***NEM*** Should NEM organize the second stakeholder list auditing ?

[ARGpentem]

VOTE on the NEM second auditing and sock puppet removal or NOT. Discussion here.

Reason : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=654845.2260

[nutildah]

Yes, in wake of the 6 free stakes that were just handed out recently, I vote yes.

6 stakes is enough to crash the price of NEMstake, for the moment.

[ARGpentem]

trello board created, you need to sign up if you havnt, and send me your trello name and il add you if you want to join, 1 rule. must be normally active to join. inactive users will not be added seeing as those would most likely be the ones that just want in to find out what we are at lol other than that, anyone who wants to help, just send me your trello user name.

will pm you, but i will be quite busy in the next few days. However, I think we should aim to be more transparent. I don't like the node guy secret method because that means no one can check on them !

[TaunSew]

Some of NODE's methods were questionable . . . . (a lot of controversy on their thread over it) . . . even with the "intuition" (witch hunting) they only found a couple of sock masters and most of them only had 2 stakes (nothing which affected NODE's distribution).
 

[nutildah]

Yes, in wake of the 6 free stakes that were just handed out recently, I vote yes.

6 stakes is enough to crash the price of NEMstake, for the moment.

that was a mistake, wasnt down to sock puppets. they were claimed by an impostor of sorts.

If there was a way to inactivate these particular stakes I would do that.

[crackerhead]

Yes, in wake of the 6 free stakes that were just handed out recently, I vote yes.

6 stakes is enough to crash the price of NEMstake, for the moment.

that was a mistake, wasnt down to sock puppets. they were claimed by an impostor of sorts.

If there was a way to inactivate these particular stakes I would do that.

No way to do that, since AE is completely decentralized, theres no "admin" to talk to about this matter

[crackerhead]

So I started this thread: http://forum.nemcoin.com/index.php?topic=2279.new#new
figured we could use with regards to a second public audit. Even if we don't do a second public audit, I think my proposal would still be a good idea. (My plan was originally brought up by ARGpentem, I thought he had a good idea, so I went with it)

[Eadeqa]

Here is a problem: It's impossible to catch all sock puppets just by activity or taint analysis. You can't even do taint analysis with Nxt investors as all accounts are connected closely via exchanges such as Bter and Dgex.  Plus it's really easy to fool the system by transferring BTC to an exchanges and back.

As for account activity, people can have more than one active account that they use to post.  

The easiest solution to "sock puppet" problem is to no have "equal stakes per investor" as that system by it's very nature encourages sock puppets.   It should be a system where anyone could contribute up to 2 BTC (max) investment. That would cut 99% of socks as it starts to hurt anyway investing more than 2 BTC on a new IPO.

Another trick that could be used is to have a trick that is not known publicly. That is what happened with nodecoin, as most sockpuppets there weren't suspecting developers were logging users IPs /time each time users were using the client  (for example, to create account or just while users were "testing" the system).

[TaunSew]

Here is a problem: It's impossible to catch all sock puppets just by activity or taint analysis. You can't even do taint analysis with Nxt investors as all accounts are connected closely via exchanges such as Bter and Dgex.  Plus it's really easy to fool the system by transferring BTC to an exchanges and back.

As for account activity, people can have more than one active account that they use to post.  

This.  This makes the whole issue irrelevant.  

As well there's no conclusive proof that inactive accounts are sockpuppets.  There's many people who lurk and read Bitcointalk but simply aren't interested in any discussion on here.  The "call for participation" wasn't intended literally, it was legal wording to get out of any financial liability for running a securities.   While someone might not be active on Bitcointalk - they may be active on other social media websites or be really effective in viral P2P advertising.

My point is that we have too many "group 3", retroactively taking away their stakes (these people waited half a year) means NEM is going to create a lot of enemies overnight and I think that's more FUD worthy than any sockmaster boogeymen.  We know in NODE's case that (we take away the bull$hit intuition examples), they only found an extremely small number (compared to 1000 stakeholders) of sockpuppets.  So I stand by my conclusion that taking away stakes in mass is just going to piss off people and they'll be NEMs' worst enemies and they'll talk away any subsequent interested people.



The original issue here was someone scammed Pat of 6 or 8 tokens but that has nothing to do with sockpuppets, that was some guy who was looking up names on the stakeholder list and creating a copy cat name which look the same.

Then the people photoshopping banned photos to get NEMstake.

You know NEM must be really promising if people are resorting to weird ways to get it.


 

[makoto1337]

Here is a problem: It's impossible to catch all sock puppets just by activity or taint analysis. You can't even do taint analysis with Nxt investors as all accounts are connected closely via exchanges such as Bter and Dgex.  Plus it's really easy to fool the system by transferring BTC to an exchanges and back.

As for account activity, people can have more than one active account that they use to post.  

This.  This makes the whole issue irrelevant.  

As well there's no conclusive proof that inactive accounts are sockpuppets.  There's many people who lurk and read Bitcointalk but simply aren't interested in any discussion on here.  The "call for participation" wasn't intended literally, it was legal wording to get out of any financial liability for running a securities.   While someone might not be active on Bitcointalk - they may be active on other social media websites or be really effective in viral P2P advertising.

My point is that we have too many "group 3", retroactively taking away their stakes (these people waited half a year) means NEM is going to create a lot of enemies overnight and I think that's more FUD worthy than any sockmaster boogeymen.  We know in NODE's case that (we take away the bull$hit intuition examples), they only found an extremely small number (compared to 1000 stakeholders) of sockpuppets.  So I stand by my conclusion that taking away stakes in mass is just going to piss off people and they'll be NEMs' worst enemies and they'll talk away any subsequent interested people.



The original issue here was someone scammed Pat of 6 or 8 tokens but that has nothing to do with sockpuppets, that was some guy who was looking up names on the stakeholder list and creating a copy cat name which look the same.

Then the people photoshopping banned photos to get NEMstake.

You know NEM must be really promising if people are resorting to weird ways to get it.


 

We don't have to take their stakes away, but we should try to at least message them and give them a chance to respond. Like ask them if they are a sock puppet, if so, who's account (up to 2 accounts controlled by 1 person is okay in the rules). If there are no replies, then we can consider taking stakes away, or if we can find proof that a person has more than 2 accounts.

[nutildah]

If there was a way to inactivate these particular stakes I would do that.

No way to do that, since AE is completely decentralized, theres no "admin" to talk to about this matter

I thought about it and in the long run its most likely not a big deal. I do have to give it up to the guy (sorry I forgot his handle) who admitted what happened. He could have just said nothing but in this type of environment honesty is crucial. So, he has my respect for that.

But back to the original topic, I am a professional auditor and I think that there's no harm in conducting a second audit or an audit of the first audit, so long as there is the community willpower to make such a thing happen.

[fragout]

 I think anyone that had puppets has already converted to Nemtokens on the Asset exchange or will pretty fast if a new audit is on the cards. It dosnt really matter if they sold or kept their tokens as they will redeem them for NEM simply be sending the token to the issuing address

[makoto1337]

I think anyone that had puppets has already converted to Nemtokens on the Asset exchange or will pretty fast if a new audit is on the cards. It dosnt really matter if they sold or kept their tokens as they will redeem them for NEM simply be sending the token to the issuing address

Sounds good to me. Let them get out while NEM is cheap and let others come into the system instead.

Right now we are not issuing assets (temporarily) because someone scammed us out of 6 stakes.

[Djinou94]

You should have done before now it's too late

[lordoliver]

there is no chance to manage a new audit in a appropriate way now. the sockpuppets have probably already sold the nemstake.
Or do you want to audit the nemstakes as well?

Face it. Its too late for changes now.

[From Above]

i voted no with 10 of my puppets  great vote!

~CfA~

[ARGpentem]

i voted no with 10 of my puppets  great vote!

~CfA~

Only accounts with member status can vote.

[crackerhead]

The vote has answered this. Call it off. Community has spoken.

as of right now, 20 people want a second audit, and 25 people don't want one. I don't think we can call it off yet.

ARGpentem will you be helping out with the audit if it happens, we need the community, dev and marketing team is quite busy.

[rabbiter]

Can you guys hurry up and release already. I want my stake to buy Qora while the price is low.

[randombit]

'A new Stakholder List doesent make sense,  everyday hoders changen.  The first distrubution was nice to know but know everybody can make a own picture.