mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Feb 18, 2017 18:10:21 GMT
I've done a little more than that. I've also decreased the magnitude of the 'unfair advantage' considerably. No more so than solutions that require far less effort. A lot more so than putting in a captcha, which has proven ineffective elsewhere. It depends what is done with the primary market. If Ed decides to go with a similar solution there, the amount of extra work might be very little. (edit: obviously no point at all going with this system on the secondary market if it isn't implemented for the primary market) It won't, but the behaviour we have seen recently involves hoovering up renewals within seconds and secondary market parts within 1-2 minutes of each other. Not great, I'll grant you, but better than a captcha which would just make it several seconds longer for everyone with no real impact on unfair advantage.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2017 18:15:04 GMT
Ok, its as I thought, we are looking at different parts of the problem. You are focusing on renewals, I'm thinking more about general SM activity.
I thought the issue around renewals (and the primary market) was best served by ensuring that bid limits are set effectively. As per their recent change to extend the bid limit period to multiple days.
Again not perfect, but far less work on MTs part than fundamental website rewrites.
|
|
stub8535
Member of DD Central
personal opinions only. Not qualified to advise on investment products.
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 945
|
Post by stub8535 on Feb 18, 2017 18:16:46 GMT
Unless they are fortunate to have significantly large funds in the millions to play with, from wherever it originates. I sometimes wonder about p2p anti money laundering processes being absent.
|
|
mtb9
Posts: 48
Likes: 35
|
Post by mtb9 on Feb 18, 2017 18:18:26 GMT
Whether talking about the PM or the SM it's still the same principle of not being allowed to use a bot, thats the fundamental issue and I look forward to MT taking action as appropriate.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Feb 18, 2017 18:20:16 GMT
It is with ideas like these that I wish to have a thumb down facility on this forum. You'd prefer captchas then? Or letting things continue as they are? Or something else? No I do not prefer captchas. I prefer the system as it is. Solution - data analysis. It will show if someone is automating buying on the SM. Such an individual can then be banned and his investments can be put up for sale. This will not have the negative effect on the other investors
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Feb 18, 2017 18:20:50 GMT
Ok, its as I thought, we are looking at different parts of the problem. You are focusing on renewals, I'm thinking more about general SM activity. I thought the issue around renewals (and the primary market) was best served by ensuring that bid limits are set effectively. Again not perfect, but far less work on MTs part than fundamental website rewrites. Well, I had both in mind really. Except in my suggestion to allow trading at a discount/premium, which would be a potential solution just for the secondary market. Limits for renewals, in combination with throttling, would be an improvement. Bid limits are not really sufficient in and of themselves unless they can be set at 1% or less of the total up for grabs.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2017 18:25:37 GMT
Yes, I can see throttling working for PM and renewals, but effective bid limits would surely remove even the need for that? Except in the case of shrapnel amounts, of course, which are a different kind of annoying...
Its the general SM issue that looks more complicated to me.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Feb 18, 2017 18:31:06 GMT
No I do not prefer captchas. I prefer the system as it is. Solution - data analysis. It will show if someone is automating buying on the SM. Such an individual can then be banned and his investments can be put up for sale. This will not have the negative effect on the other investors I'd question whether such automated buying can be reliably detected. We have been treated to a rather extreme example of this that cannot reasonably be questioned. I doubt it will always be so clear-cut.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Feb 18, 2017 18:34:26 GMT
No I do not prefer captchas. I prefer the system as it is. Solution - data analysis. It will show if someone is automating buying on the SM. Such an individual can then be banned and his investments can be put up for sale. This will not have the negative effect on the other investors I'd question whether such automated buying can be reliably detected. We have been treated to a rather extreme example of this that cannot reasonably be questioned. I doubt it will always be so clear-cut. Given access to the whole data set? Yes, I am convinced that it can. There is a limit to coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Feb 18, 2017 18:40:54 GMT
As mentioned by another poster, the best of the commercial captcha solving services are able to achieve a ten second or less response time, and I can't think of a reason why such a solution wouldn't be very effective on the SS SM. The best known of these services is Death By Captcha which has also been offering reCaptcha solving since 2015. Implementation into a bot would not be difficult, and the cost is trivial (relying as it does on slave labour) For clarity I do not use (nor have ever used) such services myself. The other approach which has been mentioned on SS threads from time to time, is the bot pops the recaptcha up in a window for the bot owner to respond. So not a totally automated bot, but one that can run in the background and only disturb the user when a recaptcha needs ticking or picture solving.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Feb 18, 2017 19:00:53 GMT
The use of BOT's is not authorised. Refer to the Misuse of Computers Act. That gives the penalties for unauthorised use. Can you give a case law example (i.e. a court case) that supports that view ? The training I received in the Computer Misuse Act 1990 was in the early '90's before much case law was established. What I'm particularly interested in is any case law that would support the view that a website (through its T&C's for example) can determine that the only means of accessing the website is via a web browser and human fingers. My understanding, albeit 20 odd years ago, is any such restriction would be discrimatory and hence unlawful (and unenforceable). Many disabled people (think Prof. Stephen Hawkins as an extreme example) use automated mechanisms to drive technology, as do visually impaired people. I first came across the Death By Captcha service that I mentioned in the previous post in the context of software adaptations for visually impaired people.
|
|
|
Post by onion12 on Feb 18, 2017 19:06:23 GMT
You'd prefer captchas then? Or letting things continue as they are? Or something else? No I do not prefer captchas. I prefer the system as it is. Solution - data analysis. It will show if someone is automating buying on the SM. Such an individual can then be banned and his investments can be put up for sale. This will not have the negative effect on the other investors Totally agree with you ablender the system as it is and for the things to monitor or even for us to do the monitoring and send data by email back to Ed and then it is quite easy for Ed to cross reference and if some bot buys 4 different loans in 1 sec empty there account to sm and send money to there bank account with ref BANNED that is if it is legal I'm sure Ed was looking into the legal side of things As it is quite clear in t&c about script
|
|
mtb9
Posts: 48
Likes: 35
|
Post by mtb9 on Feb 18, 2017 19:09:26 GMT
I totally agree with ablender and onion12, the information is there to act upon.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Feb 18, 2017 19:38:57 GMT
that is if it is legal I'm sure Ed was looking into the legal side of things As it is quite clear in t&c about script If they have a reliable system for detecting abuse, then their termination clause empowers them to take action.
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Feb 18, 2017 19:47:55 GMT
The chances are the person using the bot is a large investor, does MT really want to turn them away. If they are a small or medium investor in a week or so they will be fully invested so will not make any difference.
|
|