Topic: Account Farmers are the new Ponzis - page 8. (Read 7937 times)

Red trust isn't related to the rules of the forum.  The trust system is supposed to reflect the feedback of individuals for other individuals.  If I find your actions untrustworthy, scammy, whatever, and I leave negative feedback for you, that's my opinion and it's all that it is.  As far as I know, the trust system isn't supposed to be governed by any set of rules other than what individuals find positive or negative about their interactions with each other here.

I guess I don't understand this argument.  It seems more like clinging to the status quo that, at least with respect to account sales, is broken.  The sales may very well take place outside this forum but by banning them here it certainly makes it more difficult, for buyers and sellers.  This is common to a lot of forums that I've seen:  actions that are frowned upon are not allowed on the forum, period.  It makes no sense to me that the community is giving red trust to people for these actions that are perfectly within the rules of the forum.

Quoting Lauda from earlier: "We don't need a perfect solution, we just need a good one."

Yet, there currently are advertisers which get along maintaining a substantial campaign without producing mass-spam on the way.

There's nothing really to disagree with in that statement. Unless you think that the staff is not capable of finding those spammers before they reach ROI on that 2 BTC.

The spammers have forgotten that and are making the 'daily life' on the forum for others worse.

If I were to pick one, it would be the manager. A campaign that requires a fixed amount of posts does not prevent spam at all if it has a high amount of participants (as some will likely have multiple accounts in it).

Again, I have to remind people that there is no such thing as a perfect solution. Something that makes their 'life' harder is all that is needed in order to suppress this habit. There would be a huge difference (especially for the individuals that have a huge amount of accounts) in net profit if they aren't able to participate in signature campaigns until they rank up.

The forum offers advertisement slots.

No. Off-topic advertising is against the rules (i.e. off-topic posts are in general).

I'm saying they wouldn't even pay the 2BTC for the status... they just spam on accounts with no signature until they get high enough to get some type of value for the account, if they get banned for spamming, its just lost time. Eventually they either sell the account without 'Supporter' status or they purchase the 'Supporter' status right before they sell the account, and subsequently mark up the price of the account and advertise it as "having Supporter status"

I would also question what the advertisers are going to do when they see a drop in people using their advertisements. Advertisers are paying out for a reason and I'm sure they are making money off of these spammers in some fashion so I could see them increasing payouts, they are going to have extra funds anyway when the numbers drop in people using the signatures.

They could also come up with workarounds to the situation and start paying people on just mentioning their company name in a post...

You wouldn't lose that main point when signatures are taken from 'normal' users and only are allowed for some restricted group.

It's not too complex, believe me.

I disagree.We're forgetting the main goals of our existence in this forum,we're here for bitcoins and casting our opinions on the subjects rather than investing money for ROI in terms of signature campaigns.

A better fix could be something more flexible,more efficient.Why do I see some campaigns causing less spam compared to other ? Managers ? Rules ? Fixed Posts ? Even though this seems like a complex option but could be analyzed .

I still think 0.2 is a better figure though, 2BTC is out of reach for people like me

I disagree that this would be case. The difference here is that when they spam, right now, they don't have to worry much about a ban because either they will:
1) Buy a new account (which does not cost a lot).
2) Create another/use another.

If there's an added cost of 2 BTC per signature, they risk a lot of money each time they try to spam. It would most likely net them a negative amount as they would be caught before they could ROI.

So just for full clarification... the general idea of what happens here with account farming is:

1 They create or buy XX number of accounts
2 Join them all to signature campaigns (maybe?  I believe this lowers the value of the account?) and start posting whatever they can, as fast as they can
3 Sell them to the highest bidder when they have some type of value or reputation, presumably to someone who wants to scam or join signature campaigns themselves.

If so, a 2BTC charge on the 'Supporter' status means they can still technically get or create accounts, and still post nonsense and crap for the purpose of gaining higher status accounts for reselling, just without a signature campaign, obviously making less money in the process, but they should still get something on the account sale which I assume will keep them going.

Accounts being sold with a 'Supporter' status are just going to be marked up 2BTC more to cover the cost?  I guess it depends on how willing someone is to buy it... or how willing advertisers will be to increase their payouts to offset the costs and continue their marketing campaigns?

That depends. It is obviously a 'drastic' measure, but definitely an effective one. While the exact number is debatable (as it will be deemed as high to some), I like the general idea behind it.

I concur. Although we could still retain the avatar function, but disallow promotional avatars.

That's not going to happen. They would not only be risking an account (which is somewhat cheap), they would be risking 2 BTC (which is a lot depending where you live and especially for the majority of signature spammers.

I have to say this on every single suggestion topic on relevant problems: We don't need a perfect solution (this does not exist), we need a good one. We only need to make it drastically harder for people to spam for money.

Disagree. Bitcoin does not gain any kind of 'support' from signature spammers. While there are a few (but rare) examples of decent participants, most of them (99%) just spam for money.

I somewhat agree that it is linked, but I don't think that signature campaigns necessitate it. I think all that's needed would be stricter moderation.    
Back in what I remember as the peak signature campaign value period, Primedice used to offer upwards of 1 BTC a month, and inputs.io used to pay quite a bit too. (BTC was worth 200smth to 300smth)    
Account seller threads were more frequent IIRC, especially single people selling many many accounts. Account prices were higher too (hero members > 1 BTC I think)

I'd argue that at that point in history, there was more incentive for spamming than there is now.. I think it is just that the standards for removal of posts have lowered, and more and more posts that would have formerly been considered too off-topic or too insubstantial are being allowed now. And you can't really blame the staff, presuming volume of posts is increasing.

Removing signature campaigns would solve the problem. But the existence of signature campaigns and account sales is not the cause, and they have been around from before when the terrible posts came.

Also, I'd argue that the method of micropayments in a signature campaign would actually be good for the forums as it encourages new users (if only they didn't pay per post/have absurd post requirements). I actually remember TF talking about how paying per post was encouraging spam and paying per activity on the inputs.io signature campaign. Straight up removing signature campaigns is going to cut out a lot of the new adopters of Bitcoin who can get their first fraction of a Bitcoin by talking about Bitcoin rather than actually buying it (which can often be a convoluted process not worth going through for small amounts)

So, playing devils advocate, I'd say that signature campaigns don't necessitate spam, it's just alongside lax moderation. Killing the micro-economy of new users who have found usable amounts of BTC only through sig campaigns may be bad for BTC too.

 

If not on bitcointalk,the account sales could easily take place on other places.I'm sure that already exists.

 
What ? lol You might have donated to the forum when the bitcoin prices was what $10 ?
Complete illogical statement.


If they had 2BTC to donate,why would they post garbage around the forum for few Satoshis ? Afterall,2 BTC is a huge amount for a campaigner.What you implied is,allow only rich to earn more money on the forum.

But...that would mean there are some other problems we have to face.

---

This isn't the only bitcoin discussion forum, hence there is no need to fear 'competition', as it is already out there.

If those people where a) the kind of people this forum wants to attract and b) coming here for the reasons this forum wants to 'draw' people,
which mostly they are not these days.

Another approach, which is definitely worth discussing, although I have to agree with suchmoon on the few points he has brought up in response:
A variation of it would be limiting 'non-donators' to members/full members signatures, whilst the ones that donated amount X are allowed to carry the signatures they have right now.
Or something a little more reconsidered/worked out, going in this direction.

Have to be careful in creating a donation aspect of 2 btc since it creates a mirror image of society in the 1% being those that donated. It would be a little off putting but I think the site should see more revenue coming in,so little torn on that.
The problem you face is there will for sure be competing forum that is going to be set up for those that are anti government and establishment. If there is not yet a place like this as the forum moves towards crossing out a few aspects that draw people here.

This might have some merit but 2 BTC is too steep. I would like to have a modest signature, I'm not advertising anything, and 2 BTC is way to much for that. Not everyone makes money off their sig.

Having said that, I'd happily give up my signature and avatar if there is a solid permanent solution to this account trade/farming bullshit that's going on right now. I'm just not sure if making it more expensive is the solution as it seems to favor those who can afford it (e.g. advertisers) and might make them spam even more to cover the cost.

No.  I obviously never said that.  



No.  Why would I need to?  I deal honestly.



It isn't a lot of money considering the amount they get paid for selling advertising on bitcointalk and annoying the people here who are actually trying to help the Bitcoin community.



If someone enables you to make money on their platform, giving back to them isn't a bad thing.  What is happening right now is people are exploiting the forum and reducing it's content quality to steal funds dishonestly (not quality posts).



My ideas have nothing to do with Bitcoin.  They have to do with removing the incentive to be a spam crapping freeloader on these forums.  
How do you know what the forum needs?  Maybe they have million dollar ideas that would benefit the entire community.
My ideas require no additional staff.

1. So the mods should go around checking people's messages? No thread doesnt mean NO sale

2. Have you made an account with tor before? the price is already too high

3. No, thats alot of money, accounts arent even sold for that much, if anthing, the cap should be 0.2 max

4. Also taxing is not a smart idea, its a forum, not a country

alot of your ideas go against what bitcoin represents
also, the forum doesnt need any money right now
Your ideas will need alot of staff if they were to be used

I agree with some others that account farming is directly related to signature campaigns and spam.

It's a tricky situation.  Freedom of speech and all that...

The easiest solution would be to ban account sales officially.  Mods could be free to start deleting the topics, and perhaps even perma-banning those who engage in the behavior.  This could give those who want to fight the issue some ammunition to do it.

It could be taken a step further by raising the price of registering an account using TOR, restricting the number of accounts that can be created from an IP address, and pruning all accounts that haven't been active in 2 years.  This could make it a little more difficult for the account creators.

---

However, my favorite solution is this...

BAN SIGNATURES FOR FORUM MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOT DONATED TO THE FORUM.
Create a new level of donator called the "Supporter" that can be reached with a 2 BTC donation to bitcointalk.
Only Supporters, Donators, & VIPs are then allowed to have signatures.  Perhaps with each level carrying different restrictions.

This would bring in a bit of revenue for the forums from anyone who wants to participate in selling advertising on bitcointalk, and raise the cost of running a signature campaign.  All this while reducing the spam, spammers, and those who fund them.

I cant beleive that you are praising people for putting a red number under some usernames, what exactly did we accomplish by this? ponzis are still up and running

What again did we accomplish?

How?

---

thread is an obvious swipe against knowhow
grow up

/thread