Topic: Just remove signatures already. As in delete, disable, gone. - page 18. (Read 44870 times)

i'd say most people join this school (btct) without any books (btc) and if they like it they'l go buy some.

so your examples does not fit: no one is forced to own bitcoin to be here

As faucets aren't really worth now, sig-ads will help them to earn some BTC by contributing to the forum and they will learn some new things from it.


I thought you said in general but now I understood you said how 'you see'. This is how 'I see':


Edit:


In general, drugs are very hard(near to impossible) to be used responsibly.

   -MZ

That's why I said “if used responsibly”.

we are talking about if sig-ads are an incentive for new users (btc users - not btct users).
and i still think thats not the case...

btw the sentences are not contradicting each other.  i need btc to buy an account. if someone has btc i dont consider him new.

i expect anybody to be informed before spending money to buy btc - and after they have informed themselves they arent really new (informed means from a technical POV, an econmic POV or speculative POV - seems to depend on personal mindset)

AFAIK it is! When some people eats drugs, the people living near are in danger especially women in one way or another.


If you joined a school and bought the books, you are still a new student for a few days.


If you want to buy accounts here, you will have to pay them in BTC or in other cryptocurrencies, if you are sticking with first line, then you should change this line because there is no such thing as 'real new user'. Otherwise, correct the mistake - change first line.

   -MZ

if i want to buy an acount i need btc first, so i am not a new user.
a real new user would just buy some and try them (or just speculates)

Drugs are not harmful to society if used responsibly. Look at the Netherlands, for instance.

You don't want to buy new ones, you can still join as a newbie. But if you want to earn more, you can invest the BTC you got from the campaign in buying and then you can hit ROI in a few weeks.


Drugs = Harmful to society, person who use and person who sell.
Accounts = Harmful/Helpful to forum and person who use.

   -MZ

They are in the same negative limelight to me. But that's my opinion.

+1

and i dont think sig-campaigns bring many new users, especially not if you have to buy an account first.

I believe in a free market. I'm not asking anybody to ban account selling. It's just that I'm not OK with this, as well as there are people that are not OK with drug selling, but not actively try to ban it.

i just scan over threads ,i ignore posts from members pimping the signatures because your right ,it is usually low quality garbage

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.

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

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

Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

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)

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.

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.
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.
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
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.
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.

this reminds me of every gov on the planet

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


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.


This is circumstantial.


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


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