Signature/account farming is not against any forum rule
It's against this campaign's rules. My standards are higher than the "required minimum".
fair enough
Even before you raised rates you were effectively paying .002 BTC per post to senior members, yet you could not fill all your slots while other, much larger signature campaigns have been full for months with similar payout rates. Why do you think this is? Do you really think that having two accounts is really that harmful to luckybit?
I think it's due to the fact that most campaign participants are alt accounts, and since I don't allow them, they don't participate. If some competitor wants to pay someone three times to spam the forum, hey; it's their money to waste. I'm on a fixed budget and I'd rather focus my efforts on quality advertisers that aren't going to abuse the system for a quick profit.
Just because we're surrounded by thieves and scumbags doesn't mean we have to be ones.
You make a lot of rules to try to prevent alt accounts from participating but you have not succeeded.
It is not difficult to use multiple accounts in your campaign, it is just a headache to do so.
Maybe if you judged participants by the quality of their posts instead of the number of accounts they had you would have better luck with your campaign.
Regardless of the number of accounts a participant has if they are making relevant posts you are getting advertisement exposure.
I would not say that someone who has more then one account is a scumbag nor a thief. I would consider you to be more of a thief by forcing participants to risk their money by gambling on your site any time they want to even apply to participate in your campaign. I don't know what the house edge is on luckybit, nor do I care, but assuming it is 1% then the EV for people that apply is negative by 1%. This does not even count the fact that the gambler is forced to pay 2 TX fees on every bet which really makes the house edge much higher then advertised.
If you want to talk about spam, I would suggest that you look at the spam your site puts on the blockchain as in the number of spammy transactions.
You are wrong on this. He is currently enrolled in the bitmixer signature campaign which pays from their 1bitmixer... address. If he used bitmixer to mix his coins then you would most likely not know that he used a mixing service without significant resources (especially with bitmixer)
You are in effect denying him participation because he participated with a competitor campaign.
Can anybody else verify this?
Why would people in the bitmixer campaign be visiting your scammy signature campaign thread?