Quote from: hilariousandco on February 08, 2015, 06:49:38 AM

Quote from: Throwaway_Acc on February 08, 2015, 02:31:09 AM

Yup. Bitcoin is not anonymous. Tor is not anonymous either. Are you saying you believe both tech to be anonymous?

What do you actually define as anonymous? But there's no point arguing over semantics and this isn't really relevant anyway. The point is if you don't want an account associated with your other(s) or real world identity then you can have one or several for whatever reasons.

This isn't semantics. Bitcoin is NOT anonymous. Neither Satoshi nor Gavin, or any of the other four core developers has claimed Bitcoin to be anonymous. Just last week an FBI agent testified during the Ross Ulbricht trial in court how he conclusively connected the Silk Road addresses to Ulbricht. A week earlier, a security researcher did the same thing using only publicly available data and published his findings on Forbes.

When you sign up to a forum, you ceased to be anonymous. I think this is why admins stopped anonymous posting on Bitcointalk. Your identity can remain private, but you are no longer anonymous.

Quote from: hilariousandco on February 08, 2015, 06:49:38 AM

Quote from: Throwaway_Acc on February 08, 2015, 02:31:09 AM

My point is not moot at all. You just refusing to see the logic in it. With the barriers raised, significantly fewer people will use alts. Kiddie account sellers will no longer be able to farm 20-30 accounts without large investment, incredible discipline and huge amount of time to burn. When they screw up even once eventually, the account will be locked. I have seen this happen at another forum that was once filled with scammers.

No, your point is moot and there's no logic in it. Alt accounts are allowed and scammers are not banned, so you're trying to create rules and restrictions for something that is allowed. Why make it harder for me to have an alt account? Punish me just so it's a little more tedious for scammers to sign up? Again, when you make it harder for scammers you make it harder for the everyday user. Scammers will do whatever they can to get around the rules no matter how hard you make the restrictions and casual users will just be turned off/away.

Why make it harder for the average users here and easier for scammers? You favor an environment that is conducive to scams, inconveniencing all average users every day, making Bitcointalk a dangerous place. Who is being punished here? This is the tyranny of the majority over a tiny minority.

My suggestion would make it slightly harder one time (seconds for most) for the average user to sign up, and make it so much harder for scammers, trolls, account farmers, etc.

Quote from: hilariousandco on February 08, 2015, 06:49:38 AM

Quote from: Throwaway_Acc on February 08, 2015, 02:31:09 AM

Again, what are the genuine reasons aside from non-existent 'anonymity'?

I've already stated several times you can have them for whatever reasons you want. What reason are you using a 'throwaway account' now? That's one. Don't want to get into an argument with someone on your main account for whatever reason? That's another. Want one for business and one for personal? Another. Want to post unpopular opinions? Another. Want to sell dildos or erotic fiction you write? Create a new account. Any reason you want an account is valid and we should not restrict those people from doing so by adding pointless things like linking social media that do nothing but annoy people. And how is anonymity non existent? If I create an account through tor how is that tied to this account? If I want an account not linked to this one for whatever reasons I can do so regardless of the semantics of your definition of true anonymity.

I am using this account now because I can. If I can't, then I won't. Simple.

How many accounts does an average user need in other forums? How many other accounts does an average user need on Bitcointalk?

How many erotic businesses does the average users run? How many users are too cowardly to voice their opinion on one anonymous account but not the other?
My suggestion would not be a barrier against someone who wants to have two or three accounts. It would be a barrier against scammers. It would be a barrier against spammers. It would make enforcement very possible.

You are arguing against it because it will cost most posters an extra couple of seconds (once) and because a small number of people who thinks they are anonymous might get turned away from registering?

Quote from: hilariousandco on February 08, 2015, 06:49:38 AM

Quote from: Throwaway_Acc on February 08, 2015, 02:31:09 AM

Because you made a big deal about people not wanting to sign up due the hassle of clicking one button once, a process that will take a few seconds. Yet they are perfectly okay with waiting six minutes between posts.

It's not about how many buttons you have to click, tying your social media account is far more annoying and potentially dangerous in my opinion and I wouldn't give my own personal one and neither would Mitchell, so we and everybody else have to create a new email and new fake Facebook or whatever just to sign up, so no it takes longer than a few seconds and one click to sign up. And most people aren't ok or don't like the six minute wait and that will compound their frustration when they find out about it after just having to have gone through the tedious process of creating a new email and new Facebook. Many will just think 'fuck it' and leave as I'm sure many already do with the frustrating six minute restrictions.

Quote from: hilariousandco on February 08, 2015, 06:49:38 AM

Quote from: Throwaway_Acc on February 08, 2015, 02:31:09 AM

I would argue that more people will sign up because they will feel safer, knowing there are actual people behind an account rather than alts.

I would argue that they wouldn't and I think you'll be in the minority with this opinion. You also seem to be contradicting yourself as how does tying a fake Facebook account make them a real person? You know as well as I do so all this will do is give users a false sense of security so not safer at all. Casual and niave users may feel more secure or have no problem with it but they'll regret it later when their account is hacked and their real world identity is exposed or whatever.

Why is it potentially more dangerous? How many of you and Mitchells are on this forum? Are people like you guys the majority or a very, very tiny majority?
Who gains the most from the current system? That's right. Scammers. Not the average users.

How many users publicly post their website, email, Skype and Twitter accounts on this forum? Let's Google it.

Gmail (from profiles and forum posts): "&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8]29,000 results

Hotmail (from profiles and forum posts): "&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=site:[Suspicious link removed]%22]3,470

Skype (there's even a Bitcoin Skype group): "&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=site:bitcointalk.org+%22Skype%22]48,500[/url}

Twitter: [url=https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=site%3A[Suspicious link removed]"&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=site:[Suspicious link removed]%22]69,500

Facebook: "&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=site:[Suspicious link removed]%22]33,500

LinkedIn: "&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=site:[Suspicious link removed]%22]3,170

Google +: "&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=site:bitcointalk.org+%22plus.google.com%22]79,700

How many of the people above would suddenly leave Bitcointalk if asked to tie the social media accounts to Bitcointalk? How many people would feel sudden need to create a fake social media account to hide their identity from the admins?

Quote from: hilariousandco on February 08, 2015, 06:49:38 AM

Quote from: Throwaway_Acc on February 08, 2015, 02:31:09 AM

Quote from: hilariousandco on February 07, 2015, 09:49:32 AM

Same, and many people will just be just turned off straight away. People who want to get around these restrictions to abuse them will just do what is necessary to bypass them, so it just hurts regular users who don't care or have the patience to go about creating fake social media accounts or using proxies/tor etc.

Many people? Many people couldn't be bothered about hiding their identity online. The very, very few who do, can just create an alternate account to do so.
They won't get flagged.
When amateurs create accounts multiple accounts, they will get flagged for reasons mentioned in my earlier posts.
For professionals scammers, they will have a higher barrier of entry and one wrong move could render their account closed.

Again it seems like you're proving my point here. Many people won't bother and the rest will just create new accounts so what actually is the point apart from annoying everybody? Or is it just about catching amateurs now? Professional scammers will professionally avoid the restrictions. Sure, you'll catch some out but you'll also catch genuine users who just don't want to use their own Internet connection or personal details.

Most people already have social media accounts, and most people won't have the need to be anonymous to the admins.
Most people won't be bothered about an extra one-time click that will cost them a few extra seconds. Most people are bothered by the sic-minute rule, but they choose to remain on this board. Genuine users won't have reason to be caught, because genuine users won't be creating accounts by the truckloads.

Quote from: Quickseller on February 08, 2015, 07:05:00 AM

I have a reason why people would want to create alternate accounts that is more valid then any of the above reasons: someone spends a lot of time calling out scammers and stopping scams. As a result scammers don't like him (it would probably be more accurate to say scammers would hate such a person).

A person who spends a lot of time weeding out scammers probably would not want their RL identity associated with their account because scammers would probably try to associate their RL identity with a bunch of BS illegal shit that is not true (just look at Vod - I am fairly confident that he thoroughly regrets associating his RL identity with his account now).

If such a person wanted to trade with people they would likely do so with alt accounts in order to protect their identity.

Why would that need to stop? Linking your social media account to your Bitcointalk account does mean you must post with your real life identity.
Try it out here: https://www.digitalpoint.com. You have the option of hiding your accounts, changing your username, profile pics, etc.
A few years ago, that forum was so flooded with scammers and spammers, it was difficult even making a small purchase.
Today, the crime wave is gone. Sure, there are still the odd scams, but by and large, it is a safe place to conduct business and trades, post jobs or hold contests.
Once there is a barrier in place, most people will value their accounts more. People won't just simply link spam, try to run cheat someone for a few dollars, etc.
DigitalPoint is one of the most popular forums in the world. But they managed to beat the scam tide.

Another good example is WarriorForum.com, an even larger forum than Digital Point.
Last year, when the scam tide became too big, users had to pay $5 to register. A few years earlier, they implemented the War Room package for members who wanted enhanced credibility. Their admins constantly change the rules to counter spammers and scammers.

Both of these forums (especially DigitalPoint) has similar user demographic to Bitcointalk - tech savvy, young, webpreneur. In the case of WarriorForum, the number of millionaires are so much more than here. Even some of pro copywriters in the copywriting section make over a million a year. You don't see many problems with enforcement there.