I think the one solution for those not wanting unsolicited transfers is perhaps an opt-out user attribute to be added to the code which would require consensus.
Perhaps, the attribute can require that the sender be followed by the recipient otherwise the transfer will error.
One good thing about transfers is they have a minimum cost which means their potential for abuse is indeed limited.
I recall last year there had been a lot of promotions for resteem services via SBD transfers. I think these would fall into the category of spam especially considering the scale. Another consideration if an opt-out attribute is added is maybe added a transfer limit per hour. This would effectively limit the reach of spam.
As a flag incentivization intiative, it may be possible to start flag campaigns against the links being promoted in the spam transfers but, as always, the community would need to be behind it. Definitely a good discussion.
Would love to invite others to continue the discussion on our Steem Moderation discord channel and maybe we can plan how flag incentivization may help address the problem.
The wallet interface should have a user specified setting to hide messages below the specified value. It could aggregate transfers of lower value so the user can check them if they want, like checking your spam folder. At the top level it would just show transfers above the specified value with their memos, and a cumulative total received in the last week in transfers below that value.
Probably @ned for Steemit and various others for each different interface/website @good-karma/eSteem might be a good fit initially. Someone could even build it as a standalone messenger app. Just build in encryption/decryption and the spam filter into a minimal wallet and you've got a minimum viable product. I've been meaning to get into app development for some DPOS chains if I ever find the time to get bootstrapped.
Hi @steemseph, thanks for the mention!
I think the one solution for those not wanting unsolicited transfers is perhaps an opt-out user attribute to be added to the code which would require consensus.
Perhaps, the attribute can require that the sender be followed by the recipient otherwise the transfer will error.
One good thing about transfers is they have a minimum cost which means their potential for abuse is indeed limited.
I recall last year there had been a lot of promotions for resteem services via SBD transfers. I think these would fall into the category of spam especially considering the scale. Another consideration if an opt-out attribute is added is maybe added a transfer limit per hour. This would effectively limit the reach of spam.
As a flag incentivization intiative, it may be possible to start flag campaigns against the links being promoted in the spam transfers but, as always, the community would need to be behind it. Definitely a good discussion.
Would love to invite others to continue the discussion on our Steem Moderation discord channel and maybe we can plan how flag incentivization may help address the problem.
The wallet interface should have a user specified setting to hide messages below the specified value. It could aggregate transfers of lower value so the user can check them if they want, like checking your spam folder. At the top level it would just show transfers above the specified value with their memos, and a cumulative total received in the last week in transfers below that value.
This is a great idea and seems like it would be easy enough to implement on the front end. Who would we need to bring this up to? @ned, maybe?
Probably @ned for Steemit and various others for each different interface/website @good-karma/eSteem might be a good fit initially. Someone could even build it as a standalone messenger app. Just build in encryption/decryption and the spam filter into a minimal wallet and you've got a minimum viable product. I've been meaning to get into app development for some DPOS chains if I ever find the time to get bootstrapped.
exactly