Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ

[tmfp]

when clicking in "show new replies to your posts" I get some old threads that I do not want to follow/read anymore.
How do I remove them from showing up ?

You can't.
Use the "watchlist" function instead for stuff you're interested in from day to day, and the "show new..." like an archive.

[1714498991]

1714498991

[1714498991]

1714498991

[mprep]

Expanded one of the FAQ questions:

Q: Do you moderate/delete (possible) FUD, accusations and untrue information?
A: No. We don't have enough time to check every single piece of information and verify the validity of the sources. Also, just like scams - too much room for bias and abuse.

However, trolling isn't allowed. If a user is habitually posting obviously false nonsense ("obviously false nonsense" to an outsider, NOT to someone who follows or is involved in the discussion) just to stir up trouble, then it's considered trolling, which is prohibited. Such cases should be thoroughly documented in the report though (There are tons of reports that just say "trolling", but moderators don't have time to look through each user's post).

When it comes to accusations of commercial misconduct, if a user is accusing you / someone else of scamming or defrauding them in your / someone else's sales thread without providing evidence (either in the post itself or by linking to evidence elsewhere), that's considered low value and thus should be reported as such.

[marlboroza]

Expanded one of the FAQ questions:

When it comes to accusations of commercial misconduct, if a user is accusing you / someone else of scamming or defrauding them in your / someone else's sales thread without providing evidence (either in the post itself or by linking to evidence elsewhere), that's considered low value and thus should be reported as such.

I was just about to update local thread with this, but I don't understand something:

Does this new rule apply to users who wrongly accuse other users of being a gang, mafia, criminals without any single proof or it is just for someone who accuse "seller" without proof?

[mprep]

Expanded one of the FAQ questions:

When it comes to accusations of commercial misconduct, if a user is accusing you / someone else of scamming or defrauding them in your / someone else's sales thread without providing evidence (either in the post itself or by linking to evidence elsewhere), that's considered low value and thus should be reported as such.

I was just about to update local thread with this, but I don't understand something:

Does this new rule apply to users who wrongly accuse other users of being a gang, mafia, criminals without any single proof or it is just for someone who accuse "seller" without proof?

AFAIK this only applies to sales threads (threads where a user is asking for or offering services and / or goods). Obviously, pure "scam" or "you are a criminal" posts were already considered low value since beyond a vague accusation they neither contain evidence nor any explanation / elaboration on that statement. Whether the "evidence or GTFO" interpretation of the low value post rule is site wide, is something you're going to have to ask theymos.

[esmanthra]

AFAIK this only applies to sales threads (threads where a user is asking for or offering services and / or goods)

What about comments related to threads in bounty/airdrop board? Such threads often stay somewhere between sales threads and pure promotion.
(I already did report one case, but still not sure.)

[mprep]

AFAIK this only applies to sales threads (threads where a user is asking for or offering services and / or goods)

What about comments related to threads in bounty/airdrop board? Such threads often stay somewhere between sales threads and pure promotion.
(I already did report one case, but still not sure.)

Not sure. IMO it doesn't though you're going to have to ask theymos about it.

[nullius]

OP, please add the explicit forum rule about Personal Messages:

Subject: Re: Publicly posting PMs

There is no restriction against it. PM = Personal Message, not Private Message.

Compare "private interview" to "personal interview" or "private locker" to "personal locker". Something private isn't expected to be made public, but something personal is only owned by or associated with a single person, not necessarily with a strong guarantee of privacy.

For the sake of user safety, I also recommend noting that unencrypted Personal Messages are not private, no matter what forum policy says about disclosure by the parties thereto:

Vide the very first post in my post history!

I really don't believe in willingly putting a man-in-the-middle in your HTTPS like this, […]

The security implications are that Cloudflare can read everything you send to or receive from the server, including your cleartext password and any PMs you send or look at.

Thank you, theymos, for honestly disclosing and discussing the facts about Cloudflare.

[...]

Note: PM privacy is not guaranteed. Encrypt sensitive messages.

I have been intending to request this addition for awhile.  Despite the explicit warning adjacent to the “Send message” button, too many users are labouring under the misapprehension that “PM” stands for “Private Message”.

For the record, this is my personal policy on the handling of my own PMs:

For my part, I treat unencrypted PMs with the discretion of common courtesy.  Likewise, if someone were to publish my unencrypted PMs gratuitously, for petty spite, and/or otherwise without any good cause or even a colourable reason, then I would consider that to show indiscretion—i.e., evidence of an untrustworthy character; and depending on the particulars of the circumstance, on a case-by-case basis, I may issue negative feedback accordingly.  Otherwise, I have no illusions about the privacy of unencrypted Personal Messages:  I treat them as a sort of one-on-one forum, or an open-door room aside from the main room at a party.

Encrypted communications with explicit bilateral promises of confidentiality are a quite different matter, of course.

IMO.  I think that comports with the basic decency and common sense which should be expected of anybody who is worthwhile to correspond with.

P.S.—thanks, mprep, for maintaining this list of rules.

[Saint-loup]

Great! I hope Theymos will publish the PMs of Satoshi now...  

[nullius]

Great! I hope Theymos will publish the PMs of Satoshi now...  

That will not happen next year (2021) as originally considered,^* but maybe after a few more decades.

(I have further thoughts on that; but the discussion is off-topic for this high-traffic, highly watched thread about forum rules.)

* I merited that post two years ago—for reason of the information that Satoshi “always used Tor”, not due to the prospective release of Satoshi’s PMs.  I have frequently quoted it in argument against people who have have a negative impression of Tor users.

Potentially relevant to how Personal Messages may be mentioned in the rules list:

Based on the theymos statements that I quoted, I think of the administration’s policy as roughly analogous to a “one-party consent” rule for disclosure of PMs.

I find it admirable that the forum’s administration has a reasonable policy to prevent overt fishing expeditions that may seek to coerce disclosure of PMs with consent of none of the involved parties...

https://bitcointalk.org/privacy.php

Bitcointalk.org is in US jurisdiction, and is subject to US subpoenas, wiretap orders, preservation orders (which would negate the above retention rules), and similar. Furthermore, our service providers could also be subject to similar orders without our knowledge. Note that we consider PMs to require a warrant in order to be released.

...although that is a quite limited protection, when every PM passes in cleartext through Cloudflare each and every time it is previewed, sent, or viewed.  What it really means in practice is that police (obviously police, because nobody would ever try to steal an “official” identity) can’t grab your PMs simply by e-mailing or faxing an official-looking request.  If the forum’s administration requires a warrant, I also infer that that means they will at least seek to quash civil subpoenas for PMs.

Although that is always important for protecting metadata (which is in many ways even more revealing than “content”), it is less of a concern for people who use crypto—I mean, who really use crypto:

Note: PM privacy is not guaranteed. ⚠ Encrypt sensitive messages. ⚠

Because I am sick and tired of this:

PM = Personal Message, not Private Message.

Compare "private interview" to "personal interview" or "private locker" to "personal locker". Something private isn't expected to be made public, but something personal is only owned by or associated with a single person, not necessarily with a strong guarantee of privacy.

I really don't believe in willingly putting a man-in-the-middle in your HTTPS like this, […]

I especially dislike Cloudflare, which I'm almost certain is basically owned by US intelligence agencies. [...]

The security implications are that Cloudflare can read everything you send to or receive from the server, including your cleartext password and any PMs you send or look at.

Thank you, theymos, for honestly disclosing and discussing the facts about Cloudflare.

Oh, no!  Cloudflare now knows Grandma’s secret cookie recipe!

[mprep]

OP, please add the explicit forum rule about Personal Messages:

Subject: Re: Publicly posting PMs
-2 quotes snipped-

For the sake of user safety, I also recommend noting that unencrypted Personal Messages are not private, no matter what forum policy says about disclosure by the parties thereto:

-quote snip-

I have been intending to request this addition for awhile.  Despite the explicit warning adjacent to the “Send message” button, too many users are labouring under the misapprehension that “PM” stands for “Private Message”.

For the record, this is my personal policy on the handling of my own PMs:

-quote snip-

IMO.  I think that comports with the basic decency and common sense which should be expected of anybody who is worthwhile to correspond with.

P.S.—thanks, mprep, for maintaining this list of rules.

<...>
Potentially relevant to how Personal Messages may be mentioned in the rules list:

Based on the theymos statements that I quoted, I think of the administration’s policy as roughly analogous to a “one-party consent” rule for disclosure of PMs.

I find it admirable that the forum’s administration has a reasonable policy to prevent overt fishing expeditions that may seek to coerce disclosure of PMs with consent of none of the involved parties...

https://bitcointalk.org/privacy.php
-quote snip-

...although that is a quite limited protection, when every PM passes in cleartext through Cloudflare each and every time it is previewed, sent, or viewed.  What it really means in practice is that police (obviously police, because nobody would ever try to steal an “official” identity) can’t grab your PMs simply by e-mailing or faxing an official-looking request.  If the forum’s administration requires a warrant, I also infer that that means they will at least seek to quash civil subpoenas for PMs.

Although that is always important for protecting metadata (which is in many ways even more revealing than “content”), it is less of a concern for people who use crypto—I mean, who really use crypto:

-quote snip-

-quote snip-

PMs not being private isn't one of those cases where I feel that a lack of a rule requires documentation (especially considering the aforementioned warning). If a user couldn't infer the fact from the warning itself, I really doubt documenting it in this thread would help.

As for legal side of information disclosure, I'd rather stay away from documenting how Bitcointalk might deal / deals with legal queries, demands and requests due to their opaque (from my perspective), speculation-based (as in "confirmed" through hearsay, loose interpretations of various laws or random throwaway-ish snippets from theymos) and usually hypothetical nature. While I can check whether certain moderation practices or rules exist, I can't say the same about anything related to the legal side of Bitcointalk.

[Saint-loup]

Nullius forgot to quote this in his (pretty long) post

PMs are like emails. It's rude to publish a PM without permission, but you won't get banned for it.

[ZaraCB]

The list is somewhat complete but I will still be adding rules as I encounter them. I'm open to suggestions on formatting, sources, mistakes, rules, removal from the list, etc.

I read the full guidelines. I know a lot about the forum after reading this. This is a very informative guide for beginners. But in the "Section: Other" there is no " "Guidelines for threads" for Meta and its child board "New forum software" and "Bitcoin wiki".

What is the reason behind this?

Guidelines for threads>Section: Other.

[nullius]

I request that the rules list be reviewed and updated with appropriate guidance to users about the form of spam known as ICO bumping.

It is obviously spam by any reasonable (or even useful) definition of the word.  I don’t think anybody can reasonably argue that users should not already expect to be banned for it, just as for any other form of spam.  Nevertheless, on grounds that more user education is usually better than less, I suggest that it would be wise to give this issue an explicit treatment in the unofficial rules list that everybody is supposed to read.

Unfortunately, I myself do not know and could not readily find any relevant quotes from administrators or staff on this issue; I would appreciate if somebody could provide some.

Separate Argument B for a ban:  ICO-bumping is spamming per se.  Spamming itself is supposed to be a bannable offence.  I have been quietly asking around with a n00b question:  “ELI5, why are ICO-bumpers not banned out of hand?  (‘ELI5’, in the sense that it is the innocent child who says that the Emperor has no clothes.)”  The only response that I have thus far received is, “I don’t know.”

I respectfully request that the forum’s administration set a strict, explicit policy banning ICO-bumpers just as any other spammers.  As marlboroza recently pointed out, ICO-bumping is a significant problem; and it is spam.

Meanwhile, I urge that the ban-hammer be dropped here on grounds that spammers get banned, period.

More generally, I am also pushing for ICO bumping to be officially recognized as spamming per se, a bannable offence.  How is it not spamming!?  And why do so many people seem to be ignoring this issue?  What  “hacker1001101001” has admitted is arguably even a more damaging form of spam than garden-variety sigspamming.

The fraudulent nature of ICO bumping is for DT to handle, to protect people from losing money.  marlboroza and others have been doing an excellent job with that.  I support their efforts; and I encourage to continue, whereas ICO-bumpers are apparently not being banned, for reasons that are inscrutable to me.

Paid forum spam, spam-tactics, and spam-support of all kinds must to be handled by the administration, with the ban hammer.

Separately, just a few little notes on a request I consider currently closed; I didn’t want to spam-bump this thread for these last month ( ;-):

PMs not being private isn't one of those cases where I feel that a lack of a rule requires documentation (especially considering the aforementioned warning). If a user couldn't infer the fact from the warning itself, I really doubt documenting it in this thread would help.

I agree that the warning should suffice; I only requested an explanation in the rules list after in the wild, I noticed multiple instances of experienced, highly-ranked forum users implying that publication of PMs was against the rules, and/or incorrectly stating explicitly that PM means “Private Message”.  Anyway, I think that I understand your reasoning; thanks for explaining.

As for legal side of information disclosure, I'd rather stay away from documenting how Bitcointalk might deal / deals with legal queries, demands and requests [...]

Understood.  The unofficial rules list is indeed probably not the proper place to deal with legal issues.

Nullius forgot to quote this in his (pretty long) post

PMs are like emails. It's rude to publish a PM without permission, but you won't get banned for it.

I didn’t “forget”.  I did not see that post before I made mine here.

[mprep]

I request that the rules list be reviewed and updated with appropriate guidance to users about the form of spam known as ICO bumping.

It is obviously spam by any reasonable (or even useful) definition of the word.  I don’t think anybody can reasonably argue that users should not already expect to be banned for it, just as for any other form of spam.  Nevertheless, on grounds that more user education is usually better than less, I suggest that it would be wise to give this issue an explicit treatment in the unofficial rules list that everybody is supposed to read.

Unfortunately, I myself do not know and could not readily find any relevant quotes from administrators or staff on this issue; I would appreciate if somebody could provide some.

<...>

That's already covered by the list of rules since it:

1) Limits thread bumps to once per 24 hours.
2) Prohibits users from incentivizing posting (or, consequently, participating in such incentivized posting) in one or more specific threads if the incentive is an altcoin.
3) Limits incentivized posting to Games and Rounds (where only Bitcoin giveaways are considered on-topic)

Here are the corresponding rules:

2. No off-topic posts.

<...>

13. Bumps, "updates" are limited to once per 24 hours.[2]

14. All altcoin related discussion belongs in the Alternate cryptocurrencies and it's child boards. [3][4][e]

15. No on-forum altcoin giveaways. [6][e]

<...>

Games and rounds (child board of Gambling) - "Spreadsheet games, forum-based games, and discussion of individual rounds/games on other sites." All Bitcoin giveaways, raffles, contests also go here.

I might try to work the "you can only incentivize posting in a Games and Rounds topic" into the rules at some point, but I'm not sure whether I should do so and if I should, how to do so properly because each rule added bloats the thread to the point where it becomes useless for the average casual user (the audience this thread was aimed at in the first place).

[Lauda]

I request that the rules list be reviewed and updated with appropriate guidance to users about the form of spam known as ICO bumping.

It is obviously spam by any reasonable (or even useful) definition of the word.  I don’t think anybody can reasonably argue that users should not already expect to be banned for it, just as for any other form of spam.  Nevertheless, on grounds that more user education is usually better than less, I suggest that it would be wise to give this issue an explicit treatment in the unofficial rules list that everybody is supposed to read.

Unfortunately, I myself do not know and could not readily find any relevant quotes from administrators or staff on this issue; I would appreciate if somebody could provide some.

<...>

That's already covered by the list of rules since it:

1) Limits thread bumps to once per 24 hours.
2) Prohibits users from incentivizing posting (or, consequently, participating in such incentivized posting) in one or more specific threads if the incentive is an altcoin.
3) Limits incentivized posting to Games and Rounds (where only Bitcoin giveaways are considered on-topic)

Here are the corresponding rules:

2. No off-topic posts.

<...>

13. Bumps, "updates" are limited to once per 24 hours.[2]

14. All altcoin related discussion belongs in the Alternate cryptocurrencies and it's child boards. [3][4][e]

15. No on-forum altcoin giveaways. [6][e]

<...>

Games and rounds (child board of Gambling) - "Spreadsheet games, forum-based games, and discussion of individual rounds/games on other sites." All Bitcoin giveaways, raffles, contests also go here.

I might try to work the "you can only incentivize posting in a Games and Rounds topic" into the rules at some point, but I'm not sure whether I should do so and if I should, how to do so properly because each rule added bloats the thread to the point where it becomes useless for the average casual user (the audience this thread was aimed at in the first place).

Yet pretty much every ICO bumping service is breaking all the ones that you have listed (fake conversations per definition break all 3 and they are paid in tokens or altcoins usually). What are you doing about them?

[mprep]

-quote snip-

Yet pretty much every ICO bumping service is breaking all the ones that you have listed (fake conversations per definition break all 3 and they are paid in tokens or altcoins usually). What are you doing about them?

If someone reported a topic and / or its posts using the "Report to Moderator" link and the moderator reviewing the case (be it me or someone else) noticed a rule being broken, appropriate punishment is dished out. Whether that's a ban, deletion of posts and / or topic or something else depends on the specifics of each case.

[Lauda]

-quote snip-
Yet pretty much every ICO bumping service is breaking all the ones that you have listed (fake conversations per definition break all 3 and they are paid in tokens or altcoins usually). What are you doing about them?

If someone reported a topic and / or its posts using the "Report to Moderator" link and the moderator reviewing the case (be it me or someone else) noticed a rule being broken, appropriate punishment is dished out. Whether that's a ban, deletion of posts and / or topic or something else depends on the specifics of each case.

Here you go, pick which you prefer to handle first: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.220. You get to choose from off-topic posting from several members to dozens of ICO bumping accounts. Using the report to moderator tools seems to have been backfiring lately, especially reporting off-topic trolling or diversion.

[mprep]

-quote snip-
Yet pretty much every ICO bumping service is breaking all the ones that you have listed (fake conversations per definition break all 3 and they are paid in tokens or altcoins usually). What are you doing about them?

If someone reported a topic and / or its posts using the "Report to Moderator" link and the moderator reviewing the case (be it me or someone else) noticed a rule being broken, appropriate punishment is dished out. Whether that's a ban, deletion of posts and / or topic or something else depends on the specifics of each case.

Here you go, pick which you prefer to handle first: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.220. You get to choose from off-topic posting from several members to dozens of ICO bumping accounts. Using the report to moderator tools seems to have been backfiring lately, especially reporting off-topic trolling or diversion.

If one or more reports went unhandled for a long time, it's either:

a) A bunch of moderators looked into the case no one was sure whether the report warranted action
b) The report requires in-depth understanding of the discussion, the situation at hand and /or access to data unavailable to regular moderators before an action is made.

Glancing over the title and posts of that thread, this seems to be scenario b). While I'm not implying that this is such a situation, when it comes to assessing accusations, quite often said accusations are based off of circumstancial, speculative and / or flimsy evidence. While different moderators might place the bar of required sophistication of evidence at slightly different heights, in quite a few cases the only ones who can (with reasonable certainty) confirm or deny the allegations are the admins since they have access over tools no one else on staff has (e.g. checking IPs) and in the case of theymos, the head admin, have the authority of the final word on everything related to Bitcointalk moderation.

[Lauda]

Here you go, pick which you prefer to handle first: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.220. You get to choose from off-topic posting from several members to dozens of ICO bumping accounts. Using the report to moderator tools seems to have been backfiring lately, especially reporting off-topic trolling or diversion.

If one or more reports went unhandled for a long time, it's either:

a) A bunch of moderators looked into the case no one was sure whether the report warranted action
b) The report requires in-depth understanding of the discussion, the situation at hand and /or access to data unavailable to regular moderators before an action is made.

Glancing over the title and posts of that thread, this seems to be scenario b). While I'm not implying that this is such a situation, when it comes to assessing accusations, quite often said accusations are based off of circumstancial, speculative and / or flimsy evidence. While different moderators might place the bar of required sophistication of evidence at slightly different heights, in quite a few cases the only ones who can (with reasonable certainty) confirm or deny the allegations are the admins since they have access over tools no one else on staff has (e.g. checking IPs) and in the case of theymos, the head admin, have the authority of the final word on everything related to Bitcointalk moderation.

You are indeed correct, this case is b). However, the evidence being adequate here is not the case and certainly not if you factor in OP's track record. Regarding the off-topic posts, the only thing that got deleted so far is my own on-topic post in which I criticize the lack of moderation too. Looks like lack of transparency has huge downsides, as only theymos and Cyrus can see who this was. Maybe it is time for some changes? You yourself could be oblivious to other moderators exercising extreme biases and misjudgements due to lack of this (as far as I know you can not see who handled the report either).

[mprep]

Here you go, pick which you prefer to handle first: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.220. You get to choose from off-topic posting from several members to dozens of ICO bumping accounts. Using the report to moderator tools seems to have been backfiring lately, especially reporting off-topic trolling or diversion.

If one or more reports went unhandled for a long time, it's either:

a) A bunch of moderators looked into the case no one was sure whether the report warranted action
b) The report requires in-depth understanding of the discussion, the situation at hand and /or access to data unavailable to regular moderators before an action is made.

Glancing over the title and posts of that thread, this seems to be scenario b). While I'm not implying that this is such a situation, when it comes to assessing accusations, quite often said accusations are based off of circumstancial, speculative and / or flimsy evidence. While different moderators might place the bar of required sophistication of evidence at slightly different heights, in quite a few cases the only ones who can (with reasonable certainty) confirm or deny the allegations are the admins since they have access over tools no one else on staff has (e.g. checking IPs) and in the case of theymos, the head admin, have the authority of the final word on everything related to Bitcointalk moderation.

You are indeed correct, this case is b). However, the evidence being adequate here is not the case and certainly not if you factor in OP's track record. Regarding the off-topic posts, the only thing that got deleted so far is my own on-topic post in which I criticize the lack of moderation too. Looks like lack of transparency has huge downsides, as only theymos and Cyrus can see who this was. Maybe it is time for some changes? You yourself could be oblivious to other moderators exercising extreme biases and misjudgements due to lack of this (as far as I know you can not see who handled the report either).

If you're dissatisfied with how moderation functions, have suggestions on how to improve it and / or wish to appeal deletion of your posts, you're free to PM theymos, who's the policy maker on Bitcointalk. I can (like any other user on Bitcointalk) give suggestions and my opinion, but I don't make the policy, I enforce it and (in this thread's context) document it (though in an unofficial manner). I personally am not aware of any "moderators exercising extreme biases and misjudgements" though I am very far from omniscient and, as you've pointed out, might be oblivious to such bad actors.