My first comment was against nutildah's "to get more stakes".
- "... some extra profiles to get some activity to the new coin - not getting stakes."
The term sockpuppet I saw first time, when the NEM stake claming started. And because there is not proven that Utopianfuture has used sockpuppets to claim stakes, then I think that he had no 'sockpuppets, just extra 'profiles'.
- "... some extra profiles to get some activity to the new coin - not getting stakes."
The term sockpuppet I saw first time, when the NEM stake claming started. And because there is not proven that Utopianfuture has used sockpuppets to claim stakes, then I think that he had no 'sockpuppets, just extra 'profiles'.
Don't know why you're so adamant about rewriting history.
From gentlemand's link:
Quote
I had a few sockpuppet accounts but I have no intention of cashing out any of them.
No intention of "cashing out" what exactly? DOGE?
He was obviously hoarding NEMstakes. And I don't give a shit any more but it irks me when people try to claim that things that were, weren't, or vice-versa.
A sockpuppet is an extra profile.
What you're doing is saying a square isn't a rectangle.
What do you mean by "rewriting history" ?
You are trying to rewrite it to please your own assumptions. If something is not proven, then it is not so.
Do you know what "Innocent until proven guilty" means ?
1. UtopianFuture admitted to having sockpuppet accounts
2. He admitted using those to claim NEM stakes.
These are facts. Its proven. The accused admitted it. Case closed.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/nems-leader-utopianfuture-retired-after-mistake-posting-w-sockpuppet-accscam-649852
Strange that I have not seen that thread ... (a lot of broken links there...)
maybe coz on that day I was quite busy in NEM thread
or maybe the author (CfA) was the reason to skip that
The main post that I am referring is this https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7279428
and
yes, there utopianfuture admits that he had made "few sockpuppet accounts"
but also to have "no intention of cashing out any of them"
As an active project manager he could have got enough stakes from the DevFund's. So there has been no reason to claim stakes in behind the curtains.
You are trying to use logic for your proof in the similar way as
A
A -> B
------------
B
but unfortunately you fail.
Your attempt is like trying to prove that 1 + 1 = 2,
but you are saying "0.5 + 0.5 ... ermh let's round it ... 1 + 1 is ... yes, it equals 2. Proved. Case closed"
Where is the utopianfuture's statement, where he writes (which would make possible to use the verb 'admit') that he was trying to claim stakes with some extra profiles ?
What's the matter with you? UF had extra accounts. He used those accounts to claim stakes. This goes against the entire premise of NEM being "fairly distributed," so when he got caught, he "retired" from NEM. Why else do you think he would step aside from his creation?? Please, stop insulting our intelligence.
