I've followed the advice of Stan and Toast and produced the following list of balances for AGS
http://pastebin.com/u9WKpcAb

However the process is sketchy and prone to error and interference - this is unacceptable for such important data. It leaves a crypto-asset creator with the responsibility for any errors, but without the power to ensure there are no errors.

Thus, I've posted the list of balances in advance of launch to transfer the responsibility of ensuring they are correct to I3. I3 - please confirm the list of balances is correct.

It occurs to me it would be easier for I3 to create a list of balances and sign them, rather than try to verify that the list that I've produced is correct. It is therefore my recommendation that I3 does that for this and future distributions.

Toast, Amazon, thanks for the info -

For the two addresses then -

1. In the absence of any guarantee from BTC38 that a distribution will be passed onto the owners of the PTS, this address will be removed from the distribution.

2. This address will be honored, assuming that I3 will use it in the same way as the funds at the PTS address.

1.    PtvJzF8UsgPb7WEzda6ZpKRa5tepifvytV    250,100 PTS $1,079,222    67 operations    3 months ago    20 days ago
2.    PaNGELmZgzRQCKeEKM6ifgTqNkC4ceiAWw    245,189.08957354 PTS $1,058,030    12,126 operations    5 months ago    about 2 hours ago

I'm doing the PTS-> LTS (LottoShares) distribution and I'm curious about these two addresses.

Previously with MMC, doing a small distribution to PTS hampered the adoption by exchanges because they didn't want to undertake the work of doing the distribution. They also didn't want their users complaining that they hadn't done the distribution, so they ignored the currency entirely. It was an unforeseen and rather unfortunate effect of doing a distribution.

To avoid that problem I want to remove the distribution to exchanges so that they are in a better position to support LottoShares and have an explanation to give to their users about why they are not getting a distribution. The funds will be spread to the other PTS holders instead.

I'm assuming the first address is an exchange - can anyone provide more detail? And what of the second one - the AngelShares address - technically who owns those PTS? Who would get a distribution there?

If you had to say you got one (or several) of those parameters wrong Freetrade, which one would it be?

Some comments - maybe relevant here -
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4660.msg60670#msg60670
I thinking modifying the distribution schedule and total amount of MMC planned is a bad idea - it would destroy value for MMC holders. It's okay to fix problems in a coin, but if you start playing around with the parameters, you lose all confidence. After all, if the parameters were changed in the past, what is to stop them being changed in the future?
Also, it wouldn't give the new ideas a clear run . . . they would be weighed down by the baggage of the past.
So better to let MMC play out as it is, and start a new coin for the new ideas, rather than try to bolt them onto MMC at this late stage.
For a new coin, I'd recommend
a) Zero Premine
b) Proxy Voting
c) More positions, with less specificity about each role, and varying salary amounts
d) Faster block verification time (fewer rounds of hashing on smaller amount of data)

What about PTS on exchanges, should be retrieved to wallet as usual?

Yes, absolutely. As an aside, I'd recommend keeping your crypto coins and equities offline as much as possible. I know the exchanges are convenient, but there have been so many compromises and thefts, the risk is just not worth it even with the most reputable exchanges.

The distribution date for LottoShares is at end of the day on May 31st.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4691.0

It is vital that you hold your MMC in a private wallet so that you control the private keys at the end of this month.

I will be trying to identify and remove balances held by exchanges, so they will not even be in a position to make a distribution of LottoShares.

Please remove your MMC from exchanges immediately if you want to receive your shares in LottoShares.

If you just make it a 1% or lower house edge then ticket sellers and processors can add whatever commission they want and compete with each other.

One way to achieve this would be to drop the house edge to, let's say your 1%, and allow the ticket processor to keep up to 14% . . . this allows the ticket processor to offer 'cash back' deals to players, where part of the ticket fee is returned to the player. Ticket processors could compete on cashback percentages. A drawback is that ticket processors have a strong incentive not to share tickets (transactions) they had received (sold).

Only thing that hurdles me is that the user needs to create 3 files. Much like signing offline txs with bitcoin using Armory :-)
But ... secure!

Yes, very similar.

Also the process could alternately be handled on a webpage similar to brainwallet so that no software need be installed -

Steps:

1. Enter public key(s) / upload file of public keys to web form
2. Generate unsigned transaction
3. copy/paste unsigned transaction into trusted client (eg PTS client)
4. copy/paste signed transaction back into web form