[ANN] [DC] Dark Clam |BOUNTY ->| We need more developers. | J-D wager |

[andulolika]

Since all the polemic regarding this ill refund the voting fee to everyone that votes the day the voting is closed.

That seems like it would e a big ass mess. To only refund the people that vote on the last day.

I'm not going to vote, i dont care what you all do with it

Not really a big mess, i mean its easy to see which adresses voted, and i dont think everyone will vote, besides is a small amount if i take it that way, lets say 200 claimers, .0002 each its like .04, i think its worth as long as people stop finding excuses.

its 0.0005btc to vote.

A bit more than i expected, yet i still dont believe the whole 211 holders will vote, i wont retract.

Edit: i just saw what you were saying DarkClam. No, everyone that claimed and wants it will get refunded the fee just that wont be refunded till we finish voting.

[andulolika]

Only 10 votes till now, 5 for burn 5 for continuing. The voting rate is way smaller than the claiming one, comeon guys youll regret later not caring.

[Dank Frank]

Only 10 votes till now, 5 for burn 5 for continuing. The voting rate is way smaller than the claiming one, comeon guys youll regret later not caring.

I voted
Maybe you can ask if the btct link can be added to the header of just-dice?

[andulolika]

Only 10 votes till now, 5 for burn 5 for continuing. The voting rate is way smaller than the claiming one, comeon guys youll regret later not caring.

I voted
Maybe you can ask if the btct link can be added to the header of just-dice?

I guess i could get the ad up but the thread and most info can be accesed trough darkclam.com, most of jd users know about DC. Eitherway we will eventually make the ad again i guess.

[andulolika]

Heh, 5 claimers with  6,538. DC  has same voice as 5 with 2,512,788. Wager, there is no fairness there cjmapope?

[CjMapope]

Heh, 5 claimers with  6,538. DC  has same voice as 5 with 2,512,788. Wager, there is no fairness there cjmapope?

hee hee
honestly it was just my own opinion that basically rewarding those who have gambled the most was unfair
in the end it's your coin, but in the end it's also my choice to not advocate  gambling and/or being rewarded for gambling
i will still support how i can, but only so much as my conscience allows ;p

But i do see that they hold the same weight voting wise, and i do like seeing that
(which was your initial point, but atlas my basic understanding of counterparty voting mislead me ;p)
try not be so wound up, i know it's hard with people not shitting straight rainbows on this idea, but it will be ok ;;)))

[daxxog]

Heh, 5 claimers with  6,538. DC  has same voice as 5 with 2,512,788. Wager, there is no fairness there cjmapope?

hee hee
honestly it was just my own opinion that basically rewarding those who have gambled the most was unfair
in the end it's your coin, but in the end it's also my choice to not advocate  gambling and/or being rewarded for gambling
i will still support how i can, but only so much as my conscience allows ;p

But i do see that they hold the same weight voting wise, and i do like seeing that
(which was your initial point, but atlas my basic understanding of counterparty voting mislead me ;p)
try not be so wound up, i know it's hard with people not shitting straight rainbows on this idea, but it will be ok ;;)))

To be clear, voting is based on token amounts not number of transactions. If this system was based on number of transactions, someone could send 1 vote token to a million addresses and sabotage the vote.

as of block 401489:
1DARKCLAMxDooGXXXXXXXXXXXXXXZPbYip has 0.05843282% of the vote with 6,538.03037584 tokens.
1DARKCLAMxBURNXXXXXXXXXXXXXXVvbpkg has 22.45772632% of the vote with 2,512,788.27224520 tokens.

[andulolika]

Heh, 5 claimers with  6,538. DC  has same voice as 5 with 2,512,788. Wager, there is no fairness there cjmapope?

hee hee
honestly it was just my own opinion that basically rewarding those who have gambled the most was unfair
in the end it's your coin, but in the end it's also my choice to not advocate  gambling and/or being rewarded for gambling
i will still support how i can, but only so much as my conscience allows ;p

But i do see that they hold the same weight voting wise, and i do like seeing that
(which was your initial point, but atlas my basic understanding of counterparty voting mislead me ;p)
try not be so wound up, i know it's hard with people not shitting straight rainbows on this idea, but it will be ok ;;)))

To be clear, voting is based on token amounts not number of transactions. If this system was based on number of transactions, someone could send 1 vote token to a million addresses and sabotage the vote.

as of block 401489:
1DARKCLAMxDooGXXXXXXXXXXXXXXZPbYip has 0.05843282% of the vote with 6,538.03037584 tokens.
1DARKCLAMxBURNXXXXXXXXXXXXXXVvbpkg has 22.45772632% of the vote with 2,512,788.27224520 tokens.

Well i dont agree with that, it should be with jnique address voting and counting only the ones that got the initial distribution.

[daxxog]

Heh, 5 claimers with  6,538. DC  has same voice as 5 with 2,512,788. Wager, there is no fairness there cjmapope?

hee hee
honestly it was just my own opinion that basically rewarding those who have gambled the most was unfair
in the end it's your coin, but in the end it's also my choice to not advocate  gambling and/or being rewarded for gambling
i will still support how i can, but only so much as my conscience allows ;p

But i do see that they hold the same weight voting wise, and i do like seeing that
(which was your initial point, but atlas my basic understanding of counterparty voting mislead me ;p)
try not be so wound up, i know it's hard with people not shitting straight rainbows on this idea, but it will be ok ;;)))

To be clear, voting is based on token amounts not number of transactions. If this system was based on number of transactions, someone could send 1 vote token to a million addresses and sabotage the vote.

as of block 401489:
1DARKCLAMxDooGXXXXXXXXXXXXXXZPbYip has 0.05843282% of the vote with 6,538.03037584 tokens.
1DARKCLAMxBURNXXXXXXXXXXXXXXVvbpkg has 22.45772632% of the vote with 2,512,788.27224520 tokens.

Well i dont agree with that, it should be with jnique address voting and counting only the ones that got the initial distribution.

Such a system wouldn't be fair given each person could have created as many addresses as they wanted before the drop. So one person could end up voting more than once, skewing the results. Voting proportional to distribution (and by definition, personal risk taken on) is the only fair way to vote.

[andulolika]

Heh, 5 claimers with  6,538. DC  has same voice as 5 with 2,512,788. Wager, there is no fairness there cjmapope?

hee hee
honestly it was just my own opinion that basically rewarding those who have gambled the most was unfair
in the end it's your coin, but in the end it's also my choice to not advocate  gambling and/or being rewarded for gambling
i will still support how i can, but only so much as my conscience allows ;p

But i do see that they hold the same weight voting wise, and i do like seeing that
(which was your initial point, but atlas my basic understanding of counterparty voting mislead me ;p)
try not be so wound up, i know it's hard with people not shitting straight rainbows on this idea, but it will be ok ;;)))

To be clear, voting is based on token amounts not number of transactions. If this system was based on number of transactions, someone could send 1 vote token to a million addresses and sabotage the vote.

as of block 401489:
1DARKCLAMxDooGXXXXXXXXXXXXXXZPbYip has 0.05843282% of the vote with 6,538.03037584 tokens.
1DARKCLAMxBURNXXXXXXXXXXXXXXVvbpkg has 22.45772632% of the vote with 2,512,788.27224520 tokens.

Well i dont agree with that, it should be with jnique address voting and counting only the ones that got the initial distribution.

Such a system wouldn't be fair given each person could have created as many addresses as they wanted before the drop. So one person could end up voting more than once, skewing the results. Voting proportional to distribution (and by definition, personal risk taken on) is the only fair way to vote.

the 3 biggest whales would just vote to burn and it would end up in a burn whatever the other 98% want. Besides there is not many reasons someone would use many xcp wallets for several reasons. Think avout the high number of indonesians with low wager, shouldnt they have a vote? Hell lets put this under vote too LOL

[Dank Frank]

Heh, 5 claimers with  6,538. DC  has same voice as 5 with 2,512,788. Wager, there is no fairness there cjmapope?

hee hee
honestly it was just my own opinion that basically rewarding those who have gambled the most was unfair
in the end it's your coin, but in the end it's also my choice to not advocate  gambling and/or being rewarded for gambling
i will still support how i can, but only so much as my conscience allows ;p

But i do see that they hold the same weight voting wise, and i do like seeing that
(which was your initial point, but atlas my basic understanding of counterparty voting mislead me ;p)
try not be so wound up, i know it's hard with people not shitting straight rainbows on this idea, but it will be ok ;;)))

To be clear, voting is based on token amounts not number of transactions. If this system was based on number of transactions, someone could send 1 vote token to a million addresses and sabotage the vote.

as of block 401489:
1DARKCLAMxDooGXXXXXXXXXXXXXXZPbYip has 0.05843282% of the vote with 6,538.03037584 tokens.
1DARKCLAMxBURNXXXXXXXXXXXXXXVvbpkg has 22.45772632% of the vote with 2,512,788.27224520 tokens.

Well i dont agree with that, it should be with jnique address voting and counting only the ones that got the initial distribution.

Such a system wouldn't be fair given each person could have created as many addresses as they wanted before the drop. So one person could end up voting more than once, skewing the results. Voting proportional to distribution (and by definition, personal risk taken on) is the only fair way to vote.

the 3 biggest whales would just vote to burn and it would end up in a burn whatever the other 98% want. Besides there is not many reasons someone would use many xcp wallets for several reasons. Think avout the high number of indonesians with low wager, shouldnt they have a vote? Hell lets put this under vote too LOL

I agree, you already see on the burn vote that some people with major amounts voted to burn, 5 votes for giving it to doog and 5 to burn a difference of 21% in tokens.

So if itś based on the amount of tokens, you could burn them already and move on to the next step.

Just my opinion...

[andulolika]

Heh, 5 claimers with  6,538. DC  has same voice as 5 with 2,512,788. Wager, there is no fairness there cjmapope?

hee hee
honestly it was just my own opinion that basically rewarding those who have gambled the most was unfair
in the end it's your coin, but in the end it's also my choice to not advocate  gambling and/or being rewarded for gambling
i will still support how i can, but only so much as my conscience allows ;p

But i do see that they hold the same weight voting wise, and i do like seeing that
(which was your initial point, but atlas my basic understanding of counterparty voting mislead me ;p)
try not be so wound up, i know it's hard with people not shitting straight rainbows on this idea, but it will be ok ;;)))

To be clear, voting is based on token amounts not number of transactions. If this system was based on number of transactions, someone could send 1 vote token to a million addresses and sabotage the vote.

as of block 401489:
1DARKCLAMxDooGXXXXXXXXXXXXXXZPbYip has 0.05843282% of the vote with 6,538.03037584 tokens.
1DARKCLAMxBURNXXXXXXXXXXXXXXVvbpkg has 22.45772632% of the vote with 2,512,788.27224520 tokens.

Well i dont agree with that, it should be with jnique address voting and counting only the ones that got the initial distribution.

Such a system wouldn't be fair given each person could have created as many addresses as they wanted before the drop. So one person could end up voting more than once, skewing the results. Voting proportional to distribution (and by definition, personal risk taken on) is the only fair way to vote.

the 3 biggest whales would just vote to burn and it would end up in a burn whatever the other 98% want. Besides there is not many reasons someone would use many xcp wallets for several reasons. Think avout the high number of indonesians with low wager, shouldnt they have a vote? Hell lets put this under vote too LOL

I agree, you already see on the burn vote that some people with major amounts voted to burn, 5 votes for giving it to doog and 5 to burn a difference of 21% in tokens.

So if itś based on the amount of tokens, you could burn them already and move on to the next step.

Just my opinion...

Yeah small players got no chance since clearly big holders wont want more distribution (even myself but i abstain from voting). Actually even if it was a joke while working i thinked that we could put that under vote here in the thread, we will sort this out by tonight.

[DarkClam]

We need to get this on to the next step. I'm down to help all i can. I've been with DC since day 1.

[andulolika]

We need to get this on to the next step. I'm down to help all i can. I've been with DC since day 1.

ill be home in about an hour and a half max two, the problem is that everything id about point of views and everyone is right at the same time.

[daxxog]

Heh, 5 claimers with  6,538. DC  has same voice as 5 with 2,512,788. Wager, there is no fairness there cjmapope?

hee hee
honestly it was just my own opinion that basically rewarding those who have gambled the most was unfair
in the end it's your coin, but in the end it's also my choice to not advocate  gambling and/or being rewarded for gambling
i will still support how i can, but only so much as my conscience allows ;p

But i do see that they hold the same weight voting wise, and i do like seeing that
(which was your initial point, but atlas my basic understanding of counterparty voting mislead me ;p)
try not be so wound up, i know it's hard with people not shitting straight rainbows on this idea, but it will be ok ;;)))

To be clear, voting is based on token amounts not number of transactions. If this system was based on number of transactions, someone could send 1 vote token to a million addresses and sabotage the vote.

as of block 401489:
1DARKCLAMxDooGXXXXXXXXXXXXXXZPbYip has 0.05843282% of the vote with 6,538.03037584 tokens.
1DARKCLAMxBURNXXXXXXXXXXXXXXVvbpkg has 22.45772632% of the vote with 2,512,788.27224520 tokens.

Well i dont agree with that, it should be with jnique address voting and counting only the ones that got the initial distribution.

Such a system wouldn't be fair given each person could have created as many addresses as they wanted before the drop. So one person could end up voting more than once, skewing the results. Voting proportional to distribution (and by definition, personal risk taken on) is the only fair way to vote.

the 3 biggest whales would just vote to burn and it would end up in a burn whatever the other 98% want. Besides there is not many reasons someone would use many xcp wallets for several reasons. Think avout the high number of indonesians with low wager, shouldnt they have a vote? Hell lets put this under vote too LOL

I agree, you already see on the burn vote that some people with major amounts voted to burn, 5 votes for giving it to doog and 5 to burn a difference of 21% in tokens.

So if itś based on the amount of tokens, you could burn them already and move on to the next step.

Just my opinion...

Yeah small players got no chance since clearly big holders wont want more distribution (even myself but i abstain from voting). Actually even if it was a joke while working i thinked that we could put that under vote here in the thread, we will sort this out by tonight.

Proportional to stake in the currency (see clamour for a similar system) is the only fair way. What about people that have spent real BTC on this currency? If someone didn't risk much to obtain dc, their vote should be weighted accordingly. Also there is no way of telling that someone didn't make a bunch of random addresses / accounts before the drop. Voting on bitcointalk is pointless, because people who don't even have any stake in this currency can vote (same problem).

[andulolika]

Heh, 5 claimers with  6,538. DC  has same voice as 5 with 2,512,788. Wager, there is no fairness there cjmapope?

hee hee
honestly it was just my own opinion that basically rewarding those who have gambled the most was unfair
in the end it's your coin, but in the end it's also my choice to not advocate  gambling and/or being rewarded for gambling
i will still support how i can, but only so much as my conscience allows ;p

But i do see that they hold the same weight voting wise, and i do like seeing that
(which was your initial point, but atlas my basic understanding of counterparty voting mislead me ;p)
try not be so wound up, i know it's hard with people not shitting straight rainbows on this idea, but it will be ok ;;)))

To be clear, voting is based on token amounts not number of transactions. If this system was based on number of transactions, someone could send 1 vote token to a million addresses and sabotage the vote.

as of block 401489:
1DARKCLAMxDooGXXXXXXXXXXXXXXZPbYip has 0.05843282% of the vote with 6,538.03037584 tokens.
1DARKCLAMxBURNXXXXXXXXXXXXXXVvbpkg has 22.45772632% of the vote with 2,512,788.27224520 tokens.

Well i dont agree with that, it should be with jnique address voting and counting only the ones that got the initial distribution.

Such a system wouldn't be fair given each person could have created as many addresses as they wanted before the drop. So one person could end up voting more than once, skewing the results. Voting proportional to distribution (and by definition, personal risk taken on) is the only fair way to vote.

the 3 biggest whales would just vote to burn and it would end up in a burn whatever the other 98% want. Besides there is not many reasons someone would use many xcp wallets for several reasons. Think avout the high number of indonesians with low wager, shouldnt they have a vote? Hell lets put this under vote too LOL

I agree, you already see on the burn vote that some people with major amounts voted to burn, 5 votes for giving it to doog and 5 to burn a difference of 21% in tokens.

So if itś based on the amount of tokens, you could burn them already and move on to the next step.

Just my opinion...

Yeah small players got no chance since clearly big holders wont want more distribution (even myself but i abstain from voting). Actually even if it was a joke while working i thinked that we could put that under vote here in the thread, we will sort this out by tonight.

Proportional to stake in the currency (see clamour for a similar system) is the only fair way. What about people that have spent real BTC on this currency? If someone didn't risk much to obtain dc, their vote should be weighted accordingly. Also there is no way of telling that someone didn't make a bunch of random addresses / accounts before the drop. Voting on bitcointalk is pointless, because people who don't even have any stake in this currency can vote (same problem).

yep you prolly right, besides the amount of butthurt and spam in anything that can leave a message was enough to not dig more on the subject.
Ps: how the hell i eliminate the pool?

[andulolika]

You guys can check the evolution of the project here: https://github.com/daxxog , feel free to contribute.

[doothewop]

I can't get voting to work.  I put in the address, I put in the amount, and nothing happens.

[Dank Frank]

I can't get voting to work.  I put in the address, I put in the amount, and nothing happens.

Do you have enough btc on the address?

[doothewop]

I can't get voting to work.  I put in the address, I put in the amount, and nothing happens.

Do you have enough btc on the address?

I do, yes.