Signature Campaign Must Stop Paying Spammer, Farmer, And Other Abuser

[notocactus]

So are you saying the major reason people are fighting spam in this forum is to protect the companies doing advert in this forum, wow.

The major interest is to clean the forum and not to protect company coming to do advert in this forum, they already have manager’s that will help protect them from hiring spammers.

Short sighted.

There are multiple purposes:

• Keep the forum clean
• Wipe out or at least reduce spammers.
• Save the signature campaign industry, keep its existence rather than shut it down entirely.
• Individually, people will have one of such reasons, more or less.

It's written in forum's Welcome message, and Ideas for improving post quality threads.

What are everyone's ideas for improving post quality?

I have mostly ruled out:

 - Removing signatures or sig ads globally.
 - Requiring payment to wear sig ads.
 - Banning account sales.

The purpose of the forum

This forum exists to provide a platform for the free (but ordered) exchange of ideas. If you have an idea to express, then it is probably possible to do it here as long as you follow the rules.

A lot of people come here primarily looking to make money. The forum administration is very happy that people are able to use the forum in order to better themselves; indeed, one of the reasons for Bitcoin's creation was to break the artificial barriers which prevent so many people around the world from attaining prosperity. However, if your attempts to make money conflict with the forum's primary goal of enabling discussion, then you are swimming upstream, and you will not be sucessful in the end.

If you view the forum as some sort of "job" where you complete some basic tasks and get paid, then you will almost certainly be disappointed, and the forum administration will not be sympathetic. If you do make money using the forum, then it will be through innovation and entrepreneurship, not any sort of mindless busywork.

[nutildah]

Perhaps the best solution would be—instead of accepting questionable posters in campaigns, which would likely result in a signature ban as well as in this case—to increase the maximum number of paid posts per person per week.

It highly depends on who is doing the posting. Most high-volume sig campaigners run out of actual things to say after ~20 posts per week, and then start writing filler fluff after that (in an average week). This does not apply to everybody. There are some accounts posting 40-50 posts a week and I would never think to sigban them because their posts are for the most part of decent quality, or at least genuine. Most posters do not have this ability, however.

In general, I'm strongly against incentivizing people to post if they have nothing to say.

[Revolution2025]

Perhaps the best solution would be—instead of accepting questionable posters in campaigns, which would likely result in a signature ban as well as in this case—to increase the maximum number of paid posts per person per week.

It highly depends on who is doing the posting. Most high-volume sig campaigners run out of actual things to say after ~20 posts per week, and then start writing filler fluff after that (in an average week). This does not apply to everybody. There are some accounts posting 40-50 posts a week and I would never think to sigban them because their posts are for the most part of decent quality, or at least genuine. Most posters do not have this ability, however.

In general, I'm strongly against incentivizing people to post if they have nothing to say.

the only time you can identify who is not posting exclusively to earn from signature campaign is when they are not wearing advertising codes

everyone wearing a signature campaign advertising codes is posting to earn

if you doubt this i will request that you should do an experiment and sigban an active quality poster who is earning from a signature campaign let's see how their activity will look like moving forward

Satofan44 is a quality poster but as soon as he was kicked out from the signature campaign that he was earning from, the account went dormant since on 29th Sept 2026, I'm surprised that you haven't sigbanned that account yet even when it is clear they were previously posting to earn from signature campaign

you are very biased in your judgment that's why i call you a hypocrite

[Sandra_hakeem]

Perhaps the best solution would be—instead of accepting questionable posters in campaigns, which would likely result in a signature ban as well as in this case—to increase the maximum number of paid posts per person per week.

This. There are sig campaigns that are having huge budgets, yet they are filled with below average posters that are getting sig banned on the regular basis. Wouldn't it make more sense to cut the numbers of participants and increase weekly caps, therefore potentially attract better posters, in a way CM did in the past.

It makes sense to you, and probably would do to any other person reading your post, but these signature campaigns have a goal; it's mainly for how many people wear the signature/avatar multiplied by how much post they can generate collectively. It's eases them to employ more work force to do just as much as they could, instead of employing a few elite to do so much. You know what? I'll tell you for free that should this be implemented, most good posters will slowly begin to spam because:

Most high-volume sig campaigners run out of actual things to say after ~20 posts per week, and then start writing filler fluff after that (in an average week).

[There you go.]

[coupable]

You can’t just prompt AI to give you a list of farm accounts and expect it to be accurate. Some of these accounts are questionable hence the neutral tag but your thread doesn’t add anything new to the case. If you really want to expose farmers, then do it the traditional way - connect the accounts with bitcoin addresses, post style and pattern.

He can't do this because he is using an alt account. Either he is himself a spammer with low-quality posts, so he did not get the chance to participate in any signature campaigns. Or he's trying to dox reputed forum managers. His aim is not to clean the forum of spammers. Still not sure why he chose to post with an alt. I don't see anything wrong with it, and no one's going to tag his profile.

[Free Market Capitalist]

It highly depends on who is doing the posting. Most high-volume sig campaigners run out of actual things to say after ~20 posts per week, and then start writing filler fluff after that (in an average week). This does not apply to everybody. There are some accounts posting 40-50 posts a week and I would never think to sigban them because their posts are for the most part of decent quality, or at least genuine. Most posters do not have this ability, however.

In general, I'm strongly against incentivizing people to post if they have nothing to say.

Whether you like it or not, payments for signature campaigns encourage everyone to post. If theymos were to ban these campaigns, we’d see just how little the people who post now would have to say.

A middle ground, however, might be for each manager to offer personalized deals to the best posters. I was part of a campaign in the past that generally paid for up to 25 posts, but there were five of us whom the manager paid for up to 35. That’s not too many posts—like 50—and those extra 10 posts could be offered to people who clearly aren’t going to shitpost.

[Sandra_hakeem]

The major interest is to clean the forum and not to protect company coming to do advert in this forum, they already have manager’s that will help protect them from hiring spammers.

Short sighted.

@SuperBitman I couldn't just ignore this statement from you. Has there ever been a narrative that fighting spam is directly or indirectly protecting the promotional campaign companies on this forum? Quote me a part of that.

For so many years, people have been getting paid to spam the forum and I haven't seen a case where a campaign comes up with a thread to address those as minuses--- it slowly became a perfunctory duty for these users and, for lack of options and considering the urgency for long-term continuity, we can assume that it drives the traffic that those campaigns need.

So what rightfully needs to be protected is the forum. It's short sighted like Cactus said to think the managers can protect either the campaign or the forum. Expose the darkest, but with a solid prove and you have successfully created a two-way safety for both. Ignore them and it's only a matter of time that topics about spam will slip into a cliché.

[Rikafip]

You know what? I'll tell you for free that should this be implemented, most good posters will slowly begin to spam

I am not saying that managers should go full retard and set crazy weekly quotas like in some campaigns where up to 85 posts per week are paid, but instead be reasonable.

One of the good things about running sig campaign that pays more than the others is that you can afford to be strict when evaluating posts, knowing that there are hundreds of members just waiting in line to replace those that get removed. I mean, its not like we didn't have high paying campaigns like that in the past so now we have to speculate what would happen.

[suzanne5223]

Jack.com [CFNP]
campaign thread | spreadsheet (tab: Week6) | manager: suzanne5223
Flagged participants: 1 of 8 (12.5%)

User	Rank	Trust (+/-)	Violation
Gozie51		0/1/0	Spamming

Thank you for the information, but I will appreciate if you can provide an indepth information through dm about the user spam you stated, so I can be sure if it's not the same spam which the user was tagged for years ago by a trusted member.
The trusted member that tagged him is inactive for years , and the last time I checked the campaign rules does not give room to the reason why the user was tagged spammer years ago.

[lovesmayfamilis]

You can’t just prompt AI to give you a list of farm accounts and expect it to be accurate. Some of these accounts are questionable hence the neutral tag but your thread doesn’t add anything new to the case. If you really want to expose farmers, then do it the traditional way - connect the accounts with bitcoin addresses, post style and pattern.

He can't do this because he is using an alt account. Either he is himself a spammer with low-quality posts, so he did not get the chance to participate in any signature campaigns. Or he's trying to dox reputed forum managers. His aim is not to clean the forum of spammers. Still not sure why he chose to post with an alt. I don't see anything wrong with it, and no one's going to tag his profile.

He bluntly said that he was afraid of being exposed by those against whom he had set up his "bayonets" of criticism. What can this mean? That he knows directly those who have account farms, and, naturally, they also know him. But who should be afraid in such cases?  in such cases, only those with something to hide should be worried. For example, I don't need to, because I have one account and I don't have any "family" ties. Anyone who is not afraid of exposure has nothing to fear, but the OP seems to have a different story here. He seems intent on purging everyone except his own alts😃.

[libert19]

Satofan44 is a quality poster but as soon as he was kicked out from the signature campaign that he was earning from, the account went dormant since on 29th Sept 2026, I'm surprised that you haven't sigbanned that account yet even when it is clear they were previously posting to earn from signature campaign

Lol, you want most of forum sigbanned? Sigbans are related to content user pours out and not related to whether user is posting for signatures.

You can’t just prompt AI to give you a list of farm accounts and expect it to be accurate. Some of these accounts are questionable hence the neutral tag but your thread doesn’t add anything new to the case. If you really want to expose farmers, then do it the traditional way - connect the accounts with bitcoin addresses, post style and pattern.

He can't do this because he is using an alt account. Either he is himself a spammer with low-quality posts, so he did not get the chance to participate in any signature campaigns. Or he's trying to dox reputed forum managers. His aim is not to clean the forum of spammers. Still not sure why he chose to post with an alt. I don't see anything wrong with it, and no one's going to tag his profile.

Looking at op's competency at what he has spouted, I don't think even original account would be having much credibility.

...but the OP seems to have a different story here. He seems intent on purging everyone except his own alts😃.

It's possible, posting with a main ac would bring attention on the account and lead to, 'revelations' — as we have seen a few times before.

[coupable]

You can’t just prompt AI to give you a list of farm accounts and expect it to be accurate. Some of these accounts are questionable hence the neutral tag but your thread doesn’t add anything new to the case. If you really want to expose farmers, then do it the traditional way - connect the accounts with bitcoin addresses, post style and pattern.

He can't do this because he is using an alt account. Either he is himself a spammer with low-quality posts, so he did not get the chance to participate in any signature campaigns. Or he's trying to dox reputed forum managers. His aim is not to clean the forum of spammers. Still not sure why he chose to post with an alt. I don't see anything wrong with it, and no one's going to tag his profile.

Looking at op's competency at what he has spouted, I don't think even original account would be having much credibility.

With an alt you can post about anything, and it is allowed by the forum policy. But posting from his primary account would show his credibility and show that he is ready for a civilized conversation. I am almost sure that a good discussion about why and how to implement strict anti-spamming regulations, will help him get accepted into one of the top 5 highest paying campaigns in the forum, if it is his primary reason on why to ppst this topic here. Btw, this topic should belong to Service Discussion board [1], not to Reputation.

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=85.0

[AakZaki]

If you are going to make accusations, you should not hide behind the statement I quote below.

as the account farmer gang here has the power to doxx members who try to snuff them out.

Unless you are also the same perpetrator as the one you accused.

Then why should we believe your accusations, when you are hiding yourself?
I don't have a problem with someone's right to maintain their privacy. But if you demand transparency from others, you should also be willing to account for every accusation you make.

[yahoo62278]

It highly depends on who is doing the posting. Most high-volume sig campaigners run out of actual things to say after ~20 posts per week, and then start writing filler fluff after that (in an average week). This does not apply to everybody. There are some accounts posting 40-50 posts a week and I would never think to sigban them because their posts are for the most part of decent quality, or at least genuine. Most posters do not have this ability, however.

In general, I'm strongly against incentivizing people to post if they have nothing to say.

Whether you like it or not, payments for signature campaigns encourage everyone to post. If theymos were to ban these campaigns, we’d see just how little the people who post now would have to say.

A middle ground, however, might be for each manager to offer personalized deals to the best posters. I was part of a campaign in the past that generally paid for up to 25 posts, but there were five of us whom the manager paid for up to 35. That’s not too many posts—like 50—and those extra 10 posts could be offered to people who clearly aren’t going to shitpost.

If sig campaigns got banned this place would certainly turn into a ghost town IMO. Yes we would see 10 people or so post, but the majority would be gone in a second.

When offering personalized deals to users it gets quite pricy. We want the best quality user, but you cannot afford to pay 2 guys the whole budget for the week. Companies don't wanna pay thousands upon thousands a week if they can avoid doing so.

[OgNasty]

It highly depends on who is doing the posting. Most high-volume sig campaigners run out of actual things to say after ~20 posts per week, and then start writing filler fluff after that (in an average week). This does not apply to everybody. There are some accounts posting 40-50 posts a week and I would never think to sigban them because their posts are for the most part of decent quality, or at least genuine. Most posters do not have this ability, however.

In general, I'm strongly against incentivizing people to post if they have nothing to say.

Whether you like it or not, payments for signature campaigns encourage everyone to post. If theymos were to ban these campaigns, we’d see just how little the people who post now would have to say.

A middle ground, however, might be for each manager to offer personalized deals to the best posters. I was part of a campaign in the past that generally paid for up to 25 posts, but there were five of us whom the manager paid for up to 35. That’s not too many posts—like 50—and those extra 10 posts could be offered to people who clearly aren’t going to shitpost.

If sig campaigns got banned this place would certainly turn into a ghost town IMO. Yes we would see 10 people or so post, but the majority would be gone in a second.

When offering personalized deals to users it gets quite pricy. We want the best quality user, but you cannot afford to pay 2 guys the whole budget for the week. Companies don't wanna pay thousands upon thousands a week if they can avoid doing so.

Managers have always offered personalized deals…

I agree about the ghost town. This community has been extremely unkind to anyone building any projects here. That is why soon none will be left. So what reason would someone have to come here? Even the pretend forum police would disappear in an instant if their signature campaign income went away. It’s a problem the forum created by pretending to be pro freedom of speech after the massive censorship during the block wars, empowering trolls and those who attack anyone who tries to build anything here. They see it as a win though, because they have more control, less resistance, and they don’t want Bitcoin to be used p2p anyway. It’s a store of value now and they want you using the Lightning network so you can get the Liquid treatment.

[nutildah]

If theymos were to ban these campaigns, we’d see just how little the people who post now would have to say.

A weird proposition because we both know that's not going to happen.

A middle ground, however, might be for each manager to offer personalized deals to the best posters. I was part of a campaign in the past that generally paid for up to 25 posts, but there were five of us whom the manager paid for up to 35. That’s not too many posts—like 50—and those extra 10 posts could be offered to people who clearly aren’t going to shitpost.

Campaign managers are gonna keep doing what they're doing, and I'm gonna keep doing what I'm doing.

[GeorgeJohn]

You can’t just prompt AI to give you a list of farm accounts and expect it to be accurate. Some of these accounts are questionable hence the neutral tag but your thread doesn’t add anything new to the case. If you really want to expose farmers, then do it the traditional way - connect the accounts with bitcoin addresses, post style and pattern.

He can't do this because he is using an alt account. Either he is himself a spammer with low-quality posts, so he did not get the chance to participate in any signature campaigns. Or he's trying to dox reputed forum managers. His aim is not to clean the forum of spammers. Still not sure why he chose to post with an alt. I don't see anything wrong with it, and no one's going to tag his profile.

They're so many people who is afraid to air out their opinion to the public using their main account...maybe his account is connected to someone else, that's why he decided to use an alt..

But from another perspective, If you look at what op pointed out, some of the accounts are doing what op accused them of, but the thing is that,the truth is always hard to believe...if we look down on op because is a newbie or alt, The most important thing is that, we shouldn't look down on the information is trying pass to the community...

[yahoo62278]

Managers have always offered personalized deals…

I agree about the ghost town. This community has been extremely unkind to anyone building any projects here. That is why soon none will be left. So what reason would someone have to come here? Even the pretend forum police would disappear in an instant if their signature campaign income went away. It’s a problem the forum created by pretending to be pro freedom of speech after the massive censorship during the block wars, empowering trolls and those who attack anyone who tries to build anything here. They see it as a win though, because they have more control, less resistance, and they don’t want Bitcoin to be used p2p anyway. It’s a store of value now and they want you using the Lightning network so you can get the Liquid treatment.

Personalized deals to a couple users maybe, but not the whole campaign being only personalized deals. That could get crazy in price for a business. Look at the rates a campaign like CM paid back in the day, most companies I have talked to are trying to pinch a penny wherever they can.

I'm all for a person getting a decent rate as some people are well worth the extra buck. I just know that too many hands in the cookie jar are going to deplete a budget fast.

[xLays]

Let's stop pretending we're here for some noble cause. We're all here for one reason: to make money from BITCOINTALK. That's the whole point.

The only difference between us is our role and how we contribute. Some of us are campaign participants, while others happen to be campaign managers, moderators, or ADMIN. Those titles don't change the fundamental reason we're here.

Being campaign manager, moderator, or admin doesn't suddenly make you any less motivated by money than the user participating in signature campaigns. You're still here to earn, just like everyone else.

So let's cut the hypocrisy. Don't act like your position makes you morally superior to everyone else. At the end of the day, we're all here to make money. The only difference is how we do it, not why we're here.

[libert19]

If sig campaigns got banned this place would certainly turn into a ghost town IMO. Yes we would see 10 people or so post, but the majority would be gone in a second.

When offering personalized deals to users it gets quite pricy. We want the best quality user, but you cannot afford to pay 2 guys the whole budget for the week. Companies don't wanna pay thousands upon thousands a week if they can avoid doing so.

I am sure you know, but exposure marketing is a thing, and for this purpose it's better to hire several decent posters than a handful of higher quality ones. Since, the former exposes the brand better. Plus, for senior rank and above, the signatures are more visible than content itself, and thus brand signatures creates impressions on people's brains — mission successful!

Even the pretend forum police would disappear in an instant if their signature campaign income went away.

I like the term but logically would (pretend) forum police be needed if there are no signatures to begin with? I mean, wouldn't people lose motivations to create alts to farm signature campaigns automatically?

Let's stop pretending we're here for some noble cause. We're all here for one reason: to make money from BITCOINTALK. That's the whole point.

The only difference between us is our role and how we contribute. Some of us are campaign participants, while others happen to be campaign managers, moderators, or ADMIN. Those titles don't change the fundamental reason we're here.

Being campaign manager, moderator, or admin doesn't suddenly make you any less motivated by money than the user participating in signature campaigns. You're still here to earn, just like everyone else.

So let's cut the hypocrisy. Don't act like your position makes you morally superior to everyone else. At the end of the day, we're all here to make money. The only difference is how we do it, not why we're here.

I like you mentioning, BMs and Moderators — I rarely see 'em getting mentioned, mostly it's campaigners who are thrown dirt at. Also, you forget honorable mention nutildah. He also gets paid for his work (as he should), I seen him mentioning somewhere.

If you are treating this as a workplace, make sure you do your job competently, otherwise don't fret, you just won't get hired. If you are not (treating this as a workplace), nothing really matters, does it? Just another Internet forum to discuss.

^ Still it's advised to be a user of integrity though and don't cause harm to other users by scam and such. Also, respect the place and don't litter it by garbage.


Extras:

The world runs on money; comedy of maintenance keeps every being in motion — cut the incentives and people will move elsewhere where they are rewarded better for their time or they will make you secondary as in place to hang out when you have nothing better to do.

People should accept signatures as part of forum and stop shunning it. Signatures are what is keeping this place entertaining — the (pretend) forum police, dramas, the 'care' for red tags and _ (fill in blanks). Who would wanna close this entertaining circus and shoot their own foot?

Oh yes, nobody sane!

PS: My brain cells continue to spout more content, but now I am gonna ignore 'em cause otherwise I'll never be able to post. Whatever you respond me with, I may have thought of it already (I won't lie if you ask me!).