You just can't help being dramatic, can you? And you LOVE misspelling people's names, damnac.

You promote something that contradicts the rules of this forum, I point it out as an unrelated side note, now I'm the bad guy. You think I mention it because I don't like you giving out NEM -- quite to the contrary, I'd love you to give out more NEM and I think it would be an admirable activity perfectly in line with what you've conveyed about your views and beliefs; just don't do it in breach of the rules of this forum.. That said, I know you won't follow through on this in a significant manner because these, like most of your words, are empty and only intended to continue the conversation; which is why I consider it trolling. You were miserly with your contributions before I (and another poster) pointed out that this was against the rules, so much as you play this as 'ooh, the big bad Zatmahjdo made me stop, I wish I could give more' is just more hollow BS. Put your money where your mouth is and follow through on the official NEM forums or via some other avenue


You also didn't address a key point  -- nice dodge, but very telling.

Again --
"so far as I gathered, dannac only chimed in because CECVW shared the details of what happened.. CECVW was the one with 12M XEM he was having trouble redeeming so that he could sell them; he's also the one who's been accused of wanting more XEM. Did anyone accuse dannac of 'wanting more XEM'?? I don't believe so.."

CECVW can't be one of your 'partners', as they all dropped out during the initial sock puppet scandal right? So what, you get their stakes now, they just abandoned them, or did they sell them? Let me guess - you bought them for $5 each, right? because that's the answer that can't be substantiated.. So somehow you've gotten confused on where CECVW ends and you begin -- mixing up who's selling their old XEM stakes started all of this, and who's been accused of trying to get their share of a bounty.. Sure is confusing at times when you're running multiple accounts - getting your facts straight etc. Maybe you just have multiple personalities, and each has their own account? Why is it that CECVW would be willing to share what was supposedly such toxic and damning information with YOU of all people here? How could he trust you with it? What would have motivated him to even bother sharing it with someone if he was trying so publicly to discreetly sort it out with the devs and make it a non-issue? Because he and you are one. You're the same person.

If you get your head out of alts and look back at old world BTC, you'd be acutely aware that coins stored anywhere other than your own wallet are not 'safe'. How many exchanges have been robbed, disappeared, etc? Mt. Gox was safe until it wasn't. I get your premise, but I also disagree with it. The coins were probably safe, but no seasoned crypto-user would agree they were not at risk at any time.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/26/large-bitcoin-exchanges-attacks

Lol.. You are SUCH a sockpuppeteer.. You never had 12M coins, you only had 1 stake, right? Then what's this about wanting to sell 12M stakes? This is a joke, but it isn't funny.. Stop it.

You and your alter-ego CECVW have made a near majority of posts on this thread over the past 10+ pages, most of them being accusatory, inflammatory, defamatory, or otherwise attempting or threatening to devalue NEM and it's key players. If you hadn't been such nut jobs about how you raised this, it would have had more credibility. I do agree that what koodycoin did is past a grey area of morality -- effectively stealing someone's unclaimed stake and using it for a social engineering project.. The exchange could have caught onto him and simply kept the NEM for themselves as an F-You, and he would have had little recourse, and also been unable to pay back the 'borrowed' NEM. That's super sketchy, and I think the core team should distance themselves from this behavior and those who perpetuate it.. Had he notified the owner of the exchange in advance of the plan and gained consent, this would have been whitehat hacking - which is a respectable activity. That said, he rightly points out that he resolved a weakness in at least one exchange, caused no real damage in the process, and potentially prevented a significant theft; if the end justifies the means, his actions are justified.. As for whether the end DOES justify the means, you can start a new thread for that, or maybe a philosophy blog.


This is that awesome moment where you seem to out yourself.  I didn't read the full text of your rantings, but so far as I gathered, dannac only chimed in because CECVW shared the details of what happened.. CECVW was the one with 12M XEM he was having trouble redeeming so that he could sell them; he's also the one who's been accused of wanting more XEM. Did anyone accuse dannac of 'wanting more XEM'?? I don't believe so.. Looks to me like you posted this under the wrong ID -- and how did you have 4 stakes? If you're running multiple accounts in this discussion, perhaps you're an uncaught mini puppetmaster. Also -- using multiple accounts to argue the same point would fit into my definition of 'trolling'.


On an unrelated note -- to all you who are posting XEM addresses.. This is NOT a giveaway thread. Please take it to the NEM forums.
See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=780979.0

...

What a waste of time that could have been spent productively. Don't feed the trolls.

So this effectively means NODE cannot be used at present, because no one has the current client version, and we won't be able to use Node until 'Later'... =/

What's up with https://ournem.com/ -- can't it be set to redirect to nem.io? Googling nem coin forums points there  

Looking through recent transactions... in the past 25 transactions, a fair few were hefty sums including one for 62,317,716 -- that's a lot of node. Lots of action between 13886546756468508841, 6458978651863323362, and 14302536936654097014 -- Guessing one or two are an exchange, but 62 million Node moving around raised an eyebrow so I figured I'd mention it.

For those of you who forgot there was a blockchain explorer: http://block.nodemoney.com:18775/#/explorer/transaction

I thought the sign pointing to this thread said TOLL bridge. Well that was clearly a typo!

I'm saddened to see this thread hijacked by finger pointing, defamation, and otherwise unnecessary and nonconstructive 'mudslinging'.

I think that NEM's core team has done a fantastic job and is continuing to do so with regards to NEM.. I'm saddened to see them dragged into the weeds on this thread (both in that they're getting dragged in and that they're diving in head first; it's a two-sided coin) -- they have better things to do, and reading over some of the discussion, it reflects unfavorably all around.

There are clearly some differences of opinion here, but rather than lengthy discussions in the main thread, perhaps these can be taken to an IRC channel, the NEM forum's chat, or another more direct avenue better suited for the level of engagement and scale of these conversations? May I alternatively propose a poll to resolve some of this? Anything to wrap it up in a civil and expedient manner.

Regarding /r/nem -- I would love to see that as an official channel, though I TOTALLY agree that it needs shared / official administration. Okaynow -- I get that you're trying move NEM forward, but we need to work together. From the perspective of official reddits, /r/nem would be the preferred official subreddit as this is consistent with other cryptocurrencies. Perhaps you could open an alternative site such as /r/nemcommunity for a community based subreddit? I feel this would be a perfect solution in making /r/nem official and making clear that your reddit is community based. I also suspect you could discuss the 'space' that each reddit would occupy to minimize overlap / conflict. Let's not point fingers, but work together - you're all active contributors and I hate to see bickering like this between people who are aligned in the goal of making NEM a success. I love that you're being proactive and engaged, let's nurture that and come to a mutually agreeable solution.

Personally, I'm less concerned about multisig on the donation account SO LONG as this is clear -- perhaps you could mention the funds are in your trust as a disclaimer when asking for donations.

Just my 2 XEM.

Is CfA still relevant? Is he needed? What is he?

Take a few minutes to peruse his history:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=300079;sa=showPosts


As for NEM distribution - 65% to devs? What are you smoking? Where do you guys come up with this stuff? Distirution is a long story, but the vast majority of XEM goes to stakeholders, not developers. I believe that there were a few unclaimed stakes which have been allocated to a variety of funds such as community development, node operation incentives, etc.  This info is all in the newsletters, on the website, in the forums, etc.

Rather than complain about things that aren't being done, start doing those things. YOU can network, spread the word, advertise, promote, and contribute in many ways.

If you're worried about short term price decline, sell.. Remember when bitcoin hit $32 then dropped to like $1? Perhaps we're at $4 right now.. Jump forward a year and bitcoin hit $1200. Prices fluctuate.

Where's TaunSew? Probably abandoned this forum. Hasn't been heard from in days. Probably deaded.
 

Some thoughts on POA

Activity (Open Wallet)

PROS
Encourages broader network propogation - likely mitigates the risk of a '51%' attack
Encourages users with low/no balance to participate in network - better adoption

CONS
Prone to abuse by those hosting multiple clients
Consider restricting this value calculation by IP (i.e. multiple NODE clients hosted on the same public IP will not be eligible). Also consider a  reset or reduction of a wallet's 'score' once block is generated.

Activity (Sent transactions, 'Proof of Former Stake')
PROS
Hypotheticla anti-hoarding effect: encourages use of currency. Hard to say how much this would apply in practice.
Increases value of block reward due to transaction fees

CONS
Blockchain Bloat - Liable to increase unnecessary transactions

When forging, former NODE seems more valuable than current NODE..?
If I have 2 wallets and send all my Node from Wallet A to Wallet B, Wallet A has a greater likleyhood of forging a block. This gives me an advantage over stakeholders who let their balance sit in their initial wallet.
This also does nothing to discourage users from leaving their balances on exchanges as there's no inherent value in retaining a balance in your wallet.
Weighting of spent transaction would need to be balanced with transaction fee such that it is unprofitable to send amounts between wallets for the purpose of increasing 'activity'

Risk of '51% attack' - long-time active nodes with high volume of transactions between them could malicoulsly seperate from the network and outpace it. Actual risk does of course depent wholly on how the network deals with forks and how these factors play into block generation.
Consider Incorporating a peer count into block generation likleyhood (i.e. a node that goes from 30 peers to 0 peers, will not generate blocks). Also consider somehow encoding a node's peer count/data into the generated block hash, then factor this into fork reconciliation (no clue if this could actually work)

---End Transmission---

I really like POA.. similar to a concept I worked on for another hypothetical coin.

I think we should setup a separate Forum for NODE to discuss these things..one thread on btt is too constrained with too much clutter.. Need a dedicated place to delve deeper into these conversations without the background noise..

Will post some thoughts on on the algo when I have a chance.

Mine too -- not running as admin, no issues. I did have issues with an older wallet though - don't remember the exact fix but I think I cleared out the NODE/nxtl folders in C:/Users/myusername/AppData/Local -- forces a resync to the blockchain, which fixed another sync issue I was having.

I addressed this a few pages back -- the block chain explorer that's presently available sucks. It caps at 100 transactions - you're not seeing the whole picture.

That would just be the UI and it's a total guess. May be mixing it up with the early nxt client.

I had to do some troubleshooting in the past.. there's stuff in ~/appdata/local if I recall correctly - try taking it out; also try a reboot..

Finally - doesn't NODE run on Java? forgot - worth checking your java version though, if it's way outdated, that could be the problem.


Also - I'm sick of all these awful party Gifs.. Seems to be a reflection of some user's desire for instant gratification in the markets and generally in the cryptosphere. I suggest you all calm down and carry on.

Any how would Linux have prevented people from providing login credentials to a mocked-up version of BTT?