You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Cookie Crumbs 3: Accountsquatting with a Bonus & Addressing a Neccessary Change in HF20
What about requiring people to prove ownership of a prominent existing social media platform account OR pay a small joining fee. This allows anonymity to continue, but at a fair price which would reduce this abuse problem.
When I joined you could use facebook.com ownership to create a steemit.com account. The problem of course is that there are a lot of ways to circumvent this. You could pay users on mturk.com to create 1000's of facebook/steemit accounts at 10 cents each.
How do people create these accounts when so cheaply when they require a unique mobile phone SIM for each? I'm missing something I think.
You can actually register temporary virtual numbers for receiving texts at NO cost online, these numbers are usually under certain country codes, but I know for a fact that this has been used to sign up a multitude of accounts here in the past. I'll not leave a link here for obvious reasons.
Right. That makes sense now thanks. Is getting a valid (genuine) list of numbers not offered by any third-party service? It seems like it would make a great business, but maybe it's very difficult for some reason I still can't quite understand.
This does seem reasonable, until you consider the armies of fake facebook and twitter profiles.
While this would certainly make the abuse of the sign-up process a tad harder for the average script-kiddy, it probably wouldn't really lock out all the dedicated cheaters, though. I think this would not be any better, maybe even worse than the requirement for a cell-phone number.
I think the current proposal in HF20 does already go further by removing the incentive for signing up for accounts without the intention of actually publishing content or investing into it's voting power.
Right I see, I wasn't really aware that was a problem on those networks too - I don't use them much myself.
I remember Google did some verification by postal address for business services, it was quick and no less convenient than the currently delayed signup process, it is probably cost prohibitive for Steem Inc. though.
Yes, and considering they want to "onboard millions of new users", I think removing the cost to themselves is one of the driving arguments in their current approach. From what I understand this does effectively also remove the incentive for excessive multi-accounting but I am not entirely certain if this is really comes without new issues, allowing a minimum bandwidth without any available vesting?!
I'm concerned about this bandwidth without corresponding vestings thing... the foundation for that model seemed very well considered by Dan, and this looks to me to undermine it.
It does not allow anonymity to continue since:
One is required to provide with both a cellular phone number and an email account.
Are there any anonymous social media?
It is easy to obtain both a cellular phone number and an email account anonymously, so since that's all they require, most social media networks permit anonymity.