It' a good idea, but it's better if the 0.001 BTC will be sent to the Bitcoin Faucet 
doesn't that end up spamming the blockchain? 
Topic: Wiki Captcha required - 99% new user creation is spam - page 2. (Read 3680 times)
It' a good idea, but it's better if the 0.001 BTC will be sent to the Bitcoin Faucet
so a person coming to bitcointalk.org to learn about bitcoin and how to use it, will have to first ask his question somewhere else? so he can pay .001 btc to the forum 
A clever spammer could create a website that relays any sort of captcha challenge to users who are willing to solve them for .01BTC each. It has been done before, but using porn for a reward instead of bitcoins. Same principal.
Not that clever since he'd be paying .01 instead of the direct access payment of .001
A more substantial deposit that is returned after the account doesn't spam is probably better, that way it is only a cost to spammers. It only really works in communities where most people will have coins and even then could be annoying, but so is spam.
A clever spammer could create a website that relays any sort of captcha challenge to users who are willing to solve them for .01BTC each. It has been done before, but using porn for a reward instead of bitcoins. Same principal.
In my experience with Wiki's most captcha based additional verification before account creation doesn't slow it down much.
They guess those rather two well.
What slows it down the most is simple but random question of your own choice.
Having something non standard, means the bot just won't be able to guess it, but a human will know the answer.
The donation method is also great, just take a bit more to implement. It would once done before more likely to beat the bots and spammers.
They guess those rather two well.
What slows it down the most is simple but random question of your own choice.
Having something non standard, means the bot just won't be able to guess it, but a human will know the answer.
The donation method is also great, just take a bit more to implement. It would once done before more likely to beat the bots and spammers.
This spamming is still going strong.
Emailing [email protected] about it.
Emailing [email protected] about it.
I agree with the payments.
this would be a great addition to any wiki software. a bitcoin-based captcha.
with the difference that we would provide only this and other wikis would put it along with audio and visual captchas.
yes, such a plugin would be cool. It could require a very specific donation to the bitcoin faucet and monitor for this via blockchaininfo api. this way you don't need a bitcoind.
Any offers for me to make it for mediawiki? it would be installable like all the other mediawiki plugins and javascript would poll blockchaininfo every 10s for a payment of exactly a server side random amount of 0.000?????BTC, provide a QR-Code and a bitcoin link to pay. The 0s not being 0s would still validate, so the users can mix a donation with their captcha payment.
Of course if blockchaininfo allows long polling, i would do that.
this would be a great addition to any wiki software. a bitcoin-based captcha.
It' a good idea, but it's better if the 0.001 BTC will be sent to the Bitcoin Faucet
Yes, please! Also, what to do with spam accounts already created?
I took a look at the Recent Changes page, and it seems 30 out of 50 "changes" are actually new user creations.
No CAPTCHA is currently required to create an account. I suspect most of these are bots.
You can also be innovative and require payment of 0.001 BTC to register an account, with a link to the Bitcoin Faucet (that currently gives 0.005, and already handles the bot problem).
I'm not actually saying this is a good idea (might give the wrong impression to newbies) ... but some sort of filter is required.
No CAPTCHA is currently required to create an account. I suspect most of these are bots.
You can also be innovative and require payment of 0.001 BTC to register an account, with a link to the Bitcoin Faucet (that currently gives 0.005, and already handles the bot problem).
I'm not actually saying this is a good idea (might give the wrong impression to newbies) ... but some sort of filter is required.
Jump to: