Re: Updated Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns - page 129.

Mitchell

copper member

Activity: 3948

Merit: 2201

Verified awesomeness ✔

Quote from: Fiiasco on March 23, 2015, 04:49:04 AM

Just a quick suggestion, make the detailed list under the table alphabetical, or the original table alphabetical.

Is there any current order or is it random?
Besides Paying, scam etc

The table is sorted on weekly/biweekly/monthly payments. The detailed viewed is sorted based on when a campaign was added to the section. The higher up it is, the longer it has been in that section. I'll sort it alphabetical when I update everything. Most likely today or tomorrow.

thebitcoinquiz.com

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

You can add in the info of bit-x signature campaign that they do not have any posting limits and you can post as many posts as you want to. Also it would be nice to mention that da dice is the highest paying in terms of pay per post and bit-x is the highest paying in terms of what can you earn max.

Fiiasco

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Just a quick suggestion, make the detailed list under the table alphabetical, or the original table alphabetical.

Is there any current order or is it random?
Besides Paying, scam etc

secondstrade.com

legendary

Activity: 938

Merit: 1000

Senior member' rate raised to 0.00028btc/post on sig campaign of secondstrade.com .

★★★ Signature Rate ★★★
JR Member : 0.00008 BTC per constructive post. - payout increased as of 03/16
Member : 0.00015 BTC per constructive post. - payout increased as of 03/16
Full Member : 0.00025 BTC per constructive post. - payout increased as of 03/16
Senior : 0.00028 BTC per constructive post. - payout increased as of 03/23
Hero / Legendary : 0.00035 BTC per constructive post. - payout decreased as of 02/23
No limited.

thank you.

rockBTC

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: ndnh on March 19, 2015, 12:24:18 PM

Just a few updates:

Bonus for dadice campaign had been changed to 0.1BTC each for rop 3 posters every week.

Also, minimum post requirement of 20 is waived for good quality posters.

Thanks

seconds trade made payouts higher

ndnh

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1005

New Decentralized Nuclear Hobbit

Just a few updates:

Bonus for dadice campaign had been changed to 0.1BTC each for rop 3 posters every week.

Also, minimum post requirement of 20 is waived for good quality posters.

Thanks

rockBTC

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

secondstrade made payouts higher so u should change that

MemoryShock

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Coinut is back...https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=992660.new#new

I have nothing but positive experience with their previous campaign so I hope the new campaign gets filled...-thumbsup-

marcotheminer

legendary

Activity: 2072

Merit: 1049

┴puoʎǝq ʞool┴

Quote from: marcotheminer on March 17, 2015, 02:56:30 PM

Payment for the first month has been made.

https://blockchain.info/tx/4ed8c230d10f23efc3384c5943a4c078c69c9ad9130366fca122a9743d91fa92

I'll be posting here as soon as I find out if the campaign will continue for another month! Stay tuned.

OcupyCoin's signature campaign has paid out the first month.

sed

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: tspacepilot on March 17, 2015, 09:48:11 AM

Quote from: abyrnes81 on March 17, 2015, 07:28:49 AM

Quote from: Mitchell on March 17, 2015, 05:40:55 AM

Quote from: ndnh on March 17, 2015, 05:37:11 AM

Quote from: marcotheminer on March 16, 2015, 02:28:45 PM

Just stick to Mitchell's definition (that the escrow must have additional balance in case participants aren't paid)

The thing is, there won't be an instance in which the participants won't be paid.

Not true. It has happened a few times. If needed I'll provide sources, but right now, I'm too busy to look em up.

Can you provide the sources? I am really interested to see them (when you will have 5 minutes of free time).

Thanks.

Really just searching back through the forums should turn up quite a few of these instances. I also can't remember most of the names at the moment but what I recall happening quite often was that a campaign ran smoothly for a month or so and then the campaign manager disappeared. UP/DOWN did this even though they had paid very good money to be a high class memeber of the bitcoin foundation. Everyone here was saying why would he pay so much to bitcoin foundation just to ruin his reputation here over a few measely BTC.

Here's the thread about UPDOWN scam: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/updownbt-signature-campaign-scam-656074

Here are two more sketchy ones:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/cryptomine-signature-campaign-could-be-a-scam-876473
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/gamblex-signature-campaign-not-paying-out-553094

I can remember there were more of these, you can probably find them by searching this thread or the previous incarnation of it, I guess.

tspacepilot

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1081

I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.

Quote from: abyrnes81 on March 17, 2015, 07:28:49 AM

Quote from: Mitchell on March 17, 2015, 05:40:55 AM

Quote from: ndnh on March 17, 2015, 05:37:11 AM

Quote from: marcotheminer on March 16, 2015, 02:28:45 PM

Just stick to Mitchell's definition (that the escrow must have additional balance in case participants aren't paid)

The thing is, there won't be an instance in which the participants won't be paid.

Not true. It has happened a few times. If needed I'll provide sources, but right now, I'm too busy to look em up.

Can you provide the sources? I am really interested to see them (when you will have 5 minutes of free time).

Thanks.

Really just searching back through the forums should turn up quite a few of these instances. I also can't remember most of the names at the moment but what I recall happening quite often was that a campaign ran smoothly for a month or so and then the campaign manager disappeared. UP/DOWN did this even though they had paid very good money to be a high class memeber of the bitcoin foundation. Everyone here was saying why would he pay so much to bitcoin foundation just to ruin his reputation here over a few measely BTC.

Mitchell

copper member

Activity: 3948

Merit: 2201

Verified awesomeness ✔

Did a quick search for one, Majestic Coins was Ponzi website that did a signature campaign. People joined, even though it didn't had escrow and were surprised that they suddenly didn't receive any money.

Will provide others later on. School is a bitch.

abyrnes81

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: Mitchell on March 17, 2015, 05:40:55 AM

Quote from: ndnh on March 17, 2015, 05:37:11 AM

Quote from: marcotheminer on March 16, 2015, 02:28:45 PM

Just stick to Mitchell's definition (that the escrow must have additional balance in case participants aren't paid)

The thing is, there won't be an instance in which the participants won't be paid.

Not true. It has happened a few times. If needed I'll provide sources, but right now, I'm too busy to look em up.

Can you provide the sources? I am really interested to see them (when you will have 5 minutes of free time).

Thanks.

Mitchell

copper member

Activity: 3948

Merit: 2201

Verified awesomeness ✔

Quote from: ndnh on March 17, 2015, 05:37:11 AM

Quote from: marcotheminer on March 16, 2015, 02:28:45 PM

Just stick to Mitchell's definition (that the escrow must have additional balance in case participants aren't paid)

The thing is, there won't be an instance in which the participants won't be paid.

Not true. It has happened a few times. If needed I'll provide sources, but right now, I'm too busy to look em up.

ndnh

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1005

New Decentralized Nuclear Hobbit

Quote from: marcotheminer on March 16, 2015, 02:28:45 PM

Just stick to Mitchell's definition (that the escrow must have additional balance in case participants aren't paid)

The thing is, there won't be an instance in which the participants won't be paid.

redsn0w

legendary

Activity: 1778

Merit: 1043

#Free market

Quote from: Quickseller on March 16, 2015, 10:42:23 PM

Quote from: tspacepilot on March 16, 2015, 04:55:09 PM

Quote from: rikkie on March 16, 2015, 01:32:29 PM

Quote from: tspacepilot on March 16, 2015, 01:12:04 PM

Quote from: Honeybooboo on March 16, 2015, 01:08:51 PM

Quote from: rikkie on March 16, 2015, 12:58:52 PM

It would make more sense to evaluate the level of trust that should be given to the person actually holding the funds, as well as how payments are made. If payments are made directly to a website account then obviously the campaign should not be considered to be escrowed because the escrow has zero way to know for sure if anyone got paid or not. If you have some unknown person with no prior trade history or someone who is farming trust then it should be safe to say that the campaign should not be considered escrowed

I agree they should be trusted. It should only be considered escrowed if the funds are held by an existing trusted escrower like devthedev or another trusted member with previous history of payouts like evilpanda or hillariousandco. I simply think if one of the latter two were running a campaign there wouldn't need to be another escrow involved before it was considered escrowed. I think by having one of those run and hold the funds it should be considered escrowed by that fact.

Except that, again, the definition of escrow is funds held by a third party. If the person holding the funds is the campaign manager then this is by definition not escrowed. This doesn't mean that there's a problem. Many deals can go down without escrow when all parties trust each other.

Similarly, you're absolutely right that when something is escrowed, the person doing the escrow had better be a trusted person. But that doesn't change the definition of escrow.

The campaign manager is not the one buying the advertising, the company is. The buyer is the company who the participants are advertising for. The seller is the various participants and the escrow is the manager. I really don't think it can be any more clear cut then that

But if the campaign manager is being paid by the company then that's the conflict of interest which makes him not an escrow. Again, consider if you want to by my restaurant. I say, okay just send the money to the escrow which is my restaurant manager and then I'll know you're serious and we'll sit down and discuss the contract. The restaurant manager works for me so he isn't a third party. For a third party you need someone who isn't otherwise employed by either party.

That does not matter. The vast majority of escrow transactions have one specific party pay for the escrow service. If for example the buyer is paying the 1% escrow fee, the escrow provider is not going to to give money back to the buyer when it would not be appropriate to do so.

I think an escrow should be trusted by all the two "parts", but in this case who the enrolled users should trust, the site or the manager? A real escrow service has not been still created (just my personal opinion, purely random cases).

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: tspacepilot on March 16, 2015, 04:55:09 PM

Quote from: rikkie on March 16, 2015, 01:32:29 PM

Quote from: tspacepilot on March 16, 2015, 01:12:04 PM

Quote from: Honeybooboo on March 16, 2015, 01:08:51 PM

Quote from: rikkie on March 16, 2015, 12:58:52 PM

It would make more sense to evaluate the level of trust that should be given to the person actually holding the funds, as well as how payments are made. If payments are made directly to a website account then obviously the campaign should not be considered to be escrowed because the escrow has zero way to know for sure if anyone got paid or not. If you have some unknown person with no prior trade history or someone who is farming trust then it should be safe to say that the campaign should not be considered escrowed

I agree they should be trusted. It should only be considered escrowed if the funds are held by an existing trusted escrower like devthedev or another trusted member with previous history of payouts like evilpanda or hillariousandco. I simply think if one of the latter two were running a campaign there wouldn't need to be another escrow involved before it was considered escrowed. I think by having one of those run and hold the funds it should be considered escrowed by that fact.

Except that, again, the definition of escrow is funds held by a third party. If the person holding the funds is the campaign manager then this is by definition not escrowed. This doesn't mean that there's a problem. Many deals can go down without escrow when all parties trust each other.

Similarly, you're absolutely right that when something is escrowed, the person doing the escrow had better be a trusted person. But that doesn't change the definition of escrow.

The campaign manager is not the one buying the advertising, the company is. The buyer is the company who the participants are advertising for. The seller is the various participants and the escrow is the manager. I really don't think it can be any more clear cut then that

But if the campaign manager is being paid by the company then that's the conflict of interest which makes him not an escrow. Again, consider if you want to by my restaurant. I say, okay just send the money to the escrow which is my restaurant manager and then I'll know you're serious and we'll sit down and discuss the contract. The restaurant manager works for me so he isn't a third party. For a third party you need someone who isn't otherwise employed by either party.

That does not matter. The vast majority of escrow transactions have one specific party pay for the escrow service. If for example the buyer is paying the 1% escrow fee, the escrow provider is not going to to give money back to the buyer when it would not be appropriate to do so.

Searing

copper member

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1465

Clueless!

Just a heads up this campaign ASKCOIN (which I had for 1 week and they have just paid out my 0.025 btc for over 25 posts) is now suspended

here is the link

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10789696

I just left that campaign yesterday ...and went with the one below if anyone is interested ...

anyway ...whatever ..but askcoin is now defunct....fyi for the thread op ..good luck on anyone with askcoin and the search for a new tagline ..hopefully it all

works out for everyone

tspacepilot

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1081

I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.

Quote from: rikkie on March 16, 2015, 01:32:29 PM

Quote from: tspacepilot on March 16, 2015, 01:12:04 PM

Quote from: Honeybooboo on March 16, 2015, 01:08:51 PM

Quote from: rikkie on March 16, 2015, 12:58:52 PM

It would make more sense to evaluate the level of trust that should be given to the person actually holding the funds, as well as how payments are made. If payments are made directly to a website account then obviously the campaign should not be considered to be escrowed because the escrow has zero way to know for sure if anyone got paid or not. If you have some unknown person with no prior trade history or someone who is farming trust then it should be safe to say that the campaign should not be considered escrowed

I agree they should be trusted. It should only be considered escrowed if the funds are held by an existing trusted escrower like devthedev or another trusted member with previous history of payouts like evilpanda or hillariousandco. I simply think if one of the latter two were running a campaign there wouldn't need to be another escrow involved before it was considered escrowed. I think by having one of those run and hold the funds it should be considered escrowed by that fact.

Except that, again, the definition of escrow is funds held by a third party. If the person holding the funds is the campaign manager then this is by definition not escrowed. This doesn't mean that there's a problem. Many deals can go down without escrow when all parties trust each other.

Similarly, you're absolutely right that when something is escrowed, the person doing the escrow had better be a trusted person. But that doesn't change the definition of escrow.

The campaign manager is not the one buying the advertising, the company is. The buyer is the company who the participants are advertising for. The seller is the various participants and the escrow is the manager. I really don't think it can be any more clear cut then that

But if the campaign manager is being paid by the company then that's the conflict of interest which makes him not an escrow. Again, consider if you want to by my restaurant. I say, okay just send the money to the escrow which is my restaurant manager and then I'll know you're serious and we'll sit down and discuss the contract. The restaurant manager works for me so he isn't a third party. For a third party you need someone who isn't otherwise employed by either party.

arallmuus

legendary

Activity: 2562

Merit: 1414

Quote from: marcotheminer on March 16, 2015, 02:28:45 PM

I don't think it really matters if there is a 'N' instead of a 'Y' in this campaign overview thread, as long as the member ultimately running the campaign is trusted.

Just stick to Mitchell's definition (that the escrow must have additional balance in case participants aren't paid)

Reading few back and This would have been the best answer and logic to define why bit-x isnt considered as an escrowed campaign

lets say I want to buy something from devthedev and I dont trust devthedev (devthedev if you are reading this, not my intention to say that i dont trust you, basically just for example

)
devthedev would say, okay you dont need to trust me, we can use escrow
Then after short while , it turns out devthedev is the escrow mentioned

To sum it right, the definition of escrow would be

escrow is 3rd party that to keeps the money , that suppose to be neutral and got no connection with the deal

this is of course just an indicator

Topic: Re: Updated Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns - page 129. (Read 17849 times)