Quote from: EmilioMann on February 20, 2016, 08:01:15 PM

Quote from: Gleb Gamow on February 20, 2016, 07:50:53 PM

Sure, not meant as dis toward Decred. Also, appreciate your time in posting the depiction.

Your numbers reflect that only ~32% of airdrop recipients have opted to claim their windfall. I merely pointed out that of the few Decred YouTube videos that have been uploaded over time depict über-low view counts putting the actual number of recipients in questions, again, not a dis.

I chose this video because it had the most view counts for the search term "Decred" at the time (and still now) with just over 100 views, now standing at 208, doubled since I linked to it on this thread. I'm just taken aback that the counts (other Decred video don't enjoy view counts over 100) aren't much higher given that folks are expressing issues, hence normally seeking out solutions on boards and, yes, YouTube videos. I contend that the view counts should be no less than 1/3 of the airdrop recipients given that 1/3 have already exited and the other third is well-versed.

Just an observation I'm sharing, accepting any proof of the contrary.

Seriously, EmilioMann? Did you happen to forget how closely related you are to Decred when you opted to call me an idiot after sharing with the community a minor truism? What next? DaveC rejoining the convo?

Quote from: davec on January 23, 2016, 12:38:43 AM

Quote from: jwinterm on January 22, 2016, 11:45:04 PM

Yes, there is apparently 1,023 members of the official forum controlled by the dev team; it would probably be completely impossible for them to inflate the number of users by changing a number in a database, right? I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just pointing out that there is no transparency in the process.

I'm more curious why it would even matter if it were true. As a thought experiment, let's assume for a moment that everything you say were to actually happen. Also, let's assume that all of the remaining 5,000 spots minus all of the people that have publicly posted they were accepted into the airdrop were filled by nothing but successful scammers, devs, and little magical fairies. In that scenario, everyone that managed to get in still receives 168 coins for FREE. Anything less than 5,000 spots means the participants get even more than that. Nobody was asked for or paid any money. This really seems like complaining about receiving free money to me.

Further, if the devs wanted to keep all the coins, why would they have even bothered with an airdrop to begin with? The suggestion that they went through the entire airdrop process, of which there are already a huge number of people that have publicly posted they were accepted to, in order to turn around and keep the very same coins they simply could've simply kept to begin with seems like an whole heck of a lot of work to end up with less coins than they would've had without it.

Quote from: Gleb Gamow on January 22, 2016, 11:56:01 PM

Decred could've easily stated that they'll do their best to make sure that folks aren't gaming the system via participation in the airdrop for a limited 5,000 participants. But, Decred opted to up the ante after being approached with how the system could easily be gamed (by me - NO OTHERS to date), whereupon they responded with having layers of defense mechanisms in place to ward off said gaming.

Unless you spoke to them via PMs where more was stated, which is certainly possible, it appears to me like you are overstating the response. I remember seeing the response and what you're saying here is not what I remembered reading, so I went and found the response. Here it is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1290358.msg13493398#msg13493398

I'll quote the relevant pieces:

Quote from: decred on January 09, 2016, 08:26:03 AM

This is a fair concern. There are a number of verification steps involved ... No system is going to be perfect, but reasonable steps can be taken to make it as inclusive and fair as possible.

I don't see anything there at all that even remotely implies "layers of defense mechanisms". In fact, quite to the contrary, they even acknowledged the system wasn't "going to be perfect". I personally read "but reasonable steps can be taken to make it as inclusive and fair as possible" as doing exactly what you said where they could have "easily stated that they'll do their best to make sure that folks aren't gaming the system".

davec is very much part of the Decred team, but you wouldn't think it via the exchange above.

In case you're not aware, EmilioMann, you don't wanna fuck with me in this thread. SERIOUSLY!