Re: Updated Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns

[ndnh]

A   |   Da Dice   |   post/weekly   |   0.0015   |   0.0015   |   0.0013   |   0.0009   |   x   |   x   |   x   |   20/w   |   100/w   |   N

Da Dice -> Dadice or DADICE.com

We use escrow : devthedev. It should be Y

Sent payment details to devthedev.

All payments for the week of March 3rd have been released.
https://blockchain.info/tx/c8af76a81579eaf049219459ba21720446d96a772e2caf770652f8320121edd3

You may put them in ascending order too

[1715029461]

1715029461

[1715029461]

1715029461

[1715029461]

1715029461

[1715029461]

1715029461

[1715029461]

1715029461

[Mitchell]

DaDice does not use escrow. Read the posts made above. It explains everything. As long as devthedev does the payments there is a conflict of interest. Someone doing escrow shouldn't be doing the payments. The campaign manager should.

Will update the OP later on and sort the campaigns.

[shulio]

DaDice does not use escrow. Read the posts made above. It explains everything. As long as devthedev does the payments there is a conflict of interest. Someone doing escrow shouldn't be doing the payments. The campaign manager should.

Will update the OP later on and sort the campaigns.

then to make this escrow thing more understandable

Ndnhc will count the amount to be paid and sent the data to dev, dev will then release the amount asked by ndnhc, after ndnhc receive the btc, ndnhc will pay the campaigner ? this is sure more work to do as dev could easily send it to the campaigner directly isnt it? , but as it has been posted above about the conflick of interest issue

[SebastianJu]

DaDice does not use escrow. Read the posts made above. It explains everything. As long as devthedev does the payments there is a conflict of interest. Someone doing escrow shouldn't be doing the payments. The campaign manager should.

Will update the OP later on and sort the campaigns.

then to make this escrow thing more understandable

Ndnhc will count the amount to be paid and sent the data to dev, dev will then release the amount asked by ndnhc, after ndnhc receive the btc, ndnhc will pay the campaigner ? this is sure more work to do as dev could easily send it to the campaigner directly isnt it? , but as it has been posted above about the conflick of interest issue

It should be the way that an escrow who isnt connected to the campaign or the underlying company holds the funds BEFORE the week or month starts. The escrow then would have no reason with withhold the funds after the week. Which is possible when the funds were held by the campaign runner or website owner. Of course it might be harder to send out the correct amounts. But the escrow ensures that the funds are there, cant vanish until the end of the timeframe and will be paid out.

[Mitchell]

Someone doing escrow does nothing at all. He only holds funds in case the campaign manager runs off without paying or when someone happens to the campaign manager.

[shulio]

Someone doing escrow does nothing at all. He only holds funds in case the campaign manager runs off without paying or when someone happens to the campaign manager.

in sort you are saying that the 8 BTC that dev holds should only be an insurance just incase the campaign manager doesnt pay anyone and the manager would need to provide another BTC to pay the campaigner ?

I think what sebastian suggested should be consider, as those who isnt associated with the campaign should be considered as an escrow, dev isnt associated with dadice nor he even wear dadice signature, he is just to hold the sig campaign BTC and pay them as the calculations each week

It should be the way that an escrow who isnt connected to the campaign or the underlying company holds the funds BEFORE the week or month starts. The escrow then would have no reason with withhold the funds after the week. Which is possible when the funds were held by the campaign runner or website owner. Of course it might be harder to send out the correct amounts. But the escrow ensures that the funds are there, cant vanish until the end of the timeframe and will be paid out.

[Mitchell]

in sort you are saying that the 8 BTC that dev holds should only be an insurance just incase the campaign manager doesnt pay anyone and the manager would need to provide another BTC to pay the campaigner ?

That's exactly what I'm saying yeah.

I think what sebastian suggested should be consider, as those who isnt associated with the campaign should be considered as an escrow, dev isnt associated with dadice nor he even wear dadice signature, he is just to hold the sig campaign BTC and pay them as the calculations each week

I already stated that I would most likely change the rules I use to determine if a campaign is escrowed. Please read the previous page.

[tspacepilot]

Someone doing escrow does nothing at all. He only holds funds in case the campaign manager runs off without paying or when someone happens to the campaign manager.

Well, in a normal transaction an escrow does indeed release money.  Escrow typically holds one party's funds until the other party fulfills some condition, then releases the funds to the second party.  In that sense, dev is acting as a typical escrow by doing the payments each week.

[marcotheminer]

Someone doing escrow does nothing at all. He only holds funds in case the campaign manager runs off without paying or when someone happens to the campaign manager.

Well, in a normal transaction an escrow does indeed release money.  Escrow typically holds one party's funds until the other party fulfills some condition, then releases the funds to the second party.  In that sense, dev is acting as a typical escrow by doing the payments each week.

So am I and guitarplinker.

[sed]

Someone doing escrow does nothing at all. He only holds funds in case the campaign manager runs off without paying or when someone happens to the campaign manager.

Well, in a normal transaction an escrow does indeed release money.  Escrow typically holds one party's funds until the other party fulfills some condition, then releases the funds to the second party.  In that sense, dev is acting as a typical escrow by doing the payments each week.

So am I and guitarplinker.

I wonder if I could request an overview here.  Apparently, some campaigns have sent money to an escrow which is not considered escrow by Mitche??.  I think that, marcotheminer, if you're the one managing the campaign then that's not a real escrow.  If I wanted to buy a restaurant and the restaurant owner said "please transfer the funds to an escrow and then we'll sit down and sign papers" and then it turned out the escrow was the restaurant manager then I'd certainly be suspicious because of the association.

I think, if I'm following the discussion correctly, that I agree with Mitche?? that an escrow shouldn't be associated with the business but I disagree with him about the escrow being the one to release funds each week (I think that is okay).

[arallmuus]

just for a quick heads up

it seems like askcoin.net will be closing after payment and coinut reopen their sig campaign again

Hi everyone!

I have just received a message from AskCoin.Net team that the campaign is suspended until the introduction of the FIAT trading.

After receiving transfers about 20:00 UTC time, you can remove BBCode from your signatures.

This is now open again. Please join!

[kotwica666]

Yes, today around 20:00 UTC i will pay for the last week. Campaign will be suspended till exchange (AskCoin.net) will run fiat trading. Difficult to say how long it can takes, so atm we can say that campaign is going to end. 

[Mitchell]

Escrow, as I see it, works like this:

• A company wants to run a signature campaign, but they are to busy to do it themself, so a campaign manager is hired.
• This campaign manager will be given BTC to payout the participants in the signature campaign at the end of every cycle (monthly, weekly, etc).
• Some people may not trust the person doing the signature campaign, so they ask them to do escrow.
• The person doing escrow will hold an amount of BTC to cover for +- one payment cycle
• If something goes wrong in the campaign (manager disappears, funds are gone, etc), the person doing escrow will use the BTC that has been escrowed to pay out the people in the signature campaign.

In an ideal world, the person doing escrow would hold onto the BTC until the signature campaign is over. But more often than not the BTC is returned after a few successful cycles.

However, seeing that this isn't always the case (devthedev paying out for dadice) I'm considering to put signature campaigns as escrowed if the person paying isn't the same as the person managing the campaign, has some decent trust on this forum and isn't affiliated with the company itself. So the dadice campaign would be soon as escrowed, but the Bit-X wouldn't be, because marcotheminer both manages the campaign and pays the participants.

Opinions about this are welcome.

[kotwica666]

You should to think about half-escrow option It is difficult.. and sorry, because everything begins (probably) from campaign "escrowed" by me..

[tspacepilot]

Escrow, as I see it, works like this:

• A company wants to run a signature campaign, but they are to busy to do it themself, so a campaign manager is hired.
• This campaign manager will be given BTC to payout the participants in the signature campaign at the end of every cycle (monthly, weekly, etc).
• Some people may not trust the person doing the signature campaign, so they ask them to do escrow.
• The person doing escrow will hold an amount of BTC to cover for +- one payment cycle
• If something goes wrong in the campaign (manager disappears, funds are gone, etc), the person doing escrow will use the BTC that has been escrowed to pay out the people in the signature campaign.

In an ideal world, the person doing escrow would hold onto the BTC until the signature campaign is over. But more often than not the BTC is returned after a few successful cycles.

However, seeing that this isn't always the case (devthedev paying out for dadice) I'm considering to put signature campaigns as escrowed if the person paying isn't the same as the person managing the campaign, has some decent trust on this forum and isn't affiliated with the company itself. So the dadice campaign would be soon as escrowed, but the Bit-X wouldn't be, because marcotheminer both manages the campaign and pays the participants.

Opinions about this are welcome.

I think that you are quite correct in this.  dadice is escrowed  (because there is a third party holding the funds each week).  bit-x is not (because the person holding the funds each week is not a third party).

I don't think there's any reason why the escrow shouldn't be the one doing payment each week (as long as the escrow account is refilled each week).  As I was saying, in the "real world" it's quite normal for an escrow do release one parties funds to the other party after certain conditions are met.

[Stargazer]

• A company wants to run a signature campaign, but they are to busy to do it themself, so a campaign manager is hired.
• This campaign manager will be given BTC to payout the participants in the signature campaign at the end of every cycle (monthly, weekly, etc).
• Some people may not trust the person doing the signature campaign, so they ask them to do escrow.
• The person doing escrow will hold an amount of BTC to cover for +- one payment cycle
• If something goes wrong in the campaign (manager disappears, funds are gone, etc), the person doing escrow will use the BTC that has been escrowed to pay out the people in the signature campaign.

What if the campaign manager is trusted and/or used to escrow in the past? For instance if devthedev was asked to escrow and manage the campaign for Dadice would the campaign be escrowed or not?
IMO there's no need for a third person here. The business owner and the manager who holds the funds should be enough, as long as at least one of them is a trusted forum member.

[tspacepilot]

• A company wants to run a signature campaign, but they are to busy to do it themself, so a campaign manager is hired.
• This campaign manager will be given BTC to payout the participants in the signature campaign at the end of every cycle (monthly, weekly, etc).
• Some people may not trust the person doing the signature campaign, so they ask them to do escrow.
• The person doing escrow will hold an amount of BTC to cover for +- one payment cycle
• If something goes wrong in the campaign (manager disappears, funds are gone, etc), the person doing escrow will use the BTC that has been escrowed to pay out the people in the signature campaign.

What if the campaign manager is trusted and/or used to escrow in the past? For instance if devthedev was asked to escrow and manage the campaign for Dadice would the campaign be escrowed or not?

Certainly not (IMO).  If the person holding the funds is the same person running the campaign then this is not escrowed by definition.  I mean, for me at least, the definition of escrow is that a third party is mediating the interests of two other parties.  If the "escrow" is one of those parties, then this is not escrow.

IMO there's no need for a third person here. The business owner and the manager who holds the funds should be enough, as long as at least one of them is a trusted forum member.

You may be right that there is no need for a third person, this amounts (again, IMO) to no need for escrow.  This is fine.  Some business deals go down without escrow because the two parties already trust each other.  But we can't say that something is escrowed if there's no third party.

[rikkie]

Escrow, as I see it, works like this:

• A company wants to run a signature campaign, but they are to busy to do it themself, so a campaign manager is hired.
• This campaign manager will be given BTC to payout the participants in the signature campaign at the end of every cycle (monthly, weekly, etc).
• Some people may not trust the person doing the signature campaign, so they ask them to do escrow.
• The person doing escrow will hold an amount of BTC to cover for +- one payment cycle
• If something goes wrong in the campaign (manager disappears, funds are gone, etc), the person doing escrow will use the BTC that has been escrowed to pay out the people in the signature campaign.

In an ideal world, the person doing escrow would hold onto the BTC until the signature campaign is over. But more often than not the BTC is returned after a few successful cycles.

However, seeing that this isn't always the case (devthedev paying out for dadice) I'm considering to put signature campaigns as escrowed if the person paying isn't the same as the person managing the campaign, has some decent trust on this forum and isn't affiliated with the company itself. So the dadice campaign would be soon as escrowed, but the Bit-X wouldn't be, because marcotheminer both manages the campaign and pays the participants.

Opinions about this are welcome.

It sounds like you are asking for double escrow. The company (da-dice, or bit-x in your above examples) and the ones buying the advertisements, and then a trusted third party that is separate from the company should hold funds to cover the cost of the advertising. Who actually pays the participants is merely semantics. If the escrow runs away then the company needs to pay their advertisers directly themselves. If the company runs away then the escrow can step in to pay directly.

Under your definition the company buying the advertisements needs to give funds to person C (escrow) to hold and person B (the campaign manager) to pay participants with, or needs to pay everyone themselves, but that would negate the point of hiring person B in the first place. You are asking that they put aside double their advertising budget in order to be considered "escrowed" and many smaller companies may not be able to afford to put aside that much money all at once as small companies often have a small budget

[Muhammed Zakir]

It sounds like you are asking for double escrow. The company (da-dice, or bit-x in your above examples) and the ones buying the advertisements, and then a trusted third party that is separate from the company should hold funds to cover the cost of the advertising. Who actually pays the participants is merely semantics. If the escrow runs away then the company needs to pay their advertisers directly themselves. If the company runs away then the escrow can step in to pay directly.

Under your definition the company buying the advertisements needs to give funds to person C (escrow) to hold and person B (the campaign manager) to pay participants with, or needs to pay everyone themselves, but that would negate the point of hiring person B in the first place. You are asking that they put aside double their advertising budget in order to be considered "escrowed" and many smaller companies may not be able to afford to put aside that much money all at once as small companies often have a small budget

He answered in his post.

=snip=
However, seeing that this isn't always the case (devthedev paying out for dadice) I'm considering to put signature campaigns as escrowed if the person paying isn't the same as the person managing the campaign, has some decent trust on this forum and isn't affiliated with the company itself. So the dadice campaign would be soon as escrowed, but the Bit-X wouldn't be, because marcotheminer both manages the campaign and pays the participants.

Opinions about this are welcome.

[tspacepilot]

It sounds like you are asking for double escrow. The company (da-dice, or bit-x in your above examples) and the ones buying the advertisements, and then a trusted third party that is separate from the company should hold funds to cover the cost of the advertising. Who actually pays the participants is merely semantics. If the escrow runs away then the company needs to pay their advertisers directly themselves. If the company runs away then the escrow can step in to pay directly.

Under your definition the company buying the advertisements needs to give funds to person C (escrow) to hold and person B (the campaign manager) to pay participants with, or needs to pay everyone themselves, but that would negate the point of hiring person B in the first place. You are asking that they put aside double their advertising budget in order to be considered "escrowed" and many smaller companies may not be able to afford to put aside that much money all at once as small companies often have a small budget

He answered in his post.

=snip=
However, seeing that this isn't always the case (devthedev paying out for dadice) I'm considering to put signature campaigns as escrowed if the person paying isn't the same as the person managing the campaign, has some decent trust on this forum and isn't affiliated with the company itself. So the dadice campaign would be soon as escrowed, but the Bit-X wouldn't be, because marcotheminer both manages the campaign and pays the participants.

Opinions about this are welcome.

Yes but he just says considering.  I think it's worthwhile to argue that this is indeed the right path and IMO rikkie makes a very good point that he's actually asking for double escrow if he doesn't change this.  I'm definitely in the camp where it doesn't matter who does the payout but it does very much matter whether the "escrow" is affiliated with the company.