Vircurex shareholder vote finished | Result: DGC = YES

[mr_random]

WDC won the forum vote by a very small margin. Yet on the Vircurex shareholder vote WDC gets 95% of the downvotes? Either something went wrong with the votes or this is not a representative voting system.

I own a large amount of both coins.

Well, one obvious thing to point out is that forum members are not all Vircurex shareholders...
For all we know, those that voted on the forum could be an entirely different set of people to the Vircurex shareholders that voted.

That is obvious but with respect not relevant to anything. If you poll 600 people in a presidental election and the results are roughly 300 vs 300, and then you poll 600 different people and the results are 570 vs 30 then something is up. If each voter has an equal count in the voting process the chance of that occurring mathematically is extremely slim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics) if you are unfamiliar with the math behind these concepts).

I'm not familiar with how the Vircurex voting process was carried out, if it is true that votes were weighted according to the number of shares the voter has then that could potentially explain it. For example if someone has 90% of the shares and voted no against WDC then that is going to massively affect the vote count. But that doesn't seem very fair to me...

The strangeness is compounded since WDC has 59BTC of trading volume in the last 24 hours on mcx now, and while that is a higher than average day it has been pulling in good trading volume figures since it launched (I would bet much higher than DGC, lifetime), and trading volume is what makes the exchange money.

[FiiNALiZE]

WDC won the forum vote by a very small margin. Yet on the Vircurex shareholder vote WDC gets 95% of the downvotes? Either something went wrong with the votes or this is not a representative voting system.

I own a large amount of both coins.

Well, one obvious thing to point out is that forum members are not all Vircurex shareholders...
For all we know, those that voted on the forum could be an entirely different set of people to the Vircurex shareholders that voted.

That is obvious but with respect not relevant to anything. If you poll 600 people in a presidental election and the results are roughly 300 vs 300, and then you poll 600 different people and the results are 570 vs 30 then something is up. If each voter has an equal count in the voting process the chance of that occurring mathematically is extremely slim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics) if you are unfamiliar with the math behind these concepts).

I'm not familiar with how the Vircurex voting process was carried out, if it is true that votes were weighted according to the number of shares the voter has then that could potentially explain it. For example if someone has 90% of the shares and voted no against WDC then that is going to massively affect the vote count. But that doesn't seem very fair to me...

The strangeness is compounded since WDC has 59BTC of trading volume in the last 24 hours on mcx now, and while that is a higher than average day it has been pulling in good trading volume figures since it launched (I would bet much higher than DGC, lifetime), and trading volume is what makes the exchange money.

What happened was obvious.

Someone either really hates WDC for some reason or was bribed to vote it down.

Whatever happened, we can't change it now.

[mr_random]

WDC won the forum vote by a very small margin. Yet on the Vircurex shareholder vote WDC gets 95% of the downvotes? Either something went wrong with the votes or this is not a representative voting system.

I own a large amount of both coins.

Well, one obvious thing to point out is that forum members are not all Vircurex shareholders...
For all we know, those that voted on the forum could be an entirely different set of people to the Vircurex shareholders that voted.

That is obvious but with respect not relevant to anything. If you poll 600 people in a presidental election and the results are roughly 300 vs 300, and then you poll 600 different people and the results are 570 vs 30 then something is up. If each voter has an equal count in the voting process the chance of that occurring mathematically is extremely slim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics) if you are unfamiliar with the math behind these concepts).

I'm not familiar with how the Vircurex voting process was carried out, if it is true that votes were weighted according to the number of shares the voter has then that could potentially explain it. For example if someone has 90% of the shares and voted no against WDC then that is going to massively affect the vote count. But that doesn't seem very fair to me...

The strangeness is compounded since WDC has 59BTC of trading volume in the last 24 hours on mcx now, and while that is a higher than average day it has been pulling in good trading volume figures since it launched (I would bet much higher than DGC, lifetime), and trading volume is what makes the exchange money.

What happened was obvious.

Someone either really hates WDC for some reason or was bribed to vote it down.

Whatever happened, we can't change it now.

There could be a legitimate reason which is not sinister.

However it's certainly not fair nor representative of the community, as proven by the forum poll.

[boogerthe2nd]

WDC won the forum vote by a very small margin. Yet on the Vircurex shareholder vote WDC gets 95% of the downvotes? Either something went wrong with the votes or this is not a representative voting system.

I own a large amount of both coins.

Well, one obvious thing to point out is that forum members are not all Vircurex shareholders...
For all we know, those that voted on the forum could be an entirely different set of people to the Vircurex shareholders that voted.

That is obvious but with respect not relevant to anything. If you poll 600 people in a presidental election and the results are roughly 300 vs 300, and then you poll 600 different people and the results are 570 vs 30 then something is up. If each voter has an equal count in the voting process the chance of that occurring mathematically is extremely slim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics) if you are unfamiliar with the math behind these concepts).

I'm not familiar with how the Vircurex voting process was carried out, if it is true that votes were weighted according to the number of shares the voter has then that could potentially explain it. For example if someone has 90% of the shares and voted no against WDC then that is going to massively affect the vote count. But that doesn't seem very fair to me...

It is relevant, because unlike your presidential election scenario, one vote here is not necessarily equal to one shareholder's vote. Like you said, as an extreme example, if one shareholder holds 90% of the shares, then the shareholder vote should have pretty much no resemblance to the forum vote.

Also, the two sample spaces you're using are different. Vircurex shareholders can be likened to votes in one particular state in USA, while these alt forums could be likened to another completely different state. You wouldn't expect votes in both states to be more or less equal would you? One state would traditionally favour one party in most cases.

Note that one vote here isn't necessarily a 'fair' vote either; people could easily create duplicate accounts and vote more than once. Not saying that this occurred necessarily, but just pointing out it's possible, and that your presidential election comparison is flawed too in that respect.

[computerparts]

Obviously WDC is a threat to some of the "shareholders". Just goes to show what kind of people are backing DGC. Clearly some bribery going on as well. Real pathetic

[nearmiss]

unlike the forum vote, they didn't choose one over the other.  WDC didn't lose 'because' DGC won. They could have both been voted in, or both been rejected.

[Hibero]

Obviously WDC is a threat to some of the "shareholders". Just goes to show what kind of people are backing DGC. Clearly some bribery going on as well. Real pathetic

As stated before, just because they downvoted WDC does not mean that they were on DGCs side. If they were there would have been a much more positive vote for DGC.

Just because a large amount of shareholders or a big shareholder is against WDC does not mean it was bribery. If you wish to have Vircurex to go in your favor, then buy some stock and make it happen.

[MobGod]

Obviously WDC is a threat to some of the "shareholders". Just goes to show what kind of people are backing DGC. Clearly some bribery going on as well. Real pathetic

As stated before, just because they downvoted WDC does not mean that they were on DGCs side. If they were there would have been a much more positive vote for DGC.

Just because a large amount of shareholders or a big shareholder is against WDC does not mean it was bribery. If you wish to have Vircurex to go in your favor, then buy some stock and make it happen.

+1

[r3wt]

#DGC for the win!

[limbaugh]

There are a few exchanges that I frequent regularly and Vircurex is not one of them. Who cares what coins are languishing there.

[owsleybeatsbigcartel]

#DGC for the win!

SWEET!!!

DGC ~ MONSTERRRR

[moreporknz]

lol wow rigged much..... . WDC market is currently more valuable than dgc....   wdc is already on 3 exchanges...  vircurex isn't going to make any difference... It has been dead over recent weeks

[MaGNeT]

lol wow rigged much..... . WDC market is currently more valuable than dgc....   wdc is already on 3 exchanges...  vircurex isn't going to make any difference... It has been dead over recent weeks

I wish it wasn't, I like VirCurEx (see sig) but referral fees % has dropped like crazy for me. Volume and trades are low.

[Taxidermista]

Vircurex is a joke. The fees are too high, their trading system is confusing, and their website is amateurish.

If I have to choose between Vircurex and MtGox websites I think I'd kill both.

[ranlo]

Rigged. Clearly someone was trying to smear WDC with downvotes. WDC actually has more upvotes than DGC.

5546 people, I guess. Quite the conspiracy. I'd gather, people didn't want WDC, but were indifferent about DGC, and didn't vote either way.

I expected DGC to make it, but I thought WDC would as well. It is a surprise. But a good surprise. Ching Ching

This is my thought. Usually if I'm not for or against I'll just not vote. Sometimes I'll vote with the popular opinion just because it's fun being a sheep and I figure if it's going to win anyways, might as well help speed it up so we get results faster, :p.

I thought both would make it though. I like both WDC and DGC. WDC has an active community that tries to get the community to be social and stuff, as well as their other projects. DGC is more about the projects (like their market) based on what I can see, but they are still pushing hard.

Regardless of the vote, both coins definitely deserve credit for what they're doing!

[billionaire]

"There could be a legitimate reason which is not sinister."

Yeah, the one or two people that comprise the vast majority of the voting shares has been mining DGC not WDC, and they want to dump their DGC for higher than the Cryptsy rate. If Vircurex added both coins, WDC would take some attention away from DGC on the site, and lessen the profits from their dump. It has nothing to do with whether or not WDC is a viable coin. It is not a matter of what is in the best interests of Vircurex itself. The same person/persons had no problem voting the joke BBQ Coin into the exchange to be dumped into irrelevance and delisted soon thereafter, because they had lots of BBQ that they wanted to dump at the time.

Between the multiple account hacks at Vircurex and the sham methodology that it goes about when adding new coins (They factor in the potential for DDOS retribution from people unhappy a particular coins might be added, seriously?) It is very hard to take this exchange seriously at all....and this is coming from someone who has FAR more DGC than WDC. The only good thing that could come from this addition is that it might coax a more legitimate site like BTC-E into carrying DGC more quickly.

[bitterdog]

It looks to me as tho all you need is one voter with 30,000 shares to vote yes.. and that's it

Sweet

[ranlo]

It looks to me as tho all you need is one voter with 30,000 shares to vote yes.. and that's it

Sweet

Not sure the ratio of shares to vote weight, but that's how any company works; majority always wins, whether it is a single person with 51% or a group of people that have 51%.

[bitterdog]

It looks to me as tho all you need is one voter with 30,000 shares to vote yes.. and that's it

Sweet

Not sure the ratio of shares to vote weight, but that's how any company works; majority always wins, whether it is a single person with 51% or a group of people that have 51%.

It would be in the exchanges best interest to just add both. There was obvious support for both