3 ms·
Why not just allow signups without any number at all? That'd be a lot simpler than creating a fake number.
by GekkePrutser 4y ago
Why not just allow signups without any number at all? That'd be a lot simpler than creating a fake number.
- return_to_monke 4y agobecause this seems like "pay to get a fake number so you can sign up". they, might also, make a cut from it.
- GekkePrutser 4y agoI understand, it will also put up a barrier to spammers registering hundreds of accounts. What I don't understand though is, why they don't just ask for money directly instead of using the fake number as a roundabout way.
- dtech 4y agospam prevention, existing code/infrastructure not able to handle it.
- lopis 4y agoI don't understand why people don't understand this. Telegram is already full of spam. If it was possible to sign-up with just username and password, Telegram would die overnight.
- GekkePrutser 4y agoI understand putting a physical cost on an account in terms of spam prevention. This is actually a really good idea because spam thrives mainly due to it costing so little. However why the fake number? Why not ask for money directly? The codebase is a good point, hopefully this will be fixed in the future.
- maxgashkov 4y ago> why the fake number Backwards compatibility probably? I think having a phone number present is built so deep in the architecture that it’s easier to add a fake number than change it overnight and wait for universal adoption of new client versions.