However, these are technical solutions for something that's not a problem at all for the campaign: they love and need spam in their topics, to stay on top. The more spam their thread receives, the more money they earn. It's a terrible incentive, and as long as those spammers aren't nuked
by the thousands, they'll keep doing this.
I don't have any idea regarding how BMs are being paid. I just thought that they'll receive a certain percentage from the amount raised during ICO regardless of the number of bounty participants.
The "problem" is: theymos believes in freedom! And as much as I appreciate that, it turned the bounty section into a board where the biggest spammer wins. Without drastic changes, that won't change.
Any decent campaign that doesn't spam, simply can't survive in the current bounty section.
Abusing freedom is not good anymore, I think we should draw the line how far can our freedom be without affecting the community. Yes, a decent campaign that has no spam can hardly survive the bounty section's status atm. But it doesn't mean that it's not worth to try it. Change cannot be done as simply as that.
If you are referring to forcing someone who is participating in say a Twitter campaign to prove who their bitcointalk account is via a signed message, I see little value in this. I also see little value in forcing someone to post in a thread to prove the same.
Someone having a certain rank bitcointalk account will not affect the effectiveness of the Twitter advertising.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bountyico-adbank-the-new-world-currency-of-online-advertising-2408654This campaign was abused by cheaters because of not requiring PoA aside from the signature campaign and Facebook which required a report post.
Cheaters used dead BTCT accounts and link it to their social media accounts.
Like this one:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/foead-405569 (account inactive since August 11, 2015, 02:02:43 PM)
But this he/she joined this campaign and rewarded.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JbpaBlLAXmjs3AAZGmwcBvbxw6RmTaeAEMmDSe3rnqM/edit#gid=647702196 (Twitter campaign row #570)
and there are a lot of them there.
This signed message method that I'm telling can also be used in signature campaign registration too. There are a lot of things that this signed messaging can be used. It's such a waste if we just ignore it.
Even with your suggestion to require users to give a signed message, this doesn't solve/prevent multiple account users (even bots) to join the same campaign. That, still allow users to spam. Creating a new BTC wallet and signing it is easier than you think.
Btw, iirc you can also sign your ethereum wallet and prove ownership of it.
Absolutely, this cannot stop multi-account users, but this can cause a lot of hassle to them unlike on those who play fair.
And yes, we can make a signed message on other crypto currencies, but i preferred
BTC, because, hey this is bitcointalk btw. If majority of the members here didn't manage to have their own bitcoin wallet then i think they learned nothing from here.
The back staff of the campaign manager ought to have someone whose duty it is to do a validation of authentication of enrolled participants. That way it is simpler. To begin to encrypt signed messages and others makes such exercise cumbersome. And above all, it does not stop the abuse as noted from earlier posts.
It will be simpler for participants but harder for the managers. I think both should have benefits. I didn't had any hassle when I made my signed message. I don't think it's cumbersome to have this signed message method if this means lessening spam in the forum even a little. Practicing this method can also be helpful irl use cases.