Quote from: babygun on May 29, 2018, 09:18:57 PM

Quote from: TheQuin on May 29, 2018, 01:05:29 PM

The problem with just using the ban hammer approach alone is that we always allow everyone to withdraw regardless of what they were banned for. I need to speak to wetsuit to understand his reasoning for doing that. But it means the bots don't lose anything and just make new accounts to start again.

This I also don't understand. It should be logique that whenever you find a person using a botnet or cheating and you ban them that he loses all his earnings. By still paying out these banned members they will keep on creating new accounts etc...

I've haven't had a chance to talk to wetsuit about this yet but I've been thinking about it. The last time some people got blocked some idiot was posting in the other thread telling everyone to withdraw all the money as they would lose it if they got banned. I had a very easy answer, we only ever block users from using the faucet, nothing else. So I suppose it does really help with building trust and confidence.
I *think* with the botnets it is a case of trying to catch and block them before they get to minimum withdrawal. That's part of the reason we're unlikely to reduce the 30k sat limit.

Quote from: BTCevo on May 30, 2018, 12:10:10 AM

But how can you remove those detection if there is a solving captcha which will counter the bot? I believe this is pretty good enough whenever you want to use bot because it prevents them for stealing the faucet mode but how can it still be abused if you already put protection? So you mean that to avoid this, you just blocked them like that? And later you will processed their account by asking them to make a deposit to make sure they are for real?

No.