Stamp out scammers via a compulsory address requirement

Quite apart from the technical and administrative problems being discussed elsewhere it's probable that the presence of thieves, liars, scammers and other bottom feeders is one of the most pressing concerns. While Team Numista does a fair job of identifying them and removing them with the assistance of a vigilant membership, action is typically not taken until the damage is done.

A corresponding problem is multiple accounts being created either to generate fake feedback or to continue scamming after the original account is closed down. So here's a proposal to deal with both problems.

All active accounts should have a mandatory address field. If someone simply wants to use the catalog then let them create anonymous accounts as is currently done. However to gain access to the forum, private messaging system and the swap engine it should be necessary to create a full account which would include the member's mailing address.

Add a "share address" button to the swap engine which would take the information supplied when the account was created and populate a nice "my address" form and send it to the other party along with confirming the swap. Anyone trying to send his address via PM should be reported to the mods as a potential scammer. Of course this information can not be publicly viewed and it might need an amendment to the ToS to allay any fears about it being misused or improperly shared. It would only became visible to anyone other than the account holder until the "share address" button is clicked. As it's information that has to be shared anyway there are no grounds to object to what is really just a change in the way it's transmitted.

During new account creation the system can automatically flag any address fields which show a substantial match to an existing account and freeze the account pending further investigation. A nice refinement would be an automatic scan to check that the IP address matches the physical location being claimed. Many websites already use a similar security model.

An additional benefit would be the elimination of parcels being misdirected by someone making a careless typo while manually typing it out each time a swap is confirmed.

This proposal won't stop all scammers but it will certainly slow them down and prevent them from making a return visit for second helpings. Currently there is nothing to stop this at all. It's easy enough to come up with a new user name and a junk email address but much harder to find a series of shipping addresses. Let's make these dirtbags work as hard as possible for their "free coins". Hopefully they will decide that Numista is just too hard for them and move on to easier options leaving us to swap our coins in peace and safety.

Happy 2016 to everyone.

It is a great idea. I would like to see this implemented.

I also think that we should start having different types of accounts perhaps with some requiring some membership fees with perks, obviously.

Seems like a good idea to me....

I am against this. I don't think that Numista can guarantee 100% that the website won't be hacked. If it will be hacked all addresses of collectors will be public which is great for thieves. I am sure that many people won't register if they see that they have to fill in their address while on other websites that isn't mandatory.

Yeah, I thought you would be.

The information is already available to your imaginary super hackers / coin thieves. It's simply exchanged by private message instead of automatically. Other websites have been using this system for years without incident.

I don't think it is a great idea to require an address for access to the forum and private messaging. I'd miss those features a great deal, but I'd be disinclined to enter my real address for everyone to see. Crime is a significant issue in my country and coins collectors are being targeted to an increasing extent.

I am only in favour with this if you actually wish to swap. I prefer to keep my home address somewhat private but like to contribute to the forum and numisdoc and use the forum. Swapping is too cumbersome to me so I just buy on auctions.

One way they do it in our trademe website over here is to have an "address verified" feature.

When people sign up to the site, they need to enter their address. Nobody can see the address except the admins who post out a letter to the address that contains a security code. When the person who signs up receives that letter and enters the code they become address verified. When selling, you can filter out people who are not address verified.

This feature could be implemented with a small joining fee to cover postage of the letter. That way your personal details are kept secret from other members unless you want to divulge them, and it's likely to weed out many of the scammers who only sign up because the site is free and easy to create a membership.

Cita: "pnightingale"​Yeah, I thought you would be.
​
​The information is already available to your imaginary super hackers / coin thieves. It's simply exchanged by private message instead of automatically. Other websites have been using this system for years without incident.
​

​Yes but they for example use httpS, Numista doesn't.

I would not say the site is wide open to hackers but any site can be hacked regardless of security, it has happened a few times lately with large companies having member details which were ripped.

So I believe the fear of hacking is improbable in this case. If a hacker succeeds then they will have all the addresses that have been sent via the private message system anyway.

I agree with Neil's suggestion by using a letter and code system, I don't agree with new members having to pay a fee though, that can become damaging in the long run. Instead I would suggest a paypal donation button for numista members to help cover the costs, doing this will make swaps secure for anyone swapping. Paying for the extra security if you like instead of taking without giving something back.

I would happily donate monthly towards this. No one will be forced to donate but I would be happy to do it.

A lot of legitimate members who do not use Numista for trades would leave if this suggestion was implemented, so it's a NO from me.

No, my post was on the top of Phil's suggestion.

Those who want to use the catalogue and general chat forums can do so freely with a standard membership, but the swap feature is locked off to them. Those who want to trade can get address verified and that would unlock the trading feature.

Cita: "neilithic"​No, my post was on the top of Phil's suggestion.
​
​Those who want to use the catalogue and general chat forums can do so freely with a standard membership, but the swap feature is locked off to them. Those who want to trade can get address verified and that would unlock the trading feature.

​That sounds like a pretty good compromise. I could live with that.

I don't agree with forcing people to pay - all its going to do is annoy many existing swappers. Forcing swappers to give their address is a great idea though - it could easily be checked against those of Numista scammers and other black lists.

Let's please remember that this idea comes from the person who proposed the mandatory country selection - which was only partially implemented:

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic14959.html

I think that when somebody puts in their address for swaps the country should be displayed publicly.

I've been thinking about this for the last few days, and I'd like to make the point that although I am not currently an active swapper, making a verifiable postal address mandatory to swap coins would prevent me from ever becoming an active swapper.

I now think this is a really bad idea because I don't see how forcing the specification of a postal address will do anything to root out scammers. After all, the scammers would need to give a postal address to scam people out of coins anyway.

Furthermore, even when organising a swap on Numista, there is no way that I would use Numista's communications channels to provide my address to anyone. This is a serious security consideration for me. I would insist on establishing an E-mail or other alternate channel of communication and only specify my address there.

So as for me, I would vote against this feature as emphatically as I can.

But thank you, pnightingale, for making me think so hard about all of this. I may not agree with the suggestion but it was great food for thought. :-)

Cita: "andrewdotcoza"... I don't see how forcing the specification of a postal address will do anything to root out scammers. After all, the scammers would need to give a postal address to scam people out of coins anyway

​For one thing it would stop people having multiple accounts, as the addresses would not be unique.

I currently have 0 swaps, although I've purchased coins 2 or 3 times, but what's to stop me creating 10 fake accounts, and setting up 10 virtual swaps, thus generating me 10 x 5 star ratings?

If the swap addresses were given by Numista, from their registered address, rather than communicated externally via email, then these faked swaps would be impossible.

It would probably need to done in the same way that PayPal/Ebay do the address thing, as a lot of ebayers only send to the paypal verified addresses. So in this case, once the swap details are nearing completion, the addresses of each party are released to the other swap partner. If a swap goes sour and Numista determine that the account is a scammer's, the address can be blacklisted. And if another account is created with the same address, then this would be flagged.

Cita: "BizzoDoes"​​I currently have 0 swaps, although I've purchased coins 2 or 3 times, but what's to stop me creating 10 fake accounts, and setting up 10 virtual swaps, thus generating me 10 x 5 star ratings?

​Because if you are setting up fake accounts in order to farm good swap ratings, there is nothing that requires you to specify your correct address.

And in anticipation of the next point: The idea that the operators of Numista will confirm the addresses by mailing something physical to the address is quite impractical and by no means secure. Without even thinking about it, there are 5 different postal addresses I could give you right now with the assurance that an item sent to any one of them would make it to me without a problem. This is assuming, of course, that the postal system is reliable which, in my country, it isn't.

I do agree that the physical mailing of something to verify a postal address is a bit impractical.

Whatever is suggested, there will always be some failure to it. As you say, you have 5 different addresses you could use to easily create 5 different (verified) swapping accounts, this suggestion is by no means flawless, but it's better than what is available now.

And again, even if a swap does go awry, it may be neither party's fault. Because as you say, not all country's postal systems are reliable, and (unfortunately) not all postal workers/neighbours/colleagues are honest.

In general I'm against to store my address in online data bases, so I'm against.
I still wouldn't pay to use a website. I never had, and will never do.
I do see the point though..

I like the idea of having a mandatory address for deeper access to Numista's engines. If you only want to use the catalog, then you don't have to provide it, but you will not have the privilege to swap with anyone or participate in the forum, etc. It should also make it easier to know where to send the coins. Recently I swapped with a member, but they forgot to write the address and it took a while for me to send the coins. With mandatory address it is a matter of a click to know where to send the package. If you want it delivered somewhere else, then you can provide an alternate address in a message, otherwise it is convenient not to have to write your address every time.

So you would want to stop people from benefitting from the forums, asking questions or having their coins identified because they don't want to specify an address? That is, surely, an unhelpful restriction.

Only because we're involved in trading. At the very least not have access to the swap engine.

I'm not talking a huge registration fee, just something like $2 to cover the cost of a letter to send out the validation code.

In my notion you can still use the catalogues, forums, other features, you would just pay the fee to upgrade to a "premium membership" to get access to the exchange feature. It's a one off fee and then you get unlimited swapping. You need to remember why this is being proposed, it's not to punish current members or try to make money, we're trying to make you all more secure and cut down on scammers. Is $2 really too high a price to pay for peace of mind?

Most scammers want something that's quick, easy and free to set up so they can get in, scam as much as possible then get out. At the moment there's nothing stopping them setting up lots of accounts to scam with one, before moving onto the next when the first one is banned. I daresay that the amount of scammers would hugely diminish if they needed to pay $2 every time they set up a new account.

It's not the amount that matters, it the psychological aspect of having to spend money (any money). And anyway the whole thing is unnecessary - how is it better than just making people give their address?

I could easily set up accounts giving the address of my house, my parent's house, my wife's parent's house, my older sister's house, my brother's house, my younger sister's house, my wife's brother's house, my wife's older sister's house, my wife's younger sister's house, my workplace, my wife's workplace, my brother's workplace, my sister's workplace, my other sister's workplace, my wife's mother's workplace, my wife's father's workplace, my wife's brother's workplace, my wife's sister's workplace, my wife's other sister's workplace, my sister's husband's workplace, my other sister's husband's workplace, my wife's sister's husband's workplace, my wife's other sister's husband's workplace, several close friends, my grandmother's house. I could go an and on and on. All of these places are valid addresses, all are different addresses, all of them I would be guaranteed to get my mail, all of them I could potentially scam from if I was a dishonest person.

Now if I was having to pay a fee to set up each of those accounts, as a scammer I would be more inclined to go on one of the other trading websites to try my luck there.

Maybe. But I think the psychological aspect of making people pay is going to scare people off.

And anyway, I counted about 30 address. 30 times $2 = $60 which is not a bad price to pay for all the coins you could scan out of people.

Yes but scams don't always work do they? Just look at Google, I don't think he got any bites to his scam. $60 is a lot to pay for no guarantee you will get anything. And the chance you will get coins worth a decent amount is pretty low, because people who are swapping the higher value coins are usually more careful about who they swap with, so $60 is a pretty high price to pay for a handful of low value coins when you can get a kilo of coins from e-bay for $10-$20.

I don't see what the big deal is. People seem to be happy to pay exorbitant amounts for registered post, sometimes more than the coins are worth on every letter they send to try and protect themselves and make sure the coins get there safely, but are complaining about a one off $2 fee to increase their safety.

Basically the more safety measures you implement the safer you are. Having compulsory addresses will see a few potential scammers withdraw, having a small membership fee will scare off more. Of course it's not foolproof, nothing is, but it will definitely make things safer than just having the compulsory listing of addresses, and I'm all for that.

Cita: "neilithic"​I don't see what the big deal is. People seem to be happy to pay exorbitant amounts for registered post, sometimes more than the coins are worth on every letter they send to try and protect themselves and make sure the coins get there safely, but are complaining about a one off $2 fee to increase their safety.
​
​Basically the more safety measures you implement the safer you are. Having compulsory addresses will see a few potential scammers withdraw, having a small membership fee will scare off more. Of course it's not foolproof, nothing is, but it will definitely make things safer than just having the compulsory listing of addresses, and I'm all for that.

​Exactly Neil couldn't have said it any better myself!

I would pay the $2 in a heartbeat, but I'm sure many people wouldn't.

Agree, I would pay $2 as well. Monthly! No kidding!

People like "free" and I think it's something that Xavier can be rightly proud of.

A modest fee wouldn't deter an existing collector who can see the benefits but what about those who are merely exploring their options? That's the new blood we need to capture, evangalise and put on the right path. Nah mate, this dog won't hunt... as they say in The Land of Cotton.

There is no foolproof method of keeping away a determined thief. The best you can do is make it as hard as possible for them to operate. If Neil wants to turn to the dark side and steal a few coins from me.... at least I made him work for it. And now 30 members of his family think he's a low rent crook so I reckon I win.

It's 2016 now, you have to bank online as cheques and counter payments are going the way of powdered wigs. People do their grocery shopping online, register their cars, dogs and even file their taxes without leaving their chair. Hell, you can even find a wife or two online and be getting a divorce from the current one in the next browser tab. When did you last go in person to an IRS office to file your taxes? Even if you use a tax preparer they are just submitting the same information on your behalf except now they have a copy of it and the guy listening at the next desk waiting to be served now knows enough about you to assume your identity.

I'm sure that circa 1800 there were people still insisting that powdered wigs were the only way to keep your natural hair safe and hidden. Fortunately we didn't listen to them back then and we shouldn't listen to them now. (South Africans excepted due to extraordinary circumstances)

Cita: "pnightingale"​It's 2016 now, you have to bank online as cheques and counter payments are going the way of powdered wigs.

​LOL! Here we haven't used cheques for the last 50 years, haha! Do you really use them in the US? That's awesome (and so 1960's)!

Cita: "pnightingale"​(South Africans excepted due to extraordinary circumstances)

Sorry, I didn't get this part with the South Africans. What's the deal?
I mean, the Brittish still uses the powdered wigs in court

Hi

I didn't read all posts, but what if personal addresses data of all Numista users gets stolen? I still prefer to give my address when I think this is OK. I think there is no need for such data collection, which is also strictly regulated BTW by EU law. The best way of proving one self is more swaps you have, the more rates you get and more trust you show.

Best regards

I recently got an thought on this: lets make number of open swaps visible to everyone! It is not a privacy issue, and it would instantly warn user from scammers, if they see that the user has 15 swaps opened...

Though these users may not be scammers, but how about if users, that have not logged in for over a year get "greyed" out or or even not shown any more on "Start a swap site"?

It is possible to give the chance to specify the address voluntarily. And in the account there will be a mark - the address is specified or not. If the person hasn't specified the address - there will be an occasion to think of an exchange. It is clear, that the reasons not to specify the address can be various. But if a high rating, then and nobody looks at existence of the address.
That concerning payment, at a time 2 dollars for check of the address still are possible, and here monthly - I categorically against. Psychologically it isn't ready. The button of donations let will be, it disturbs nobody.
It is possible to try to enter the list of unreliable members.
For example, detaining sending without reason explanation.
But it, probably, is very difficult.

I've only heard of a couple of scams since I joined Numista five months ago. And sure enough I was scammed along with a bunch of others by GabeGT but I don't believe giving up one's address will stop a theft. Just look at Gabe, he ripped off 29 of us by last count and we all had his home address. To me this all this talk seems to be more of a knee jerk reaction. In the future if we must list our addresses, will P.O. Box numbers be accepted. I would be reluctant to send coins to a P.O. Box and not an actual home address.

I am a great fan of anything for free, but after using this site for more than 1 year, storing my collection in their servers (for free) learning and getting answers within minutes (sometimes) and even digital copies of books and gifts from other fellow members (OP) I don't see why having a donation, or small registration fee for some of the areas of this website is such an issue. again free registration and access to the forum, swap reserved for people who don't mind to have an extra level or protection, scammer can go anywhere we know that, but they normally try to do it the easiest way without leaving any trails...

Maybe the site is not under an HTTPS address, or have a robust security features, but I do believe there could be a easiest way to verify users, specially when we are trading money (yes coins are money) and sharing our addresses anyway.

I have shared my address with at least 50 guys... I know many of us might be afraid to share such personal details but this is how it works anyway... You can keep your gold coins in your other house like google and me!

I do remember few months ago when the site was continuously down I offered a mirror (server) to support the site, and I guess there are a lot of users here that use this site everyday that will be willing to assist in any possible way.

Cita: "neilithic"​No, my post was on the top of Phil's suggestion.
​
​Those who want to use the catalogue and general chat forums can do so freely with a standard membership, but the swap feature is locked off to them. Those who want to trade can get address verified and that would unlock the trading feature.

​This is definately a sound suggestion. It's a yes for me.

Cita: "Jarcek"Lets make number of open swaps visible to everyone! It iwould instantly warn user from scammers, if they see that the user has 15 swaps opened...

Thank you Jarcek for calling me a scammer. I get 5 swap requests each day. I like swapping so I don't turn down any request. After three days I have 15 open swaps and so I'm considered a scammer, although I have opened not a single swap request myself!
Conclusion: the amount of open swaps doesn't mean anything at all, concerning well or not being a scammer!

Could you calm down please? I did not call you anything. I actually have this the same way, let me explain the whole thing. Lets suggest we will go to make a swap.
I would see the following info (could be clickable) 15 swaps opened, last opened 14 days ago, first two months ago. I In the last 14 days - 1 new opened swap.

I could see that you are honest from miles away.

If I started spaw with a scammer, I would probably see the following: 20 open swaps, last opened 12 minutes ago (yours do not count) , first opened 12 days ago. In the last 14 days - 35 New swaps.

That would certainly alarmed me. It is not perfect, but it would constitute just another layer of defence.

Regards, and sorry if I angered you,
Jarek

Or just having the information of Swaps opened (Started) by that person... I do have something like 15 swaps even with "ZZZZZzzzzzz I DON'T WANNA SWAP AT THE MOMENT MODE ON" but people might think I am crazy, the thing is all those swaps were started by the other person.

Cita: "Jarcek"Could you calm down please? I did not call you anything. I actually have this the same way, let me explain the whole thing. Lets suggest we will go to make a swap.
I would see the following info (could be clickable) 15 swaps opened, last opened 14 days ago, first two months ago. I In the last 14 days - 1 new opened swap.

I could see that you are honest from miles away.

If I started spaw with a scammer, I would probably see the following: 20 open swaps, last opened 12 minutes ago (yours do not count) , first opened 12 days ago. In the last 14 days - 35 New swaps.

That would certainly alarmed me. It is not perfect, but it would constitute just another layer of defence.

Regards, and sorry if I angered you,
Jarek

Hahaha Jarek, no worries, you didn't anger me. I just wanted to draw your attention and I guess that worked. I just wanted to prove a point: the amount of open swaps don't mean anything. And that was the only thing in your suggestion: show the amount of open swaps. When you get much more information like who started the swaps (very important to know if it is the person itself or others who ask him!) and when these were opened, then it is of course a totally different story. But I have a strong feeling Numista will never share all this info. When you're lucky they'll share the amount of open swaps only and then we are back with what I stated before: the amount of open swaps don't mean anything. And although your proposition didn't anger me, with only the amount of open swaps visible, it could affect me because I have a lot of open swaps but I'm certainly not a scammer, on the contrary.

OK.

Maybe there could be just one line - number of opened swaps (by the person itself) in last 14 days.

Cita: "Jarcek"Maybe there could be just one line - number of opened swaps (by the person itself) in last 14 days.

Congratulations, that's a very good proposition I support 100 %. Everything in favor to make life difficult for scammers without affecting honest members. And this is such a proposition, well done.

This idea COULD stop serial thieves like Dmitri's "32Andre"/"gold ruble", but only if addresses within the system are cross-checked for double accounts. Generally, I'm all for it, as a victim of Dmitri's theft.

Ok my opinion - As a new collector when I started, any sort of fee or having to include my address would have seemed dodgy, and I'd have just used google and found a different site.

THAT SAID, the idea from pnightingale is brilliant; it just needs a slightly different implementation. I suggest 3rd party credit card verification for allowing access to the swaps. This brings the following benefits.

- new members aren't deterred, and can signup to the swap part when ready
- numista is not responsible for address security, as it's handled by a proper company with appropriate security
- fraudsters would need to both have a spare address, and a credit/debit card that matches that address - almost impossible. They also wouldn't want to verify a card.
- In the case of fraud, the police would have solid data to follow up
- It's easy as pie to implement

New member here. I signed up just recently after inheriting a coin collection, the site and it's members have provided me with a lot of help and feedback while categorizing my collection, I'm very grateful for that.

Once I got my collection sorted I really wanted to start swapping with other members but at the same time these recent troubles started so for now I'll stay away from that feature. Personally I would have no problem in entering my address and paying a reasonable fee (a few $) if it would add some security to swapping and with it I would start using that feature but for now I'll avoid swapping and just use the site for the knowledge provided.

Yes its better to avoid swapping if you are unexperienced. Too many crooks here trying to trick novices and beginners.

That is a stupid thing to say. How are you supposed to become an experienced sapper if you avoid swapping due to inexperience?

As I pointed out in another thread, there were over 3000 successful swaps done through this site in the last month, that's over 100 completed swaps per day. There have only been a handful of scammers in the past month and they are usually pretty easy to spot. If you are careful with who you chose to swap with then there's no reason why an inexperienced swapper can't easily and successfully swap with other members.

I think we need to come together, agree on a workable compromise from the many good suggestions and then present it to Xavier for his decision. It got a bit messy in here.

How about this -

1. Keep Numista free. No charges of any kind is something that Xavier can be very proud of. I'd be happy to pay a small registration fee as suggested by my dear fellow collector Neil as I'm sure most of the non trolls reading would also. I can see the benefits but honestly they are outweighed by two big drawbacks; first someone is going to have to administer it and check that the new members address isn't a recycled scammer, collect, send a receipt, spend countless hours arguing with people who's accounts were denied or those who get pissed off at something and start demanding a refund. I'd much rather see Dear Leader spending his time on site improvements than administrative tasks. Second it would be a huge deterrent to the casual user who just wants to organise his coins or the new collector who may not see the benefits yet. These are the new blood, the next generation of collectors who will continue this magnificent hobby long after we're feeding worms. We should embrace them and nurture them, not put red tape in their way.

2. Lock the swap engine until a valid address is registered. The rest of the site would be 100% accessible except the member would not show up in searches and the "Start Swap" button would be disabled. The only people who raised any objections to the original suggestion were people who are not active swappers so it would have zero impact on them. There is absolutely no good reason why this should not be done.

If this could be combined with the parallel proposal to govern the number of open swaps based on a 1 per 10 successful completions it would drastically curtail the problem of serial scammers. It's now time to stop arguing and get together behind this proposal. We have to do something and this in my opinion is the best compromise between my original proposal and the later suggestions.

So..... are we ready to present this to Xavier for implementation or would y'all like to bicker for a few more months? A safer environment or the usual circular firing squad?

I support the implementation of this plan ASAP!

I support both points.

Phil's suggestions has my full support.

Big plus!

I have no problems with the address registration. The limitations on number of swaps would definitely have been an annoyance for me earlier, especially if the limit is 1 ongoing swap per 10 completed swaps. I don't even think I have complied with that at any point in time since I started swapping, as I've always had 3-4 swaps going at once, sometimes 7-8.

Nothing I couldn't live with though, as I'm approaching 40 swaps which would give me the possibility of 4 ongoing swaps should it be implemented...

I am against registering with adress but i like ArnoVs idea very much that there is a popup when there were 6 Swaps initiated by the same user with a warning statement. He described it better, i like his idea.

ArnoV:
Instead, I think Numista should do more in signalling suspicious behavior. Currently, it does so only on the basis of negative ratings. But if a person actively initiates a certain number of swaps within a short period of time, let's say more than 6 swaps within two weeks, that would certainly be worth signaling as suspicious by Numista, something like:
"Caution: this member is initiating many swaps in a short period. Past experience taught us that this may point at a grab-and-run scenario. You may suggest your swap partner to send the coins first."

Cita: "Jarcek"​ OK.
​
​Maybe there could be just one line - number of opened swaps (by the person itself) in last 14 days.

​You are little late to the game Hamster.

OK done deal. Can someone who has Dear Leader's attention (Jareck?) please draw his attention to this thread.

Cita: "pnightingale"​OK done deal. Can someone who has Dear Leader's attention (Jareck?) please draw his attention to this thread.

​
Still think the modification I suggested above is far superior, both from a security and implementation standpoint.

Cita: "pnightingale"​I think we need to come together, agree on a workable compromise from the many good suggestions and then present it to Xavier for his decision. It got a bit messy in here.
​
​So..... are we ready to present this to Xavier for implementation or would y'all like to bicker for a few more months? A safer environment or the usual circular firing squad?

The only one causing arguments and tension is the clueless Hamster boy troll. The rest has been more debated albeit slightly heated at times, but aren't all debates? Hamster needs to be knocked down a few pegs or just banned to prevent more stirring and insulting accusations.


Your suggestion is spot on Phil, I am a +1 for that idea. Shouldn't take too long to have it implemented.

Last thing I will say is fraudsters will usually find a way around any block system, so nothing will be air tight to protect everyone. At least your suggestion makes it harder for them.
​

Cita: "pnightingale" (Jareck?)

​Its Jarcek - for pseudo, or Jarek - for a name.

There is no internal system for messaging Xavier other than normal messages everybody has access to. I will try though.

Cita: "pnightingale"​I think we need to come together, agree on a workable compromise from the many good suggestions and then present it to Xavier for his decision. It got a bit messy in here.
​
​How about this -
​
​1. Keep Numista free. No charges of any kind is something that Xavier can be very proud of. I'd be happy to pay a small registration fee as suggested by my dear fellow collector Neil as I'm sure most of the non trolls reading would also. I can see the benefits but honestly they are outweighed by two big drawbacks; first someone is going to have to administer it and check that the new members address isn't a recycled scammer, collect, send a receipt, spend countless hours arguing with people who's accounts were denied or those who get pissed off at something and start demanding a refund. I'd much rather see Dear Leader spending his time on site improvements than administrative tasks. Second it would be a huge deterrent to the casual user who just wants to organise his coins or the new collector who may not see the benefits yet. These are the new blood, the next generation of collectors who will continue this magnificent hobby long after we're feeding worms. We should embrace them and nurture them, not put red tape in their way.
​
​2. Lock the swap engine until a valid address is registered. The rest of the site would be 100% accessible except the member would not show up in searches and the "Start Swap" button would be disabled. The only people who raised any objections to the original suggestion were people who are not active swappers so it would have zero impact on them. There is absolutely no good reason why this should not be done.
​
​If this could be combined with the parallel proposal to govern the number of open swaps based on a 1 per 10 successful completions it would drastically curtail the problem of serial scammers. It's now time to stop arguing and get together behind this proposal. We have to do something and this in my opinion is the best compromise between my original proposal and the later suggestions.
​
​So..... are we ready to present this to Xavier for implementation or would y'all like to bicker for a few more months? A safer environment or the usual circular firing squad?

​One of those few suggestions, thought over in structure. Thanks Phil. The package is sent as suggested to his private e-mail adress PLUS LinkedIn, ... nothing guaranteeid, though, boys....

Hello,
I agree with this proposal. We can enforce a mandatory postal address for swappers, to avoid address switching, although I guess the impact on scammers would be low.

Great! I believe there will be some psychological impact. They might be little reluctant to do such thing.

Vyborne, Jarku!

Cita: "Xavier"​Hello,
​I agree with this proposal. We can enforce a mandatory postal address for swappers, to avoid address switching, although I guess the impact on scammers would be low.

​This is very good to hear. One advice if I may: don't bother with an elaborate form for the address, like line1, line2, city, province/state, postal/zip code, country... It is so different per country that you will spend weeks if not months trying to accommodate all possible variations. Just one text field (textarea) should be enough. Been there, trust me.

I'm not sure though who and how will validate the addresses. Is there a convenient (i.e. free) Google Maps (or similar) API for this?

Is this thing solving that thing: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic47180.html ?

Hmmm?

Just wondering?

Cita: "smoked_caramel"​

Cita: "Xavier"​Hello,
​​I agree with this proposal. We can enforce a mandatory postal address for swappers, to avoid address switching, although I guess the impact on scammers would be low.

​​This is very good to hear. One advice if I may: don't bother with an elaborate form for the address, like line1, line2, city, province/state, postal/zip code, country... It is so different per country that you will spend weeks if not months trying to accommodate all possible variations. Just one text field (textarea) should be enough. Been there, trust me.
​
​I'm not sure though who and how will validate the addresses. Is there a convenient (i.e. free) Google Maps (or similar) API for this?

​
You're not going to be able to validate/verify addresses like this. That's why I suggested 3rd party verification. This way is fairly pointless in that a scammer can just use any mailbox or name they have temporary access to and all it does it build up a database of addresses. I suppose you can technically validate that an address exists...

Cita: "oggy"​​
​You're not going to be able to validate/verify addresses like this. That's why I suggested 3rd party verification. This way is fairly pointless in that a scammer can just use any mailbox or name they have temporary access to and all it does it build up a database of addresses. I suppose you can technically validate that an address exists...

​But he may be reluctant to do so. It is not buletproof, but it will never will be.

Cita: "imreh"​Is this thing solving that thing: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic47180.html ?
​
​Hmmm?
​
​Just wondering?

​Already messaged Xavier again about this. Hope he won't rip me apart for spamming.

Cita: "Jarcek"​

Cita: "oggy"​​​
​​You're not going to be able to validate/verify addresses like this. That's why I suggested 3rd party verification. This way is fairly pointless in that a scammer can just use any mailbox or name they have temporary access to and all it does it build up a database of addresses. I suppose you can technically validate that an address exists...

​​But he may be reluctant to do so. It is not buletproof, but it will never will be.

​
I don't understand why he'd be reluctant to do so. It'd be far easier from his point of view in terms of having to comply with the data protection act etc. You can't just randomly choose to keep a list of peoples addresses in a database without safeguards anyway, but there are plenty of companies with the infrastructure built to do exactly that.

Well, if there is no HTTPS I'd suggest against entering your credit card info anywhere (hope I recall oggy's proposal correctly). I personally would rather see the swap number throttling (isn't it a cool name for restricting swap number, eh?) implemented instead of mandatory address in the profile. I believe it will be a larger hurdle in a way of swindlers. And I don't think a bullet-proof solution exists.

Citasmoked_caramel​Well, if there is no HTTPS I'd suggest against entering your credit card info anywhere (I hope I'm recalling oggy's proposal correctly). I personally would rather see the swap number throttling (isn't it a cool name for restricting swap number, eh?) implemented instead of mandatory address in the profile. I believe it will be a larger hurdle in a way of swindlers. And I don't think a bullet-proof solution exists.

​
The idea was for numista to never handle personal data directly at all, but redirect the user to a 3rd party site for verification. Many banks and authentication authorities handle this for you.

What happens in practice is you'd click a button saying 'verify me for swaps' or whatever and it would take you to the banks website. You'd then enter your address and card details and it would verify them. The bank would then simply return to numista a 'pass' or 'fail' statement, not pass on any of the details.

Very similar to how you buy things on most websites, you click 'pay now' and it takes you to a bank or paypal link.

As I said, I don't believe numista is setup to be compliant with the various dpa protocols etc requisite for a database of personal data to be kept and this would prevent them being liable for any sort of catastrophe.

edit: It has the additional advantage of the authentication site being setup in a way to deal with law enforcement requests regarding personal details in the case of a scam. Xavier couldn't just hand them over without learning all the laws etc.

Cita: "Xavier"​Hello,
​I agree with this proposal. We can enforce a mandatory postal address for swappers, to avoid address switching, although I guess the impact on scammers would be low.

​
Thank you Dear Leader. It's intended to prevent the same mailing address being used for multiple accounts rather than switching one within the same account. I've seen it in use on other sites where a previously used address is recognized and the account creation halted.

I can't imagine you manually checking every new account :)

Cita: "Xavier"​Hello,
​I agree with this proposal. We can enforce a mandatory postal address for swappers, to avoid address switching, although I guess the impact on scammers would be low.

​Why endorce it if even yourself admit it will be of no impact on scammer? Seriously what's the point of this? ( ever heard of dead drop, anyone?) It's just as useless as IP checking...

And secondary why is there no 'i dislike" choice for the vote?

Cita: "whomok"​

Cita: "Xavier"​Hello,
​​I agree with this proposal. We can enforce a mandatory postal address for swappers, to avoid address switching, although I guess the impact on scammers would be low.

​​Why endorce it if even yourself admit it will be of no impact on scammer? Seriously what's the point of this? ( ever heard of dead drop, anyone?) It's just as useless as IP checking...
​
​And secondary why is there no 'i dislike" choice for the vote?

​I mean no offense, but I wonder why someone who does not swap objects to a policy that only impacts members who are active swappers?

None taken. I may not be an active swapper for now but hopefully one day I'll be.That's why i feel concerned, as should be every member of the community.

And IMHO it's a non sense to endorse a policy that's said to be inefficient from the very beginning by the admin of the site while it will give to the staff more work, only so for some users to feel safer but not actually be safer.

The only way to deal with scammers is to get them into court.Do this for at least one, make it publicly known and then none will come again to fool us, as they'll know they may face consequences...

And lastly, why set a poll if there is only one answer possible to it? How fair is that? What's the point of it as it may just not reflect the opinions of everybody but only of those who like the proposition offered?

I'm sorry if my posts came out as rude or agressive( they were not meant to) , but i was just so surpised to find those measures as "acccepted" with not a word about it on the other side of the forum.

Cita: "whomok"​I'm sorry if my posts came out as rude or agressive( they were not meant to) , but i was just so surpised to find those measures as "acccepted" with not a word about it on the other side of the forum.

​​Be careful! You might get banned for 38 days just like that for trolling!.... This is called democracy. 20 out of 55849 members decide what's new world (site) order is going to be like...

Whatever measures get put in place there will be pro's and con's to them.
And there will always be people that agree and disagree with them.
But any measure that stops even one person getting scammed is surely a good thing?

A determined scammer will always find a way to scam.

I reckon this will stop "drive-by" scammers, but probably not the long term ones that don't give a stuff. Like the most recent one, collecting his feedback over months and then screwing 20 people all at once.

Limiting the number of active swaps and making the initiator send first may reduce the number of people this guy scammed, but probably won't stop it. But again, stopping even one person geting scammed is a good thing.

Cita: "SRV5490"​I've only heard of a couple of scams since I joined Numista five months ago. And sure enough I was scammed along with a bunch of others by GabeGT but I don't believe giving up one's address will stop a theft. Just look at Gabe, he ripped off 29 of us by last count and we all had his home address. To me this all this talk seems to be more of a knee jerk reaction. In the future if we must list our addresses, will P.O. Box numbers be accepted. I would be reluctant to send coins to a P.O. Box and not an actual home address.

​I suggest P.O. Boxes shall be accepted. I use one almost 10 years for swap purposes and do not want to display my real address in internet. Not because I do not trust to other swap partners. Chances that someone from another country will arrive to my address with bad intentions are close to zero. But there are plenty Facebook addicts who will take a pictures with sent/received envelopes with full addresses and will post to public display with a texts - how nice coins I got from this or that. I have seen that enough and we can only guess who else reads that posts and with what kind of intentions.

I actually thought it is an easier topic.
However, once I had a suggestion to link and verify profiles to LinkedIn and facebook and other social sites applicable.
Would this eliminate the threat? NO.
But it would significantly increase the effort and pain to scam if my LinkedIn and facebook or else profile is valid enough that I am not going to sacrice my real self in front my real family members, professional contacts etc. if I know that it is monitored.
Anyways, it might not be clear as shortly described as I did now, but if interested, I am happy to elaborate...

Cheers, Imre

Cita: "whomok"​

Cita: "Xavier"​Hello,
​​I agree with this proposal. We can enforce a mandatory postal address for swappers, to avoid address switching, although I guess the impact on scammers would be low.

​​Why endorce it if even yourself admit it will be of no impact on scammer? Seriously what's the point of this? ( ever heard of dead drop, anyone?) It's just as useless as IP checking...
​
​And secondary why is there no 'i dislike" choice for the vote?

​Agreed. I don't understand that either ...

I have never had a problem with using PO Boxes or sending coins to them. Some of our most prolific swappers use them along with those who wish to conceal their address for business reasons. I agree that it's a potential red flag but I recognise that there are legitimate reasons for them also.

In fact I will start using one myself once we leave Florida for more secluded locations. I really don't mind giving out my address right now. Most of the coins which I don't need to access (gold, junk silver, my retirement stash of silver coins etc.) are in our two safe deposit boxes which those nice chaps at JP Morgan give us free with our checking account. Anything else lives in a safe until it's time for a trek to the bank. A strange vehicle parked on my driveway at any time of day or night is going to be surrounded by armed rednecks - we look out for each other, everyone in the neighborhood knows who belongs here and who doesn't. If you get past that and the 3 dogs there's at least one gun in every room of the house. We have two NRA members, a deputy sheriff, a retired NYC police officer on our street - good luck.

However once we move out of overcrowded Florida it would make more sense to use a PO Box. Rural mailboxes are often a long way from the house and I wouldn't be able to see the mailman arrive. I'd much rather pick up my mail once a week from the closest town. The price you pay for seclusion is vulnerability to home invasions etc. so there's no point tempting fate.

Imreh, I do like the idea of linking Numista accounts to social media profiles as it does add to a person's credibility. It would probably be best to make a separate proposal. In combination with a drive to encourage members to change their user name to something resembling their actual name it could be very useful. Voluntary of course. I was thinking something along the lines of a one month window where those members who chose a perhaps unwise handle could submit a request to have it changed.

On a more general note, I find the negativity frustrating and bewildering. Look, nobody is going to come up with a single perfect solution which will prevent all scamming and cause zero inconvenience. However we can take a series of cumulative measures which might make it so hostile to those with evil intent that they will move along. It's very easy to find reasons not to do something, much easier in fact than finding solutions. Y'all should try it.

What's important is to discuss and identify proposals which are easy to implement and are largely maintenance free. Dear Leader is clearly a fellow with limited time so it's clear that any proposals should take this into account. It's not Numista's role to protect us from the sharks in the waters, your first line of defence is always going to be your own instincts and common sense. Any measures taken should be gratefully accepted as a bonus.

It's been said before but I thought I'd voice myself anyway.

I'm in favour of this in theory. At the moment I'm interested in the forums and the catalogue, but not in swapping, and I'm uncomfortable leaving my address online unless it's needed for something. Until I became comfortable enough with the site, and also had the ability to easily swap, I would have to effectively lock myself out of the rest of the site. The forums are already pretty small, it seems to me that it would be needlessly shrinking the pool of fantastic numismatists collected here.

It's also not clear what would prevent anyone from giving a fake address just to get through the security, or even why a coin swap scammer would want to give a fake address. If the point is to get coins for free they'll want a real mailing address out there, wouldn't they? The original post did specify that this system would automatically flag any addresses that came too close to a known scammer's address, which I think would be a very good thing. Also having an automated system that trades the addresses of the swappers would eliminate any shady private message dealings.

Mainly I would hate for myself or anyone else who is genuinely interested in the forums to be locked out because they don't want to or are unable to swap.

I have looked at the profile today and I was surprised.
There was new information on quantity of the confirmed exchanges.
At the moment at me is them 12.
It is allocated as the prevention, red color.
I have 12 sent packages, all about a track numbers.
The mail service not always delivers packages quickly.
And, as, all packages are sent, I am ready to new exchanges.
But the red inscription disturbs a little...

This proposal was accepted but not implemented. Now that the site uses the HTTPS protocol, perhaps this can be brought forward again. On reflection, and taking into account the concerns of our South African friend, I would modify the original proposal to include only the swap engine (and it's ratings system) along with the swaps and trades forum.

Very good idea!

I think for a scammer it is very easy to make a series of new addresses.

address: 84D2K92302, Appel Apartment, Main Street
Bigtown BG23 4YZ
England

the Mainstreet, Apple's Apartment, 7XSDE17232
Big Town BG23-4YZ
United Kingdom

scammers can use fake names with real addresses. the postman can ignore the various noises in addresses, and ignore the 10 digit serial, he will successfully deliver parcels to mail center of the building.

but for an algorithm, it is hard to say the above two addresses are same or not, even if the algorithm can detect some high similarity between the two addresses, it still needs a human to finally determine if the two address are the same, this involves privacy issues.. also, there might be two collectors living in the same building.

Cita: "aephi"​I think for a scammer it is very easy to make a series of new addresses.
​
​address: 84D2K92302, Appel Apartment, Main Street
​Bigtown BG23 4YZ
​England
​
​the Mainstreet, Apple's Apartment, 7XSDE17232
​Big Town BG23-4YZ
​United Kingdom
​
​scammers can use fake names with real addresses. the postman can ignore the various noises in addresses, and ignore the 10 digit serial, he will successfully deliver parcels to mail center of the building.
​
​but for an algorithm, it is hard to say the above two addresses are same or not, even if the algorithm can detect some high similarity between the two addresses, it still needs a human to finally determine if the two address are the same, this involves privacy issues.. also, there might be two collectors living in the same building.
​

​The combination of a postalcode and housenumber is unique in most cases, so if you have to enter those in separate fields, it doesn't really matter if you combine the other things. Those two need to be exact in order to get your mail

Cita: "smvdbrink"​

Cita: "aephi"​I think for a scammer it is very easy to make a series of new addresses.
​​
​​address: 84D2K92302, Appel Apartment, Main Street
​​Bigtown BG23 4YZ
​​England
​​
​​the Mainstreet, Apple's Apartment, 7XSDE17232
​​Big Town BG23-4YZ
​​United Kingdom
​​
​​scammers can use fake names with real addresses. the postman can ignore the various noises in addresses, and ignore the 10 digit serial, he will successfully deliver parcels to mail center of the building.
​​
​​but for an algorithm, it is hard to say the above two addresses are same or not, even if the algorithm can detect some high similarity between the two addresses, it still needs a human to finally determine if the two address are the same, this involves privacy issues.. also, there might be two collectors living in the same building.
​​

​​The combination of a postalcode and housenumber is unique in most cases, so if you have to enter those in separate fields, it doesn't really matter if you combine the other things. Those two need to be exact in order to get your mail

if the house is an apartment building, there might be more than 1 collector (a scammer and other collectors)​ living in it

Cita: "aephi"​​if the house is an apartment building, there might be more than 1 collector (a scammer and other collectors)​ living in it

I think it's impossible to cover all scenario's, but I think it's better than nothing. My main concern though would be the security of the database and the risk of a dataleak. ​

Let me add two points to this valuable topic:
1 - to disperse concerns on database security, we might add just a full name, city and postal code. These shouldn't be public, but visible to the swap partner after confirmation of the swap.
2 - alternative address should be accepted with the same data as on the main one (I'm flying abroad before some swaps could reach me, so I gave my son's address).