Stakes of sock puppets and unclaimed stakes

General Discussion
#21


...
Minority rights issues coming. They claim that sock puppet should not be common wealth, but should be treated as private properties and distributed to all stackholders as part of our NEM value. And thus, they don't think the silver coin vote is a fair vote, for no options like that.
...


Unfortunately in the crypto world is no Minority rights. That is how it looks now.
There is only :
- votes: "majority wins"
- shout louder than your opponent - and win (you can get your friends shouts too)
  Mock the opponent by "down votes", not with arguments.
- richer wins. Similarly as in politics the richer has clearly better chances
- good talk and positive attitude with great visions win facts. Good talk gathers always "party" along and again majority wins.

Minority wins only if the issue is not important to the "politicians" or
the issue is 100% proven to be the better alternative.


this has nothing to do with that the "parties up for election" are doing but it has everything to do with what the "public" are not doing. which is voting.

non-participation in a vote/referendum etc is ALWAYS taken as acceptance of either option as we cannot force people to vote and we cant just not do anything until everyone votes because nothing would be done.. ever.. so the best, and only thing we can do is put it to vote and go by the majority of votes. beyond that there isnt much we can do unless you want to hack every users computer and go knock on their door and ask them however im sure that wouldnt fly either so all we can do is "make do with what we have".
#22

...
non-participation in a vote/referendum etc is ALWAYS taken as acceptance of either option
...


Not always. Maybe in NEM it is always taken so.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/10/31/the-party-of-nonvoters-2/
For Nonvoting there are many reasons. In NEM there is never thought any other reason than "their are lazy" or "they accept the decision whatever it is".
Well, that how it goes.



I think i still don't get the point of this thread  :(


Did you read this example:
An example about some coins announcement.
It proceeds as follows:
- 1000 accounts reserved a stake
- 1000 sock puppets reserved a stake

After reservation period has ended, it is informed that they have 2000 stakes, because it is not yet known that there are sock puppets. So it is said that everyone will get 1 million coins.

When 1 month is passed, they notice that there are 1000 sock puppets.
Then is invented that the sock puppets' stakes is used to a fund.
And they say that hey everyone is still getting 1 million coins and the coin has a great fund that will make it even better and getting greater distribution.
People believe it and give a half of their original share to the common wealth, which future is a quite open question mark.


At least someone in this thread has now got the point that with sock puppets' stakes has been made a mistake.
The other question is how to solve it - but I am out of it.



#23

There was no mistake. We all new there were going to be puppets. Of course we didn't go around shouting telling it to everyone.
I'm sorry but the only one that seems to have a problem with this is you.

How about you make a proposal for a solution. Maybe then I understand what is bothering you so much.

#24

There was no mistake. We all new there were going to be puppets. Of course we didn't go around shouting telling it to everyone.
I'm sorry but the only one that seems to have a problem with this is you.

How about you make a proposal for a solution. Maybe then I understand what is bothering you so much.


So, I was the only one who voted against the current proposal for the silver coin process? ...


What are the numbers:
  - how many accounts have claimed the stake?
  - how many accounts are still unclaimed? (estimation for unclaimed)
  - how many sock puppets have been caught?
 

#25


There was no mistake. We all new there were going to be puppets. Of course we didn't go around shouting telling it to everyone.
I'm sorry but the only one that seems to have a problem with this is you.

How about you make a proposal for a solution. Maybe then I understand what is bothering you so much.


So, I was the only one who voted against the current proposal for the silver coin process? ...


What are the numbers:
  - how many accounts have claimed the stake?
  - how many accounts are still unclaimed? (estimation for unclaimed)
  - how many sock puppets have been caught?



No, I voted against it too. Just because one proposal doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean you need to say there was a mistake in declaring sock stakes all together.

I can tell final numbers once remdeption is over. All of those can still change quite a bit.
#26



There was no mistake. We all new there were going to be puppets. Of course we didn't go around shouting telling it to everyone.
I'm sorry but the only one that seems to have a problem with this is you.

How about you make a proposal for a solution. Maybe then I understand what is bothering you so much.


So, I was the only one who voted against the current proposal for the silver coin process? ...


What are the numbers:
  - how many accounts have claimed the stake?
  - how many accounts are still unclaimed? (estimation for unclaimed)
  - how many sock puppets have been caught?



No, I voted against it too. Just because one proposal doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean you need to say there was a mistake in declaring sock stakes all together.

I can tell final numbers once remdeption is over. All of those can still change quite a bit.




"mistake" - I just referred mixmaster ...

nxkoil:
Nobody thought about sock puppet stakes 1 year ago. Yes, that was a mistake. But that's how it is.





If you (NEM team) knew that there will be sock puppets, then ...
why this "rule" ("sock puppets' stakes will be put to a fund, under different votes")
was not published after it was announced that NEM has a sock puppet problem?

I guess the reason to not publish was:
NEM team had no such rule, coz it was going on with the plan,
which was literally described in the January's Announcement.


I was hoping that you could give some numbers, even not so accurate numbers, if really wanting any proposals.
It seems that the 5 examples with example numbers are not so convinceable...
it is better use concrete, quite real numbers....  (also someone had written that the quantity matters, so some people may behave differently, if there was 10 puppets or 200).


#27

You still haven't clarified what it is you want. All I understand is you don't like something and it has something to do witch socks and a fund.

Make a proposal on how to proceed. Maybe that'll shed some light on your intentions.

#28

You still haven't clarified what it is you want. All I understand is you don't like something and it has something to do witch socks and a fund.

Make a proposal on how to proceed. Maybe that'll shed some light on your intentions.


My intentions are pure and honest ...

This discussion is a jump from the silver coin thread, coz it looked that the "ultimate" problem has not been solved properly.
The "ultimate" means that the intial plan of making equal and fair distribution has been changed without any specification.
Now it looks like that there is no definition for such as 'sock puppets' stakes'. And that tells us that it is too early to create any fund based on "puppets" or even planning to use the fund's money.

#29

You again repeated only what you already said and did not explain what you want to happen now.

#30

You again repeated only what you already said and did not explain what you want to happen now.


Isn't that obvious ... or do you have thought that this all is just greedyness or wickedness ?

I want that all the NEMsters know where we are going,
and that the NEM team does not take new specs out of their hats and change
the NEM's equal and fair distribution - without that members are aware of it .

As everyone has noticed, many members have not been as active as the others.
That is causing nonvoters and also uncertainty/insecurity. When they come to forums after being away for a while, they see new "rules", which they may disagree.
But ...
when there is already such a buzzing and the famous NEMsters are saying loud and clear that "This is great, we must do this!", 
then the member, who disagree, just think that "OK, I missed some important meeting. It is my shame. But I don't vote 'yes', I go and just wait my coins."

There is said that "if someone doesn't vote, he agrees with the proposal".
And also someone said that "there can't be a vote with 100%".
That is pure nonsense.
A 100% vote would have been easily reached, when a mandatory vote(s) was included to the last phase of the 'Phase2 redemption'.
#31

Although this is not a bad idea (if there still would have been the possibility for the users to abstain from voting) this is over.
So again: What do you want to happen now?

#32

Although this is not a bad idea (if there still would have been the possibility for the users to abstain from voting) this is over.
So again: What do you want to happen now?


So again: read my previous post's second paragraph.

Also a solution is offered in that post, but you are reluctant to grab it. Why?
#33

Your second paragraph:

I want that all the NEMsters know where we are going,
and that the NEM team does not take new specs out of their hats and change
the NEM's equal and fair distribution - without that members are aware of it .


That doesnt explain what you want to happen now. It explains what you don't want to happen. That doesn't help.

We all want that all the NEMsters know where we are going. But they don't all read the public announcements. Since the devs don't have any mail addresses or phone numbers, it is not possible to contact them all. And its not workable either.

So no, I don't get what you want now.
#34

Your second paragraph:
I want that all the NEMsters know where we are going,
and that the NEM team does not take new specs out of their hats and change
the NEM's equal and fair distribution - without that members are aware of it .


That doesnt explain what you want to happen now. It explains what you don't want to happen. That doesn't help.

We all want that all the NEMsters know where we are going. But they don't all read the public announcements. Since the devs don't have any mail addresses or phone numbers, it is not possible to contact them all. And its not workable either.

So no, I don't get what you want now.


"its not workable" ?

How on earth the complex redemption was possible (with over 1300(?) participants), if a NEM wide vote cannot be arranged?
At least that could be tried - if there really exist people, who want that NEM is equal and fair.


Three suggestions for new votes:

- how large percentage is needed to decide in the NEM wide, highly important votes?
    eg. a) 51%  b) 67 %  c) 75% d) 95% e) 99%  f) 100.0%  of votes agree with
                                                                                                the vote proposal
   

- how will be treated the stake reservations, which were made by sock puppets?

- how will be treated the stake reservations, which are not claimed before the date X?



There is "NEM wide, highly important" - it means the most important votes... that will require some categories for votes...  I guess NEM team is already planning such?
#35

A voting system for after launch is of course planned (and discussed in another thread).

But that has nothing to do with the decision what to do with sock puppet stakes.

I ask the 3rd time: What is your proposal?

#36


@nxcoil: Give it up, makoto wants his silvercoins and he will get it. There is no sense in another flawed vote.
If they add "distribute to stakeholder option" then this will win over silvercoins. But the community fund will not win.
But still silvercoins are a completly senseless idea.

#37

A voting system for after launch is of course planned (and discussed in another thread).

But that has nothing to do with the decision what to do with sock puppet stakes.

I ask the 3rd time: What is your proposal?



Obviously you are either a troll or there is something wrong in your capability to read English.
Haven't you read this thread .. you admited that with puppets have been made a mistake.
Once more: sock puppets made stake reservations.
A sock puppet made a post, where he reserved a stake. That is a [u]reservation[/u], not a stake. Get it?
The stakes and the amount of them was planned to set later. And in that phase all non-legal reservation (including puppets' reservations) were dropped out.



Edit: sorry ...
now I got it: your name means that you a master in mixing.
#38

@nxcoil: Give it up, makoto wants his silvercoins and he will get it. There is no sense in another flawed vote.
If they add "distribute to stakeholder option" then this will win over silvercoins. But the community fund will not win.
But still silvercoins are a completly senseless idea.

For the record: I never said that the silver coin idea is good and that it is the way to go.



Obviously you are either a troll or there is something wrong in your capability to read English.
Haven't you read this thread .. you admited that with puppets have been made a mistake.
Once more: sock puppets made stake reservations.
A sock puppet made a post, where he reserved a stake. That is a [u]reservation[/u], not a stake. Get it?
The stakes and the amount of them was planned to set later. And in that phase all non-legal reservation (including puppets' reservations) were dropped out.



Edit: sorry ...
now I got it: your name means that you a master in mixing.

After your heavy criticism on my earlier unobjective post ("Fast.") I am a bit surprised about you getting that personal now.

Anyway. I am not trying to troll here, but my english isn't the best (I am no native speaker), so I can't be sure if I am understanding something wrong. (In that case maybe other people understand it and could help?)

I said it was a mistake not to think about how to handle sock puppet registrations (ok call it that, not stakes. got it...) from the beginning on. There was no rule written down like "registrations which later will be recognized as sock puppet registrations will be dropped.", right?
The way patmast3r dealt with it it was not possible to recognize sock puppet registrations immediately, so the numbers started to rise and people calculated with these numbers. Weeks or months later it was published that there are XYZ sock puppet registrations and that the number of actual stakes is lower than thought. In my opinion this legitimizes a discussion about what to do with these numbers.

And however you and me evaluate the fact that sock puppet registrations are dropped completely or not:
We should do what is best for NEMs future and not what we think was meant back in January.
#39

...

Edit: sorry ...
now I got it: your name means that you a master in mixing.

After your heavy criticism on my earlier unobjective post ("Fast.") I am a bit surprised about you getting that personal now.


yes ... everyone reacts in the similar way, when pushed long enough.
I noticed that and made the edit: "sorry".




We should do what is best for NEMs future and not what we think was meant back in January.


agree.
But how is got the best for NEM?
... there we have the difference in our methods ...

#40


...

Edit: sorry ...
now I got it: your name means that you a master in mixing.

After your heavy criticism on my earlier unobjective post ("Fast.") I am a bit surprised about you getting that personal now.


yes ... everyone reacts in the similar way, when pushed long enough.
I noticed that and made the edit: "sorry".




We should do what is best for NEMs future and not what we think was meant back in January.


agree.
But how is got the best for NEM?
... there we have the difference in our methods ...


Do you realize you still haven't made a proposal on what to do NOW ?
Is the only purpose of this thread to point out what was - in your opinion - a mistake ? (If so then just say so. At least we finally know what on earth this is about)

PS: Could a mod please move this to discussion ? I don't see how this is news or alert.