Seeking a team to develop Bitcointalk 2.0 forums (apply within)

[Inedible]

Here's another rather radical idea:  Bitcoin addresses as usernames.

In order to "sign up" for the forum, you must have a legitimate Bitcoin address with a balance greater than 0.1 BTC.  You use this address to digitally sign a message verifying that you own the address.  In order to trade on the forum, your Bitcoin address must have a balance greater than, say, 2 BTC.  Usernames are simply full Bitcoin addresses (or firstbits, if you want to shorten them up a bit).

This would virtually eliminate forum spam, removing one major headache from administration.  It would make sockpuppeting more expensive (would have to put 0.1 BTC "on hold" for every sockpuppet you wanted to create) and more difficult to conceal (any accidental link between Bitcoin addresses could be proven by anyone, not just the forum administration looking at IP addresses).  It would also force people brand new to Bitcoin to actually acquire some before joining in on any discussions, bringing up the quality of the discussions that do take place.  But it wouldn't actually cost the forum users anything.

So to participate at the peak, it could have cost $520?

Numbers could be adjusted to whatever is deemed appropriate, of course.  The balance required for participation that I suggested was only 0.1 BTC too - I was just suggesting a higher balance required to participate in trading, as it lends a bit more trust to that person if they have to hold that much of a balance in limbo, so to speak.  And it doesn't actually cost anything - you just have to prove ownership of that much.

What if someone wants to find out more about Bitcoin or is looking for investment but has no Bitcoin themselves?

So for them, no matter how small the amount of Bitcoin, they would need to have a bank account (not everyone does), they would then need to transfer fees to an exchange, then buy some Bitcoin.

Sounds like quite a barrier to entry.

[Inedible]

By forcing a user to pay with bitcoin you eliminate all those who do not yet own bitcoin, which is a much larger group than those who do... it will hinder adoption of the forum.  Perhaps if you want to create a thread you should need a bitcoin address but anyone can post in _______ section.

To the idea of not advertising, I don't see the benefit.  Opportunities that ad dollars could provide include things like community events or even advertising the forum in a bigger forum... advertise the forum on google, for example.   There are many possible benefits that ad dollars can help with and I do not see the downside to charging companies who want to advertise to do so assuming the money is used to benefit the community.  Here's another thing money could/should be spent on: a political lobby toward the Dept of Treasury to benefit the community instead of letting big banks or the winklevoss twins run the exchanges.


Great contributions everyone thank you.

Ooops - I replied to an earlier post without reading all the new posts first so I've repeated some of your comments later.

Having no advertising sounds like a bad idea unless all running expenses are to come from donations which can be quite scary if you're the one left holding the bag.

[Inedible]

their financial issues

People being required to demonstrate the ability of not having financial issues before voicing opinions sounds like a very good thing to me.

Not sure it's easy to prove you don't have financial issues.

I could have 10 Bitcoin and still be in Dollar debt up to my eyeballs.

[zackclark70]

making people have money to join is a sure way to make your forum fail

[SgtSpike]

their financial issues

People being required to demonstrate the ability of not having financial issues before voicing opinions sounds like a very good thing to me.

Seriously? So you think that people with financial issue due to their class, situation etc shouldn't have an opinion?

My suggestion was a mere 0.1 BTC.  My point was, they should prove they can do the legwork of acquiring BTC and understanding how to use it before being able to post on the forum.  It would prevent some of the same old newbie posts from being reposted over and over again.  It also helps, in a small way, to prevent sockpuppets.  People could more easily connect the dots between sockpuppet accounts, unless the sockpuppeteer works hard to make sure the two addresses never interact.

But it also depends on what you want the forum to be.  Should it be a place of higher-level discussion with less "noise"?  That's what I heard it was supposed to be.  Locking out people who are just finding out about Bitcoin is a good way to do that.  They can go research elsewhere and discuss elsewhere until they have a greater understanding of Bitcoin, enough to keep down the noise and keep up the number of relevant and interesting conversations relative to noise posts.  If the new forum is supposed to be friendly to all, then it'll just turn into the same cesspool we have here (IMO).

Here's another rather radical idea:  Bitcoin addresses as usernames.

In order to "sign up" for the forum, you must have a legitimate Bitcoin address with a balance greater than 0.1 BTC.  You use this address to digitally sign a message verifying that you own the address.  In order to trade on the forum, your Bitcoin address must have a balance greater than, say, 2 BTC.  Usernames are simply full Bitcoin addresses (or firstbits, if you want to shorten them up a bit).

This would virtually eliminate forum spam, removing one major headache from administration.  It would make sockpuppeting more expensive (would have to put 0.1 BTC "on hold" for every sockpuppet you wanted to create) and more difficult to conceal (any accidental link between Bitcoin addresses could be proven by anyone, not just the forum administration looking at IP addresses).  It would also force people brand new to Bitcoin to actually acquire some before joining in on any discussions, bringing up the quality of the discussions that do take place.  But it wouldn't actually cost the forum users anything.

So to participate at the peak, it could have cost $520?

Numbers could be adjusted to whatever is deemed appropriate, of course.  The balance required for participation that I suggested was only 0.1 BTC too - I was just suggesting a higher balance required to participate in trading, as it lends a bit more trust to that person if they have to hold that much of a balance in limbo, so to speak.  And it doesn't actually cost anything - you just have to prove ownership of that much.

What if someone wants to find out more about Bitcoin or is looking for investment but has no Bitcoin themselves?

So for them, no matter how small the amount of Bitcoin, they would need to have a bank account (not everyone does), they would then need to transfer fees to an exchange, then buy some Bitcoin.

Sounds like quite a barrier to entry.

The minimum balance required to participate could be reduced then.  Heck, make it 0.00005430 BTC, and tell them to get it from a faucet.  Anyone can still participate for free, but they must at least prove that they know the basics of how to use Bitcoin.  This wouldn't prevent sockpuppets at all, but it would at least prevent people who have no idea about Bitcoin from generating extra noise on the forum.

EDIT:  But if the idea is to promote higher-level discussions of Bitcoin, is such a barrier to entry a bad thing?

[Teka]

their financial issues

People being required to demonstrate the ability of not having financial issues before voicing opinions sounds like a very good thing to me.

Seriously? So you think that people with financial issue due to their class, situation etc shouldn't have an opinion?

My suggestion was a mere 0.1 BTC.  My point was, they should prove they can do the legwork of acquiring BTC and understanding how to use it before being able to post on the forum.  It would prevent some of the same old newbie posts from being reposted over and over again.  It also helps, in a small way, to prevent sockpuppets.  People could more easily connect the dots between sockpuppet accounts, unless the sockpuppeteer works hard to make sure the two addresses never interact.

But it also depends on what you want the forum to be.  Should it be a place of higher-level discussion with less "noise"?  That's what I heard it was supposed to be.  Locking out people who are just finding out about Bitcoin is a good way to do that.  They can go research elsewhere and discuss elsewhere until they have a greater understanding of Bitcoin, enough to keep down the noise and keep up the number of relevant and interesting conversations relative to noise posts.  If the new forum is supposed to be friendly to all, then it'll just turn into the same cesspool we have here (IMO).

Here's another rather radical idea:  Bitcoin addresses as usernames.

In order to "sign up" for the forum, you must have a legitimate Bitcoin address with a balance greater than 0.1 BTC.  You use this address to digitally sign a message verifying that you own the address.  In order to trade on the forum, your Bitcoin address must have a balance greater than, say, 2 BTC.  Usernames are simply full Bitcoin addresses (or firstbits, if you want to shorten them up a bit).

This would virtually eliminate forum spam, removing one major headache from administration.  It would make sockpuppeting more expensive (would have to put 0.1 BTC "on hold" for every sockpuppet you wanted to create) and more difficult to conceal (any accidental link between Bitcoin addresses could be proven by anyone, not just the forum administration looking at IP addresses).  It would also force people brand new to Bitcoin to actually acquire some before joining in on any discussions, bringing up the quality of the discussions that do take place.  But it wouldn't actually cost the forum users anything.

So to participate at the peak, it could have cost $520?

Numbers could be adjusted to whatever is deemed appropriate, of course.  The balance required for participation that I suggested was only 0.1 BTC too - I was just suggesting a higher balance required to participate in trading, as it lends a bit more trust to that person if they have to hold that much of a balance in limbo, so to speak.  And it doesn't actually cost anything - you just have to prove ownership of that much.

What if someone wants to find out more about Bitcoin or is looking for investment but has no Bitcoin themselves?

So for them, no matter how small the amount of Bitcoin, they would need to have a bank account (not everyone does), they would then need to transfer fees to an exchange, then buy some Bitcoin.

Sounds like quite a barrier to entry.

The minimum balance required to participate could be reduced then.  Heck, make it 0.00005430 BTC, and tell them to get it from a faucet.  Anyone can still participate for free, but they must at least prove that they know the basics of how to use Bitcoin.  This wouldn't prevent sockpuppets at all, but it would at least prevent people who have no idea about Bitcoin from generating extra noise on the forum.

EDIT:  But if the idea is to promote higher-level discussions of Bitcoin, is such a barrier to entry a bad thing?

I think that the forum should be as newbie friendly as possible. This will help allow to attract a lot of members. It's better for all of us if we treat newbies in the best possible way.

I guess it's your call Viceroy

[SgtSpike]

their financial issues

People being required to demonstrate the ability of not having financial issues before voicing opinions sounds like a very good thing to me.

Seriously? So you think that people with financial issue due to their class, situation etc shouldn't have an opinion?

My suggestion was a mere 0.1 BTC.  My point was, they should prove they can do the legwork of acquiring BTC and understanding how to use it before being able to post on the forum.  It would prevent some of the same old newbie posts from being reposted over and over again.  It also helps, in a small way, to prevent sockpuppets.  People could more easily connect the dots between sockpuppet accounts, unless the sockpuppeteer works hard to make sure the two addresses never interact.

But it also depends on what you want the forum to be.  Should it be a place of higher-level discussion with less "noise"?  That's what I heard it was supposed to be.  Locking out people who are just finding out about Bitcoin is a good way to do that.  They can go research elsewhere and discuss elsewhere until they have a greater understanding of Bitcoin, enough to keep down the noise and keep up the number of relevant and interesting conversations relative to noise posts.  If the new forum is supposed to be friendly to all, then it'll just turn into the same cesspool we have here (IMO).

Here's another rather radical idea:  Bitcoin addresses as usernames.

In order to "sign up" for the forum, you must have a legitimate Bitcoin address with a balance greater than 0.1 BTC.  You use this address to digitally sign a message verifying that you own the address.  In order to trade on the forum, your Bitcoin address must have a balance greater than, say, 2 BTC.  Usernames are simply full Bitcoin addresses (or firstbits, if you want to shorten them up a bit).

This would virtually eliminate forum spam, removing one major headache from administration.  It would make sockpuppeting more expensive (would have to put 0.1 BTC "on hold" for every sockpuppet you wanted to create) and more difficult to conceal (any accidental link between Bitcoin addresses could be proven by anyone, not just the forum administration looking at IP addresses).  It would also force people brand new to Bitcoin to actually acquire some before joining in on any discussions, bringing up the quality of the discussions that do take place.  But it wouldn't actually cost the forum users anything.

So to participate at the peak, it could have cost $520?

Numbers could be adjusted to whatever is deemed appropriate, of course.  The balance required for participation that I suggested was only 0.1 BTC too - I was just suggesting a higher balance required to participate in trading, as it lends a bit more trust to that person if they have to hold that much of a balance in limbo, so to speak.  And it doesn't actually cost anything - you just have to prove ownership of that much.

What if someone wants to find out more about Bitcoin or is looking for investment but has no Bitcoin themselves?

So for them, no matter how small the amount of Bitcoin, they would need to have a bank account (not everyone does), they would then need to transfer fees to an exchange, then buy some Bitcoin.

Sounds like quite a barrier to entry.

The minimum balance required to participate could be reduced then.  Heck, make it 0.00005430 BTC, and tell them to get it from a faucet.  Anyone can still participate for free, but they must at least prove that they know the basics of how to use Bitcoin.  This wouldn't prevent sockpuppets at all, but it would at least prevent people who have no idea about Bitcoin from generating extra noise on the forum.

EDIT:  But if the idea is to promote higher-level discussions of Bitcoin, is such a barrier to entry a bad thing?

I think that the forum should be as newbie friendly as possible. This will help allow to attract a lot of members. It's better for all of us if we treat newbies in the best possible way.

I guess it's your call Viceroy

More members does not necessarily make a better forum.

That's why I said what I did.  Viceroy's goals seem to be to hold on to "smart contributors".  You don't do that by making a forum newb-friendly, you do that by making a forum smart-people-friendly.

We've been losing good members for months now.  The post about a dismal level of discourse is telling.  If things do not change in these forums we will continue to lose smart contributors like Jason.

[zackclark70]

would it not be better to improve this forum ?

[daybyter]

I can do some java, php, cake, mysql and data modeling, if it helps...

[Teka]

would it not be better to improve this forum ?

It would be a better to improve this forum but good luck convincing Theymos to do anything suggested in this thread.

[Inedible]

The minimum balance required to participate could be reduced then.  Heck, make it 0.00005430 BTC, and tell them to get it from a faucet.  Anyone can still participate for free, but they must at least prove that they know the basics of how to use Bitcoin.  This wouldn't prevent sockpuppets at all, but it would at least prevent people who have no idea about Bitcoin from generating extra noise on the forum.

EDIT:  But if the idea is to promote higher-level discussions of Bitcoin, is such a barrier to entry a bad thing?

It's not the minimum balance that's the issue.

It's the fact that they have to acquire them at all.

It could take days -> weeks for someone to do that.

Even if it's for $0.01 worth of Bitcoin.

You're in the lucky position of already having a bank account. What about those that don't?

There's nothing wrong with promoting higher-level discussion but are you saying that users of this new forum should have a minimum level of understanding (and ownership) to even participate?

[SgtSpike]

The minimum balance required to participate could be reduced then.  Heck, make it 0.00005430 BTC, and tell them to get it from a faucet.  Anyone can still participate for free, but they must at least prove that they know the basics of how to use Bitcoin.  This wouldn't prevent sockpuppets at all, but it would at least prevent people who have no idea about Bitcoin from generating extra noise on the forum.

EDIT:  But if the idea is to promote higher-level discussions of Bitcoin, is such a barrier to entry a bad thing?

It's not the minimum balance that's the issue.

It's the fact that they have to acquire them at all.

It could take days -> weeks for someone to do that.

Even if it's for $0.01 worth of Bitcoin.

You're in the lucky position of already having a bank account. What about those that don't?

There's nothing wrong with promoting higher-level discussion but are you saying that users of this new forum should have a minimum level of understanding (and ownership) to even participate?

You don't need a bank account to acquire 0.00005430 BTC.  I'm not sure how often faucets typically pay out, but I'm sure a person could find one that pays out at least once a day.  So that makes the longest potential time to acquire 1 day, if you really want to set the bar that low.

I'm not sure why everyone is so against exclusivity.  Forums do not have to be open to everyone to be good.

There's nothing wrong with promoting higher-level discussion but are you saying that users of this new forum should have a minimum level of understanding (and ownership) to even participate?

If you want to get away from the "noise", which is what Viceroy is proposing to do in order to keep smarter people around, then absolutely yes, people should have a minimum level of understanding and ownership to participate.

[mrkent]

Open source so anyone can build features.
Secure login (something like -otc)

[Viceroy]

Mr Kent, please add that to the thread about software available from the Top post. 

The issue of barrier to entry is simply that there are two kinds of people:
People who contribute meaningful input and people who contribute noise. 

Separating the two makes sense because not everybody adds useful information to threads.  I suggested that perhaps you need to get to a "level" before you can author a thread.  We definitely need to promote useful dialog and thwart meaningless noise... by some means or another.  Maybe by fee, maybe by having someone sponsor your account maybe through some other method... but we need to end the noise otherwise we have not accomplished anything.   

Zach, as I said in PM creating a forum is trivial and not the solution we need.  We need to define the problem then identify possible solutions.  Adding another format this time just adds noise unless we have a reason.  I am not yet convinced you are adding meaningful dialog to this conversation as much as you are promoting that you have a forum for alt coin.  Please try to contribute more meaningfully.

[btceic]

Im pretty new here, but here is my 2 cents:

OpenID, google, facebook auths
2fa
mobile theme
Mods that actually help when you are in need, im talking to you maged
privacy policy
terms of service
no sock puppet accounts
no selling of accounts
ban hammer

[Viceroy]

so you pretty much agree 100% with the op.

[btceic]

so you pretty much agree 100% with the op.

Pretty much, this place has turned into a veritable diagon alley of the web.

btw, I am a web developer by trade, c#, mvc 3, jquery, jquery mobile, css, html, good old javascript and would be more than happy to help.

[btceic]

Adding:

Disallow the use of registration and posting via tor or other crap like that.

[Inedible]

Im pretty new here, but here is my 2 cents:

OpenID, google, facebook auths
2fa
mobile theme
Mods that actually help when you are in need, im talking to you maged
privacy policy
terms of service
no sock puppet accounts
no selling of accounts
ban hammer

You forgot, prevent scammers from offering bounties for work done

[Luckybit]

"If the fee is high enough then no one will ever sock puppet again."

Lol.

Let me tell you: it's going to be impossible to catch someone who knows what they're doing sockpuppeting.

They'll have to pay a fee to sockpuppet. It's not about catching them it's about attaching a cost to the practice so that it isn't free.