[NEM] NEM -New Economy Movement - No Envy Movement - Updates+Discussion thread

[dgex_victim]

dgex victim.

I think the word you meant to use was retroactive.

And judging by your user name, and what you said, the vibe that I got from you is that you're the type of person that plays the victim very often in your daily life.

Like, the type of person who would cause a big stink if the person who took your McDonalds order forgot to add in the napkins.

So, you don't have anything to contribute other than insults? You can't make any valid criticisms of the points raised in my post?

Utopianfuture is probably above insults I think. I'll wait and see if he responds.

The term is used in situations where the law is changed, making a previously committed lawful act now unlawful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrospective

Utopianfuture made sensible modifications to the rules that took effect after they were announced. Meaning that it did not affect those who bought a stake prior to the modifications.

Wrong! You need to check the facts. The rule change was retrospective. People who registered with multiple accounts BEFORE the rule change have been taken of the stakeholder list.

[1713548578]

1713548578

[1713548578]

1713548578

[1713548578]

1713548578

[utopianfuture]

Selling all my (a bit less than 90 dont know the exact number but I will count it if you want to buy all) bitcointalk account all invested during nem IPO:

Altough I invested during the whole IPO period, all accounts invested different ammount of btc or nxt, I'm selling every one
account for 0.25 bitcoin / acc, no matter how much did I invest with that acc address, 0.008 or 0.075, all acc have the same price.
For those who want to buy all, im selling for 0.15 bitcoin / acc.

I know some other big nem sockpuppet stakeholders some with 1-5 and some with more than 20 acc, but im think I one of the biggest, 90 is a nice stake if you see the total is about 3k only.

The accounts were all signed up with different IP address, I used my Ukrainen VPN provider with Ukrainein IPs, so there are no 2 account where I logged with the same IP, every one have a different unique, I did this because afraid the bitcointalk admins can bann my accounts if they see many new created with the same IP, so all accounts are bann free.

There is no connection between the accounts and not in their addresses, I withdraw all the invested moneys from several exchanges to unique address, so even you can't find connection with taint analysis, maybe just find a common exchange address, but nothing more direct connection.

All acc have fake email, I dont have access to them, after you buy it you can change with the password, if you want to buy only a few acc I will give the username and password details via pm, if you want to buy all I uploading a text file.

With the 0.15 BTC price for the 90 acc, dont know how much one acc will get, but maybe calculate with 1 million nem in each.
So all with this price is 13.5 bitcoin, and you will have 90 million nem.
This will price 1 nem to 0.00000015 bitcoin or 0.00009$ (if you see 600$ / btc) this is a fair price for a new starting coin.

The last stakeholders paid 0.075 bitcoin, the higher price / acc is because now the IPO is closed, so the only way to buy nem stake before it launches is by buying accounts from who joined to the IPO, and almost nobody selling it.

For the haters: Yes I made sockpuppet accounts, but all of you reading this thread had the same opportunity to make more accounts, if you didnt than it means I took more risk than you, I invested a lot of time (1 week / constant 6-10 hours a day) and money to this IPO, and the OP post at the time the IPO started said if somebody invest that much time then he deserves it because believing in this coin.

Im living in Ukraine, so for personal reasons i need some fiat money instead of nothing now but I keep 5 or 10 btctalk nem accounts, because still thinking this coin have a future.

Write a PM to me!

This guy is perfectly entitled to sell his stakes. He did nothing wrong or against the rules at the time. The best argument in defence of multiple stakes comes from utopianfuture himself.

Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:40 pm
So I saw an attempt to accumulate NEM stakes by one person making 5 accounts in the same manner https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic ... msg4750698 which somewhat goes against our egalitarian principle so my first instinct is to refund him the money and allow the sockpuppet only one stake.

But I realized it is explicitly said in the front page that multiple buy-ins are allowed. So I added a qualification in the front page "the development team reserve the right to refund you the money if an effort to unfairly accumulate NEM stakes is discovered"; however this qualification is added retrospectively so I think I would have to let Mr. sockpuppet to keep all of his 5 stakes if he wants to.

I want the community input for this decision.

https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?t=678&p=3161#p3159

Retrospective changes to the NEM rules show a lack of honesty. How can you trust someone who changes the rules to gloss over a poorly thought out & implemented process? Utpoianfuture understood this when he made the statement above about Mr Sockpuppet.

I support the goals of NEM, but all this focus on hunting and shaming people who followed the rules at the time is appalling. Utopianfuture has enough 'supporters' eagerly waiting for their stake who'll attack me, but look at the facts. I believe utopianfuture is an honourable person, and I think he would admit the multiple stakeholder 'witch-hunt' only draws attention to his knee-jerk 'make it up as you go along' approach to NEM back in January.

Retrospective changes kill credibility. Retrospective changes kill trust.

What else might change in the future? An increase in the development stakes? A bonus to utopianfuture for all his hard work? He's changed the rules retrospectively before, so there is no guarantee what might change in the future.

The power of bitcoin is rooted in the fact that the 'rules' are fixed by the math & the algorithms.
The weakness of fiat comes from manipulation by those with power and control.

Retrospective rules - NEM's approach is more like fiat than bitcoin.

Your word is your bond, and utopianfuture broke his ORIGINAL word to cover up a very poorly designed process.

Remember, NEM started as a knee-jerk response to frictionlesscoin's NEX when utopianfuture was a big player in NXT. That explains why the process was not thought out, but it does not justify retrospective changes to the rules.

YES I agree the fundraising is not planned in advance and consequently not well thought. That's why the process is a "call for participation" not investment term.

The Development Contract Announcement is next week. That would be something well thought.

Now read this

Disclaimer:

- While we are committed to the idea of " Completely Fair Distribution - Equal Shares for ALL "; the fund raising terms are subject to changes upon the discretion of the development team.
- There is no refund. Nothing comes out of NEM's receiving addresses until the genesis block is launched. We are committed to move the project forward. However, in the unlikely event that the project disintegrates and no one picks it up, the remaining development fund will be sent to a charity of the community's choice.  
- No contractual promise is made to anyone.
- Be patient

So thank you for your competent opinion but yes I can certainly refund his money. There is no point to argue anymore.

[j23a]

dgex victim.

I think the word you meant to use was retroactive.

And judging by your user name, and what you said, the vibe that I got from you is that you're the type of person that plays the victim very often in your daily life.

Like, the type of person who would cause a big stink if the person who took your McDonalds order forgot to add in the napkins.

So, you don't have anything to contribute other than insults? You can't make any valid criticisms of the points raised in my post?

Utopianfuture is probably above insults I think. I'll wait and see if he responds.

The term is used in situations where the law is changed, making a previously committed lawful act now unlawful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrospective

Utopianfuture made sensible modifications to the rules that took effect after they were announced. Meaning that it did not affect those who bought a stake prior to the modifications.

Wrong! You need to check the facts. The rule change was retrospective. People who registered with multiple accounts BEFORE the rule change have been taken of the stakeholder list.

This is what I just read from the original thread, part 1.

"A total of 4 billion NEM will be distributed equally to all adopters. That means every stakeholder will have an equal and fair share of NEM when NEM blockchain officially starts. Then you can sell- buy NEM freely and let the market forces determine the price.

One Bitcointalk account is entitled one stake spot. If you send more than the required amount at one time or multiple times, we will consider it a donation to NEM. "

That doesn't sound like having sock puppet accounts is encouraged, but this is why I say people like you want to catch Utopianfuture on a technicality, because he didn't write a 30 page page note detailing in every way possible that sock puppet accounts are not allowed. It was something understood by anyone reading that on day one, except for the kinds of people who look for technicalities in order to sue other out of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars. The victims who play the victim card.

[jkoil]

Selling all my (a bit less than 90 dont know the exact number but I will count it if you want to buy all) bitcointalk account all invested during nem IPO:

Altough I invested during the whole IPO period, all accounts invested different ammount of btc or nxt, I'm selling every one
account for 0.25 bitcoin / acc, no matter how much did I invest with that acc address, 0.008 or 0.075, all acc have the same price.
For those who want to buy all, im selling for 0.15 bitcoin / acc.

I know some other big nem sockpuppet stakeholders some with 1-5 and some with more than 20 acc, but im think I one of the biggest, 90 is a nice stake if you see the total is about 3k only.

The accounts were all signed up with different IP address, I used my Ukrainen VPN provider with Ukrainein IPs, so there are no 2 account where I logged with the same IP, every one have a different unique, I did this because afraid the bitcointalk admins can bann my accounts if they see many new created with the same IP, so all accounts are bann free.

There is no connection between the accounts and not in their addresses, I withdraw all the invested moneys from several exchanges to unique address, so even you can't find connection with taint analysis, maybe just find a common exchange address, but nothing more direct connection.

All acc have fake email, I dont have access to them, after you buy it you can change with the password, if you want to buy only a few acc I will give the username and password details via pm, if you want to buy all I uploading a text file.

With the 0.15 BTC price for the 90 acc, dont know how much one acc will get, but maybe calculate with 1 million nem in each.
So all with this price is 13.5 bitcoin, and you will have 90 million nem.
This will price 1 nem to 0.00000015 bitcoin or 0.00009$ (if you see 600$ / btc) this is a fair price for a new starting coin.

The last stakeholders paid 0.075 bitcoin, the higher price / acc is because now the IPO is closed, so the only way to buy nem stake before it launches is by buying accounts from who joined to the IPO, and almost nobody selling it.

For the haters: Yes I made sockpuppet accounts, but all of you reading this thread had the same opportunity to make more accounts, if you didnt than it means I took more risk than you, I invested a lot of time (1 week / constant 6-10 hours a day) and money to this IPO, and the OP post at the time the IPO started said if somebody invest that much time then he deserves it because believing in this coin.

Im living in Ukraine, so for personal reasons i need some fiat money instead of nothing now but I keep 5 or 10 btctalk nem accounts, because still thinking this coin have a future.

Write a PM to me!

This guy is perfectly entitled to sell his stakes. He did nothing wrong or against the rules at the time. The best argument in defence of multiple stakes comes from utopianfuture himself.

Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:40 pm
So I saw an attempt to accumulate NEM stakes by one person making 5 accounts in the same manner https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic ... msg4750698 which somewhat goes against our egalitarian principle so my first instinct is to refund him the money and allow the sockpuppet only one stake.

But I realized it is explicitly said in the front page that multiple buy-ins are allowed. So I added a qualification in the front page "the development team reserve the right to refund you the money if an effort to unfairly accumulate NEM stakes is discovered"; however this qualification is added retrospectively so I think I would have to let Mr. sockpuppet to keep all of his 5 stakes if he wants to.

I want the community input for this decision.

https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?t=678&p=3161#p3159

Retrospective changes to the NEM rules show a lack of honesty. How can you trust someone who changes the rules to gloss over a poorly thought out & implemented process? Utpoianfuture understood this when he made the statement above about Mr Sockpuppet.

I support the goals of NEM, but all this focus on hunting and shaming people who followed the rules at the time is appalling. Utopianfuture has enough 'supporters' eagerly waiting for their stake who'll attack me, but look at the facts. I believe utopianfuture is an honourable person, and I think he would admit the multiple stakeholder 'witch-hunt' only draws attention to his knee-jerk 'make it up as you go along' approach to NEM back in January.

Retrospective changes kill credibility. Retrospective changes kill trust.

What else might change in the future? An increase in the development stakes? A bonus to utopianfuture for all his hard work? He's changed the rules retrospectively before, so there is no guarantee what might change in the future.

The power of bitcoin is rooted in the fact that the 'rules' are fixed by the math & the algorithms.
The weakness of fiat comes from manipulation by those with power and control.

Retrospective rules - NEM's approach is more like fiat than bitcoin.

Your word is your bond, and utopianfuture broke his ORIGINAL word to cover up a very poorly designed process.

Remember, NEM started as a knee-jerk response to frictionlesscoin's NEX when utopianfuture was a big player in NXT. That explains why the process was not thought out, but it does not justify retrospective changes to the rules.

It seems you have misunderstood something...

In the 1st announcement thread is :
"If you do not have a Bitcointalk account yet, you need to create one to reserve a stake spot."

I guess that can be understood as the basic rule?
"you" - "stake"
No 's' after "stake". What does it mean?

The changes in the rules have been kind of "must", coz people were stretching the rules. The changes in the rules have been used to make it more accurate, but in the limits of what is possible. The latter thing is such that it may bring surprises as we have seen. But those changes are not in conflict with the basic rule.
During the IPO the rules have not been changed to stricter. So, in that sense no one should have anything to complain, not even some caught sockpuppets
 

[dgex_victim]

Selling all my (a bit less than 90 dont know the exact number but I will count it if you want to buy all) bitcointalk account all invested during nem IPO:

Altough I invested during the whole IPO period, all accounts invested different ammount of btc or nxt, I'm selling every one
account for 0.25 bitcoin / acc, no matter how much did I invest with that acc address, 0.008 or 0.075, all acc have the same price.
For those who want to buy all, im selling for 0.15 bitcoin / acc.

I know some other big nem sockpuppet stakeholders some with 1-5 and some with more than 20 acc, but im think I one of the biggest, 90 is a nice stake if you see the total is about 3k only.

The accounts were all signed up with different IP address, I used my Ukrainen VPN provider with Ukrainein IPs, so there are no 2 account where I logged with the same IP, every one have a different unique, I did this because afraid the bitcointalk admins can bann my accounts if they see many new created with the same IP, so all accounts are bann free.

There is no connection between the accounts and not in their addresses, I withdraw all the invested moneys from several exchanges to unique address, so even you can't find connection with taint analysis, maybe just find a common exchange address, but nothing more direct connection.

All acc have fake email, I dont have access to them, after you buy it you can change with the password, if you want to buy only a few acc I will give the username and password details via pm, if you want to buy all I uploading a text file.

With the 0.15 BTC price for the 90 acc, dont know how much one acc will get, but maybe calculate with 1 million nem in each.
So all with this price is 13.5 bitcoin, and you will have 90 million nem.
This will price 1 nem to 0.00000015 bitcoin or 0.00009$ (if you see 600$ / btc) this is a fair price for a new starting coin.

The last stakeholders paid 0.075 bitcoin, the higher price / acc is because now the IPO is closed, so the only way to buy nem stake before it launches is by buying accounts from who joined to the IPO, and almost nobody selling it.

For the haters: Yes I made sockpuppet accounts, but all of you reading this thread had the same opportunity to make more accounts, if you didnt than it means I took more risk than you, I invested a lot of time (1 week / constant 6-10 hours a day) and money to this IPO, and the OP post at the time the IPO started said if somebody invest that much time then he deserves it because believing in this coin.

Im living in Ukraine, so for personal reasons i need some fiat money instead of nothing now but I keep 5 or 10 btctalk nem accounts, because still thinking this coin have a future.

Write a PM to me!

This guy is perfectly entitled to sell his stakes. He did nothing wrong or against the rules at the time. The best argument in defence of multiple stakes comes from utopianfuture himself.

Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:40 pm
So I saw an attempt to accumulate NEM stakes by one person making 5 accounts in the same manner https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic ... msg4750698 which somewhat goes against our egalitarian principle so my first instinct is to refund him the money and allow the sockpuppet only one stake.

But I realized it is explicitly said in the front page that multiple buy-ins are allowed. So I added a qualification in the front page "the development team reserve the right to refund you the money if an effort to unfairly accumulate NEM stakes is discovered"; however this qualification is added retrospectively so I think I would have to let Mr. sockpuppet to keep all of his 5 stakes if he wants to.

I want the community input for this decision.

https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?t=678&p=3161#p3159

Retrospective changes to the NEM rules show a lack of honesty. How can you trust someone who changes the rules to gloss over a poorly thought out & implemented process? Utpoianfuture understood this when he made the statement above about Mr Sockpuppet.

I support the goals of NEM, but all this focus on hunting and shaming people who followed the rules at the time is appalling. Utopianfuture has enough 'supporters' eagerly waiting for their stake who'll attack me, but look at the facts. I believe utopianfuture is an honourable person, and I think he would admit the multiple stakeholder 'witch-hunt' only draws attention to his knee-jerk 'make it up as you go along' approach to NEM back in January.

Retrospective changes kill credibility. Retrospective changes kill trust.

What else might change in the future? An increase in the development stakes? A bonus to utopianfuture for all his hard work? He's changed the rules retrospectively before, so there is no guarantee what might change in the future.

The power of bitcoin is rooted in the fact that the 'rules' are fixed by the math & the algorithms.
The weakness of fiat comes from manipulation by those with power and control.

Retrospective rules - NEM's approach is more like fiat than bitcoin.

Your word is your bond, and utopianfuture broke his ORIGINAL word to cover up a very poorly designed process.

Remember, NEM started as a knee-jerk response to frictionlesscoin's NEX when utopianfuture was a big player in NXT. That explains why the process was not thought out, but it does not justify retrospective changes to the rules.

YES I agree the fundraising is not planned in advance and consequently not well thought. That's why the process is a "call for participation" not investment term.

The Development Contract Announcement is next week. That would be something well thought.

Now read this

Disclaimer:

- While we are committed to the idea of " Completely Fair Distribution - Equal Shares for ALL "; the fund raising terms are subject to changes upon the discretion of the development team.
- There is no refund. Nothing comes out of NEM's receiving addresses until the genesis block is launched. We are committed to move the project forward. However, in the unlikely event that the project disintegrates and no one picks it up, the remaining development fund will be sent to a charity of the community's choice.  
- No contractual promise is made to anyone.
- Be patient

So thank you for your competent opinion but yes I can certainly refund his money. There is no point to argue anymore.

Thanks for the reply.

You inserted phrases like"the fund raising terms are subject to changes upon the discretion of the development team." AFTER some of the multiple accounts were created. That is dishonest.

One last time, this was YOUR opinion

Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:40 pm

But I realized it is explicitly said in the front page that multiple buy-ins are allowed. So I added a qualification in the front page "the development team reserve the right to refund you the money if an effort to unfairly accumulate NEM stakes is discovered"; however this qualification is added retrospectively so I think I would have to let Mr. sockpuppet to keep all of his 5 stakes if he wants to.

https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?t=678&p=3161#p3159

You can do whatever you want with NEM, and I honestly wish you success, but retrospectively changing the rules is dishonest. People created multiple accounts in good faith, and THEN you changed rules, added disclaimers and qualifications like the 5 account rule. That is a fact.

There is no point to argue anymore.

I agree, there is no point to argue, because NEM is your endeavour, and you can do whatever you like. But it doesn't change the sequence of events, and the net result.

You changed the wording of the relevant posts AFTER people created multiple accounts, and now weeks of effort has gone into trying to find the so called 'fraudsters' that have been vilified by your henchmen.

The people who created multiple accounts PRIOR to when you changed the rules didn't commit any fraud. BUT changing the rules retrospectively WAS dishonest IMO. No amount of 'spin' and re-writing posts can change that

[utopianfuture]

Selling all my (a bit less than 90 dont know the exact number but I will count it if you want to buy all) bitcointalk account all invested during nem IPO:

Altough I invested during the whole IPO period, all accounts invested different ammount of btc or nxt, I'm selling every one
account for 0.25 bitcoin / acc, no matter how much did I invest with that acc address, 0.008 or 0.075, all acc have the same price.
For those who want to buy all, im selling for 0.15 bitcoin / acc.

I know some other big nem sockpuppet stakeholders some with 1-5 and some with more than 20 acc, but im think I one of the biggest, 90 is a nice stake if you see the total is about 3k only.

The accounts were all signed up with different IP address, I used my Ukrainen VPN provider with Ukrainein IPs, so there are no 2 account where I logged with the same IP, every one have a different unique, I did this because afraid the bitcointalk admins can bann my accounts if they see many new created with the same IP, so all accounts are bann free.

There is no connection between the accounts and not in their addresses, I withdraw all the invested moneys from several exchanges to unique address, so even you can't find connection with taint analysis, maybe just find a common exchange address, but nothing more direct connection.

All acc have fake email, I dont have access to them, after you buy it you can change with the password, if you want to buy only a few acc I will give the username and password details via pm, if you want to buy all I uploading a text file.

With the 0.15 BTC price for the 90 acc, dont know how much one acc will get, but maybe calculate with 1 million nem in each.
So all with this price is 13.5 bitcoin, and you will have 90 million nem.
This will price 1 nem to 0.00000015 bitcoin or 0.00009$ (if you see 600$ / btc) this is a fair price for a new starting coin.

The last stakeholders paid 0.075 bitcoin, the higher price / acc is because now the IPO is closed, so the only way to buy nem stake before it launches is by buying accounts from who joined to the IPO, and almost nobody selling it.

For the haters: Yes I made sockpuppet accounts, but all of you reading this thread had the same opportunity to make more accounts, if you didnt than it means I took more risk than you, I invested a lot of time (1 week / constant 6-10 hours a day) and money to this IPO, and the OP post at the time the IPO started said if somebody invest that much time then he deserves it because believing in this coin.

Im living in Ukraine, so for personal reasons i need some fiat money instead of nothing now but I keep 5 or 10 btctalk nem accounts, because still thinking this coin have a future.

Write a PM to me!

This guy is perfectly entitled to sell his stakes. He did nothing wrong or against the rules at the time. The best argument in defence of multiple stakes comes from utopianfuture himself.

Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:40 pm
So I saw an attempt to accumulate NEM stakes by one person making 5 accounts in the same manner https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic ... msg4750698 which somewhat goes against our egalitarian principle so my first instinct is to refund him the money and allow the sockpuppet only one stake.

But I realized it is explicitly said in the front page that multiple buy-ins are allowed. So I added a qualification in the front page "the development team reserve the right to refund you the money if an effort to unfairly accumulate NEM stakes is discovered"; however this qualification is added retrospectively so I think I would have to let Mr. sockpuppet to keep all of his 5 stakes if he wants to.

I want the community input for this decision.

https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?t=678&p=3161#p3159

Retrospective changes to the NEM rules show a lack of honesty. How can you trust someone who changes the rules to gloss over a poorly thought out & implemented process? Utpoianfuture understood this when he made the statement above about Mr Sockpuppet.

I support the goals of NEM, but all this focus on hunting and shaming people who followed the rules at the time is appalling. Utopianfuture has enough 'supporters' eagerly waiting for their stake who'll attack me, but look at the facts. I believe utopianfuture is an honourable person, and I think he would admit the multiple stakeholder 'witch-hunt' only draws attention to his knee-jerk 'make it up as you go along' approach to NEM back in January.

Retrospective changes kill credibility. Retrospective changes kill trust.

What else might change in the future? An increase in the development stakes? A bonus to utopianfuture for all his hard work? He's changed the rules retrospectively before, so there is no guarantee what might change in the future.

The power of bitcoin is rooted in the fact that the 'rules' are fixed by the math & the algorithms.
The weakness of fiat comes from manipulation by those with power and control.

Retrospective rules - NEM's approach is more like fiat than bitcoin.

Your word is your bond, and utopianfuture broke his ORIGINAL word to cover up a very poorly designed process.

Remember, NEM started as a knee-jerk response to frictionlesscoin's NEX when utopianfuture was a big player in NXT. That explains why the process was not thought out, but it does not justify retrospective changes to the rules.

YES I agree the fundraising is not planned in advance and consequently not well thought. That's why the process is a "call for participation" not investment term.

The Development Contract Announcement is next week. That would be something well thought.

Now read this

Disclaimer:

- While we are committed to the idea of " Completely Fair Distribution - Equal Shares for ALL "; the fund raising terms are subject to changes upon the discretion of the development team.
- There is no refund. Nothing comes out of NEM's receiving addresses until the genesis block is launched. We are committed to move the project forward. However, in the unlikely event that the project disintegrates and no one picks it up, the remaining development fund will be sent to a charity of the community's choice.  
- No contractual promise is made to anyone.
- Be patient

So thank you for your competent opinion but yes I can certainly refund his money. There is no point to argue anymore.

Thanks for the reply.

You inserted phrases like"the fund raising terms are subject to changes upon the discretion of the development team." AFTER some of the multiple accounts were created. That is dishonest.

One last time, this was YOUR opinion

Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:40 pm

But I realized it is explicitly said in the front page that multiple buy-ins are allowed. So I added a qualification in the front page "the development team reserve the right to refund you the money if an effort to unfairly accumulate NEM stakes is discovered"; however this qualification is added retrospectively so I think I would have to let Mr. sockpuppet to keep all of his 5 stakes if he wants to.

https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?t=678&p=3161#p3159

You can do whatever you want with NEM, and I honestly wish you success, but retrospectively changing the rules is dishonest. People created multiple accounts in good faith, and THEN you changed rules, added disclaimers and qualifications like the 5 account rule. That is a fact.

There is no point to argue anymore.

I agree, there is no point to argue, because NEM is your endeavour, and you can do whatever you like. But it doesn't change the sequence of events, and the net result.

You changed the wording of the relevant posts AFTER people created multiple accounts, and now weeks of effort has gone into trying to find the so called 'fraudsters' that have been vilified by your henchman.

The people who created multiple accounts PRIOR to when you changed the rules didn't commit any fraud. BUT changing the rules retrospectively WAS dishonest IMO. No amount of 'spin' and re-writing posts can change that

This is dishonest characterization. It is never condoned or encouraged in anyway to register multiple stakes.

Why did you not bring the full quote here

"So I saw an attempt to accumulate NEM stakes by one person making 5 accounts in the same manner https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic ... msg4750698 which somewhat goes against our egalitarian principle so my first instinct is to refund him the money and allow the sockpuppet only one stake."

What do you think "egalitarian principle" means in this context ? Why did I make that post if the act is explicitly or implicitly allowed ?

And YES I changed a few rules as we moved ahead but the key principle in building NEM community never changed. That's what counts in the end.

[dgex_victim]

This is dishonest characterization. It is never condoned or encouraged in anyway to register multiple stakes.

Why did you not bring the full quote here

"So I saw an attempt to accumulate NEM stakes by one person making 5 accounts in the same manner https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic ... msg4750698 which somewhat goes against our egalitarian principle so my first instinct is to refund him the money and allow the sockpuppet only one stake."

What do you think "egalitarian principle" means in this context ?

I quoted you in full in my first post.

I have no problem with your "egalitarian principles", but I do have a problem with how you changed the rules. You may not have encouraged or condoned multiple accounts, and I did agree with the rule change, but the people who created multiple accounts BEFORE you changed the wording of your posts did nothing wrong.

Those people have been labelled as fraudsters unfairly. They should be allowed into NEM.

[Kmonk]

This is what I just read from the original thread, part 1.

"A total of 4 billion NEM will be distributed equally to all adopters. That means every stakeholder will have an equal and fair share of NEM when NEM blockchain officially starts. Then you can sell- buy NEM freely and let the market forces determine the price.

One Bitcointalk account is entitled one stake spot. If you send more than the required amount at one time or multiple times, we will consider it a donation to NEM. "

That doesn't sound like having sock puppet accounts is encouraged, but this is why I say people like you want to catch Utopianfuture on a technicality, because he didn't write a 30 page page note detailing in every way possible that sock puppet accounts are not allowed. It was something understood by anyone reading that on day one, except for the kinds of people who look for technicalities in order to sue other out of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars. The victims who play the victim card.

I'm in total agreement, the message is clear and is just simply common sense, which seems to be on short supply more often than not!

[jkoil]

This is dishonest characterization. It is never condoned or encouraged in anyway to register multiple stakes.

Why did you not bring the full quote here

"So I saw an attempt to accumulate NEM stakes by one person making 5 accounts in the same manner https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic ... msg4750698 which somewhat goes against our egalitarian principle so my first instinct is to refund him the money and allow the sockpuppet only one stake."

What do you think "egalitarian principle" means in this context ?

I quoted you in full in my first post.

I have no problem with your "egalitarian principles", but I do have a problem with how you changed the rules. You may not have encouraged or condoned multiple accounts, and I did agree with the rule change, but the people who created multiple accounts BEFORE you changed the wording of your posts did nothing wrong.

Those people have been labelled as fraudsters unfairly. They should be allowed into NEM.

You still don't understand...
there has not been talked about stakes, only a stake, and for each "you", not for each of your accounts.
The rule changes didn't change that thing.

[zsuhsl]

I would consider slow release but I currently prefer releasing all NEM at once on the launch day. Besides the fact it is easier logistically, it would be very interesting economic experiment for every one. Imagine 3000 accounts are created the same time at launch and each receives 1 million NEM equally and they all start to send/ gift/ exchange hysterically etc. The distribution curve is a flat line at the beginning and start to move over time. Who will sell, who will buy and how much ? Isn't it interesting ? Why should we ruin such a beautiful beginning? NEM launch day should feel like the BIG BANG in the NEM universe so I suggest we should take a breath and watch it unfold in wonder. There is no need to over-engineer a BIG BANG.

Personally I'm expecting huge dump on first days/ weeks after release, but assuming that we are heading about 10M USD cap market everyone knows when to buy.
Indeed it's going to be very exciting experiment - how egalitarianism (distributio) works in practice
Anyway I hope that in a one year time we will become kind of bitcoiners. That's our unbearable destiny.
 What about 1B market cap? Can you imagine that?

I hope the value of NEM is steadily increasing,not like bitcioin prices over the past few years  was huge pump or dump......

[dgex_victim]

IMO utopianfuture made the rule change with this post

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=422129.msg4809186#msg4809186

January 29, 2014, 12:52:47 AM
Thanks for all who support NEM. This post is page 80 cut-off. Please check the front page because a counter- sockpuppet measure has been introduced.

" Counter sockpuppet measure: Sending address could be checked and if there were already two payments made to NEM's addresses before, then the third payment would be considered donation. This measure comes into effect at page 81 and does not apply retroactively. So DO NOT SEND the fee to NEM from an exchange, you would need to withdraw to your account first. Thanks for your understanding. "

In addition, meme promotion for stake spot is temporarily stopped. But remember that NEM still love memes.   

That should be the cut-off date for multiple account witch-hunt - AFTER  January 29.

[utopianfuture]

IMO utopianfuture made the rule change with this post

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=422129.msg4809186#msg4809186

January 29, 2014, 12:52:47 AM
Thanks for all who support NEM. This post is page 80 cut-off. Please check the front page because a counter- sockpuppet measure has been introduced.

" Counter sockpuppet measure: Sending address could be checked and if there were already two payments made to NEM's addresses before, then the third payment would be considered donation. This measure comes into effect at page 81 and does not apply retroactively. So DO NOT SEND the fee to NEM from an exchange, you would need to withdraw to your account first. Thanks for your understanding. "

In addition, meme promotion for stake spot is temporarily stopped. But remember that NEM still love memes.  

That should be the cut-off date for multiple account witch-hunt - AFTER  January 29.

That's one measure. Unfortunately for you, we do have some more new measures such as taint analysis + activity analysis to detect people with many accounts. I would consider applying them retrospectively is similar to applying DNA testing to samples from raping cases occurred before the invention of DNA testing. In both instances, they are quite useful, don't you think ?  

[dgex_victim]

IMO utopianfuture made the rule change with this post

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=422129.msg4809186#msg4809186

January 29, 2014, 12:52:47 AM
Thanks for all who support NEM. This post is page 80 cut-off. Please check the front page because a counter- sockpuppet measure has been introduced.

" Counter sockpuppet measure: Sending address could be checked and if there were already two payments made to NEM's addresses before, then the third payment would be considered donation. This measure comes into effect at page 81 and does not apply retroactively. So DO NOT SEND the fee to NEM from an exchange, you would need to withdraw to your account first. Thanks for your understanding. "

In addition, meme promotion for stake spot is temporarily stopped. But remember that NEM still love memes.  

That should be the cut-off date for multiple account witch-hunt - AFTER  January 29.

That's one measure. Unfortunately for you, we do have some more new measures such as taint analysis + activity analysis to detect people with many accounts. I would consider applying them retrospectively is similar to applying DNA testing to samples from raping cases occurred before the invention of DNA testing. In both instances, they are quite useful, don't you think ?  

The fact that you're still trying to spin your way out of this is incredible. No doubt your intentions are well meaning, but what does the statement below mean?

This measure comes into effect at page 81 and does not apply retroactively

edit: no doubt you reserve the right to add new counter measures for other 'crimes' later. that is the problem. you are the NEM dictator

[utopianfuture]

IMO utopianfuture made the rule change with this post

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=422129.msg4809186#msg4809186

January 29, 2014, 12:52:47 AM
Thanks for all who support NEM. This post is page 80 cut-off. Please check the front page because a counter- sockpuppet measure has been introduced.

" Counter sockpuppet measure: Sending address could be checked and if there were already two payments made to NEM's addresses before, then the third payment would be considered donation. This measure comes into effect at page 81 and does not apply retroactively. So DO NOT SEND the fee to NEM from an exchange, you would need to withdraw to your account first. Thanks for your understanding. "

In addition, meme promotion for stake spot is temporarily stopped. But remember that NEM still love memes.  

That should be the cut-off date for multiple account witch-hunt - AFTER  January 29.

That's one measure. Unfortunately for you, we do have some more new measures such as taint analysis + activity analysis to detect people with many accounts. I would consider applying them retrospectively is similar to applying DNA testing to samples from raping cases occurred before the invention of DNA testing. In both instances, they are quite useful, don't you think ?  

The fact that you're still trying to spin your way out of this is incredible. No doubt your intentions are well meaning, but what does the statement below mean?

This measure comes into effect at page 81 and does not apply retroactively

edit: no doubt you reserve the right to add new counter measures for other 'crimes' later. that is the problem. you are the NEM dictator

Right we did not use that measure cos taint analysis is more effective. Hi sockpuppet, what is your real account, BTW?

[dwma]

I sometimes visit this thread but there hadn't been much lately.. was never much new cept logos.  I was a lot more active early on.  I gave some advice early on, showed utopianfuture how to save a full thread at once to check for people who might try to change their post in an illegal manner.  I come back 100+ pages later and it seems like the same argument.   Frankly it is a bit sad to me.  You guys were talking about wanting from people out of the crypto world joining, now you seem to want to banish them if they haven't been actively posting on their account they had to get to sign up on.  I was messing with NXT but I was a bit disheartened by some recent occurrings and come over here to see how NEM is coming along.  I wish I could say I feel better  Unfortunately it is more of the same...  


Yes you're going to get a lot socket puppets weeded out..  I wonder though, is it worth it to get rid of 10 socket puppets from 1 guy if it means catching 2 legitimate people that were told by their buddy to sign up ?

[utopianfuture]

I sometimes visit this thread but there hadn't been much lately.. was never much new cept logos.  I was a lot more active early on.  I gave some advice early on, showed utopianfuture how to save a full thread at once to check for people who might try to change their post in an illegal manner.  I come back 100+ pages later and it seems like the same argument.   Frankly it is a bit sad to me.  You guys were talking about wanting from people out of the crypto world joining, now you seem to want to banish them if they haven't been actively posting on their account they had to get to sign up on.  I was messing with NXT but I was a bit disheartened by some recent occurrings and come over here to see how NEM is coming along.  I wish I could say I feel better  Unfortunately it is more of the same...  


Yes you're going to get a lot socket puppets weeded out..  I wonder though, is it worth it to get rid of 10 socket puppets from 1 guy if it means catching 2 legitimate people that were told by their buddy to sign up ?

New sock puppet appear from times to times making the same argument so I rehashed what I said before. It has been a couple of times. It is going to be over soon.

No chance of catching people who are actually supportive and useful to our cause.

[dgex_victim]

IMO utopianfuture made the rule change with this post

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=422129.msg4809186#msg4809186

January 29, 2014, 12:52:47 AM
Thanks for all who support NEM. This post is page 80 cut-off. Please check the front page because a counter- sockpuppet measure has been introduced.

" Counter sockpuppet measure: Sending address could be checked and if there were already two payments made to NEM's addresses before, then the third payment would be considered donation. This measure comes into effect at page 81 and does not apply retroactively. So DO NOT SEND the fee to NEM from an exchange, you would need to withdraw to your account first. Thanks for your understanding. "

In addition, meme promotion for stake spot is temporarily stopped. But remember that NEM still love memes.  

That should be the cut-off date for multiple account witch-hunt - AFTER  January 29.

That's one measure. Unfortunately for you, we do have some more new measures such as taint analysis + activity analysis to detect people with many accounts. I would consider applying them retrospectively is similar to applying DNA testing to samples from raping cases occurred before the invention of DNA testing. In both instances, they are quite useful, don't you think ?  

The fact that you're still trying to spin your way out of this is incredible. No doubt your intentions are well meaning, but what does the statement below mean?

This measure comes into effect at page 81 and does not apply retroactively

edit: no doubt you reserve the right to add new counter measures for other 'crimes' later. that is the problem. you are the NEM dictator

Right we did not use that measure cos taint analysis is more effective. Hi sockpuppet, what is your real account, BTW?

Yes, taint analysis is effective at linking accounts from those people who weren't trying to hide (people who registered before you announced the anti-sockpuppet rules on January 29 that should only apply to people registering AFTER page 81).

I think most people who registered multiple accounts after January 29 would have hidden themselves, because after January 29 they were being fraudulent, because your anti-sockpuppet rules had taken effect..

As for me, I was 'interested' before payment was required, and I suspect if I posted from my regular account you might invent a retrospective counter measure against me for being critical.


I really am a supporter of NEM, but I think you have made a tactical error with your marketing message to trade on the "NEM is about fairness, and no envy", and then proceed to spend so much time and effort on doing something unfair.  

[j23a]

This is what I just read from the original thread, part 1.

"A total of 4 billion NEM will be distributed equally to all adopters. That means every stakeholder will have an equal and fair share of NEM when NEM blockchain officially starts. Then you can sell- buy NEM freely and let the market forces determine the price.

One Bitcointalk account is entitled one stake spot. If you send more than the required amount at one time or multiple times, we will consider it a donation to NEM. "

That doesn't sound like having sock puppet accounts is encouraged, but this is why I say people like you want to catch Utopianfuture on a technicality, because he didn't write a 30 page page note detailing in every way possible that sock puppet accounts are not allowed. It was something understood by anyone reading that on day one, except for the kinds of people who look for technicalities in order to sue other out of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars. The victims who play the victim card.

I'm in total agreement, the message is clear and is just simply common sense, which seems to be on short supply more often than not!

He's basically just a self focused person who is thinking that everyone is being completely unfair because they're telling him that he can't grab most of the toys for himself.

I mean the adults have much bigger things to worry about regarding Nem, but he insists on trying to convince people that he deserves more than everybody else, and that we all must feel that way and drop everything.

If things were the way he demands, then why didn't Utopianfuture not just make it so that a person could buy an unlimited number of Nems, from one account? If a person wanted 20,000,000 Nems, then just pay the asking price per Nem. It would certainly have made life easier for himself, by not having to keep track of 3,000.

But he wants to insist that he's a victim by saying that even though it's what was implied and obvious by anyone with common sense that they were trying to give one stake per person.

[Chris001]

What do we call a person who keeps posting the same points over and over?

They don't really want anything?

They are doing/saying things they know will upset people?

The posts they make are designed to make others
 try refute what they are saying, only to ignore all facts stated that try to dispel their "concerns"

And they use a sockpuppet to do so.

Is there a term for this type of person??

[dgex_victim]

This is what I just read from the original thread, part 1.

"A total of 4 billion NEM will be distributed equally to all adopters. That means every stakeholder will have an equal and fair share of NEM when NEM blockchain officially starts. Then you can sell- buy NEM freely and let the market forces determine the price.

One Bitcointalk account is entitled one stake spot. If you send more than the required amount at one time or multiple times, we will consider it a donation to NEM. "

That doesn't sound like having sock puppet accounts is encouraged, but this is why I say people like you want to catch Utopianfuture on a technicality, because he didn't write a 30 page page note detailing in every way possible that sock puppet accounts are not allowed. It was something understood by anyone reading that on day one, except for the kinds of people who look for technicalities in order to sue other out of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars. The victims who play the victim card.

I'm in total agreement, the message is clear and is just simply common sense, which seems to be on short supply more often than not!

He's basically just a self focused person who is thinking that everyone is being completely unfair because they're telling him that he can't grab most of the toys for himself.

I mean the adults have much bigger things to worry about regarding Nem, but he insists on trying to convince people that he deserves more than everybody else, and that we all must feel that way and drop everything.

If things were the way he demands, then why didn't Utopianfuture not just make it so that a person could buy an unlimited number of Nems, from one account? If a person wanted 20,000,000 Nems, then just pay the asking price per Nem. It would certainly have made life easier for himself, by not having to keep track of 3,000.

But he wants to insist that he's a victim by saying that even though it's what was implied and obvious by anyone with common sense that they were trying to give one stake per person.

I am not affected by any of this personally as I only registered one stake before payments were necessary, so your personal remarks against me are incorrect.

I'm just disheartened by all the effort that's gone into hunting sockpuppets, and as a neutral observer I think it's obvious what the correct interpretation should be based on the sequence of events.

Before January 29 multiple accounts were within the rules.

After January 29 they were not within the rules.

Today a guy made a post offering to sell some of his multiple stakes and people automatically attacked him. If he registered those stakes before January 29 those attacks are not fair.

Today I got sick of the spin and said something, and so I get attacked by NEM stooges. Predictable, but still frustrating.