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

[patmast3r]

How about we will check the sending address, if this address has sent money to NEM account before then the money sent will be considered a donation ?

Agreed, but I still think it should be done before page 81.  It's not much, but at least it means using mutliple BCT.org accounts and multiple funding acounts.  

Also let's hear other opinions from the community.

I don't want to sound negative but the fair distribution is pretty much all that sets NEM apart from NXT. Sockpuppets could render this moot and are therefore a serious problem that I think should be dealt with not matter what page we're at.

[gvans]

Little refreshment between sockpuppet debate  
Which one do you like better? I was rethinking my proposal for symbol. Now it may resemble more the infinity-sign rather than dollar. I will update 3d and graphics if I come to that conclusion...

[SZZT]

Also let's hear other opinions from the community.

It is on page 76 now so we better be quick. My proposition :

• Keep fee as is, or add a fixed amount for every x pages to ensure growth of project

but

• Add rule that promotion elsewhere (FB, Twiter, G+) must be made by an account that has been registered & active since Jan 01 at least

Fee should not change in a radical way, people will be upset
but promoting with original (and older than the project) social media accounts can hinder sockpuppets

[hyunsookmom]

How about we will check the sending address, if this address has sent money to NEM account before then the money sent will be considered a donation ?

Agreed, but I still think it should be done before page 81.  It's not much, but at least it means using mutliple BCT.org accounts and multiple funding acounts.  

Also let's hear other opinions from the community.

I don't want to sound negative but the fair distribution is pretty much all that sets NEM apart from NXT. Sockpuppets could render this moot and are therefore a serious problem that I think should be dealt with not matter what page we're at.

I think you underestimate the unfairness of NXT distribution. Literally the power was in a handful of peoples hands and some could argue that they were 'in' on the release so there was very little public opportunity at all. NEM has that access, no its not perfect but is mining perfect?

[Sebastien256]

Also let's hear other opinions from the community.

It is on page 76 now so we better be quick. My proposition :

• Keep fee as is, or add a fixed amount for every x pages to ensure growth of project

but

• Add rule that promotion elsewhere (FB, Twiter, G+) must be made by an account that has been registered & active since Jan 01 at least

Fee should not change in a radical way, people will be upset
but promoting with original (and older than the project) social media accounts can hinder sockpuppets

I believe, you have to allow new account to ask for a spot, new user is good! but what we need to do is make it harder for sockpuppet to get more share. That will increase fairness, it is impossible to be 100% fair anyway.

[SZZT]

It is on page 76 now so we better be quick. My proposition :

• Keep fee as is, or add a fixed amount for every x pages to ensure growth of project

but

• Add rule that promotion elsewhere (FB, Twiter, G+) must be made by an account that has been registered & active since Jan 01 at least

Fee should not change in a radical way, people will be upset
but promoting with original (and older than the project) social media accounts can hinder sockpuppets

I believe, you have to allow new account to ask for a spot, new user is good! but what we need to do is make it harder for sockpuppet to get more share. That will increase fairness, it is impossible to be 100% fair anyway.

Registered and active in facebook, twitter etc, not BTC.org.
My bad, i'll edit my original post

[VOLTertor]

After checking both the nxt wallet and the bitcoin wallet I am a bit confused. There are less than 800 transactions combined. Some of the bitcoin transactions don't seem to be from buy-ins, so even less. The stakeholder doc lists well over 1000 users. Am I missing something or just being paranoid? It's almost like a bunch of those sock puppet accounts never actually sent any funds.

1.) You forgot the 200 free initial "interested" investors in the first 20 page...

2.) If you want to use a new "dictated" law for those who registered and sent the money before you "dictated" it will just simply kill the coin, you can't see any similar regulation what applied in the past, even according to most countries law's if there would be a new punishment law you can't apply the new one to the criminals who did something before the law created.

3.) If you really wan't to apply the new "law" to the old investors why don't just delete the first 200 "interested" page investors? That was unfair for my opinion, the new ones even sockpuppets with 2-5 account are sending true money, not just some post.... interested lol.

4.) You here all see all  this wrong, I have some friend who just came and created a btcorg acount just for THIS, you want to kill their chaches to be involved in the crypto world, you just want bigger shares for you old veterans. Even there were some cheat there like sockpuppet_1...2 and admiral_fu's methods, or the guy who sent his 5 or more hashes with strong font, yeah its a bit interesting but what if the newcomer just saw that and he thought OOH yeas I need to write the transaction with B. You can't prove it was cheat.

5.) Or what if the transaction came from the same XCHANGEor COLD WALLET, I think there are far more less sockpuppet account that you assume, I think its not more than 20, thats nothing for 4000 investors.

6.) If you would make some post restriction like 10, it would kill this coin for the newscomers, that would be the true sockpuppet account battle, only the old time veteran btcorg forumers would participate.

7.) Promotion for entry isn't a good idea though, crypto is half means anonymous, you won't post on your FB to tell everybody where you save your money online...

The best what you could do is to stop it after 2000 investor, I don't think this could reach 4000. Thats a hell lot eve if its cheap now, even NXT had 73 investor what worked for 2 months.
And 2000 investor is a lot, you could say about this coin it distributed well.

[hyunsookmom]

How about we will check the sending address, if this address has sent money to NEM account before then the money sent will be considered a donation ?

Agreed, but I still think it should be done before page 81.  It's not much, but at least it means using mutliple BCT.org accounts and multiple funding acounts.  

Also let's hear other opinions from the community.

Problem
If you do anything retroactively its tricky cause you have already allowed a guy with accounts called 'sockpuppet-1' etc and said multiple accounts were allowed. People will cry foul then you'll have a headache of complaining people. I don't want my NEM diluted too much but I'm still happy at the idea of getting 1M. I was so annoyed I didn't get in on NXT, the distribution was crazy with some with 50M etc that's the same as like 200 accounts of NEM due to it having less coins overall. Even the most dedicated sock puppets maker couldnt do that, and if they do then maybe they deserve it!

*snip

Only people with multiple accounts would complain. Too bad for them, that is the point.

But multiple accounts was 'allowed' in the first statement, I think my issue is if you change the game rules half way your going to get a lot of people pissed. With sock puppet accounts you get annoyed complainers upset with the idea that somone has more than them. But changing the rules halfway could seriously give the coin bad PR from the start. People here should be careful not to complain too much cause if they do they will destroy the coin then no one benefits, its hard to promote a coin on the idea of no envy when you have a ton of people full of envy on the forums

I also think you just not going to get too many massive holders. The majority will have one stake...hopefully.

[SZZT]

Which one do you like better?

With which one are you entering the competition?

Isn't that there is a competion in the first place?
Are you asking us which one we would like you to submit?

[patmast3r]

How about we will check the sending address, if this address has sent money to NEM account before then the money sent will be considered a donation ?

Agreed, but I still think it should be done before page 81.  It's not much, but at least it means using mutliple BCT.org accounts and multiple funding acounts.  

Also let's hear other opinions from the community.

Problem
If you do anything retroactively its tricky cause you have already allowed a guy with accounts called 'sockpuppet-1' etc and said multiple accounts were allowed. People will cry foul then you'll have a headache of complaining people. I don't want my NEM diluted too much but I'm still happy at the idea of getting 1M. I was so annoyed I didn't get in on NXT, the distribution was crazy with some with 50M etc that's the same as like 200 accounts of NEM due to it having less coins overall. Even the most dedicated sock puppets maker couldnt do that, and if they do then maybe they deserve it!

*snip

Only people with multiple accounts would complain. Too bad for them, that is the point.

But multiple accounts was 'allowed' in the first statement, I think my issue is if you change the game rules half way your going to get a lot of people pissed. With sock puppet accounts you get annoyed complainers upset with the idea that somone has more than them. But changing the rules halfway could seriously give the coin bad PR from the start. People here should be careful not to complain too much cause if they do they will destroy the coin then no one benefits, its hard to promote a coin on the idea of no envy when you have a ton of people full of envy on the forums

I also think you just not going to get too many massive holders. The majority will have one stake...hopefully.

It's never too late to correct a mistake.

Also it never said it was allowed. OP only said that they are not able to counter it properly. OP also stated that there could be changes so I don't see the problem.

[SZZT]

But multiple accounts was 'allowed' in the first statement.

No it was not, there was some -less than optimal wording- and people skew it to suit their perspective.

And the disclaimer about the dev team and the discrete power they posses to change the rules has been there since day one.
The fact that this has to be as fair as possible does not mean we should accept wrongdoing in front of our eyes.

[hyunsookmom]

The guy who did the sock puppet account genuinely thought it was ok, the wording was changed later. At the beginning it clearly said they would allow it.


As a side point the problem of sock puppet accounts has really only developed recently. You look along the earlier threads and most are longer term members. I think the issue needs to be tackled just not retroactively. I wish you could remove easily all fake accounts but I am also thinking that too much issue made about them devalues all our stakes so I'm wary to not make it into a bigger issue than it is. Like I said you can't really stop it, what you can do is slow them down and I would argue also for putting price up more...a 10 post count would solve it completely, I don't see the issue really if that is implemented right away.

[Zoella]

The guy who did the sock puppet account genuinely thought it was ok, the wording was changed later. At the beginning it clearly said they would allow it.

I came late, but my impression from reading was that multiple accounts was not condoned, but that it just couldn't be stopped.

[wakasaki808]

The guy who did the sock puppet account genuinely thought it was ok, the wording was changed later. At the beginning it clearly said they would allow it.

This was correct (at least early on), utopian stated...

2. I won't prevent multiple buy-in. It is impossible to prevent people making two- three accounts and register for them. But it won't matter much as our user bases would be huge. Furthermore, it takes time to make multiple accounts. It takes time to manage multiple accounts. Later on you would need to provide me passwords on these accounts. That's a lot of work already and if someone can go through all of that they have shown a lot of interest in NEM and probably deserve their stakes. And at this point, more accounts means more development fund to NEM. So I don't see the need to prevent multiple buy-in. It is very different from someone putting 10.000 NXT in and buy 10% stake of NEM. I very much doubt anyone can have more than 5-6 buy-ins. I hope this explanation clears the worry about double buy-in.

[TeseracT]

The fairness problem is not even real. If it is true, that there are only few dozens of real people, then NEM is obviously uninteresting for the rest of members with history and every member in community would get dozens of millions, which is actually more dangerous and more centralized distribution. Right now it is totally fair. Everyone can buy more times, great, go and buy. What is the problem? Its not about money, because stakes are damn cheap, (you can even earn it by mentioning NEM in some forum) so at the end most stakes will have those that "work hardest" to earn them. What is unfair about it? Where you gonna find the rest of 4000 people (with BTC.org history of course)?
Maybe if you reduce new accounts, your stake will be 100 000 000 right? Now that is fair.

BTW. I agree with demanding promotion as mandatory, that way it would be still about effort. More effort, more stakes, still fair.

[hyunsookmom]

The guy who did the sock puppet account genuinely thought it was ok, the wording was changed later. At the beginning it clearly said they would allow it.

I came late, but my impression from reading was that multiple accounts was not condoned, but that it just couldn't be stopped.

My memory was hey you can't stop it so we will just have to allow it. My point is some then without feeling like they were gaming the system did multiple accounts like the sock puppet guy. The it was re-worded to say we have the right to disallow multiple accounts. There was definitely a re-wording, I could be wrong on the nuance of that re-wording though..

I mentioned the sock puppet account guy not due to if it was ok or not but the fact it was discussed at the time and the accounts were included knowing full well they were the same guy. So my point was if you then go back on that you need to change what was previously done and accepted. That was actually my point. So my point was will it make things worse not better if we go back and change things, its a different point to what should be done from this point on. From this point on I think you got to create barriers cause the sock puppet thing is getting crazy. Most additions now are first posters.

I said it before and I'll say it again, simply have a 10 post minimum, that enough of a hurdle for gamers and not too much of one for those who are genuinely first time users. Its incredibly simple imo.

[Simakki]

It would be cool to just ask totally new members with zero post to commit some promotion etc.
If You really want to be a part of this, it wouldnt be huge problem i think. Like put some promo to twitter etc..

[Sebastien256]

It would be cool to just ask totally new members with zero post to commit some promotion etc.
If You really want to be a part of this, it wouldnt be huge problem i think. Like put some promo to twitter etc..

Ho well, that is nice idea. Seriously, i like it. Only new member.that will slow down sockpuppet. It is a kind of fair compromise. That way sockpuppet will be use to promote NEM  .

[Thies1965]

- I will also change the account numbers to be more bitcoin-like

Will you be using the proposed Reed-Solomon encoding ricot and NxtChg are working on for Nxt?

I'm thinking a different format would be better, so that NEM addresses can't (in general) be interpreted as NXT addresses by clients and vice-versa. There are simpler encoding schemes (linear codes) which can also do character typo detection and correction (but, unlike Reed-Solomon, not for character omission), and which don't require field algebra. They can be easily implemented from scratch without using 3rd party libraries.

I can expand on this if there's interest.

I would like to throw in another aspect which might be important for broader acceptance.
We try to spread NEM to a much broader base of user types.

We have all senior users in respect to crypto currencies on focus but also we would like to draw in NEWBIEs to crypto.

In long discussions, I have with friends and also with private equity consultants, the most NEWBIEs fear (beside loosing money, sure..) is to tackle with technical issues they are not capable to understand (or willing) nor to solve. So NEM has to provide an understandable and easy way for those NEWBIEs. Cryptic long numbers do not help them to understand whether they have a BITCOIN; NXT or whatever wallet address.

IMHO, the public address for NEM has to reflect some clear indicators that we do have a NEM account here.

[hyunsookmom]

It would be cool to just ask totally new members with zero post to commit some promotion etc.
If You really want to be a part of this, it wouldnt be huge problem i think. Like put some promo to twitter etc..

agree!, 10 posts or some decent promotion.

You know having the way to buy in being in NXT or BTC already excludes almost any average person new to cyrptocurrencies. So the idea of wanting new people and putting payment in NXT and BTC in front of people already defeats the purpose. Most complaining here are already seasoned bitcoiners who have had opportunity for all kinds of giveaways and promotions but they are more focused on their stake being less than someone else rather than spreading the love.


SO I say open things up to none payment options and not just crappy memes, some of which are painfully unfunny...Use this as promotion at this point.