not realy newbies who buy the accounts, most are Member,full member,sr member and hero they always want to have two account, one for personal stuffs and the other for trading or auction.. they make a new account to buy high rank account.. and i m not sure its something that we can resolve easily.
Topic: Will it prevent account selling? (Read 1994 times)
So many loud paid signatures in this thread.
I understand the thinking, but what would stop account sellers from transferring the wallet file in the transaction? IIRC transferring Priv Keys is already common practice.
The buyer is always at the risk of seller deciding to use bitcoins obtained from the signature campaign, because the seller will still have access to the address.
-snip-
In most cases, check user recent posts when register to paid signature campaign should work.
In most cases, check user recent posts when register to paid signature campaign should work.
Just "register" offsite, establish contact via PM.
I am surprised that so many people are in favor of regulations, and opposed to free market incentives.
This is disappointing.
This is disappointing.
Account selling is not banned, in spite of all the headaches it causes. Isn't that a free market?
You can't have a forum without regulations, otherwise it will turn into a spammers' paradise.
No, I find this idea a bit impossible. I changed address several times, for good reasons, the ones preached by Bitcoin. I wanted to keep my anonymity, simply. If you were forced to use a single address all the time, your funds could be easily monitored and followed. And this is against the core idea of Bitcoin and its anonymity. Moreover, that would be such a mess for moderators to check it all, so much that even if that would be the best idea ever it would get adopted. And let's not talk about the case I lose my wallet. I am out forever ?
And I think you are talking of a fake problem, no longer existing. I have the feeling that there is a slightier less demand for accounts lately.
And I think you are talking of a fake problem, no longer existing. I have the feeling that there is a slightier less demand for accounts lately.
I am surprised that so many people are in favor of regulations, and opposed to free market incentives.
This is disappointing.
This is disappointing.
The buyer is always at the risk of seller deciding to use bitcoins obtained from the signature campaign, because the seller will still have access to the address.
Interesting point. Is there a way to block this, or to associate a new key?
The answer is simple: eliminate all paid signature campaigns. One warning, perm ban. This would solve the spam to create accounts, the account selling, and the spamming due to the signature campaigns.
How do you determine if a user's signature if part of a paid signature campaign?
Do you have any evidence that suggest this is actually true or is it just your impression?
Newbies? I thought we are talking about bought accounts.
Yes .I used it as an example to show why accounts are bought. So you want to force every participant to give up their privacy? What if a user does not a agree and just enters a new bitcoin address on the campaigners website every few weeks? What if their wallet is compromised?
Kindly enlighten how sticking to one wallet address or using same for all campaigns compromise once privacy??Same as why in general its good advice to not reuse bitcoin addresses. You would know how much I have earned from campaigns over the years, when I spend the coins and to which addresses. It may be possible to gather (some of) this knowledge with significant work anyway, but I think you see the difference.
If users doesn't agree and enters new bitcoin address, the campaign manager will not accept him in campaign.
But the campaign manager wants advertisers. They have no incentive to follow this idea, why should they? In fact campaign managers could easily filter those spamming by checking the post history of those they pay.
As far as question of someone losing his/her wallet is conserned,that should be an exception.If every 10th or 20th member ask for wallet change because his wallet is compromised,we know something is wrong.
So its not even working, because I can just claim I lost access to my wallet anyway?
I dont see how this could work, nor do I think its a good idea.
The answer is simple: eliminate all paid signature campaigns. One warning, perm ban. This would solve the spam to create accounts, the account selling, and the spamming due to the signature campaigns.
No signature campaigns will definitely decrease the demand for buying/selling/farming accounts, but there is still the trust farming aspect that you seem to discard.Then we have account farmers looking to profit from giveaways, enrolling their accounts in free to enter lotteries, and the list goes on. Disallowing signature campaigns doesn't solve the whole purpose of farming and buying/selling accounts.
Account selling is a regular feature here on this forum.While it is not against forum rules but it creates unnecessary spammers here.
It is also understood that most of these account selling happen because of signature campaigns (Newbies trying to get high rank quickly)
What if there is a strict rule that a member will always have to use one wallet address for all the signature campaigns he/she will ever enroll with?
This,in my opinion, will curb the menace of account selling as buyer will not be able to participate in any signature campaign if he doesn't own the wallet attached with sold account.
It is also understood that most of these account selling happen because of signature campaigns (Newbies trying to get high rank quickly)
What if there is a strict rule that a member will always have to use one wallet address for all the signature campaigns he/she will ever enroll with?
This,in my opinion, will curb the menace of account selling as buyer will not be able to participate in any signature campaign if he doesn't own the wallet attached with sold account.
Why did you change your address than? Did you bought this account?
Now, this is very funny part of your post history:
Good price for legendary account.if I have money I bought it
It is contradiction to your thread.
Account selling is a regular feature here on this forum.While it is not against forum rules but it creates unnecessary spammers here.
It is also understood that most of these account selling happen because of signature campaigns (Newbies trying to get high rank quickly)
What if there is a strict rule that a member will always have to use one wallet address for all the signature campaigns he/she will ever enroll with?
This,in my opinion, will curb the menace of account selling as buyer will not be able to participate in any signature campaign if he doesn't own the wallet attached with sold account.
And what about Exchange signature campaigns that you are a part of?.They usually prefer to pay in wallet on their exchange and ask participants to sign up for new wallet. It is also understood that most of these account selling happen because of signature campaigns (Newbies trying to get high rank quickly)
What if there is a strict rule that a member will always have to use one wallet address for all the signature campaigns he/she will ever enroll with?
This,in my opinion, will curb the menace of account selling as buyer will not be able to participate in any signature campaign if he doesn't own the wallet attached with sold account.
global moderator
Activity: 3990
Merit: 2717
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
How would this stop anything? Account sellers would just sell the address with the account as some already do.
Because some people don't want everyone knowing how much coins they have and if you only have one address it's easy to find out. Bitcoin was also designed with the recommendation that you use a new address for every transaction. This is a silly idea and wouldn't even work.
Kindly enlighten how sticking to one wallet address or using same for all campaigns compromise once privacy??
If users doesn't agree and enters new bitcoin address, the campaign manager will not accept him in campaign.
As far as question of someone losing his/her wallet is conserned,that should be an exception.If every 10th or 20th member ask for wallet change because his wallet is compromised,we know something is wrong.
If users doesn't agree and enters new bitcoin address, the campaign manager will not accept him in campaign.
As far as question of someone losing his/her wallet is conserned,that should be an exception.If every 10th or 20th member ask for wallet change because his wallet is compromised,we know something is wrong.
Because some people don't want everyone knowing how much coins they have and if you only have one address it's easy to find out. Bitcoin was also designed with the recommendation that you use a new address for every transaction. This is a silly idea and wouldn't even work.
Do you have any evidence that suggest this is actually true or is it just your impression?
Newbies? I thought we are talking about bought accounts.
Yes .I used it as an example to show why accounts are bought. So you want to force every participant to give up their privacy? What if a user does not a agree and just enters a new bitcoin address on the campaigners website every few weeks? What if their wallet is compromised?
Kindly enlighten how sticking to one wallet address or using same for all campaigns compromise once privacy??If users doesn't agree and enters new bitcoin address, the campaign manager will not accept him in campaign.
As far as question of someone losing his/her wallet is conserned,that should be an exception.If every 10th or 20th member ask for wallet change because his wallet is compromised,we know something is wrong.
Account selling is a regular feature here on this forum.While it is not against forum rules but it creates unnecessary spammers here.
Do you have any evidence that suggest this is actually true or is it just your impression?
It is also understood that most of these account selling happen because of signature campaigns (Newbies trying to get high rank quickly)
Newbies? I thought we are talking about bought accounts.
What if there is a strict rule that a member will always have to use one wallet address for all the signature campaigns he/she will ever enroll with?
This,in my opinion, will curb the menace of account selling as buyer will not be able to participate in any signature campaign if he doesn't own the wallet attached with sold account.
This,in my opinion, will curb the menace of account selling as buyer will not be able to participate in any signature campaign if he doesn't own the wallet attached with sold account.
So you want to force every participant to give up their privacy? What if a user does not a agree and just enters a new bitcoin address on the campaigners website every few weeks? What if their wallet is compromised?
The answer is simple: eliminate all paid signature campaigns. One warning, perm ban. This would solve the spam to create accounts, the account selling, and the spamming due to the signature campaigns.
I understand the thinking, but what would stop account sellers from transferring the wallet file in the transaction? IIRC transferring Priv Keys is already common practice.
The buyer is always at the risk of seller deciding to use bitcoins obtained from the signature campaign, because the seller will still have access to the address.
Account selling is a regular feature here on this forum.While it is not against forum rules but it creates unnecessary spammers here.
It is also understood that most of these account selling happen because of signature campaigns (Newbies trying to get high rank quickly)
What if there is a strict rule that a member will always have to use one wallet address for all the signature campaigns he/she will ever enroll with?
This,in my opinion, will curb the menace of account selling as buyer will not be able to participate in any signature campaign if he doesn't own the wallet attached with sold account.
It is also understood that most of these account selling happen because of signature campaigns (Newbies trying to get high rank quickly)
What if there is a strict rule that a member will always have to use one wallet address for all the signature campaigns he/she will ever enroll with?
This,in my opinion, will curb the menace of account selling as buyer will not be able to participate in any signature campaign if he doesn't own the wallet attached with sold account.
What if that wallet is not accessible anymore and the owner because it was hacked or the online wallet turns scam like torwallet,so if the campaigner is a good poster,he cannot participate anymore because he cannot use other wallet address..
I understand the thinking, but what would stop account sellers from transferring the wallet file in the transaction? IIRC transferring Priv Keys is already common practice.
Account selling is a regular feature here on this forum.While it is not against forum rules but it creates unnecessary spammers here.
It is also understood that most of these account selling happen because of signature campaigns (Newbies trying to get high rank quickly)
What if there is a strict rule that a member will always have to use one wallet address for all the signature campaigns he/she will ever enroll with?
This,in my opinion, will curb the menace of account selling as buyer will not be able to participate in any signature campaign if he doesn't own the wallet attached with sold account.
It is also understood that most of these account selling happen because of signature campaigns (Newbies trying to get high rank quickly)
What if there is a strict rule that a member will always have to use one wallet address for all the signature campaigns he/she will ever enroll with?
This,in my opinion, will curb the menace of account selling as buyer will not be able to participate in any signature campaign if he doesn't own the wallet attached with sold account.
Jump to: