Quote from: iamnotback on June 28, 2016, 08:46:42 PM

Quote from: kodtycoon on June 28, 2016, 09:06:30 AM

Quote from: iamnotback on June 28, 2016, 08:57:53 AM

Quote from: kodtycoon on June 28, 2016, 08:47:31 AM

Quote from: iamnotback on June 28, 2016, 01:11:47 AM

Quote from: kodtycoon on June 28, 2016, 01:03:37 AM

i know its very easy to assume that there MUST be some kind of deviousness involved somewhere along the line, but that has never been the case with nem. its a major reason why i supported nem wholeheartedly from the beginning and will continue to do so for years to come.

So we must trust you.

So just like how Mark Karpeles was our hero until he wasn't?

Why didn't you make a WoT to codify the level of decentralized trust in the system, so the decentralized trust is more verifiable.

What are the names of all these people I am asked to trust? Who trusts whom within that? What are their backgrounds and past performances? Etc...

Again I am not making accusations. I am just suggesting that if you want the market to trust you, you should be able to show information that helps to establish the trust.

i never asked for anyone to trust myself or anyone else. i just gave my opinion on the matter. you can trust my opinion if you wish or your can do your home work. either way, you will find nem is quite a lot different to any other crypto in many many ways. it really does buck the trend. what you take from my post is entirely up to you.

I am just making the point that trust has nothing to do with it. Your "Proof-of-importance" (don't tell anyone it is really just proof-of-stake) technology has nothing to do with it.

The price is moving up because someone is manipulating the price.

wrt PoI, Here is the formula.

The importance score, ψ, is calculated as follows:

ψ = (normalize1(max(0, ν + σwo)) + πwi)χ

where:
normalize1(v) is: vkvk
ν is the vested amount of XEM
σ is the weighted, net outlinking XEM
πis the NCDawareRank score
χ is a weighting vector that considers the structural topology of the graph
wo, wi are suitable constants

as you can see, "v" which could be considered the proof of stake part of the algorithm, is a part, but not the only part, nor is it the majority. so no it is not proof of stake, but it is a component in the overall algorithm.

"The price is moving up because someone is manipulating the price." -> is any buy on any market anything less than intentional or unintentional market manipulation? i have no interest with disputing whether it is market manipulation or not. if that is your opinion then so be it. its not my loss.

The reputation stuff is just proof-of-stake in transactions. It has the same properties of proof-of-stake wherein your stake determines how much rank you realistically have (and not just lose it all to transaction fees).

Yes everything is a "manipulation" (i.e. a trade), but the difference is that in order to move a price up vertically like that requires significant concentration of the tokens into one manipulator's control. That isn't necessarily bad or good, depending on your perspective of good and bad. It carries certain risks, which include that the manipulator can crash the price when he is ready to short.

I am just advocating honesty:

1. NEM doesn't have any new technology. It is a rehash of same old technology.

2. NEM's price is being manipulated to the upside as of this moment by someone with control over most of the float.

You don't need to take that as an insult or criticism. Just take it as a being fair and factual.

I must correct you:

1) NEM has some unique features. As an example the only multisig implementation where you can add and remove cosigners.

2) how can you be sure of manipulation? You are just supposing it.