Account Farmers are the new Ponzis

[OgNasty]

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.

Only in Bitcoinland do people complain about a 20 month ROI.  Rest assured that signature campaigns would have to pay more.

[suchmoon]

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.

Yes, there might be other reasons for the garbage contents but so far every serial spammer that I've seen had a paid signature. Some get upset when I report them because they lose their income:

Hey such moon ur so very bad people why I'm storyrealtivity that u reported yesterday.  Because of that I'm banned from this forum. I can't buy medicine for my mom. Because u are so selfish . selfish. I hope u will banned soon in this forum. You are very judgemental person . I hope someday if ur mom have sick u can't buy medicine to ur mom because u don't have money.!

That's what it has become. And that was a multi-account spammer.

No, removing/restricting signature ads would not make the forum magically more intelligent and helpful and friendlier etc. But that doesn't mean the financial incentive to produce useless posts is some kind of a God-given or constitutional right that shouldn't be touched. Signature ads have no useful contribution to a discussion. I don't mind them if they help promote Bitcoin businesses. I don't mind people getting paid for posts they would make anyway, but not when it becomes a job, a way to make money at the expense of other forum members who need to waste time reading the crap.

[achow101]

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.

It's why campaigns need to set the entry barrier high as well. Don't accept low ranking members and check the post quality of those applying so that you don't have to keep kicking people out.

Only in Bitcoinland do people complain about a 20 month ROI.  Rest assured that signature campaigns would have to pay more.

I'm fairly inexperienced when it comes to ROI'ing on things, so I don't have anything to compare that to. It just seems like a lot of time and a lot of posts.

[bittraffic]

stopping the account sale may also stop or the lessen the circulation of bitcoin. and so it has to be decided carefully as the economy of bitcoin is more important.
what i can suggest however is just make the account sale transparent instead. a list as to who bought who and when...

[Lutpin]

stopping the account sale may also stop or the lessen the circulation of bitcoin. and so it has to be decided carefully as the economy of the bitcoin is more important.

If you really think bitcointalk account sales are any notable, considerable weight in the bitcoin economy, your horizon has to be very small.
Even worse, if they really were that important to the economy...

what i can suggest however is just make the account sale transparent instead. a list as to who bought who and when...

So, the solution for getting rid of account farming is, making account sales 'transparent'?
Besides the issue, that this would never be (fully) possible, as being easy to avoid, that's a bullshit suggestion.
The majority of posters in this thread wants to stop account sales, not to encourage them in any way.

It's why campaigns need to set the entry barrier high as well. Don't accept low ranking members and check the post quality of those applying so that you don't have to keep kicking people out.

Agreed, from a newbie/junior members history (the brief one that exists at that point of time), you can hardly evaluate their future posting behaviour,
whilst with higher ranking members (considering they didn't change hands inbetween), you mostly get a good estimate on how they post/behave.

That's what it has become. And that was a multi-account spammer.

It's funny how reporting a post/thread can backfire at you.

another forum sheriff , seem usual for this user to judge the over for nothing ...

[Lauda]

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.

Wrong. The more you lower the amount, the more spammers you are letting through. As a normal user that tries to engage in discussions and help others, you don't need a signature (if you can't pay for it).

Only in Bitcoinland do people complain about a 20 month ROI.  Rest assured that signature campaigns would have to pay more.

Exactly. There should be no ROI at all.

[sorryforthat]

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.

Wrong. The more you lower the amount, the more spammers you are letting through. As a normal user that tries to engage in discussions and help others, you don't need a signature (if you can't pay for it).

I think having a lowered amount could essentially work. A tiered system would get draw in those who only want a sig without the idea of promoting for profit. 1 BTC for a line or two of plain text, no bells and whistles, and 2 BTC for the more extravagant looking signatures that higher ranks have.

[Fortify]

I agree that account farmers are detrimental to the forum, but it is down to the staff to outlaw it - not you. It has been known for a long time that accounts are traded here and you should basically trust no one here. With all the proxies and VPN accounts around it is absolutely futile to try to stop these people unless the staff start IP bans - which they're not going to do. You should also consider the slightly positive affect that the forum looks busier and more active, thus gathering new legitimate users with ease.

[suchmoon]

I agree that account farmers are detrimental to the forum, but it is down to the staff to outlaw it - not you. It has been known for a long time that accounts are traded here and you should basically trust no one here. With all the proxies and VPN accounts around it is absolutely futile to try to stop these people unless the staff start IP bans - which they're not going to do. You should also consider the slightly positive affect that the forum looks busier and more active, thus gathering new legitimate users with ease.

How would IP bans help against proxies and VPNs?

[Lauda]

How would IP bans help against proxies and VPNs?

IP bans might only work against average users that are not tech savy, otherwise it does not do much. As a example: We've nuked several thousands accounts of both that KNC and Speculation-section spammer and yet they keep coming back.

[OgNasty]

I agree that account farmers are detrimental to the forum, but it is down to the staff to outlaw it - not you. It has been known for a long time that accounts are traded here and you should basically trust no one here. With all the proxies and VPN accounts around it is absolutely futile to try to stop these people unless the staff start IP bans - which they're not going to do. You should also consider the slightly positive affect that the forum looks busier and more active, thus gathering new legitimate users with ease.

It is a problem that I don't think can be regulated by staff.  I don't think they even want to attempt it, which is why it is allowed.  Similar to moderating scams...

I disagree that you say it has a positive effect of making the forum look busier.  All the posts are crap.  Some of my threads, literally every response is a signature spammer asking some irrelevant question never to be heard from again.  It is an unbelievable time waste to have to read and acknowledge these people.  For that reason many PMs I get asking me to check out threads or respond to a comment go unanswered.  I would say that is a negative for the forum as it appears every well known member around here eventually hits their breaking point and stops responding to PMs all together, then stops posting here.  I think it is a 100% negative thing that spammers can get paid to suck time for the rest of our lives.  They're literally stealing hours of my time and cashing it in for $10/week.  It should be stopped, or at the very least disallowed and forced to "do business" in the shadows.  Unless of course we want this forum to be a circle jerk of signature spammers and ponzi sites. 

An awesome way to combat the problem would be to give members the ability to "opt-in" to a signature campaign through bitcointalk.org.  Then advertisers could sign up with bitcointalk (like they already do) and instead of their ads only being displayed in the forum spots, they could appear in user signatures as well.  The users could get paid and the forum would of course keep a % for running the program.  The % users get paid could be an equation of some sort based on their trust ratings.  Then users would be getting paid for participating in the community and gaining trust.  This would encourage positive behavior and reduce spam, as I don't think trusted members would be posting nonsense for bits.  Those who violate could be warned or suspended, and the forum could have direct control over the number of signatures.  That of course would take more work behind the scenes, which I am sure is probably not worth the effort.  Easiest thing to do is simply outlaw account sales here and remove the ability for non-paid memberships to advertise signatures.  Perhaps Legendary members could get a text only signature or something...

[Your Point Is Invalid]

I agree that account farmers are detrimental to the forum, but it is down to the staff to outlaw it - not you. It has been known for a long time that accounts are traded here and you should basically trust no one here. With all the proxies and VPN accounts around it is absolutely futile to try to stop these people unless the staff start IP bans - which they're not going to do. You should also consider the slightly positive affect that the forum looks busier and more active, thus gathering new legitimate users with ease.

It is a problem that I don't think can be regulated by staff.  I don't think they even want to attempt it, which is why it is allowed.  Similar to moderating scams...

I disagree that you say it has a positive effect of making the forum look busier.  All the posts are crap.  Some of my threads, literally every response is a signature spammer asking some irrelevant question never to be heard from again.  It is an unbelievable time waste to have to read and acknowledge these people.  For that reason many PMs I get asking me to check out threads or respond to a comment go unanswered.  I would say that is a negative for the forum as it appears every well known member around here eventually hits their breaking point and stops responding to PMs all together, then stops posting here.  I think it is a 100% negative thing that spammers can get paid to suck time for the rest of our lives.  They're literally stealing hours of my time and cashing it in for $10/week.  It should be stopped, or at the very least disallowed and forced to "do business" in the shadows.  Unless of course we want this forum to be a circle jerk of signature spammers and ponzi sites. 

An awesome way to combat the problem would be to give members the ability to "opt-in" to a signature campaign through bitcointalk.org.  Then advertisers could sign up with bitcointalk (like they already do) and instead of their ads only being displayed in the forum spots, they could appear in user signatures as well.  The users could get paid and the forum would of course keep a % for running the program.  The % users get paid could be an equation of some sort based on their trust ratings.  Then users would be getting paid for participating in the community and gaining trust.  This would encourage positive behavior and reduce spam, as I don't think trusted members would be posting nonsense for bits.  Those who violate could be warned or suspended, and the forum could have direct control over the number of signatures.  That of course would take more work behind the scenes, which I am sure is probably not worth the effort.  Easiest thing to do is simply outlaw account sales here and remove the ability for non-paid memberships to advertise signatures.  Perhaps Legendary members could get a text only signature or something...

Brilliant plan, I only see 1 flaw, you cant calculate the percentage they get using their trust score, I've seen highly trusted members posting garbage.

A team of reputable users on the forum could go through users who want to get in a campaign and decide how much they get paid per post.

Also, signature for advertising should requiring applying through the forum

[OgNasty]

A team of reputable users on the forum could go through users who want to get in a campaign and decide how much they get paid per post.

The default trust group is the closest thing we have to a group of reputable users and we do rate forum members.  That is a salty argument for another thread though.

[Your Point Is Invalid]

A team of reputable users on the forum could go through users who want to get in a campaign and decide how much they get paid per post.

The default trust group is the closest thing we have to a group of reputable users and we do rate forum members.  That is a salty argument for another thread though.

was thinking of a group of like 10 members

[Operatr]

Most of the signature spammers are just trying to earn some btc to survive IMO, so I don't blame them for their actions honestly. I think it's a much more honest way to try and make a living then the SCAMMERS in the marketplace. At least these signature spammers are TRYING to actually earn their btc.

Now the businesses / websites running these SPAMMY signature campaigns SHOULD be held responsible in some way financially if they do not have strict signature campaign guidelines in place.

So if a company like YOBIT for instance is/was running a very spammy campaign? I would recommend a penalty box type system in place with NO WARNING. So let's say YOBIT is GUILTY of a spammy campaign. Theymos could easily implement a redirect system I believe for mods and admins, so that any http://yobit.net link would redirect to the bitcointalk.org/penaltybox page where the company (eg: Yobit.net) is forced to DONATE "x" amount of bitcoin, and just determine the penalty fee or whatever by the AVERAGE current round of legitimate bitcointalk advertising is worth. So if the current 10 Ad slots / spots let's say are selling for an AVERAGE of 0.5 BTC each? That's the 1st offense penalty box fee to have your websites url removed from the penalty box and not redirect any further. And I'm NOT trying to single YOBIT out here, I actually like the YOBIT site itself personally, but I see that they seem to be the current SPAM FLAVOR of the month so am just using them as example. 

You could also implement a progressive penalty system like:

1st offense: average Bitcointalk advertising price

2nd offense: average Bitcointalk advertising price x 2

3rd offense:  average Bitcointalk advertising price x 3

and so on...

other implementations I think are needed? Is to NOT allow TOR, VPN's or PROXIES in the MARKETPLACE section of Bitcointalk.org at all unless you're a MOD / DT1 / DT2 Member or whatever. This section is the scammiest and most dangerous section of the site IMO and by not allowing these would deter most scammers, and spammers even for that matter. Because their legitimate IP's would be visible by theymos and whoever else is allowed access to that information. The FAKE sales of accounts, the scams, etc... I believe would dramatically reduce within the first day of this implementation.

Anyway that's just my useless 0.02 on the matter :-)

and a HAPPY MOTHERS DAY to all the WONDERFUL Mothers out there!

[PapoXxX]

i dont know of the market of account reach this far... i know that this forum have an amazing amount of traffic and that why people want account here to redirect that traffic to his/her website, but reddit have more traffic and they dont have the problem with the false accounts

[suchmoon]

A team of reputable users on the forum could go through users who want to get in a campaign and decide how much they get paid per post.

The default trust group is the closest thing we have to a group of reputable users and we do rate forum members.  That is a salty argument for another thread though.

was thinking of a group of like 10 members

You think DT is not good for this but you would like to create another group of "reputable" members? How would that work and how it would be better than DT or staff?

"Posting garbage" is already against forum rules and moderators can deal with it regardless of offender's trust score.

[mexxer-2]

i dont know of the market of account reach this far... i know that this forum have an amazing amount of traffic and that why people want account here to redirect that traffic to his/her website, but reddit have more traffic and they dont have the problem with the false accounts

Claps to your wonderful comment /s , now.. how's the account farming business going?

Coming to the topic, whats Ognasty's 1/2 BTC suggestion by the way? Didn't have the time to go through the whole thread, but it seems well accepted.

[achow101]

Coming to the topic, whats Ognasty's 1/2 BTC suggestion by the way? Didn't have the time to go through the whole thread, but it seems well accepted.

tl;dr pay 2BTC to get a special rank that can have a signature, everyone else either has super stripped down signature or none.

[OgNasty]

Coming to the topic, whats Ognasty's 1/2 BTC suggestion by the way? Didn't have the time to go through the whole thread, but it seems well accepted.

tl;dr pay 2BTC to get a special rank that can have a signature, everyone else either has super stripped down signature or none.

I would think "Supporters" who paid 2 BTC would get: a signature, new title, new "who's online" color, access to the Donators section of the forum, and having your name listed here: https://bitcointalk.org/donate.html

BAN SIGNATURES FOR FORUM MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOT DONATED TO THE FORUM.
Create a new level of donator called the "Supporter" that can be reached with a 2 BTC donation to bitcointalk.
Only Supporters, Donators, & VIPs are then allowed to have signatures.  Perhaps with each level carrying different restrictions.