Stakes of sock puppets and unclaimed stakes

General Discussion
#41


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.


Are you serious?

1. I asked you the numbers
2. There, few posts above, are may "intentions", read, please - over there. (If I write them here, I am blamed about repeating myself)



It is in the news, coz it deals with the stakes of all the stakeholders - those stakes, which are proposed to be put in silver.
#42

I can't see any proposals on what to do NOW either. You keep repeating what you dislike so please don't start being the mixmaster here :wink:

And no, its not "News". It is a discussion.

#43

I can't see any proposals on what to do NOW either. You keep repeating what you dislike so please don't start being the mixmaster here ;)


Ok... I will not step on your area :)
But, mix the grand master, you admitted that one thing I wrote, was not a bad idea.

What are the real obstacles to make "NEM wide important" votes about those 3 issues, which are above there?





And no, its not "News". It is a discussion.


yes, actually when I created it, I looked more about that "Alert" .)
#44

But, mix the grand master, you admitted that one thing I wrote, was not a bad idea.

Yes and I said it is over so it is no proposal for now or the future.


What are the real obstacles to make "NEM wide important" votes about those 3 issues, which are above there?

By those 3 issues you probably mean this:

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?

This is no proposal, these are questions^^ I think thats where we are not understanding each other.

So your proposal is to ask the community these questions (partly again). Right?
#45


But, mix the grand master, you admitted that one thing I wrote, was not a bad idea.

Yes and I said it is over so it is no proposal for now or the future.


Nothing is over in crypto world nor in software development.





What are the real obstacles to make "NEM wide important" votes about those 3 issues, which are above there?

By those 3 issues you probably mean this:

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?

This is no proposal, these are questions^^ I think thats where we are not understanding each other.

So your proposal is to ask the community these questions (partly again). Right?


Yes. 
How it is "partly again"?  Those questions about reservations/stakes have not been set for all the members in NEM community. Currently they have been decided by a minor group.

And the 1st one is a "must", when building a voting system. It is only one of many features in vote specs.


Though those 3 suggestions would be accomplished, the current money flow may not change. But anyway, then can be said that the processes have been as fair as in this community it has been possible.
#46

Nothing is over in crypto world nor in software development.

So you want to start another phase for the stakeholders just to force them to vote? Or what!?
Could you please start to explain clearly what you want? Im really starting to lose patience again.



By those 3 issues you probably mean this:

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?

This is no proposal, these are questions^^ I think thats where we are not understanding each other.

So your proposal is to ask the community these questions (partly again). Right?


Yes. 
How it is "partly again"?  Those questions about reservations/stakes have not been set for all the members in NEM community. Currently they have been decided by a minor group.

And the 1st one is a "must", when building a voting system. It is only one of many features in vote specs.


Though those 3 suggestions would be accomplished, the current money flow may not change. But anyway, then can be said that the processes have been as fair as in this community it has been possible.

It is partly again because those or similar votes already exist.

The 1st one is a "must", I agree when it comes to an official vote feature after launch. For now the devs are just trying to launch the whole thing and for that they partly try to include community feedback in their decisions. I don't see any problems there.
#47


Nothing is over in crypto world nor in software development.

So you want to start another phase for the stakeholders just to force them to vote? Or what!?
Could you please start to explain clearly what you want? Im really starting to lose patience again.



You asked that earlier and I have answered ("second paragraph").

Why do you think that is a bad thing and there is needed any "forcing"?

Actually, I think that in the Nemesis could be some kind of setting that the money in the account is available only after the account owner does "something" :)
Ok ... it is not needed to be so complicated (from the SW's poin of view).
Only a simple discussion thread is needed. Everyone goes there and writes his/hers opinion to vote the issue. It cannot be "forcing", if they have joined NEM to participate to this Movement.
If the problem is that those NEMsters are not reached, then in the first transaction could be sent a message: visit the forum, mandatory votes...









By those 3 issues you probably mean this:

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?

This is no proposal, these are questions^^ I think thats where we are not understanding each other.

So your proposal is to ask the community these questions (partly again). Right?


Yes. 
How it is "partly again"?  Those questions about reservations/stakes have not been set for all the members in NEM community. Currently they have been decided by a minor group.

And the 1st one is a "must", when building a voting system. It is only one of many features in vote specs.


Though those 3 suggestions would be accomplished, the current money flow may not change. But anyway, then can be said that the processes have been as fair as in this community it has been possible.

It is partly again because those or similar votes already exist.

The 1st one is a "must", I agree when it comes to an official vote feature after launch. For now the devs are just trying to launch the whole thing and for that they partly try to include community feedback in their decisions. I don't see any problems there.


Where the similar votes exist? I have not noticed...

"community feedback" -  where do you see community feedback?

Have you discussed with all the developers about these issues?



#48


@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.


If we do not disagree with questions, then the Movement dies. The Movement cannot mean such that "we all agree everything".

I hope that after 10 years Egalitarian is not compared to communism:
"yea... it was a nice idea, but they just messed it - like communists. Do you remember, when ..."

#49



Nothing is over in crypto world nor in software development.

So you want to start another phase for the stakeholders just to force them to vote? Or what!?
Could you please start to explain clearly what you want? Im really starting to lose patience again.



You asked that earlier and I have answered ("second paragraph").

-.-

A 100% vote would have been easily reached, when a mandatory vote(s) was included to the last phase of the 'Phase2 redemption'.

THIS IS OVER! Man...


Why do you think that is a bad thing and there is needed any "forcing"?

Where did I write that something is bad?
Where did I write that something needs to be forced?
I aksed you a question and again you are not answering it clearly.

You know what? Im out. This is no constructive discussion and for me it seems that you are not trying at all to let this become a constructive discussion.
#50

I do not know what is a constructive discussion, which does not start from admiting the basic facts.

In this thread has been proven that the basic fact about "sock puppets' stakes" is
that there is no such stakes. (1) 
Another basic fact is that NEM needs some things to boost it. (2)

The unclear definitions has created such an impression that in (1) exist some money for (2).
That is not the case. IMHO.
Anyway, if it is wanted so ( (1) "gives" money to (2) ), then I would like to see that the NEM community respects the Egalitarian pricinples and behaves in an equal and fair way:    make the decisions in a discipline way, not in shout votes.




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
does not change NEM's equal and fair distribution - without that members are aware of it.

NEM wide important votes could have been included to Phase2 Redemption.
Is it too late now?
mixmaster wrote about "force them to vote".
I don't think it is not so bad. The NEMsters join to the Movement, so few mandatory votes are not too much asked.

How such votes can be done?
In many ways … when the NEM voting system is up and running.
Now the votes can be done with forum's discussion threads. Or maybe there is still coming some "Phase3 Redemption" …


Anyway, before any vote is opened, there could be decided, what kind of majority each vote category requires.
That requires few votes - similarly as logo votes.
First is selected eg. the 2 most popular alternatives.
For example, "the most important votes will require
        a) 51 % 
        b) 67 % 
        c) 75 %
        d) 95 %
        e) 99 % 
        f) 100.0 %  majority of the given votes"

   

When that 'majority rule for votes' is defined, then can be voted these:


- How will be treated those stake reservations, which were made by sock puppets?
        a) They are ignored
        b) Half of them are ignored, the rest are claimed by a NEM fund
        c) They are claimed by a NEM fund


- How will be treated those stake reservations, which are not claimed before the date X?
        a) They are ignored
        b) Half of them are ignored, the rest are claimed by a NEM fund
        c) They are claimed by a NEM fund



- Will NEM fund buy one silver coin to each NEM stakeholder?
        a) yes
        b) no
        c) yes, if … (condition xyz…)

- …

- …

Then the road is open…



#51

so your "solution" is just have a marathon of votes to try and come to a different "solution"? that isnt going to happen. there simply isnt the time and there is no way possible to make more people vote. those who give a crap already voted. this discussion is counter productive at this point and is not leading anywhere.

give me one example of any situation world wide where voting is mandatory? there are none. and there is a reason for that. people are allowed to keep their opinion to themselves and forcing a vote on people is ridiculous not to mention it would add yet another task to the already laborious redemption process.

the team is doing the very best with what they have which i dont think you realise. seriously if you had even the slightest notion the effort being put in… your just causing them more of a headache over something that apparently no one else has an issue with… give it a break.

#52

"your just causing them more of a headache "
How it is so?  Are you the bearer?
If this whole issue is nonsense, then it would not cause any headache.
Obviously this has anyway some weight.

Then there is a very clear solution:

admit that there exist no sock puppets' stakes,
and all the 8 000 000 000 NEMcoins are shared in an equal and fair distribution
ONLY to those, who have claimed their stakes.

After that everyone can send coins to different projects: silver, development, whatever.
But twisting the original plan with "sock puppets' stakes" is not fair nor equal.




#53

"your just causing them more of a headache "
How it is so?  Are you the bearer?
If this whole issue is nonsense, then it would not cause any headache.
Obviously this has anyway some weight.

Then there is a very clear solution:

admit that there exist no sock puppets' stakes,
and all the 8 000 000 000 NEMcoins are shared in an equal and fair distribution
ONLY to those, who have claimed their stakes.

After that everyone can send coins to different projects: silver, development, whatever.
But twisting the original plan with "sock puppets' stakes" is not fair nor equal.


there quite blatantly are sock puppet stakes seeing as stakes were taken from sock puppet.. i dont think it could be any clearer. so taking stakes away from people who wrongly registered for more than they were allowed is "not fair or equal"? so we should have left all the sock masters who cheated and lied with their multiple stakes because it was not fair to take their illegal stakes away from them? ya that makes a lot of sense.

also i love how you said 8b coins as if it were fact that their will be 8b even though it has not been decided and that 8b coins was not the "original plan". so its ok to "twist" the original plan to change the number of coins but not to take sock puppet stakes away? or is it ok that they were taken as long as they get distributed to stake holders?

i get the feeling you have become sour for some reason or other or that your intention is just that you want some of the coins so im going to refrain from discussing this with you.

#54

Your feeling is absolutely wrong, sorry.

Changing 4 to 8 is definitely different thing than sock puppets.

It is many times shown that there exist no stakes for sock puppets. They had only stake reservations. That is a totally different thing. And when they have no stakes, the number of sock puppets is ignored from every distribution formula
  "share = 4 billion / (total account stake + development stake) "    (January 2014)


That and my greedyness and other point of views have been handled in this thread already several times, so I jump over them.
This "writing and reading" becomes strangely to look very useless … start reminding a debate about politics…


#55

I think I now understand what nxkoils problem is.

When you read the information at the official BTT thread, it says: "71% - distributed to stakeholders on the final stakeholder list."

This is misleading, because this seems to implicate that the amount for a single stakeholder is calculated percentage based. This is not the case.
Correct is: The amount for a single stakeholder was set fixed to 1/4000th of the total amount of NEM. 71 % (actually 71,125 %) was just a back calculation of 1/4000th for 2845 stakeholders.

Now there was a final stakeholder list of 2845 registrations and everything would have been exactly as planned but there was a second sock puppet filter round (for reasons; @nxkoil: please don't start a discussion about why there was a 2nd filter round!). This lead in a smaller (but now definitely) final stakeholder list. The rule "1/4000th for every stakeholder" did not change, so now there was a problem: There will be an amount of NEM which is now free.

The mistake which I earlier meant was that the process of sock puppet filtering wasn't foreseen in detail and therefore the final stakeholder list didn't end up with 2845 stakes but less.

In my opinion it is better to have less sock puppet registrations (and to have the problem of "what to do with these stakes now?") than having everything as planned but more people with >2 stakes.

I hope this clears the situation for you, nxkoil.

#56

I think ...


Thank You. Thank You for Your trying and Your consolation :)
This saves my day...

I do not know, why I bother - maybe I have that socratesian syndrome :)

Share? Percentage? 1/4000th? 
No, see the page 1 (a copy from January's announcement) :
" How many shares of NEM would I get ?
There is no specific number yet. Our current formula is number of NEM per
stake spot = 4 billion/ (total account stake + development stake). "

That is the original.
The other figures or expressions during the spring were just to simplify the picture to all the possible investors, to make marketing easier.




"...problem is."
no, my problem is that the sock puppets went under my skin ... yea... there they are lurkin... sad, isn't it?  I just cannot accept them. That is why I cannot also understand, why any sensible human being is using this kind of formula:
share=(TotalAmountofNEMs) / (stakeholders + sockpuppets + devteam_share)

That is the problem.
I hope this clears the situation for you, mixmaster.
#57

@ Nxkoil: Man… you could be more direct.

I understood all Mixaster wrote (which is German)… very clearly… and Im sorry… I coudnt get your point during 4 pages…

i hope you get this as a positive feedback: Be more direct.

I saw no one supporting you… that means: no one got your point.

You remember me a friend of mine. When he gonna talk about paper ( sheet of paper), he starts explaing the origin of universe  :stuck_out_tongue:

cheers and you can feedback too

:slight_smile:

Another Edit:

about this stakes, It would be nice if they continue the NXT'x auction house negotiating. Maybe not throwing all stakes at once, but in homeopathic doses.

Indirectely, they will make our coins more valuable…

#58


I think ...


Thank You. Thank You for Your trying and Your consolation :)
This saves my day...

I do not know, why I bother - maybe I have that socratesian syndrome :)

Share? Percentage? 1/4000th? 
No, see the page 1 (a copy from January's announcement) :
" How many shares of NEM would I get ?
There is no specific number yet. Our current formula is number of NEM per
stake spot = 4 billion/ (total account stake + development stake). "

That is the original.
The other figures or expressions during the spring were just to simplify the picture to all the possible investors, to make marketing easier.




"...problem is."
no, my problem is that the sock puppets went under my skin ... yea... there they are lurkin... sad, isn't it?  I just cannot accept them. That is why I cannot also understand, why any sensible human being is using this kind of formula:
share=(TotalAmountofNEMs) / (stakeholders + sockpuppets + devteam_share)

That is the problem.
I hope this clears the situation for you, mixmaster.


Things change over time; statements in january's announcement are not necessarily valid now.

Now everyone has accepted the idea that 4000 stakes exists; some of them are assigned, some not.

That's all.
#59

You are still calculating percentage based. That doesnt make sense.

Total NEM amount: 8,999,999,999 NEM = 4000 stakes

Every stakeholder gets 1/4000th of the total = 2,249,999.99975 NEM.

#60

You are still calculating percentage based. That doesnt make sense.

Total NEM amount: 8,999,999,999 NEM = 4000 stakes

Every stakeholder gets 1/4000th of the total = 2,249,999.99975 NEM.



So the example 6 is the correct one?


The examples are not percentage based. They have been made so that the currently known numbers are filled first to the table, and so is got this "template" below:

                          stak        p%         coins            coins/stakeholder
Stakeholders        1500  
Unclaimed              500  
Sockpuppt/fund      250  
Dev team                            25     2249999999

Total                                  100      8999999999


To that template is then started calculating different cases, eg. filling the p% according the shares of eg. 1500 - 500 - 250 (they cover together 75%), etc, etc.
All the examples have used that template as the starting point.