Quote from: suchmoon on May 06, 2016, 07:20:20 PM

This might have some merit but 2 BTC is too steep. I would like to have a modest signature, I'm not advertising anything, and 2 BTC is way to much for that. Not everyone makes money off their sig.

That depends. It is obviously a 'drastic' measure, but definitely an effective one. While the exact number is debatable (as it will be deemed as high to some), I like the general idea behind it.

Quote from: suchmoon on May 06, 2016, 07:20:20 PM

Having said that, I'd happily give up my signature and avatar if there is a solid permanent solution to this account trade/farming bullshit that's going on right now.

I concur. Although we could still retain the avatar function, but disallow promotional avatars.

Quote from: suchmoon on May 06, 2016, 07:20:20 PM

I'm just not sure if making it more expensive is the solution as it seems to favor those who can afford it (e.g. advertisers) and might make them spam even more to cover the cost.

That's not going to happen. They would not only be risking an account (which is somewhat cheap), they would be risking 2 BTC (which is a lot depending where you live and especially for the majority of signature spammers.

Quote from: KenR on May 06, 2016, 07:43:16 PM

If not on bitcointalk,the account sales could easily take place on other places.I'm sure that already exists.

I have to say this on every single suggestion topic on relevant problems: We don't need a perfect solution (this does not exist), we need a good one. We only need to make it drastically harder for people to spam for money.

Quote from: jambola2 on May 06, 2016, 07:51:55 PM

Killing the micro-economy of new users who have found usable amounts of BTC only through sig campaigns may be bad for BTC too.

Disagree. Bitcoin does not gain any kind of 'support' from signature spammers. While there are a few (but rare) examples of decent participants, most of them (99%) just spam for money.