Maybe a address blacklist feature of some sort? (Frigobar)
Increase the cost of token creation seems an easy one
When voting is live maybe the community can vote to blacklist tokens. And ofcourse with burn transactions we can burn them.
Agree, waves still cheap. Increasing token creation like 5 or 10 waves can cost more than now for phishing tokens creation.this can decrease number of tokens created for phishing. After that they can use description section to seperate link to the users with rest of tokens created for phishing.
Personally is this something I have done on my Turtle Network to prevent people from spamming less.
It takes 1k TurtleNode. I surely can see why it is great to make it more expensive, but for miners sake it would also be good to split the fees from increased asset prices so it doesn’t become a lotery to much.
Yes WCT voting could be used for this case (and this aligns perfect in the old promisses about this token)
We could say if an asset for example got 1m negative votes (each wct = 1 vote) (negative -positive = negative amount) we will blacklist the token and hide it everywhere client wise.
Since we will never be able to edit the blockchain and remove stuff, we can however hide it in the clients.
Edit: what if out voting adds another parameter to the asset in the blockchain, a paramter that is a boolean and shows if it has positive or negative or no approvements. Then all apps can for example filter out tx from assets with negative approvements.
Yes, guys. Voting is the best solution for this problem. We will do it.
Also the problem here is someone can buy WCTs and blacklist an asset.
How about some kind of of spam detection with suggestions from community?
I didn’t get how voting will be solution for phishing. You can’t block transactions with voting. A guy creating a new token quickly and airdrop it. What will you vote after this proccess?
1m is a example number.
Every measurement to punish bad actors can be used to remove good opponents.
Aka there will always trying to be people doing damage to good/legit projects because an opinion not matching.
However, you should make the requirement number bigger then someone would be able to buy, but low enough to be able to reach the treshold with the active wallets.
good point…hmm yes that does seem to still be a problem
Waves Dude - Last Friday at 8:17 AM
on wavesdesk explorer i have a filter to remove links from asset name , description and attachement
$patterns = array();
$patterns = ‘|https://|’;
$patterns = ‘|http://|’;
$patterns = ‘|www|’;
$patterns = ‘|.|’;
$patterns = ‘/(|)/’;
$patterns = ‘| dot |’;
$clean = preg_replace('#<a.?>(.?)</a>#i', '\1', $dirty); $clean = preg_replace($patterns, '', $clean);
Waves Dude - Last Friday at 8:18 AM
So my proposal is to do the same on the wallet client
then we have the big group of new users in safe
Maybe an idea is to temporary increase the Create Asset fee to 10 Waves (and get 9 Waves back after verification perhaps). This can be a temporary fix untill a permanent solution is in place.
Who will cover 9 waves to give them back? The 10 waves goes to miners after token creation. Also a team who get verified, probably won’t care about 9 waves = 45 usd after the ICO
We can make token creation cost 100 waves which %90 of this fee will store in vault. (or token freeze with smart account). If the token will voted a spam or phishing token by wct holders, take the rest of waves as a fee for miners else ; give it back to the issuer.
Still every rule to punish good ones will be able to destroy good ones
This already fails since wavesnode.NET token has a dot inside.
A perfect example how a good asset is punished by measuremets
Exactly, but waves team should select a way to walk on it. Imo, they think cheap token creation and cheap airdrop will attract more users and txs on waves. Cheap is not good always, with that kind of phishing and spamming, we can’t protect newbies from losing money. Only that can I suggest, cheap txs are good but cheap token creation not. 100, 50 waves or any number that can be select against phishing token issuer (%90 of in vault and that will paid back after voting) with really meaningfull usecase won’t hurt issuer.
The best solution would be what karmenali suggests however this can only be implemented with smart contracts on main net. Also this feature would require voting before being enabled so this would take some time before activated. A short term solution is not easy to implement without it being a very centralised one.
ah yes I see…hmm…what about allowing dot but keeping the others would that still pick up the majority of spam?