I can't help but to bite also.
Let see, the biggest complaint with NXT is the fact that only 70 people got to divide NXT between themselves. Many don't want to touch NXT because of that.
So how would it look the outside world when they find out that the Nem team is working hard to prevent sock puppets?
You're right, people are going to be outraged and not even consider Nem.
Obviously the guy is seriously trolling, unless he has a screw loose. So that's it. I won't respond anymore.
Topic: [NEM] NEM -New Economy Movement - No Envy Movement - Updates+Discussion thread - page 283. (Read 661499 times)
March 21, 2014, 11:57:56 PM
March 21, 2014, 11:48:56 PM
Ok.
Youre upset that UP had a great idea but ruined it.
Yes we are all very distraught about this too as you can see.
We are all here trying to figure out how to make his great idea great again
THIS IS A VERY BIG PROBLEM.
WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT THIS??
Youre upset that UP had a great idea but ruined it.
Yes we are all very distraught about this too as you can see.
We are all here trying to figure out how to make his great idea great again
THIS IS A VERY BIG PROBLEM.
WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT THIS??
No, NEM is not ruined, and I believe it will be ok in the end.
What should we do about this? Well, utopianfuture can surround himself with sarcastic 'yes men' who tell him everything he has done is fantastic, or he can listen to opinions from open minded people following NEM's progress who may give him feedback that helps him, even if he doesn't like it.
The sockpuppet issue is not the point. The real issue is credibility & honesty, and the damage retrospective changes & 'spin' can do to the reputation of NEM. Obviously not in this thread where utopianfuture has people to 'attack' on his behalf, but out in the market place. Nobody has addressed the substantive issue I have raised. The sequence of events and what rules were changed, and what posts were changed is a fact, and because you can't argue against that you get personal.
I don't care, but it's a shame. Outside of this thread how will this all appear?
March 21, 2014, 11:44:52 PM
I don't care what date the guy got his sockpuppets in at. Screw him.
Seriously, sockpuppets are more likely to be the uber dumpers. Enough with that noise.
March 21, 2014, 11:35:49 PM
I don't care what date the guy got his sockpuppets in at. Screw him.
March 21, 2014, 11:35:04 PM
Ok.
Youre upset that UP had a great idea but ruined it.
Yes we are all very distraught about this too as you can see. Ha ha
We are all here trying to figure out how to make his great idea great again. (Omg)
THIS IS A VERY BIG PROBLEM.
WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT THIS??
Man I can believe this. Thanks for pointing that out.
Silly as hell
Youre upset that UP had a great idea but ruined it.
Yes we are all very distraught about this too as you can see. Ha ha
We are all here trying to figure out how to make his great idea great again. (Omg)
THIS IS A VERY BIG PROBLEM.
WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT THIS??
Man I can believe this. Thanks for pointing that out.
Silly as hell
March 21, 2014, 11:28:47 PM
This is what I just read from the original thread, part 1.
"A total of 4 billion NEM will be distributed equally to all adopters. That means every stakeholder will have an equal and fair share of NEM when NEM blockchain officially starts. Then you can sell- buy NEM freely and let the market forces determine the price.
One Bitcointalk account is entitled one stake spot. If you send more than the required amount at one time or multiple times, we will consider it a donation to NEM. "
That doesn't sound like having sock puppet accounts is encouraged, but this is why I say people like you want to catch Utopianfuture on a technicality, because he didn't write a 30 page page note detailing in every way possible that sock puppet accounts are not allowed. It was something understood by anyone reading that on day one, except for the kinds of people who look for technicalities in order to sue other out of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars. The victims who play the victim card.
I'm in total agreement, the message is clear and is just simply common sense, which seems to be on short supply more often than not!"A total of 4 billion NEM will be distributed equally to all adopters. That means every stakeholder will have an equal and fair share of NEM when NEM blockchain officially starts. Then you can sell- buy NEM freely and let the market forces determine the price.
One Bitcointalk account is entitled one stake spot. If you send more than the required amount at one time or multiple times, we will consider it a donation to NEM. "
That doesn't sound like having sock puppet accounts is encouraged, but this is why I say people like you want to catch Utopianfuture on a technicality, because he didn't write a 30 page page note detailing in every way possible that sock puppet accounts are not allowed. It was something understood by anyone reading that on day one, except for the kinds of people who look for technicalities in order to sue other out of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars. The victims who play the victim card.
He's basically just a self focused person who is thinking that everyone is being completely unfair because they're telling him that he can't grab most of the toys for himself.
I mean the adults have much bigger things to worry about regarding Nem, but he insists on trying to convince people that he deserves more than everybody else, and that we all must feel that way and drop everything.
If things were the way he demands, then why didn't Utopianfuture not just make it so that a person could buy an unlimited number of Nems, from one account? If a person wanted 20,000,000 Nems, then just pay the asking price per Nem. It would certainly have made life easier for himself, by not having to keep track of 3,000.
But he wants to insist that he's a victim by saying that even though it's what was implied and obvious by anyone with common sense that they were trying to give one stake per person.
I am not affected by any of this personally as I only registered one stake before payments were necessary, so your personal remarks against me are incorrect.
I'm just disheartened by all the effort that's gone into hunting sockpuppets, and as a neutral observer I think it's obvious what the correct interpretation should be based on the sequence of events.
Before January 29 multiple accounts were within the rules.
After January 29 they were not within the rules.
Today a guy made a post offering to sell some of his multiple stakes and people automatically attacked him. If he registered those stakes before January 29 those attacks are not fair.
Today I got sick of the spin and said something, and so I get attacked by NEM stooges. Predictable, but still frustrating.
Ok,
Its late and ill bite lol
So youre requesting that UP change the fairness description in the OP
Is that it?
Of course you dont lol
Your just upset that you are a victim of people responding to your silly posts
Ok sorry I get it now
We will leave you alone and let you make silly posts all night and not say a thing so you dont feel attacked
Lol
No, I'm disappointed that a seemingly smart honourable guy like utopianfuture went off half-cocked without proper planning and has damaged an otherwise decent idea.
The smell from the guy selling 90 sockpuppet NEM accounts will linger. It didn't have to be this way.
edit: also, I don't want utopianfuture to do anything. I'm just calling a spade a spade
March 21, 2014, 11:22:19 PM
This is what I just read from the original thread, part 1.
"A total of 4 billion NEM will be distributed equally to all adopters. That means every stakeholder will have an equal and fair share of NEM when NEM blockchain officially starts. Then you can sell- buy NEM freely and let the market forces determine the price.
One Bitcointalk account is entitled one stake spot. If you send more than the required amount at one time or multiple times, we will consider it a donation to NEM. "
That doesn't sound like having sock puppet accounts is encouraged, but this is why I say people like you want to catch Utopianfuture on a technicality, because he didn't write a 30 page page note detailing in every way possible that sock puppet accounts are not allowed. It was something understood by anyone reading that on day one, except for the kinds of people who look for technicalities in order to sue other out of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars. The victims who play the victim card.
I'm in total agreement, the message is clear and is just simply common sense, which seems to be on short supply more often than not!"A total of 4 billion NEM will be distributed equally to all adopters. That means every stakeholder will have an equal and fair share of NEM when NEM blockchain officially starts. Then you can sell- buy NEM freely and let the market forces determine the price.
One Bitcointalk account is entitled one stake spot. If you send more than the required amount at one time or multiple times, we will consider it a donation to NEM. "
That doesn't sound like having sock puppet accounts is encouraged, but this is why I say people like you want to catch Utopianfuture on a technicality, because he didn't write a 30 page page note detailing in every way possible that sock puppet accounts are not allowed. It was something understood by anyone reading that on day one, except for the kinds of people who look for technicalities in order to sue other out of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars. The victims who play the victim card.
He's basically just a self focused person who is thinking that everyone is being completely unfair because they're telling him that he can't grab most of the toys for himself.
I mean the adults have much bigger things to worry about regarding Nem, but he insists on trying to convince people that he deserves more than everybody else, and that we all must feel that way and drop everything.
If things were the way he demands, then why didn't Utopianfuture not just make it so that a person could buy an unlimited number of Nems, from one account? If a person wanted 20,000,000 Nems, then just pay the asking price per Nem. It would certainly have made life easier for himself, by not having to keep track of 3,000.
But he wants to insist that he's a victim by saying that even though it's what was implied and obvious by anyone with common sense that they were trying to give one stake per person.
I am not affected by any of this personally as I only registered one stake before payments were necessary, so your personal remarks against me are incorrect.
I'm just disheartened by all the effort that's gone into hunting sockpuppets, and as a neutral observer I think it's obvious what the correct interpretation should be based on the sequence of events.
Before January 29 multiple accounts were within the rules.
After January 29 they were not within the rules.
Today a guy made a post offering to sell some of his multiple stakes and people automatically attacked him. If he registered those stakes before January 29 those attacks are not fair.
Today I got sick of the spin and said something, and so I get attacked by NEM stooges. Predictable, but still frustrating.
Ok,
Its late and ill bite lol
So youre requesting that UP change the fairness description in the OP
Is that it?
Of course you dont lol
Your just upset that you are a victim of people responding to your silly posts
Ok sorry I get it now
We will leave you alone and let you make silly posts all night and not say a thing so you dont feel attacked
Lol
March 21, 2014, 11:21:36 PM
No chance of catching people who are actually supportive and useful to our cause.
Lol. Very true. Although I no longer can understand what the "cause" is. Remember when it used to be "No Envy Movement"? In the greatest of ironies it almost seems like it should be MEM instead. I hope this really hasn't been 100+ pages of people still going on about the sock puppets. That guy saying he has 90 accounts. Why would he even try to sell them so cheaply? I don't really care except it allows people with sockpuppets to dump on markets and screw up prices... otherwise it is just pure envy. Maybe PEM ?
March 21, 2014, 11:15:08 PM
This is what I just read from the original thread, part 1.
"A total of 4 billion NEM will be distributed equally to all adopters. That means every stakeholder will have an equal and fair share of NEM when NEM blockchain officially starts. Then you can sell- buy NEM freely and let the market forces determine the price.
One Bitcointalk account is entitled one stake spot. If you send more than the required amount at one time or multiple times, we will consider it a donation to NEM. "
That doesn't sound like having sock puppet accounts is encouraged, but this is why I say people like you want to catch Utopianfuture on a technicality, because he didn't write a 30 page page note detailing in every way possible that sock puppet accounts are not allowed. It was something understood by anyone reading that on day one, except for the kinds of people who look for technicalities in order to sue other out of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars. The victims who play the victim card.
I'm in total agreement, the message is clear and is just simply common sense, which seems to be on short supply more often than not!"A total of 4 billion NEM will be distributed equally to all adopters. That means every stakeholder will have an equal and fair share of NEM when NEM blockchain officially starts. Then you can sell- buy NEM freely and let the market forces determine the price.
One Bitcointalk account is entitled one stake spot. If you send more than the required amount at one time or multiple times, we will consider it a donation to NEM. "
That doesn't sound like having sock puppet accounts is encouraged, but this is why I say people like you want to catch Utopianfuture on a technicality, because he didn't write a 30 page page note detailing in every way possible that sock puppet accounts are not allowed. It was something understood by anyone reading that on day one, except for the kinds of people who look for technicalities in order to sue other out of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars. The victims who play the victim card.
He's basically just a self focused person who is thinking that everyone is being completely unfair because they're telling him that he can't grab most of the toys for himself.
I mean the adults have much bigger things to worry about regarding Nem, but he insists on trying to convince people that he deserves more than everybody else, and that we all must feel that way and drop everything.
If things were the way he demands, then why didn't Utopianfuture not just make it so that a person could buy an unlimited number of Nems, from one account? If a person wanted 20,000,000 Nems, then just pay the asking price per Nem. It would certainly have made life easier for himself, by not having to keep track of 3,000.
But he wants to insist that he's a victim by saying that even though it's what was implied and obvious by anyone with common sense that they were trying to give one stake per person.
I am not affected by any of this personally as I only registered one stake before payments were necessary, so your personal remarks against me are incorrect.
I'm just disheartened by all the effort that's gone into hunting sockpuppets, and as a neutral observer I think it's obvious what the correct interpretation should be based on the sequence of events.
Before January 29 multiple accounts were within the rules.
After January 29 they were not within the rules.
Today a guy made a post offering to sell some of his multiple stakes and people automatically attacked him. If he registered those stakes before January 29 those attacks are not fair.
Today I got sick of the spin and said something, and so I get attacked by NEM stooges. Predictable, but still frustrating.
March 21, 2014, 11:11:54 PM
What do we call a person who keeps posting the same points over and over?
They don't really want anything?
They are doing/saying things they know will upset people?
The posts they make are designed to make others
try refute what they are saying, only to ignore all facts stated that try to dispel their "concerns"
And they use a sockpuppet to do so.
Is there a term for this type of person??
They don't really want anything?
They are doing/saying things they know will upset people?
The posts they make are designed to make others
try refute what they are saying, only to ignore all facts stated that try to dispel their "concerns"
And they use a sockpuppet to do so.
Is there a term for this type of person??
March 21, 2014, 11:01:37 PM
This is what I just read from the original thread, part 1.
"A total of 4 billion NEM will be distributed equally to all adopters. That means every stakeholder will have an equal and fair share of NEM when NEM blockchain officially starts. Then you can sell- buy NEM freely and let the market forces determine the price.
One Bitcointalk account is entitled one stake spot. If you send more than the required amount at one time or multiple times, we will consider it a donation to NEM. "
That doesn't sound like having sock puppet accounts is encouraged, but this is why I say people like you want to catch Utopianfuture on a technicality, because he didn't write a 30 page page note detailing in every way possible that sock puppet accounts are not allowed. It was something understood by anyone reading that on day one, except for the kinds of people who look for technicalities in order to sue other out of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars. The victims who play the victim card.
I'm in total agreement, the message is clear and is just simply common sense, which seems to be on short supply more often than not!"A total of 4 billion NEM will be distributed equally to all adopters. That means every stakeholder will have an equal and fair share of NEM when NEM blockchain officially starts. Then you can sell- buy NEM freely and let the market forces determine the price.
One Bitcointalk account is entitled one stake spot. If you send more than the required amount at one time or multiple times, we will consider it a donation to NEM. "
That doesn't sound like having sock puppet accounts is encouraged, but this is why I say people like you want to catch Utopianfuture on a technicality, because he didn't write a 30 page page note detailing in every way possible that sock puppet accounts are not allowed. It was something understood by anyone reading that on day one, except for the kinds of people who look for technicalities in order to sue other out of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars. The victims who play the victim card.
He's basically just a self focused person who is thinking that everyone is being completely unfair because they're telling him that he can't grab most of the toys for himself.
I mean the adults have much bigger things to worry about regarding Nem, but he insists on trying to convince people that he deserves more than everybody else, and that we all must feel that way and drop everything.
If things were the way he demands, then why didn't Utopianfuture not just make it so that a person could buy an unlimited number of Nems, from one account? If a person wanted 20,000,000 Nems, then just pay the asking price per Nem. It would certainly have made life easier for himself, by not having to keep track of 3,000.
But he wants to insist that he's a victim by saying that even though it's what was implied and obvious by anyone with common sense that they were trying to give one stake per person.
March 21, 2014, 10:44:30 PM
IMO utopianfuture made the rule change with this post
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4809186
That should be the cut-off date for multiple account witch-hunt - AFTER January 29.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4809186
Quote
January 29, 2014, 12:52:47 AM
Thanks for all who support NEM. This post is page 80 cut-off. Please check the front page because a counter- sockpuppet measure has been introduced.
" Counter sockpuppet measure: Sending address could be checked and if there were already two payments made to NEM's addresses before, then the third payment would be considered donation. This measure comes into effect at page 81 and does not apply retroactively. So DO NOT SEND the fee to NEM from an exchange, you would need to withdraw to your account first. Thanks for your understanding. "
In addition, meme promotion for stake spot is temporarily stopped. But remember that NEM still love memes.
Thanks for all who support NEM. This post is page 80 cut-off. Please check the front page because a counter- sockpuppet measure has been introduced.
" Counter sockpuppet measure: Sending address could be checked and if there were already two payments made to NEM's addresses before, then the third payment would be considered donation. This measure comes into effect at page 81 and does not apply retroactively. So DO NOT SEND the fee to NEM from an exchange, you would need to withdraw to your account first. Thanks for your understanding. "
In addition, meme promotion for stake spot is temporarily stopped. But remember that NEM still love memes.
That should be the cut-off date for multiple account witch-hunt - AFTER January 29.
That's one measure. Unfortunately for you, we do have some more new measures such as taint analysis + activity analysis to detect people with many accounts. I would consider applying them retrospectively is similar to applying DNA testing to samples from raping cases occurred before the invention of DNA testing. In both instances, they are quite useful, don't you think ?
The fact that you're still trying to spin your way out of this is incredible. No doubt your intentions are well meaning, but what does the statement below mean?
Quote
This measure comes into effect at page 81 and does not apply retroactively
edit: no doubt you reserve the right to add new counter measures for other 'crimes' later. that is the problem. you are the NEM dictator
Right we did not use that measure cos taint analysis is more effective. Hi sockpuppet, what is your real account, BTW?
Yes, taint analysis is effective at linking accounts from those people who weren't trying to hide (people who registered before you announced the anti-sockpuppet rules on January 29 that should only apply to people registering AFTER page 81).
I think most people who registered multiple accounts after January 29 would have hidden themselves, because after January 29 they were being fraudulent, because your anti-sockpuppet rules had taken effect..
As for me, I was 'interested' before payment was required, and I suspect if I posted from my regular account you might invent a retrospective counter measure against me for being critical.
I really am a supporter of NEM, but I think you have made a tactical error with your marketing message to trade on the "NEM is about fairness, and no envy", and then proceed to spend so much time and effort on doing something unfair.
March 21, 2014, 10:24:28 PM
I sometimes visit this thread but there hadn't been much lately.. was never much new cept logos. I was a lot more active early on. I gave some advice early on, showed utopianfuture how to save a full thread at once to check for people who might try to change their post in an illegal manner. I come back 100+ pages later and it seems like the same argument. Frankly it is a bit sad to me. You guys were talking about wanting from people out of the crypto world joining, now you seem to want to banish them if they haven't been actively posting on their account they had to get to sign up on. I was messing with NXT but I was a bit disheartened by some recent occurrings and come over here to see how NEM is coming along. I wish I could say I feel better Unfortunately it is more of the same...
Yes you're going to get a lot socket puppets weeded out.. I wonder though, is it worth it to get rid of 10 socket puppets from 1 guy if it means catching 2 legitimate people that were told by their buddy to sign up ?
Yes you're going to get a lot socket puppets weeded out.. I wonder though, is it worth it to get rid of 10 socket puppets from 1 guy if it means catching 2 legitimate people that were told by their buddy to sign up ?
New sock puppet appear from times to times making the same argument so I rehashed what I said before. It has been a couple of times. It is going to be over soon.
No chance of catching people who are actually supportive and useful to our cause.
March 21, 2014, 10:18:37 PM
I sometimes visit this thread but there hadn't been much lately.. was never much new cept logos. I was a lot more active early on. I gave some advice early on, showed utopianfuture how to save a full thread at once to check for people who might try to change their post in an illegal manner. I come back 100+ pages later and it seems like the same argument. Frankly it is a bit sad to me. You guys were talking about wanting from people out of the crypto world joining, now you seem to want to banish them if they haven't been actively posting on their account they had to get to sign up on. I was messing with NXT but I was a bit disheartened by some recent occurrings and come over here to see how NEM is coming along. I wish I could say I feel better Unfortunately it is more of the same...
Yes you're going to get a lot socket puppets weeded out.. I wonder though, is it worth it to get rid of 10 socket puppets from 1 guy if it means catching 2 legitimate people that were told by their buddy to sign up ?
Yes you're going to get a lot socket puppets weeded out.. I wonder though, is it worth it to get rid of 10 socket puppets from 1 guy if it means catching 2 legitimate people that were told by their buddy to sign up ?
March 21, 2014, 10:18:10 PM
IMO utopianfuture made the rule change with this post
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4809186
That should be the cut-off date for multiple account witch-hunt - AFTER January 29.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4809186
Quote
January 29, 2014, 12:52:47 AM
Thanks for all who support NEM. This post is page 80 cut-off. Please check the front page because a counter- sockpuppet measure has been introduced.
" Counter sockpuppet measure: Sending address could be checked and if there were already two payments made to NEM's addresses before, then the third payment would be considered donation. This measure comes into effect at page 81 and does not apply retroactively. So DO NOT SEND the fee to NEM from an exchange, you would need to withdraw to your account first. Thanks for your understanding. "
In addition, meme promotion for stake spot is temporarily stopped. But remember that NEM still love memes.
Thanks for all who support NEM. This post is page 80 cut-off. Please check the front page because a counter- sockpuppet measure has been introduced.
" Counter sockpuppet measure: Sending address could be checked and if there were already two payments made to NEM's addresses before, then the third payment would be considered donation. This measure comes into effect at page 81 and does not apply retroactively. So DO NOT SEND the fee to NEM from an exchange, you would need to withdraw to your account first. Thanks for your understanding. "
In addition, meme promotion for stake spot is temporarily stopped. But remember that NEM still love memes.
That should be the cut-off date for multiple account witch-hunt - AFTER January 29.
That's one measure. Unfortunately for you, we do have some more new measures such as taint analysis + activity analysis to detect people with many accounts. I would consider applying them retrospectively is similar to applying DNA testing to samples from raping cases occurred before the invention of DNA testing. In both instances, they are quite useful, don't you think ?
The fact that you're still trying to spin your way out of this is incredible. No doubt your intentions are well meaning, but what does the statement below mean?
Quote
This measure comes into effect at page 81 and does not apply retroactively
edit: no doubt you reserve the right to add new counter measures for other 'crimes' later. that is the problem. you are the NEM dictator
Right we did not use that measure cos taint analysis is more effective. Hi sockpuppet, what is your real account, BTW?
March 21, 2014, 10:10:26 PM
IMO utopianfuture made the rule change with this post
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4809186
That should be the cut-off date for multiple account witch-hunt - AFTER January 29.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4809186
Quote
January 29, 2014, 12:52:47 AM
Thanks for all who support NEM. This post is page 80 cut-off. Please check the front page because a counter- sockpuppet measure has been introduced.
" Counter sockpuppet measure: Sending address could be checked and if there were already two payments made to NEM's addresses before, then the third payment would be considered donation. This measure comes into effect at page 81 and does not apply retroactively. So DO NOT SEND the fee to NEM from an exchange, you would need to withdraw to your account first. Thanks for your understanding. "
In addition, meme promotion for stake spot is temporarily stopped. But remember that NEM still love memes.
Thanks for all who support NEM. This post is page 80 cut-off. Please check the front page because a counter- sockpuppet measure has been introduced.
" Counter sockpuppet measure: Sending address could be checked and if there were already two payments made to NEM's addresses before, then the third payment would be considered donation. This measure comes into effect at page 81 and does not apply retroactively. So DO NOT SEND the fee to NEM from an exchange, you would need to withdraw to your account first. Thanks for your understanding. "
In addition, meme promotion for stake spot is temporarily stopped. But remember that NEM still love memes.
That should be the cut-off date for multiple account witch-hunt - AFTER January 29.
That's one measure. Unfortunately for you, we do have some more new measures such as taint analysis + activity analysis to detect people with many accounts. I would consider applying them retrospectively is similar to applying DNA testing to samples from raping cases occurred before the invention of DNA testing. In both instances, they are quite useful, don't you think ?
The fact that you're still trying to spin your way out of this is incredible. No doubt your intentions are well meaning, but what does the statement below mean?
Quote
This measure comes into effect at page 81 and does not apply retroactively
edit: no doubt you reserve the right to add new counter measures for other 'crimes' later. that is the problem. you are the NEM dictator
March 21, 2014, 09:22:13 PM
IMO utopianfuture made the rule change with this post
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4809186
That should be the cut-off date for multiple account witch-hunt - AFTER January 29.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4809186
Quote
January 29, 2014, 12:52:47 AM
Thanks for all who support NEM. This post is page 80 cut-off. Please check the front page because a counter- sockpuppet measure has been introduced.
" Counter sockpuppet measure: Sending address could be checked and if there were already two payments made to NEM's addresses before, then the third payment would be considered donation. This measure comes into effect at page 81 and does not apply retroactively. So DO NOT SEND the fee to NEM from an exchange, you would need to withdraw to your account first. Thanks for your understanding. "
In addition, meme promotion for stake spot is temporarily stopped. But remember that NEM still love memes.
Thanks for all who support NEM. This post is page 80 cut-off. Please check the front page because a counter- sockpuppet measure has been introduced.
" Counter sockpuppet measure: Sending address could be checked and if there were already two payments made to NEM's addresses before, then the third payment would be considered donation. This measure comes into effect at page 81 and does not apply retroactively. So DO NOT SEND the fee to NEM from an exchange, you would need to withdraw to your account first. Thanks for your understanding. "
In addition, meme promotion for stake spot is temporarily stopped. But remember that NEM still love memes.
That should be the cut-off date for multiple account witch-hunt - AFTER January 29.
That's one measure. Unfortunately for you, we do have some more new measures such as taint analysis + activity analysis to detect people with many accounts. I would consider applying them retrospectively is similar to applying DNA testing to samples from raping cases occurred before the invention of DNA testing. In both instances, they are quite useful, don't you think ?
March 21, 2014, 09:15:50 PM
IMO utopianfuture made the rule change with this post
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4809186
That should be the cut-off date for multiple account witch-hunt - AFTER January 29.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4809186
Quote
January 29, 2014, 12:52:47 AM
Thanks for all who support NEM. This post is page 80 cut-off. Please check the front page because a counter- sockpuppet measure has been introduced.
" Counter sockpuppet measure: Sending address could be checked and if there were already two payments made to NEM's addresses before, then the third payment would be considered donation. This measure comes into effect at page 81 and does not apply retroactively. So DO NOT SEND the fee to NEM from an exchange, you would need to withdraw to your account first. Thanks for your understanding. "
In addition, meme promotion for stake spot is temporarily stopped. But remember that NEM still love memes.
Thanks for all who support NEM. This post is page 80 cut-off. Please check the front page because a counter- sockpuppet measure has been introduced.
" Counter sockpuppet measure: Sending address could be checked and if there were already two payments made to NEM's addresses before, then the third payment would be considered donation. This measure comes into effect at page 81 and does not apply retroactively. So DO NOT SEND the fee to NEM from an exchange, you would need to withdraw to your account first. Thanks for your understanding. "
In addition, meme promotion for stake spot is temporarily stopped. But remember that NEM still love memes.
That should be the cut-off date for multiple account witch-hunt - AFTER January 29.
March 21, 2014, 09:15:37 PM
I would consider slow release but I currently prefer releasing all NEM at once on the launch day. Besides the fact it is easier logistically, it would be very interesting economic experiment for every one. Imagine 3000 accounts are created the same time at launch and each receives 1 million NEM equally and they all start to send/ gift/ exchange hysterically etc. The distribution curve is a flat line at the beginning and start to move over time. Who will sell, who will buy and how much ? Isn't it interesting ? Why should we ruin such a beautiful beginning? NEM launch day should feel like the BIG BANG in the NEM universe so I suggest we should take a breath and watch it unfold in wonder. There is no need to over-engineer a BIG BANG.
Indeed it's going to be very exciting experiment - how egalitarianism (distributio) works in practice
Anyway I hope that in a one year time we will become kind of bitcoiners.
That's our unbearable destiny.What about 1B market cap? Can you imagine that?
I hope the value of NEM is steadily increasing,not like bitcioin prices over the past few years was huge pump or dump......
March 21, 2014, 09:14:52 PM
This is dishonest characterization. It is never condoned or encouraged in anyway to register multiple stakes.
Why did you not bring the full quote here
"So I saw an attempt to accumulate NEM stakes by one person making 5 accounts in the same manner https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic ... msg4750698 which somewhat goes against our egalitarian principle so my first instinct is to refund him the money and allow the sockpuppet only one stake."
What do you think "egalitarian principle" means in this context ?
I quoted you in full in my first post.
I have no problem with your "egalitarian principles", but I do have a problem with how you changed the rules. You may not have encouraged or condoned multiple accounts, and I did agree with the rule change, but the people who created multiple accounts BEFORE you changed the wording of your posts did nothing wrong.
Those people have been labelled as fraudsters unfairly. They should be allowed into NEM.
You still don't understand...
there has not been talked about stakes, only a stake, and for each "you", not for each of your accounts.
The rule changes didn't change that thing.
Jump to: