Topic: The problem begins and ends with YOU. (Read 913 times)

The forum is not any sort of "body" meant to fight for the rights of bounty hunters, the reward payed for bounty campaign differs, some pay more than the others as rank also plays a part in the amount gotten, if you do not like the amount you get on your bounty, you either try ranking up or changing(advertising) to a bounty that pays higher.

There is no such attack against newbies, the ones who have the knowledge of bitcoin as you claim are making their efforts stand out on the forum and are ranking up in the process.

Our main motive here is to discuss about the bitcoin

Love this post, you spoke the mind of many in terms bounty campaigns, after all the stress bounty hunters are payed in little amount. Just because someone is a newbie doesn't mean he lacks experience about bitcoin. Lest we all forget the main motive why we are here, to make bitcoin known and acceptable by all

Bump. Should be stickied.

Thanks for the description and attempting to make some kind of a distinguishing outline.

I feel dirty just reading that, and surely the bounties sound a bit worse in terms of scumminess, chasing around the paltry money, and sometimes not getting paid, but neither of them come off as exactly appealing in terms of wanting to be associated when described like that (which is actually an attempted factual overview, no?). 

They are different, I think.

First, they are different in the environment in which they run.

• Signature campaigns: totally run in the forum.
• Bounty campaigns: partially run in the forum (signature), but others run beyond the forum (on Telegram, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Medium, and so forth).

Second, fund allocation to run campaigns

• Signature campaigns: companies mostly have to allocate funds to do it. Just most of them, because scam projects can run signature campaigns with their shit coins from premined, instamined coins.
• Bounties: companies use their free money (tokens) to do it

Lastly, payment days

• Signature campaigns: most of them have nearly exact pay days. Each week, or each month.
• Bounties: Most of them delay their pay days or reject to pay at the ends. That depends on results of their crowdsales

Are you saying that bounty managers and signature campaign managers are the same thing?  Maybe the kinds of managers overlap in the sense that some managers will take part in managing more than one kind of forum activity, but I thought that bounty managers and signature campaign mangers were the managers of different kinds of activities that were going on in the forum?

I have never engaged in any kinds of bounty hunting, and that seems like a bit of a crazy and money chasing activity to me, so I was considering the activities of signature campaigns to be different from the activities of bounty hunting, for some reason.

It depends on the campaign you're talking about, there are some renowned bounty managers in the forum like yahoo and hamphuz, and I think they do their job pretty well, without acting like "gods".
The thing is most times people usually do things the wrong way, for example advertising when a slot isn't open, or answering questions meant for the bounty managers, that can lead to them warning against such, and I doubt it's wrong

You'll need to explicitly tell us the characters you dislike in the managers you've come across.
And another thing is selecting new members into campaigns, some(bounty managers)do it by merits, others frequency of posting and of course quality, it varies, based on the managers choice.

I am sure that participation in a signature campaign could go either way, especially if members already feel like the signature campaign does not really change what they were doing anyhow, and at first, it felt to me that I was not really changing very much, but after a while the signature campaigns kind of began to draw me down....

And of course, when BTC prices went shooting way up, I felt less compelled to stack some extra sats (and perhaps not being worth it to me).

When I first started participating in the forum, for a few years, I mostly only participated in the wall observer thread, which has largely been a bitcoin focused thread.  Most of the time, I did not give two shits about the vast majority of other coins or even getting caught up in forum politics, but the longer that any member participates in the forum the more that s/he could get drug into other threads or even some of forum's politics and even learning about who some of the BIG players in forum politics are.

But yeah, the self-ish motive for most of my involvement in this forum has been to mostly concentrate my efforts on sharing information related to bitcoin.

Actually, there may be some members who actually believe that they want to get involved in signature campaigns, partly because until you reach a certain level of rank, you are largely excluded from a vast majority of signature campaigns, yet after you participate in signature campaigns for a while, you might realize, as efialtis was saying in his earlier post, that the signature campaigns might be way more work than they are worth (and sure some of the managers are a bit arrogant and not very gracious with their power.. which yeah starts to feel like a real job rather than a hobby and maybe all for measly peasly amounts of money or that sometimes they are changing their pay rates, too.. which can feel like it is ungrateful to the efforts of the signature campaign participants).

That's a very good point, I felt stressed even looking at the campaign requirements. Some of them are crazy, requiring a certain number of posts all above minimum character length + certain sections, etc. It seems like such a headache to me trying to keep track of all of that. I think for some people it's not really an issue but I don't like being forced to post in sections that I don't ever read, etc. I definitely agree with you that having a signature does bring more "scrutiny" to your posts and more people tend to question your content. It also seems like a lot of campaigns are somewhat "predatory" in their requirements and changes without proper notice + extremely convoluted guidelines which I definitely do not want to mess with. I've never been in a campaign so I can't really comment personally on the effects, but I've definitely seen a lot of the business. For me at least, I am hear because I enjoy learning and posting and I feel like being part of a campaign would make it feel like a "job" to me. I am here because I want to be, not because I need to meet a requirement. Sometimes I just like to take a break and it's nice not having any worries.

Just my thoughts, mainly wanted to highlight on some aspects I didn't outline before such as the "predatory behavior" signature campaigns have and the hassle they can become (making it feel like a job, etc.). There have been some more guidelines added for campaigns, but hopefully more will come to combat the new issues.

I believe that in total, I was a part of 3 signature campaigns, and at first, I thought that it was so great to get paid for activities that I was already doing (posting that is), but after a while, the various hassles did not seem worth it to me, anymore...  I felt that sometimes, I was worrying too much about getting paid properly and sometimes some of the controversy around some signature campaigns or even having to spend some additional time to follow some of the changes in the campaign or restrictions that they might impose regarding posting. The ones that I was in did not tend to have too many quantity posting restrictions, but I have seen that some current signature campaigns have those, too.    But I think that the sum of the matter is that I just did not want anyone second-guessing the contents of appropriateness of any of my posts, and there does tend to be a bit of politics with any contractual relationship like that or even the impression that I might leave as if I am independent in my thinking or not.  

I am not opposed to other members getting involved in signature campaigns because it can be a kind of easy money if you are going to be posting anyhow, then it might just work better for some of the other members as compared with how my own feelings about my involvement evolved.

Users in the forum, and participants in campaigns have to do their works well in order to help to build up good reputation for the forum, for companies that hire them with their signatures.
If the forum damaged by tons of shitposts due to signature, theymos will destroy all signatures.
If companies don't get benefits from their participants because shitposts don't catch attention of readers, and don't have effects for companies (adverse effects, in some cases); companies will stop running their campaigns after short time.
I still don't know why you decided like that, because you are obviously a strong poster, so you can keep posting, to clean up the forum, to help other forum users, and still receiving some bitcoins from reputable campaigns. Why not? If you want to give open slot for others, appreciated your kindness.

Some of those signature campaign managers do end up having to filter through a lot of bullshit, but it is likely NOT good to get too personally offended by it.  You are correct that the incentives to join are not going to be too much, but if the signature campaign is paying in bitcoin, and the participant is just continuing to hold his payout, the amount of dollar value can really add up in the future, which will definitely inspire some folks to participate, especially from low income locations.

Pretty much I stopped participating in signature campaigns in early 2018 because I just did not want the ongoing hassle.  I had acquired more than 3 bitcoins in about 2 years from the ones that I was in.. but still, when the BTC price went shooting up, I just began to think that my BTC holdings were way more valuable than trying to chase after more.. so that is kind of a personal choice based on circumstances.

Regarding your other points, there are a lot of good members and helpful threads if you participate long enough then you will see it.  Sometimes it takes a few years to get known by other members, which does help if you frequent certain threads and attempt to interact by not just receiving but providing help to other members from time to time too.. which might not be any skin off your back if you are just sharing your experiences and opinions and writing out your experiential based thoughts.

Even though the thread is kind of old, I want to share a few thoughts.

I have been here for around 2.5 months now - unfortunately its a fact that - especially when it comes to down to signature campaign stuff etc - people act like they were god - NO, this is no hate against any campaign manager for not letting me in or so - I dont care at all... Its just the attitude of many of these guys... If you just read through many of those posts... its obvious what I am saying, arrogant behaviour. And what for? $10 a week? $20? Wow... Lord of the ***

On the other side I do agree that there are tons of bot-like person here who are flooding the forum with spam - actually I have complained several times about this myself! And they are pissing me off as well.

I am happy to say that in the German forums everything is great though - the guys, no matter what rank, are extremely helpful and friendly! Thanks for that if any of you is reading this!

@OP Great thread!

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives protection to platforms such as this forum, Twitter and Reddit in that they are not held accountable for the posts of their users. This means if you break the law in one of your posts, theymos (the owner of the forum) will not be criminally liable for you breaking the law, and it also means if you defame someone in a post you write, theymos is not liable for libel. The later is important because when two people are Joinly and Severely liable for a tort, the victim will go after the person with the most assets, and theymos (by all accounts) is very rich, and has a lot of assets.

There are limits to section 230, and there may be instances in which a platform such as the forum is actually a publisher.

There was a case called Enigma Software Group USA, LLC v. Bleeping Computer LLC in which a software company was defamed on a forum by one of the forum's users who also happened to be what can be described as a moderator. The person who wrote the defamatory posts had "elevated" privileges that "normal" forum users did not. The district (trial) court found the forum user was acting as an agent of the forum due to an implied agency relationship (the fact he was a "volunteer" did not matter). This was only a trial court, not an appellate court, so the ruling is not case law, but it does not appear the ruling was appealed. This case appears to have been settled, in which the forum agreed to remove the defamatory posts (possibly among other things, I am not sure).

The above case is not "apples to apples" to the DT system, but it is somewhat similar. Certain users have the ability to have a warning displayed on a person's profile, the ability to have comments displayed on a person's profile prominently, and other (sometimes overlapping) users have the ability to give out "points" that can be used to "vote" on who gets the above "trust" abilities. The algorithm to determine which users have the above abilities is chosen by the forum.

If rules in regards to trust are enforced, there could be a stronger argument that those on DT are acting as an agent of the forum, depending on the specifics as to how they are implemented. Although courts have ruled that platforms can have community guidelines as to what can be posted and still maintain cover under section 230.

Someone on DT being an agent of the forum is not, in itself a problem for the forum, except there are many on DT who are defaming other forum members left and right in recent years, which IS a problem.   

In order to keep my posts more contained and less spammy, I am going to try and respond to several comments at once while addressing them each individually. Please understand that I am not pointing fingers or accusing anyone of anything, I am simply commenting on others opinions.


Thank you for your response. Yes I think that I definitely could have better articulated by ideas in hindsight but I think I got my point across. I plan on editing the OP once I hear some more feedback and have time to think about it. This wasn't meant to be a substantiated post by any means, as these are just my opinions. I did provide possible explanations for a lot of my points and although they are not at all conclusive, they hold some truth. I simply mentioned them as possible alternatives to the way people currently see things, to spark some more conversation around if things have to be this way etc.




My response to this is not only directed to you, but also to others who did the same thing in above posts. Yet another person who attempts to invalidate my claims by citing my post history, fantastic job. I think the point that a lot of people seem to be misunderstanding here is that validation is completely irrelevant here. Infact I state several times that my thoughts are opinions and have absolutely no real backing whatsoever. There is no clear solution to a lot of these issues and I don't pretend to know the answer.

Thank you for some of the insight into the DT system as I had never heard of the stuff you mention before. I didn't realize there were legal limitations to it, whether they are real or not. Ads would bring a lot more money to the forum if there were a direct relationship between the advertisers and the forum owners, instead of advertiser -> user. And you are right about these campaigns not going away anytime soon, but I think there are some things we can do to help curb the amount of them. I think that you are right that a lot of these things can be related back to the trust system and that is because a lot of these issues are intertwined and involve multiple systems. That is one of the reasons finding a solution is quite hard, as a lot of the time it's hard to even identify where the problem is originating from.


Thank you for calling my post a "lovely waste of time", I think that really contributes something to the conversation. Honestly, I don't really wish to reply to these comments prefaced like this in the future, but I have some things I would like to say here. First of all, yes I know the name of the system, thank you for pointing that out. But the question I would like to ask you is: What do you think the point of the trust system is? While this question is a bit of a trap because the real point has been lost, there still is some meaning in answering it. I believe the system as created in order to provide some insight into whether they person was worth dealing with. What the hell would be the point of a trust system outside the marketplace? You don't need to trust someone to have a conversation with them, there is no reason for it. The only time people really want to know if someone is trustworthy is if they are going to deal with them. I don't walk up to people on the street and ask them how trustworthy they are before saying "hi". However, if I am meeting someone selling something on craigslist, I am a bit more cautious. I feel this same logic applies to the trust system, it really doesn't apply outside the marketplace.

In your sarcastic response to my section on favoritism and entitlement:

Please, please read the section before you respond. It only makes everything more difficult as I am not really sure if you read anything I had to say, which I end up having to summarize again. I point out that these thoughts a lot of people seem to have about favoritism ARE infact wrong. Favoritism doesn't exist and people need to stop acting like it does anytime something happens or doesn't happen. I realize it's easy for others to think this when they see things happen, but a lot of the time there is not enough transparency on the issue. I am not really going to respond to your last remark as it would just be a waste of time, and I think you understand my message by now.


In regards to all the recent off-topic discussion and arguments that have inevitably come to this thread, please take it else where. I would like to keep the comments relevant, meaning they should relate to my OP in some way or another one of my posts. I am all for people voicing their opinion but let's keep this discussion mature, please.

I think new traders use escrow,or should. Experienced traders deal with each other directly, but some still prefer to use escrow.

As for rank, well, I was (still am) in the military, and everyone knows a General ranks higher than a Lieutenant. Maybe it shouldn't have been called rank, but its quite similar enough.

The reason to have them removed from meta specifically, was explained previously in the thread that he first suggested it. Perhaps read that thread again. If you find it impossible to locate the specific reason. I will explain it to you.

You failed to present any direct examples of the  "rubbish" unless the observable truth or observable instances clearly demonstrating precisely what we said they demonstrate is " rubbish".

Find a specific example. How hard can it be, if all of our posts are "rubbish"?  I challenge you now to present one instance of incorrect information that we have presented. Come on present the example of "rubbish"?? I mean if you are now saying you term observable instances of lying, scamming, trust abuse, probable extortion is RUBBISH.... then you obviously have no place being a moderator do you?

Bring a SPECIFIC example of the incorrect rubbish we are spreading everywhere? or admit rubbish is just a word you use to cast doubt over observable events demonstrating clear wrong doing by those you include and enable on to DT.

You can not can you? you were simply casting false accusations again and have been called on it. Or your notion of RUBBISH is going to be fun to analyse in public.

Petty beef? you mean like observably lying, scamming, trust abusing, racist trolling sig spamming under puppet accounts for extra BTC crumbs? these kinds of petty beef?  yes, don't take those into account when placing people in positions of trust.

You surely are hilarious. Please get a mental health check yourself.

What's the point in just removing sigs from Meta? What does that solve? Any posts that are made purely for payment would just be moved elsewhere so it solves nothing other than certain users not being able to get paid whilst arguing with unstable idiots like cryptohunter and their ilk. If you're going to remove sigs from Meta then why not everywhere else? I'm not against banning signature campaigns either. What I am against is removing them from certain sections just because you suggest it. Pointless other than entertaining whatever rubbish cryptohunter aka you comes out with.


See here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/the-one-above-all-2580400


I don't think you know the difference between opinion and fact (or 'observable truth' in this instance). 


I won't delete anything. Are you trying to tell me I'm not allowed to have an opinion on whether something is rubbish or not?


Go ahead. I don't care. You are free to create whatever threads you want but the thread will just end up like every other you create on this account and any others.


It is my opinion that you post rubbish. In my opinion I think you've probably got some mental issues that you should get help with, but I'm not a Doctor. Are you seriously trying to tell me my opinion is wrong? Is someone describing a piece of music or film as rubbish right or wrong?


Who exactly have a I vouched for? Anyone I have left feedback for or added to my trust list is done so because in my opinion I believe their feedbacks to generally carry weight or are on a whole good for the community, regardless of what petty beef they may or may not have got themselves in for.

Hilarious posts are fun. Full of "false" accusations, straw men and in protection of his scamming and lying friends he enables on to DT. A totally unbiased and objective moderator you can trust without question,  to cry if anyone suggests removing sigs from meta.

Please present the evidence of the "rubbish" we are posting?  I think you are confusing it with observable truth that demonstrates your friends who you enable on to the trust system are liars, scammers, and implicated in extortion schemes and trust abuse, account sales, racist trolling sig spamming under sock puppet accounts for extra btc crumbs.
If you can not produce the evidence that we are posting rubbish then you will delete it. If you refuse to delete. We will bring a thread for moderators making false accusations and spreading lies. Now produce the "rubbish" that we have posted please. Or remove your false allegations. You have freedom of speech, but  spreading false information means you can get called on that and given a title appropriate to those spreading false information. For a moderator, in a position of trust, then you need to be more accountable than just a new member for the things that you claim.

Did you mean to say rubbish hilarious? or did you mean to say we are spreading observably true information? that is on topic and relevant?

Can you see past your feeble straw men? where do you see me claiming people should have ANY punishment for free speech?  I think you are confusing this with spreading false information whilst being in positions of trust, like you just did. Unless you believe you can demonstrate that observable truths are "rubbish"?

I think we are saying that observable double standards, liars, scammers, extortionists and their supporters have NO place inside a trust system. That is not the same thing as stating people can not say whatever they like so long as they have compelling evidence or observable instances to demonstrate it is true, or can build a strong case that it is true. If they are not in a position of trust, then perhaps they can say whatever they like, with no come back, other than to get called to provide evidence to substantiate what they claim.

I hope you are going to validate, and provide evidence for your seemingly very biased and inaccurate post.

A disgrace of a moderator. Imagine publicly vouching for scammers, liars, trust abusers, probable extortionist, greedy sig spamming racist trolling sock puppets?  You will and should be held accountable if they leverage those positions to pull a huge scam.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I don't think you've been on many other forums if you think this forum is the worst for newbie discrimination and I've been on much worse ones where they treat Newbies like shit. In fact, I don't think there's that much hate against new users here, but here I think you're getting mere Newbies confused with spammers and shitposters. Nobody would care if someone signed up to this forum and made great posts but as you've already touched upon signature campaigns and ICO bounties drive people here in droves who don't even care about bitcoin in the slightest other than that they heard they can make some money here. When you have to read thousands of mindless comments purely being made for payment it's understandable why people are going to get annoyed with them specifically, but it's not strictly a newbie issue; it's just many of them happen to be newbies.

I've made the comparison before it's like people signing up to a Lamborghini forum when they don't like cars and can't even drive. Why would anyone sign up to a forum on a subject that they have no interest in? Well they generally don't. Unless that forum is bitcointalk and you can earn a living by posting drivel.


The people who tend to care about rank are usually those who only have financial interest in it in the first place. Most don't care about ranks and a truly great poster will breeze through them over time. Yes, it takes a long time but we've all had to go through that and ranks should mean something and should be earned, otherwise there's no point in them.


Both reporters and the staff that handle them do so on opinion and is purely subjective. Somebody might report something as spam and the staff may disagree. Staff here also don't get involved with scams but that doesn't mean the community shouldn't get involved with what they think is unjust. Should people turn a blind eye to scams and frauds just because they're not mods?


Sadly conspiracy theories are very common when you have a victim mentality or feel like you've been wronged somehow. It's much easier for as person to handle something if they create a story or narrative to make out like they're being persecuted for something when the reality of the situation is usually much more dull but the conspiracy theory is always the most exciting.




No it isn't. The problem with this forum is people get away with far too much with no repercussions at all. You are seemingly free to post rubbish across multiple accounts and you are left alone to do so. That doesn't mean you're not going to get treated like an idiot and people leaving you or anyone else negative feedback does not encroach on your freespeech. People seemingly love free speech until it punches them in the face and then they turn around and want that person banned, silenced or imprisoned somehow. That's pure hypocrisy If I've ever seen it. Freedom is good and people should be given as much as possible, but obviously there needs to be some restrictions because not everyone can play nice or by the rules.


I think they care but it's a combination of time, money and effort and balancing all that with as much freedom as possible which is ultimately what theymos seems to stand behind. Sadly everybody can't have it their own way and you're never going to appease everyone. Some people would prefer it if staff ruled with an iron fist whilst some think they should do nothing. Some think the way staff handle things currently is fine, but there is obviously always room for improvement.