Quote from: daxxog on March 07, 2016, 02:49:12 PM

Quote from: andulolika on March 07, 2016, 11:06:39 AM

Quote from: Dank Frank on March 07, 2016, 10:25:07 AM

Quote from: andulolika on March 07, 2016, 08:05:58 AM

Quote from: daxxog on March 07, 2016, 05:38:45 AM

Quote from: andulolika on March 07, 2016, 05:01:04 AM

Quote from: daxxog on March 07, 2016, 12:19:45 AM

Quote from: CjMapope on March 06, 2016, 09:28:27 PM

Quote from: andulolika on March 06, 2016, 09:18:43 PM

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 ;; Wink

)))

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?