Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments

[bitjoin]

Can anyone confirm that they've been able to deposit byteball into bittrex today? i sent mine couple hours ago and wallet says confirm but nothing on exchange.

[acquafredda]

Another distribution, another drop but proportionally smaller compared to the previous ones. As many others I don't understand why people keep complaining about the distribution model, lack of progresses etc. etc. etc.
This coin was a gift for all BTC holders: tonych did not ask anything to us.
Please go whining somewhere else

[wiseye]

Another distribution, another drop but proportionally smaller compared to the previous ones. As many others I don't understand why people keep complaining about the distribution model, lack of progresses etc. etc. etc.
This coin was a gift for all BTC holders: tonych did not ask anything to us.
Please go whining somewhere else

You're right! Tony is entirely for the sake of dreams, for a great product!

[Coiner_]

I thought I agreed with you but the more I read your posts the more I wonder what you're even arguing about and your motivation for it.

But why do you see the whales as potential enemies of BB? If I was a whale of BB, I would want the price to go up and not down

What if every new alt was given mostly to whales for free with no need to risk any of their bitcoin stash?

You say this like the non-whales were under different rules for this airdrop. And you're aware that if these whales actually decided to "risk" their BTC, the rise and drop (assuming they're actually responsible) would be far more spectacular, right?

Even in a fair ICO whales must risk their btc stash to get a whale share of the tokens.

As do non-whales. Your point?

Whales should get the same as everyone else not automatic whale shares in all future projects for free. The very notion of this is ludicrous.

Er, no they "shouldn't". The airdrop presented equal opportunity not forced equal outcomes. The former is reasonable and the latter is what is ludicrous.

It is probably the most unfair distributional model other than a full on scam

Really? A surprisingly fair distribution model is unfair to you because "whales and stuff..."?

It is not as simple as you think either. If a coin is not distributed well and there are super whales these whales control and make the market. Even if there eventual game is for higher prices they can cause huge periods of crushingly low prices and then super peaks when ever they want it is impossible to trade against them really. It is not natural well distributed market forces it is simply the will of a handful of people. Their will is to extract as much wealth from everyone else including other holders of their same alt project by market making.

Didn't Michail1 and ECB above say something like the top holders haven't really changed since the distribution started? You forget the fact that it's very easy to get people to sell off their stuff simply by putting up a fake sell wall.

I don't see how we are even debating this is a good way to distribute i mean it is clearly not a good way at all.

And your alternative is what exactly? Ban everyone holding more than 1BTC/16GB from the airdrop?

Same for these BTC forks they are simply a way for the btc whales to get free whale shares in every new alt (these forks are alts until they become the
prime btc)

This applies to everyone holding BTC! The card-stacking is laughable. You keep trying to focus so much on what "the btc whales get" like every other person does not have a chance to get the same thing.

[naska21]

Now we have the first real-world project that chose Byteball as a platform for their ICO.

It is TitanCoin: http://titan-coin.com/en/

That ICO did not trigger demand for Gbyte so far and the price is in further fall. All wanna bitcoin.  But lets keep a hope.

[cryptohunter]

I thought I agreed with you but the more I read your posts the more I wonder what you're even arguing about and your motivation for it.

But why do you see the whales as potential enemies of BB? If I was a whale of BB, I would want the price to go up and not down

What if every new alt was given mostly to whales for free with no need to risk any of their bitcoin stash?

You say this like the non-whales were under different rules for this airdrop. And you're aware that if these whales actually decided to "risk" their BTC, the rise and drop (assuming they're actually responsible) would be far more spectacular, right?

Even in a fair ICO whales must risk their btc stash to get a whale share of the tokens.

As do non-whales. Your point?

Whales should get the same as everyone else not automatic whale shares in all future projects for free. The very notion of this is ludicrous.

Er, no they "shouldn't". The airdrop presented equal opportunity not forced equal outcomes. The former is reasonable and the latter is what is ludicrous.

It is probably the most unfair distributional model other than a full on scam

Really? A surprisingly fair distribution model is unfair to you because "whales and stuff..."?

It is not as simple as you think either. If a coin is not distributed well and there are super whales these whales control and make the market. Even if there eventual game is for higher prices they can cause huge periods of crushingly low prices and then super peaks when ever they want it is impossible to trade against them really. It is not natural well distributed market forces it is simply the will of a handful of people. Their will is to extract as much wealth from everyone else including other holders of their same alt project by market making.

Didn't Michail1 and ECB above say something like the top holders haven't really changed since the distribution started? You forget the fact that it's very easy to get people to sell off their stuff simply by putting up a fake sell wall.

I don't see how we are even debating this is a good way to distribute i mean it is clearly not a good way at all.

And your alternative is what exactly? Ban everyone holding more than 1BTC/16GB from the airdrop?

Same for these BTC forks they are simply a way for the btc whales to get free whale shares in every new alt (these forks are alts until they become the
prime btc)

This applies to everyone holding BTC! The card-stacking is laughable. You keep trying to focus so much on what "the btc whales get" like every other person does not have a chance to get the same thing.

Sorry but honestly and not to be rude your replies illustrate you have not understood my points at all and your rebuttals (if that is what they are meant to be) are unanswerable since they make little sense to start with. Please re-read what I have written think about it further and then have another try.

Motive is irrelevant. Try to understand that when you present observable events the motivation for presentation is of no matter.

Fact is if you had a whale stash of btc you were automatically given a whale share of bb for free with no risk to your btc. My motive for presentation is irrelevant.

The mere fact that you are (well i think you are) trying to say being a btc whale should automatically entitle you to be an alt whale in all future alts with no risk to your btc was enough for me to pretty much brush over the rest of it.

[Coiner_]

I thought I agreed with you but the more I read your posts the more I wonder what you're even arguing about and your motivation for it.

[-- snip --]

Sorry but honestly and not to be rude your replies illustrate you have not understood my points at all and your rebuttals (if that is what they are meant to be) are unanswerable since they make little sense to start with.

I could say the same about yours. No, I do say the same about yours in the very first sentence. And you didn't need to quote my entire post if you weren't going to offer any substantive response.

Please re-read what I have written think about it further and then have another try.

You're going to have to rephrase your post because all I'm getting from it is someone who was hurt by whale manipulation early on or has an issue with people being rich and, as they usually do, getting richer.

Motive is irrelevant. Try to understand that when you present observable events the motivation for presentation is of no matter.

Perhaps but in this case it's, IMHO, clearly clouding your judgement.

[cryptohunter]

I thought I agreed with you but the more I read your posts the more I wonder what you're even arguing about and your motivation for it.

[-- snip --]

Sorry but honestly and not to be rude your replies illustrate you have not understood my points at all and your rebuttals (if that is what they are meant to be) are unanswerable since they make little sense to start with.

I could say the same about yours. No, I do say the same about yours in the very first sentence. And you didn't need to quote my entire post if you weren't going to offer any substantive response.

Please re-read what I have written think about it further and then have another try.

You're going to have to rephrase your post because all I'm getting from it is someone who was hurt by whale manipulation early on or has an issue with people being rich and, as they usually do, getting richer.

Motive is irrelevant. Try to understand that when you present observable events the motivation for presentation is of no matter.

Perhaps but in this case it's, IMHO, clearly clouding your judgement.

What you are getting from it is unimportant to me. If you can not understand the simple points I have made then that is not my issue.

Most people will be able to glean 2 simple things if not all of what i have said.

What you are getting is also provably incorrect since I have gained in large from this distributional model since I linked my BTC at the start and it was a reasonable amount. Although I would not class it as a whale sum.

I would not assume that always personal financial gain is the motive for all posting here.


Let me break it down to a few simple yes or no's for you then.



1. should being a btc whale automatically entitle you to a free whale share in future alt coin projects with no risk to your btc stash

yes or no?

2. Is it wise to knowingly allow competing projects to take huge whale shares of your token so that later in the project you must now tell those that bought byteball on the understanding of further full moon distributions they wont be getting those after all so that you can fund your own development?

yes or no was that wise?

let's start with those so I can see it is worth trying to assist you further.

Clouding my judgement of presenting observable events? how is this possible they are there for all to study for themselves.

Try a rebuttal without speculating on motive. It should not be needed if you have a strong argument that is credible to the majority.

[cryptohunter]

How long can it take to write yes or no 2x?

I will check back later and hopefully see two straight answers yes or no.

I suspect I will see a lot of flowery explanations/excuses/philosophical poems and no straight answers.

[Coiner_]

I thought I agreed with you but the more I read your posts the more I wonder what you're even arguing about and your motivation for it.

[-- snip --]

[-- snip --]

What you are getting from it is unimportant to me.

If you can not understand the simple points I have made then that is not my issue.

Most people will be able to glean 2 simple things if not all of what i have said.

That's totally on me, I was naive enough to assume you were interested in making a point. As for "most people" gleaning something from you, that "observably", as you like to say, is not evident.

What you are getting is also provably incorrect since I have gained in large from this distributional model since I linked my BTC at the start and it was a reasonable amount. Although I would not class it as a whale sum.

How does the anything in there "prove" I'm incorrect? Did you even read my post and comprehend it?

I would not assume that always personal financial gain is the motive for all posting here.

1. should being a btc whale automatically entitle you to a free whale share in future alt coin projects with no risk to your btc stash

You're not entitled to anything in an airdrop irrespective of how much BTC you hold.

2. Is it wise to knowingly allow competing projects to take huge whale shares of your token so that later in the project [-- snip --]?

If I had plans with said "competing" projects, yes. Otherwise, not really.

Clouding my judgement of presenting observable events? how is this possible they are there for all to study for themselves.

Dude, read my post not what you think is in my post.

How long can it take to write yes or no 2x?

Do I look like I sit on this thread waiting for you to string words together as a "response"?

I will check back later and hopefully see two straight answers yes or no.

I suspect I will see a lot of flowery explanations/excuses/philosophical poems and no straight answers.

  If that was an attempt at reverse psych, you'll need to put a whole lot more effort into it to get it to work on me. It's an adorable attempt though.

[kola-schaar]

If you have cause for moaning, because the performance of Byteball or you sitting on a load of GBytes, check out the ICO offer (see white paper).

Disclaimer:
This is not an advertisement, just a friendly hint. Everyone is responsible for their own decisions

[cryptohunter]

I thought I agreed with you but the more I read your posts the more I wonder what you're even arguing about and your motivation for it.

[-- snip --]

[-- snip --]

What you are getting from it is unimportant to me.

If you can not understand the simple points I have made then that is not my issue.

Most people will be able to glean 2 simple things if not all of what i have said.

That's totally on me, I was naive enough to assume you were interested in making a point. As for "most people" gleaning something from you, that "observably", as you like to say, is not evident.

What you are getting is also provably incorrect since I have gained in large from this distributional model since I linked my BTC at the start and it was a reasonable amount. Although I would not class it as a whale sum.

How does the anything in there "prove" I'm incorrect? Did you even read my post and comprehend it?

I would not assume that always personal financial gain is the motive for all posting here.

1. should being a btc whale automatically entitle you to a free whale share in future alt coin projects with no risk to your btc stash

You're not entitled to anything in an airdrop irrespective of how much BTC you hold.

2. Is it wise to knowingly allow competing projects to take huge whale shares of your token so that later in the project [-- snip --]?

If I had plans with said "competing" projects, yes. Otherwise, not really.

Clouding my judgement of presenting observable events? how is this possible they are there for all to study for themselves.

Dude, read my post not what you think is in my post.

How long can it take to write yes or no 2x?

Do I look like I sit on this thread waiting for you to string words together as a "response"?

I will check back later and hopefully see two straight answers yes or no.

I suspect I will see a lot of flowery explanations/excuses/philosophical poems and no straight answers.

  If that was an attempt at reverse psych, you'll need to put a whole lot more effort into it to get it to work on me. It's an adorable attempt though.

Ah I thought as much no ...straight answers just some faux confusion at me not being precise enough.

Are you saying because you do not understand that nobody else can?

The answer to question 1 was not a simple yes or no.

The answer to question 2 was not simple yes or no.

As i predicted.

Some strange bumblings focusing on the word entitled.

You as a btc whale are able to claim whale shares in byteball for free with no risk to your own btc. Perhaps you are not clear on how the distribution went down.

Expand on your answer to question 1. I am interested in the explanation. Are you a trainee politician by any chance.

Answer 2 -  I will accept that as a 'no ' it was not wise unless you wish to go into greater detail and object to my interpretation of your answer. Unless you are saying byteball and tony was in collusion with lisk/komodo etc

The point about what you were "getting about me" - were you not suggesting i had some sour grapes motive for the initial distribution for financial reasons. Actually what i was saying is that if i chose I could prove that I got more the way it went down than if tony had gone for some of my other suggestions at the start. Please look them up if you wish but don't ask me to find them or type them out again.

I think you should sit here waiting for me to string words into educational works for your benefit. It is the least you could do for free enhancement. I see that you are not only confused but ungrateful too.

If you're saying simple tweaks could not have made the distribution wider and fairer then that is on you not me. If you think the bb distribution went well then and could not have been done better then that's you view. I don't seek to change your view if you don't wish to change it. I am voicing my opinion as I am entitled to do. If 90% of people here disagree that is of no consequence to me. If 100% disagree that is their right.

I am way better off financially because of the existence of BB and I am grateful. I hope bb makes it to a top 10 or top 5 spot. I still do not like the distributional method. I would hate to see future alts distributed in this way. I will never accept that being a btc whale should automatically enable you to become a whale in other alts with no risk to your btc and everyone else should share the crumbs or have to buy if from you.

Sorry when people try to tell me that black is white  or that unfair is fair...then I have to say no ..however convincing and determined they are. Not that you are very convincing.

[Coiner_]

What a fascinating use of space.

I thought I agreed with you but the more I read your posts the more I wonder what you're even arguing about and your motivation for it.

[-- snip --]

[-- snip --]

[-- snip --]

[-- snip --]

[-- snip --]

Ah I thought as much no ...straight answers just some faux confusion at me not being precise enough.

Are you saying because you do not understand that nobody else can?

Riiiight, it's "faux confusion".

Feeling insecure are we?

Some strange bumblings focusing on the word entitled.

Don't ask loaded questions and think I'll answer it to fit your tiny little boxes.

You as a btc whale are able to claim whale shares in byteball for free with no risk to your own btc. Perhaps you are not clear on how the distribution went down.

Also, "you as a btc [guppy] are able to claim [guppy] shares in byteball for free with no risk to your own btc". Not every one is equal, tough luck. Perhaps it's you that does not understand how it went down.

Expand on your answer to question 1. I am interested in the explanation. Are you a trainee politician by any chance.

That is a fascinating tangent. A trainee politician? Hmm, is a relative of yours that?

As for expanding on my answer, it needs no further explanation. It's a self-evident fact that was subtly dished out to me a couple of months ago in their slack (rudely I should add). And if you browse further back through this thread to around the time it was announced the October airdrop would be suspended, you'll see almost entire pages of said fact reiterated.

Answer 2 -  I will accept that as a 'no ' it was not wise unless you wish to go into greater detail and object to my interpretation of your answer. Unless you are saying byteball and tony was in collusion with lisk/komodo etc

I am. After all, I'm in Tony's head.  

And you're ofc free to scrap everything before the "no" part.

The point about what you were "getting about me" - were you not suggesting i had some sour grapes motive for the initial distribution for financial reasons. Actually what i was saying is that if i chose I could prove that I got more the way it went down than if tony had gone for some of my other suggestions at the start. Please look them up if you wish but don't ask me to find them or type them out again.

I was suggesting, and I quote, "all I'm getting from it is someone who was hurt by whale manipulation early on or has an issue with people being rich and, as they usually do, getting richer". If that's too hard for your brain to parse let me break it down:

* "someone who was hurt by whale manipulation early on" - when you started in crypto you probably got manipulated into selling (or buying) by a whale. Weak-hands and such.

* "has an issue with people being rich and, as they usually do, getting richer" - this should be self explanatory. You certainly won't be the first to pop into this thread wailing about rich people getting richer.

I think you should sit here waiting for me to string words into educational works for your benefit. It is the least you could do for free enhancement. I see that you are not only confused but ungrateful too.

If you're saying simple tweaks could not have made the distribution wider and fairer then that is on you not me. If you think the bb distribution went well then and could not have been done better then that's you view.

Educational works?

And as to what you assume I was saying, it's funny how I alluded to the exact opposite 2 pages ago before you decided to go on your "btc whales!!!" witch hunt. You might wanna try reading sometime.

I am way better off financially because of the existence of BB and I am grateful. I hope bb makes it to a top 10 or top 5 spot. I still do not like the distributional method. I would hate to see future alts distributed in this way. I will never accept that being a btc whale should automatically enable you to become a whale in other alts with no risk to your btc and everyone else should share the crumbs or have to buy if from you.

You would make some sense if you weren't complaining about something that exists entirely in your head.

Sorry when people try to tell me that black is white  or that unfair is fair...then I have to say no ..however convincing and determined they are. Not that you are very convincing.

You sure about that?

[s1lverbox]

How long do confirmations take for byteball, is there anywhere i can view the transactions confirming?

Its speedy service. Usually after minute or few minutes is fully confirmed.

[cryptohunter]

@ coiner

Ah I hear more speculation on my motives and BTC history of course all totally incorrect. Yet no real explanation. Only that you have a strange sense of what is fair. Because of one shared rule it seems that makes it fair to you. I'm sorry but there is more complexity to life than that.

Let me try and give some assistance off of the top of my head....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 people land on a desert island from a ship wreck you and my good self.

I find a box with 20 cans of food inside... yummy

You find a box containing 1 can of food.


A ship comes a month later and the captain says how have you guys survived. You look a bit fucked up but he is polite and does not mention I am better looking and in far better shape. He initially puts this down to better genetics/breeding etc

I tell them I found a box with 20 cans of food in and these were big cans of very nutritious food (nom nom nom)

You whisper in a croaky feminine voice you barely survived because you only  found a box with 1 can of food in .and it was digusting (oh dear )

Captain says - he will bring us food regularly (but wont rescue us on his boat for some reason, doesn't like the look of you but does not want to be unfair)

He says the fairest way is if I get 20 cans of food each month and you get 1. After all that is what we had before right.

I mean its a simple rule that applies to us both so must be fair right. I mean how can it not be fair we both get the same cans of food we found earlier. I get 20 cans a month you get 1 can a month. We are not paying for them. We get them for free right

Why are you moaning about this? why are you dying of starvation on purpose ? what is your motive here i'll speculate you're like greedy and selfish and want every can of food in the world for yourself and just generally an unpleasant fellow. Probably just against people with 20 cans of food like me. Don't like to see people with 20 cans of food getting another 20 cans every month do you. News flash this is how life works. It's fair.  I bet you were scammed once by some one with 20 cans of food in a supermarket car park or something. It has influenced your sense of fairness and made you bitter over time this has manifested into an irrational hatred for us 20 cans a month guys.

I wonder if that little story can assist you? I assure you it would if this happened for real. Although being fair i would give you some of my cans don't worry dude.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Your english is nice. I like it. Your logic and sense of fair play not so much


So question 2. I agree with you.  There is no further need to discuss it. It was a bad move unless tony is in league or colluding with the other projects.


Question 1 is still a big issue for you.

You will never convince people that being a whale in BTC should automatically permit you to get a whale share in other alts for free with no risk to their own whale stash of bitcoins.

Sorry that will not wash. Create a thread on the main board and poll so that I may see how you start to grasp that your version of fair is not fair.

Your logic tells you that since there is one shared rule for both parties whales and guppy that it makes it fair you are wrong.

Go ahead make a thread on the main board with a poll.

Should btc whales automatically be given the whale share in all new alt projects for free if everyone else can share the crumbs.

Come back and report your findings.

I suspect I will be getting a little story soon of my own to read. Please be more grown up and less bitchy than me thought else I will refuse to read it. Certainly do not say you are better looking or in better shape because my ego can not take it and  plagiarism is the lowest form of flattery.

[o0o0]

@cryptohunter - serious question but can you suggest a fair distribution method and how you’ll combat gaming of the system?

from what i see there is no fair way. there is only better ways but none of them are ungameable.

theres camps that always want more for the little guys but end result is little guys usually sell fast for meager returns and capital flows to the smart. then the little complain later when its worth more.

personally short of unique person id and equal giving of coins there is no fair way. identifying a unique person is impossible.

people talk of whales and no risked btc  but back in initial first byteball drop anyone could of purchased more btc to do it. 100btc linked then would give around 450gb today.

it doesnt sound fair but is it fair today that $7300 gets you 1btc where 6 years ago it got you like 10,000 btc?

also if all the people sold gb and 1 person bought it all up is that fair? should everyone buying all get a piece at that price?

[cryptohunter]

@cryptohunter - serious question but can you suggest a fair distribution method and how you’ll combat gaming of the system?

from what i see there is no fair way. there is only better ways but none of them are ungameable.

theres camps that always want more for the little guys but end result is little guys usually sell fast for meager returns and capital flows to the smart. then the little complain later when its worth more.

personally short of unique person id and equal giving of coins there is no fair way. identifying a unique person is impossible.

people talk of whales and no risked btc  but back in initial first byteball drop anyone could of purchased more btc to do it. 100btc linked then would give around 450gb today.

it doesnt sound fair but is it fair today that $7300 gets you 1btc where 6 years ago it got you like 10,000 btc?

also if all the people sold gb and 1 person bought it all up is that fair? should everyone buying all get a piece at that price?

I gave many small tweaks that would have made it much fairer and much more sensible ie not funding competing projects and not being able to fund our own without halting the full moon distributions.

The only fair way to launch a project in a trustless decentralised way is fair launch protocol POW.

However a retro spective snapshot with top 2-5 % of wallets chopped would have helped a lot. The first distribution was where the most damage was done. If you can tell me how that could be gamed then I will admit it is not a good solution. Never forget though even if things make it difficult for gaming it is worth doing. You lock your doors when you leave home right but I can smash the windows or drive a lorry through the walls to obtain access. Does not mean it is not worth locking your door right. You don't leave it open and a sign saying please rob me do you?

I would actually have more of an issue thinking up a worse way to distribute in terms of perceived fairness and dev funding.

Think clearly about what you are saying.

Being a btc whale now should give you automatic rights to being a whale in every new alt  for free with no risk to your btc. That notion is ludicrous.

Also this point

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it doesnt sound fair but is it fair today that $7300 gets you 1btc where 6 years ago it got you like 10,000 btc?

also if all the people sold gb and 1 person bought it all up is that fair? should everyone buying all get a piece at that price?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this has no bearing on the point i am making this is simply market forces which are fair.

if a person with no btc buys a bitcoin today they pay 7300 dollars
if a bit coin whale buys bitcoin today it costs him 7300 dollars

to me that is totally fair.

that is why a fair ico (with no behind the scenes manipulation) is fair.


If people chose to sell all of their GB and 1 person bought it all and charged 100x prices to sell it that is fair.

these are not the same thing at all.

I am not anti rich.

In real life the rich get richer. That is fine. Mostly though you will find rich people are generally smarter and take risks but calculated smart risks to keep getting richer and richer. They make investments where they risk wealth to attain more wealth. They don't just get rights to huge amounts of everything and don't need to pay for it.... well they do but that isn't fair when that happens is it?

I guess fair is perspective based experience although what is grossly unfair can usually attain consensus within a bunch of homo sapiens.

[o0o0]

@cryptohunter - serious question but can you suggest a fair distribution method and how you’ll combat gaming of the system?

from what i see there is no fair way. there is only better ways but none of them are ungameable.

theres camps that always want more for the little guys but end result is little guys usually sell fast for meager returns and capital flows to the smart. then the little complain later when its worth more.

personally short of unique person id and equal giving of coins there is no fair way. identifying a unique person is impossible.

people talk of whales and no risked btc  but back in initial first byteball drop anyone could of purchased more btc to do it. 100btc linked then would give around 450gb today.

it doesnt sound fair but is it fair today that $7300 gets you 1btc where 6 years ago it got you like 10,000 btc?

also if all the people sold gb and 1 person bought it all up is that fair? should everyone buying all get a piece at that price?

I gave many small tweaks that would have made it much fairer and much more sensible ie not funding competing projects and not being able to fund our own without halting the full moon distributions.

The only fair way to launch a project in a trustless decentralised way is fair launch protocol POW.

However a retro spective snapshot with top 2-5 % of wallets chopped would have helped a lot. The first distribution was where the most damage was done. If you can tell me how that could be gamed then I will admit it is not a good solution. Never forget though even if things make it difficult for gaming it is worth doing. You lock your doors when you leave home right but I can smash the windows or drive a lorry through the walls to obtain access. Does not mean it is not worth locking your door right. You don't leave it open and a sign saying please rob me do you?

I would actually have more of an issue thinking up a worse way to distribute in terms of perceived fairness and dev funding.

Think clearly about what you are saying.

Being a btc whale now should give you automatic rights to being a whale in every new alt  for free with no risk to your btc. That notion is ludicrous.

chopping 2-5% of top wallets wont work. you have to announce prior to be open transparent for accountability. scripts run can split payments. this is what i mean there is holes in every way.

fair launch pow is not fair either think about it. china has cheaper electricity than other countries is this not unfair or discrimination? what about asic manufacturers like bitmain sending resources at it? they make their equipment so can hold back tech and supply to do it. this is also not fair.

if not sha256 then people with pc farms same diff.

yes there is a spend but its still a market advantage. in the same way btc could have been bought to acquire more bb.

not having a go at you but i think you are focusing on this tonys method whilst not realising your suggestions are highly gamable as well.

its not perfect but its better than a lot of existing ways ie buy ico and huge premines.

its cheap now and likely to get cheaper. one could buy more bb now with the future in mind. so far i think the biggest sellers are the smaller owners.

edit

also remember tony wanted a wide distribution. icos rarely do this. the sell fast in big amounts to few. their prices to others dictate market which is not fair.

i think personally there is no fair way to do it without identity linking. even that without in person collection is hard.

its not perfect but i think its done well for the goal of a wide distribution. the list on transition has a lot of addresses linked.

[cryptohunter]

@cryptohunter - serious question but can you suggest a fair distribution method and how you’ll combat gaming of the system?

from what i see there is no fair way. there is only better ways but none of them are ungameable.

theres camps that always want more for the little guys but end result is little guys usually sell fast for meager returns and capital flows to the smart. then the little complain later when its worth more.

personally short of unique person id and equal giving of coins there is no fair way. identifying a unique person is impossible.

people talk of whales and no risked btc  but back in initial first byteball drop anyone could of purchased more btc to do it. 100btc linked then would give around 450gb today.

it doesnt sound fair but is it fair today that $7300 gets you 1btc where 6 years ago it got you like 10,000 btc?

also if all the people sold gb and 1 person bought it all up is that fair? should everyone buying all get a piece at that price?

I gave many small tweaks that would have made it much fairer and much more sensible ie not funding competing projects and not being able to fund our own without halting the full moon distributions.

The only fair way to launch a project in a trustless decentralised way is fair launch protocol POW.

However a retro spective snapshot with top 2-5 % of wallets chopped would have helped a lot. The first distribution was where the most damage was done. If you can tell me how that could be gamed then I will admit it is not a good solution. Never forget though even if things make it difficult for gaming it is worth doing. You lock your doors when you leave home right but I can smash the windows or drive a lorry through the walls to obtain access. Does not mean it is not worth locking your door right. You don't leave it open and a sign saying please rob me do you?

I would actually have more of an issue thinking up a worse way to distribute in terms of perceived fairness and dev funding.

Think clearly about what you are saying.

Being a btc whale now should give you automatic rights to being a whale in every new alt  for free with no risk to your btc. That notion is ludicrous.

chopping 2-5% of top wallets wont work. you have to announce prior to be open transparent for accountability. scripts run can split payments. this is what i mean there is holes in every way.

fair launch pow is not fair either think about it. china has cheaper electricity than other countries is this not unfair or discrimination? what about asic manufacturers like bitmain sending resources at it? they make their equipment so can hold back tech and supply to do it. this is also not fair.

if not sha256 then people with pc farms same diff.

yes there is a spend but its still a market advantage. in the same way btc could have been bought to acquire more bb.

not having a go at you but i think you are focusing on this tonys method whilst not realising your suggestions are highly gamable as well.

its not perfect but its better than a lot of existing ways ie buy ico and huge premines.

its cheap now and likely to get cheaper. one could buy more bb now with the future in mind. so far i think the biggest sellers are the smaller owners.

edit

also remember tony wanted a wide distribution. icos rarely do this. the sell fast in big amounts to few. their prices to others dictate market which is not fair.

i think personally there is no fair way to do it without identity linking. even that without in person collection is hard.

its not perfect but i think its done well for the goal of a wide distribution. the list on transition has a lot of addresses linked.

Okay you seem more reasonable and I believe you are genuine in what you are saying.

chopping 2-5% of top wallets wont work. you have to announce prior to be open transparent for accountability. scripts run can split payments. this is what i mean there is holes in every way.

I personally do not believe that not announcing to  the super rich will not get richer for free is as bad as what happened. Not by a long way. They would probably have more shame than even to complain about it. Sorry they should understand they have enough already.

Also what about a max payment to any individual address not announced before time?

Ok announce a few mins before let them scurry around breaking up all their wallets then linking them all up ... let them try that.

These are not perfect but they are a vast improvement upon what happened to me anyway.

Remember we still lock our doors even though people can gain access to our home if they really want. No points saying it can still be gamed let them try and work to game it don';t just hand it over to them with no hassle or stress for them.

The rich wanting to get richer well make them work for it splitting up their address and all the rest of the hassle make them work for it at least.

I suggested some one as smart as tony could easily think of something even better if we need to use btc as some kind of vehicle.


A short POW phase of a few months is not going to really make that much difference (electricity advantage speaking i mean the hardware is roughly the same cost everywhere so that balances it out quite a bit and for short phase equipment is by far a larger factor) on a gpu only minable coin with fair launch protocol and fast scaling diff. Really the difference in electricity cost is not going to even be close to not even close to the advantage given to whales in this method.


Any short duration , capped or unadvertised icos are scams.

Ico should be widely advertised, long duration and open ended.

POW with fair launch protocol is the best way to launch a trustless decentralised project. Both ltc and btc did not have fast enough scaling dif and anti instamine measures really.

[Coiner_]

@ coiner

Ah I hear more speculation on my motives and BTC history of course all totally incorrect. Yet no real explanation. Only that you have a strange sense of what is fair. Because of one shared rule it seems that makes it fair to you. I'm sorry but there is more complexity to life than that.

BTAIM, that wasn't "more" speculation (assuming you're referring to what I think you are), it was simply me clarifying, as you did, my earlier speculation on your motives.

Let me try and give some assistance off of the top of my head....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 people land on a desert island from a ship wreck you and my good self.

I find a box with 20 cans of food inside... yummy

You find a box containing 1 can of food.


A ship comes a month later and the captain says how have you guys survived. You look a bit fucked up but he is polite and does not mention I am better looking and in far better shape. He initially puts this down to better genetics/breeding etc

I tell them I found a box with 20 cans of food in and these were big cans of very nutritious food (nom nom nom)

You whisper in a croaky feminine voice you barely survived because you only  found a box with 1 can of food in .and it was digusting (oh dear )

Captain says - he will bring us food regularly (but wont rescue us on his boat for some reason, doesn't like the look of you but does not want to be unfair)

He says the fairest way is if I get 20 cans of food each month and you get 1. After all that is what we had before right.

I'll admit the analogy sorta works but it fails at this point because it should be based on the %age of the cans of food we have. Since there should be more cans of food on the island (for it to match the ByteBall/BTC situation), nothing stops either of us from scavenging for more cans of food to increase the %age we receive from the captain. That's certainly what I've been doing since I found out about ByteBall in July/August.

I wonder if that little story can assist you? I assure you it would if this happened for real. Although being fair i would give you some of my cans don't worry dude.

  Thanks.

Your english is nice. I like it. Your logic and sense of fair play not so much


So question 2. I agree with you.  There is no further need to discuss it. It was a bad move unless tony is in league or colluding with the other projects.


Question 1 is still a big issue for you.

You will never convince people that being a whale in BTC should automatically permit you to get a whale share in other alts for free with no risk to their own whale stash of bitcoins.

Sorry that will not wash. Create a thread on the main board and poll so that I may see how you start to grasp that your version of fair is not fair.

If that's what you've gleaned from my posts up till now then you've completely misunderstood me. Not only am I not saying that, I'm really saying the opposite. If you disagree, feel free to show me how "You're not entitled to anything in an airdrop irrespective of how much BTC you hold" translates to "You should automatically get [i.e. are entitled to] a whale share of an airdropped alt because you're a BTC whale".

I'll clarify it one more time: Whether you have 0.014 BTC or 140 BTC (like one guy that linked his address), you're not entitled to anything in this airdrop. For example, I didn't get my GBB during one of the airdrops because it was apparently way too little and was told to not complain about "losing cents" as they put it. Others too didn't get theirs for a variety of reasons. That said, having more BTC means that you will get more GB than someone who has less and in fact, you'll get it sooner than someone that has less.

Taking from your POW alternative, it's just like Bitmain will always mine more BTC than you ever could with the little mining farm you have. They're not entitled to it, they just have more of what is needed to get it. In ByteBall's case, it was BTC that was needed.

Your logic tells you that since there is one shared rule for both parties whales and guppy that it makes it fair you are wrong.

But it is fair. I wouldn't complain if I was placed on a race track with another guy but my car wasn't fast enough to beat the guy in the Chiron but I would complain if I was prevented from winning because he was provided a shortcut to the finish line.