Requoting as I would definitely donate if you can answer this question.

My point is that balances can be shielded with zsnarks. Once a balance becomes shielded, it cannot vote.

One potential problem is that if say supply is 100million and total shielded amount is 95million (which is not unreasonable), the network becomes easier to attack

In Raiblocks, when there is a fork,  balance-weighted vote is used to determine the outcome through use of representatives.

How would balance-weighted vote work in Stone? cos certain amount of balances will be shielded if zsnarks are used

Finally, I think that raiblocks snapshot should be used for distribution as the majority of code will be from Raiblocks

I support this change. Fairer now, hopefully people still donate



How did you arrive at the number 700/s for raiblocks?


the irony is palpable lol

You said I didn't understand open source before, but the whole ideology is based on the improvement of the technology over everything else (personal / monetary gain etc)

My argument would be don't contribute to an open source project if you are only in it for the financial gain.

I do understand your point of view though.

It is possible to make something and get nothing in return, eg. Satoshi he has 1million btc untouched, + various opensource devs.
For some people, it's not always about the money but rather the tech.

Like I said before, I definitely appreciate the hard work that's gone into making xrb a great coin.

My main problem is with the 5% to donator, it forces you to donate because the cost of not donating is too much.

I think it's very unbalanced and I predict donation rate will increase to 10%+ as the number of claims increase.

Maybe I'm just being too idealistic about the fairness of the distribution.



If that's what you got from my post, I suggest you read it again. You are just resorting to ad hominem attacks.




I have one question: In terms of fairness of distribution, would it be fairer if 5% was removed?

I'm talking abour fairness of distribution. You can see that the 20% hard-coded mining donation is unfair right?

I'm arguing that +5% is similar to the 20% hard-coded mining donation for the reasons I stated before.



I want to reiterate I'm discussing the fairness of distribution.

You are acting like Colin has nothing to gain from making the coin successful. This is not an attack on Colin. I want to state that I really respect and admire Colin and the work he's put in + other members of the team too.

I agree it is more than fair devs get a slice of the pie, but it's the manner in which it is obtained which is the issue.

1 & 3. True but if people are going to get +5% for donating, everyone is going to donate, as the reward for donating far outweighs the the reward for not donating (0).
Can you really say it's not forced when the loss from not donating is so high?

2. I said I'm not saying they don't deserve it. They are getting around 1.5btc a day right now (45btc a month, $3810 a day, $114,300 a month [1btc = $2540] ), which is only going to increase as value of xrb & number of claims increase.

4 & 5. I'm not the one who can't see this is making the distribution unfair... What is going to happen as claims increase? Donations for devs is going to reach 10%+ of the distribution. Still think this is fair?

Can the +5% be removed?

Not saying you guys don't deserve the donations but it is seriously taking over the distrubution.

It basically forces people to donate and I think 7% of the daily distribution going to devs and is making the distribution unfair. Scary thing is, this proportion is only going to increase as more people claim.

Thanks for the explanation, if not wanting decimals was part of your design then it makes sense to have 1xrb = 1rai.

It's just a matter of preference I guess (I prefer 1xrb = 1raiblock = 1,000,000rai ), there are currencies out there like japanese yen which have no decimals.

I always thought

1Mrai = 1 raiblock = 1 XRB = 1,000,000rai

like how 1 BTC = 100,000,000satoshi

rai is equivalent to satoshi

I think this is a better way of representing it.

It's been removed now, everyone can sign up

wtb @500-600, bitrated escrow only (@hostfat), pm me

I agree this would decrease network usage. Are there not other methods to handle increase in server load / node load that don't affect distribution?

i.e. to reduce load on faucet node load, can another trusted account be created which can act like a mining pool in terms of payment distribution?
Say you had 500Mrai to send to 1000 accounts. Instead of the faucet node handling all the load, 500Mrai can be sent to trusted account which distributes it to the 1000accounts.

Not sure if this is possible?



How does this benefit the majority of claimers who don't know how to start a captcha pool? It affects the majority of people who will experience a loss of earnings through the use of captcha pool



In my opinion, it makes joining a pool mandatory.
The top 60 accounts creates a threshold that people have to meet.

Depending on the threshold, it could be quite difficult to for people to meet. the threshold could be 500, 1000, 2500+, hard to estimate right now.
If someone didn't want to join a pool, they would have to meet that threshold. Can you say it is fair if someone has to make 2500 claims before they see any Mrai?

I know this is to encourage the use of captcha pools which in turn reduces network usage.

How does this change benefit people who are claiming? In terms of fairness and other factors, how is this distribution method an improvement to the previous distribution method?

I just want to see it from the perspective of the devs, as there may be benefits I and other people might not have considered

Some guy unironically just sent me 0.03Mrai in a deal for 30kMrai     

wtb @1000, bitrated escrow (@hostfat) only, pm me with address and amount you are offering.

wtb @1000, bitrated escrow (@hostfat) only, pm me

wtb @650, bitrated escrow (@hostfat) only, pm me, preferably large amount

It's in Mrai

There is a chance you might have been scammed, always use escrow.