Viking Coder wrote:
>
> > Oo, oo, what'd I win? :-D
>
> A goldfish. Delivery will cost 1Kg gold. :)
Don't kid, there are probably Koi carp worth that much...
> > The problem that sparked this whole discussion is that it's trivial to
> > *push* money into people's accounts without their permission.
>
> What I've been ranting and raving against hasn't been spam spends. I've
> been going off about e-gold becoming yet another email spam outlet. I
> don't have a problem with you're discussing. I don't it will be taken up
> seriously though. I can't see it having a high success rate for getting
> new customers.
Well I totally agree that the idea of e-gold actully handling spam as a
separate service is stupid. It basically would dilute their mission,
undermine their profitability, cost money for hardware, and annoy the
users.
I was only talking about spam spends, which is a corollary of the
existing system not a whole 'nuther boondoggle hung off the side.
The closest I'd go to endorsing spam would be perhaps to propose a new
metaspend that says (a) get me a blind handle to all accounts matching
these search criteria, then (b) spend thus much to each of them.
Allowable search criteria being only "funded with more than X grams" and
"won't refuse a spend of Y grams"
The advantage of this is that users choose how much they're willing to
let you send them, so they're likely to pay more attention to the spams.
Plus your search can rule out anyone who can't afford the widget you're
selling.
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
