Just remove signatures already. As in delete, disable, gone.

[jeffthebaker]

Facebook = social media
Bitcointalk = forums
social media =/= forums

It's a bad analogy regardless of how similar you feel they are. Facebook is used to connect with friends and family, and forums are used to stimulate open discussion between likeminded people. There is a huge gap. In its simplest forum, a signature is a way for users to express themselves. They add a bit of flair to all of their posts that is unique to them. You don't need that on facebook, twitter, or other social media because the activity and discussion on there is about the posters, not a niche subject the whole website revolves around.

[1715100184]

1715100184

[1715100184]

1715100184

[R2D221]

Facebook = social media
Bitcointalk = forums
social media =/= forums

It's a bad analogy regardless of how similar you feel they are. Facebook is used to connect with friends and family, and forums are used to stimulate open discussion between likeminded people.

I disagree. I use Facebook Groups to connect with people that speak Esperanto. These are people I've never seen I'm my life, but with whom I share a common interest, much like a forum.

[tspacepilot]

I think that the debate about whether facebook and twitter are like (or are not like) forums has taken us a bit afield of what's going on in this thread.

[Quickseller]

There is not the same level of commerce taking place on Facebook that takes places on the forums. Additionally it is much more difficult to recover your money when you are scammed via bitcoin then when you are scammed using a credit card on Facebook (you would need to take legal action against a likely anon person).

I don't know why the volume of commerce discussed is relevant. Also, are you implying that selling something via a Facebook Group can only be completed using a credit card? Is that something written in Facebook's rules?

The volume of commerce is relevant because without signatures, if someone wanted to start/promote a business on the forum then their only option would be to advertise via the forum banner ads. This would result in the price of the banner advertisements to be pushed up significantly which in turn would price out the newer businesses with a smaller budget.

It is a rule that bitcoin (or an altcoin in the altcoin sections) potentially be on at least one side of every trade proposed when creating a marketplace thread (it needs to be one payment method offered/accepted). As a result nearly 100% of forum trades/deals somehow involve bitcoin.

To my knowledge it is a rule to pay with Facebook credits if buying something directly through Facebook, however if trades are done privately (and online) then they are overwhelmingly done with fiat, primarily credit cards. That is simply a demographic of Facebook users. In the future it would be possible that more Facebook trades are done via bitcoin, however that is not the case today.

[jeffthebaker]

Facebook = social media
Bitcointalk = forums
social media =/= forums

It's a bad analogy regardless of how similar you feel they are. Facebook is used to connect with friends and family, and forums are used to stimulate open discussion between likeminded people.

I disagree. I use Facebook Groups to connect with people that speak Esperanto. These are people I've never seen I'm my life, but with whom I share a common interest, much like a forum.

And I use the youtube comments section to discuss conspiracies and psuedosciences. Does that make youtube a forum to discuss conspiracies and psuedosciences? It's still a video sharing site, even if I use it differently than the majority.

[R2D221]

I think that the debate about whether facebook and twitter are like (or are not like) forums has taken us a bit afield of what's going on in this thread.

I was trying to show a forum-like site that doesn't use signatures as an example, but it's clear that nobody agrees with me on this analogy.

[R2D221]

Facebook = social media
Bitcointalk = forums
social media =/= forums

It's a bad analogy regardless of how similar you feel they are. Facebook is used to connect with friends and family, and forums are used to stimulate open discussion between likeminded people.

I disagree. I use Facebook Groups to connect with people that speak Esperanto. These are people I've never seen I'm my life, but with whom I share a common interest, much like a forum.

And I use the youtube comments section to discuss conspiracies and psuedosciences. Does that make youtube a forum to discuss conspiracies and psuedosciences? It's still a video sharing site, even if I use it differently than the majority.

What's the point of Facebook Groups (please note that it's not the whole of Facebook, just this specific feature)

[R2D221]

The use of signatures reduces scams by giving value to accounts because people can earn BTC via signature deals.

Also, if you want accounts with value, I may suggest you the social network tsū, where you are paid for your posts according to how many people like and comment on them.

[onemorebtc]

just my 2cents: I am absolutely for removing sigs. i'd prefer to only remove sig-ads but that would be impossible to archive.

This would be a good reason to make any bought account a suspect (probably the reason why quickseller is against it) because their does not seem to be a valid reason left to buy one (expect maybe for accounts like TF and such).

[Quickseller]

just my 2cents: I am absolutely for removing sigs. i'd prefer to only remove sig-ads but that would be impossible to archive.

This would be a good reason to make any bought account a suspect (probably the reason why quickseller is against it) because their does not seem to be a valid reason left to buy one (expect maybe for accounts like TF and such).

It is impossible to tell with certainty if an account is purchased or not. It is very possible to provide evidence that someone is the original owner of an account when this is not the case (including signing messages from either a BTC address or a PGP key). You are correct that it would remove the majority of valid reasons to buy accounts and most purchased accounts would be used to scam, however most accounts that people would be considering to sell would also be used to scam.

[R2D221]

Is there any legitimate reason to buy an account?

[Quickseller]

Is there any legitimate reason to buy an account?

Plenty yes

• The most common is to participate in signature deals. I know that you are going to say that this contributes to additional spam, and this is probably correct to an extent, however it also attracts additional people to the forum (and to bitcoin) that would not otherwise be here. This overall will increase the adoption of bitcoin and will overall increase it's chances for success.
• The ability to say something potentially controversial without associating your "main" forum identity/reputation with such message. For example if someone decided one day that they thought they found a reason why Bitcoin is going to fail but they are not 100% sure if they are correct, they may wish to purchase an account in order to force the discussion of this potential flaw without risking the embarrassment that would follow if they were wrong. Granted someone could just create a new account to do this however people tend to not take brand new accounts that make these kinds of statements very seriously - they are often almost automatically written off as trolling. There are other numerous examples of what could be said with purchased accounts. This is a pillar of freedom of speech. To truly have free speech, you not only need to be able to speak what is on your mind but also be able to do so without your identity being revealed
• For avatars. This is somewhat less common, especially as the percentage of overall accounts available with avatars is rapidly decreasing, as well as the fact that the new forum will likely have avatars.
• To get around the 360 second posting rule and other newbie restrictions
• To have the prestige of having a higher ranking account. Some may think this is somewhat dishonest and may be against this however it is a source of demand for accounts.

Additionally I know there is a stereotype that purchased accounts almost always scam, however this is not the case. I have been trading accounts for roughly 8 months, have sold over 100 accounts, and would say that under 10 have scammed (as defined as having negative trust). It has been a while since I have checked, however I am extremely active in both the market place sections and the scam accusations sections so I am confident to say that I would probably know about it if/when an account of mine would get negative trust. I would say that even this number is probably high because I suspect that a few people had purchased accounts from me with the intention of scamming with a former account of mine specifically as there are quite a few people that do not like me because of the scams I have stopped.

[R2D221]

The most common is to participate in signature deals. I know that you are going to say that this contributes to additional spam, and this is probably correct to an extent, however it also attracts additional people to the forum (and to bitcoin) that would not otherwise be here. This overall will increase the adoption of bitcoin and will overall increase it's chances for success.

Having new people just for the sake of isn't necessarily the best idea.

The ability to say something potentially controversial without associating your "main" forum identity/reputation with such message. For example if someone decided one day that they thought they found a reason why Bitcoin is going to fail but they are not 100% sure if they are correct, they may wish to purchase an account in order to force the discussion of this potential flaw without risking the embarrassment that would follow if they were wrong. Granted someone could just create a new account to do this however people tend to not take brand new accounts that make these kinds of statements very seriously - they are often almost automatically written off as trolling. There are other numerous examples of what could be said with purchased accounts. This is a pillar of freedom of speech. To truly have free speech, you not only need to be able to speak what is on your mind but also be able to do so without your identity being revealed

I can say something without revealing my identity. I just need to create a new account. Using other people's account, however, is not just not revealing my identity, but rather replacing somebody. And using the new account's activity and reputation is deceiving to say the least.

I'm sorry, but I don't see this point as legitimate.

For avatars. This is somewhat less common, especially as the percentage of overall accounts available with avatars is rapidly decreasing, as well as the fact that the new forum will likely have avatars.

This is circumstantial.

To get around the 360 second posting rule and other newbie restrictions

The newbie restrictions are there for a reason. This is not a legitimate reason to buy an account.

To have the prestige of having a higher ranking account. Some may think this is somewhat dishonest and may be against this however it is a source of demand for accounts.

I'm not sure if something can be both dishonest and legitimate, but if it can, then there's a problem with our society.

[onemorebtc]

I'm not sure if something can be both dishonest and legitimate, but if it can, then there's a problem with our society.

this reminds me of every gov on the planet

[Quickseller]

The most common is to participate in signature deals. I know that you are going to say that this contributes to additional spam, and this is probably correct to an extent, however it also attracts additional people to the forum (and to bitcoin) that would not otherwise be here. This overall will increase the adoption of bitcoin and will overall increase it's chances for success.

Having new people just for the sake of isn't necessarily the best idea.

I already countered this point when I said that that people buying accounts for signature deals will ultimately get involved in bitcoin (e.g. buying and spending it - or increasing adoption). Anyone that says that higher adoption is not a good thing looses all credibility in my book. We are now at a point where increased adoption would not potentially harm the network (e.g. we are not in 2010 when having wikileaks accepting bitcoin would attract unwanted attention). As it stands now a very large percentage of the people owning/holding bitcoin are doing so because they are speculating the price will go higher in the future. However in order for demand for bitcoin to increase (and in turn the price of bitcoin to increase) overall adoption needs to increase dramatically. Short of taking advantage of people and breaking the law there is really zero reason to not attempt to get anyone involved in bitcoin (and to adopt bitcoin) that could potentially get involved.

The ability to say something potentially controversial without associating your "main" forum identity/reputation with such message. For example if someone decided one day that they thought they found a reason why Bitcoin is going to fail but they are not 100% sure if they are correct, they may wish to purchase an account in order to force the discussion of this potential flaw without risking the embarrassment that would follow if they were wrong. Granted someone could just create a new account to do this however people tend to not take brand new accounts that make these kinds of statements very seriously - they are often almost automatically written off as trolling. There are other numerous examples of what could be said with purchased accounts. This is a pillar of freedom of speech. To truly have free speech, you not only need to be able to speak what is on your mind but also be able to do so without your identity being revealed

I can say something without revealing my identity. I just need to create a new account. Using other people's account, however, is not just not revealing my identity, but rather replacing somebody. And using the new account's activity and reputation is deceiving to say the least.

I'm sorry, but I don't see this point as legitimate.

I also already countered this point. If someone were to create their own account to say something controversial (and the account is brand new) then whatever they are saying will be 100% not be taken seriously and will be assumed to be trolling (almost all the time). On the other hand if someone were to purchase a more established account then posting something controversial is more likely to at least be looked into.

For avatars. This is somewhat less common, especially as the percentage of overall accounts available with avatars is rapidly decreasing, as well as the fact that the new forum will likely have avatars.

This is circumstantial.

I can say for a fact that accounts with avatars have greater demand. You can almost always charge  premium for an account with an avatar

To get around the 360 second posting rule and other newbie restrictions

The newbie restrictions are there for a reason. This is not a legitimate reason to buy an account.

The reason there are newbie restrictions is to prevent people from spamming and scamming with throwaway accounts. If you create a new account and get banned/negative trust for spamming/scamming then you can simply create another account with essentially zero effort. On the other hand if you were to invest the money to buy an account to get around the newbie restrictions then you have an incentive to follow the rules and not to scam because if you do then your 'investment' will have gone to waste because your account will either be banned of have negative trust.

To have the prestige of having a higher ranking account. Some may think this is somewhat dishonest and may be against this however it is a source of demand for accounts.

I'm not sure if something can be both dishonest and legitimate, but if it can, then there's a problem with our society.

I am acknowledging that some may feel that this is dishonest however having the prestige of a higher ranking account is not going to give them any kind of advantage, it is only going to stroke their ego.

[R2D221]

So, basically, it's a pay-to-win scheme. It's not that this is literally a game, but buying reputation instead of earning it is basically what pay-to-win games do. If you have money, then you just skip the difficult part (there's a reason why new accounts can't be trusted: trust needs to be earned) and you just get to the last part and get your trophy.

This can only result in an elitist system, and you are OK with it because you're the one selling the accounts, but it's harmful to the community, because ironically, buying trust means losing it.

[Quickseller]

So, basically, it's a pay-to-win scheme. It's not that this is literally a game, but buying reputation instead of earning it is basically what pay-to-win games do. If you have money, then you just skip the difficult part (there's a reason why new accounts can't be trusted: trust needs to be earned) and you just get to the last part and get your trophy.

This can only result in an elitist system, and you are OK with it because you're the one selling the accounts, but it's harmful to the community, because ironically, buying trust means losing it.

If you are at all familiar with most marketplace sections then you will know that trust is purchased all the time. It is not done 100% openly but it is done, especially in the lending section. However the kind of "trust" that is purchased via buying accounts is very different then 'traditional' trust, in reality it would be more accurately described as respect.

Additionally you are ignoring the fact that that buying accounts leads to greater bitcoin adoption which leads to a higher chance of success for bitcoin. Accounts purchased for this purpose (for signature deals) are the overwhelming majority of account sales.

It is also not that new accounts cannot be trusted, it is that accounts without any trading history cannot be trusted to a point. Therefore the amount of additional trust you should give to a higher ranking account should only be at the margins verses what you should trust for a brand new account. The exception to this is that you can generally trust an account with no trade history with amounts that are a small percentage of the value of the account because the owner should know that it would make more sense for them to sell an account verses scamming for small amounts, which also in turn makes trading with bitcoin more safe which in turn leads to a greater change of bitcoin overall succeeding. (if it is too difficult to protect yourself from getting scammed when using bitcoin then people will not use it and if people do not use it then it will have no value)

[R2D221]

So now we're buying respect. This just gets worse and worse.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

[Quickseller]

So now we're buying respect. This just gets worse and worse.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

Like I said you are ignoring the points I make about the majority of the people who buy accounts.

From the looks of it you have a very closed mind and are not open to actual debate

[R2D221]

I guess there's nothing to debate about. They ask for accounts, you sell accounts. Supply and demand.

It's just that I think this whole system is immoral.