NXT VS NEM

[Momimaus]

Let´s talk about which one is better when they have both surpassed Bitcoin. So long guys.

[Magic8Ball]

u r kidding right?  ur leader states it from his own mouth:

I had a few sockpuppet accounts

U post the proof its not the case dude,  u need to defend this guy not me.

~CfA~

Just like that. Scam at its finest. Sorry for you, but this will stick to people's mind no matter what.

It is the same as the distribution of Nxt. It sticks.

Thats what you would like to believe. Less than 70 vs at least a 1000. It is a huge difference.

[TaunSew]

Same distribution as NxT?  NxT was less than the 73 wallets it often claims to be.  In reality, only like 20 people invested the 1 BTC limit and they each received 40+ million NxT.  The remaining 53 people received way smaller amounts.  There wasn't anything stopping sockpuppets in the original 20, no taint analysis no nothing.   How do we know that BCnext didn't own half of the 20 big stakes?

To receive the same equivalent in NEM one would have had to make 160 sockpuppets (160 million NEM) and somehow avoid being caught by taint analysis, reset your IP and then bypass all the anti-spam features on this forum - a lot of work back in January / February for what was a NxT clone with no value at the time.

Retrospectively it's easy to claim that people would had made a thousand sockpuppets but it's as easy as saying that, if we knew Bitcoin prices today, I would had taken out a $100K loan back in 2009 and would had thrown it all into BTC and then be a billionaire today.

 The reality is that NEM could be 1000 to 3000 unique persons but that makes it the grandest distribution in crypto currency history.  NEM was so grand that it fuelled a wave of egalitarian coins like Community Coin (albeit they had to cancel their distribution short due to a lack of interest). 

[jkoil]

u r kidding right?  ur leader states it from his own mouth:

I had a few sockpuppet accounts

U post the proof its not the case dude,  u need to defend this guy not me.

~CfA~

Just like that. Scam at its finest. Sorry for you, but this will stick to people's mind no matter what.

It is the same as the distribution of Nxt. It sticks.

Thats what you would like to believe. Less than 70 vs at least a 1000. It is a huge difference.

yea ... it is strange that the magnitudes' difference is ignored, tho the people here are really trusting the math


Copy+paste again :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ofc a good distribution can be determined. There is a method, but we do not know it. So, even you can't say "it isn't well distributed".
If only one owns all the coins, it is some kind of distribution.
After some time has passed, there will be X owners.

Maybe a good distribution is such that the number of coin owners X increases with a certain speed S (delta(X)/time). X and S need to be such that the coin "lives" = people are interested in it + it has quite stabile value (or at least not -10% in every week) + ...


...

if S_NXT could be calculated eg. for every week, and the most of the NXT owners are satisfied with the distribution, then we can determine a 'good distribution', and that can be an example to all the coins  "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  

The same issues have to be written again and again, month after month - thanks this decentralization   Not meaning just NXT forums but others, too.  

[Spoetnik]

Neither.. i'd give away my BTC before i invested in either scam coin .

[ChuckOne]

Same distribution as NxT?

I do not know which coin you are talking about. I assume you are talking about Nxt. If you want to FUD around on NxT go somewhere else as we discuss here another ecosystem/coin.

Furthermore, learn to read, pal, while I learn to write.

It is the same AS the distribution of Nxt == It is the same problem AS the distribution of Nxt

Nobody says that the distribution of Nxt equals the distribution of NEM.

One reason was that it was not necessary from a sociological point of view.
Another reason is that NEM's distribution will not help it anything.

My point was: UT is to NEM, what the distro of the first NXTs is to Nxt.

[atoni]

Same distribution as NxT?

I do not know which coin you are talking about. I assume you are talking about Nxt. If you want to FUD around on NxT go somewhere else as we discuss here another ecosystem/coin.

Furthermore, learn to read, pal, while I learn to write.

It is the same AS the distribution of Nxt == It is the same problem AS the distribution of Nxt

Nobody says that the distribution of Nxt equals the distribution of NEM.

One reason was that it was not necessary from a sociological point of view.
Another reason is that NEM's distribution will not help it anything.

My point was: UT is to NEM, what the distro of the first NXTs is to Nxt.

Negative. It was proven that UT only used 2 accounts to claim NEM stake.

That is 0,0005 of total distribution, or infinitely small number.

[ChuckOne]

Negative. It was proven that UT only used 2 accounts to claim NEM stake.

That is 0,0005 of total distribution, or infinitely small number.

Yeah, prove that somebody has only two sockpuppets. Good luck with that.

Considering information-theory that is simply impossible.

[jztxeno]

Negative. It was proven that UT only used 2 accounts to claim NEM stake.

That is 0,0005 of total distribution, or infinitely small number.

Yeah, prove that somebody has only two sockpuppets. Good luck with that.

Considering information-theory that is simply impossible.

He said he owns a few stakes.

[atoni]

Negative. It was proven that UT only used 2 accounts to claim NEM stake.

That is 0,0005 of total distribution, or infinitely small number.

Yeah, prove that somebody has only two sockpuppets. Good luck with that.

Considering information-theory that is simply impossible.

He said he owns a few stakes.

No he didnt, he said he owned a few accounts to post on forum but with only 2 he claimed for stake.

[ChuckOne]

Negative. It was proven that UT only used 2 accounts to claim NEM stake.

That is 0,0005 of total distribution, or infinitely small number.

Yeah, prove that somebody has only two sockpuppets. Good luck with that.

Considering information-theory that is simply impossible.

He said he owns a few stakes.

Do you see what I mean?

From a information theory point of view, you need to prove that UT DOES NOT KNOW the passwords of the sockpuppets. Now, you simply cannot prove non-knowledge. Either he has them to use them or he does not. If he uses them, you could prove him to own the sockpuppets. If he does not, you cannot distinguish not-using them from not-having-them.

So, if one could distinguish both cases, then I could prove that he does not have the passwords to an arbitrary account which makes absolutely no sense because we know he has.

[ChuckOne]

No he didnt, he said he owned a few accounts to post on forum but with only 2 he claimed for stake.

That is my last state of affairs.

[mattadc]

Negative. It was proven that UT only used 2 accounts to claim NEM stake.

That is 0,0005 of total distribution, or infinitely small number.

Yeah, prove that somebody has only two sockpuppets. Good luck with that.

Considering information-theory that is simply impossible.

He said he owns a few stakes.

Do you see what I mean?

From a information theory point of view, you need to prove that UT DOES NOT KNOW the passwords of the sockpuppets. Now, you simply cannot prove non-knowledge. Either he has them to use them or he does not. If he uses them, you could prove him to own the sockpuppets. If he does not, you cannot distinguish not-using them from not-having-them.

So, if one could distinguish both cases, then I could prove that he does not have the passwords to an arbitrary account which makes absolutely no sense because we know he has.

Apparently you use information theory in a wrong place.
If you accuse someone : he had used sockpuppets against the community, then you have to prove it.

When I followed the audit thread, there was found persons having so few as three or four puppets. From the discussions I got such a feeling that those were accepted, the auditing rejected only if someone had more than five puppets.

[TaunSew]

Let's not beat a dead horse.  One of the big 20 investors in NxT received 40+ million.  Since there is four times more NEM (1 billion NxT vs. 4 billion NEM), to receive the same equivalent one would have to create 160 sockpuppets.  That is 160 times of bypassing taint analysis, hiding your IP and bypassing the anti-spam features on this forum. . . . all for a coin back in January / February that had no value and was a fork for most of the registration duration. . . and to receive the same share of an early NxT investor who only had to send a single BTC in.

Logically to suggest anyone got away with an unfair share of distribution is unlikely.  In contrast, it would had been incredibly easy to have had 3 sockpuppets in NxT's IPO since there wasn't any taint analysis.  But I couldn't imagine creating 400 sockpuppets just to receive 10% of NEM's market - no one simply does that because of the work involved, we all have better things to do.

[BestofSR]

Yes, there was rule that if someone sponsored more than 5 accounts, they will be refunded. And from the beginning it was actually allowed by UF to have more than one stake, it was changed after time by community demand and by criticism from some NXTers. I dont even see how UP broke those rules.

And I dont even think that he did something wrong. He was trolling other coin? He has right to voice his opinions on other coins, no?. It was responsible from him towards NEM project to express his opinions privatly - via alter ego account, to not draw undesirable attention and negative response to NEM. It seems just rational and responsible to me.

The whole point of "fair distribution" to me, was not about having perfectly equal shares, but to not have whales, that could manipulate the market easily...I remember that NXT was often accused of market manipulation by whales, UP probably just wanted to avoid it.

This is my personal view of the problem.

[TaunSew]

Yes, there was rule that if someone sponsored more than 5 accounts, they will be refunded. And from the beginning it was actually allowed by UF to have more than one stake, it was changed after time by community demand and by criticism from some NXTers. I dont even see how UP broke those rules.

And I dont even think that he did something wrong. He was trolling other coin? He has right to voice his opinions on other coins, no?. It was responsible from him towards NEM project to express his opinions privatly - via alter ego account, to not draw undesirable attention and negative response to NEM. It seems just rational and responsible to me.

The whole point of "fair distribution" to me, was not about having perfectly equal shares, but to not have whales, that could manipulate the market easily...I remember that NXT was often accused of market manipulation by whales, UP probably just wanted to avoid it.

This is my personal view of the problem.

The real scandal was him trolling Sim coin.  It would be like Satoshi account being caught trolling the thread of a $hitclone.  That was the real scandal but it was quickly forgotten within 5 minutes.  What emerged was a 'hypothetical scandal' revolving around negative proof that UtopianFuture had a thousand sockpuppets.  He must had been doing cocaine and 20 cups of coffee a day to register 1000 accounts within 28 days, especially to bypass all the anti-sock measures (taint analysis) and the anti-spam features on this website.


As I stated - just to have the influence that a NxT investor (one of the 20 who invested 1 BTC) had, UtopianFuture or anyone would have to create 160 sockpuppets.  If you can create 160 sockpuppets and avoid being caught then arguably you probably deserve those stakes but; in reality, no one has done that due to the sheer labour involved at the time when NEM had no value.  There were probably NxT investors who registered with 3 accounts, so UF would have to create close to 500 socks just to match some guy back in 2013 who randomly threw BTC in.  Have to recall that UF and the developers actually did organizing or developing work.

[BCFrictionless]

As I stated - just to have the influence that a NxT investor (one of the 20 who invested 1 BTC) had, UtopianFuture or anyone would have to create 160 sockpuppets.  If you can create 160 sockpuppets and avoid being caught then arguably you probably deserve those stakes but; in reality, no one has done that due to the sheer labour involved at the time when NEM had no value.

How many SockPuppets do you have Come-From-Above//TaunSew?

[TaunSew]

As I stated - just to have the influence that a NxT investor (one of the 20 who invested 1 BTC) had, UtopianFuture or anyone would have to create 160 sockpuppets.  If you can create 160 sockpuppets and avoid being caught then arguably you probably deserve those stakes but; in reality, no one has done that due to the sheer labour involved at the time when NEM had no value.

How many SockPuppets do you have Come-From-Above//TaunSew?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=661438.0

There's your answer.  Read the thread and read the NxT forum.

How do we know you're not Come from Above?  He almost never said anything about NxT (the few things he did was only to counteract his trolling on NEM) and he had a vendetta against me.

[Magic8Ball]

Let's not beat a dead horse.  One of the big 20 investors in NxT received 40+ million.  Since there is four times more NEM (1 billion NxT vs. 4 billion NEM), to receive the same equivalent one would have to create 160 sockpuppets.  That is 160 times of bypassing taint analysis, hiding your IP and bypassing the anti-spam features on this forum. . . . all for a coin back in January / February that had no value and was a fork for most of the registration duration. . . and to receive the same share of an early NxT investor who only had to send a single BTC in.

Logically to suggest anyone got away with an unfair share of distribution is unlikely.  In contrast, it would had been incredibly easy to have had 3 sockpuppets in NxT's IPO since there wasn't any taint analysis.  But I couldn't imagine creating 400 sockpuppets just to receive 10% of NEM's market - no one simply does that because of the work involved, we all have better things to do.

Even with sockpuppets, NEM has probably achieved a wide and relatively low variation distribution. There will be those who had a lot of sockpuppets, but how many actually took the effort to log in through all of them, register and send money making them untraceable for a coin which just seemed like one of the many NXT clones? I doubt i ts much.

[ALBORCA]

this thread should be  >  NXT vs NEM vs NHZ vs NXTL(node) vs NAS vs QORA vs XC vs "any POS COIN"