Suggestion: allow on-forum altcoin giveaways for established altcoins

[coinlocket$]

The problem is to say which altcoins are good coins.

Most of them are just altcoins but IMHO if the intention of the user is, in the end, convert the coins in bitcoin the giveaway has a purpose.

Maybe for whatever reason, rich companies can giveaway a ton of altcoins but cannot giveaway bitcoins (fee conversions, etc) and if someone of us normal users gets 50$ (value converted in fiat) can't see how it is bad for the community.

I agree this is a BTC forum and almost all altcoin are scams and maybe on those giveaways, a rule can be "XXX coin or same value converted in bitcoin".

[ABCbits]

There's too many bias when we're talking about altcoin. For example, some consider ETH is shitcoin which allow various shit tokens exist, but few people like ETH due to it's smart contract and allow few things such as gambling, DEX and games.

If altcoin giveaway were to be allowed, IMO there are few restriction or treatment must be made to prevent total chaos such as :
1. Signature is completely disabled
2. Only Jr. Member or above allowed to post
3. Shows warning, just like thread on "Investor-based games" board. Modified example from "Investor-based games" board :

Warning: You are in the Altcoin giveaway section. It's likely you will lose your money, become victim of identity theft and/or receive malicious message on your email/social media. Additionally, moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Do not gamble more than you can afford to lose.

[Pmalek]

I don't see why certain changes to altcoin giveaways couldn't be made or why that would hurt the forum. The easiest way to do it is to allow only Top 10/20 coins according to CMC. That would prevent questioning admin decisions as to why a certain coin was allowed or not allowed. Only those being used, stored and traded the most are allowed - others aren't.

Grin was also not something Satoshi brought and it has become a payment method on his forum. Good, why wouldn't it. We will soon see Taproot and Schnorr Signature upgrades but Satoshi didn't envision that either.

I like Bitcoin better but if someone prefers to use ETH that is his right, I don't care. If that someone wants to give away a $50 ETH it doesn't hurt me in any way. Heck if he gave it to me I would exchange it for BTC so there you go, ETH finally has a use case. 

I think we are too small of a community and interest group to be holding each other back.       

[Chlotide]

So...
This whole giveaway idea should usually help new coins/tokens.
Let's assume I develop a new coin (a.k.a clone some other coin and change parameters: total supply, block time and ticker)
I just created [CHL]Coin and now would like to make a giveaway or airdrop. Logic would dictate that I would be giving out CHL coin. That is my product. Not ETH, LTC etc.
Since it is a new coin it definitely is not on any exchanges (even if roadmap says "in progress to list"). Anyone who does a giveaway wants to promote, make potential users familiar, have some use it and have some hodl it.
The idea to allow just a few alts will help only services or layer 2 business ideas. Exchanges, casinos, mixers etc. Not really fair to the coin cloning devs

The point is: if I make cookies I will host a contest and winner gets cookies, not croissants.

Still not sure what got into you guys ... if you want to diversify your portfolios do some fb bounties! It's honest work
As I said before: as long as there are no wallet address posts anyone can go crazy with giveaways.
Want to see ETH in games and rounds ? Go to vitaliktalk.org (domain available btw) !

[Lauda]

I like Bitcoin better but if someone prefers to use ETH that is his right, I don't care.

If somebody is too stupid to properly asses which is actually a genuine coin and which is a scam, then you should care. If you do not, then there is a fundamental morality flaw (or a "I do not care as long as I can binge on Netflix flaw").

So...
This whole giveaway idea should usually help new coins/tokens.

And what and who exactly does this help? The coin spammers to steal more money from people? Have we learned nothing from when the first bullshit altcoins were created?

[Chlotide]

And what and who exactly does this help? The coin spammers to steal more money from people?

ICO's steal money. Giveaways offers worthless and potentially still worthless coins.
Don't know about you but never felt poorer after receiving an airdrop. But that's just me I guess

[Lauda]

And what and who exactly does this help? The coin spammers to steal more money from people?

ICO's steal money. Giveaways offers worthless and potentially still worthless coins.
Don't know about you but never felt poorer after receiving an airdrop. But that's just me I guess

Giveaways lead to word of the mouth spreading (free marketing) leading to gullible people buying the coin whenever it can be bought leading to financial losses.
Ultimately I also draw on this questioning: Do we not have enough problems here? Are not enough people getting fooled by coins? Are not enough people losing money? Do we really need more? 

[Pmalek]

If somebody is too stupid to properly asses which is actually a genuine coin and which is a scam, then you should care. If you do not, then there is a fundamental morality flaw...

Me or you caring or not caring will not change the fact that ETH is a Top 5 (if not a Top 3) coin in terms of market cap and trading volume, would you agree with me on that? If that volume is fake or not, is not for me to say. But that is what the numbers say. The crypto community is certainly using it.

As for morality, be sure that I know how to distinguish right from wrong, and I know which group I belong to.
 

So...
This whole giveaway idea should usually help new coins/tokens.

That is exactly what it is not supposed to do. It's not a new bounty idea to help the newest "revolutionary, world-changing ICO". The topic of discussion is whether or not to allow giveaways for "established" altcoins.  

[Chlotide]

For the record I also think altcoin giveaways should remain where they are: somewhere else !

Giveaways lead to word of the mouth spreading (free marketing) leading to gullible people buying the coin whenever it can be bought leading to financial losses.

As long as you invest you should also take the risks involved and there are plenty, that's for sure.
Just wanted to emphasize there is a difference between ICO and giveaway, one is stealing the other is advertising for the stealing platform )

That is exactly what it is not supposed to do. It's not a new bounty idea to help the newest "revolutionary, world-changing ICO". The topic of discussion is whether or not to allow giveaways for "established" altcoins. 

My point was it would not make sense for new projects to offer giveaways in other "established crypto". It would make sense only for services. And why change things around here just for their sake ?
Scams are not moderated but at least spam is. And these giveaways tend to create lots of it.

Not if you compare money you could earn from other job rather than search and join airdrop, which usually require some kind of  verification that takes some time.

I know... The last airdrop I joined made me furious as f**k. Make an account here, share this link on fb, share this on twitter, write here, add your details there... Never felt so angry and embarrassed for a few bucks (if I'm lucky). Not joining another anytime soon...

[UserU]

I know... The last airdrop I joined made me furious as f**k. Make an account here, share this link on fb, share this on twitter, write here, add your details there... Never felt so angry and embarrassed for a few bucks (if I'm lucky). Not joining another anytime soon...

Even if you received the airdrops, the chances to trade them for ETH or some similar alts are pretty slim since their trading volumes and/ or the prices are pretty low.

Once, many years back I joined some airdrop called PIXEL. Completed the tasks and was awarded the tokens worth like $4. Eventually I found out I had to send them to a decentralized exchange (since there weren't other exchanges supporting it) which meant forking out another few bucks to cover the costs, not to mention the trading fees later on.

I was like fuck this shit, I'm out.

[Lauda]

If somebody is too stupid to properly asses which is actually a genuine coin and which is a scam, then you should care. If you do not, then there is a fundamental morality flaw...

Me or you caring or not caring will not change the fact that ETH is a Top 5 (if not a Top 3) coin in terms of market cap and trading volume, would you agree with me on that? If that volume is fake or not, is not for me to say. But that is what the numbers say. The crypto community is certainly using it.

The market cap is irrelevant. Market cap is a numbers game by few big individuals or couple groups of such individuals. Entirely irrelevant. If I can protect a single person from being scammed by ETH, then it is my duty to do so. Anything else is morally wrong and one is apathetic or worse, morally evil.

Giveaways lead to word of the mouth spreading (free marketing) leading to gullible people buying the coin whenever it can be bought leading to financial losses.

As long as you invest you should also take the risks involved and there are plenty, that's for sure.
Just wanted to emphasize there is a difference between ICO and giveaway, one is stealing the other is advertising for the stealing platform )

Utopian wishful thinking gets us nowhere in practice.

Ultimately I also draw on this questioning: Do we not have enough problems here? Are not enough people getting fooled by coins? Are not enough people losing money? Do we really need more?  

[DooMAD]

I'm conflicted on this one.  I'm naturally drawn to the pragmatism of the "live and let live" attitude some have expressed, but I also have a weird kind of respect for Lauda's decidedly puritanical stance.  

Looking at it solely from an impartial, practical sense, I can only ever see it creating a constantly moving set of goalposts if, once we've even established what the criteria is, we try to judge whether an "established" altcoin remains so over time.  Crypto moves pretty fast.  I remember a period when Namecoin and Peercoin were considered part of the furniture, traded for BTC on just about every exchange you could sign up for, but now they're just largely forgotten trinkets for bagholders.  What might be viewed as established today may not stay that way tomorrow, so it's just going to cause arguments later down the line when someone has to make the arbitrary decision that <x> coin is not allowed to be included in on-forum giveaways anymore, but rising-star <y> coin suddenly is.

[Lauda]

I'm conflicted on this one.  I'm naturally drawn to the pragmatism of the "live and let live" attitude some have expressed, but I also have a weird kind of respect for Lauda's decidedly puritanical stance.  

Thank you.

Looking at it solely from an impartial, practical sense, I can only ever see it creating a constantly moving set of goalposts if, once we've even established what the criteria is, we try to judge whether an "established" altcoin remains so over time.  Crypto moves pretty fast.  I remember a period when Namecoin and Peercoin were considered part of the furniture, traded for BTC on just about every exchange you could sign up for, but now they're just largely forgotten trinkets for bagholders.  What might be viewed as established today may not stay that way tomorrow, so it's just going to cause arguments later down the line when someone has to make the arbitrary decision that <x> coin is not allowed to be included in on-forum giveaways anymore, but rising-star <y> coin suddenly is.

As you said, it is not practical either and opens a can of worms. I think this may also lead to many more problems. What happens when somebody buys some coin because the forum staff declared it as established (this being the sole reason for their purchase), but it ends up being a disastrous scam of sorts? Who is to blame?  It is just simple and easier not to do this.

[LoyceV]

Allowing one altcoin giveaway to be discussed here and denying another doesn’t seem to fit with free speech.

I don't see what this has to do with free speech. You can still discuss any shitcoin elsewhere, you just can't give them away. Just like it is now for that matter.

And - correct me if I'm wrong - it's not the actual giveaways that are forbidden, it's the "I want to join this giveaway, here's my address" type of posts. In other words, if someone wants to run an altcoin giveaway outside of the forum and even link it here - that should be fine. As long as they don't incentivize low-effort posting/bumping.

That is indeed my understanding. Viewing this from a different angle I don't even know why low-effort posting for a Bitcoins giveaway is allowed.

What bothers me is the rule of banning and if you got me earlier then it's not very friendly rule which is obviously confusing or we would not see so many users got trapped in it including a lot of us who are well aware of the rules and respect it by heart. Do you think some of the users really care much about those altcoin if they had this in mind in the next morning they will see they are banned? The answer is of course NO.

I had this in mind too, when I posted my suggestion. I get where the instant temporary ban is coming from, namely ending spam. But many other rules can be broken without an instant ban. Spamming referral links for instance will only get your post deleted, and I don't believe joining a giveaway deserves a bigger punishment.

Currently there's very little stopping a casino or an exchange from creating a thread with a promotion saying "Go to our website, enter "bitcointalk.org" as a promo code, and receive 1 billion shitcoins that we now accept."  As far as I know that would not be against the rules, and no spam will result from it.

Correct. But why would they do that, if they barely get any publicity that way? For the same reason Bitcointalk allows millions of "proof of authentication" posts: the spammers promote the thread, and again, I find this worse than joining a giveaway with real value.

but this negative consequence is made worse by the fact that most of the world will be spending an increased amount of time on the internet in the coming weeks.

It's like we're all grounded.

Didn't see anyone complain before this 7 day ban that got cut short.

Correct, the fact that that many well-known users thought posting there wouldn't be a problem made me doubt the current rules.

@LoyceV what do you mean by established shitcoins? Top 10 CMC:

Several of those I've never used. But if someone were to offer a $100 giveaway, I wouldn't mind checking how to convert it to Bitcoin.

I think an on the record /public apology by the likes of mprep etc is warranted.

I couldn't disagree more. Don't blame the messanger, mprep is just fair to all, without special treatment for established users.

[Chlotide]

...

The problem is bigger that that... Let's assume that mods pick the cream of the crop shitcoins and giveaways with those coins are fair game. That means somehow they are acknowledging that coin. They are proposing it, trust it, even advertise it.
Nobody wants to do that... especially theymos.
Seems to be the same case as ICO adversiting on the forum... a no go!
Which coin are you confortable to recomend?  Bitcoin!
Think a bit about this before having any more doubts

[pooya87]

Don't know about you but never felt poorer after receiving an airdrop. But that's just me I guess

it is because you were lucky and/or you received the "airdrop" in a wallet you already had or in a third party wallet like exchanges. there are a lot of people who did get poorer after receiving such "airdrops", example: bitcoin gold giveaway. a lot of users lost their bitcoins after downloading a malicious wallet from the official bitcoin gold website that infected their computer and stole their private keys...

[KonstantinosM]

Here's my solution. Allow everything, but create a special subsection for Altcoin promotional giveaways and here's where the forum benefits. Require every giveaway thread to donate 1 million sats to the forum.

The spam is limited to that board. The forum gets some money. It's win-win.

[LoyceV]

Here's my solution. Allow everything, but create a special subsection for Altcoin promotional giveaways and here's where the forum benefits. Require every giveaway thread to donate 1 million sats to the forum.

The spam is limited to that board. The forum gets some money. It's win-win.

Theymos said the forum doesn't need money (it owns ~1250 Bitcoin).
Even at the peak of ICO spam, when almost every ICO turned into a scam, they could create their Bounty threads with thousands of zombies posting virtually unrestricted. If they didn't have to pay the forum for doing so, I don't think a giveaway should have to pay either.

[Lauda]

Here's my solution. Allow everything, but create a special subsection for Altcoin promotional giveaways and here's where the forum benefits. Require every giveaway thread to donate 1 million sats to the forum.

The spam is limited to that board. The forum gets some money. It's win-win.

People lose money to scammers, win-win indeed. It is time to stop embracing innocent and naive individuals being financially harmed (and in extreme cases ruined) because of own petty greed.

Even at the peak of ICO spam, when almost every ICO turned into a scam, they could create their Bounty threads with thousands of zombies posting virtually unrestricted. If they didn't have to pay the forum for doing so, I don't think a giveaway should have to pay either.

If we did things the wrong way in the past, this means that we should continue doing it the wrong way just because we did it like that previously? I do not follow this logic. The stance towards ICOs was terribly wrong, and everyone knows it. It led to the following: A handful of scammers getting rich, a handful of intelligent scammers getting rich, a fair number of people profiting from the pumping in these scams, and an enormous amount of people being financially harmed. Good stance indeed.

[Pmalek]

Scams are not moderated but at least spam is. And these giveaways tend to create lots of it.

So do Bitcoin giveaways. Those temp bans that were recently issued were given to members who participated during the weeks that altcoins were given out. But when Bitcoin was given away there were no bans. If the spam those types of post create is the problem, then it is all the same.

If I have to post my casino username to get Bitcoin, it's the same type of no-value post as if I have to do the same to get Litecoin.
I understand very well that the bans were not issued for the spam part, but for taking part in an altcoin giveaway. I am just making a point.

a lot of users lost their bitcoins after downloading a malicious wallet from the official bitcoin gold website that infected their computer and stole their private keys...

Users lose Bitcoin every day downloading fake Electrum wallets. The same security measures we undergo when downloading and verifying Electrum should be done with other software as well and if in doubt, don't use it.

Bitcoin Gold is not something I would vote for or allow either and I doubt it would find its way on the list.