Removed and Apologize

I don't really see what your point is here. I own all of those accounts and made sure they met the criteria just like everyone else. I'm sure this is because of your witness status so I'll just leave it at that.

$0.11

6 votes

[-]

clayop (73) · 8 years ago

Who is "everyone else"? The above records are all I found to "meet the criteria" It does not matter if an account is already used and meet the criteria. But the above activities seem to aim to get more free tokens.

$0.00

[-]

thecryptofiend (74) · 8 years ago

Why is this suspicious though? If I had multiple accounts I would do the same. It is common sense to maximise your rewards or am I missing something?

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

clayop (73) · 8 years ago

I here repeat this,

Since given the limited amount of sharedrop, their maximizing earnings decrease all others profit.

$0.00

[-]

thecryptofiend (74) · 8 years ago

That's how the world works mate. I'm not getting at you I just don't see it as a problem.

$0.00

[-]

berniesanders (77) · 8 years ago (edited)

$0.00

Reveal Comment

[-]

madhatting (52) · 8 years ago

You've done well and followed terms.... Period

$0.00

[-]

aizensou (65) · 8 years ago

@clayop, I'm flagging this because IM(subjective)O it's silly and potential harmful for the platform. Your recent activities focus mostly on @steemed and @berniesanders, actually. It feels like a revenge act from your side after the two witnesses unapprove you and you lost your top witness spot because of that. That kind of negative activities should be avoided totally. And again, IMHO that you as witness have more important things to do to contribute to the platform than stalking people. Kindly regards. Aizen.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

smooth (70) · 8 years ago (edited)

Flagged for the same reason. This is divisive trolling. The idea that constantly making negative posts going after other users and introducing some sort of innuendo they are doing something wrong is somehow going to add value to the platform is completely wrong. It does the opposite and I'm flagging to avoid rewarding something that is harmful to Steem/it and to my investment.

Also, this action is completely appropriate. If an account has too little to qualify for the sharedrop (for example, 6.9 SP or 99.9 SP without activity) then the SP in that account is excluded from the sharedrop, arguably unfairly. By topping off the accounts, it prevents that. This is being a smart investor, IMO. That @berniesanders is a smart investor and has maximizing investor value (including his own) guiding his actions is a large part of why I support his witness and conversely actions that damage the platform and are hostile to investor value is why I do not support @clayop's witness, nor these posts of his.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

thecryptofiend (74) · 8 years ago

I don't understand what is wrong with trying to maximise your earnings. I would assume most people would do the same. Is it a crime to make money now? The whole bloody platform is based on it - it's cryptocurrencies after all.

These kind of personal fights need to stop it looks really childish and will scare away new users. Also crying scam on everything harms us all.

$0.13

3 votes

[-]

clayop (73) · 8 years ago

Since given the limited amount of sharedrop, their maximizing earnings decrease all others profit.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

thecryptofiend (74) · 8 years ago

Yes you already made that point and I get it. How is this different from anything else in life?

$0.00

[-]

vi1son (59) · 8 years ago

All of this accounts have > 7SP and almost curation rewards. I hope @berniesanders just insuring. Will you curate posts in Golos? I know you understand Russian.

$0.00

[-]

smooth (70) · 8 years ago

Available time is a factor. I'm watching Galos though, and interested in the experiment.

$0.03

2 votes

[-]

hipster (66) · 8 years ago

Thanks for your support

$0.02

2 votes

[-]

clayop (73) · 8 years ago

Regarding witness vote, in fact I was revenged by some of the witness whales because I publicly discovered their similar voting patterns (See block 5178553, 2016-09-22 01:29). The backlashes happened a day after within a ten minute by three of them (See block 5230964, 5230995, 5231092).

This is sad that discovering potential harmful activities is considered as a potential harmful behavior for the platform. IMHO, these witnesses first have to stop this kind of negative activities not to make any unnecessary debates in the future.

$0.00

[-]

smooth (70) · 8 years ago (edited)

You disagreeing with how stakeholders vote does not make their votes harmful, and you have no objective basis beyond that for claiming that it does. "Similar voting patterns" is not evidence of anything harmful. As a stakeholder I'm entitled to decide that my votes will be cast in a manner similar to another user, whether that other user happens to be @curie or someone else. You repeatedly posting about it and insinuating that people voting in a manner different than what you think is best makes it "potential harmful behavior" is harmful behavior.

$0.00

[-]

clayop (73) · 8 years ago

"potential harmful behavior" here does not mean the similar voting pattern, but the actions I mentioned above.

About your comments, anyone can decide to follow other accounts. But if the one is a big stakeholder and has significant influences in reward distribution, his/her "lazy curation" can end up with over-valued rewards in few authors as well as under-valued rewards the rest of the others, which is not desirable for the platform.

$0.00

[-]

aizensou (65) · 8 years ago

My point is exactly what @smooth stated above. I have seen a lot of same discussion about valuation reward. Again, over or under is just your personal opinion. I personally find some posts on trending are over-valued, I just don't upvote it anymore, simple. In a social network, you can't forbid anyone to like or dislike your post, exactly like in real world. Even if you don't like it, just don't bring that negativity out.

$0.02

3 votes

[-]

smooth (70) · 8 years ago (edited)

"Over-valued" or "under-valued' is nothing more than your opinion. Posting hostile trolling posts pushing your agenda on it is harmful by creating a negative tone on the platform.

It is not any one particular issue, it is that nearly every post or comment from you pushes a negative agenda, of "greedy", "supicious", "harmful" actions or some other accusation or innuendo generally supported on nothing but your own opinion.

This divisive tone and focus does not add new value to the platform, is entirely the wrong way forward for Steem/it, and my votes will reflect that.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

clayop (73) · 8 years ago

My terminology can be wrongly chosen since I am not a native speaker. But it should not be neglected why these actions happened.

$0.00

[-]

aizensou (65) · 8 years ago

@clayop, according to your finding about "suspicious activity", you really should read @jesta's report about that (last part):
https://steemit.com/witness-category/@jesta/jesta-witness-update-2016-09-30

$0.00

[-]

stellabelle (75) · 8 years ago

what exactly does this indicate? That they want more golos share for each of their accounts, so the net amount is more than they have currently, if they kept it in one account?

$0.00

[-]

vi1son (59) · 8 years ago (edited)

No, i think, they just wanted to make these accounts have been transferred to the Golos!
But the most interesting - why?

$1.08

2 votes

[-]

berniesanders (77) · 8 years ago

Why? Check out project Curie. I vote with the majority of these accounts as they provide smaller rewards than voting with nextgencrypto/berniesanders. Someone like Clayop should understand that considering he's part of the project...

$0.10

5 votes

[-]

vi1son (59) · 8 years ago

I know this project. And you will be curate in Golos? Than you need a man who knows Russian 😉

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

clayop (73) · 8 years ago

The question was why you wanted to transfer these accounts to Golos, which is Russian version of Steemit. Do you want to use Golos with all of these accounts (IIRC Golos does not allow English posts, but you can still vote)?

Curie has no relationship with this thing IMO.

$0.00

[-]

hipster (66) · 8 years ago (edited)

We want to transfer accounts because it is a part of initial social consensus without exceptions

$0.00

[-]

berniesanders (77) · 8 years ago

$0.00

Reveal Comment

[-]

madhatting (52) · 8 years ago

People can be shits, sorry burn. :P

$0.00

[-]

vi1son (59) · 8 years ago

I do not blame anyone, I'm just curious. You will down power GP and sell out, if not secret ofc?

$0.00

[-]

clayop (73) · 8 years ago

Hmm... Are they Russian?

$0.00

[-]

clayop (73) · 8 years ago

Nothing is decided yet about Golos sharedrop as far as I know. But if the Golos distributes the same amount of the token to each account in the snapshot, the aforementioned accounts will get more tokens. If Golos distributes by the amount of STEEM/SP shares, these accounts get the same amount (or slightly lower since couple of accounts failed to meet the criteria)

$0.00

[-]

stellabelle (75) · 8 years ago

It's interesting, nonetheless.....

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

vi1son (59) · 8 years ago

They get (SP + STEEM )/ 10, that is, the whales get an order of magnitude less weight. I begin to suspect that they want to buy Golos or they misunderstood the transfer principle.