Topic: ***NEM*** Should NEM organize the second stakeholder list auditing ? - page 3. (Read 2689 times)

This.  This makes the whole issue irrelevant.  

As well there's no conclusive proof that inactive accounts are sockpuppets.  There's many people who lurk and read Bitcointalk but simply aren't interested in any discussion on here.  The "call for participation" wasn't intended literally, it was legal wording to get out of any financial liability for running a securities.   While someone might not be active on Bitcointalk - they may be active on other social media websites or be really effective in viral P2P advertising.

My point is that we have too many "group 3", retroactively taking away their stakes (these people waited half a year) means NEM is going to create a lot of enemies overnight and I think that's more FUD worthy than any sockmaster boogeymen.  We know in NODE's case that (we take away the bull$hit intuition examples), they only found an extremely small number (compared to 1000 stakeholders) of sockpuppets.  So I stand by my conclusion that taking away stakes in mass is just going to piss off people and they'll be NEMs' worst enemies and they'll talk away any subsequent interested people.



The original issue here was someone scammed Pat of 6 or 8 tokens but that has nothing to do with sockpuppets, that was some guy who was looking up names on the stakeholder list and creating a copy cat name which look the same.

Then the people photoshopping banned photos to get NEMstake.

You know NEM must be really promising if people are resorting to weird ways to get it.


 

Here is a problem: It's impossible to catch all sock puppets just by activity or taint analysis. You can't even do taint analysis with Nxt investors as all accounts are connected closely via exchanges such as Bter and Dgex.  Plus it's really easy to fool the system by transferring BTC to an exchanges and back.

As for account activity, people can have more than one active account that they use to post.  

The easiest solution to "sock puppet" problem is to no have "equal stakes per investor" as that system by it's very nature encourages sock puppets.   It should be a system where anyone could contribute up to 2 BTC (max) investment. That would cut 99% of socks as it starts to hurt anyway investing more than 2 BTC on a new IPO.

Another trick that could be used is to have a trick that is not known publicly. That is what happened with nodecoin, as most sockpuppets there weren't suspecting developers were logging users IPs /time each time users were using the client  (for example, to create account or just while users were "testing" the system).

So I started this thread: http://forum.nemcoin.com/index.php?topic=2279.new#new
figured we could use with regards to a second public audit. Even if we don't do a second public audit, I think my proposal would still be a good idea. (My plan was originally brought up by ARGpentem, I thought he had a good idea, so I went with it)

No way to do that, since AE is completely decentralized, theres no "admin" to talk to about this matter

If there was a way to inactivate these particular stakes I would do that.

Some of NODE's methods were questionable . . . . (a lot of controversy on their thread over it) . . . even with the "intuition" (witch hunting) they only found a couple of sock masters and most of them only had 2 stakes (nothing which affected NODE's distribution).
 

will pm you, but i will be quite busy in the next few days. However, I think we should aim to be more transparent. I don't like the node guy secret method because that means no one can check on them !

Yes, in wake of the 6 free stakes that were just handed out recently, I vote yes.

6 stakes is enough to crash the price of NEMstake, for the moment.

VOTE on the NEM second auditing and sock puppet removal or NOT. Discussion here.

Reason : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=654845.2260