Proposal for breaking "community advertising rules" deadlock

[Mike Hearn]

There's been a lot of discussion over what should or should not get free advertising via the main BitCoin websites (ie, this forum and the wiki). These inevitably turn into flamewars over personal politics rather than achieving useful consensus. For example the poll currently running shows an even split over the drugs issue.

I'd like to propose a simple, unambiguous rule: advertising services or products from strongly identified, non anonymous merchants is OK. Advertising anonymous merchants is out.

This is a self regulating rule, which is very much in the spirit of BitCoins design. Anyone can decide if they are going to be anonymous or not. It moves the decision about riskyness to the individual merchants and away from "the community" - which does not exist as a concrete decision making entity anyway and so will never achieve anything, especially not on a wiki.

There are quite a few merchants listed on the trade page who are currently anonymous, but probably don't need to be (bitcoinmail is one example). A few exchangers also fall into this category. They could just publish some real contact details beyond an email address and meet the guideline easily - and it'd boost confidence in their services anyway.

Many others already provide some kind of business registration details and street address, eg Mullvad who provide anonymizing VPNs and AmberShadow who do web design.

Then there are people who don't provide real identities and probably never will, for example the Silk Road and indeed every merchant in the psychoactive drugs category. Those would not get free advertising via the project though of course, they are free to do marketing in some other way (word of mouth). And if they are selling drugs in a legitimate way in their home country they could just announce themselves as such a merchant and get into the directory.

For porn sites, often they are legal and often run by large companies. Those would obviously meet the criteria.  Some of the ones currently listed are kind of hobbyist sites and would not be listed.

This would apply to advertising via the Marketplace subforum as well.

[1714798293]

1714798293

[1714798293]

1714798293

[1714798293]

1714798293

[Timo Y]

email addresses are as "real" as it gets for hardware agnostic freelancing air tramps.

The notion that a street address somehow increases legitimacy is absurd. These can be rented from virtual office companies just like email addresses.   

Not even Satoshi uses his meatspace identity. There are good reasons not to apart from dodging accountability. Why should we impose such an invasive requirement on traders?

What matters more than a meatspace identity is a persona that has a reputation to lose in the community, anonymous or otherwise.   

[Anonymous]

If you have a bitcoin-otc rating from other bitcoin users is  a better way to go. I dont care what they sell or promote only who vouches for them.

[Mike Hearn]

The point is to purely to resolve disputes, not make some kind of statement on the value of anonymity.

Clearly there are disputes about this, the constant wiki edit wars and the split poll are evidence. So how to solve it? OTC "web of trust" rankings don't solve that problem, they solve a completely different problem (how do you trust a seller?).

[Stefan Thomas]

+1

Remember this is only for the official site, anybody can start their own directory with their own criteria if they so choose. We can't control what people do with Bitcoin, but we can very much choose what we want to endorse/advertise and what we want Bitcoin to be associated with.

[Timo Y]

OTC "web of trust" rankings don't solve that problem, they solve a completely different problem (how do you trust a seller?).

Web of trust could solve this problem in a modified wiki.  Editors log in with a GPG signature and everybody sees their own version of the page.  Edits from people with a negative trust metric in your web of trust are ignored on your version.  Similarly, you can choose your edits to be censored from those people.

Still leaves the problem with what the public global page should censor. IMO the domain name owner should decide, not the community.

[caveden]

Sorry, but I don't like this proposition.

I can give a proposition of my own though: the owner of each site decides. Whenever - if ever - they ask our opinion, then each one is free to give it or not.
What do you think?

[theymos]

You might as well just delete the page if you're going to do that. Probably less than 5% of existing services will post their identity information. I certainly wouldn't if I had a service on there.

[Mike Hearn]

Quite a few merchants already did post such info without any such rules in place anyway, just because it's good business practice. Not many people want to do any significant trade with anonymous businesses, even in the presence of escrow.

I realize some people are quite happy with the status quo. Many others are not, as already pointed out. So "doing nothing" isn't a useful proposal because it will continue the endless flamewars that distract from other more useful discussions. These debates will never end with the current setup and it just puts off people who can make valuable contributions. I've already had discussions about BitCoin with people where I suggested raising the topic on the forum, only for them to refuse on the grounds that the forum is overrun with noise (ie random political debates that are barely related to digital currency if at all).

forever-d, if you want to make a different directory that is some kind of super-otc wiki then go right ahead. That still leaves the issue of the current one and the Marketplace forum on this site.

[ribuck]

Services like Operation Fabulous don't list their address, and there's no reason why they should do so, yet they are a valuable part of the Bitcoin ecosystem.

... often they are legal and often run by large companies. Those would obviously meet the criteria.  Some of the ones currently listed are kind of hobbyist sites and would not be listed.

Much of Bitcoin's future growth will come from "hobbyist sites" that are unconstrained by the kind of thinking that is generally found in "large companies".

Your aim is admirable: to find a self-enforcing no-arguing criterion, but "physical address" doesn't work as that criterion. It may even be the case that businesses without physical addresses are the most valuable ones.

[kiba]

No idea where this issue comes from?

[Mike Hearn]

Yes, as I wrote in the first post, some outfits don't list any contact details today - probably because they are not incorporated companies. That's fine. Whoever runs it can just announce their identity in some way. Any legal entity will do, it wouldn't have to be a company. The policy could be phased in at some fixed date in future so people have time to update their websites or decide what to do.

In case it's not clear, the point of the identity info would be so law enforcement can find you. It's self regulating in that sense. If you aren't worried about law enforcement then no big deal. If you are then why should BitCoin contributors deal with the hassle of being linked to you, just so you can get free advertising?

So, it wouldn't necessarily have to be street address. Phone numbers or some other kind of details would work just as well.

[JohnDoe]

There is no "deadlock" as this is not a democracy. Bitcoin.org is owned by satoshi/sirius and bitcoin.it is owned by MagicalTux, they'll allow whatever content they please into their sites.

email addresses are as "real" as it gets for hardware agnostic freelancing air tramps.

The notion that a street address somehow increases legitimacy is absurd. These can be rented from virtual office companies just like email addresses.   

Not even Satoshi uses his meatspace identity. There are good reasons not to apart from dodging accountability. Why should we impose such an invasive requirement on traders?

What matters more than a meatspace identity is a persona that has a reputation to lose in the community, anonymous or otherwise.   

+1000

[kiba]

Yes, as I wrote in the first post, some outfits don't list any contact details today - probably because they are not incorporated companies. That's fine. Whoever runs it can just announce their identity in some way. Any legal entity will do.

That will be a problem for bitcoin corporations trading on the GLBSE.

In case it's not clear, the point of the identity info would be so law enforcement can find you. It's self regulating in that sense. If you aren't worried about law enforcement then no big deal. If you are then why should BitCoin contributors deal with the hassle of being linked to you, just so you can get free advertising?

WTF is this?

[kiba]

I think mike's point does deserve a discussion because IMO even if roots of bitcoin are in gray economy it's future is in white economy and mainstream uses. Therefore it is beneficial for most of us to project clean image in order to facilitate quicker adoption by mainstream users.

Ok, this is too much.

First they come for the silkroads, and the drug. Now they come for this.

[caveden]

There is no "deadlock" as this is not a democracy. Bitcoin.org is owned by satoshi/sirius and bitcoin.it is owned by MagicalTux, they'll allow whatever content they please into their sites.

I was going to say something on those lines but you were faster than me. Finally somebody understands it!

People, these sites don't belong to any of you! It's not your business. AFAIK, the owners haven't even asked our opinion. Or have they?

[kiba]

I am a gray market actor. Hope you don't ban people like me.

[JohnDoe]

WTF is this?

Well he is a Google employee after all...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew

[Cusipzzz]

Hate this idea obviously, goes against the spirit of the project.

Just put a large 'unofficial' disclaimer on the Wiki and the Marketplace forum that these links/sites are unofficial, not supported or endorsed by the project in any way.

The fact is we should be encouraging these 'unofficial' projects - be it freelance bitcoin blogs or selling tea or local exchange (which may be illegal depending on the jurisdiction).

But a disclaimer stating for people to check the laws in their jurisdictions and that no sites/links are officially supported by the project should be sufficient.

[AtlasONo]

If questionable content is going to be listed on the wiki atleast be a little discrete, name the categories something like "Adult Entertainment" and something besides "Psychedelic Drugs"