I can't get voting to work. I put in the address, I put in the amount, and nothing happens.
Do you have enough btc on the address?
Topic: [ANN] [DC] Dark Clam |BOUNTY ->| We need more developers. | J-D wager | - page 9. (Read 25869 times)
March 08, 2016, 01:49:59 PM
Do you have enough btc on the address?
March 08, 2016, 11:53:50 AM
I can't get voting to work. I put in the address, I put in the amount, and nothing happens.
March 08, 2016, 04:07:15 AM
You guys can check the evolution of the project here: https://github.com/daxxog , feel free to contribute.
March 07, 2016, 11:54:08 AM
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 ;;
)))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.
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.
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...
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).
Ps: how the hell i eliminate the pool?
March 07, 2016, 10:49:12 AM
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 ;;
)))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.
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.
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...
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).
March 07, 2016, 10:35:38 AM
We need to get this on to the next step. I'm down to help all i can. I've been with DC since day 1.
ill be home in about an hour and a half max two, the problem is that everything id about point of views and everyone is right at the same time. March 07, 2016, 07:57:24 AM
We need to get this on to the next step. I'm down to help all i can. I've been with DC since day 1.
March 07, 2016, 07:06:39 AM
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 ;;
)))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.
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.
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...
March 07, 2016, 06:25:07 AM
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 ;;
)))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.
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.
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...
March 07, 2016, 04:05:58 AM
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 ;;
)))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.
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.
March 07, 2016, 01:38:45 AM
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 ;;
)))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.
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.
March 07, 2016, 01:01:04 AM
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 ;;
)))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.
March 06, 2016, 08:19:45 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 ;;
)))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.
March 06, 2016, 05:28:27 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 ;;
))) March 06, 2016, 05:18:43 PM
Heh, 5 claimers with 6,538. DC has same voice as 5 with 2,512,788. Wager, there is no fairness there cjmapope?
March 06, 2016, 12:45:02 PM
Only 10 votes till now, 5 for burn 5 for continuing. The voting rate is way smaller than the claiming one, comeon guys youll regret later not caring.
I voted
Maybe you can ask if the btct link can be added to the header of just-dice?
March 06, 2016, 10:36:51 AM
Only 10 votes till now, 5 for burn 5 for continuing. The voting rate is way smaller than the claiming one, comeon guys youll regret later not caring.
I voted
Maybe you can ask if the btct link can be added to the header of just-dice?
March 06, 2016, 10:13:08 AM
Only 10 votes till now, 5 for burn 5 for continuing. The voting rate is way smaller than the claiming one, comeon guys youll regret later not caring.
March 05, 2016, 12:00:33 PM
Since all the polemic regarding this ill refund the voting fee to everyone that votes the day the voting is closed.
That seems like it would e a big ass mess. To only refund the people that vote on the last day.
I'm not going to vote, i dont care what you all do with it
its 0.0005btc to vote.
Edit: i just saw what you were saying DarkClam. No, everyone that claimed and wants it will get refunded the fee just that wont be refunded till we finish voting.
March 05, 2016, 11:16:55 AM
Since all the polemic regarding this ill refund the voting fee to everyone that votes the day the voting is closed.
That seems like it would e a big ass mess. To only refund the people that vote on the last day.
I'm not going to vote, i dont care what you all do with it
its 0.0005btc to vote.
Jump to: