Okay. A pot of coffee and a meal later, and I'm ready to address your concerns. tl;dr: You've done more damage to the campaign than every cheater in its history by publicly pointing out how easy it is to circumvent my system.

Point 1: Evasion via [redacted]

It should be obvious at this point that there are logical limitations to what I am capable of discovering. The rules are designed to make it clear that detectable abuse of the signature campaign system will not be tolerated by this campaign. The question about undetectable abuse is a clear-cut case of sealawyering your way around the intent of the campaign and is, on its face, abusive behavior. You're basically asking if it is OK for your customers to anonymously violate the spirit and intent of the campaign by [redacted]. While they might get away with it, it is still not OK and is considered abuse; once discovered, abusers are removed. In response to your direct question, "what if..." the answer is: "You will get away with it until proof of abuse is assembled, and then you will be barred from the campaign." Does this mean one could do it successfully? Yes. Does it mean that this is appropriate behavior, or business with integrity? No. It's abuse of this campaign.

Point 2: Quality of advertising

This campaign does have post quality requirements, mostly to deter spammers and abusers. However, there are also the marginal cases of individuals that enroll with intent to post with quality then find themselves in a "hurry-up" situation. I'm very forgiving of situations like this, having issued a few light warnings but only actively barring one single enrollee based on quality and frequency. While post quality is one important facet of enrollment, it is not the most important one. The argument that a "cheating" account could still provide quality posts carries no weight since those signatures are still associated with the behavior of the user. This is a self-perpetuating cycle: as Lucky Bit has been associated with removing signature farmers, less farmers have applied to the program, thus protecting its integrity and improving both the brand image and membership post quality. Similarly, as other campaigns are associated with signature farming, their brands have incurred a negative image which attracts more spammers to the campaign. It may be effective advertising, but it isn't good branding and Lucky Bit deserves better.

Point 3: Specific rule statements

This really gets under my skin because it is a blatant case of nit-picking. The OP is long enough - too long, in fact; about 15% of Lucky Bit players seeking to enroll in the campaign ask me to summarize the program in chat because they don't want to read it. Adding more specific, stringent rules to explicitly prohibit activity that is impossible to detect would be not only counterproductive, but also encourage more nit-picking against the rules of the campaign as well as enable abusers. If you want to pick nits - I have, under the rules, the right to refuse payment to anyone for no disclosed reason beyond "inappropriate activity discovered during a background check". Of course, I've never done this, nor do I intend to; unfortunately, I cannot expect the same integrity of applicants.

Point 4: Enabling the abusers

The final decision to issue or not issue payment is, and has always been, mine alone; I have always included undisclosed factors in my decision making process. Semantic arguments about the rules are a petty method of abuse, and abuse is explicitly prohibited; so I think it should be clear that what you describe is not, by any measure, operating with a standard that is acceptable to this program. Perhaps that is a high standard for your business; it is substandard for mine and your flagrant disregard for the intent of the system tears into the fabric of integrity that sustains this program.

I warned you that this can couldn't be sealed again. The future can only be determined by actions taken in the present - the status of this campaign is now publicly in question, and I cannot state with any certainty what, if anything, can protect it. This issue has been an existential threat to the campaign since October and is now a tangible one as well. I don't want to end this program, but I may have to simply because there is no effective way to accurately combat abuse without imposing draconian restrictions or effectively limiting the program to participants of my personal preference. Until today, I've been able to hide behind plausible deniability; since you've now publicly shoved the issue directly in my face, I can no longer feign ignorance.

I strongly suspect that my campaign is still being actively abused and there is nothing I can, with integrity, do to stop it, because I cannot produce proof. I believe in the principle of presumed innocence, and won't accuse without just cause, but I also cannot stand by and knowingly enable abusers. Today, I face a dilemma that could end the Lucky Bit Signature Campaign. It's impossible to prevent abuse and now everyone knows why and how.

My undisclosed factors are no longer secret: I look for proof of identity, on the blockchain and the forum. My tools are block explorers, Bitcoin Talk, and a network of like-minded individuals; it is not only possible to defeat this, it is trivial for anybody that knows what I was looking for. Your post has widened the "anybody that knows" to "everybody" which renders the entire background check process a waste of time for me and for abusers - but more for me. edit Even after some posthaste censorship, the damage can't really be undone - but it's still an appreciated gesture!

I've been proud to faithfully manage this program for almost a year. My actions have created a visible, positive impact on the signature campaign space. I've watched signature ads transform from unmoderated in-your-face sellout branding to detailed, high-quality works of advertising art maintained by individuals that care about the forum. It would be a tragedy to see it all collapse under the threat of abuse despite all the steps I have taken to create a better signature campaign.

I honestly don't know what to do next. As you've plainly pointed out, the campaign could be populated with cheaters and I would be unable to detect it. I've taken a best-faith effort to root out the problem, but it will never go away and a large portion of the work I've done is now much less useful. I am now forced to seriously weigh the time-cost effectiveness of this program against other promotions that carry less abuse potential.