Topic: [NEM] NEM -New Economy Movement - No Envy Movement - Updates+Discussion thread - page 284. (Read 661499 times)

Quote from: utopianfuture on March 21, 2014, 08:23:20 PM

Selling all my (a bit less than 90 dont know the exact number but I will count it if you want to buy all) bitcointalk account all invested during nem IPO:

Altough I invested during the whole IPO period, all accounts invested different ammount of btc or nxt, I'm selling every one
account for 0.25 bitcoin / acc, no matter how much did I invest with that acc address, 0.008 or 0.075, all acc have the same price.
For those who want to buy all, im selling for 0.15 bitcoin / acc.

I know some other big nem sockpuppet stakeholders some with 1-5 and some with more than 20 acc, but im think I one of the biggest, 90 is a nice stake if you see the total is about 3k only.

The accounts were all signed up with different IP address, I used my Ukrainen VPN provider with Ukrainein IPs, so there are no 2 account where I logged with the same IP, every one have a different unique, I did this because afraid the bitcointalk admins can bann my accounts if they see many new created with the same IP, so all accounts are bann free.

There is no connection between the accounts and not in their addresses, I withdraw all the invested moneys from several exchanges to unique address, so even you can't find connection with taint analysis, maybe just find a common exchange address, but nothing more direct connection.

All acc have fake email, I dont have access to them, after you buy it you can change with the password, if you want to buy only a few acc I will give the username and password details via pm, if you want to buy all I uploading a text file.

With the 0.15 BTC price for the 90 acc, dont know how much one acc will get, but maybe calculate with 1 million nem in each.
So all with this price is 13.5 bitcoin, and you will have 90 million nem.
This will price 1 nem to 0.00000015 bitcoin or 0.00009$ (if you see 600$ / btc) this is a fair price for a new starting coin.

The last stakeholders paid 0.075 bitcoin, the higher price / acc is because now the IPO is closed, so the only way to buy nem stake before it launches is by buying accounts from who joined to the IPO, and almost nobody selling it.

For the haters: Yes I made sockpuppet accounts, but all of you reading this thread had the same opportunity to make more accounts, if you didnt than it means I took more risk than you, I invested a lot of time (1 week / constant 6-10 hours a day) and money to this IPO, and the OP post at the time the IPO started said if somebody invest that much time then he deserves it because believing in this coin.

Im living in Ukraine, so for personal reasons i need some fiat money instead of nothing now but I keep 5 or 10 btctalk nem accounts, because still thinking this coin have a future.

Write a PM to me!

This guy is perfectly entitled to sell his stakes. He did nothing wrong or against the rules at the time. The best argument in defence of multiple stakes comes from utopianfuture himself.

Quote

Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:40 pm
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.

But I realized it is explicitly said in the front page that multiple buy-ins are allowed. So I added a qualification in the front page "the development team reserve the right to refund you the money if an effort to unfairly accumulate NEM stakes is discovered"; however this qualification is added retrospectively so I think I would have to let Mr. sockpuppet to keep all of his 5 stakes if he wants to.

I want the community input for this decision.

https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?t=678&p=3161#p3159

Retrospective changes to the NEM rules show a lack of honesty. How can you trust someone who changes the rules to gloss over a poorly thought out & implemented process? Utpoianfuture understood this when he made the statement above about Mr Sockpuppet.

I support the goals of NEM, but all this focus on hunting and shaming people who followed the rules at the time is appalling. Utopianfuture has enough 'supporters' eagerly waiting for their stake who'll attack me, but look at the facts. I believe utopianfuture is an honourable person, and I think he would admit the multiple stakeholder 'witch-hunt' only draws attention to his knee-jerk 'make it up as you go along' approach to NEM back in January.

Retrospective changes kill credibility. Retrospective changes kill trust.

What else might change in the future? An increase in the development stakes? A bonus to utopianfuture for all his hard work? He's changed the rules retrospectively before, so there is no guarantee what might change in the future.

The power of bitcoin is rooted in the fact that the 'rules' are fixed by the math & the algorithms.
The weakness of fiat comes from manipulation by those with power and control.

Retrospective rules - NEM's approach is more like fiat than bitcoin.

Your word is your bond, and utopianfuture broke his ORIGINAL word to cover up a very poorly designed process.

Remember, NEM started as a knee-jerk response to frictionlesscoin's NEX when utopianfuture was a big player in NXT. That explains why the process was not thought out, but it does not justify retrospective changes to the rules.

YES I agree the fundraising is not planned in advance and consequently not well thought. That's why the process is a "call for participation" not investment term.

The Development Contract Announcement is next week. That would be something well thought.

Now read this

Disclaimer:

- While we are committed to the idea of " Completely Fair Distribution - Equal Shares for ALL "; the fund raising terms are subject to changes upon the discretion of the development team.
- There is no refund. Nothing comes out of NEM's receiving addresses until the genesis block is launched. We are committed to move the project forward. However, in the unlikely event that the project disintegrates and no one picks it up, the remaining development fund will be sent to a charity of the community's choice.
- No contractual promise is made to anyone.
- Be patient

So thank you for your competent opinion but yes I can certainly refund his money. There is no point to argue anymore.

Thanks for the reply.

You inserted phrases like"the fund raising terms are subject to changes upon the discretion of the development team." AFTER some of the multiple accounts were created. That is dishonest.

One last time, this was YOUR opinion

Quote

Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:40 pm

But I realized it is explicitly said in the front page that multiple buy-ins are allowed. So I added a qualification in the front page "the development team reserve the right to refund you the money if an effort to unfairly accumulate NEM stakes is discovered"; however this qualification is added retrospectively so I think I would have to let Mr. sockpuppet to keep all of his 5 stakes if he wants to.

https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?t=678&p=3161#p3159

You can do whatever you want with NEM, and I honestly wish you success, but retrospectively changing the rules is dishonest. People created multiple accounts in good faith, and THEN you changed rules, added disclaimers and qualifications like the 5 account rule. That is a fact.

Quote

There is no point to argue anymore.

I agree, there is no point to argue, because NEM is your endeavour, and you can do whatever you like. But it doesn't change the sequence of events, and the net result.

You changed the wording of the relevant posts AFTER people created multiple accounts, and now weeks of effort has gone into trying to find the so called 'fraudsters' that have been vilified by your henchman.

The people who created multiple accounts PRIOR to when you changed the rules didn't commit any fraud. BUT changing the rules retrospectively WAS dishonest IMO. No amount of 'spin' and re-writing posts can change that

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 ? Why did I make that post if the act is explicitly or implicitly allowed ?

And YES I changed a few rules as we moved ahead but the key principle in building NEM community never changed. That's what counts in the end.

dgex_victim

newbie

Activity: 45

Merit: 0

Quote from: dgex_victim on March 21, 2014, 06:38:40 PM

Quote from: dgex_victim on March 21, 2014, 06:38:40 PM

Selling all my (a bit less than 90 dont know the exact number but I will count it if you want to buy all) bitcointalk account all invested during nem IPO:

Altough I invested during the whole IPO period, all accounts invested different ammount of btc or nxt, I'm selling every one
account for 0.25 bitcoin / acc, no matter how much did I invest with that acc address, 0.008 or 0.075, all acc have the same price.
For those who want to buy all, im selling for 0.15 bitcoin / acc.

I know some other big nem sockpuppet stakeholders some with 1-5 and some with more than 20 acc, but im think I one of the biggest, 90 is a nice stake if you see the total is about 3k only.

The accounts were all signed up with different IP address, I used my Ukrainen VPN provider with Ukrainein IPs, so there are no 2 account where I logged with the same IP, every one have a different unique, I did this because afraid the bitcointalk admins can bann my accounts if they see many new created with the same IP, so all accounts are bann free.

There is no connection between the accounts and not in their addresses, I withdraw all the invested moneys from several exchanges to unique address, so even you can't find connection with taint analysis, maybe just find a common exchange address, but nothing more direct connection.

All acc have fake email, I dont have access to them, after you buy it you can change with the password, if you want to buy only a few acc I will give the username and password details via pm, if you want to buy all I uploading a text file.

With the 0.15 BTC price for the 90 acc, dont know how much one acc will get, but maybe calculate with 1 million nem in each.
So all with this price is 13.5 bitcoin, and you will have 90 million nem.
This will price 1 nem to 0.00000015 bitcoin or 0.00009$ (if you see 600$ / btc) this is a fair price for a new starting coin.

The last stakeholders paid 0.075 bitcoin, the higher price / acc is because now the IPO is closed, so the only way to buy nem stake before it launches is by buying accounts from who joined to the IPO, and almost nobody selling it.

For the haters: Yes I made sockpuppet accounts, but all of you reading this thread had the same opportunity to make more accounts, if you didnt than it means I took more risk than you, I invested a lot of time (1 week / constant 6-10 hours a day) and money to this IPO, and the OP post at the time the IPO started said if somebody invest that much time then he deserves it because believing in this coin.

Im living in Ukraine, so for personal reasons i need some fiat money instead of nothing now but I keep 5 or 10 btctalk nem accounts, because still thinking this coin have a future.

Write a PM to me!

This guy is perfectly entitled to sell his stakes. He did nothing wrong or against the rules at the time. The best argument in defence of multiple stakes comes from utopianfuture himself.

Quote

Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:40 pm
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.

But I realized it is explicitly said in the front page that multiple buy-ins are allowed. So I added a qualification in the front page "the development team reserve the right to refund you the money if an effort to unfairly accumulate NEM stakes is discovered"; however this qualification is added retrospectively so I think I would have to let Mr. sockpuppet to keep all of his 5 stakes if he wants to.

I want the community input for this decision.

https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?t=678&p=3161#p3159

Retrospective changes to the NEM rules show a lack of honesty. How can you trust someone who changes the rules to gloss over a poorly thought out & implemented process? Utpoianfuture understood this when he made the statement above about Mr Sockpuppet.

I support the goals of NEM, but all this focus on hunting and shaming people who followed the rules at the time is appalling. Utopianfuture has enough 'supporters' eagerly waiting for their stake who'll attack me, but look at the facts. I believe utopianfuture is an honourable person, and I think he would admit the multiple stakeholder 'witch-hunt' only draws attention to his knee-jerk 'make it up as you go along' approach to NEM back in January.

Retrospective changes kill credibility. Retrospective changes kill trust.

What else might change in the future? An increase in the development stakes? A bonus to utopianfuture for all his hard work? He's changed the rules retrospectively before, so there is no guarantee what might change in the future.

The power of bitcoin is rooted in the fact that the 'rules' are fixed by the math & the algorithms.
The weakness of fiat comes from manipulation by those with power and control.

Retrospective rules - NEM's approach is more like fiat than bitcoin.

Your word is your bond, and utopianfuture broke his ORIGINAL word to cover up a very poorly designed process.

Remember, NEM started as a knee-jerk response to frictionlesscoin's NEX when utopianfuture was a big player in NXT. That explains why the process was not thought out, but it does not justify retrospective changes to the rules.

YES I agree the fundraising is not planned in advance and consequently not well thought. That's why the process is a "call for participation" not investment term.

The Development Contract Announcement is next week. That would be something well thought.

Now read this

Disclaimer:

- While we are committed to the idea of " Completely Fair Distribution - Equal Shares for ALL "; the fund raising terms are subject to changes upon the discretion of the development team.
- There is no refund. Nothing comes out of NEM's receiving addresses until the genesis block is launched. We are committed to move the project forward. However, in the unlikely event that the project disintegrates and no one picks it up, the remaining development fund will be sent to a charity of the community's choice.
- No contractual promise is made to anyone.
- Be patient

So thank you for your competent opinion but yes I can certainly refund his money. There is no point to argue anymore.

Thanks for the reply.

You inserted phrases like"the fund raising terms are subject to changes upon the discretion of the development team." AFTER some of the multiple accounts were created. That is dishonest.

One last time, this was YOUR opinion

Quote

Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:40 pm

But I realized it is explicitly said in the front page that multiple buy-ins are allowed. So I added a qualification in the front page "the development team reserve the right to refund you the money if an effort to unfairly accumulate NEM stakes is discovered"; however this qualification is added retrospectively so I think I would have to let Mr. sockpuppet to keep all of his 5 stakes if he wants to.

https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?t=678&p=3161#p3159

You can do whatever you want with NEM, and I honestly wish you success, but retrospectively changing the rules is dishonest. People created multiple accounts in good faith, and THEN you changed rules, added disclaimers and qualifications like the 5 account rule. That is a fact.

Quote

There is no point to argue anymore.

I agree, there is no point to argue, because NEM is your endeavour, and you can do whatever you like. But it doesn't change the sequence of events, and the net result.

You changed the wording of the relevant posts AFTER people created multiple accounts, and now weeks of effort has gone into trying to find the so called 'fraudsters' that have been vilified by your henchmen.

The people who created multiple accounts PRIOR to when you changed the rules didn't commit any fraud. BUT changing the rules retrospectively WAS dishonest IMO. No amount of 'spin' and re-writing posts can change that

jkoil

hero member

Activity: 834

Merit: 524

Nxt NEM

Quote from: dgex_victim on March 21, 2014, 08:10:06 PM

Selling all my (a bit less than 90 dont know the exact number but I will count it if you want to buy all) bitcointalk account all invested during nem IPO:

Altough I invested during the whole IPO period, all accounts invested different ammount of btc or nxt, I'm selling every one
account for 0.25 bitcoin / acc, no matter how much did I invest with that acc address, 0.008 or 0.075, all acc have the same price.
For those who want to buy all, im selling for 0.15 bitcoin / acc.

I know some other big nem sockpuppet stakeholders some with 1-5 and some with more than 20 acc, but im think I one of the biggest, 90 is a nice stake if you see the total is about 3k only.

The accounts were all signed up with different IP address, I used my Ukrainen VPN provider with Ukrainein IPs, so there are no 2 account where I logged with the same IP, every one have a different unique, I did this because afraid the bitcointalk admins can bann my accounts if they see many new created with the same IP, so all accounts are bann free.

There is no connection between the accounts and not in their addresses, I withdraw all the invested moneys from several exchanges to unique address, so even you can't find connection with taint analysis, maybe just find a common exchange address, but nothing more direct connection.

All acc have fake email, I dont have access to them, after you buy it you can change with the password, if you want to buy only a few acc I will give the username and password details via pm, if you want to buy all I uploading a text file.

With the 0.15 BTC price for the 90 acc, dont know how much one acc will get, but maybe calculate with 1 million nem in each.
So all with this price is 13.5 bitcoin, and you will have 90 million nem.
This will price 1 nem to 0.00000015 bitcoin or 0.00009$ (if you see 600$ / btc) this is a fair price for a new starting coin.

The last stakeholders paid 0.075 bitcoin, the higher price / acc is because now the IPO is closed, so the only way to buy nem stake before it launches is by buying accounts from who joined to the IPO, and almost nobody selling it.

For the haters: Yes I made sockpuppet accounts, but all of you reading this thread had the same opportunity to make more accounts, if you didnt than it means I took more risk than you, I invested a lot of time (1 week / constant 6-10 hours a day) and money to this IPO, and the OP post at the time the IPO started said if somebody invest that much time then he deserves it because believing in this coin.

Im living in Ukraine, so for personal reasons i need some fiat money instead of nothing now but I keep 5 or 10 btctalk nem accounts, because still thinking this coin have a future.

Write a PM to me!

This guy is perfectly entitled to sell his stakes. He did nothing wrong or against the rules at the time. The best argument in defence of multiple stakes comes from utopianfuture himself.

Quote

Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:40 pm
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.

But I realized it is explicitly said in the front page that multiple buy-ins are allowed. So I added a qualification in the front page "the development team reserve the right to refund you the money if an effort to unfairly accumulate NEM stakes is discovered"; however this qualification is added retrospectively so I think I would have to let Mr. sockpuppet to keep all of his 5 stakes if he wants to.

I want the community input for this decision.

https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?t=678&p=3161#p3159

Retrospective changes to the NEM rules show a lack of honesty. How can you trust someone who changes the rules to gloss over a poorly thought out & implemented process? Utpoianfuture understood this when he made the statement above about Mr Sockpuppet.

I support the goals of NEM, but all this focus on hunting and shaming people who followed the rules at the time is appalling. Utopianfuture has enough 'supporters' eagerly waiting for their stake who'll attack me, but look at the facts. I believe utopianfuture is an honourable person, and I think he would admit the multiple stakeholder 'witch-hunt' only draws attention to his knee-jerk 'make it up as you go along' approach to NEM back in January.

Retrospective changes kill credibility. Retrospective changes kill trust.

What else might change in the future? An increase in the development stakes? A bonus to utopianfuture for all his hard work? He's changed the rules retrospectively before, so there is no guarantee what might change in the future.

The power of bitcoin is rooted in the fact that the 'rules' are fixed by the math & the algorithms.
The weakness of fiat comes from manipulation by those with power and control.

Retrospective rules - NEM's approach is more like fiat than bitcoin.

Your word is your bond, and utopianfuture broke his ORIGINAL word to cover up a very poorly designed process.

Remember, NEM started as a knee-jerk response to frictionlesscoin's NEX when utopianfuture was a big player in NXT. That explains why the process was not thought out, but it does not justify retrospective changes to the rules.

It seems you have misunderstood something...

In the 1st announcement thread is :
"If you do not have a Bitcointalk account yet, you need to create one to reserve a stake spot."

I guess that can be understood as the basic rule?
"you" - "stake"
No 's' after "stake". What does it mean?

The changes in the rules have been kind of "must", coz people were stretching the rules. The changes in the rules have been used to make it more accurate, but in the limits of what is possible. The latter thing is such that it may bring surprises as we have seen. But those changes are not in conflict with the basic rule.
During the IPO the rules have not been changed to stricter. So, in that sense no one should have anything to complain, not even some caught sockpuppets

j23a

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: j23a on March 21, 2014, 07:59:46 PM

Quote from: dgex_victim on March 21, 2014, 07:36:02 PM

dgex victim.

I think the word you meant to use was retroactive.

And judging by your user name, and what you said, the vibe that I got from you is that you're the type of person that plays the victim very often in your daily life.

Like, the type of person who would cause a big stink if the person who took your McDonalds order forgot to add in the napkins.

So, you don't have anything to contribute other than insults? You can't make any valid criticisms of the points raised in my post?

Utopianfuture is probably above insults I think. I'll wait and see if he responds.

Quote

The term is used in situations where the law is changed, making a previously committed lawful act now unlawful.

Quote from: dgex_victim on March 21, 2014, 06:38:40 PM

Utopianfuture made sensible modifications to the rules that took effect after they were announced. Meaning that it did not affect those who bought a stake prior to the modifications.

Wrong! You need to check the facts. The rule change was retrospective. People who registered with multiple accounts BEFORE the rule change have been taken of the stakeholder list.

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.

utopianfuture

sr. member

Activity: 602

Merit: 268

Internet of Value

Quote from: j23a on March 21, 2014, 07:59:46 PM

Selling all my (a bit less than 90 dont know the exact number but I will count it if you want to buy all) bitcointalk account all invested during nem IPO:

Altough I invested during the whole IPO period, all accounts invested different ammount of btc or nxt, I'm selling every one
account for 0.25 bitcoin / acc, no matter how much did I invest with that acc address, 0.008 or 0.075, all acc have the same price.
For those who want to buy all, im selling for 0.15 bitcoin / acc.

I know some other big nem sockpuppet stakeholders some with 1-5 and some with more than 20 acc, but im think I one of the biggest, 90 is a nice stake if you see the total is about 3k only.

The accounts were all signed up with different IP address, I used my Ukrainen VPN provider with Ukrainein IPs, so there are no 2 account where I logged with the same IP, every one have a different unique, I did this because afraid the bitcointalk admins can bann my accounts if they see many new created with the same IP, so all accounts are bann free.

There is no connection between the accounts and not in their addresses, I withdraw all the invested moneys from several exchanges to unique address, so even you can't find connection with taint analysis, maybe just find a common exchange address, but nothing more direct connection.

All acc have fake email, I dont have access to them, after you buy it you can change with the password, if you want to buy only a few acc I will give the username and password details via pm, if you want to buy all I uploading a text file.

With the 0.15 BTC price for the 90 acc, dont know how much one acc will get, but maybe calculate with 1 million nem in each.
So all with this price is 13.5 bitcoin, and you will have 90 million nem.
This will price 1 nem to 0.00000015 bitcoin or 0.00009$ (if you see 600$ / btc) this is a fair price for a new starting coin.

The last stakeholders paid 0.075 bitcoin, the higher price / acc is because now the IPO is closed, so the only way to buy nem stake before it launches is by buying accounts from who joined to the IPO, and almost nobody selling it.

For the haters: Yes I made sockpuppet accounts, but all of you reading this thread had the same opportunity to make more accounts, if you didnt than it means I took more risk than you, I invested a lot of time (1 week / constant 6-10 hours a day) and money to this IPO, and the OP post at the time the IPO started said if somebody invest that much time then he deserves it because believing in this coin.

Im living in Ukraine, so for personal reasons i need some fiat money instead of nothing now but I keep 5 or 10 btctalk nem accounts, because still thinking this coin have a future.

Write a PM to me!

This guy is perfectly entitled to sell his stakes. He did nothing wrong or against the rules at the time. The best argument in defence of multiple stakes comes from utopianfuture himself.

Quote

Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:40 pm
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.

But I realized it is explicitly said in the front page that multiple buy-ins are allowed. So I added a qualification in the front page "the development team reserve the right to refund you the money if an effort to unfairly accumulate NEM stakes is discovered"; however this qualification is added retrospectively so I think I would have to let Mr. sockpuppet to keep all of his 5 stakes if he wants to.

I want the community input for this decision.

https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?t=678&p=3161#p3159

Retrospective changes to the NEM rules show a lack of honesty. How can you trust someone who changes the rules to gloss over a poorly thought out & implemented process? Utpoianfuture understood this when he made the statement above about Mr Sockpuppet.

I support the goals of NEM, but all this focus on hunting and shaming people who followed the rules at the time is appalling. Utopianfuture has enough 'supporters' eagerly waiting for their stake who'll attack me, but look at the facts. I believe utopianfuture is an honourable person, and I think he would admit the multiple stakeholder 'witch-hunt' only draws attention to his knee-jerk 'make it up as you go along' approach to NEM back in January.

Retrospective changes kill credibility. Retrospective changes kill trust.

What else might change in the future? An increase in the development stakes? A bonus to utopianfuture for all his hard work? He's changed the rules retrospectively before, so there is no guarantee what might change in the future.

The power of bitcoin is rooted in the fact that the 'rules' are fixed by the math & the algorithms.
The weakness of fiat comes from manipulation by those with power and control.

Retrospective rules - NEM's approach is more like fiat than bitcoin.

Your word is your bond, and utopianfuture broke his ORIGINAL word to cover up a very poorly designed process.

Remember, NEM started as a knee-jerk response to frictionlesscoin's NEX when utopianfuture was a big player in NXT. That explains why the process was not thought out, but it does not justify retrospective changes to the rules.

YES I agree the fundraising is not planned in advance and consequently not well thought. That's why the process is a "call for participation" not investment term.

The Development Contract Announcement is next week. That would be something well thought.

Now read this

Disclaimer:

- While we are committed to the idea of " Completely Fair Distribution - Equal Shares for ALL "; the fund raising terms are subject to changes upon the discretion of the development team.
- There is no refund. Nothing comes out of NEM's receiving addresses until the genesis block is launched. We are committed to move the project forward. However, in the unlikely event that the project disintegrates and no one picks it up, the remaining development fund will be sent to a charity of the community's choice.
- No contractual promise is made to anyone.
- Be patient

So thank you for your competent opinion but yes I can certainly refund his money. There is no point to argue anymore.

dgex_victim

newbie

Activity: 45

Merit: 0

Quote from: dgex_victim on March 21, 2014, 07:36:02 PM

dgex victim.

I think the word you meant to use was retroactive.

And judging by your user name, and what you said, the vibe that I got from you is that you're the type of person that plays the victim very often in your daily life.

Like, the type of person who would cause a big stink if the person who took your McDonalds order forgot to add in the napkins.

So, you don't have anything to contribute other than insults? You can't make any valid criticisms of the points raised in my post?

Utopianfuture is probably above insults I think. I'll wait and see if he responds.

Quote

The term is used in situations where the law is changed, making a previously committed lawful act now unlawful.

Quote from: dgex_victim on March 21, 2014, 07:36:02 PM

Utopianfuture made sensible modifications to the rules that took effect after they were announced. Meaning that it did not affect those who bought a stake prior to the modifications.

Wrong! You need to check the facts. The rule change was retrospective. People who registered with multiple accounts BEFORE the rule change have been taken of the stakeholder list.

j23a

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

dgex victim.

I think the word you meant to use was retroactive.

And judging by your user name, and what you said, the vibe that I got from you is that you're the type of person that plays the victim very often in your daily life.

Like, the type of person who would cause a big stink if the person who took your McDonalds order forgot to add in the napkins.

So, you don't have anything to contribute other than insults? You can't make any valid criticisms of the points raised in my post?

Utopianfuture is probably above insults I think. I'll wait and see if he responds.

Quote

The term is used in situations where the law is changed, making a previously committed lawful act now unlawful.

Utopianfuture made sensible modifications to the rules that took effect after they were announced. Meaning that it did not affect those who bought a stake prior to the modifications. Very fair and sensible. I don’t see the lack of honesty that you claim.

This is where again you seem to play the victim card to me. Someone makes sensible rule changes, with clear intent to make things more fair, yet you want to catch them on a technicality, and raise hell. That’s the vibe that I get from you, from your user name, and your two posts. Not saying that I’m right about you, that’s just the vibe that I get.

dgex_victim

newbie

Activity: 45

Merit: 0

dgex victim.

I think the word you meant to use was retroactive.

And judging by your user name, and what you said, the vibe that I got from you is that you're the type of person that plays the victim very often in your daily life.

Like, the type of person who would cause a big stink if the person who took your McDonalds order forgot to add in the napkins.

So, you don't have anything to contribute other than insults? You can't make any valid criticisms of the points raised in my post?

Utopianfuture is probably above insults I think. I'll wait and see if he responds.

Quote

The term is used in situations where the law is changed, making a previously committed lawful act now unlawful.

j23a

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

dgex victim.

I think the word you meant to use was retroactive.

And judging by your user name, and what you said, the vibe that I got from you is that you're the type of person that plays the victim very often in your daily life.

Like, the type of person who would cause a big stink if the person who took your McDonalds order forgot to add in the napkins.

dgex_victim

newbie

Activity: 45

Merit: 0