This is again example of why you should NOT be on the panel.
Blah-blah-blah... shut up. If you says so, I will just shut up, really. NOT |
|
|
|
|
LemonAndFries, let me ask you something simple:
Are you denying any relationship to dave5555?
Would you give dev the permission to post your login history (IP and time) that matches with dave5555 so we can publicly clear your name ?
I will shut up if it's publicly proven dev evidence is flawed.
|
|
|
|
Devs want to say that someone registered an account in December but wasn't really active and then registered another account 2 months later to be more active with it? Wtf.
Do we we really want someone with that kind of "analytical" skills to be on the "panel"? I have dozens of accounts on various forums (Dpreview as an example) and I abandon the old one and am more active with new one all the time. |
|
|
|
before I go, you guys should really demand why some people were allowed to purchase and bid multiple stakes
doesn't that go against their principle of no multiple stakes?
No it doesn't as it was open auction and predetermined before the sale. Just like buying 100 stakes of Nem after the launch would not be against the rules. hypocrites Why? It was open sale and you could have bought it too and would have been within the rules. |
|
|
|
before I go, you guys should really demand why some people were allowed to purchase and bid multiple stakes
doesn't that go against their principle of no multiple stakes?
No it doesn't as it was open auction and predetermined before the sale. Just like buying 100 stakes of Nem after the launch would not be against the rules. |
|
|
|
I didn't think about that, but you're actually right. Someone just bought 10-20 stakes and it goes with the rules just fine. But it's not ok to buy two stakes for two family members if they have the same IP  I want my accounts back then too, as they were for family too. Looks like lying gets you more in crypto then rules. |
|
|
|
By the way you're an awesome example of false analysys. Quick review of yours and your "puppet" profiles is enough to say that devs are wrong.
Your registration date is February 28, 2014. Posts: 303. Activity: 154.
Your "puppet" registration date is December 25, 2013. Posts: 51. Activity: 51.
Really? I mean REALLY?
Devs want to say that someone registered an account in December but wasn't really active and then registered another account 2 months later to be more active with it? Wtf.
This not evidence. It means nothing. This is again example of why you should NOT be on the panel. I would rather first look at the evidence collected by the developer and then make a decision. You claims to figure out just by looking at registration date and activity, which proves nothing |
|
|
|
Because we sure as hell didn't collect IP addresses.
To be clear I don't in generall think it was bad to collect IPs, it's just a question of how you do it and what you do with this information.
Looks like every time you login to the client, your account number (after you enter your pass phrase), IP & time is recorded by the server. This happens after every login. So by now they must have a large database. I am not sure when they made that change, but that could be the reason why they wanted everyone to generate new accounts. |
|
|
|
Dumbass. I'm not saying all labeled people should be unlabeled, but your logic is stupid. We need to investigate every case before making any decision. First check all IPs by Tor database and unlabel all matches. Unless someone singed in 5-10 accounts within a couple of minutes.
I never said there should be no investigation if someone is disputing the charge. Where did you get that? I said we should have a panel, and you should not be a part of that panel, as you have shown yourself to be illogical by claiming weird things like 2 people with same tor node signed up around same time. WTF? That's not the kind of person who should be involved in the panel. Lets pick rational people who understand the evidence and can reach unbiased rational decision without preconceived criteria that "everyone who claims to be innocent should be declared innocent" |
|
|
|
1. All Tor users have the same IPs.
2. Family memebrs living in the same house have the same IPs and most likely the same computer.
3. Roommates have the same IPs.
4. College students have the same IPs and browser/os on library computers.
5. Colleagues have the same IPs and browser/os.
Again, you and your idiotic excuses, Tor IPs are identifiable. And the probability that two different people ended up longing in with the SAME Tor node for the same obscure coin around the same time frame is zero. That's fucking nonsense, especially if 5 puppets ended up signing up with the same tor node (tor nodes are picked randomly) at the same time. Plus Tor IPs are identifiable. How are you claiming Tors without even looking at IP? Are you fucking idiot or what? Family members and roommates? That's nonsense. That excuse can be used to justify a dozen accounts by everyone. Why the fuck we even have sock puppet rules then? Lets make it open for all sock puppets instead of encouraging them to lie College students don't have the same IP, and once gain there is time stamp record. Also, you can identify if the IP is for college or residential/businessYou are an idiot, dude. Go back to your hole |
|
|
|
this whole thing has turned into a joke I don't even care anymore I was one of the first to support this project but now it's whatever accusing people of false sock puppets here we go again, NODE pulling an NEM. oh well edit: might I add that this is not the first coin that has turned into a headache for me. way to drive away people from crypto! all devs like this are doing a fantastic job at giving crypto coins a bad reputation. so sad woah, hold on... what do you mean by "pulling a nem"? According to nodecoin list, dave5555 and LemonAndFries are the same person. If you check dave5555 history, he was complaining about "Nem" removal of sockpuppets https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=426303.msg6298607#msg6298607as these were all for "friends and family" obviously  nem used hard facts/evidence to root out sock puppets? Node has absolutely solid evidence (IP logs all of them, and time-stamp logs, could be even more info like OS and browser). you saying that as if node devs are doing something bad that nem devs did. not node stake holder doing something bad that a nem stake holder did. you put it in the wrong context. No, I didn't say anything about "node devs are doing something bad that nem devs did". I said dave5555 and LemonAndFries are the same person according to node puppet list. dave5555 had a history with Nim. Maybe that's why LemonAndFries is complaining about Nem. Would make sense if they are same person. |
|
|
|
What do you guys who have been testing the beta think? I haven’t really been keeping up. Is my stake going to be valuable?
If they solve all the problems and it's released as stable (big if) I would say it will be more valuable than original investment at least for first 2 weeks |
|
|
|
this whole thing has turned into a joke I don't even care anymore I was one of the first to support this project but now it's whatever accusing people of false sock puppets here we go again, NODE pulling an NEM. oh well edit: might I add that this is not the first coin that has turned into a headache for me. way to drive away people from crypto! all devs like this are doing a fantastic job at giving crypto coins a bad reputation. so sad woah, hold on... what do you mean by "pulling a nem"? According to nodecoin list, dave5555 and LemonAndFries are the same person. If you check dave5555 history, he was complaining about "Nem" removal of sockpuppets https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=426303.msg6298607#msg6298607as these were all for "friends and family" obviously nem used hard facts/evidence to root out sock puppets? Node has absolutely solid evidence (IP logs all of them, and time-stamp logs, could be even more info like OS and browser). |
|
|
|
|
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).
|
|
|
|
Buying up to 230k of nxt for a good price at or a bit below market price. PM me if you are interested.
were you not selling for ages? He was original stakeholder. Looks like he ran out finally |
|
|
|
i can wait no longer
You don't have a choice. Exo gets released when it's working. |
|
|
|
|
Simpler solution is to distribute the coins evenly among all non sock puppets, so there is not just a "few" sock puppet holders who get larger share than the rest, but it's equally distributed to all
I won't mind even destroying the coins by sending them to trash unrecoverable account., which is a fine solution too.
They should no go to the developers.
|
|
|
|
If it were up to me, you would lose all your stakes, no refunds.
Not "honest" but when you see laundry list of people creating sock puppets, it's "fair".I even asked SilkRoad back then to record IPs (that was 4 months ago or something before his account got banned). pretty cool it worked, actually. |
|
|
|
@ everyone!
You think your situation is obscure! Check the list for azure and yellow! You will be surprised!
What is azure? What's yellow label? |
|
|
|
Correct. There was never an issue will alt. accounts before. I think the whole fair distribution IPO is comical.
Exactly. "Fair distribution" does not work. Let everyone put any BTC they want (maybe put a hard limit at 2 BTC which will start to hurt sock puppets). At least it's fair then. Now my sock puppets were removed as I never denied and disputed it, but others might go through as they have laundry list of family members or are using a coffeehouse. This is fundamentally "unfair". Let me (and all socks) pay more and give us back our shares. I will be happy with a solution where honesty isn't penliazed |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
