Quote from: Findingnemo on June 29, 2023, 05:46:02 AM

I like this unbiased move cause we can see there is some kind of relaxation towards the sold/bought accounts because they have some contribution to the community (basically they earned merits). But let's take the forum rule again "No plagiarism" and if someone did that they will get permanent ban, no excuse while on some exceptions they have been awarded a second chance by admin. So the same thing can be applied here or as DT community it has to be very strict?

I can only express my own opinion but for me the answer would have to be "yes" simply because there is no consensus on what action would constitute a tag. If we do not know exactly what the requirements would be in order for a known traded/bought/sold account to be deemed worthy of a reprieve or worthy of a tag, then it cannot be implemented. That was one of the reasons to start the discussion in this tread.

Quote from: Onyeeze on June 29, 2023, 06:07:11 AM

I think what you said is right, I know that am new person but according what yahoo62278 said concerning some lenders using accounts as collateral previously I think tagging those accounts as a bought accounts is wrong, and considering the fact that those accounts have not committed any crime or used to defraud any one theirs no need of tagging them to be honest, what the DT's should concentrate on to tag is accounts that attempt to scam people and that is causing nuisance with different crime. From the explanation of yahoo its crystal clear that tagging a bought account without evidence of crime committed is 💯 wrong. I agree with you

It is nice to see you have stated your opinion, others may or may not agree. I personally do not agree with your views or your statement that a blanket policy should be implemented as there is no reference in your comment as to what constitutes a crime and nor have you stated who in this forum would define the meaning of such a term.

Quote from: jokers10 on June 29, 2023, 11:39:51 AM

Quote from: JollyGood on June 29, 2023, 11:14:43 AM

I hope more members add their views to broaden the discussion and debate.

I strongly don't like accounts trading but mainly because it encourages accounts hacking. If someone sold his own account... well, it doesn't look good anyway, I'd say it looks shady anyway. But well, if it was years ago and it is the only one shady thing about the account which was active all these years, I don't think such old things should be digged. Especially because there was another consensus about it away back.

Please elaborate further.

Quote from: jokers10 on June 29, 2023, 11:39:51 AM

As for new cases there's no doubt that new accounts trading should be tagged negatively for both a seller and a buyer. We can consider neutral tag in case when we sure that the true owner is selling his account totally publicly, in exceptional case. But in new cases it should be tagged anyway.

We can say that cases before 2018 or something like that are too old for digging if there's nothing else bad about that account.

The fact you have mentioned a timeline is appreciated. Without having an understanding of where to draw the line in previous years as far as any amnesty (or exception) is concerned, it would be difficult to assess the viability.

Quote from: Timelord2067 on June 29, 2023, 11:53:14 AM

Quote from: JollyGood on June 29, 2023, 11:14:43 AM

If you thought it was worth 0.3 BTC and then 0.275 BTC in 2016 (before you had a change of heart) then what it is worth at the current 2023 market rate?

Then accounts were sold with a wallet address signature thrown in via account sellers such as tomatocage who started the stake your signature thread with a few of the first few pages all accounts he then sold with those wallet address - if there were any doubt the accused would just sign a message.

It makes posting a wallet address signature meaningless.

Thank you for another very informative post. I had a brief discussion with a highly respected member recently regarding what seemed to be a sold account and the reason I opted to not start a thread was because when the change of ownership happened it involved a signed message from an already known address.

This part of the account sale process where known or previously used addresses are signed to show a new address is not being used, it makes it somewhat difficult to tag and when tags are given there is a chance the wider community could say it was unfair to tag if a previously known address was signed to list the new address.

Quote from: yahoo62278 on June 29, 2023, 11:55:35 AM

Quote from: jokers10 on June 29, 2023, 11:39:51 AM

We can say that cases before 2018 or something like that are too old for digging if there's nothing else bad about that account.

I would say that if a new precedent is set, then it should be from July xxx 2023. Everything prior should be considered ancient history.

Now we have two dates from members as far as amnesty is concerned and they have different opinions about whether any amnesty be conditional or not.