Limit to new accounts every month

[94K]

I joined this platform not long ago and I stand to be corrected too and I don't know if this thread has already been created.

I am reading some post here concerning spamming issues and my little contribution is that, I don't really know whether this can be done or not by the forum admins or moderators.

Although Im a newbie but I have gone through the forum all this while and I have seen that newbies are the ones with the most spamming activities and I think the best way could be that, the number of accounts to be created for every month can be set to lets say 2000.

This is because I have seen that when we the newbies join the forum we want to make all the post and get the activities even if its left with a day to the end of the 14 days activities.

Or better still within every 14 activities there can be some number of accounts that can be created. As I said I stand to be corrected and I really obey the comments of the great members on this forum...... When these are taken into consideration I think it will help reduce spam.

Thanks.

[Probinus]

I only understood that we should limit the account creation per month to a hypothetical number.

But with this, the problem is: possible new members that may be quality posters would be eaten by the sheer number of people making alts everyday. Account farmers would be rushing to compete to make accounts since they'd know that there's a limit now.

Also, I think we should resolve the problem internally first before doing anything like this.

[Steamtyme]

The problem with this idea is that the moment the timer rolls over you will have a bunch of bots fighting to take up the quota for the month.

Picture the doors opening on Black Friday, or if you tried ordering Asics last year and they were sold out within minutes

I know for myself I probably never would have registered here if I hadn't been able to the first time around, because I came here looking for answers

[TryNinja]

The problem with this idea is that the moment the timer rolls over you will have a bunch of bots fighting to take up the quota for the month.

Picture the doors opening on Black Friday, or if you tried ordering Asics last year and they were sold out within minutes

This. Let's please not exclude the legitimate users from this forum. There are already too little.

The spammers would just create all their accounts at once and spam the fck of the forum. The average number of registrations per day is already at 452. Your suggested "monthly quota" would be filled in just 4 days.

[DdmrDdmr]

<...> I think the best way could be that, the number of accounts to be created for every month can be set to lets say 2000<...>

Instead of 2000 accounts per month, be a bit more generous and make it 2.674 per month. That way, any new account over that number would be "2 leet" (2*1337) and would be denied creation for been "too late"…
I was kidding obviously. The proposal is rather absurd. There is no need to limit the amount of new users for multiple reasons which should be obvious. The same as there is no IQ test to sign-up, nor a blood test, nor anything of the kind. The problem is not how many enter, but what they do once inside.

[stompix]

I can see theymos implementing this, right after KYC for the forum but not until hell freezes over.

As the rest have said, it will turn into a competition between bots and humans, guess who is going to win.....

The spammers would just create all their accounts at once and spam the fck of the forum. The average number of registrations per day is already at 452. Your suggested "monthly quota" would be filled in just 4 days.

The quota will be filled in less than 1 hour as people will rush to make as many accounts as possible, we're going to see a market for newbie accounts, and in the end, the only ones going to benefit from this are exactly the bot users that right now are destroying the forum.

Fortunately, I give this 0 chances at being implemented.

[acidburn14]

I don't think that having a limit for accepting users is the key to stop spamming. What i think can help lessen the spamming in this forum is restricting newbies to join any bounty campaign and posting anywhere in this forum. I suggest that staff/moderator here should create a board where newbies can create their topics and discuss about the forum and cryptocurrency. In that case mods can easily track which newbies are serious to learn and they can easily spot who are just trolling. It's like that they are quarantined in one board and whoever has the will to learn or to really continue their journey in crypto world will get out. Of couse i know that all newbies are not spammers and the main reason why im suggesting this is for newbies to excel and prove themselves.

[kitty94]

The Idea is absurd!! Because of some spammers other enthusiasts should pay the price?  
 
“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.

-John Adams

PS: I think that You are not a new member, Your previous account must have been banned and here you resurrect again with a cute little trick!  
According to the quoted message you must have doing bounty hunting for a while! Please correct me if I am wrong!

Admin please when will the old spreadsheet going to be updated? Its been a month now but I have not seen anything. Thanks and hope to hear from you.

[shilpyh]

If so, spammers will fulfill the limit of account creation and as a result real users will be unable to signup. So, there should have no limitations for sign up. It may be restricted by Mac if possible. Without mac others are lame.

[pugman]

PS: I think that You are not a new member, You previous account must have been banned and here you resurrect again with a cute little trick! 
According to the quoted message you must have doing bounty hunting for a while! Please correct me if I am wrong!

Admin please when will the old spreadsheet going to be updated? Its been a month now but I have not seen anything. Thanks and hope to hear from you.

He called a campaign manager an admin, he is a jackass. Let him be, he will eventually get banned by breaking some rules.

@kitty94, I see you have a lot of potential, stay around here, you just might do some good stuff around.

As for OP, why do you have to come up with such ideas without thinking it beforehand? Are you doing this for merits? You don't have to steep down this low, just be yourself. This idea isn't the best, and shouldn't be implemented.

[TheHas]

It would create a market for selling newbie accounts.

Take Binance as an example. Remember late last year they had trouble keeping up with sign ups, so limited the number and closed it off for a while. After that all these posts popped up selling Binance accounts for upto 50 bucks just so people could trade on a large exchange.

[Thirdspace]

It would create a market for selling newbie accounts.

that is exactly what crossed my mind would happen if there is such limitation
account farmers would have new market segment for his account sales
I think the proxy ban contributes to the situation,
it prevents spammer account creation to some degree but also increases the number of registrations

[jackg]

I would suggest charging after a number of accounts register per IP.

If we say that there can be 2 accounts per IP made per month, if anohter account is made (or 2 unmerited accounts are open on that IP) the user of those accounts must buy a copper membership/pay 0.001BTC to create their next account. That would probably work better than limiting everything in a more general sense (it might still increase the number of sales of newbie accounts and brand new accounts though).

[rosemary4u]

I would suggest charging after a number of accounts register per IP.

If we say that there can be 2 accounts per IP made per month, if anohter account is made (or 2 unmerited accounts are open on that IP) the user of those accounts must buy a copper membership/pay 0.001BTC to create their next account. That would probably work better than limiting everything in a more general sense (it might still increase the number of sales of newbie accounts and brand new accounts though).

I think that will still contribute to the spamming, the key to promote quality posts on the forum is not by account restriction by IP. I think the payment of some amount of bitcoin when a newly created is ban from posting is already in place. One of the ways to prevent users from spamming is by discouraging users from commenting on trash posts. Hence systems such as a way of demeriting members who spam can be implemented.

[stompix]

I would suggest charging after a number of accounts register per IP.

If we say that there can be 2 accounts per IP made per month, if anohter account is made (or 2 unmerited accounts are open on that IP) the user of those accounts must buy a copper membership/pay 0.001BTC to create their next account. That would probably work better than limiting everything in a more general sense (it might still increase the number of sales of newbie accounts and brand new accounts though).

I can get a new IP just by restarting my modem since it is dynamically allocated.

This will not stop spammers, somebody who wants to have multiple accounts around here will easily find a way to bypass this. And in some cases, it will just backfire, denying a free registration to a guy that is innocent.

[jackg]

I would suggest charging after a number of accounts register per IP.

If we say that there can be 2 accounts per IP made per month, if anohter account is made (or 2 unmerited accounts are open on that IP) the user of those accounts must buy a copper membership/pay 0.001BTC to create their next account. That would probably work better than limiting everything in a more general sense (it might still increase the number of sales of newbie accounts and brand new accounts though).

I can get a new IP just by restarting my modem since it is dynamically allocated.

This will not stop spammers, somebody who wants to have multiple accounts around here will easily find a way to bypass this. And in some cases, it will just backfire, denying a free registration to a guy that is innocent.

The Tor restrictions kind of already do the second though?
And yes, dchp ISPs do sort of ruin the principal.

[kobita333]

OP, where are you? Why don't you join the discussion?

That's the problem actually. Newbie join and think of having merit. They give a try showing some concerns for forum as you did and then realize, it's not enough and they leave.

So, the limitation will not bring any value.

[tbct_mt2]

I can see theymos implementing this, right after KYC for the forum but not until hell freezes over.

What did you imply by mentioning about 'KYC for the forum'?
Can you explain a little bit more about this idea, please.

I have not heard anyone stated about this.

[cissrawk]

I can see theymos implementing this, right after KYC for the forum but not until hell freezes over.

What did you imply by mentioning about 'KYC for the forum'?
Can you explain a little bit more about this idea, please.

I have not heard anyone stated about this.

Its just people suggestion about KYC here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3097811.
and this the quote for "hell freezes"

I'll get right on that, just as soon as hell freezes over.

[jackg]

I can see theymos implementing this, right after KYC for the forum but not until hell freezes over.

What did you imply by mentioning about 'KYC for the forum'?
Can you explain a little bit more about this idea, please.

I have not heard anyone stated about this.

KYC is a "know your cleints"/"know your customers" and means that every user would have to provide ID documents before they could use the site - something we definitely don't want here.