Same reason why we don’t publish our public keys to the block chain, and when we do, we abandon them. It’s a complicated topic I can’t fit into 184 chars 😂
I think this is challenging. The Bitcoin.com faucet had to be shut down because of abuse. The cat-and-mouse security model you propose is expensive and not convincing to me.
Also, not being able to withdraw the startup money would put a stop into anyone making multiple accounts, besides from maybe spam, which would be pointless.
I think this is challenging. The Bitcoin.com faucet had to be shut down because of abuse. The cat-and-mouse security model you propose is expensive and not convincing to me.
When was it shut down? I just used the faucet the other day and it gave me more BCH than I'm proposing to give.
Ive used Coinbase, Localbitcoins, Paxful, and Circle all to purchase bitcoins, and despite usually being a bit more expensive, my favorite is Localbitcoins.
IP checks & cookie tracking are two widely known ways to prevent users from creating multiple accounts. Getting advanced would be to check user-agents, screen size, etc.
Im not making a story, so i dont need mttr.app. My point is if we "saved" a sat or two from each transaction, we would be able to provide new users with some sat to start.
"It" doesn't exist yet, so you'll have to clarify your proposal and how it solves digital identity :P may I suggest https://www.mttr.app/home for a longer format.
IP checks & cookie tracking are two widely known ways to prevent users from creating multiple accounts. Getting advanced would be to check user-agents, screen size, etc.
If your scheme is employed, any bad actor can monopolize the revenue sharing and take away from legitimate users while contributing to spam. Spotify has the same problem.
measures that could be put in place to prevent users creating multiple accounts. This would be nothing like Spotify.
If your scheme is employed, any bad actor can monopolize the revenue sharing and take away from legitimate users while contributing to spam. Spotify has the same problem.
You would only receive 1 small payment when first registering (2000 bits, etc), and for such a small amount, it wouldn't be worth it to try to circumvent the basic...
no. not at all. never was & never should be. not to mention, if q is such an obviously crazy, harebrained larp there should be no need to ban... unless its not so crazy. 🤔
Or maybe they were directing their users to promote violence (not saying its true, but a possible scenario for an acceptable ban).
Bitcoin.com wallet and Bitpay disappeared from Google play. Wtf?
Most likely Core supporters/bots reporting and leaving mass negative feedback. If they are the superior coin, why do they resort to these types of tactics?