Re: Updated Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns

[SmartIphone]

A signature campaign has just been closed and this is YoCoin and I think this campaign should be removed from the list on the next update, the manager post is quoted:

Payments are now sent. Woulda did it last night but wasnt home. This campaign is also currently closed youre all free to remove sigs

https://blockchain.info/tx/4796318ea159370eab59a77377a1e24a1a31c5adeb795c272c5ec90000133087

[janggernaut]

Heatledger signature campaign will pause for some weeks as their campaign manager told,
 

Todays payments have been sent (860f41ce51ac321efce5ff8a8f6768902c3134228b7b1e4536b8ca1c16757dc1).


With todays payments, the campaign will pause for a few weeks.
I've been informed that there are plans to return it at a later point, but I'm afraid for the immediate future, we've reached the end.
It's been a pleasure working with all of you, and I hope to see a few of you back with us once the campaign resumes.
So long!

[OmegaStarScream]

I thought It's worth to mention that CoinsBank (also known as Bit-x) is going to shutdown in September 2 (once for all If I understood correctly) : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=877765.msg15914727#msg15914727

[Avirunes]

Pokemon Go Getters Signature campaign is also closed. Here is link to the post where campaign manager announced

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1558014.msg15782135#msg15782135

[uki]

One question. I noticed that betcoin.ag campaign is marked with a red star for the last month or so. What is the reason for that?
From my observation, as the member of this campaign (not related anyhow to betcoin.ag company) since the very beginning, i.e., for the last 9 months, the campaign has never had any problems with payments. All payments were delivered timely and in full as stated. Therefore, it seems strange to me to mark this campaign as not recommended, as from the signature campaign perspective it is a very reliable one and the one with the highest rates, to date.
PS. I am aware that there was an issue with a user playing poker at betcoin.ag, but as far as I remember the conversation that user has been reimbursed on his claims and thus this should not longer be an issue.
I don't want to take sides in this battle, as I do not have enough information to judge it properly. Personally however, I believe that this matter (if at all) has/had very little to do with the campaign as such and should be left out of scope of the discussion in this thread.

[pawel7777]

One question. I noticed that betcoin.ag campaign is marked with a red star for the last month or so. What is the reason for that?
From my observation, as the member of this campaign (not related anyhow to betcoin.ag company) since the very beginning, i.e., for the last 9 months, the campaign has never had any problems with payments. All payments were delivered timely and in full as stated. Therefore, it seems strange to me to mark this campaign as not recommended, as from the signature campaign perspective it is a very reliable one and the one with the highest rates, to date.
PS. I am aware that there was an issue with a user playing poker at betcoin.ag, but as far as I remember the conversation that user has been reimbursed on his claims and thus this should not longer be an issue.
I don't want to take sides in this battle, as I do not have enough information to judge it properly. Personally however, I believe that this matter (if at all) has/had very little to do with the campaign as such and should be left out of scope of the discussion in this thread.

Not entirely sure, but it's probably related to Betcoin having shitload of unresolved issues and scam accusation. And since every participant is knowingly promoting this site, they could end up with negative trust rating.

Just today some guy popped up leaking Betcoin users personal info, as they refused to pay him the bounty for finding vulnerability:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=386266.msg15936400#msg15936400

[uki]

One question. I noticed that betcoin.ag campaign is marked with a red star for the last month or so. What is the reason for that?
From my observation, as the member of this campaign (not related anyhow to betcoin.ag company) since the very beginning, i.e., for the last 9 months, the campaign has never had any problems with payments. All payments were delivered timely and in full as stated. Therefore, it seems strange to me to mark this campaign as not recommended, as from the signature campaign perspective it is a very reliable one and the one with the highest rates, to date.
PS. I am aware that there was an issue with a user playing poker at betcoin.ag, but as far as I remember the conversation that user has been reimbursed on his claims and thus this should not longer be an issue.
I don't want to take sides in this battle, as I do not have enough information to judge it properly. Personally however, I believe that this matter (if at all) has/had very little to do with the campaign as such and should be left out of scope of the discussion in this thread.

Not entirely sure, but it's probably related to Betcoin having shitload of unresolved issues and scam accusation. And since every participant is knowingly promoting this site, they could end up with negative trust rating.

Just today some guy popped up leaking Betcoin users personal info, as they refused to pay him the bounty for finding vulnerability:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=386266.msg15936400#msg15936400

ok, I didn't know about this leak today. that doesn't look good. Nevertheless, I don't believe that giving a negative trust to campaign participants would solve anything: they are (as myself for example) not related at all to the site, and have no influence or involvement in how such a site runs their business.  I bet that in most cases people are attracted to a campaign because of the possibility to earn BTC, not because of how good or bad the site is. Hands up who thinks differently, I bet there won't be more than just a few, if at all. It is like saying that people using Bitcoin are knowingly promoting crime, because someone bought drugs or weapons using Bitcoins. It is very easy to call for group responsibility without actually addressing where the real issue is.

[Fatanut]

they are (as myself for example) not related at all to the site, and have no influence or involvement in how such a site runs their business. 

Entirely false. You are advertising Betcoin.AG together with other participants. Of course you guys are connected to the business already. You and the campaign manager had an agreement about you advertising their company in your signature.

It is like saying that people using Bitcoin are knowingly promoting crime, because someone bought drugs or weapons using Bitcoins.

Nope, you can't just compare the use of Bitcoin to you promoting Betcoin.AG. They are not the same. Basically, you are like saying "Look at the sun, and now look at this *any random object*. Aren't they the same?"

What I said above might be unclear so let me put it this way instead. Bitcoin users might use bitcoin for scam. But in Betcoin.AG, the company itself were the one accused for scamming.


Anyway, as I am the one who updated the latest table, the asterisk is there because of the numerous unresolved issues that Betcoin has and not because the campaign isn't running well nor is it because the campaign manager is delayed on payments.

[pawel7777]

ok, I didn't know about this leak today. that doesn't look good. Nevertheless, I don't believe that giving a negative trust to campaign participants would solve anything: they are (as myself for example) not related at all to the site, and have no influence or involvement in how such a site runs their business.  I bet that in most cases people are attracted to a campaign because of the possibility to earn BTC, not because of how good or bad the site is. Hands up who thinks differently, I bet there won't be more than just a few, if at all. It is like saying that people using Bitcoin are knowingly promoting crime, because someone bought drugs or weapons using Bitcoins. It is very easy to call for group responsibility without actually addressing where the real issue is.

It is a bit of moral dilemma whether participants should be held accountable for the actions of business they're promoting. Personally I don't think that "I'm only here for the money" is a good excuse for promoting dishonest/scammy business. Then again, participants may not even be able to judge whether accusations are legit and if so, whether it was intentional or just a result of mistake or incompetence.

I would be in favour of giving negative trust (with prior warning) to participants who continue to promote straight-up scams, i.e. when the business operates with the main purpose of scamming people, but I have mixed feelings about doing the same if the promoted business was likely set up with good intentions, but keeps failing on issues like customer service/security/dealing with personal data etc.

Perhaps setting "I'm not endorsing advertisement in my signature" as personal text by participants wouldn't be a bad idea...

[uki]

ok, I didn't know about this leak today. that doesn't look good. Nevertheless, I don't believe that giving a negative trust to campaign participants would solve anything: they are (as myself for example) not related at all to the site, and have no influence or involvement in how such a site runs their business.  I bet that in most cases people are attracted to a campaign because of the possibility to earn BTC, not because of how good or bad the site is. Hands up who thinks differently, I bet there won't be more than just a few, if at all. It is like saying that people using Bitcoin are knowingly promoting crime, because someone bought drugs or weapons using Bitcoins. It is very easy to call for group responsibility without actually addressing where the real issue is.

It is a bit of moral dilemma whether participants should be held accountable for the actions of business they're promoting. Personally I don't think that "I'm only here for the money" is a good excuse for promoting dishonest/scammy business. Then again, participants may not even be able to judge whether accusations are legit and if so, whether it was intentional or just a result of mistake or incompetence.

That is exactly my point. Rating of a campaign should focus more on whether the payments are provided timely and as promised and whether the campaign is not encouraging people to post scam. Moral dilemmas should be separated from the campaigns rating in here, as otherwise we are walking into very thin ice territory. As a signature campaign participant, I have no interest in the services of the company I advertise as such, and that is exactly my case with bitcoin.ag. I also have neither means nor time to check whether the site advertise is perfectly clean and ethical, every time I join a new campaign. I do a quick scan and that is it. Unless there is a hard evidence and then I don't join or quit, I agree. But in the end of the day, I am only providing platform for an advertisement and should not be seen liable for the actions of the company I advertise against other users. that is out of scope of the agreement that is included in the signature campaign deal.

I believe it should be almost entirely up to the personal decision of the user, whether it is ethical to advertise a company or not.

I would be in favour of giving negative trust (with prior warning) to participants who continue to promote straight-up scams, i.e. when the business operates with the main purpose of scamming people, but I have mixed feelings about doing the same if the promoted business was likely set up with good intentions, but keeps failing on issues like customer service/security/dealing with personal data etc.

Perhaps setting "I'm not endorsing advertisement in my signature" as personal text by participants wouldn't be a bad idea...

here I agree, provided we have a good definition of a straight-up scam site.
Looking at the least of the signature campaigns we have here, one could say, hold on, there plenty of similar accusations against yobit.net exchange for example (see appropriate thread in this forum), yet this campaign is not red marked. I didn't have time to google now the other campaigns, this is just the first example out of my head.

[uki]

they are (as myself for example) not related at all to the site, and have no influence or involvement in how such a site runs their business.  

Entirely false. You are advertising Betcoin.AG together with other participants. Of course you guys are connected to the business already. You and the campaign manager had an agreement about you advertising their company in your signature.

That is a complete non-sense.
I cannot be held liable for the actions of Betcoin.AG against other users, as someone who is only providing an advertisement platform for them. That is out of the scope of the agreement in the deal we made. Point, end of story. Two examples (I hope they are not 'too general' this time) to clarify, what I mean:
Would you sue (or give negative trust to) Google for advertising amazon because someone cheated you there? (using your logic, you would say: google advertises the company that cheated me. Bad google, right?)
Would you sue yahoo (or Bing, or Google) for the phising links in the ads of their search engines?

It is like saying that people using Bitcoin are knowingly promoting crime, because someone bought drugs or weapons using Bitcoins.

Nope, you can't just compare the use of Bitcoin to you promoting Betcoin.AG. They are not the same. Basically, you are like saying "Look at the sun, and now look at this *any random object*. Aren't they the same?"
What I said above might be unclear so let me put it this way instead. Bitcoin users might use bitcoin for scam. But in Betcoin.AG, the company itself were the one accused for scamming.

Once again, refer to the examples given above and to my previous post (response to pawel7777) to clarify what I mean.

I guess we agree on one thing. Where there is a clear evidence and hard proofs that there is a scam site, the cut is clear. Otherwise the call is not that easy at all, as the world is not black and white, and we have not enough means to prove where the truth lies.

[keyscore44]

Im not sure if this place (i mean thread) is good to talk about issues, but in this case i also have issue:

Why someone who just manage informations about campaigns decide which campaign is good or is bad?

I am sure, that we all are grateful that you organizing such an important topic for all of us.

But as i can see you don't have experience for that, so in my opinion will be better just ask more experienced users for opinion.. and if you do that write who said what..

Good luck!

[Lutpin]

But as i can see you don't have experience for that, so in my opinion will be better just ask more experienced users for opinion.. and if you do that write who said what.

This change has made it into OP which means it has been approved by Mitchell (or it has been overseen, which is less likely).
IIRC shorena was also approving of it when I discussed it with them.
People are free to ignore the warning, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be one in the first place.

[znickelbackz]

A new signature campaign has just started today: ICONOMI Signature Campaign
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1587823.0

Manager: yahoo62278

30 posts a week minimum
Constructive posts only 100 characters or more and on topic
Only 6 posts per section of forum will count
2 posts a week must be constructive and in the ANN thread

Member-.01btc/week (25 slots open)
Full member-.02btc/week(25 slots open)
Sr member-.03btc/week(25 slots open)
Hero/Legendary-.04btc/week(25 slots open)

[znickelbackz]

A new signature campaign has just started today: Hybridmixer.com Signature Campaign
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1589310.0

Available Spots: 100
Allowed to partecipate:Member, Full Member, Senior Member, Hero Member, Legendary Member, Staff.

Member:            0.00020 BTC per post. Max post 10 per day
Full Member:      0.00040 BTC per post. Max post 10 per day
Senior Member:  0.00070 BTC per post. Max post 10 per day
Hero Member:    0.00070 BTC per post. Max post 10 per day
Legendary:        0.00070 BTC per post. Max post 10 per day

[InvoKing]

another one here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1589966.0
Bitsler Signature & Avatar Campaign
Sr member-.00133/post
Hero Member-.0014/post
Legendary-.0015/post
Staff-.00166/post

Min 1 post max 30 post.

[OmegaStarScream]

@Mitchełł Just a heads-up, I wouldn't recommend adding HybridMixer.com signature campaign as they didn't show any use of escrow yet (they are claiming that they will start using one tomorrow) so It's probably better to wait and see.

[ttargett]

@Mitchełł Just a heads-up, I wouldn't recommend adding HybridMixer.com signature campaign as they didn't show any use of escrow yet (they are claiming that they will start using one tomorrow) so It's probably better to wait and see.

maybe you have a link to it? also they closed all their threads, it looks really fishy for me

[808BassCoin]

An 808 Sig campaign would be amazing for our promotion

[znickelbackz]

An 808 Sig campaign would be amazing for our promotion

Indeed Sir, you are making a right and great decision. You should start a signature campaign right now. Actually, why don't you wear a signature yourself for a start?