Topic: Suggestion for altcoin section (Read 741 times)

We clearly speak about different things. My suggestion is not to make staff responsible for marking something as scam or not, you may be confused by the legends that I wrote, but read more carefully when I suggest threads to be open or closed for posting as example.

Again, it is not for someone to define it, it is the information which Dev/Thread starter has to fill and it should include all required data, thats why I suggested at all to elaborate it with a dev.

If I make an ANN thread, during creation of my post I need to fill this data, lets say I've written everything. Then I ask you to check (if it is not checked already). After you check if it complies with rules and requested information, thread is unlocked. The same would be for missing info, you would point me that some requested data is missing and after I add it, thread will be marked as checked and ok.

That's it, its not a check if something is scam or not but in many cases scam will become much faster visible if it has to be checked by moderation. It does not produce you any additional work at all and I still can't see how it can be missused except that mod marks it differently then it is, in this case higher appeal helps, but currently you have much worse situation as mods do use their power for specific agenda.

Thanks for constructive discussion.



I might not understand what exactly you mean with first statement. If I create ANN thread, then I need to fill requested info which will be shown as technical info. No MOD is loosing its time, more the opposite, it saves mods time especially because there is definition of what info should not be missing. Maybe you mean something different?

If I create ANN thread and everytihng is there, why and how do you imagine conflicts of interest to happen, an example would be great.

The last statement is something that I totaly disagree with you, why should it lower the quality and how exactly would it lower, I am pretty sure in opposite of what you state. Can you make some example?

---

EDIT: just experienced this bug after posting exactly this post, though I'll let you know by editing this post instead of writting another PM

I don't see this as a potential good idea for several reasons :

-too much work for them, which is the main reason
-possible conflicts of interest
-decrease the quality of the experience since there might have delays and such, making instamine even more common

The OP is entirely about having moderators check to see if its trustworthy or a scam. What could go wrong, is there would be a huge margin for abuse. Someone could very easily promote their own financial interests by vetting something that shouldn't be, and not vetting something that should be. An alternative, is that no coins meet standards due to anti alt coin stances. Not only would it take a disproportionate amount of staff resources, but it would also require setting new rules for what is/isn't acceptable for a section that isn't the forum's main focus.

Similar proposals have been made before, but its always been a bad idea. What makes a coin trustworthy or not in the forum's opinion is whether it is a malware or not. All other negatives you might associate with alt coins ( Pump and Dump, ICOs, etc) are all characteristics of the developers and userbase, it has nothing to do with the technology.

Frankly speaking, the alt coin section isn't one that is really catered to here. It took me over a year just to get the subsections that exist now. We even encourage people to make their own alt coin forums, because Bitcointalk isn't really an appropriate place for in depth discussion surrounding all facets of an alt crypto ecosystem.

What can go wrong? They only mark it with checked for min. requierments, does not mean it will be success. Mistakes happen, but it will cost your users much less then it currently is.

Again, it is not about saying scam or not.

And then those "experts" are liable when something goes wrong. In addition, those "experts" could very easily be convinced to support something for financial gain.

Moderators have never at any point moderated scams/scam attempts. Its far too subjective to do so reliably, so its all members for themselves. Moderators clean the clutter, if people decide they want the financial freedoms associated with P2P transactions, they also assume the risks. If they don't want to do so, invest in government regulated and insured things rather than cryptos.

And again as I keep trying to point out.

I was the moderator of the Alt Currencies section for about two years, and I've seen maybe two or three "scam coins" those being ones with hidden malware in the wallets. It seems our definition of what constitutes a scam is completely different. Its not up to the forum staff to give investing advice.

Thats why you need ANN threads, to inform those who can check by themself? If so,its pure illusion.

Again, if you provide such platform and if you provide Devs service to host their ANN threads, then it is you "staff" who should take care in first line what you allow on this forum. As you state that its hard to separate things, I do suggest that so called experts make their analysis before people invest in some obvious scam. Your argument that its everybodies own fault if they get scammed, which is not quite truth, if somebody read information on this forum and assumed it to be at least in some way correct, then of course this forum could be made responsible.

The forum I speak about has to deal with legal issues and was closed several times, even its DNS has been blocked for some time. Just because bitcointalk owners did not face any legal troubles because of that does not mean they will not face it, especially not if everything goes on as it was going on. Staff is clearly not able to follow all threads and so you cant protect your users, with that, you shouldnt leave it uncontrolled. On other side, you need to split repsonsibility. In my example, MPREP is the one who clearly fails regulary and he gets then all the blame, not administration or people who run this forum. My suggestion would even strenghten mods in their and make their work easier.

If they are unable to do that for  themselves, they shouldn't be doing it in the first place. Clonecoins are not scams, they might be bad investment decisions. As I said previously.

Sure, handled like the forum staff handles suchmoon and the rest of her gangbang trashing with their spam abandoned thread?? No, no, please protect your newbies from being rubbed out, later your staff members like suchmoon will not commit crimes like they currently do, because there would be 1. other people who do not lack on skills to do it 2. she wouldnt play judge because somebody from team has already taken action. Of course it is another question why criminals like suchmoon are in your team at all, but thats not the topic here, it would be if mod does make false check by marking something scam that isnt and every dev who did not clone something is always able to provide requested information, with that, it is not relevant that some can report if reports are handled by pure double standards.

There is big difference in what I suggest and how you probably understood it. It is always easier to clear up on start, not aftwerwards after some irrepairable actions has been done.

This suggestion does not say it is scam or not, even not if there is a virus or not. This is mainly for your new users who are unable to go to git and check wallets by themself, if they are unfamiliar with the topic, they will not be able to recognise 100% clonecoin.

The only thing that makes an altcoin a scam is if its malware. Otherwise its just a smart/bad investment. If theres a coin release and its a virus, report it, and it will be handled immediately.

The bigger the forum is, the harded is it to follow everything. Altcoin section should be controled much better if it will not be anandoned at all, here is my suggestion which works on forum with over 20Mio. users, why shouldnt it work here, especially if criteria for it should be to have people who do check it by themself and report. I dont see any reason why my suggestion would not work (no matter if this or new forum).

When opening a thread in altcoin section, ie. new coin, then every single new thread should be locked until staff really looks at it. This means we have following status of the thread

? - unchecked, has to be checked by mod/staff (this if nobody looked at the new thread)
# - Mod checked the thread but something is missing that has to be there, like TXID of escrow and so on
* - Possible scam
! - Untrustworthy/Is scam and locked/deleted (we keep locked thread for ability to compare to other possible scams posted by same person/groups)
OK - checked by moderation and everything requested is available

On both, new and old SMF you can add some requiered fields that have to be filled before a thread can be openened, something like this:

Which criteria and parameters, this should be worked out in a team together with at least one dev.

Thread is not locked for posting, only when it's * or OK, in all other cases thread should be locked for posting (including removing links which could do the same harm as scam thread).

This could only do positive and will dramaticly reduce scam attempts and its success, with that said, many of your users, especially new users who leave community after they are scammed, you will be able to keep much more of them.

There will be much less disputes, much less trolling and scam accusations which do already now use too much time. Ie, theymoss has not enough time to recover accounts, how can the team have enough time to keep this forum running if this time is lost elsewhere, mostly for useless and pointless for blockchain technology discussions.

Beside that, this is how you can provide as a service good hosting of ANN threads for real coins.