This Forum Needs to Pull Up Its Pants. Now.

[Equinoxx]

So this forum is currently holding rougly 5.5k bitcoins.
And they are spending rougly 4.4k bitcoins to make a new website?
That doesn't make sense to me.
I mean, what could they possibly do with that?

We will have to wait.
But since you have mentioned the "$1 000 000 forum" my hopes are extremely high.

How do you know this forum hold 5,5 k bitcoin ? I think it (forum) owns more and more bitcoin....

Look the link that I gave him , it contains how each member (trusted by theymos) are holding Bitcoins . BUt yes who knows , the forum is problably earning money for Ads & donations and that list is just not recently updated

~ Madness

How often is that thread updated?
The forum capital one.

[SaltySpitoon]

How often is that thread updated?
The forum capital one.

Not since November of last year.

The est. budget is indeed $1 million, I believe the $350k figure was the down payment. Anyone who knows software projects, the quoted completion date is a rough guideline, if you try to strictly adhere to a deadline that you set 8 months in the past, you either ought to be very lucky, or there are still things to fix on release. Its done when its done, its not like a hardware preorder where people are losing money if its not rolled out immediately on schedule, that said, to the best of my knowledge it is on schedule, and we are getting pretty close to the beta.

[Throwaway_Acc]

I really couldn't agree more with you marcotheminer , It would be nice to be able to connect using Social media such as Twitter , Google+ and an email verification won't hurt anyone too that should prevent some BOTS from spamming (only famous email providers should be used like outlook , gmail , hotmail , yahoo etc... )
Also captcha's as you said ... I mean captcha's are really so useful and the forum can even earn money from it since we have thousands of people connecting everyday here
For the new forum software we was waiting for a Beta release in December and nothing really happened so I'am pretty sure that the Final release won't be in February also last time I asked the developper he said that the release beta is very soon , probably in some weeks who knows . I just hope we won't be dissapointed
If nothing of what you said gets added to the Beta , you should move this thread to new software forum

~ Madness

It would be awesome if forum accounts must be tied to a Twitter, FB or Google+ account.

Yes, one could still create fake social media accounts to complement particular accounts, but it will be more difficult and require more coordination each time posting. Admins will have an easier time to flesh out alts. On top of that, social media sites will ban users with too many accounts.

The bad news is it willl suddenly make the whole forum less crowded. Safer, but more quiet will all the alts gone.

[hilariousandco]

Why would this forum want to tie accounts to social media? Very few people would use their own personal accounts and just create new ones so it's pointless. All you do is punish regular users and trouble makers will just do everything they can to bypass them.

[Throwaway_Acc]

Why would this forum want to tie accounts to social media? Very few people would use their own personal accounts and just create new ones so it's pointless. All you do is punish regular users and trouble makers will just do everything they can to bypass them.

How is it punishment?

Edit: To answer your first question, the admins always claim the difficulty in enforcement is why they allow alts. By tying account to a social media account, you are increasing the barrier to registration.

Can people go around it? Yes. But it is harder.
If you use a public proxy within the same IP range to create social media accounts, it will be flagged. Additional verification is required.
If you create more than x number of social media accounts from the same IP range, it will be flagged.
If you login to more than x number of social media accounts from the same IP range, it will be flagged.
Logging off accounts will leave cookies in place as well, and people will always get their social media + account combinations mixed up - which gives admins more information to ban alts.

 

[hilariousandco]

Because you're making people jump through hoops and put their identity on the line just to sign up and post on a forum, a forum where most people value their privacy or wish to remain anon for whatever reasons. Most people tend to think the newb time restrictions and previous newbie jail are bad enough without adding more complications to just signing up in the first place.

[Throwaway_Acc]

Because you're making people jump through hoops and put their identity on the line just to sign up and post on a forum, a forum where most people value their privacy or wish to remain anon for whatever reasons. Most people tend to think the newb time restrictions and previous newbie jail are bad enough without adding more complications to just signing up in the first place.

Bitcoin is not anonymous. So why is Bitcointalk trying to be anonymous? The admins also never said alts are allowed because of anonymity. The reason given is difficulty in enforcement.

As for jumping hoops. I would argue legitimate and honest users are asked to jump through more hoops to navigate through the scammy minefield here.
If you really want to talk about hoops, the six minute posting requirement for newbie accounts is the biggest hoop around.

[hilariousandco]

Because you're making people jump through hoops and put their identity on the line just to sign up and post on a forum, a forum where most people value their privacy or wish to remain anon for whatever reasons. Most people tend to think the newb time restrictions and previous newbie jail are bad enough without adding more complications to just signing up in the first place.

Bitcoin is not anonymous. So why is Bitcointalk trying to be anonymous? The admins also never said alts are allowed because of anonymity. The reason given is difficulty in enforcement.

Bitcoin is as anonymous as you want it to be, and difficulty in enforcing them is one of the reasons but alts are allowed for whatever reason you want them for and that includes anonymity. Mods/staff/admins have stated multiple times alts are allowed if you don't want certain things being tied to certain identities so it's not just because it's unenforceable.

As for jumping hoops. I would argue legitimate and honest users are asked to jump through more hoops to navigate through the scammy minefield here.
If you really want to talk about hoops, the six minute posting requirement for newbie accounts is the biggest hoop around.

Yes, so you're proving my point here. Don't add more restrictions, especially pointless unnecesary ones. The time limit goes down after a while anyway but at least newbs make it past the sign up stage which many won't if they see you need to link a social media account to it.

[Throwaway_Acc]

Because you're making people jump through hoops and put their identity on the line just to sign up and post on a forum, a forum where most people value their privacy or wish to remain anon for whatever reasons. Most people tend to think the newb time restrictions and previous newbie jail are bad enough without adding more complications to just signing up in the first place.

Bitcoin is not anonymous. So why is Bitcointalk trying to be anonymous? The admins also never said alts are allowed because of anonymity. The reason given is difficulty in enforcement.

Bitcoin is as anonymous as you want it to be, and difficulty in enforcing them is one of the reasons but alts are allowed for whatever reason you want them for and that includes anonymity. Mods/staff/admins have stated multiple times alts are allowed if you don't want certain things being tied to certain identities so it's not just because it's unenforceable.

Unless there has been a dramatic change, Bitcoin protocol is not anonymous. Never has been. Yes, you can hide, but you are not anonymous.

So is it one of the reasons or whatever reasons? As far as I remember, theymos or badbear has always maintained that alts and account sales are allowed because of difficulty in enforcement. Here is a solution that will make it enforceable unless someone is willing to purchase x number of unique IPs tied to one particular account, social account and email and hope they always remember to flush their browser before switching accounts.

Or are you saying Bitcointalk admins decision behind alts and account sales has nothing to do with enforcement? That puts a new spin on everything.

Even then, I remember users could post anonymously on this forum without creating an account, but doing so will not let them accumulate posts, rank and reputation.

As for jumping hoops. I would argue legitimate and honest users are asked to jump through more hoops to navigate through the scammy minefield here.
If you really want to talk about hoops, the six minute posting requirement for newbie accounts is the biggest hoop around.

Yes, so you're proving my point here. Don't add more restrictions, especially pointless unnecesary ones. The time limit goes down after a while anyway but at least newbs make it past the sign up stage which many won't if they see you need to link a social media account to it.

How am I proving your point? I just poked a pretty large hole in it. The biggest restriction is the six minutes barrier between posts. Linking your social media account takes seconds, once.

[Mitchell]

I don't want my social media accounts tied to Bitcointalk or Bitcoin in general. I tend to keep that kind of stuff private and away from this. If I had to connect my Bitcointalk account with Social Media, I would either create a fake account or look for another forum.

[hilariousandco]

Unless there has been a dramatic change, Bitcoin protocol is not anonymous. Never has been. Yes, you can hide, but you are not anonymous.

So you can hide but you're not anonymous? If you're smart and don't screw up I don't think there's a solid way to tie someones address to their real world identity. Can you not be anonymous with tor either, or is that also just something you 'hide' behind?

So is it one of the reasons or whatever reasons? As far as I remember, theymos or badbear has always maintained that alts and account sales are allowed because of difficulty in enforcement.

Again, that is just one of the reasons, and you can have an alt account for whatever reason you personally wish (obviously as it's within the rules - not for evading bans etc).

Here is a solution that will make it enforceable unless someone is willing to purchase x number of unique IPs tied to one particular account, social account and email and hope they always remember to flush their browser before switching accounts.

So it's not a solution then is it, because that's exactly what people will do, and your points are still moot because multi-accounts are allowed, and again, not soley because it's unenforceable but because there are genuine reasons for having several accounts.

Or are you saying Bitcointalk admins decision behind alts and account sales has nothing to do with enforcement? That puts a new spin on everything.

I'm not saying it has nothing to do with it as that is one reason, but not the sole one.

As for jumping hoops. I would argue legitimate and honest users are asked to jump through more hoops to navigate through the scammy minefield here.
If you really want to talk about hoops, the six minute posting requirement for newbie accounts is the biggest hoop around.

Yes, so you're proving my point here. Don't add more restrictions, especially pointless unnecesary ones. The time limit goes down after a while anyway but at least newbs make it past the sign up stage which many won't if they see you need to link a social media account to it.

How am I proving your point? I just poked a pretty large hole in it. The biggest restriction is the six minutes barrier between posts. Linking your social media account takes seconds, once.

How did you poke a hole in it? Because you said hoops are annoying but your solution is to add more to jump through? Once your identity is tied to that account it might be only once but it is there forever and then you still have to contend with the 6 minute wait, that's if you have made it past linking your social media account which many wont because it's unnecessary and all it does it add annoyance to people whilst stopping nothing but genuine users signing up or making it an extra hassle for them to do so.

I don't want my social media accounts tied to Bitcointalk or Bitcoin in general. I tend to keep that kind of stuff private and away from this. If I had to connect my Bitcointalk account with Social Media, I would either create a fake account or look for another forum.

Same, and many people will just be just turned off straight away. People who want to get around these restrictions to abuse them will just do what is necessary to bypass them, so it just hurts regular users who don't care or have the patience to go about creating fake social media accounts or using proxies/tor etc.

[Throwaway_Acc]

Unless there has been a dramatic change, Bitcoin protocol is not anonymous. Never has been. Yes, you can hide, but you are not anonymous.

So you can hide but you're not anonymous? If you're smart and don't screw up I don't think there's a solid way to tie someones address to their real world identity. Can you not be anonymous with tor either, or is that also just something you 'hide' behind?

Yup. Bitcoin is not anonymous. Tor is not anonymous either. Are you saying you believe both tech to be anonymous?

So is it one of the reasons or whatever reasons? As far as I remember, theymos or badbear has always maintained that alts and account sales are allowed because of difficulty in enforcement.

Again, that is just one of the reasons, and you can have an alt account for whatever reason you personally wish (obviously as it's within the rules - not for evading bans etc).

What are the reasons, Ms.?

Here is a solution that will make it enforceable unless someone is willing to purchase x number of unique IPs tied to one particular account, social account and email and hope they always remember to flush their browser before switching accounts.

So it's not a solution then is it, because that's exactly what people will do, and your points are still moot because multi-accounts are allowed, and again, not soley because it's unenforceable but because there are genuine reasons for having several accounts.

My point is not moot at all. You just refusing to see the logic in it. With the barriers raised, significantly fewer people will use alts. Kiddie account sellers will no longer be able to farm 20-30 accounts without large investment, incredible discipline and huge amount of time to burn. When they screw up even once eventually, the account will be locked. I have seen this happen at another forum that was once filled with scammers.

Again, what are the genuine reasons aside from non-existent 'anonymity'?

Or are you saying Bitcointalk admins decision behind alts and account sales has nothing to do with enforcement? That puts a new spin on everything.

I'm not saying it has nothing to do with it as that is one reason, but not the sole one.

What are the other reasons?

As for jumping hoops. I would argue legitimate and honest users are asked to jump through more hoops to navigate through the scammy minefield here.
If you really want to talk about hoops, the six minute posting requirement for newbie accounts is the biggest hoop around.

Yes, so you're proving my point here. Don't add more restrictions, especially pointless unnecesary ones. The time limit goes down after a while anyway but at least newbs make it past the sign up stage which many won't if they see you need to link a social media account to it.

How am I proving your point? I just poked a pretty large hole in it. The biggest restriction is the six minutes barrier between posts. Linking your social media account takes seconds, once.

How did you poke a hole in it? Because you said hoops are annoying but your solution is to add more to jump through? Once your identity is tied to that account it might be only once but it is there forever and then you still have to contend with the 6 minute wait, that's if you have made it past linking your social media account which many wont because it's unnecessary and all it does it add annoyance to people whilst stopping nothing but genuine users signing up or making it an extra hassle for them to do so.

Because you made a big deal about people not wanting to sign up due the hassle of clicking one button once, a process that will take a few seconds. Yet they are perfectly okay with waiting six minutes between posts.

I don't want my social media accounts tied to Bitcointalk or Bitcoin in general. I tend to keep that kind of stuff private and away from this. If I had to connect my Bitcointalk account with Social Media, I would either create a fake account or look for another forum.

Same, and many people will just be just turned off straight away. People who want to get around these restrictions to abuse them will just do what is necessary to bypass them, so it just hurts regular users who don't care or have the patience to go about creating fake social media accounts or using proxies/tor etc.

Many people? Many people couldn't be bothered about hiding their identity online. The very, very few who do, can just create an alternate account to do so.
They won't get flagged.
When amateurs create accounts multiple accounts, they will get flagged for reasons mentioned in my earlier posts.
For professionals scammers, they will have a higher barrier of entry and one wrong move could render their account closed.
I would argue that more people will sign up because they will feel safer, knowing there are actual people behind an account rather than alts.

@Mitchell, where else would you go? Bitcointalk has an unhealthy monopoly online. There is nowhere else to go.

[hilariousandco]

Yup. Bitcoin is not anonymous. Tor is not anonymous either. Are you saying you believe both tech to be anonymous?

What do you actually define as anonymous? But there's no point arguing over semantics and this isn't really relevant anyway. The point is if you don't want an account associated with your other(s) or real world identity then you can have one or several for whatever reasons. 

My point is not moot at all. You just refusing to see the logic in it. With the barriers raised, significantly fewer people will use alts. Kiddie account sellers will no longer be able to farm 20-30 accounts without large investment, incredible discipline and huge amount of time to burn. When they screw up even once eventually, the account will be locked. I have seen this happen at another forum that was once filled with scammers.

No, your point is moot and there's no logic in it. Alt accounts are allowed and scammers are not banned, so you're trying to create rules and restrictions for something that is allowed. Why make it harder for me to have an alt account? Punish me just so it's a little more tedious for scammers to sign up? Again, when you make it harder for scammers you make it harder for the everyday user. Scammers will do whatever they can to get around the rules no matter how hard you make the restrictions and casual users will just be turned off/away.

Again, what are the genuine reasons aside from non-existent 'anonymity'?

I've already stated several times you can have them for whatever reasons you want. What reason are you using a 'throwaway account' now? That's one. Don't want to get into an argument with someone on your main account for whatever reason? That's another. Want one for business and one for personal? Another. Want to post unpopular opinions? Another. Want to sell dildos or erotic fiction you write? Create a new account. Any reason you want an account is valid and we should not restrict those people from doing so by adding pointless things like linking social media that do nothing but annoy people. And how is anonymity non existent? If I create an account through tor how is that tied to this account? If I want an account not linked to this one for whatever reasons I can do so regardless of the semantics of your definition of true anonymity. 

Because you made a big deal about people not wanting to sign up due the hassle of clicking one button once, a process that will take a few seconds. Yet they are perfectly okay with waiting six minutes between posts.

It's not about how many buttons you have to click, tying your social media account is far more annoying and potentially dangerous in my opinion and I wouldn't give my own personal one and neither would Mitchell, so we and everybody else have to create a new email and new fake Facebook or whatever just to sign up, so no it takes longer than a few seconds and one click to sign up. And most people aren't ok or don't like the six minute wait and that will compound their frustration when they find out about it after just having to have gone through the tedious process of creating a new email and new Facebook. Many will just think 'fuck it' and leave as I'm sure many already do with the frustrating six minute restrictions. 

Same, and many people will just be just turned off straight away. People who want to get around these restrictions to abuse them will just do what is necessary to bypass them, so it just hurts regular users who don't care or have the patience to go about creating fake social media accounts or using proxies/tor etc. 

Many people? Many people couldn't be bothered about hiding their identity online. The very, very few who do, can just create an alternate account to do so.
They won't get flagged. 
When amateurs create accounts multiple accounts, they will get flagged for reasons mentioned in my earlier posts.
For professionals scammers, they will have a higher barrier of entry and one wrong move could render their account closed.

Again it seems like you're proving my point here. Many people won't bother and the rest will just create new accounts so what actually is the point apart from annoying everybody? Or is it just about catching amateurs now? Professional scammers will professionally avoid the restrictions. Sure, you'll catch some out but you'll also catch genuine users who just don't want to use their own Internet connection or personal details. 

I would argue that more people will sign up because they will feel safer, knowing there are actual people behind an account rather than alts.

I would argue that they wouldn't and I think you'll be in the minority with this opinion. You also seem to be contradicting yourself as how does tying a fake Facebook account make them a real person? You know as well as I do so all this will do is give users a false sense of security so not safer at all. Casual and niave users may feel more secure or have no problem with it but they'll regret it later when their account is hacked and their real world identity is exposed or whatever.

[Quickseller]

I have a reason why people would want to create alternate accounts that is more valid then any of the above reasons: someone spends a lot of time calling out scammers and stopping scams. As a result scammers don't like him (it would probably be more accurate to say scammers would hate such a person).

A person who spends a lot of time weeding out scammers probably would not want their RL identity associated with their account because scammers would probably try to associate their RL identity with a bunch of BS illegal shit that is not true (just look at Vod - I am fairly confident that he thoroughly regrets associating his RL identity with his account now).

If such a person wanted to trade with people they would likely do so with alt accounts in order to protect their identity.

[hilariousandco]

Another good reason, though the genuine reasons for remaining anon - or as anon/hidden as you can be - are plenty. There are very few people here who are ok with people knowing their real name and forcing people to use social networks is a terrible and potentially dangerous move. Regardless, it's not going to happen.

[Throwaway_Acc]

Yup. Bitcoin is not anonymous. Tor is not anonymous either. Are you saying you believe both tech to be anonymous?

What do you actually define as anonymous? But there's no point arguing over semantics and this isn't really relevant anyway. The point is if you don't want an account associated with your other(s) or real world identity then you can have one or several for whatever reasons.

This isn't semantics. Bitcoin is NOT anonymous. Neither Satoshi nor Gavin, or any of the other four core developers has claimed Bitcoin to be anonymous. Just last week an FBI agent testified during the Ross Ulbricht trial in court how he conclusively connected the Silk Road addresses to Ulbricht. A week earlier, a security researcher did the same thing using only publicly available data and published his findings on Forbes.

When you sign up to a forum, you ceased to be anonymous. I think this is why admins stopped anonymous posting on Bitcointalk. Your identity can remain private, but you are no longer anonymous.

My point is not moot at all. You just refusing to see the logic in it. With the barriers raised, significantly fewer people will use alts. Kiddie account sellers will no longer be able to farm 20-30 accounts without large investment, incredible discipline and huge amount of time to burn. When they screw up even once eventually, the account will be locked. I have seen this happen at another forum that was once filled with scammers.

No, your point is moot and there's no logic in it. Alt accounts are allowed and scammers are not banned, so you're trying to create rules and restrictions for something that is allowed. Why make it harder for me to have an alt account? Punish me just so it's a little more tedious for scammers to sign up? Again, when you make it harder for scammers you make it harder for the everyday user. Scammers will do whatever they can to get around the rules no matter how hard you make the restrictions and casual users will just be turned off/away.

Why make it harder for the average users here and easier for scammers? You favor an environment that is conducive to scams, inconveniencing all average users every day, making Bitcointalk a dangerous place. Who is being punished here? This is the tyranny of the majority over a tiny minority.

My suggestion would make it slightly harder one time (seconds for most) for the average user to sign up, and make it so much harder for scammers, trolls, account farmers, etc.

Again, what are the genuine reasons aside from non-existent 'anonymity'?

I've already stated several times you can have them for whatever reasons you want. What reason are you using a 'throwaway account' now? That's one. Don't want to get into an argument with someone on your main account for whatever reason? That's another. Want one for business and one for personal? Another. Want to post unpopular opinions? Another. Want to sell dildos or erotic fiction you write? Create a new account. Any reason you want an account is valid and we should not restrict those people from doing so by adding pointless things like linking social media that do nothing but annoy people. And how is anonymity non existent? If I create an account through tor how is that tied to this account? If I want an account not linked to this one for whatever reasons I can do so regardless of the semantics of your definition of true anonymity.

I am using this account now because I can. If I can't, then I won't. Simple.

How many accounts does an average user need in other forums? How many other accounts does an average user need on Bitcointalk?

How many erotic businesses does the average users run? How many users are too cowardly to voice their opinion on one anonymous account but not the other?
My suggestion would not be a barrier against someone who wants to have two or three accounts. It would be a barrier against scammers. It would be a barrier against spammers. It would make enforcement very possible.

You are arguing against it because it will cost most posters an extra couple of seconds (once) and because a small number of people who thinks they are anonymous might get turned away from registering?

Because you made a big deal about people not wanting to sign up due the hassle of clicking one button once, a process that will take a few seconds. Yet they are perfectly okay with waiting six minutes between posts.

It's not about how many buttons you have to click, tying your social media account is far more annoying and potentially dangerous in my opinion and I wouldn't give my own personal one and neither would Mitchell, so we and everybody else have to create a new email and new fake Facebook or whatever just to sign up, so no it takes longer than a few seconds and one click to sign up. And most people aren't ok or don't like the six minute wait and that will compound their frustration when they find out about it after just having to have gone through the tedious process of creating a new email and new Facebook. Many will just think 'fuck it' and leave as I'm sure many already do with the frustrating six minute restrictions.

I would argue that more people will sign up because they will feel safer, knowing there are actual people behind an account rather than alts.

I would argue that they wouldn't and I think you'll be in the minority with this opinion. You also seem to be contradicting yourself as how does tying a fake Facebook account make them a real person? You know as well as I do so all this will do is give users a false sense of security so not safer at all. Casual and niave users may feel more secure or have no problem with it but they'll regret it later when their account is hacked and their real world identity is exposed or whatever.

Why is it potentially more dangerous? How many of you and Mitchells are on this forum? Are people like you guys the majority or a very, very tiny majority?
Who gains the most from the current system? That's right. Scammers. Not the average users.

How many users publicly post their website, email, Skype and Twitter accounts on this forum? Let's Google it.

Gmail (from profiles and forum posts): "&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8]29,000 results

Hotmail (from profiles and forum posts): "&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=site:[Suspicious link removed]%22]3,470

Skype (there's even a Bitcoin Skype group): "&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=site:bitcointalk.org+%22Skype%22]48,500[/url}

Twitter: [url=https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=site%3A[Suspicious link removed]"&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=site:[Suspicious link removed]%22]69,500

Facebook: "&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=site:[Suspicious link removed]%22]33,500

LinkedIn: "&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=site:[Suspicious link removed]%22]3,170

Google +: "&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=site:bitcointalk.org+%22plus.google.com%22]79,700

How many of the people above would suddenly leave Bitcointalk if asked to tie the social media accounts to Bitcointalk? How many people would feel sudden need to create a fake social media account to hide their identity from the admins?

Same, and many people will just be just turned off straight away. People who want to get around these restrictions to abuse them will just do what is necessary to bypass them, so it just hurts regular users who don't care or have the patience to go about creating fake social media accounts or using proxies/tor etc.

Many people? Many people couldn't be bothered about hiding their identity online. The very, very few who do, can just create an alternate account to do so.
They won't get flagged.
When amateurs create accounts multiple accounts, they will get flagged for reasons mentioned in my earlier posts.
For professionals scammers, they will have a higher barrier of entry and one wrong move could render their account closed.

Again it seems like you're proving my point here. Many people won't bother and the rest will just create new accounts so what actually is the point apart from annoying everybody? Or is it just about catching amateurs now? Professional scammers will professionally avoid the restrictions. Sure, you'll catch some out but you'll also catch genuine users who just don't want to use their own Internet connection or personal details.

Most people already have social media accounts, and most people won't have the need to be anonymous to the admins.
Most people won't be bothered about an extra one-time click that will cost them a few extra seconds. Most people are bothered by the sic-minute rule, but they choose to remain on this board. Genuine users won't have reason to be caught, because genuine users won't be creating accounts by the truckloads.

I have a reason why people would want to create alternate accounts that is more valid then any of the above reasons: someone spends a lot of time calling out scammers and stopping scams. As a result scammers don't like him (it would probably be more accurate to say scammers would hate such a person).

A person who spends a lot of time weeding out scammers probably would not want their RL identity associated with their account because scammers would probably try to associate their RL identity with a bunch of BS illegal shit that is not true (just look at Vod - I am fairly confident that he thoroughly regrets associating his RL identity with his account now).

If such a person wanted to trade with people they would likely do so with alt accounts in order to protect their identity.

Why would that need to stop? Linking your social media account to your Bitcointalk account does mean you must post with your real life identity.
Try it out here: https://www.digitalpoint.com. You have the option of hiding your accounts, changing your username, profile pics, etc.
A few years ago, that forum was so flooded with scammers and spammers, it was difficult even making a small purchase.
Today, the crime wave is gone. Sure, there are still the odd scams, but by and large, it is a safe place to conduct business and trades, post jobs or hold contests.
Once there is a barrier in place, most people will value their accounts more. People won't just simply link spam, try to run cheat someone for a few dollars, etc.
DigitalPoint is one of the most popular forums in the world. But they managed to beat the scam tide.

Another good example is WarriorForum.com, an even larger forum than Digital Point.
Last year, when the scam tide became too big, users had to pay $5 to register. A few years earlier, they implemented the War Room package for members who wanted enhanced credibility. Their admins constantly change the rules to counter spammers and scammers.

Both of these forums (especially DigitalPoint) has similar user demographic to Bitcointalk - tech savvy, young, webpreneur. In the case of WarriorForum, the number of millionaires are so much more than here. Even some of pro copywriters in the copywriting section make over a million a year. You don't see many problems with enforcement there.

[Quickseller]

Yup. Bitcoin is not anonymous. Tor is not anonymous either. Are you saying you believe both tech to be anonymous?

What do you actually define as anonymous? But there's no point arguing over semantics and this isn't really relevant anyway. The point is if you don't want an account associated with your other(s) or real world identity then you can have one or several for whatever reasons.

This isn't semantics. Bitcoin is NOT anonymous. Neither Satoshi nor Gavin, or any of the other four core developers has claimed Bitcoin to be anonymous. Just last week an FBI agent testified during the Ross Ulbricht trial in court how he conclusively connected the Silk Road addresses to Ulbricht. A week earlier, a security researcher did the same thing using only publicly available data and published his findings on Forbes.

If you use Bitcoin carefully enough you can essentially achieve anonymity, especially if you keep your trade sizes in smaller amounts. The connection was made to Ross because he was not careful nor was he using bitcoin properly.

When you sign up to a forum, you ceased to be anonymous. I think this is why admins stopped anonymous posting on Bitcointalk. Your identity can remain private, but you are no longer anonymous.

Not true. You can register for the forum via TOR or via an anon proxy/VPN, the same is true for posting. Someone could potentially buy an account on the darknet and only post via TOR.

My point is not moot at all. You just refusing to see the logic in it. With the barriers raised, significantly fewer people will use alts. Kiddie account sellers will no longer be able to farm 20-30 accounts without large investment, incredible discipline and huge amount of time to burn. When they screw up even once eventually, the account will be locked. I have seen this happen at another forum that was once filled with scammers.

No, your point is moot and there's no logic in it. Alt accounts are allowed and scammers are not banned, so you're trying to create rules and restrictions for something that is allowed. Why make it harder for me to have an alt account? Punish me just so it's a little more tedious for scammers to sign up? Again, when you make it harder for scammers you make it harder for the everyday user. Scammers will do whatever they can to get around the rules no matter how hard you make the restrictions and casual users will just be turned off/away.

Why make it harder for the average users here and easier for scammers? You favor an environment that is conducive to scams, inconveniencing all average users every day, making Bitcointalk a dangerous place. Who is being punished here? This is the tyranny of the majority over a tiny minority.

People need to learn how to defend themselves from potential scams. It is not up to the forum to hold people's hands protecting them from scams. Even if the forum did police scams, a scammer could do something as simply as move a conversation to Skype to pull off a scam.

My suggestion would make it slightly harder one time (seconds for most) for the average user to sign up, and make it so much harder for scammers, trolls, account farmers, etc.

Linking your social media account would not protect against scammers - they have the ability to create multiple social media accounts - scammers do not need so many accounts that they would likely have difficulty creating additional accounts. In reference to trolls, everyone is entitled to their opinion, just because it is unpopular, or even invalid does not mean they should not be able to voice it. In reference to account farmers - as long as they are posting things that are relevant to the conversation with their farmed accounts (and not spamming with them) then there is no real harm to the community. They are doing nothing more then providing a service to others which there is a demand for. They are embracing the free market.

Again, what are the genuine reasons aside from non-existent 'anonymity'?

I've already stated several times you can have them for whatever reasons you want. What reason are you using a 'throwaway account' now? That's one. Don't want to get into an argument with someone on your main account for whatever reason? That's another. Want one for business and one for personal? Another. Want to post unpopular opinions? Another. Want to sell dildos or erotic fiction you write? Create a new account. Any reason you want an account is valid and we should not restrict those people from doing so by adding pointless things like linking social media that do nothing but annoy people. And how is anonymity non existent? If I create an account through tor how is that tied to this account? If I want an account not linked to this one for whatever reasons I can do so regardless of the semantics of your definition of true anonymity.

I am using this account now because I can. If I can't, then I won't. Simple.

Some may say you using this account to advocate for the kind of change you are advocating for is hypocritical. I would be one of those people.

How many accounts does an average user need in other forums? How many other accounts does an average user need on Bitcointalk?

Doesn't matter. Some people have no interest in posting/selling/buying/trading anything controversial, these people will probably only need one account (and will probably ever use only one account). Other people may want to trade in controversial things (that are still legal), and may want to even use multiple accounts to trade in the same controversial items to avoid potential controversy in the trading of those things.

How many erotic businesses does the average users run? How many users are too cowardly to voice their opinion on one anonymous account but not the other?

People have their reputation associated with their various accounts. Anytime someone posts something from their account they are putting their reputation on the line. This is especially important if someone is running a business from one (or more) of their accounts.

My suggestion would not be a barrier against someone who wants to have two or three accounts. It would be a barrier against scammers. It would be a barrier against spammers. It would make enforcement very possible.

No. You would probably make enforcement more difficult. Your proposal would make it more difficult for spammer/scammer to initially sign up, however the initial period of an account is already difficult. Your proposal would make it more difficult to detect scammers/spammers when they do sign up with multiple accounts. The current system makes it so the admins are able to detect scammers/spammers while not revealing their sources as to how they know they are an alt of  a scammer/spammer.

You are arguing against it because it will cost most posters an extra couple of seconds (once) and because a small number of people who thinks they are anonymous might get turned away from registering?

It would cost more then time. It would cost people the ability to remain anon from everyone including the forum's admins.

I would argue that more people will sign up because they will feel safer, knowing there are actual people behind an account rather than alts.

I would argue that they wouldn't and I think you'll be in the minority with this opinion. You also seem to be contradicting yourself as how does tying a fake Facebook account make them a real person? You know as well as I do so all this will do is give users a false sense of security so not safer at all. Casual and niave users may feel more secure or have no problem with it but they'll regret it later when their account is hacked and their real world identity is exposed or whatever.

Why is it potentially more dangerous?

If you are doing too many things to make it difficult for scammers then you are risking giving people a false sense of security.

Who gains the most from the current system? That's right. Scammers. Not the average users.

I disagree. The average user does not need to associate their RL identity with their account. You should remember that bitcoin is still frowned upon in most of the world and is outright illegal in some places. Forcing people to associate their social media accounts with their forum account would make it easier for tyrant governments to punish people for being associated with bitcoin.   

How many users publicly post their website, email, Skype and Twitter accounts on this forum? Let's Google it.

With the exception of their twitter account, all can potentially not be associated with their RL identity and even in the case of twitter is is likely not associated with their RL identity. IMO most people posting these things are doing so for business purposes.

How many of the people above would suddenly leave Bitcointalk if asked to tie the social media accounts to Bitcointalk? How many people would feel sudden need to create a fake social media account to hide their identity from the admins?

Probably a lot for both of your questions.

I have a reason why people would want to create alternate accounts that is more valid then any of the above reasons: someone spends a lot of time calling out scammers and stopping scams. As a result scammers don't like him (it would probably be more accurate to say scammers would hate such a person).

A person who spends a lot of time weeding out scammers probably would not want their RL identity associated with their account because scammers would probably try to associate their RL identity with a bunch of BS illegal shit that is not true (just look at Vod - I am fairly confident that he thoroughly regrets associating his RL identity with his account now).

If such a person wanted to trade with people they would likely do so with alt accounts in order to protect their identity.

Why would that need to stop? Linking your social media account to your Bitcointalk account does mean you must post with your real life identity.

I am not interested in your other forums. This forum literally has hundreds of thousands of users and is roughly the 4,000th largest website on the internet. As a result the forum is a prime target for hackers trying to steal information from the forum. The identities of people who weed out scammers would likely sell at a premium then others' identities for the reasons I stated above

[Grand_Voyageur]

Because you're making people jump through hoops and put their identity on the line just to sign up and post on a forum, a forum where most people value their privacy or wish to remain anon for whatever reasons. Most people tend to think the newb time restrictions and previous newbie jail are bad enough without adding more complications to just signing up in the first place.

Bitcoin is not anonymous. So why is Bitcointalk trying to be anonymous? The admins also never said alts are allowed because of anonymity. The reason given is difficulty in enforcement.

Bitcoin is as anonymous as you want it to be, and difficulty in enforcing them is one of the reasons but alts are allowed for whatever reason you want them for and that includes anonymity. Mods/staff/admins have stated multiple times alts are allowed if you don't want certain things being tied to certain identities so it's not just because it's unenforceable.

Unless there has been a dramatic change, Bitcoin protocol is not anonymous. Never has been. Yes, you can hide, but you are not anonymous.

So is it one of the reasons or whatever reasons? As far as I remember, theymos or badbear has always maintained that alts and account sales are allowed because of difficulty in enforcement. Here is a solution that will make it enforceable unless someone is willing to purchase x number of unique IPs tied to one particular account, social account and email and hope they always remember to flush their browser before switching accounts.

Or are you saying Bitcointalk admins decision behind alts and account sales has nothing to do with enforcement? That puts a new spin on everything.

Even then, I remember users could post anonymously on this forum without creating an account, but doing so will not let them accumulate posts, rank and reputation.

As for jumping hoops. I would argue legitimate and honest users are asked to jump through more hoops to navigate through the scammy minefield here.
If you really want to talk about hoops, the six minute posting requirement for newbie accounts is the biggest hoop around.

Yes, so you're proving my point here. Don't add more restrictions, especially pointless unnecesary ones. The time limit goes down after a while anyway but at least newbs make it past the sign up stage which many won't if they see you need to link a social media account to it.

How am I proving your point? I just poked a pretty large hole in it. The biggest restriction is the six minutes barrier between posts. Linking your social media account takes seconds, once.

I don't want to let peepers and other people here (or around the net) to see my private things on social media (even if the most private are not there) or social media companies know what i do here on this forum. I don't mind if BTC protocol is not completly anonymous but linking also my social media profiles is really giving out to much details of my life for me to bee still confortable enough.

[Yazuki]

How often is that thread updated?
The forum capital one.

Not since November of last year.

The est. budget is indeed $1 million, I believe the $350k figure was the down payment. Anyone who knows software projects, the quoted completion date is a rough guideline, if you try to strictly adhere to a deadline that you set 8 months in the past, you either ought to be very lucky, or there are still things to fix on release. Its done when its done, its not like a hardware preorder where people are losing money if its not rolled out immediately on schedule, that said, to the best of my knowledge it is on schedule, and we are getting pretty close to the beta.

it'll be completed when the forum has 0 coins lol

slickage will milk theymos dry and leave him with a forum full of security holes and a code base nobody understands

[monbux]

You do know that the new forum comes out pretty soon, right? It will contain everything you listed, except maybe Newbie jail.

Information about the new forum can be found in their designated sub-forum and more basic information can be found in the "Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ"-thread, which also tells you when it's supposed to be released. It's a sticky in Meta, so if someone really had a question about this, they would have read the sticky first and then posted something if it's not answered by the sticky.

...
Q: So when is the new forum software coming?
A: Well, according to theymos, some time after February 2015.
...

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

Soon has been said for the past 6 months. I seriously won't be surprised if (when) the new forum doesn't come out in early 2015 (as was said to be the release date). When it comes out, I can only imagine all the new problems that will come with it (I seriously hope not but disappointment after disappointment after delay after downtime leads to a cynical way of thinking.)

Very true.  I've discovered that most projects, especially bitcoin projects, seem to delay for quite a while before actually released.  If we could get some screenshots or get a beta version, that would be awesome.