Topic: Seeking a team to develop Bitcointalk 2.0 forums (apply within) - page 6. (Read 23505 times)

Seriously? So you think that people with financial issue due to their class, situation etc shouldn't have an opinion?

People being required to demonstrate the ability of not having financial issues before voicing opinions sounds like a very good thing to me.

That would make the forum extremely unfriendly to newbies and many others. A lot of people don't have btc due to their financial issues for example but the still believe in bitcoin and want to discuss it with the community.

You misunderstood SgtSpike: you wouldn't have to pay to register/post, you would just have to sign a message with a signature whose corresponding address has at least 2BTC
I agree with this

Maybe not in all subforums though

By forcing a user to pay with bitcoin you eliminate all those who do not yet own bitcoin, which is a much larger group than those who do... it will hinder adoption of the forum.  Perhaps if you want to create a thread you should need a bitcoin address but anyone can post in _______ section.

To the idea of not advertising, I don't see the benefit.  Opportunities that ad dollars could provide include things like community events or even advertising the forum in a bigger forum... advertise the forum on google, for example.   There are many possible benefits that ad dollars can help with and I do not see the downside to charging companies who want to advertise to do so assuming the money is used to benefit the community.  Here's another thing money could/should be spent on: a political lobby toward the Dept of Treasury to benefit the community instead of letting big banks or the winklevoss twins run the exchanges.


Great contributions everyone thank you.

Numbers could be adjusted to whatever is deemed appropriate, of course.  The balance required for participation that I suggested was only 0.1 BTC too - I was just suggesting a higher balance required to participate in trading, as it lends a bit more trust to that person if they have to hold that much of a balance in limbo, so to speak.  And it doesn't actually cost anything - you just have to prove ownership of that much.

So to participate at the peak, it could have cost $520?

Here's another rather radical idea:  Bitcoin addresses as usernames.

In order to "sign up" for the forum, you must have a legitimate Bitcoin address with a balance greater than 0.1 BTC.  You use this address to digitally sign a message verifying that you own the address.  In order to trade on the forum, your Bitcoin address must have a balance greater than, say, 2 BTC.  Usernames are simply full Bitcoin addresses (or firstbits, if you want to shorten them up a bit).

This would virtually eliminate forum spam, removing one major headache from administration.  It would make sockpuppeting more expensive (would have to put 0.1 BTC "on hold" for every sockpuppet you wanted to create) and more difficult to conceal (any accidental link between Bitcoin addresses could be proven by anyone, not just the forum administration looking at IP addresses).  It would also force people brand new to Bitcoin to actually acquire some before joining in on any discussions, bringing up the quality of the discussions that do take place.  But it wouldn't actually cost the forum users anything.

Also, instead of producing a new forum, try making an easy to use secure messaging system. I'll contribute a few bitcoins of funding.

I think you're right - you can't produce the same hash for the same IP without using the same salt so it does seem useless at this point.

"If the fee is high enough then no one will ever sock puppet again."

Lol.

Let me tell you: it's going to be impossible to catch someone who knows what they're doing sockpuppeting.

Guess I missed the part about publicly displaying the values, and not keeping them hidden and using the hashing as a catastrophe prevention measure in case of a server compromise, or even a limited blind SQLi.

How would a salt even work in that case ? If it's different per IP you'll get different hashes, which sounds useless in that use case.

Overall it doesn't look like a very good idea (hashing+displaying IPs), too easy to get wrong and limited usefulness.

Micropayments everywhere for everything because why not, we can and Paypal cant. Stop playing by the old rules when we don't have to play by their rules anymore.

Let me say it one more time. The way to stop trolls and sock puppets is to charge everyone a fee for making an account. If it costs money to make an account you'll be very careful not to get your privileges revoked because that could mean anything from not being able to access the VIP threads anymore, to not being able to log with that account anymore without paying a fee. If the fee is high enough then no one will ever sock puppet again.

Imagine having to pay 1 litecoin per ticket or 0.01 bitcoin. This would have the effect of making it so that for certain areas of the site non-stake holders cannot access. If you don't have any Bitcoins, why would you want to access a private thread on Bitcoin speculation? If you have no Bitcoins then someone on the site might loan you an account until you earn enough in tips to pay them for the account but there should be a no free ride policy.

At the same time if you have some Bitcoins, the site should allow me to attach a fee to any thread I create and the fee should be of any size I wish. If you can't pay the fee you can't enter the thread unless I put you on the whitelist. Suddenly you have compartmentalization along with verification that everyone in the thread is an actual stakeholder combined with making it troll proof and maintaining anonymity.

If you use micropayments then you just make each user pay a nominal fee for a ticket. If they are thread/site abusive then tickets can be revoked. This could be done on a thread by thread basis or the entire site. If tickets get revoked they have to pay for a new ticket which now makes creating sockpuppets irrational. Trolling is easily solved with micropayments but I guess no one considered anything I had to say in my post.

There should be no reason to rely on ads when we have our own currencies we can work with. Sure in the beginning ad revenue might be needed, but once the site gets popular enough it can pay for itself in transaction + ticket fees.

Thread authors should be able to charge fees to allow people to click their locked threads. This should allow thread authors to both moderate and also make a slight profit if they make a thread which a lot of people want to track and post in (such as when a new coin is being launched). Simply give the thread author a cut of the ticket sale revenue, then give a portion of that revenue to the posters in the thread who get modded up (karma system?), and give the rest to the site.

As these coins gain more value the ticket fee system will generate hundreds of dollars day. Hundreds of dollars a day is more than enough for the site. Everyone can get paid for anything, whether good posts getting tipped, popular thread authors charging tickets access to site exclusive information, everything. Every click should make people in the community some money, some small micropayment per click site. You can do stuff like have a karma system combined with micropayments so that people who make shitposts pay a fee for every post they make which keeps getting higher until their karma becomes excellent. Of course with tipping it could be that they could have bad karma and make a few brilliant posts that month and be able to pay for all the shit posts.

as I said 90% would be blocked other than that its hard to prove it is a sock puppet

Not necessarily true. People can utilize a VPN and switch up their IP without a problem...or even just go over Tor. Blocking multiple accounts from the same IP only limits the "casual" sock puppeteers

my last post was removed   

its is not hard to block sock puppets using smf you can block people making multiple accounts from 1 ip address ( would stop 90% of them )

We're not talking about passwords but IPs here. If the salt and the algo are not secret, using a hash to make the IP unguessable is useless.

There's this common misunderstanding that salts should be secret. (and also the common misunderstanding that salts should be used at all).
Salts protect against rainbow tables, nothing else, and they do not need to be secret to achieve this purpose, only different for each value that gets hashed.

Why a secret salt would be better than a secret algo?