You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Cookie Crumbs 3: Accountsquatting with a Bonus & Addressing a Neccessary Change in HF20
ownership of a prominent existing social media platform OR pay a small joining fee.
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.