Thanks!

thank you

Hi! ^^ I just wasted a lot of time answering you in SketCZ's thread, without realizing he had already closed it a few hours ago. So I will just post my answer here. If you are interested in it, please read it. If not, feel free to ignore it. ^^

ok, first let me apologize for the aggressiveness of my post. didn't mean to attack you as harsh as i did. still, i stand by my arguments. alright, let's do this... ^^

about 3rd: I didn't say that, don't do straw-man. I told in my next reply why the two sites are fundamentally different. Read that please before you try to attack statements I didn't do :)

I don't think "straw man arguments" are necessarily bad. Sometimes a different view on things can help to find the solution. In this case I think the registration limit serves the same purpose and is definitely comparable. It essentially prevents scam. On SG it prevents people from using multiple accounts, from creating fake GAs and from using zero-cost accounts to win games for their other accounts (=not activated gifts). Same thing on ST. A registration limit prevents people from trying to scam people with fresh accounts and from giving fake feedback to themselves. Bottom line: if a registration limit makes sense on SG, it makes sense on ST as well. Wouldn't you agree?

2nd: Again, I told that demanding something without even being able to find a solution for that is stupid.

And I disagree. Of course I can ask for an improvement without being able to give a detailed solution myself. Of course I can say what's wrong with the current system, without having a complete step-by-step manual to fix it. Of course I can start a discussion and rely on others to provide more input on how to get to a satisfying result. Nothing stupid about that.

Not that complaining is forbidden, lol.

Well, it kind of sounded like that. ^^

You're also free to name a system to monitor and check a site where trades are done in all kinds of ways, and none of them can be 100% confirmed.

Sure, it is definitely hard or even impossible to 100% confirm key/money trades. That's not even what SketCZ was asking for. First thing he said was that he would like to have the old system back, because it's better than nothing. And it definitely is better than nothing. I would even go so far and demand a higher registration limit than on SG, simply because the stakes are higher. Because it's about real money, not just about winning chances. People should put their valuable account on the line. If we allow scammers to use accounts they can create for 1$ (couple of bundle games) for trading, they will do exactly that. The old 100$-no-bundled restriction prevented that to a degree. I would even go higher, let's say 200$. This would of course not prevent scams completely. But it would automatically cut off a whole armada of potential scam accounts. Definitely something we should do. And it's a shame that we already had this basic protection and then lost it for some reason.

1st: everyone yells what they want, yet nowhere a single basic idea how that that implemented.

That's not true. I believe, SketCZ said multiple times that one thing would be to get back the old system with minimum registration requirement. That is already a basic idea on how to implement something - let's do it basically like we did it before. Details might change (like the exact requirement). But details are not necessary for the "basic idea" you are asking for. Not sure why you ignore this one.

As far as thing are, I'm convinced that trading between two random users is uncheckable,

Yes. Unless we use some (non-existent) software that does the key activation for us and therefore needs access to our accounts, it's basically impossible.

there are no trustworthy way to oversee it and all proof that could be presented could be just easily manufactured.

We already have a good system in place - the rep system. I didn't have any problems in years. I have a lot of reputation on ST (over 1300), and I do high value trades only with high rep traders. Didn't get scammed since my first trading days. If someone has high rep, he is trustworthy. Not 100%, but close. What we need to prevent is that beginners get scammed. And they often get scammed by accounts with like 5 games, that offer trades that are too good to be true. We could prevent lots of these with a minimum registration requirement. The other possibility is a trading tutorial. Teach people how to trade. How to use Enhanced Steam to check accounts. How to be sure you don't fall for an impersonator. Imagine a well-made, mandatory tutorial for new traders. That might already help.

So yes, according to my current knowledge, the system is bad and can not be controlled in any trustworthy way, so the only way to prevent most of the problems is not using the site.

Again, I disagree. I myself am prove that you have a very good chance at using the site without getting scammed by just following some simple rules, without exception.

And aaagain, comparing SG with a simple "activate the game that you won in a randomized giveaway" general rule to ST's trade thingawat to doodad. (include at least 4 different platform keys, steam wallet, items, cards, paypal, bitcoins and godknows what else is quite hard. Trading was, is and will be a mess compared to SG because SG has API integration to prevent all misuse regarding entering, doublewin and DLC on SG's side (API errors are on Steam's side)

Sure, trading is definitely harder to control. Does that mean we shouldn't even try? Does that mean we should even scrap basic protection like the registration limit, like we unfortunately did? No. The fact that it is about real money should mean we should try even harder. And there clearly are ways to improve the site. As I said like 5 times in this post, the first and easiest thing would be to at least re-implement the basic protection we already had.