(PETITION) The act of BUYING/SELLING Bitcointalk.org Accounts (Poll)

[maursader]

Hey everyone this is a two part post for META:

This is something I feel needs to be addressed more closely.

*** PART 1 ***
The Poll
************

This poll is something to get a general feel for how the community feels about account buying and selling on bitcointalk. If you hate the idea of people buying/selling accounts here, please read part 2 below. If you support the idea of buying/selling accounts, please feel free to comment, and vote.


*** PART 2 ***
The Petition
************

Personally, I think selling accounts for any site is wrong because you don't own the account itself. Bitcointalk owns the account, and by selling accounts you're profiting off their work. It also gives new users a false sense of reputation which exposes members of our community at risk. It also allows companies that are new to the asic market snatch them up and start cross promoting illicitly. Creating multiple accounts en masse artificially raises the community size. Those are just a few reasons of many as to why account selling isn't good. I'm sure we could post more. If you agree with this, please feel free to 'sign' this petition.

*** PART 3 ***
The Updated Poll
************

So it's been noted that the poll options may need to be a bit clearer. So based on the feedback in this thread, I will restart the poll, however, if you want to see the OLD results, click here Old results were as of 12/30/2013.

The poll has been updated, and vote counter has been zero'd out to maintain fairness of the thread, and to every voter. If you have (or have not) already voted, please cast your vote. Thanks.

Cheers.

[1715319466]

1715319466

[1715319466]

1715319466

[1715319466]

1715319466

[jambola2]

I can just imagine one of the big ASIC sellers , coming here with their hundreds of purchased accounts and down-voting this

[Mike Christ]

You cannot ban account selling because you cannot know which accounts are being sold.  The only thing this petition would provide is an illusion, which exacerbates the problem, because the public would have no clue that it even occurs.

This website is not in a vacuum; honestly, the Internet's a big place, believe me.

[jackjack]

Selling accounts will never stop

Now, two possibilities:
- it's forbidden, so people will think that no account has been sold, so they will value the fact of being registered for a long time
- it's allowed, so people will be suspicious of everybody

The better solution is crystal-clear


(that doesn't mean I think that selling accounts is morally ok)

[maursader]

Cool, interesting responses especially with the poll. Although there is no way to detect which accounts are sold directly I do believe much like vBulletin, you can detect fishy account movements and multiple accounts. Basically each account that logs into this site has their information stored on a server sided log. If an admin were to pull up a person who has several accounts linked to their ip, and those accounts actively log in from different locations, you now have a better idea who is selling and where the buyers are. Just my two cents. I know many sites restrict the use of multiple accounts, which is why most of us have many accounts, otherwise we all would be selling bitcointalk accounts.

[tinyteapot]

I sold my first account here, got 0.2btc (probably the eqv of 0.005 now!) for it. I wanted the btc at the time and was happy to receive it, but I wish I hadn't as it had my proper internet name. And the guy who bought it, from what I can tell, only used it twice. I'd like it back.

[maursader]

Yeah.. probably not a good idea for next time. lol

[SaltySpitoon]

Its not whether its Ok or not, its that the forums staff knows there is absolutely no way they could possibly enforce it. The users of this forum aren't like the users of a Hello Kitty forum. They have a certain degree of technical savvy, and understand how to use Proxies or Tor. The fact that Selling and Buying accounts here is allowed has nothing to do with the admins of the site agreeing with the process, we have just figured out something that strangely quite a few governments haven't figured out yet. You cant make unenforcable laws.

[raspcoin]

An account is a commodity like any other. Why should it be treated differently?

[Rupture]

It can't be stopped, so why not leave it in the open so people know it's happening.

[Welsh]

It's sad that this happens. But, you can't stop it. I would only agree to someone selling accounts if they personally disclosure all the accounts usernames after each sale. That way we know that the account has been sold and we can be suspicious of it. That way the seller may lose a lot of money, but at least we know that he/she is doing something to prevent scamming.

Although, accounts being sold on the forum should never be allowed. It's not something we can stop as previously stated. People would just register from a VPN get what ever rank they want via tor and sell it at a external site or even at this site.

[maursader]

I'm curious what Theymos thinks about the idea given the current poll results.

[SaltySpitoon]

I'm curious what Theymos thinks about the idea given the current poll results.

Oddly, I figured a lot more people would be against it. 50% don't care. Even if it was 100% against, still wouldn't change the fact that its an unenforcable rule. Bitcoin users in general tend to have the ability to use Tor or Proxies, or find other little loopholes. Clock enthusiast forums may be able to eliminate account sales, and multi accounts, and such, but BTCTalk users are technical enough to know that its just an inconvience to be IP banned or have individual accounts banned.

[Walter Rothbard]

IMO, account selling is somewhat analogous to selling a business.

[Martijnvdc]

IMO, account selling is somewhat analogous to selling a business.

Except that there's no way to tell if the transaction of that business happened, or if it's still the same person... It could happen without anyone knowing.
An untrustworthy person can become well trusted for the wrong reason. It just opens up whole new ways to pull of big scams.

[Walter Rothbard]

IMO, account selling is somewhat analogous to selling a business.

Except that there's no way to tell if the transaction of that business happened, or if it's still the same person... It could happen without anyone knowing.

Right, exactly the way selling a business works.

An untrustworthy person can become well trusted for the wrong reason. It just opens up whole new ways to pull of big scams.

Suggestion: don't trust people for wrong reasons.

[dominicwin]

I get a number of messages always from obvious scams, but from old accounts. They have to be purchased? A lot of the times the message doesn't correlate after looking at their post history.

[BadBear]

Most of those are hacked accounts that fell for it.

[maurya78]

Great idea but not sure it can be enforced rigorously

And if we can't enforce it absolutely, best not to initiate measures that perpetuate the myth that we are

[Mondy]

Honestly it shouldnt be 'banned' however buyers should be looked at to know if they are scammers.

[nate008]

Try to ban this and price for "good" accounts will just rise , and more people will try creating good accounts , lots of spam....useless enforcing on a community that tries to get out of it

[slikes]

I voted yes. Just because accounts can be sold covertly, doesn't mean that nobody will get caught. It's best to make an example of the minority who overtly trade accounts in order to dissuade others from doing the same. So long as people are aware that accounts are being sold, regardless of the rules, they won't put too much stake in someone's reputation.
In fact, if there's a section in the rules that says it's against the rules to trade accounts, the more logical conclusion is that people have been doing it. If nobody was trading accounts, then there wouldn't be a need for a rule.

[Walter Rothbard]

The act of buying and selling domain names should also be disallowed.  It makes it harder for me to trust people.

Stuff that makes it hard for me to trust people should be disallowed.  We should have a trustworthy society.

[maursader]

I hate to be the one to say this, but vBulletin has a way of detecting multiple accounts, and where they link to.. surprised SMF doesn't have this, or something like this hasn't been coded yet for SMF, especially for a site this size. You know?

[BadBear]

I hate to be the one to say this, but vBulletin has a way of detecting multiple accounts, and where they link to.. surprised SMF doesn't have this, or something like this hasn't been coded yet for SMF, especially for a site this size. You know?

Admins don't care about multiple accounts.

[z3r0]

I hate to be the one to say this, but vBulletin has a way of detecting multiple accounts, and where they link to.. surprised SMF doesn't have this, or something like this hasn't been coded yet for SMF, especially for a site this size. You know?

Admins don't care about multiple accounts.

Good.

[whiskers75]

Add the ability to mark an account as sold
That way, people willingly selling their accounts can make it clear

[Walter Rothbard]

Add the ability to mark an account as sold
That way, people willingly selling their accounts can make it clear

What if you need to know that an account has been sold a second time?

What if people lie?

[maursader]

I hate to be the one to say this, but vBulletin has a way of detecting multiple accounts, and where they link to.. surprised SMF doesn't have this, or something like this hasn't been coded yet for SMF, especially for a site this size. You know?

Admins don't care about multiple accounts.

I hate to be the one to say this, but it seems like it all starts from here. Which is more or less the root cause of the whole idea behind selling accounts right?

[jackjack]

Forbidden = newbies tend to trust older accounts whereas they can still be sold
Allowed = newbies trust nobody
The latter is far less dangerous and user-friendly

That won't change, get over it

[maursader]

Forbidden = newbies tend to trust older accounts whereas they can still be sold
Allowed = newbies trust nobody
The latter is far less dangerous and user-friendly

That won't change, get over it

I agree with this in the sense that anyone who is trying to purchase anything must have some sort of common sense, and take every precaution prior to trading etc. Mind you, that's only one part of the effects of account selling. Then comes the other part where the forums get cluttered with inactive accounts, spammers, etc.

On another note though, it seems like over half the poll results are against the sale of accounts on the site. Perhaps the higher ups could take a closer look into it? It's not impossible to detect. If vBulletin can, smf has already done so. Just pointing an observation.

[jackjack]

Forbidden = newbies tend to trust older accounts whereas they can still be sold
Allowed = newbies trust nobody
The latter is far less dangerous and user-friendly

That won't change, get over it

I agree with this in the sense that anyone who is trying to purchase anything must have some sort of common sense, and take every precaution prior to trading etc. Mind you, that's only one part of the effects of account selling. Then comes the other part where the forums get cluttered with inactive accounts, spammers, etc.

On another note though, it seems like over half the poll results are against the sale of accounts on the site. Perhaps the higher ups could take a closer look into it? It's not impossible to detect. If vBulletin can, smf has already done so. Just pointing an observation.

How does the forums getting cluttered with inactive accounts affect you?

And how does allowing selling accounts increase the amount of spam? If people buying accounts with high post count value this that much they would spam using their own accounts anyway.
Also, currently ALL the spammers I see have a paid signature. Did you compare the incomes of a paid signature and of selling an account?

[watts]

This poll is not worded fairly. Very few people actually think buying and selling accounts is okay - the only reason 25% of people have voted in favor of buying and selling accounts is because they've gotten past the way you worded it.

Account selling at bitcointalk needs to stop. However, there's absolutely nothing that can be done about it. So, feel free to vote in favor of stopping account selling - just understand that if the option you're voting for wins, nothing will be changed because banning account selling will not stop anything.

If I don't want to pay higher taxes for a better education system, it doesn't mean "I'm for stupid, uneducated children." If I think abortion should be the choice of the person who is pregnant, it doesn't mean "I'm against life." If I don't think corporations should have to obey stricter environmental laws, it doesn't mean "I'm against the environment."

It's so much easier to say "I'm for the environment" or "I'm for educating our children" than it is to say the opposite, because practically nobody is against these things. However, just because something is considered "good," doesn't mean that the proposed process to benefit this cause is necessarily a good idea.

Here is how the poll should be written (of course, there still is a slight bias, as the order of the options will affect the voting):

Title: Should There Be a Rule Against Buying and Selling Accounts?

• Buying and selling of accounts should be prohibited.
• Buying and selling accounts should not be prohibited.

People who are indifferent shouldn't vote. If you want to have an indifferent option, its total should be added to whatever choice is against the change - in this case, that would be "The selling of accounts should not be prohibited."

Then, in the post, rather than just explaining your point of view, you should give both points of view in an unbiased fashion.  

That's what an actual poll would be. Of course, this isn't an actual poll - it's really just a petition (a petition to change nothing...). However, you've made it seem like a poll, even though it's not even close to being a fair poll.

[medUSA]

The part I am worried about is the trust system....

If someone have access to 20 accounts, he could make a normal "hero member" super trusted
and scam with it, like offering escrow or buying/selling bitcoins
or simply sell trust ratings to potential scammers

I understand it will be impossible to prevent selling of accounts privately
we should at least ban posts that openly offer to buy accounts

[theymos]

If someone have access to 20 accounts, he could make a normal "hero member" super trusted
and scam with it, like offering escrow or buying/selling bitcoins
or simply sell trust ratings to potential scammers

You don't understand how the Trust system works.

[hilariousandco]

I don't agree that accounts should be openly allowed to be sold, nor do I agree with the logic that we can't stop it so just let it be. You can't stop it, but you can police it and make it more difficult. I made my points in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=367586.0

An account is a commodity like any other. Why should it be treated differently?

Should we treat your identity/passport/social security number as a commodity to be bought and sold to the highest bidder too?

IMO, account selling is somewhat analogous to selling a business.

Not if you're selling it to the mafia as a front to commit crimes and fraud.

Obviously there's two sides to this argument, but allowing it seems like you're not only condoning it but encouraging it.

My 0.02BTC.

[maursader]

This poll is not worded fairly. Very few people actually think buying and selling accounts is okay - the only reason 25% of people have voted in favor of buying and selling accounts is because they've gotten past the way you worded it.

Account selling at bitcointalk needs to stop. However, there's absolutely nothing that can be done about it. So, feel free to vote in favor of stopping account selling - just understand that if the option you're voting for wins, nothing will be changed because banning account selling will not stop anything.

If I don't want to pay higher taxes for a better education system, it doesn't mean "I'm for stupid, uneducated children." If I think abortion should be the choice of the person who is pregnant, it doesn't mean "I'm against life." If I don't think corporations should have to obey stricter environmental laws, it doesn't mean "I'm against the environment."

It's so much easier to say "I'm for the environment" or "I'm for educating our children" than it is to say the opposite, because practically nobody is against these things. However, just because something is considered "good," doesn't mean that the proposed process to benefit this cause is necessarily a good idea.

Here is how the poll should be written (of course, there still is a slight bias, as the order of the options will affect the voting):

Title: Should There Be a Rule Against Buying and Selling Accounts?

• Buying and selling of accounts should be prohibited.
• Buying and selling accounts should not be prohibited.

People who are indifferent shouldn't vote. If you want to have an indifferent option, its total should be added to whatever choice is against the change - in this case, that would be "The selling of accounts should not be prohibited."

Then, in the post, rather than just explaining your point of view, you should give both points of view in an unbiased fashion.  

That's what an actual poll would be. Of course, this isn't an actual poll - it's really just a petition (a petition to change nothing...). However, you've made it seem like a poll, even though it's not even close to being a fair poll.

I see your point, and I can edit the poll questions to suit it, except for the votes for the indifferent ones. If I do that, we lose 18 votes (at the time I write this).

I'm afraid of any sort of backlash this may make. Alternatively, I could zero the votes out essentially restarting the poll, however we would lose 88 votes (at the time of writing this).

Thoughts?

Edit: I'm taking feedback via comments to get a general feel to see what's the best course of action while upsetting the least amount of people here. All feedback is appreciated.

[jackjack]

I could zero the votes out essentially restarting the poll, however we would lose 88 votes (at the time of writing this).

I vote for this

[dewdeded]

Why not installing a good automaticDouble Account Detection, eg. one Flash-Cookie-based? It would detect 95% of these idiots, because they don't know about Flash Cookies.

[maursader]

Why not installing a good automaticDouble Account Detection, eg. one Flash-Cookie-based? It would detect 95% of these idiots, because they don't know about Flash Cookies.

Wouldn't be a hard thing to do.

[dewdeded]

I know for sure, from many bigger forums, that these flash-based "Double Account Detection"-scripts work very good. (High correct detection rate, only "false-positive", when two legimite users share one acc.)

[hilariousandco]

Why not installing a good automaticDouble Account Detection, eg. one Flash-Cookie-based? It would detect 95% of these idiots, because they don't know about Flash Cookies.

Having multiple accounts isn't disallowed.

[e521]

I agree with changing the wording. or close this topic and create a completely new one!
I also think you can't stop people from selling accounts but at least the forum admin should take a position

Best thing is never ever trust anybody with irreversible transactions

[hilariousandco]

I also think you can't stop people from selling accounts but at least the forum admin should take a position

He has. The selling of accounts is not disallowed.

[ajax3592]

It has to stop. What we are doing is making it easy for scammers, they get a 6-10 months old account and the one's who deal with them subconsciously get an idea that, "Hey, that's an old chap, must be reliable!"

[malevolent]

It has to stop. What we are doing is making it easy for scammers, they get a 6-10 months old account and the one's who deal with them subconsciously get an idea that, "Hey, that's an old chap, must be reliable!"

"6 month old account" and "reliable" in one sentence?

[hilariousandco]

It has to stop. What we are doing is making it easy for scammers, they get a 6-10 months old account and the one's who deal with them subconsciously get an idea that, "Hey, that's an old chap, must be reliable!"

I think it''s best to look for evidence of reliability by checking out there trades history and recent activity. Just because somebody has been here 6-10 months doesn’t make them reliable. Most decent traders will have plenty of evidence of trades they can link you to, and/or have a rep thread.

[KonstantinosM]

Send me all your bitcoins, I'm reliable!  

By the way, since it is impossible to enforce I just picked neutral.

[hilariousandco]

Send me all your bitcoins, I'm reliable!  

By the way, since it is impossible to enforce I just picked neutral.

It's not impossible to enforce, but to enforce fully it is, but that doesn't mean we should let it happen or remain neutral. It's impossible to enforce fully the sale of child porn and weapons but I don't think that means we should take a neutral stance on it.

[jackjack]

It has to stop. What we are doing is making it easy for scammers, they get a 6-10 months old account and the one's who deal with them subconsciously get an idea that, "Hey, that's an old chap, must be reliable!"

Lol

Actually the ones dealing with them will subconsciously get an idea that "account age doesn't mean anything as accounts can be sold"
Problem solved

[Mike Christ]

Send me all your bitcoins, I'm reliable!  

By the way, since it is impossible to enforce I just picked neutral.

It's not impossible to enforce, but to enforce fully it is, but that doesn't mean we should let it happen or remain neutral. It's impossible to enforce fully the sale of child porn and weapons but I don't think that means we should take a neutral stance on it.

As you can see, the threat that anyone caught selling CP will be punished/ostracized has resulted in CP being sold in secret.  The only way to reveal these secret trades is to put a stop to privacy.  Thoughts?

[hilariousandco]

Send me all your bitcoins, I'm reliable!  

By the way, since it is impossible to enforce I just picked neutral.

It's not impossible to enforce, but to enforce fully it is, but that doesn't mean we should let it happen or remain neutral. It's impossible to enforce fully the sale of child porn and weapons but I don't think that means we should take a neutral stance on it.

As you can see, the threat that anyone caught selling CP will be punished/ostracized has resulted in CP being sold in secret.  The only way to reveal these secret trades is to put a stop to privacy.  Thoughts?

I think people who buy/sell accounts should be ostracised. If somebody PMd me to try flog me CP, I'd report it, and I think we should treat the buying and sale of accounts in the same way. Obviously we can never stop the sale of accounts fully, but at least we can police it as a community and not tolerate it in an attempt to minimise their sale. It'd be a hell of a lot harder to buy and sell accounts if people were prohibited and wern't allowed to do so publicly, and if they did privately it'd be a reportable offence which could lead to a banning or being banned from PMing or whatnot.

[maursader]

I'll be collecting results of this poll in 3 more days.

[themailman]

I'll be collecting results of this poll in 3 more days.

To null the "it can't be enforced with 100% efficiency" argument, consider starting a poll about threads advertising buying and selling of accounts.  It is possible to ban such threads, and ban users starting them.

Arguing that "it is better to allow selling accounts because when done in the open, people will know that it is happening" fails on a couple of levels.

First, most users don't know that this is happening.  The TOS a user signs (not that anyone reads them) don't have a caplock clause "OH, AND BTW, ACCOUNTS ARE BOUGHT AND SOLD HERE, SO AN ESTABLISHED USER IS MOST LIKELY A SOCK ACCOUNT.  Tnx."

Second, most laws are not enforced with total efficiency.  Knowing that some murderers will go unpunished shouldn't be taken as a cue for legalizing murder.

[gmaxwell]

I can just imagine one of the big ASIC sellers , coming here with their hundreds of purchased accounts and down-voting this

You mean up-voting. "Banning" account selling wouldn't stop it— it would only make it more effective because then fewer people would believe its happening.

The best we could probably do is have an "account recovery code"... every account gets a magic code which can't be changed, which can be used to claw back the account at any time. This would make selling accounts slightly less safe because people could claw them back after payment was made.

[SaltySpitoon]

I'll be collecting results of this poll in 3 more days.

To null the "it can't be enforced with 100% efficiency" argument, consider starting a poll about threads advertising buying and selling of accounts.  It is possible to ban such threads, and ban users starting them.

Arguing that "it is better to allow selling accounts because when done in the open, people will know that it is happening" fails on a couple of levels.

First, most users don't know that this is happening.  The TOS a user signs (not that anyone reads them) don't have a caplock clause "OH, AND BTW, ACCOUNTS ARE BOUGHT AND SOLD HERE, SO AN ESTABLISHED USER IS MOST LIKELY A SOCK ACCOUNT.  Tnx."

Second, most laws are not enforced with total efficiency.  Knowing that some murderers will go unpunished shouldn't be taken as a cue for legalizing murder.

Murders can't turn on Tor and 15 proxies in 30 seconds and become completely undetectable. Its openly allowed, because there is a very real possibility that 95+% of it couldn't be stopped. Sure we might catch the occasional moron who posts out in the open, but there would be plenty of people using bitmessage and tormail that could make good money off of bootlegged accounts. As it is now, hopefully people don't see 2 year old accounts as any more trustworthy than new members. If account selling was "banned" then people would start to trust that these old accounts are the original owners, and they should be trusted due to their time commitment. When in reality, they probably just bought the account for $20 on ebay, to pull a scam.

[hilariousandco]

The best we could probably do is have an "account recovery code"... every account gets a magic code which can't be changed, which can be used to claw back the account at any time. This would make selling accounts slightly less safe because people could claw them back after payment was made.

Can't you just do that via forgot password/ secret question and get it sent back to your original email address, or can those things be easily changed as soon as someone gains access to the account?

[yatsey87]

Somebody PMd me offering to buy my account for 0.001BTC lol. That's about £0.40p. I doubt they'd even bother to send you any money first either. Probably just scam you out of your account.

[themailman]

I'll be collecting results of this poll in 3 more days.

To null the "it can't be enforced with 100% efficiency" argument, consider starting a poll about threads advertising buying and selling of accounts.  It is possible to ban such threads, and ban users starting them.

Arguing that "it is better to allow selling accounts because when done in the open, people will know that it is happening" fails on a couple of levels.

First, most users don't know that this is happening.  The TOS a user signs (not that anyone reads them) don't have a caplock clause "OH, AND BTW, ACCOUNTS ARE BOUGHT AND SOLD HERE, SO AN ESTABLISHED USER IS MOST LIKELY A SOCK ACCOUNT.  Tnx."

Second, most laws are not enforced with total efficiency.  Knowing that some murderers will go unpunished shouldn't be taken as a cue for legalizing murder.

Murders can't turn on Tor and 15 proxies in 30 seconds and become completely undetectable. Its openly allowed, because there is a very real possibility that 95+% of it couldn't be stopped. Sure we might catch the occasional moron who posts out in the open, but there would be plenty of people using bitmessage and tormail that could make good money off of bootlegged accounts. As it is now, hopefully people don't see 2 year old accounts as any more trustworthy than new members. If account selling was "banned" then people would start to trust that these old accounts are the original owners, and they should be trusted due to their time commitment. When in reality, they probably just bought the account for $20 on ebay, to pull a scam.

I find your argument so sound and compelling that i decided to explore the lucrative field of Bitcointalk account marketing.  The franchise/multi-tier model appeals to me the most.  Tell me how I'm doing, here we go:

Dear friend!
Clear reasoning such as yours is prized in today's rapidly changing and challenging world of forum account management!  I am thrilled to offer you this opportunity to join our megawealth-generating firm, Bespoke Vintage Accounts LTD.  As a junior partner, you will receive up to an amazing 90% of each account sold, along with the opportunity to manage and expand your own team of dedicated sales professionals.  But you must ACT NOW!

Sincerely Yours,
   ~Bespoke Vintage Accounts LTD~

[jackjack]

Where is part 2, petition?

[yatsey87]

Where is part 2, petition?

Start one. Not that it'll probably make any difference though.

[jackjack]

Don't get me wrong I don't care about the petition, I just wanted some drama I have popcorn waiting for it

[guybrushthreepwood]

Don't get me wrong I don't care about the petition, I just wanted some drama I have popcorn waiting for it

Y u no post gif?

I've got a feeling I'm going to be seeing a lot of this gif around here.

I reckon the results would roughly been the same if we had another vote anyway.

[Welsh]

I reckon the results would roughly been the same if we had another vote anyway.

The staff have already stated even if 100% voted for it to be disallowed it wouldn't stop it and they wouldn't enforce the rule. Remember that selling accounts doesn't always happen here at the forum. You have reddit and other websites. It would be very difficult to moderate and could result in banning people who haven't sold their account but have been inactive for a very long time.

I see the only way to prevent this is to give whoever is selling accounts/trust negative trust ratings. But, even then that's meaningless.

[guybrushthreepwood]

I reckon the results would roughly been the same if we had another vote anyway.

The staff have already stated even if 100% voted for it to be disallowed it wouldn't stop it and they wouldn't enforce the rule. Remember that selling accounts doesn't always happen here at the forum. You have reddit and other websites. It would be very difficult to moderate and could result in banning people who haven't sold their account but have been inactive for a very long time.

I see the only way to prevent this is to give whoever is selling accounts/trust negative trust ratings. But, even then that's meaningless.

You can't stop spamming or trolling either but you can put in measures to cut it down.

[Jcw188]

It is silly to allow accounts to be sold...it's basically people impersonating someone else in order to get trust which as I understand it is a big part of the BTC community. 

[DoloresMaze]

Fellow Account-holders!
What's this I hear about banning the buying and selling of Bitcointalk accounts?  Have we been sissified by statist stooges?!  Would Ayn Rand allow such cloying nanny-state coddling on her forum?  I ask you, Gentlemen, and I immediately answer: No and a thousand times NO!

Satisfied Account Management Client
Behind 7 proxies

[Mike Christ]

I love this thread.

[maursader]

To all those who have (or have not) voted. The vote counter has been reset. Please vote again.

[SaltySpitoon]

I love this thread.

I don't, it irritates me that people haven't read the thread before posting, nor have they read the other 500 threads about the same topic.

[maursader]

I love this thread.

I don't, it irritates me that people haven't read the thread before posting, nor have they read the other 500 threads about the same topic.

Some of the responses in this thread are complete nonsense, I agree; but we're dealing with something that I thought I'd highlight about this community. This thread is merely a sample of the forum's population to get the sense of how we feel about the topic at hand as a community.

[SaltySpitoon]

Some of the responses in this thread are complete nonsense, I agree; but we're dealing with something that I thought I'd highlight about this community. This thread is merely a sample of the forum's population to get the sense of how we feel about the topic at hand as a community.

But even with 100,000 votes saying, "No account selling shouldn't be allowed" it wouldn't change anything. It is allowed for the reason that has been mentioned probably over 1000 times now conservatively. Its unenforcable, and to say otherwise is just deluding ourselves. Sure, we can say no account selling, and then people will be caught off guard, as the community here isn't technologically retarded (correct use of the word). It will happen anyway, and people will lose a bit of their suspicion, figuring that all old accounts are their original owners, and that they couldn't have just been purchased off of Ebay for $20. People keep saying, "other forums have detection methods!" A *insert type* forum doesn't have the userbase who knows that they can get around any and all tracking methods, nor do they have 200,000 members.

[bromide]

^^

Users of this forum are not technologically retarded and could get around bans.  So you ban users for posts you feel are off-topic.
Of course, the not-technically-retarded users get butthurt and make 10 new accounts to spite you.  Way to win.  If banning doesn't work, don't do it.  Or get good at it, either way.


Users of this forum might not be technically retarded, but we must be retarded in just about every other way.  I mean, to understand that accounts could be bought, we must continuously see accounts traded under our noses, lest we forget.

Yor friend,

Derpy Hooves^~

[maursader]

Now, that's great and all, but from what I understand, and I'm just throwing this out there but, in theory that means, I can create virtually any amount of accounts I want, contributing quality posts until they all get to say.. Full or senior member, and then sell these accounts at a profit when there is a large demand and get away with it? Not sure if that's what you meant, because there are people willing to do that almost systematically. It's not difficult to write insightful posts or threads with a little bit of thinking, and maybe some creativity. Just being the devils advocate here.

Imo, there are ways to automate account selling detection. It's been done before. Not necessarily the selling part, but it's easy to spot the activity. It's not impossible, or difficult for that matter. I'll gladly set it up in turn for a staff position here if it came to that.

[BadBear]

Had several of those people already, it wasn't worth their time so they just moved on to directly scamming people. Knock yourself out though, if you don't value your time very highly.

[SaltySpitoon]

Now, that's great and all, but from what I understand, and I'm just throwing this out there but, in theory that means, I can create virtually any amount of accounts I want, contributing quality posts until they all get to say.. Full or senior member, and then sell these accounts at a profit when there is a large demand and get away with it? Not sure if that's what you meant, because there are people willing to do that almost systematically. It's not difficult to write insightful posts or threads with a little bit of thinking, and maybe some creativity. Just being the devils advocate here.

Imo, there are ways to automate account selling detection. It's been done before. Not necessarily the selling part, but it's easy to spot the activity. It's not impossible, or difficult for that matter. I'll gladly set it up in turn for a staff position here if it came to that.

Yes you are. Theres no rules against it, because it would be impossible to stop you from doing so if you had the correct Proxy setup, or used Tor. Its up to the seller's ethics to do their best not to sell to scammers, although scammers can get ahold of the accounts. There are legitimate reasons to buy accounts as well, for example wanting to skip newbie jail, or wanting the username, or even using it for paid signature advertising.

I'd think that scammers may not have the best of luck around here, even after buying accounts, as hopefully, just about no one is trusted, and if they slip up, they get labled a scammer, and are out their money. As well as if they spam for the paid signature advertising, they will get banned and also be out of the money they paid to you.

Could we catch some account sellers? Probably, but more than enough would get through to do damage. Its easy enough to see accounts that have been inactive since 2011 being sold, however what if you were to raise an account up until mid january, sell it in late january, or even february. How hard would it be for the seller to post on the account once or twice per day to keep it active? They would also be increasing the post/activity count and making it more valuable. That wouldn't be very suspicious, especially amongst the other 200,000 acounts. We need to be able to catch all or none. If we don't catch all, people who have old accounts will be trusted, which they shouldnt. If we catch none, no one is trusted, and thats how it should be.

[maursader]

Now, that's great and all, but from what I understand, and I'm just throwing this out there but, in theory that means, I can create virtually any amount of accounts I want, contributing quality posts until they all get to say.. Full or senior member, and then sell these accounts at a profit when there is a large demand and get away with it? Not sure if that's what you meant, because there are people willing to do that almost systematically. It's not difficult to write insightful posts or threads with a little bit of thinking, and maybe some creativity. Just being the devils advocate here.

Imo, there are ways to automate account selling detection. It's been done before. Not necessarily the selling part, but it's easy to spot the activity. It's not impossible, or difficult for that matter. I'll gladly set it up in turn for a staff position here if it came to that.

Yes you are. Theres no rules against it, because it would be impossible to stop you from doing so if you had the correct Proxy setup, or used Tor. Its up to the seller's ethics to do their best not to sell to scammers, although scammers can get ahold of the accounts. There are legitimate reasons to buy accounts as well, for example wanting to skip newbie jail, or wanting the username, or even using it for paid signature advertising.

I'd think that scammers may not have the best of luck around here, even after buying accounts, as hopefully, just about no one is trusted, and if they slip up, they get labled a scammer, and are out their money. As well as if they spam for the paid signature advertising, they will get banned and also be out of the money they paid to you.

Could we catch some account sellers? Probably, but more than enough would get through to do damage. Its easy enough to see accounts that have been inactive since 2011 being sold, however what if you were to raise an account up until mid january, sell it in late january, or even february. How hard would it be for the seller to post on the account once or twice per day to keep it active? They would also be increasing the post/activity count and making it more valuable. That wouldn't be very suspicious, especially amongst the other 200,000 acounts. We need to be able to catch all or none. If we don't catch all, people who have old accounts will be trusted, which they shouldnt. If we catch none, no one is trusted, and thats how it should be.

That post was so well written, so I quoted it. Not saying I'd do that, in response to BadBear as I do value my time and couldn't be bothered to create/sell accounts as it also goes against my ethics. As for catching sellers, you're right, the sellers could use Tor, or some sort of proxy to mask their origin, mind you, they will never know where the buyer comes from. There are SMF forum modules that can geolocate/flag users that "appear to be here" and suddenly within the next sign in, "be somewhere else so far away so fast".. etc. Facebook does a pretty decent job at that, and like I've mentioned before, so does vBulletin (with the right coded modules). It all depends on how strict a policy Bitcointalk has on counteracting this.

The point of the poll, is to see and discuss different viewpoints. Ultimately, even if nothing changes, it's just a sample of the forum population.. and what their thoughts are on it. Right now it looks heavily weighted on the "prohibit" side of things lol.. again, not their decision, but the staff right?

[BadBear]

Not staff decision either, admin.

[maursader]

Not staff decision either, admin.

Fair enough, in proper context, I mean Theymos.

[maursader]

Weights seem pretty straight forward on public opinion. 75% against it. Man.

[jackjack]

Again, whatever the opinion is, this will never change

[DoloresMaze]

Again, whatever the opinion is, this will never change

I have it on good authority that all most of the nay votes belong to accounts managed by Account Management LLC, your source of pre-owned and bespoke quality forum accounts.
Use my referral code 1gn0r7heM4nB3h1Nd7h3Cur741nfor additional savings.
-Satisfied Customer

[hilariousandco]

Again, whatever the opinion is, this will never change

I have it on good authority that all most of the nay votes belong to accounts managed by Account Management LLC, your source of pre-owned and bespoke quality forum accounts.
Use my referral code 1gn0r7heM4nB3h1Nd7h3Cur741nfor additional savings.
-Satisfied Customer

Haha. You should've bought some feedback from him too.

[jackjack]

Lol

[DeboraMeeks]

I guess this was made since people would sell/buy them anyway but allowing it in public made it even more popular and even more people doing it as it's "not against the forum rules".  Anyway that's for the admin to decide.

[guybrushthreepwood]

I guess this was made since people would sell/buy them anyway but allowing it in public made it even more popular and even more people doing it as it's "not against the forum rules".  Anyway that's for the admin to decide.

And they have decided, but I agree with you.

[Welsh]

Are we still seriously talking about this? No one likes the act of buying/selling accounts but we are not going to stop it. The staff have made that very clear.

[hilariousandco]

Are we still seriously talking about this? No one likes the act of buying/selling accounts but we are not going to stop it. The staff have made that very clear.

It appears so. I'm sure this debate will rage as long as Bitcointalk exists itself.

[jackjack]

Are we still seriously talking about this? No one likes the act of buying/selling accounts but we are not going to stop it. The staff have made that very clear.

It appears so. I'm sure this debate will rage as long as Bitcointalk exists itself.

I hope you're wrong

[hilariousandco]

Are we still seriously talking about this? No one likes the act of buying/selling accounts but we are not going to stop it. The staff have made that very clear.

It appears so. I'm sure this debate will rage as long as Bitcointalk exists itself.

I hope you're wrong

It will last as long as the why hasn't my activity changed? and the why can't I post anywhere? threads  .