Topic: Crimes of signatures campaign affects forum? - page 3. (Read 664 times)

Criminal activities can occur in any context, including within signature campaigns. If a signature campaign is found to involve criminal behavior that could attract government intervention, it is reasonable to assume that the forum administrators would not allow such a campaign to continue. If the criminal activity is discovered after individuals have already participated in the campaign, they may not be held liable if they were unaware of the illegal actions taking place.

But all this is purely hypothetical and based on my assumptions. As far as I know, there have not been any specific cases of signature campaigns involving criminal activities on this forum.

Take mixer services as an example. Mixer services, in and of themselves, are not inherently illegal. However, there have been instances where some mixer services have been investigated and accused of engaging in illegal activities, such as the Chipmixer case. And yet, no sanctions or interventions came from the governing agencies because the CM advertised through signature campaigns.

So you want me to believe that no crime of signature campaign that can affects the forum, and if action should be taken if a signatures campaign commit crime that will bring intervention of government the action will go directly to the organisers of that particular signatures campaign, that means that forum is autonomous and everyone is promoting its business will bear the consequences when issue's or when theirs complications of distrust and investigations.

Maybe, which is why theymos asked the forum moderators and staff not to promote mixers.


Has this ever happened? Has any campaign been stopped in the forum because it is violating any country's law?

I guess you're making reference to the not too distant event with CM campaign and its sad end. To a great extent I do believe the abrupt manner that mixer site was shutdown showed the dimension and seriousness with which government could take things to if it meant it. I'm not a tech person but I do believe shutting down of this forum could also be possible but that could only be if there's incriminating evidence against it. CM fell out with the law and its advertisement ended here immediately. Except government can sufficiently prove that BTT was an active partner in the whole saga, I don't think it would want to go that way seizing its domain.

Oh, really? I didn't even think of that dimension when I got a lot of calls and offline messages in that regard from members on this while BTT was down a few days ago. If I did, I would've played a fast one on those worrying callers by pranking them that the site had been yanked off by government 🤪

Bitcointalk is basically just a forum platform where people discuss about all things crypto. It doesn't endorse any particular businesses, and therefore cannot be held responsible for any shady business going down.

Now, when it comes to signature campaigns, the responsibility falls on the organizers and the members themselves. The forum cannot be held accountable for the actions and choices made by individuals participating in these campaigns and who choose to wear certain signatures. But, there are also rules in place, right? Members are not allowed to promote illegal activities, and that applies to signatures too.

So, the bottom line is that everyone has to take personal responsibility. Bitcointalk provides a platform, but it is up to the users to make sure they are not doing things that could get them into trouble or engage in any activities that may have legal implications.

Section 230 will be applied with Bitcointalk.

What is Section 230 and why should I care about it?
EU Digital Services Act and US Section 230: Decision-making processes and expected consequences

Staffs are required to not promote criminal services.

First of all, Advertisement of illegal item is not allowed in the forum so there’s no the government will bust the forum since it doesn’t promote illegal goods. In an event that a service that being promoted by forum member turns out to be violating the law, The campaign stop immediately which means we didn’t allow here to promote service that already committed the crime not before the crime is committed.


Yes, Government can seize the forum if the management commit a crime based on what country jurisdiction the forum is under and what kind of crime. Any website online can be seize by the government if they have the warrant for it. But forum moderator is not dumb to do that. Theymos is very professional for a long time on running the forum smoothly.


You just need to take a break. Theymos create a poll recently about how to fix the broken image in the forum due to imgur issue. The timing of maintenance is in-line with his poll so probably he is just doing some solution on the broken image problem. There’s nothing to worry about and make sure to be updated on meta to prevent this kind of worrying.

I don't think any form of signature campaign can actually affect the forum. This is because the forum is an open area where spam is not moderated. You as an individual have the right to wear whatever you want under your signature space. If by any chance what you advertise under your signature space turns out to be illegal and attracts the government's attention, that's between you and the project. To be on the safe side, all you should do is take off the signature code.

Even if an investigation is to be made, it won't come directly to the forum, but it might have an individual attack on you, who was advertising the project in the first place, because those government officials will not agree that you don't know anything about the project. (But I doubt that can even happen.)

I believe one of the reasons why the forum stopped showing off ads is because of this kind of risk and to be on the safer side, not to directly advertise any project that might turn out to give the forum a bad name.



I never believed it before, until the CM issue, when I came across a discussion where one of the respected members made mention of such things as "that we should be prepared and we might actually see a similar welcome news here on the forum one day."

I would say it's possible, but that will only be if the government has enough reason to do that, although I know these days the SEC doesn't actually need reasons to do something; they just create one.

So I believe there are fewer things to worry about; the forum is organic and is not a direct threat to any government.

Bitcointalk is just a public forum where people gather around from crypto community and discuss things, the forum created by Satoshi who is also the founder of bitcointalk but there is no direct link between bitcoins and bitcointalk.

So even if the forum is no longer the Bitcoin will continue to exist until someone use it for transaction and miner exist to confirm the block.

AFAIK, signature campaign will not affect the bitcointalk existence in anyway because bitcointalk doesn't gain any financial benefit by allowing signature however in future if more of signature campaigns becomes affect the experience of forum then we can expect signature free forum too.

I have taught of this seriously and I began to have a biased concern to bitcointalk if any signatures campaigns in bitcointalk can affects the existence of bitcointalk if they commit a crime that leads to government investigations. Secondly do we believe that bitcointalk can  be obstructed by government if their is a noticeable crime by the management? From my understanding it seems to me that bitcoin existence is different from the bitcointalk forum and without the existence of bitcointalk forum bitcoin will continue existing, what's your take on this.
This idea came to me through what happened to the site of bitcointalk few days ago which I couldn't logins my account for sometimes, I wasn't happy when the incident occur. Please I asked this few questions because I want to know what I don't know, and if my question is not ideal please don't crucify me.