That's fine. But it just seems like a monumental waste of time to me, when if you simply altered how your pools work, it'd be unneeded ... and there would be no risk of cheaters to begin with.

Again, understood. We were simply discussing alternatives that we feel may work a bit better. The dev team can of course choose however they wish to proceed.

Personally I am not so fond of the Skype idea. First off, I don't use Skype. My main PC doesn't even have a camera, for starters. I expect many folks won't want to go to all of that trouble. There is also an issue of time. I don't know how many investors you have but do you have time as a dev team to personally verify each and every person with skype? Forever? How will you even manage to do it?

And yes, social networks plus IP checks aren't 100% fullproof. Although if you require a social media account at least 1-2 years old, I expect it'd block most cheaters.

This just seems like this is much more complicated than it needs to be. Do the payouts by percentage per coin, or automatic multiple shares based on total coins, and no need for skype nor worry about cheaters. And the payouts should be more or less the same anyway.

Yeah, we understand that. We are talking about how it should ideally work, and why cheaters would try to get 4 midshares if they are holding 4K coins. If based on a percentage of total coins, or even automatic multiple shares based on coins held, it would get around this issue.

Why would it cause any dissent? Assuming folks play by the rules, there wouldn't be a major difference in payouts either way.

And your suggestion of automatic shares is basically the same thing as percentage. Instead of breaking the percentage down by coin, you are simply breaking it down into shares. It's sort of the same thing. So that could work too, although I just think it's making things overly complicated unnecessarily.

Nice. Sure, no reason not to go with them then.

It may not be a bad idea to sort of 'prune' your OP, and make some of these things clearer. The freebie btc debit card for starters is a pretty nice thing, but I expect many don't know of it, or at least don't realize they get it for free.

Yeah, I do agree it is pretty neat. I was just wondering if shipping-wise if it'd be a problem. If not, sure, go for it ... they sound cool to me.

You are correct as far as I can see. There would only be a possible issue (as far as less payouts earned) if breaking down the coins into a lower pool, but that also depends on how many folks are in each pool. If breaking down coins for the same pool, you'd get more overall.

And if a person wanted to be extra sneaky, and had, say 6500 coins. Break that up into 6 midi shares and 5 mini shares. Which is why I think a percentage is a better way to go than the pool idea.

I wondered why you went with the pool payouts instead of percentage, and yes, in theory it could generate more incentive to hold, or provide more coin to those holding smaller amounts ... but in practice, I think it'll be a big headache and overly complicated. You need safeguards against cheaters and physical cards.

I'd still suggest a cap though, which can still be rather big, to just keep exchanges + huge whales from eating the majority of the payouts. I'd also suggest that the coins counted for a payout only come from those who signup to begin with. Otherwise you will dilute the payouts for no real reason.

If you go with the percentage idea, there is also no real requirement for a physical card either. Although it is sort of a nice bonus... just not sure if shipping costs will prove too expensive.

On the first point, very possible. It really comes down to numbers, as depending on the numbers in each pool, it may be more profitable to cheat the system and go for multiple smaller wallets in a lower pool vs one share in a bigger one. I expect that probably won't be the case, but again, it depends on how many are in each pool.

Where it would be advantageous to cheat is when someone has 2K coins, like you say, or however many within that same pool. Then they would get multiple shares in the same pool.

Instead of the Skype idea, which the more I think about it, the less I like it, I'd instead suggest:

IP check
Social Media check
Physical address for cards

Your automatic share idea isn't bad. If someone has 6K coins, they get 6 midi shares (plus lower shares). No need to cheat then, as the only possible benefit would be to break them down into a lower pool, which very possibly would be less profitable based on the total numbers in each pool ... I expect many wouldn't even bother. It could get iffy with big whales though, as they may take their extra coin then and would benefit by breaking their extra coins into smaller wallets -- as they only need so many coins for the max share, the leftovers could be used to cheat the system.

----

The other way around it is forget the different pools, treat it sort of like POS. Just take the number of folks who sign up for the month, add up their coins, and split the pot. Each coin gets a certain percentage. 1K holders get 1K x coin payout .... 15K coin holders get 15K x coin payout. Put a cap on it so giant whales and exchanges can't eat up all the payouts, and that's it. To me, that would probably be the easiest way to go.

I asked that during its initial ICO thread, before they lowered the price and sort of redid things.

Basically storj is decentralized storage. While CLD is a regular cloud storage company using crypto as a form of funding + as a way for users to purchase storage space. Very different things... sort of like if dropbox simply made a dropbox coin where people could pay for storage using said coin. Which makes me wonder why people are going so crazy about this ... overlooking the pump/dump group behind the price rise, that is. Some iffy people promoting this coin, so consider it a red flag.

Except Poloniex didn't have ICD rules for Millionaire. In fact, I expect all the complaints about Mil is what led Polo to creating the ICD rules to begin with. Busoni saw the writing on the wall ... which Bittrex has strangely been ignoring.

Maybe I look at the coin in the wrong way, but personally I think people are focusing on this proof of baghold thing a bit too much. In that I mean, it's not the sole aspect of this coin.

They took in a ton of btc money. Normally when an IPO/ICO coin does this, the dev tends to take all or most of the funds for himself. Here, it's meant for the coin. Poloniex won't let the devs just take the money and run, it's in their rules.

I'd expect at least some of that btc will be used for new coin features too. If they just took 1/3rd of the funds for coin features, it should pay for a decent number of things. Anonymity... fancy wallets, veribit type systems, decentralized marketplace, marketing... lots of stuff are possible.

I'm not saying how the devs will use the funds, as perhaps they have other plans. But it's very feasible to add those types of things with the funding they have. I view the baghold thing as simply a little extra, almost like POS but in btc payouts ... won't amount to much per investor, but it's freebie money. The new coin features they add using the ICO money is what really could matter.

I see people mention this a lot. Overlooking Drk, which some folks would claim would count as working anon, what about all the cryptonote coins? Monero and BBR are decentralized anon coins, they work ... albeit without a GUI wallet (at least for Monero, think BBR may have one), but they are anonymous. And they were about before Cloak was even announced.

This isn't a fud post, nor wish to argue with anyone. I am just curious why that claim is made when decentralized anonymous coins were working before Cloak even came on the market?

Although not classified as an asset, I believe they also stated they will rent mining rigs, or mine ninja launches ... and the ICO money they took in is obviously an asset too. It's an awful lot of coin that could be spent on new coin features + other assets. They can't list what they buy with that ICO money until they actually get it, of course -- which will be listed in a public ledger and needs to be approved by Poloniex.

I wouldn't expect to get rich from the asset payouts, but I'd look at it sort of like a mining contract. Expect at least something from it, which is more than most coins provide.

Polo's ICD rules require identification of devs and several other things that makes it a bit different than standard IPOs. As for devs buying the coins with their own btcs, yep, of course that must have occurred. But unlike  non-exchange run IPOs, the devs didn't get the money from the IPO immediately, so they couldn't turn around and buy coins with other people's money. Basically they are limited to what btc they happen to have before the ICD/IPO was run.

Some decent tips. I'm hardly an expert... actually pretty terrible at trading overall... but one other important thing is for folks to realize why a coin may be going up or down. I think it would be interesting if someone with more experience wrote an article on price manipulation -- not how to do it, just how to properly spot it.

Pump occurs, then fud/trolls pop up... price dumps... then trolls magically vanish... price rises again, and process repeats itself over and over.

Dev announces new feature, new feature has 'problems' ... price tanks... dev returns with a miraculous solution, price goes up again. Devs alternatively just take 'breaks' and don't show up for several days or more during rough patches for a coin, again, tanking the price ... which can easily be rectified when the dev becomes active posting again.

Whales dumping to themselves in order to panic sellers into selling cheap coins back to them.

That sort of thing.

One thing that does annoy me sometimes is when new traders (or will assume they are new traders) don't recognize a market may be low volume, and if a rise is going on, decide to plop down their 3+ btc sell order in a market that is sustaining crumb-like .05ish types of sells. They basically destroy the rally on their own coins. You see them jump around trying to get their giant order sold, sometimes dumping and killing the price... like they are so eager to sell they can't spread out their orders into smaller amounts and just wait.

Heh, thought the same too. I was momentarily annoyed that somehow I missed this. I usually wait until the end of ICOs to get my coins, but picked them up now just to be safe.

Yep, I just wanted to see if I even understood how that worked correctly. There is no fullproof way to guard against abusers. Ip check, social media, could help, so would suggest that. I do agree that I think most will abide by the rules though, or at least I hope.

If each pool was the same %, would it even matter really?

Again, I may be misunderstanding how this all works, but say we break it down like this. These will be hypothetical numbers of course (and ridiculously high, but I prefer using integers) --

InvestorX has 10000 qibucks.

And...

Group one gets 1 btc in payments  for the month. Yay, not bad at all.
Group two gets 4 btc for the month, due to less folks being in that pool -- the higher the requirement, the less folks who should be in the pool.
Group three gets 10 btc for the month. Even less people in this pool

So if he plays by the rules, he'd get 15 btc in payouts for that month.

But if InvestorX turns evil, and instead decides to make 10 wallets with 1K in each, he instead gets 41 btc. Of course there is some dilution of the pool by doing this, but it would likely be somewhat insignificant based on the number of overall investors.

And if InvestorX went super evil and instead made 100 wallets with 100 qibucks in each, he'd get 100 btc.

That's the problem I was getting at. That also assumes that's how payouts will even work, and I'm not completely confused by the whole thing. But also why changing the percentages wouldn't matter, unless it was a payout per coin, everyone in one single pool. But then whales and exchanges would eat up all the payouts.

Is there a proportional reward based on coins held for each specific pool?

Meaning, say investorX has 6000 coins and gets rewards from the first two pools. The way I am reading it is, he'd get more payouts by making 6 individual wallets at 1K each vs one wallet at 6K coins. Or am I misunderstanding how that works?