Topic: (PETITION) The act of BUYING/SELLING Bitcointalk.org Accounts (Poll) - page 3. (Read 5619 times)

Lol

Actually the ones dealing with them will subconsciously get an idea that "account age doesn't mean anything as accounts can be sold"
Problem solved

It's not impossible to enforce, but to enforce fully it is, but that doesn't mean we should let it happen or remain neutral. It's impossible to enforce fully the sale of child porn and weapons but I don't think that means we should take a neutral stance on it.

Send me all your bitcoins, I'm reliable!  

By the way, since it is impossible to enforce I just picked neutral.

I think it''s best to look for evidence of reliability by checking out there trades history and recent activity. Just because somebody has been here 6-10 months doesn’t make them reliable. Most decent traders will have plenty of evidence of trades they can link you to, and/or have a rep thread.

"6 month old account" and "reliable" in one sentence?

It has to stop. What we are doing is making it easy for scammers, they get a 6-10 months old account and the one's who deal with them subconsciously get an idea that, "Hey, that's an old chap, must be reliable!"

He has. The selling of accounts is not disallowed.

I agree with changing the wording. or close this topic and create a completely new one!
I also think you can't stop people from selling accounts but at least the forum admin should take a position

Best thing is never ever trust anybody with irreversible transactions

Having multiple accounts isn't disallowed.

I know for sure, from many bigger forums, that these flash-based "Double Account Detection"-scripts work very good. (High correct detection rate, only "false-positive", when two legimite users share one acc.)

Wouldn't be a hard thing to do.

Why not installing a good automaticDouble Account Detection, eg. one Flash-Cookie-based? It would detect 95% of these idiots, because they don't know about Flash Cookies.

I vote for this

I don't agree that accounts should be openly allowed to be sold, nor do I agree with the logic that we can't stop it so just let it be. You can't stop it, but you can police it and make it more difficult. I made my points in this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/split-from-wtb-bitcointalk-accounts-367586


Should we treat your identity/passport/social security number as a commodity to be bought and sold to the highest bidder too?


Not if you're selling it to the mafia as a front to commit crimes and fraud.

Obviously there's two sides to this argument, but allowing it seems like you're not only condoning it but encouraging it.

My 0.02BTC.

You don't understand how the Trust system works.

The part I am worried about is the trust system....

If someone have access to 20 accounts, he could make a normal "hero member" super trusted
and scam with it, like offering escrow or buying/selling bitcoins
or simply sell trust ratings to potential scammers

I understand it will be impossible to prevent selling of accounts privately
we should at least ban posts that openly offer to buy accounts

This poll is not worded fairly. Very few people actually think buying and selling accounts is okay - the only reason 25% of people have voted in favor of buying and selling accounts is because they've gotten past the way you worded it.

Account selling at bitcointalk needs to stop. However, there's absolutely nothing that can be done about it. So, feel free to vote in favor of stopping account selling - just understand that if the option you're voting for wins, nothing will be changed because banning account selling will not stop anything.

If I don't want to pay higher taxes for a better education system, it doesn't mean "I'm for stupid, uneducated children." If I think abortion should be the choice of the person who is pregnant, it doesn't mean "I'm against life." If I don't think corporations should have to obey stricter environmental laws, it doesn't mean "I'm against the environment."

It's so much easier to say "I'm for the environment" or "I'm for educating our children" than it is to say the opposite, because practically nobody is against these things. However, just because something is considered "good," doesn't mean that the proposed process to benefit this cause is necessarily a good idea.

Here is how the poll should be written (of course, there still is a slight bias, as the order of the options will affect the voting):

Title: Should There Be a Rule Against Buying and Selling Accounts?

• Buying and selling of accounts should be prohibited.
• Buying and selling accounts should not be prohibited.

People who are indifferent shouldn't vote. If you want to have an indifferent option, its total should be added to whatever choice is against the change - in this case, that would be "The selling of accounts should not be prohibited."

Then, in the post, rather than just explaining your point of view, you should give both points of view in an unbiased fashion.  

That's what an actual poll would be. Of course, this isn't an actual poll - it's really just a petition (a petition to change nothing...). However, you've made it seem like a poll, even though it's not even close to being a fair poll.

How does the forums getting cluttered with inactive accounts affect you?

And how does allowing selling accounts increase the amount of spam? If people buying accounts with high post count value this that much they would spam using their own accounts anyway.
Also, currently ALL the spammers I see have a paid signature. Did you compare the incomes of a paid signature and of selling an account?

I agree with this in the sense that anyone who is trying to purchase anything must have some sort of common sense, and take every precaution prior to trading etc. Mind you, that's only one part of the effects of account selling. Then comes the other part where the forums get cluttered with inactive accounts, spammers, etc.

On another note though, it seems like over half the poll results are against the sale of accounts on the site. Perhaps the higher ups could take a closer look into it? It's not impossible to detect. If vBulletin can, smf has already done so. Just pointing an observation.