Moving discussion here so more people know to check:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4879

OHHHH ok I suck. There were 151 days, plus one for founders.

Looks like non-founder balances are correct (checked my own expected balances relative to each other), and founder balances should be scaled by (152/153) because I counted the days wrong when I sent your the founder sheet.

Quote from: FreeTrade on June 05, 2014, 06:28:33 PM
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.

To be clear, these are Lottoshares balances for AGS holders, not AGS balances. To compare to your expected AGS balance, multiply by (1000 / 153 1000/152).

The total is about 430 short of 10,000,000 - is this small enough to be caused by rounding?

We definitely need to have a single "this is the AGS distribution list" once the fundraising period is over, which we can triple check using independent implementations as was done for XT. No dev should have to spend more than 3 minutes on this.

IMO it is not worth the time to ensure this is 100% accurate. You can choose to honor "almost-AGS" instead of AGS. AGS holders will thank you in either case and nobody's gonna fork it to give AGS holders their extra 1%. As the developer you could totally push the blame onto I3 and all that would happen is there would be extra pressure to get it right the next time around. Unpopular opinion?

Quote from: FreeTrade on June 05, 2014, 06:28:33 PM
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.

I guess the balances are already scaled somehow? what whould the factor be compared to agsexplorer/ags balance?

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.

No. It needs to go:).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: toast on June 04, 2014, 01:39:24 AM
Ah ok here are the currently registered keyhotee founders:
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares_toolkit/blob/master/tests/genesis.json

Record without name, is it ok?

"name": "",
"is_delegate": false,
"owner": "XTS5tY37sZ97VP5s7vsjjzZKHbbgkqhzWEz4JDqbyhHU2LUPrdkhP"

Quote from: toast on June 04, 2014, 01:39:24 AM
Ah ok here are the currently registered keyhotee founders:
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares_toolkit/blob/master/tests/genesis.json

Ah .. finally I see what that file is all about :-)

Ah ok here are the currently registered keyhotee founders:
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares_toolkit/blob/master/tests/genesis.json

This is a tool made by a third party for creating genesis blocks:

http://bitshares.org/resources/genesis-blocks/

This was confirmed to be accurate by an independent implementation (at least it was accurate for feb 28th - probably it is ok to just check a few recent AGS donations).


The only remaining issue is that the first day of AGS was allocated to keyhotee founders in proportion to the $ value of their PTS donation for their founder ID. Invictus has this data somewhere, but also not all the founders keys are registered. Your call for what to do for this - personally I think this part is a pain in the ass and I wouldn't blame you if you just scaled the rest of the AGS funds up by (155/154) or whatever it ends up being (even though I am a founder).

EDIT: you can also preallocate those shares to yourself (the tool will give them to address "FOUNDERS" if you don't specify them) and then manually distribute them with Stan's help, then spend any unclaimed ones on promotion or something

I want to make a distribution of 10% of LottoShares DAC to AGS holders as at 2014 May 31st 23:59:59 UTC

How do I find the list of AGS holders and balances at this date/time?

Also, assuming others will need to make this same list to audit that the distribution has been made properly at a later date. Is this information held by I3 or is it a matter of public record?