Topic: Account Farmers are the new Ponzis - page 7. (Read 7933 times)

Okay, that makes more sense. I initially though you were referring to banning account sales and/or removing signature campaigns/signatures.

While technically true, I doubt theymos would make such a radical change if everyone is against it.

Quality over quantity. I'd rather have 10 useful posts a day, than 1 000 useless ones.

The OP and some of people in this thread were suggesting negative feedback bombing people who sell acounts or who are involved in any way that is what i was referring to.  I would suggest if that ends up happening to first warn people first for a while - "stop selling accounts or else etc" if newbie account it doesn't mean anything, might aswell negative feedback bomb.

If you are banning account sales and its an official forum decision then yeah discussion is over, you just delete topic, everyone has to agree

If you ban signature campaigns then account sales will probably drop to almost nothing but forum activty also drops, does that matter? i dont know.

I have no idea where you're getting this from, but this won't be the case.

Again, neither one hits. Exactly how would we strengthen the position of account farmers if we disallow account sales? This is contradictory. Quality members will be not affected at all. Unless you're talking about signatures, in that case neither one is true again. People which do not post solely due to being a signature campaign participants, will continue to post as nothing has happened.

Not if it increases profits of hardcore account farmers due to them being the only people who sell accounts in the short term.  Negatives mean nothing on some random newbie account.

Also in longer term you strengthen anonymous account farmers position and alienate hundreds of better quality members in 1 swoop.

 

That is not a negative, that is a positive. You should not be selling accounts in the first place.

Your suggestion is absurdly foolish. Charging a monthly basis of that amount, which is lower than what some earn in 1 week, will do nothing at all.

Once there is no incentive to spam (paying signature campaign), you will be surprised at how quickly most of them reduce their posting.

This forum needs more of those periods.

You will still have extreme cases where people get perma-banned.
I don't think current standards will apply to donators.
There have been periods where I have seen 100+ permabans in the modlog.
Would that happen with donators (assuming hundreds of people donate). I don't think so.

1.) Negatives for all sellers/buyers of accounts is potentially not effective for targetting account farmers:

That would mean everyone gets hit.... big sellers, small sellers, escrows, the guy who once sold 1 account.  The people who farm huge tons of accounts are mostly posting on accounts which mean nothing anyway.  More so than the person who once sold 1 account etc, or the person who escrows.

You might aswell give negatives to all people who whore themselves out to use signatures to promote business - probably another bad idea.

2.) charging people to use signatures function via a donation to the forum:

2 BTC was mentioned, someone said that was crazy high, i agree its high.  You could charge on a monthly basis 0.1 or 0.05.  Problem is people will just spam and then since they are a paying customer, who will stop them?

No idea what you're talking about.

You aren't building up your argument properly. As I've already said, we don't need a perfect solution, we need a good one. If it reduces spam by e.g. 50% for starters, I'm fine with that.

There is no context anyways, i stopped taking part in these discussions months ago.I don't give a fuck to DT after doog's thread if that's what you think.

The idea is not wrong but its unrealistic. having an ambition to become a big man one day is unrealistic & an ambition to become a big Biomedical scientist is realistic.

people who spend half of the day on forums spamming for 400 bucks are not going to pay 800 $ loll...

That's strange. Just stay away from the things that tend to make you receive a negative trust rating and you should be fine. DT members should not give you rating based on the things that you've said.

There's nothing wrong with the idea.

I got silent cause of policing, cant say bout others,that too full of close mindedness,illogical, IMO's ,power-trip policing  and also the fact that how they all sort out ratings and support each other.Doo definitely deserves the red mark for the ponzi script coding according to the policing i see here but they are afraid to point out the Gods.Fucking cliques. Soooo much hypocrisy.


You like the Idea ? can i know how many nasty fans are going to vote here ?? no matter how many but i don't think theymos is so fucking unrealistic naive to implement such an idea.

I like the idea but a tier system might be more appealing. 1 BTC for minimal signature (plain text) and 2 BTC for the more flashy options.

This is not an argument, it is a statement based on a observation. Unless theymos suddenly changes his mind, I don't see account sales being disallowed.

Exactly. This is what I've been trying to say. These accounts would not be worth as much as they are now (why would they be?) if there was no way to get 'ROI' for the buyer. Over time there would be a huge decline in sales and spam.

Correct.

The is the part that I don't understand. Exactly how would they choose a "short-sided approach" and receive a lower signature payment when they are unable to have a signature in the first place?

My basis for the 2 BTC amount is that 50 BTC is for VIP.  20% of the VIP amount is 10 BTC, for Donator.  20% of that would be 2 BTC, for Supporter.

I like the concept behind this idea, although I do think that some of the specifics should be tweaked for it to be something that theymos would consider implementing.

Many people use signature campaigns to "earn" their "first bitcoin" and whatever solution is implemented should continue to allow this to happen. In order to get around this problem, I would suggest that signatures restrictions remain how they are currently for Full Members and below; in order to "unlock" the "signature features" of Senior Members and above, a user must pay/donate an amount that equates to ~1.5-2.5 weeks worth of anticipated signature earnings based on a competitively priced hypothetical signature campaign for a semi-active poster for a senior member.

This will allow people to "earn" a small amount of bitcoin while they are new to the forum and learning about bitcoin.  This would also be in line with an amount that would equate to a "tax" on a user's signature campaign earnings. Those who intend on contributing constructively over the long term will have incentives to "donate" because of the higher earnings potential as a result of their "donation". This amount would be small enough so that it would not exclude someone who lives in a very poor part of the world.

This "donation" could be used as somewhat of a deterrent against making very low quality posts because a signature spammer would lose their "donation" if they were to get banned. 

If the amount required to unlock signature features is too large then when someone gets banned, there will be a controversy, especially considering the amount of judgment the moderators must put into the decision of banning someone.   

I would anticipate that prices accounts with "unlocked signature features" would likely increase by the amount of the required "donation", if not more, and that the rates of competitively priced signature campaigns will increase when using signatures with features that are "unlocked" with a donation.

Slightly off topic, however when the price of bitcoin was $10, the forum was in much worse financial shape then it is now. The donations were originally used to pay for hosting and the forum was not financially self sufficient. Now hosting is paid for (it used to be donated in exchange for an ad slot), and the forum can reasonably continue operations without any additional financial assistance. I suspect that the $100 donation in 2011/2 was much more beneficial to the forum then a $4,500 donation to the forum would be today.

This would be a very good idea if the amount was lowered (see above).

I do not think that many of the shit-posters would donate and would instead choose to take the short-sided approach of continuing to post while receiving a lower signature payment, which I believe will further decrease the market prices of signatures of lower level members. This could potentially (at least temporarily) create an environment in which it is no longer attractive to make low quality posts in exchange for signature payments and the signature spammers will try to make their money elsewhere. 

Goat had serious issues tbh. He had so many coins he thought he owned the forum and yeah, no matter what rank they're on, if they keep spamming and shit then a ban would definitely be the best.

Goat was a VIP who was perma-banned, right?  If you are an idiot and get banned, I don't think you can blame anyone but yourself.

What happens when one of these supporters does get banned?
They are going to raise hell claiming that the forum ripped them off. 

You Guys are just wasting your time. I don't think so that can works. If Mods and Admin ban the account buying selling in this forum. the account traders continue their work out of the forum. I know some people personally who trading accounts via Skype,   and I saw some posts on other forums and http://www.bitlanders.com/ about bitcointalk account selling,.

then The admins should block all accounts who change their passwords. If you think changing password mean the account has been sold.

I agree that they wouldn't pay.  The spamming would cease as the account would have no value if it couldn't be used for signature campaigns.  You seem to think people would still pay for accounts if the accounts couldn't generate BTC.  They wouldn't.



They definitely necessitate spam.  I don't think that can be debated.  You do make a solid point about killing off a micro-economy of new users.  However, I believe that most of those users probably gamble their funds away to the very people paying them to advertise, likely putting in their own funds to fuel their newfound gambling addiction as well.  In other words, the spammers themselves probably end up victims in the end.  Eliminating these campaigns would probably be doing them a favor.