That was probably that 13 BTC which wasserman forwarded to escrow adress so in vote power its just 20% of all.
So btt people were sending directly to escrow that was about 65BTC i was checking last minutes.

And those guys who were sending to escrow then escrow will forward back that BTC to wasserman
becouse wasserman owns that address.

I'm an OCaml dev, and wiling to help if I can and if this project turns to be legit. The idea in itself is quite good. Functional programming languages such as OCaml are indeed less prone to bugs, and more friendly to static analysis. Ultimately, it could mean: more robust smart contracts, less attack vectors, less drama...

I'd be happy to read a technical whitepaper, or at least detailed explanations, on how the dev team plans to achieve the goal. IMHO, as I understood the partial information given in the OP, such development requires an enormous amount of work. Developing a whole compiler backend for a new blockchain tech is not trivial, and serious skills are necessary.

My take on the matter is that it would be interesting to consider leveraging existing blockchains and OCaml tools. For example, one could start from Lisk, and use OCaml-to-Javascript compilers (such as js_of_ocaml) to achieve a similar goal to what is suggested in the OP. Some work would still be required, obviously, but it would be much more realistic with few resources available (small team, modest funding).

Some analysis of the Javascript produced by the compiler would be needed to ensure everything is fine. But once this work is done, we would be very confident that no smart contract written in OCaml can escape the scope of the produced Javascript, which is quite small. Not the whole Javascript language is used, just a subset. And since the compilation is automated, and predictable, the final effect would be to restrict the spectrum of possible attacks compared to human-written Javascript, not widen it.

A “pure” OCaml solution would be even better, but it would require lots of resources to ensure this is done correctly. So, I'd rather choose to trust the smart people who already put huge efforts in developing existing tools. And if, in the end, the project is a success and you gather the necessary resources, you can still rewrite everything in OCaml, with virtually no work to port the existing smart contracts to the new blockchain.

Hello everyone, I received alot of pm's regarding the current case. Suggestions and around 10 or so refund requests. No forwarding request yet.

Well, the situation is at a stop now. Wasserman99 seems to not wanting to deliver something worthy of the coins he already holds. Which is alot of coins.

In any case we need a solution. How about making a timeframe of two weeks from the day we have an agreement settled. This should be sufficient time for investors to check for the status of the coin and make a decision.

The problem is that if wasserman99 would release the coins now to ico 1 investors then I either would have to refund all ico 2 users or forward all coins of users that do want a refund. The latter is no real choice. The reason is that they could hedge against the price of the coin otherwise. Ask for a refund with the coin price drops or ask for the coins when they rise in value.

If wasserman99 sends coins before that timeframe to ico 1 then a refund to ico 2 has to happen to not make it possible to force a forwarding.
If coins are sent to ico 1 and 2 then still ico 2 bitcoins has to be refunded for the same reason.

What happens with the coins of investors that do not make a choice? Well, forwarding might be the way to go if investors do not care about their investment in all this time. Refunding might be another but in any case, no choice can be offered then anymore. Since investors did invest and have a choice to choose to divest then the Libra would be in favor to forward the remaining coins. Because they invested before.

I will not give a suggestion on what investors should do. Everything investors of phase 2 can do is check everything that was said.

Please inform me if there is a weakness in my suggestion.

Open and Fair ahaha megalol 

Wasserman, are you communicating with SJ?

 
2016-09-05 12:49:50 github have no code
nothings code things
why no one care

You might wanna reach an agreement as soon as possible because the investors demand to see some kind of progress, and when will you release the wallet? what about exchanges? those things should have been done until now.

the first phase just sent to dev (early time  have not escrow)
the second phase after someday have escrow
all at the Ico time