NEM (XEM) Official Thread - 100% New Code - Easy To Use APIs

[rockethead]

Playing the FUD card on you because you have an irascible disposition rather than your claimed adult and rational discourse that you think you have by calling some people of kindergarten mentality.

Thank you for acknowledging that when the facts are not supporting your view you resort to ad hominems.

Kindergarden mentality, let me repeat:
35 votes is majority over 3000+ users.
3000+ users disagreeing with your views are irrelevant.
8 billion is "better marketable"
4 billion is scary at launch. Asians "are scared of 4"

and some more arguments of that same level.
kindergarden waS polite rockethead. A polite expression.

What was your response? Crying fud on me.

Thanks for the sardonic response on the kindergarten. I read through many of your previous posts. First, you hardly come to this part of the forum and you care less. Then you were absolutely wrong on the AE and your attack on Kodtycoon. You have been proven dead wrong on that count. I believe you are not of the high intellect category and therefore I would like to rest my case on you.

I do not wish to waste my time and be associated with some guy who has the character of a prosimian suborder.

[wangjj1]

Changing to 8b = controversial.

Sticking to 4b = not controversial.

We should avoid any possible controversial changes at this late stage. It's been well and truly ingrained into people that it is 1m nem per stake. Changes to that May just cause more controversail situations and unnecessary confusion. That is reason enough to stick with 4b. Also it's going to cause confusion for months after cos some people will still think it's 4b the same way that some still think nem is a clone. This stuff sticks..

Plus many many people won't know about the change, assume they got double by mistake
And could end up dumping the extra cos they think it's free profit..

Is that not a compelling reason to stick with 4?

Agreed, panic sell maybe will happen if we double the number, and under current bad market condition, one unexpected panic sell will be a great disaster to NEM development.

[okaynow]

Playing the FUD card on you because you have an irascible disposition rather than your claimed adult and rational discourse that you think you have by calling some people of kindergarten mentality.

Thank you for acknowledging that when the facts are not supporting your view you resort to ad hominems.

Kindergarden mentality, let me repeat:
35 votes is majority over 3000+ users.
3000+ users disagreeing with your views are irrelevant.
8 billion is "better marketable"
4 billion is scary at launch. Asians "are scared of 4"

and some more arguments of that same level.
kindergarden waS polite rockethead. A polite expression.

What was your response? Crying fud on me.

Thanks for the sardonic response on the kindergarten. I read through many of your previous posts. First, you hardly come to this part of the forum and you care less. Then you were absolutely wrong on the AE and your attack on Kodtycoon. You have been proven dead wrong on that count. I believe you are not of the high intellect category and therefore I would like to rest my case on you.

I do not wish to waste my time and be associated with some guy who has the character of a prosimian suborder.

Thank you for acknowledging once again, that when reality disagrees with your view, you resort to ad hominems.
Also, nice try to change the subject, but it wont pass.

You sadly cant back off from the fact that the users, stakeholders and NEM holders COMPLETELY DISAGREE with the change you are so keen on passing.
You might have personal issues against me, and i will not judge that, but you are trying to raise them at a completely wrong time, and for a completely childish reason, to deflect attention from the fact that you are trying to pass an idea that a handfull of users had, as a community decision.

It;s not. It is you and a couple of other users that voted out of sheer greed such a change this late in developlment.
If greed is not your motive, then you are trying hard to make this project seem incoherent.

[4emily]

so nembit86, are you saying that because only 59 saw the poll, they get to choose where NEM goes?

having a manipulative poll is not the epitome of voting procedures.
Sheep could vote for the best butcher out of three choices, that doesn;t mean sheep can decide.

The fact of the matter is this:
Some very vocal users are arguing for issuing 8billion coins instead of 4billion that were the plan all along.
There has been ABSOLUTELY NO REASONABLE ARGUMENT so far, and based on a manipulative poll
the very same vocal users are now saying that the 59 votes on nemforum "are the community opinion"

My point is that NO, they are not. Since the 3000 did not decide for such a change, the pro-8billion users are merely trying to create a fake image of compliance.

ABSOLUTELY NO REASONABLE ARGUMENT so far? Rebut those put forth in the NEM forum. I don't see you rebutting?

Further, 3K did not decide that it should be 4 billion either. What have you got to say about that?

I'm late to this discussion and didn't realise that this was being voted on so maybe my views don't count for much but on the above point (that '3K did not decide that it should be 4 billion either') some comments:


* 4B was the number quoted at the start of the fund-raising back in January.

FAQ:

1. How many shares of NEM would I get ?

In short: there are 4 billion NEM and 1stake = 1million NEM

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=650274.0


* The 4B figure is also quoted in the op of this thread.

How many coins will each stakeholder get?

NEM will have a maximum of 4 000 000 000 coins, all distributed with the genesis block.

The 4B figure is therefore part of the basis on which people agreed to participate originally and have since been holding/buying/selling nemstakes.

If NEM is to abide by, and be seen to abide by, its expressly stated commitments to equality and solidarity then before any change is made to that figure, PMs should be sent to all concerned and there should a formal poll announced on the ournem website with enough time given for people to vote.

[Thingamajig]

I'm not sure what the big deal is about this.

I think alot of people are scared that raising the limit to 8 billion is going to negatively impact the value of what they'll own - when they should though this will go unchanged, it'll simply just scale.

I'm in NEM for long term, so whether it changes to 8 billion or keeps it at 4 is of no concern to me - i see pro's and cons to both decisions and really i think either one isn't going to hurt.

My opinion is that changes this big this late in the game are a very bad idea.

This is probably the biggest concern I have with it. I do find myself asking though; where was everyone during the vote who are against this change?

Changing to 8b = controversial.

Sticking to 4b = not controversial.

We should avoid any possible controversial changes at this late stage. It's been well and truly ingrained into people that it is 1m nem per stake. Changes to that May just cause more controversail situations and unnecessary confusion. That is reason enough to stick with 4b. Also it's going to cause confusion for months after cos some people will still think it's 4b the same way that some still think nem is a clone. This stuff sticks..

Plus many many people won't know about the change, assume they got double by mistake
And could end up dumping the extra cos they think it's free profit..

Is that not a compelling reason to stick with 4?

I admit, this is probably the soundest decision to be made in these circumstances.

[nextgencoin]

Why don't you have the worlds population, around 7 Billion? At least its a figure that means something.

[rockethead]

Changing to 8b = controversial.

Sticking to 4b = not controversial.

We should avoid any possible controversial changes at this late stage. It's been well and truly ingrained into people that it is 1m nem per stake. Changes to that May just cause more controversail situations and unnecessary confusion. That is reason enough to stick with 4b. Also it's going to cause confusion for months after cos some people will still think it's 4b the same way that some still think nem is a clone. This stuff sticks..

Plus many many people won't know about the change, assume they got double by mistake
And could end up dumping the extra cos they think it's free profit..

Is that not a compelling reason to stick with 4?

Agreed, panic sell maybe will happen if we double the number, and under current bad market condition, one unexpected panic sell will be a great disaster to NEM development.

If you look at it from another perspective, assuming people will dump to profit the other half, which is likely, then they are likely to sell at 60% of the value of the NEM coin if it were to be 4B. Maybe 70% if they are lucky. But that may also create a larger distribution spread as there may be more entrants.

There are two things to consider here.

One is that NEM is quite fairly distributed with probably 1500 people owning (we assume many will own 2 NS and above). Doubling it and then letting them sell into the market can only spread the holdings more evenly. This is so unlike many other coins. It will create some velocity in the coin which bodes well. What we want is dilution of the holdings rather than hoarding. Doubling, if it is linear (which is not often the case), is effectively halving the value of a coin. It does not translate to halving the market capitalization. Hence there is no question of value dilution.

Secondly, if you look at a matured market like the equity market, there is frequent splitting of stocks with no adverse effects. The reality is tens of thousands are owning those stocks and the announcement logistics are more of a nightmare compared to our assumed 1500 stakeholders. Announcement are normally made with 1 or 2 months' notice at most. Their procedure is even worse than ours. We are automated and one can see the doubled value in the account on day 1. There is no such thing as having to register by such and such a date as in the stock market to be eligible for a second share split.

Further, in almost all stock splits the value is seldom less than half but on the contrary, they usually end up between 20% to 40% more in absolute value. That's the point I am getting at. It is almost for sure that the market capitalization of NEM will go up in value if we have more NEMs in circulation. Of course as I mentioned earlier in my post, we can never prove this because once rolled out, it will not be able to tell you if could be otherwise.

Have a think about that rather than pleasing anyone for the sake of superstition. Superstition may have been the reason for change initially, but if one were to ponder deeper into it, it gives us better insight into what it might be if we were to really increase it for another reason.

I don't think there is any confusion that we need to be worried about.


Edit:

It never occurred in my mind that we should increase the number of coins. Superstition is never part of me. I even have my telephone number ending with a "dead" 4. I didn't care and I just took the number although I had the option to change it then. But back to topic, I never usually write off anything outright without giving much thoughts to it.

To say that 8B is controversial is also an overstatement. Most who objected to it do not have any solid quantitive reasons and there were far fewer objecting it. No one challenged my rationale with the same quantitative analysis that I have been putting up. Of course I wasn't suggesting 8B. In fact, I was suggesting much more! But since 8B was thrown around, I am ok with that as a "somewhere in between sort of number". Like I said, it is even better if it is 80B instead. But the argument is to raise the number of coins substantially. And this is what I put forward as being something we should think about.

[howi53]

I'm a little bit confused about last days discussion

So my question is:
How much alcohol must a Nemster drink to reach 0.5 per mille?

Answer:
3 days nothing

[rockethead]

I'm a little bit confused about last days discussion

So my question is:
How much alcohol must a Nemster drink to reach 0.5 per mille?

Answer:
3 days nothing

Is that some kind of a weed?

[pgb]

Changing to 8b = controversial.

Sticking to 4b = not controversial.

We should avoid any possible controversial changes at this late stage. It's been well and truly ingrained into people that it is 1m nem per stake. Changes to that May just cause more controversail situations and unnecessary confusion. That is reason enough to stick with 4b. Also it's going to cause confusion for months after cos some people will still think it's 4b the same way that some still think nem is a clone. This stuff sticks..

Plus many many people won't know about the change, assume they got double by mistake
And could end up dumping the extra cos they think it's free profit..

Is that not a compelling reason to stick with 4?

Agreed, panic sell maybe will happen if we double the number, and under current bad market condition, one unexpected panic sell will be a great disaster to NEM development.

If you look at it from another perspective, assuming people will dump to profit the other half, which is likely, then they are likely to sell at 60% of the value of the NEM coin if it were to be 4B. Maybe 70% if they are lucky. But that may also create a larger distribution spread as there may be more entrants.

There are two things to consider here.

One is that NEM is quite fairly distributed with probably 1500 people owning (we assume many will own 2 NS and above). Doubling it and then letting them sell into the market can only spread the holdings more evenly. This is so unlike many other coins. It will create some velocity in the coin which bodes well. What we want is dilution of the holdings rather than hoarding. Doubling, if it is linear (which is not often the case), is effectively halving the value of a coin. It does not translate to halving the market capitalization. Hence there is no question of value dilution.

Secondly, if you look at a matured market like the equity market, there is frequent splitting of stocks with no adverse effects. The reality is tens of thousands are owning those stocks and the announcement logistics are more of a nightmare compared to our assumed 1500 stakeholders. Announcement are normally made with 1 or 2 months' notice at most. Their procedure is even worse than ours. We are automated and one can see the doubled value in the account on day 1. There is no such thing as having to register by such and such a date as in the stock market to be eligible for a second share split.

Further, in almost all stock splits the value is seldom less than half but on the contrary, they usually end up between 20% to 40% more in absolute value. That's the point I am getting at. It is almost for sure that the market capitalization of NEM will go up in value if we have more NEMs in circulation. Of course as I mentioned earlier in my post, we can never prove this because once rolled out, it will not be able to tell you if could be otherwise.

Have a think about that rather than pleasing anyone for the sake of superstition. Superstition may have been the reason for change initially, but if one were to ponder deeper into it, it gives us better insight into what it might be if we were to really increase it for another reason.

I don't think there is any confusion that we need to be worried about.

35 people agreeing in a "dumb" poll are not the majority. If I were Asian (like you can even put all nationalities of a massive continent together as if they all thought the same way) I will probably feel insulted by now. If you want change come with at least 300 signatures (10% of the community) and then the issue can be discussed. Otherwise I think we are wasting devs and community time here in the most important time of the project. imho

[okaynow]

If you look at it from another perspective, assuming people will dump to profit the other half, which is likely, then they are likely to sell at 60% of the value of the NEM coin if it were to be 4B. Maybe 70% if they are lucky. But that may also create a larger distribution spread as there may be more entrants.

There are two things to consider here.

One is that NEM is quite fairly distributed with probably 1500 people owning (we assume many will own 2 NS and above). Doubling it and then letting them sell into the market can only spread the holdings more evenly. This is so unlike many other coins. It will create some velocity in the coin which bodes well. What we want is dilution of the holdings rather than hoarding. Doubling, if it is linear (which is not often the case), is effectively halving the value of a coin. It does not translate to halving the market capitalization. Hence there is no question of value dilution.

Secondly, if you look at a matured market like the equity market, there is frequent splitting of stocks with no adverse effects. The reality is tens of thousands are owning those stocks and the announcement logistics are more of a nightmare compared to our assumed 1500 stakeholders. Announcement are normally made with 1 or 2 months' notice at most. Their procedure is even worse than ours. We are automated and one can see the doubled value in the account on day 1. There is no such thing as having to register by such and such a date as in the stock market to be eligible for a second share split.

Further, in almost all stock splits the value is seldom less than half but on the contrary, they usually end up between 20% to 40% more in absolute value. That's the point I am getting at. It is almost for sure that the market capitalization of NEM will go up in value if we have more NEMs in circulation. Of course as I mentioned earlier in my post, we can never prove this because once rolled out, it will not be able to tell you if could be otherwise.

Have a think about that rather than pleasing anyone for the sake of superstition. Superstition may have been the reason for change initially, but if one were to ponder deeper into it, it gives us better insight into what it might be if we were to really increase it for another reason.

I don't think there is any confusion that we need to be worried about.

There are so many assumptions in here that this post looks more like sci-fi/ lets take the one by one:

"with probably 1500 people owning (we assume many will own 2 NS and above)."
Not true. You should know better, you are not a random user. There are well over 3000 users and hodlers of NEM so far
as there are far more users with 0.* of a stake than there are users with over one stake.

"Secondly, if you look at a matured market like the equity market"
Not true again and completely irrelevant, crypto markets have nothing to do with regulated equity markets. You might use similar words, but it does not mean the same principles always apply.

"in almost all stock splits the value is seldom less than half"
again not true, look at the above point. Pulling numbers out of thin air means nothing (hint: confirmation bias)

"almost for sure that the market capitalization of NEM will go up in value if we have more NEMs in circulation"
This goes against every economic principle there is in existence. Doubling the total supply of a commodity, asset or value DOES NOT raise said asset value, it rather tanks it. source: all of the central banks around the planet, their policies and economic history.

There is absolutely no reason for changing the coin supply so late in development other than human greed.

[jkoil]

If you look at it from another perspective, assuming people will dump to profit the other half, which is likely, then they are likely to sell at 60% of the value of the NEM coin if it were to be 4B. Maybe 70% if they are lucky. But that may also create a larger distribution spread as there may be more entrants.

There are two things to consider here.

One is that NEM is quite fairly distributed with probably 1500 people owning (we assume many will own 2 NS and above). Doubling it and then letting them sell into the market can only spread the holdings more evenly. This is so unlike many other coins. It will create some velocity in the coin which bodes well. What we want is dilution of the holdings rather than hoarding. Doubling, if it is linear (which is not often the case), is effectively halving the value of a coin. It does not translate to halving the market capitalization. Hence there is no question of value dilution.

Secondly, if you look at a matured market like the equity market, there is frequent splitting of stocks with no adverse effects. The reality is tens of thousands are owning those stocks and the announcement logistics are more of a nightmare compared to our assumed 1500 stakeholders. Announcement are normally made with 1 or 2 months' notice at most. Their procedure is even worse than ours. We are automated and one can see the doubled value in the account on day 1. There is no such thing as having to register by such and such a date as in the stock market to be eligible for a second share split.

Further, in almost all stock splits the value is seldom less than half but on the contrary, they usually end up between 20% to 40% more in absolute value. That's the point I am getting at. It is almost for sure that the market capitalization of NEM will go up in value if we have more NEMs in circulation. Of course as I mentioned earlier in my post, we can never prove this because once rolled out, it will not be able to tell you if could be otherwise.

Have a think about that rather than pleasing anyone for the sake of superstition. Superstition may have been the reason for change initially, but if one were to ponder deeper into it, it gives us better insight into what it might be if we were to really increase it for another reason.

I don't think there is any confusion that we need to be worried about.

There are so many assumptions in here that this post looks more like sci-fi/ lets take the one by one:

"with probably 1500 people owning (we assume many will own 2 NS and above)."
Not true. You should know better, you are not a random user. There are well over 3000 users and hodlers of NEM so far
as there are far more users with 0.* of a stake than there are users with over one stake.

"Secondly, if you look at a matured market like the equity market"
Not true again and completely irrelevant, crypto markets have nothing to do with regulated equity markets. You might use similar words, but it does not mean the same principles always apply.

"in almost all stock splits the value is seldom less than half"
again not true, look at the above point. Pulling numbers out of thin air means nothing (hint: confirmation bias)

"almost for sure that the market capitalization of NEM will go up in value if we have more NEMs in circulation"
This goes against every economic principle there is in existence. Doubling the total supply of a commodity, asset or value DOES NOT raise said asset value, it rather tanks it. source: all of the central banks around the planet, their policies and economic history.

There is absolutely no reason for changing the coin supply so late in development other than human greed.

Apparently you do not know the NEM stake distribution / audit process and its results.
Also, you do not know about the stock shares' splits either...
Seems you like to create some FUD here.

When this discussion started (month? ago), I asked from devs, how difficult it is to change the amount of the coins. The answer was : it is very easy. So, there is no point to use the term "so late in development".

[okaynow]

jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.

Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.

A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.

Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.

So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)

[nembit86]

jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.

Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.

A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.

Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.

So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)

you seem to be taking an interest in this subject now, where were you when everybody was discussing and voting a month ago? ....but thats ok..better late than never.
So do you want to put this to an official poll or not...? as it is clear there is division.

[patmast3r]

jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.

Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.

A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.

Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.

So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)

While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.

I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.

[rockethead]

If you look at it from another perspective, assuming people will dump to profit the other half, which is likely, then they are likely to sell at 60% of the value of the NEM coin if it were to be 4B. Maybe 70% if they are lucky. But that may also create a larger distribution spread as there may be more entrants.

There are two things to consider here.

One is that NEM is quite fairly distributed with probably 1500 people owning (we assume many will own 2 NS and above). Doubling it and then letting them sell into the market can only spread the holdings more evenly. This is so unlike many other coins. It will create some velocity in the coin which bodes well. What we want is dilution of the holdings rather than hoarding. Doubling, if it is linear (which is not often the case), is effectively halving the value of a coin. It does not translate to halving the market capitalization. Hence there is no question of value dilution.

Secondly, if you look at a matured market like the equity market, there is frequent splitting of stocks with no adverse effects. The reality is tens of thousands are owning those stocks and the announcement logistics are more of a nightmare compared to our assumed 1500 stakeholders. Announcement are normally made with 1 or 2 months' notice at most. Their procedure is even worse than ours. We are automated and one can see the doubled value in the account on day 1. There is no such thing as having to register by such and such a date as in the stock market to be eligible for a second share split.

Further, in almost all stock splits the value is seldom less than half but on the contrary, they usually end up between 20% to 40% more in absolute value. That's the point I am getting at. It is almost for sure that the market capitalization of NEM will go up in value if we have more NEMs in circulation. Of course as I mentioned earlier in my post, we can never prove this because once rolled out, it will not be able to tell you if could be otherwise.

Have a think about that rather than pleasing anyone for the sake of superstition. Superstition may have been the reason for change initially, but if one were to ponder deeper into it, it gives us better insight into what it might be if we were to really increase it for another reason.

I don't think there is any confusion that we need to be worried about.

There are so many assumptions in here that this post looks more like sci-fi/ lets take the one by one:

"with probably 1500 people owning (we assume many will own 2 NS and above)."
Not true. You should know better, you are not a random user. There are well over 3000 users and hodlers of NEM so far
as there are far more users with 0.* of a stake than there are users with over one stake.

"Secondly, if you look at a matured market like the equity market"
Not true again and completely irrelevant, crypto markets have nothing to do with regulated equity markets. You might use similar words, but it does not mean the same principles always apply.

"in almost all stock splits the value is seldom less than half"
again not true, look at the above point. Pulling numbers out of thin air means nothing (hint: confirmation bias)

"almost for sure that the market capitalization of NEM will go up in value if we have more NEMs in circulation"
This goes against every economic principle there is in existence. Doubling the total supply of a commodity, asset or value DOES NOT raise said asset value, it rather tanks it. source: all of the central banks around the planet, their policies and economic history.

There is absolutely no reason for changing the coin supply so late in development other than human greed.

Apparently you do not know the NEM stake distribution / audit process and its results.
Also, you do not know about the stock shares' splits either...
Seems you like to create some FUD here.

When this discussion started (month? ago), I asked from devs, how difficult it is to change the amount of the coins. The answer was : it is very easy. So, there is no point to use the term "so late in development".

+1 @Jkoil.

I was going to bet with this suborder prosimian all the NEM stakes he has, to prove that he is spilling faeces out of his mouth. There were 2845 dished out. A substantial portion was socks and many had multiple NS in the AE, with the highest number being something like 32 at one stage. In the end, there are 2000 or so stakes that were dished out and to think that just 250 of them holding an average of 2 NS equates to 1500 holders is not preposterous. And for some suborder prosimian to say that there are well over 3000 holders is justified enough to know that there is in fact a sub prosimian fud in this forum. Never mind the rest of his arguments. It is all the same kind of faeces coming out from his mouth.

I don't think we should answer to this kind of fud.

[rockethead]

jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.

Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.

A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.

Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.

So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)

While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.

I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.

When you brought up the inflation issue, I remember many shot at you. I was quietly in favour. But I wasn't about to support you as I did not have any facts. I needed to do some research to back that but, alas, that slipped me. Now that you have brought it up again, I think 1% may be too little. But like I said, I don't have facts to say so. I will need to qualify that.

[okaynow]

jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.

Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.

A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.

Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.

So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)

you seem to be taking an interest in this subject now, where were you when everybody was discussing and voting a month ago? ....but thats ok..better late than never.
So do you want to put this to an official poll or not...? as it is clear there is division.

There were 2 polls on nemforums, that did not get enough votes to warrant such a change, why have a third one??
there are less than 100 users, that agree with it.

Furthermore, there is no reason at all. So many users here disagreed and many stated serious arguments against it.
Seems that whoever wants 8billion NEM cant see those voices for some reason.

Yet, the groupthinkers want to call fud, while at the same time cant spot fud on a dictionary.
Calling fud or starting personal attacks like rockethead or yourself when you disagree with someone shows to everyone else that you cant win the argument on any other way.

[jkoil]

jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.

Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.

A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.

Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.

So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)

I do not have the arguments; but I have agreed with them, who have such. Eg. rockethead, makoto, jabo in nemcoin.com (and some posts here in BTT). When I have followed your discussion, I have hoped that all the good arguments would have been in one place ...   they are not ... there may be few good discussion threads but still the important points are all over...

About the voting : there are very few votes, which get 100% of the members/populations - even some national votes may get as few elector as 15 - 20 % of the nation's population. Still the votes are valid.
I have had disagreements about the voting procedures, but apparently I cannot affect those. I did not like the result of the logo vote, but I have adapted to it.

For me the extra coins is not the point, coz it will still be the same share. It just help to distribute the coins after the launch: it is easier to share, buy things, sell shares/coins, participate to funds, when the number of coins in your wallet is still "quite big".)
Edit: the change ( 4 -> 8 ) is quite small. Someone wrote that 80 could be better... I cannot disagree, but that change might be too big...


  

[nembit86]

Pat........I have thought about your inflation proposal and agree to a very small and ever- fixed rate.

can you organise 2 official polls?

1. 4 or 8 billion coins.
2.  A proposal for ####  rate of inflation. yes/ no

I think we need to organise these 2 official polls to put an end to a lot of argument.