A conjecture on the sum of binomial coefficients I am looking for a proof, disproof or counter example of the following claim.
Let $C = \{k_1, k_2, \ldots, \}$ be a strictly increasing infinite sequence of positive integers which have a certain characteristic $C$. For example $C$ can be the set of all natural numbers, or all odd numbers or all even numbers or all primes or all numbers not divisible by 4 etc.
Let $N(x)$ be the numbers of positive integers $\le x$ that have this characteristic $C$ i.e. $N(x) = \sum_{k_i \le x} 1$. For example the number of integers less than $x$ have the characteristic of being even or prime is $x/2$ and $\pi(x)$ respectively. 
Conjecture: If $(\frac{k_1}{k_n}, \frac{k_2}{k_n}, \ldots, \frac{k_{n-1}}{k_n},1)$ approach uniform distribution in $(0,1)$ as $n \to \infty$ then,
$$
\sum_{k_i \le n}{n\choose k_i} \sim \frac{2^n}{n}N(n).
$$
The progress on the case of primes is present in this MSE post.
Edit: The additional constraint on uniform distribution has been added in light of @Paul SInclair's comment and @bof's counter example for non-uniformly distributed $k_i/k_n$
 A: I think this is a counterexample.
Let $C$ be the set of all positive integers whose base $10$ representation has an odd number of digits. Let
$$f(n)=\frac n{N(n)2^n}\sum_{k\in C}\binom nk.$$
The conjecture is that $\lim_{n\to\infty}f(n)=1$. In fact,
$$\lim_{n\to\infty}f\left(10^{2n}\right)=0$$
and
$$\lim_{n\to\infty}f\left(10^{2n+1}\right)=1.1.$$
A: A general reason for this to hold is just that $\sum_{k\le n}{n\choose k} = 2^n$. There are $n+1$ terms in this sum. For large $n$, if you add up some $N < n$ of the terms, uniformly distributed, it is reasonable to expect that you will get approximately $\frac N{n+1}$ of the total value, i.e., $\frac N{n+1}2^n \sim \frac Nn2^n$ 
Of course, this heuristic argument hinges on the summed values being proportionate to the fraction of terms chosen. For sets that are approximately uniformly distributed for large $n$, this is likely to hold. But bof has provided an example where they are not uniformly distributed, and thus it fails.
A: This method is also present in my other answer to the linked question about binomial coefficients over primes. 
Let $T_n\sim B(n,1/2)$ be the binomial distribution. Then by Hoeffding's inequality, 
$$
P(T_n \notin [\frac n2-\sqrt{n\log\log n}, \frac n2 + \sqrt{n\log\log n}]) \leq \frac 2{(\log n)^2}.$$ 
Now, let $k_1, \ldots, k_m$ denote the enumeration of integers $1,\ldots, n$ outside $[\frac n2-\sqrt{n\log\log n}, \frac n2+\sqrt{n\log\log n}]$  in increasing order, and the last number is $n$. Then we have for any $0\leq a<b\leq 1$, 
$$
\frac{ \# \{ a\leq \frac kn \leq b | k\notin [\frac n2-\sqrt{n\log\log n}, \frac n2+\sqrt{n\log\log n}]\}}{n+O(\sqrt{n\log\log n})}=\frac{(b-a)n+O(\sqrt{n\log\log n})}{n +O(\sqrt{n\log\log n})}\rightarrow b-a \ \mathrm{as} \ n\rightarrow\infty.
$$
Therefore the sequence $k_1/k_m,k_2/k_m,\ldots, k_{m-1}/k_m, 1$  approach uniform distribution in $(0,1)$. However, the asymptotic for the sum of binomial coefficients over the set $k_1, \ldots, k_m$ is at most 
$$
\lesssim \frac{2^{n+1}}{(\log n)^2}. 
$$
This is much less than the conjectured asymptotic of $\sim 2^n$. 
