NEM (XEM) Official Thread - 100% New Code - Easy To Use APIs - page 1547.

jkoil

hero member

Activity: 834

Merit: 524

Nxt NEM

Quote from: gsxrl3oi on November 08, 2014, 12:11:05 PM

I see nothing NEW in NEM if we were to add inflation. NEW ECONOMY MOVEMENT right. so Lets not have inflation.
As for the back and forth about 4 or 8 billion coins. I simply didn't vote because I found it ridiculous that we would change it now. I am Asian too, I don't care about the 4 or 8. I did participate knowing that it is 4. The polls we have doesn't speak, for me. My 2cents.
All I see is greed now from ppl who are trying to double their stakes. hey im all for it, but the truth is 4 billion was the original plan. 4 billion coin 4 billion stake holders. Lets stick with 4.

Cheers guys

+-1

Neither do I see the point of "inflation". I have understood that the inflation is caused by the "outside" of the money system. To fix it, there would be needed some index, or several, to measure the inflation. Every country has some inflation, but do they try to fix it with the money system? (We all know, how Weimar Republic handled it...)

4 000 000 000 coins or 8 000 000 000 coins ... "original" plan was copied from bitcoin/litecoin.
If there will be 8 000 000 000 coins, everyone do get double amount of coins, but the share is the same. Why that is not seen?

gsxrl3oi

sr. member

Activity: 315

Merit: 250

I see nothing NEW in NEM if we were to add inflation. NEW ECONOMY MOVEMENT right. so Lets not have inflation.
As for the back and forth about 4 or 8 billion coins. I simply didn't vote because I found it ridiculous that we would change it now. I am Asian too, I don't care about the 4 or 8. I did participate knowing that it is 4. The polls we have doesn't speak, for me. My 2cents.
All I see is greed now from ppl who are trying to double their stakes. hey im all for it, but the truth is 4 billion was the original plan. 4 billion coin 4 billion stake holders. Lets stick with 4.

Cheers guys

DICTATOR-NEM

newbie

Activity: 5

Merit: 0

What else do you want to change?

Inflation?
From 75% community stakes to 50% so the devs can control more?

Come one, you are ruining this.

patmast3r

hero member

Activity: 980

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Conurtrol on November 08, 2014, 11:45:06 AM

Quote from: patmast3r on November 08, 2014, 11:43:10 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: patmast3r on November 08, 2014, 11:01:25 AM

Quote from: okaynow on November 08, 2014, 10:50:49 AM

jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.

Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.

A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.

Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.

So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)

While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.

I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.

it depends on the source of inflation and where/who the New coins go to.

If you mean rewarding nodes that are securing the network and using sock stakes for this that is an exceptional idea and I'm 100% for that.,

If you mean just a bot making transactions with x nem as a fee in each block then I don't see the issue here eitwe as long as it isn't an over the top reward. It would have to be a trivial amount. 1% per year is trivial when considering that many nations have 3-5/6% inflation, possibly more. And bitcoin having a vastly 10%. Inflation under the correct circumstances is very healthy for the economyname does promotw

Using sock stakes for that wouldn't mean any inflation as those coins already exist at nemesis.
What I'm talking about is using an inflation of <1% per year for paying people that are running nodes.
Not even as block rewards but as node rewards. So even people with a very very small importance have an incentive to run a node. At some random time some random node will get a reward if he's harvesting. No matter what his importance. All that matter is that he is harvesting at that time. Since nobody knows the time you can't just turn on your node at "reward time" to join the pool.

Of course there are prob some kinks that need ironing out but imho this wouldn't be a bad idea.

Sounds like a good idea to strngthen the network. What is the argument against it?

Just that most people hate inflation.
But I think this very very minor inflation would do more good than harm.

okaynow

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

PGP 9CB0902E

Quote from: patmast3r on November 08, 2014, 11:25:11 AM

Quote from: okaynow on November 08, 2014, 11:19:09 AM

Quote from: patmast3r on November 08, 2014, 11:01:25 AM

While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.

I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.

i dont think you spotted my reasoning yet.
Are you openly saying that the 35 positive opinions on nemforum carry more value that the 3000+ stakeholders?

Are you openly saying that whoever did not vote for his own reasons that you cannot know of, agrees with your point of view?

it sounds a bit like a totalitarian thing to say, and i'm pretty sure that is not what you mean.

Let me help you, and whoever wants to see my point:
Two polls were brought to nemforums, none of which gave enough votes for either side to go ahead and claim that a change should happen or not.
Not enough people cared, if you like to think so.

Does that imply that the change is accepted? I am saying that since there are not enough votes, this change cannot go ahead.

I'm not saying they are agreeing with my point of view - which btw is similar to yours as i also don't want to double the supply - I'm simply saying they didn't vote which isn't enough to decide either way. Fact is most of the people that did vote voted in favor.
Are we supposed to dismiss any idea because people that have already forgotten about NEM aren't showing up for votes ?

i know we agree on not doubling the coins. I am not against ideas either.
Also, as you acknowledge there are not enough votes to decide either way.

Therefore, we can accept the fact that there is no consensus in going ahead and making such a radical change at this time.
This(the lack of consensus on the matter along with the extremely small participation) does not warrant issuing 8 billion coins.

Some people said that since users did not come ahead to vote, they agree. This is not true in any way.

**keep in mind:
The poll was on for merely a week #Not enough time/
The options given were three (3.8bil, 4bil and 8bil) on the first and 2 on the second poll. #3.8 and 4 options were cancelling each other, whoever made the poll, made a manipulative poll/
Poll thread was locked afterwards #?

*Keep in mind also:
We can safely assume that there are more NEM holders in BTT than there are in nemforum.
There are 3000+ stakeholders here while the total members of the nemforums are 550+ users. Or is that a mistake?
The option to issue 8billion coins received 35 votes on the first poll.
Those 35 votes cant get twisted as the acceptance to issue 8 billion coins.

My point is that since there were so little votes for either option, we can safely dismiss the call for changing the number of coins.

Conurtrol

sr. member

Activity: 478

Merit: 250

Quote from: patmast3r on November 08, 2014, 11:43:10 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: patmast3r on November 08, 2014, 11:01:25 AM

Quote from: okaynow on November 08, 2014, 10:50:49 AM

jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.

Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.

A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.

Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.

So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)

While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.

I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.

it depends on the source of inflation and where/who the New coins go to.

If you mean rewarding nodes that are securing the network and using sock stakes for this that is an exceptional idea and I'm 100% for that.,

If you mean just a bot making transactions with x nem as a fee in each block then I don't see the issue here eitwe as long as it isn't an over the top reward. It would have to be a trivial amount. 1% per year is trivial when considering that many nations have 3-5/6% inflation, possibly more. And bitcoin having a vastly 10%. Inflation under the correct circumstances is very healthy for the economyname does promotw

Using sock stakes for that wouldn't mean any inflation as those coins already exist at nemesis.
What I'm talking about is using an inflation of <1% per year for paying people that are running nodes.
Not even as block rewards but as node rewards. So even people with a very very small importance have an incentive to run a node. At some random time some random node will get a reward if he's harvesting. No matter what his importance. All that matter is that he is harvesting at that time. Since nobody knows the time you can't just turn on your node at "reward time" to join the pool.

Of course there are prob some kinks that need ironing out but imho this wouldn't be a bad idea.

Sounds like a good idea to strngthen the network. What is the argument against it?

patmast3r

hero member

Activity: 980

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: patmast3r on November 08, 2014, 11:01:25 AM

Quote from: okaynow on November 08, 2014, 10:50:49 AM

jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.

Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.

A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.

Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.

So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)

While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.

I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.

it depends on the source of inflation and where/who the New coins go to.

If you mean rewarding nodes that are securing the network and using sock stakes for this that is an exceptional idea and I'm 100% for that.,

If you mean just a bot making transactions with x nem as a fee in each block then I don't see the issue here eitwe as long as it isn't an over the top reward. It would have to be a trivial amount. 1% per year is trivial when considering that many nations have 3-5/6% inflation, possibly more. And bitcoin having a vastly 10%. Inflation under the correct circumstances is very healthy for the economyname does promotw

Using sock stakes for that wouldn't mean any inflation as those coins already exist at nemesis.
What I'm talking about is using an inflation of <1% per year for paying people that are running nodes.
Not even as block rewards but as node rewards. So even people with a very very small importance have an incentive to run a node. At some random time some random node will get a reward if he's harvesting. No matter what his importance. All that matter is that he is harvesting at that time. Since nobody knows the time you can't just turn on your node at "reward time" to join the pool.

Of course there are prob some kinks that need ironing out but imho this wouldn't be a bad idea.

DarkhorseofNxt

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: patmast3r on November 08, 2014, 11:01:25 AM

Quote from: okaynow on November 08, 2014, 10:50:49 AM

jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.

Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.

A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.

Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.

So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)

While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.

I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.

it depends on the source of inflation and where/who the New coins go to.

If you mean rewarding nodes that are securing the network and using sock stakes for this that is an exceptional idea and I'm 100% for that.,

If you mean just a bot making transactions with x nem as a fee in each block then I don't see the issue here eitwe as long as it isn't an over the top reward. It would have to be a trivial amount. 1% per year is trivial when considering that many nations have 3-5/6% inflation, possibly more. And bitcoin having a vastly 10%. Inflation under the correct circumstances is very healthy for the economyname does promotw

inflation is a good idea imo. Patmaster, you should look into this possibility more.

Djentriser

full member

Activity: 223

Merit: 100

🌟 æternity🌟 blockchain🌟

I am not for or againt change, I really dont care for the number...as obviously majority of stakeholders.. But I dont see reason why people who expressed their opinion should be completely ignored, just because there are no many. It is problem of citizens when they are letargic to take part in democratic process. Majority of people who care for particular topic expressed their opinion...the rest of apathic peoples votes can be divided 50/50 ... so it would 51% vs 49% ... If 3000 people dont wanna express their opinions, they will not be taken in consideration, that makes sense.. Take into consideration those who do... why ignore them?

patmast3r

hero member

Activity: 980

Merit: 1001

Quote from: okaynow on November 08, 2014, 11:19:09 AM

Quote from: patmast3r on November 08, 2014, 11:01:25 AM

While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.

I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.

i dont think you spotted my reasoning yet.
Are you openly saying that the 35 positive opinions on nemforum carry more value that the 3000+ stakeholders?

Are you openly saying that whoever did not vote for his own reasons that you cannot know of, agrees with your point of view?

it sounds a bit like a totalitarian thing to say, and i'm pretty sure that is not what you mean.

Let me help you, and whoever wants to see my point:
Two polls were brought to nemforums, none of which gave enough votes for either side to go ahead and claim that a change should happen or not.
Not enough people cared, if you like to think so.

Does that imply that the change is accepted? I am saying that since there are not enough votes, this change cannot go ahead.

I'm not saying they are agreeing with my point of view - which btw is similar to yours as i also don't want to double the supply - I'm simply saying they didn't vote which isn't enough to decide either way. Fact is most of the people that did vote voted in favor.
Are we supposed to dismiss any idea because people that have already forgotten about NEM aren't showing up for votes ?

nembit86

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

NEM ....best currency distribution ever ...!!!!!!!

Quote from: okaynow on November 08, 2014, 11:19:09 AM

Quote from: patmast3r on November 08, 2014, 11:01:25 AM

While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.

I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.

i dont think you spotted my reasoning yet.
Are you openly saying that the 35 positive opinions on nemforum carry more value that the 3000+ stakeholders?

Are you openly saying that whoever did not vote for his own reasons that you cannot know of, agrees with your point of view?

it sounds a bit like a totalitarian thing to say, and i'm pretty sure that is not what you mean.

Let me help you, and whoever wants to see my point:
Two polls were brought to nemforums, none of which gave enough votes for either side to go ahead and claim that a change should happen or not.
Not enough people cared, if you like to think so.

Does that imply that the change is accepted? I am saying that since there are not enough votes, this change cannot go ahead.

so what you are saying is that votes dont count in small numbers. Even when those who vote are the only ones that care.
you obviously dont appreciate the thoughts that active members have. They are all stupid if they vote something other than your wishes.

okaynow

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

PGP 9CB0902E

Quote from: patmast3r on November 08, 2014, 11:01:25 AM

While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.

I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.

i dont think you spotted my reasoning yet.
Are you openly saying that the 35 positive opinions on nemforum carry more value that the 3000+ stakeholders?

Are you openly saying that whoever did not vote for his own reasons that you cannot know of, agrees with your point of view?

it sounds a bit like a totalitarian thing to say, and i'm pretty sure that is not what you mean.

Let me help you, and whoever wants to see my point:
Two polls were brought to nemforums, none of which gave enough votes for either side to go ahead and claim that a change should happen or not.
Not enough people cared, if you like to think so.

Does that imply that the change is accepted? I am saying that since there are not enough votes, this change cannot go ahead.

rockethead

legendary

Activity: 1059

Merit: 1016

Quote from: nembit86 on November 08, 2014, 11:08:37 AM

Pat........I have thought about your inflation proposal and agree to a very small and ever fixed rate.

can you organise 2 official polls?

1. 4 or 8 billion coins.
2. A proposal for #### rate of inflation. yes/ no

I think we need to organise these 2 official polls to put an end to a lot of argument.

As much as I wish, Pat is up to his nose to get things sorted out. He would be the last person who can do it. Let's not burn him out. He still has a great life ahead to get going with. What he said is true. If you look at the number of active participants, only a handful care about NEM. The rest won't bother if it is 2B, 4B, 8B or 100B or if the inflation is 1%,2% or 10%.

nembit86

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

NEM ....best currency distribution ever ...!!!!!!!

Quote from: okaynow on November 08, 2014, 11:06:53 AM

Quote from: nembit86 on November 08, 2014, 10:59:35 AM

Quote from: okaynow on November 08, 2014, 10:50:49 AM

jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.

Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.

A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.

Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.

So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)

you seem to be taking an interest in this subject now, where were you when everybody was discussing and voting a month ago? ....but thats ok..better late than never.
So do you want to put this to an official poll or not...? as it is clear there is division.

There were 2 polls on nemforums, that did not get enough votes to warrant such a change, why have a third one??
there are less than 100 users, that agree with it.

Furthermore, there is no reason at all. So many users here disagreed and many stated serious arguments against it.
Seems that whoever wants 8billion NEM cant see those voices for some reason.

Yet, the groupthinkers want to call fud, while at the same time cant spot fud on a dictionary.
Calling fud or starting personal attacks like rockethead or yourself when you disagree with someone shows to everyone else that you cant win the argument on any other way.

I didnt think I attacked you personaly and I think you are battling your corner well....but you are too quick to dismiss the views of others.

If you think it is a mistake to take account of polls then you are way off the mark.
Members need to express their opinion for any changes and a poll is the only way for now.
Please support an official poll on this matter.

dandruff1138

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 501

1000% ROI Masternode Coin

Quote from: nembit86 on November 08, 2014, 11:08:37 AM

Pat........I have thought about your inflation proposal and agree to a very small and ever fixed rate.

can you organise 2 official polls?

1. 4 or 8 billion coins.
2. A proposal for #### rate of inflation. yes/ no

I think we need to organise these 2 official polls to put an end to a lot of argument.

Is this going to delay the launch again?

nembit86

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

NEM ....best currency distribution ever ...!!!!!!!

Pat........I have thought about your inflation proposal and agree to a very small and ever- fixed rate.

can you organise 2 official polls?

1. 4 or 8 billion coins.
2. A proposal for #### rate of inflation. yes/ no

I think we need to organise these 2 official polls to put an end to a lot of argument.

jkoil

hero member

Activity: 834

Merit: 524

Nxt NEM

Quote from: okaynow on November 08, 2014, 10:50:49 AM

jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.

Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.

A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.

Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.

So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)

I do not have the arguments; but I have agreed with them, who have such. Eg. rockethead, makoto, jabo in nemcoin.com (and some posts here in BTT). When I have followed your discussion, I have hoped that all the good arguments would have been in one place ... they are not ... there may be few good discussion threads but still the important points are all over... Sad

About the voting : there are very few votes, which get 100% of the members/populations - even some national votes may get as few elector as 15 - 20 % of the nation's population. Still the votes are valid.
I have had disagreements about the voting procedures, but apparently I cannot affect those. I did not like the result of the logo vote, but I have adapted to it.

For me the extra coins is not the point, coz it will still be the same share. It just help to distribute the coins after the launch: it is easier to share, buy things, sell shares/coins, participate to funds, when the number of coins in your wallet is still "quite big".)
Edit: the change ( 4 -> 8 ) is quite small. Someone wrote that 80 could be better... I cannot disagree, but that change might be too big...

okaynow

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

PGP 9CB0902E

Quote from: nembit86 on November 08, 2014, 10:59:35 AM

Quote from: okaynow on November 08, 2014, 10:50:49 AM

jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.

Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.

A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.

Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.

So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)

you seem to be taking an interest in this subject now, where were you when everybody was discussing and voting a month ago? ....but thats ok..better late than never.
So do you want to put this to an official poll or not...? as it is clear there is division.

There were 2 polls on nemforums, that did not get enough votes to warrant such a change, why have a third one??
there are less than 100 users, that agree with it.

Furthermore, there is no reason at all. So many users here disagreed and many stated serious arguments against it.
Seems that whoever wants 8billion NEM cant see those voices for some reason.

Yet, the groupthinkers want to call fud, while at the same time cant spot fud on a dictionary.
Calling fud or starting personal attacks like rockethead or yourself when you disagree with someone shows to everyone else that you cant win the argument on any other way.

rockethead

legendary

Activity: 1059

Merit: 1016

Quote from: patmast3r on November 08, 2014, 11:01:25 AM

Quote from: okaynow on November 08, 2014, 10:50:49 AM

jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.

Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.

A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.

Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.

So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)

While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.

I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.

When you brought up the inflation issue, I remember many shot at you. I was quietly in favour. But I wasn't about to support you as I did not have any facts. I needed to do some research to back that but, alas, that slipped me. Now that you have brought it up again, I think 1% may be too little. But like I said, I don't have facts to say so. I will need to qualify that.

rockethead

legendary

Activity: 1059

Merit: 1016

Quote from: jkoil on November 08, 2014, 10:39:13 AM

Quote from: okaynow on November 08, 2014, 10:31:22 AM

Quote from: rockethead on November 08, 2014, 10:13:26 AM

If you look at it from another perspective, assuming people will dump to profit the other half, which is likely, then they are likely to sell at 60% of the value of the NEM coin if it were to be 4B. Maybe 70% if they are lucky. But that may also create a larger distribution spread as there may be more entrants.

There are two things to consider here.

One is that NEM is quite fairly distributed with probably 1500 people owning (we assume many will own 2 NS and above). Doubling it and then letting them sell into the market can only spread the holdings more evenly. This is so unlike many other coins. It will create some velocity in the coin which bodes well. What we want is dilution of the holdings rather than hoarding. Doubling, if it is linear (which is not often the case), is effectively halving the value of a coin. It does not translate to halving the market capitalization. Hence there is no question of value dilution.

Secondly, if you look at a matured market like the equity market, there is frequent splitting of stocks with no adverse effects. The reality is tens of thousands are owning those stocks and the announcement logistics are more of a nightmare compared to our assumed 1500 stakeholders. Announcement are normally made with 1 or 2 months' notice at most. Their procedure is even worse than ours. We are automated and one can see the doubled value in the account on day 1. There is no such thing as having to register by such and such a date as in the stock market to be eligible for a second share split.

Further, in almost all stock splits the value is seldom less than half but on the contrary, they usually end up between 20% to 40% more in absolute value. That's the point I am getting at. It is almost for sure that the market capitalization of NEM will go up in value if we have more NEMs in circulation. Of course as I mentioned earlier in my post, we can never prove this because once rolled out, it will not be able to tell you if could be otherwise.

Have a think about that rather than pleasing anyone for the sake of superstition. Superstition may have been the reason for change initially, but if one were to ponder deeper into it, it gives us better insight into what it might be if we were to really increase it for another reason.

I don't think there is any confusion that we need to be worried about.

There are so many assumptions in here that this post looks more like sci-fi/ lets take the one by one:

"with probably 1500 people owning (we assume many will own 2 NS and above)."
Not true. You should know better, you are not a random user. There are well over 3000 users and hodlers of NEM so far
as there are far more users with 0.* of a stake than there are users with over one stake.

"Secondly, if you look at a matured market like the equity market"
Not true again and completely irrelevant, crypto markets have nothing to do with regulated equity markets. You might use similar words, but it does not mean the same principles always apply.

"in almost all stock splits the value is seldom less than half"
again not true, look at the above point. Pulling numbers out of thin air means nothing (hint: confirmation bias)

"almost for sure that the market capitalization of NEM will go up in value if we have more NEMs in circulation"
This goes against every economic principle there is in existence. Doubling the total supply of a commodity, asset or value DOES NOT raise said asset value, it rather tanks it. source: all of the central banks around the planet, their policies and economic history.

There is absolutely no reason for changing the coin supply so late in development other than human greed.

Apparently you do not know the NEM stake distribution / audit process and its results.
Also, you do not know about the stock shares' splits either...
Seems you like to create some FUD here.

When this discussion started (month? ago), I asked from devs, how difficult it is to change the amount of the coins. The answer was : it is very easy. So, there is no point to use the term "so late in development".

+1 @Jkoil.

I was going to bet with this suborder prosimian all the NEM stakes he has, to prove that he is spilling faeces out of his mouth. There were 2845 dished out. A substantial portion was socks and many had multiple NS in the AE, with the highest number being something like 32 at one stage. In the end, there are 2000 or so stakes that were dished out and to think that just 250 of them holding an average of 2 NS equates to 1500 holders is not preposterous. And for some suborder prosimian to say that there are well over 3000 holders is justified enough to know that there is in fact a sub prosimian fud in this forum. Never mind the rest of his arguments. It is all the same kind of faeces coming out from his mouth.

I don't think we should answer to this kind of fud.

Topic: NEM (XEM) Official Thread - 100% New Code - Easy To Use APIs - page 1547. (Read 2985369 times)