Topic: [PIO] Pioneershares - REBRANDED TO AMSTERDEX - page 51. (Read 82855 times)

I do also vote for letting him inside, but I would give him a small punishment because had used different wallet which caused problems. Everyone makes some mistake.

Shkembe, I respect your opinion but the last you should do is blame Banzai for this, as this has nothing to do with 'changing ICO rules.' Nothing has been changed and nothing will be changed, period. Instead, you should applaud Banzai for speaking about this matter publicly and trying to solve this issue.

However, I manage an investor group wallet which I pledged on the 27th of July, perfectly within the ICO timeframe. Apparently something went wrong with my submission and Banzai reached out to me - at the 28th of July - via email. Reason for seeing his message just yesterday is totally none of your business, but whatever, as you please: I lost someone very close to me. Hence I haven't touched my computer for 2-3 days, as you can probably imagine. (In case you don't believe me, there are numerous people who can confirm this.)

So, as soon as I read Banzai's message I responded to him to solve this matter, knowing the ICO was already closed. He asked me several questions to verify the transaction to make sure I wasn't fraudulent or had simply missed the ICO. Just like Banzai stated, it seemed I was running on a forked chain. Whatever the reason for this fork was, I have not the slightest clue. Luckily, after doing a full resync and reimporting my privkey, most of the coins were still there.

Ultimately we should be thankful for having such a helpful, transparent and god-honest dev like Banzai. As soon as Banzai noticed the issue, he informed the community sometime yesterday. At least have some respect for him as he's a decent and fair guy.

Amen.

EDIT:
Thank you to those who vouch for me, really appreciate it guys!
[/quote]

@LucD88 - I am truly sorry for your loss.  I hope you and your family find peace at this time.

not only do i vote for LUC's coins to be accepted i also suggest that shekembe's ICO participation be revoked and his coins sent back to him.






how does that feel ?

I am also voting for accepting Luc's payment.
Apparently it was some glitch and I personally do not see any reason why
we should exlude him if there is an easy possibility of letting him in;-)
Taking into consideration also the high amount he wants to get involved in
its also an advantage as good projects simply need funds.

Brgds

dzejmsdin

well... he send in time, so im ok with dev decision.

As a Chipcoin holder and a Pioshare BTC investor I also give my vote/permission that @BanzaiBTC should fix Luc's issue.  As long as, the coins were sent prior to the close of the ICO I have no problem with them being added.  I know for a fact that anyone that had the same issue would be requesting the same type of customer service.  Anyone complaining is doing so out of a sense of selfishness and/or greed.  Just my two chips worth of opinion.

Agree above.

There is no way to respect such sole decision. It had to be approved by the comunity first. It is to late to rely on this now. Tomorrow you can decide to add two more users to the signature campaign spreedshet, what could prevent this except the feeling that you are no longer alone! Sorry, this isn't comunity.

No worries on my end, it seems to me that some people are itching to get their hands on the token so they can dump it which is fine with me I regret not putting more BTC in this project so I will buy up a lot of those dumpers coins.

Basicly there is no change in the ICO rules at all here.. As his transaction was already pledged within the timeframe.. The fact his coins we're sent through a forked wallet is something else, and you can't blame that on someone.. Kind of a big punishment to say "Bad luck dude", for something that is not his fault..

I really hope you can respect this decision, since I would've done the same for everyone else with a similair issue if they pledged their transaction within the timeframe..

 

Ahh, that sucks. Oh well, will check in tomorrow. Thanks for the update Banzai.


With a response like that. Is this even a community?

I'd agree on allowing this, but only if the coins:
(1) were sent out within the time allowed for the round 2
AND
(2) were indeed the coins coming from CHIP's main blockchain and not forked coins being produced "out of nowhere"

What if the shoe was on the other foot? I don't see a real problem with it. Everything usually has a glitch or 2, dev is being open as to why. Ultimately, in my opinion, its the right thing to do and adds integrity to the dev for one.

There defenetely is a problem which affects each investor. Time of ICO was set earlier and I haven't see serious reason to change it no mater one or many investor have problem with sending funds.

I don't find any problem with the dev decision, someone wanted to invest, he sent his chip and due to technicalities in the block chain, why should we abandon his effort, its not Luc's either, let him get a second chance.

Sory to hear that for the wrong chain. But this is Luc's problem. This isn't community problem and I am not agree with your decision. Any change in the ICO rueles affects negatively  on the entire platform.
You are developer, right but after the end of ICO this platform belongs to the comunity and it is very pity that you're trying to take this serious action with no even ask us.

Ok then.
My understanding was: forked wallet means a wallet working on forked chain.
Be precise next time please. People are hypersensitive now with all this ETH/ETC mess

I think you dont undertand the issue "forked" here.. After a complete resync on the correct chain, his coins will be there in his wallet.. Since they we're never sent on the correct chain.. This is something completely different then ETH/ETC lol

I'm not sure if this is fair. If forked wallet was used then it's forked CHIP and not the one that was used for ICO, right?
How are you going to determine that the CHIP sent from forked wallet is the same CHIP coming from the coin's main blockchain?
This is similar to ETH/ETC, isn't it?

Price might be more than that, let's wait and see after the delayed transaction hits the blockchain then we shall determine the true price.