http://www.siacoin.com/sianotes.html

This page now includes a list of siafunds that have been redeemed.

For the lazy:

7d0c44f7664e2d34e53efde0661a6f628ec9264785ae8e3cd7c973e8d190c3c9: 8780
0439e5bc7f14ccf5d3a7e882d040923e45625166dd077b64466bc771791ac6fc: 2
2c6aef338a66f213ccc5f8b2db7a98fb13143420af20049c4921a3a5deb8d9da: 8
33979254c7073b596face3c83e37a5fdeeba1c912f89c80f46c7bb7df368b3f0: 1
38db03321c03a65f8da3ca233cc7db0a97b0e461b085bd21d3ca53c51fd0fec1: 50
44be8c5760e89620a1b1cc41e4df57d9865a1938332d486b810c1dca0607320d: 75
450ec9c85a49f52d9a5ea113c7f1cb380d3f05dc79f5f734c2b5fc4c82067224: 10
4880fdcfa930011aedcda966c4e02aba5f973be2cb88fbdfa526586e2fd579e0: 10
57ef537d980e1316cb882ec0cb57e0be4dec7d128edf92461017fc1364455b6f: 121
723a932c404548b841b2d55e9d2c586a5c1f91c1d7c8d7e9637424c5a0464f99: 3
7b6ae565dcfc32cb26b78598faa7d29bfc66961dbb03b2350b918f21a673fa28: 1
7c65cfaf3277cf1a3e0ff78d96ae49f7ee1c4dffde68a6f47056e350d72d458f: 5
8689c6ac60362d0a64805be1e2868f6c1f46bbe436d446e5953940a6997beeb4: 25
9b4f591c4547efc6f602c6fe5c3bc0cde59824ba6e7ae9dd4c8f03ee59e7c017: 58
ce3a7294833157c55612d81a3e4f98af210484a06ce735c8304c7d5e9c552082: 23
c867877ec502cb3ff106f5c3dc661b4ae8f9c956cf22331ab497886c70388448: 80
a35e33dc0e9053703e0a00ada1ead3b0ba5409bdfa6f21e77257644b48d90b1a: 75
ad788068ba56978cbf17e7c14df5f368c4379bf36f0f548b94bbad2f68458d27: 90
f132e5d3422073f17557b4ef4cf60e8169b5996969cbe5ed1782c1aa64c92647: 1
Unclaimed: 582
Total: 10,000

I will be updating this list every few days. This list was everything I had as of ~noon EST on May 17th, 2015. If your balance is missing from this list, or if one of the numbers appears incorrect, please get in touch with me.

There was no dilution.
This was done without my advice, but each of the assets are for the exact same share.
Instead of 1 million assets for 25%, it is 1.4 million assets for 35%

Chris has assured me that there wont be any more changes and that I will be consulted first on anything that affects the assets.

James

To people wondering what superNET is I'll write a little description of how I expect it to be from the perspective of if I was actually using it. Hopefully jl777 or anyone else can correct any inaccuracies.

......

There is a stake complaint thread for this. You should post there and someone will look at it.

Hi all!

what you are discussing can be done voluntarily now, but manual work and overhead required to accomplish your goal will be extremely high, and  everyone involved will have to trust everyone else, as in a mesh:  (n x (n-1)/2) links of trust.  Actually, will even need to multiply that figure by 2 since the lines of trust have to be 2 way.  This is why no one is responding to your suggestion - it will end up being a nightmare to manage manually, and just about as much of a nightmare to design/add/test the code for it to be done automatically by the network.

The way leasing will work in the very near future is that there is MUCH less trust involved, n-1. where just 1 way trust from each leasor to the single leasee.  The leasee will still be responsible for calculating and returning the gains, though this *could* be enforced via code by the network, with a bit of work - certainly nowhere near as much work as would be required network enforcement of your shared idea.

I do get you point on it though, you get the psychological effect, then there are still more forging nodes out there; but unfortunately I dont think we will ever see it implemented in code as what you are describing will require tons and tons of work.

From what I can tell, there are two ideas in here:
* Proposal for a "share fee group" where accounts can group together (without central pooling) where any account that forges a block will share fees with group.
* Proposal to skim some percentage off of assets traded on AE as another fee.

My remarks on the matter are that we must wait and see fully implemented Transparent Forging before suggesting any radical changes to the core network function.  I would expect smaller servers to be penalized by 100% TF for subpar performance -- "win or die".  See these comments:

I did some thinking about NEM fundraising process and imo here are the rules that presents the best spirit of the NEM fundraising:

1. Everyone could reserve 1 stake in his own account so that we have 1 account/ 1 stake rule.
2. Stakeholders could reserve  1 stake for his loved one. To do that he/ she has to create an account for that person and reserve a stake from the new account.
3. Everyone could tell their friends/ relatives to reserve a NEM stake. They could even send them the money to do so as long as these friends/ relatives are interested in crypto and NEMs.

What's against NEM's fundraising spirit is that a stakeholder tried to reserve a lot of NEM stakes for himself which imo mainly because he think NEM stake could appreciate a lot in the future. In this case, we would refund you the extra stakes. As an investor, you would be welcomed to buy as many NEM as you like when NEM officially launch but reserving more than your shares of NEM at this stage is not welcomed because: 1. the first goal of the fundraising is to spread NEM widely and equally to many people so that everyone could have an equal footing when NEM platform starts; 2. the second goal of the fundraising is to build a active community around NEM that can help to develop and promote NEM platform as well its ideas. One stakeholder reserving many NEM stakes for himself do not help much in this cause, imo.

The purpose of this public auditing is to ensure the accuracy of the stakeholder list, and to create a refunding list consisting of all confirmed sock-puppet accounts. I would define a sockpuppet account as an account made solely for the purpose of reserving a NEM stake when the account owner already owns his slot of two stakes.  This process is based on the disclaimer written in fundraising announcement that "the development team reserves the right to refund you the money if an effort to unfairly accumulate NEM stakes is discovered".

There are 2 development shares reserved for the public auditing, 1 for NXT payment auditing and 1 for BTC payment auditing. The shares could be divided to many people proportionally to their contributions  

Here are some of my proposed guidelines based on above-described principles:

1. two primary investigative tools are taint analyses and account activity analyses and they should be used together.
2. all accounts opened before the fundraiser or have more than 10 posts before today should not be considered sock-puppets.
3. all accounts with paypal payment are from individuals with real identity that I verified so they are not sock-puppets.
4. not all accounts with 1 posts are sockpuppets because they can be 1. a proxy stake bought within the rule; 2. new account but not yet active.
5. If you use taint analysis, pay attention to a group of related accounts in which many are new accounts with just 1/2 post    
6. The public auditing bounties are similar to bug-finding bounties. In the latter you try to find bug in an working program; in the former you try to find sockpuppet accounts given all the public data. You do have to make careful analyses in both.
7. Be careful when you accuse of a certain account sock-puppet. I would expect solid evidences "beyond a reasonable doubt" before I refund an account. Therefore, represent your evidences of why you think certain accounts are sockpuppets in a manner that is easy to understand to all community. Including: the sock-puppet account name, the reserving post (or profile), accounts that the sockpuppets are related.  
8. I will be updating the NEM refunding list daily to reflect the number of suspected sock-puppet accounts which will be refunded.
9. All accused sock-puppet accounts have a chance to represent themselves to repeal any accusation against them.
10. The community will make the final decision when there is an dispute regarding a sockpuppet account status.

NEM public auditing will last until next Saturday. Thanks you all for joining the effort.

Here are relevant resources:

NEM stakeholder list   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlidWok7hW0DdHVfeU1BRFVoZkJ6QTRvcjc2cTQzQ2c&usp=drive_web#gid=0
NEM stakeholder population statistics https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlidWok7hW0DdG1XYWlDemNENl9IaGR5ZHNUNTNhcmc&usp=drive_web#gid=1
Registration thread 1 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=422129.0
Registration thread 2 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=440185.0
Refunding list https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlidWok7hW0DdG5HUC1jZWp1SXJYcEVGZjRCU0FJYUE#gid=0

A note: Many NXT transaction have a spread sheet numeric formatting problem. It is known issue with Excel as well. So any bounty hunters for the NXT share should look up for the tx id in the registration threads if the tx id in the list turns out to be incorrect.
All accounts in official list are with valid tx. id and was manually checked in registration thread before, but tx. id in the stakeholder list are not guaranteed to be correct.
Hashes with Bitcoin transactions appear to be fine.
 

Jr. Member
*
Online Online

Activity: 56


View Profile  Email  Personal Message (Online)
Trust: 0: -0 / +0(0)
   
Re: [ANN] NEM :: descendant of NXT - 4 billion coins
January 25, 2014, 11:59:29 PM
Delete message  #1015
OK, I'm interested.

26/01/2014 0:46:17   13847155466898086431

Quote from: utopianfuture on January 19, 2014, 03:09:00 AM
How to join after page 50. Two ways

1. Pay a fee to join in
    
    Send 80 NXT to the address      14343293611098709683
    Send 0.008 BTC to the address  1Lk5Paws9T1YpoSeLeZT7ZeSQKW7UNq4TJ

    After you send the fee, include the transaction hash in your reply post in this thread, then you have reserved a stake spot.
    Donation is welcome but not necessary

   


10 Immutable Laws of Security.

Law #1: If a bad guy can persuade you to run his program on your computer, it's not solely your computer anymore.
Law #2: If a bad guy can alter the operating system on your computer, it's not your computer anymore.
Law #3: If a bad guy has unrestricted physical access to your computer, it's not your computer anymore.
Law #4: If you allow a bad guy to run active content in your website, it's not your website any more.
Law #5: Weak passwords trump strong security.
Law #6: A computer is only as secure as the administrator is trustworthy.
Law #7: Encrypted data is only as secure as its decryption key.
Law #8: An out-of-date antimalware scanner is only marginally better than no scanner at all.
Law #9: Absolute anonymity isn't practically achievable, online or offline.
Law #10: Technology is not a panacea.

   
Since you keep referring back to that stackexchange link, some quotes from the man himself:

Quote
As everything is done using javascript in the site is particularly vulnerable to browser exploits including malicious browser extensions. Modern web browsers are much more secure than the internet explorer 6 generation.

Quote
If our servers were compromised the attacker could theoretically alter the javascript files to intercept the users password next time they login. For this to be effective the attack would have to go unnoticed for an extended period of time.