Since multiple accounts are allowed,and there is no punishment from the staff if they abuse a campaign, I wonder if this would get the owner in any sort of trouble if reporting it. And not only him but others who do the same.
If he/she/it/they is talking to himself using multiple accounts, whilst wearing a paid signature (et. al.), then they would surely get banned.Twitter accs looks absolutely the same, similar followers, identical tweets. I guess BTC talk accs should get red trust because there is obviously just 1 owner for all these accs, who was stupid enough to register at the same time.
That is circumstantial proof at best. You need something better in order to get me to tag them all. I'd have to look into each account, which would be a huge waste of time and even then it would not be adequate without some sort of stronger connection between them. Personally, I have no trouble believing that this is a positive hit. I responded as requested.
Lauda, thanks a lot for the reply! Now I realize that there's not enough evidence for BTCtalk accs connected with similar twitter accs. The bounty abuser could just use random forum profile links to fill user link field, because there's no verification requirement for them (if they had to PM manager on forum for example to get approved, this could work). Indeed a big research on these accs needed to proove them as 1 big bounty farm.
Most social media bounty campaigns doesn't verify forum accounts and (if the specific campaign has for example Member+ participation rule) it's easy to bypass the rules by simply using random user profile link...
