Topic: Suggestion: allow on-forum altcoin giveaways for established altcoins (Read 1046 times)

I think this point is one reason why exceptions will not be made to the rule referenced in the OP.

To somewhat piggyback on your point, establishing exceptions may make some view that the forum sees a particular (group of) altcoins as more legitimate (less of a scam), than others. Even if there would be no legal basis to this, there may be a moral/ethical basis, regardless of any disclosures made.

If there was a "neutral" criteria, there would be the potential for some to claim that the criteria is designed to include/exclude certain altcoins. Any neutral criteria would also likely require the reliance on third parties to make judgments, which leads to its own set of issues.

What old bump?  

It's #9 on CMC, and I've never used it. But I can find ways to exchange it into Bitcoin without KYC, so I'd say that's okay.

Tens of thousands? That's cute:

You are allowed to have bounties with unlisted scam tokens that will never amount to anything and no one cares. We call that scams not being moderated and staff not meddling in other people's business. But if you give away a coin that is listed and is trading (no matter what people might think of it), you get yourself banned because that apparently makes sense. You either have freedom of choice or you don't. If you allow people to get scammed on Bitcointalk and allow me to create and distribute the Pmalek token through bounties, why prevent me from giving people ETH or LTC or X? Freedom of choice is also allowing me to make my own mistakes and receive any altcoin I want to. Freedom of choice entails teaching me not to accept that altcoin and explaining the reasons why. 

The incentivized posting rule doesn't make sense.
This crap can be found in tens of thousands of posts in thousands of pages in the bounties sub. Same thing with the reports for social media bounties. But that's ok.



BTC giveaways where you only post your bitcoin address don't generate spam. ETH giveaways where you post an ETH address generates spam and is incentivized posting because of science apparently. 

It might have already been said, but there is inherently going to be a bias problem in determining which coins are established.

For example, I think everybody can agree that Litecoin, Dogecoin, and Ethereum are both established. But what about e.g. Solana which has market cap #3?

What about something like Bcash? [this will probably bring a strong no but then it's going to tarnish this forum's purpose as a "free-speech crypto discussion place"].

Then remove your old bump.

Like I said in the other thread, you aren't allowed to offer an altcoin giveaway. Just wrap it differently. Bounties are allowed. Create a bounty thread. To participate in the bounty, I have to follow you on Twitter and make a re-tweet saying "LTC to the moon". After that, I write the usual authentification post or bounty report in your thread (because that's allowed), and I get the bounty. No rules were broken in the process. 

Another topic reminded me to bump this thread.

I don't like this idea to be perfectly honest.
I'd much rather see giveaways take place in third party platforms in order to avoid overloading the forum with simple and mindless address posts.

A third party website could verify bitcointalk account level by scraping an alphanumerical code the user was requested to put in his profile once.
The giveaway itself IMO would surely be worth a thread in bitcointalk, but NOT for promotion or to be facilitated in the forum. Just to have actual discussion on issues, assistance etc.
Address posting is just needless bumps and unfair to bounty managers that have build platforms and tracking methods keeping the forum spam-free.

If 'established' altcoins wanted to promote a giveaway, I maybe the forum should make a concession and allow them to buy ads. Hell, if it's just giveaways, why not allow every coin to buy an ad? The mere fact that it costs something to buy it will probably deter the worst ones.

I support this and I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed if an altcoin is listed in many major exchanges.
I see members afraid about scamcoins... since when the forum is monitoring scams? Flags are here to do the job and warn people.

That's exactly what I'm doing!  Club members can receive a monthly giveaway of promising alt coins.  


 

I wonder where the lapse in logic happened where we are both banning altcoins due to spam and scams and where we have already created a board exclusively for scams (investor-based games).

Not that the forum really cares about scams... but best watch out if you post twice in a row!

I think a good way to solve this issue with maximal positive effect is to either establish some kind of protocol that must be followed, or perhaps some kind of script to automate things. This would enable giveaways while also keeping it from shitting up the forum with useless posts.

True ! That is why nobody here (luckily) will allow altcoin giveaways, ICO advertising and so on ... because even currently ok crypto can fail in awful ways and why should anyone here be (sort of) held responsible for that ?


In bitcoin we trust. In the others not so much. Would you bet your parent's house on any altcoin from coinmarketcap ? I wouldn't...

So "allow on-forum altcoin giveaways for established altcoins" ... no thank you !

Even cryptotalk (yobit forum) pays users in btc, not some weird new crypto from their investbox or ETH or their own coin(s) for that matter. That sure says something ))

So do Bitcoin giveaways. Those temp bans that were recently issued were given to members who participated during the weeks that altcoins were given out. But when Bitcoin was given away there were no bans. If the spam those types of post create is the problem, then it is all the same.

If I have to post my casino username to get Bitcoin, it's the same type of no-value post as if I have to do the same to get Litecoin.
I understand very well that the bans were not issued for the spam part, but for taking part in an altcoin giveaway. I am just making a point.

Users lose Bitcoin every day downloading fake Electrum wallets. The same security measures we undergo when downloading and verifying Electrum should be done with other software as well and if in doubt, don't use it.

Bitcoin Gold is not something I would vote for or allow either and I doubt it would find its way on the list.    

  

People lose money to scammers, win-win indeed. It is time to stop embracing innocent and naive individuals being financially harmed (and in extreme cases ruined) because of own petty greed.

If we did things the wrong way in the past, this means that we should continue doing it the wrong way just because we did it like that previously? I do not follow this logic. The stance towards ICOs was terribly wrong, and everyone knows it. It led to the following: A handful of scammers getting rich, a handful of intelligent scammers getting rich, a fair number of people profiting from the pumping in these scams, and an enormous amount of people being financially harmed. Good stance indeed.

Theymos said the forum doesn't need money (it owns ~1250 Bitcoin).
Even at the peak of ICO spam, when almost every ICO turned into a scam, they could create their Bounty threads with thousands of zombies posting virtually unrestricted. If they didn't have to pay the forum for doing so, I don't think a giveaway should have to pay either.

Here's my solution. Allow everything, but create a special subsection for Altcoin promotional giveaways and here's where the forum benefits. Require every giveaway thread to donate 1 million sats to the forum.

The spam is limited to that board. The forum gets some money. It's win-win.

it is because you were lucky and/or you received the "airdrop" in a wallet you already had or in a third party wallet like exchanges. there are a lot of people who did get poorer after receiving such "airdrops", example: bitcoin gold giveaway. a lot of users lost their bitcoins after downloading a malicious wallet from the official bitcoin gold website that infected their computer and stole their private keys...

The problem is bigger that that... Let's assume that mods pick the cream of the crop shitcoins and giveaways with those coins are fair game. That means somehow they are acknowledging that coin. They are proposing it, trust it, even advertise it.
Nobody wants to do that... especially theymos.
Seems to be the same case as ICO adversiting on the forum... a no go!
Which coin are you confortable to recomend?  Bitcoin!
Think a bit about this before having any more doubts

I don't see what this has to do with free speech. You can still discuss any shitcoin elsewhere, you just can't give them away. Just like it is now for that matter.

That is indeed my understanding. Viewing this from a different angle I don't even know why low-effort posting for a Bitcoins giveaway is allowed.

I had this in mind too, when I posted my suggestion. I get where the instant temporary ban is coming from, namely ending spam. But many other rules can be broken without an instant ban. Spamming referral links for instance will only get your post deleted, and I don't believe joining a giveaway deserves a bigger punishment.

Correct. But why would they do that, if they barely get any publicity that way? For the same reason Bitcointalk allows millions of "proof of authentication" posts: the spammers promote the thread, and again, I find this worse than joining a giveaway with real value.

It's like we're all grounded.

Correct, the fact that that many well-known users thought posting there wouldn't be a problem made me doubt the current rules.

Several of those I've never used. But if someone were to offer a $100 giveaway, I wouldn't mind checking how to convert it to Bitcoin.

I couldn't disagree more. Don't blame the messanger, mprep is just fair to all, without special treatment for established users.

Thank you.

As you said, it is not practical either and opens a can of worms. I think this may also lead to many more problems. What happens when somebody buys some coin because the forum staff declared it as established (this being the sole reason for their purchase), but it ends up being a disastrous scam of sorts? Who is to blame?  It is just simple and easier not to do this.