Quote from: pedrog on November 11, 2014, 12:04:52 AM

We already signed a message with our Bitfunder address at icedrill.io, why this new requirement for an outgoing transaction?

I have two lists, one from bitfunder and one from Willem. Doing an independent claim process allows me to check for consistency while at the same time not having to rely on either list. I understand that this is some additional effort but frankly it's as simple as creating a transaction. EVERYONE CAN CREATE A TRANSACTION - not everyone knows how to sign a message. Apart from that I chose this method because it allows algorithmic analysis of records in a trusted decentralized database.

Quote from: Dice on November 10, 2014, 11:54:32 PM

could someone explain what I actually do here:

"Create an OUTGOING transaction with two identical outputs with amounts of 0.13117745 using the BTC address in the final bitfunder shareholder database".

I once signed a message for an address and that's quite simple, could we just do that instead?

see above.

Quote from: monsieurmarc on November 10, 2014, 03:37:17 PM

#ok transaction with the smallest amount created.

As one of the users with a tiny amount of shares I do wonder if making people with less than the magic number of 277 shares wait a year is sensible. Look at the bitfunder list any a huge amount of people only have handfuls of shares and then a few have whopping amounts.

We discussed buy backs as an option for small accounts, but the problem is impossible valuation of some of the assets. Paying out in advance for accounts below the minimum threshold would be an option we can discuss. It's a preferential treatment of small accounts though.