their feet wet. Faucets no longer cut it for this aspect.