Bitcoin Forum
August 17, 2018, 02:27:41 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 [83] 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 ... 1003 »
  Print  
Author Topic: BYTEBALL: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments  (Read 1110810 times)
xizmax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 527
Merit: 500


View Profile
December 11, 2016, 04:08:43 PM
 #1641

Okay at the least you are trying to engage in meaningful discussion. So I will discuss and debate this with you in public on civil terms.

And what might that be? Is having people with massive GPU farms or ASICS joining your coin right at the start fair?
Have it instamined like Darkcoin/Dash?
Fair POW distribution is as hard to achieve as any - if not harder


The key is a fair release protocol for POW.

1. announced ahead of time
2. anti instamine meansures - rapid diff adjust and low coin reward for early blocks
3. anyone can hire or lease rigs or buy coins dumped by miners. The only real variable is electricity cost. GPU farms have invested money into hardware that could be used to simply buy the mined coins etc etc. You can lease gpu power or buy your own. The only real advantage is cost of electricity if the anti instamine measures are in place.

How does this compare to the fact BTC whales simply take it all by risking or spending nothing further. It is ridiculous to say that instantly just creating whales via this method is comparable to having everyone fight on a fair playing field except for electricity cost. Over such a short POW phase this factor is not really as large as it seems either.

I agree with your points, they were invented as a stopgap to enable "fairer" launches for POW coins.

The idea here, as far as I gather, is to achieve a wide distribution and to try to mimic BTC's network effect with all its ups and downs.
I think we would agree that no altcoin is as widely distributed as BTC, also I would dare to argue that other coins have bigger whales and to mimic their distribution would be even more disastrous (cue in NXT distribution for example).
Also, I believe the intention here is to lower the cost of entry into BB. Something you cannot achieve with any sort of POW / ICO launch.

Like in Bitbay ICO? Fake volume, fake promise, fake everything ICO? Where was the risk in that?

Exactly my point. Bitcoin whales (except those running the scam and actually the only whale there was really the exchange owner of bter since I would not have called bob previous to the scam a btc whale) had to risk their BTC to become whales in bitbay. Bitbay is a prime example of why you need fair or acceptable ICO protocols with escrows and multisigs holding the funding and released only for milestones met.

A fairly advertised and carefully run ICO is much better for alt coin investors and the project itself if it is not run by scammers. These points I have already explain in my previous posts and you can feel free to refute them as you like as long as you give reasonable logical evidence that we can all examine in public.
Bitbay scammers risked virtually nothing, because the scam was mostly done within BTER (I am obviously not focusing on any whale that might've bought in without being in cahoots with bob'n'co)

I am hard pressed to find ICO's that meet the criteria you wrote of above  - even if they do incorporate escrow and multisig, most of them just meander about with no real milestones.
I will concede the point that a properly run IPO is a way to gather funds which is accepted - even successful - in the "real world", however it took a while to get where we are now and I would hazard a guess that not many people here are willing to pay the regulatory price that comes with "properly run IPOs".

I see this sort of distribution also as a way of "getting us there" with regards to distribution models.

I think it is highly unfair of you to come in here and shit from up high on tony like he is the worlds worst scammer.
At least he is experimenting with this distribution method and trying to do something unusual - inspired by Metcalfe's law.



Again you have omitted most of my important points and have diverted to something I have never said which is both strange and telling. Please show me where I have indicated tonych is himself to benefit from this form of intial distribution more than if he were to keep even 20% with full ledger of costs as I suggest? This accusation again does not hold any water. I do not believe he owns 20% of BTC or even 20% of BTC that will link their wallets. Therefore me saying personally him keeping 20% for development with ledger would be okay does not imply I think him a scammer for keeping 1% and whatever BTC worth he will accrue.

This form of distribution is damaging to all alt holders including you who will even get to claim your small BTC worth. It is the wet dream of BTC whales who would love to see alts crushed.

You never shat upon directly, but I found your usage of all caps (WORST distribution) and overall tone to be one of derision. If I were mistaken, I apologize.
Therefore, there is no "telling" whatsoever here Smiley I hold no beef with you, nor anyone on this forum (well maybe a selected few Cheesy)

BURST, your C:\urrency
Follow us on https://twitter.com/burstcoin_dev
BOUNTY PORTALS
BLOG
WHERE BOUNTY MANAGEMENT
MEETS AUTOMATION
SIGNATURE CAMPAIGNS
TWITTER
FACEBOOK
MEDIA CAMPAIGNS
AND MORE!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1534516061
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534516061

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534516061
Reply with quote  #2

1534516061
Report to moderator
1534516061
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534516061

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534516061
Reply with quote  #2

1534516061
Report to moderator
johny08
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1046
Merit: 1000


View Profile
December 11, 2016, 04:12:25 PM
 #1642

if you do not mind to pay me 0.03 btc for  translation  Nederlands (Dutch)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1710955.0

sent to adress btc:

1HaGJdTbhm17GuT8NE5LAmjWjgdZW1Jm7w

thanks


read the translation. its shitty, written like by a 14 years old.
zanzibar
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 611
Merit: 500


View Profile
December 11, 2016, 04:24:44 PM
 #1643

I suggested from the beginning that we have a maximum of 100btc linked per participant with verification via BTT profile that was created before OP. But oh well, this will be dumped by Komodo and other stupid projects that pretend to give a shit.
Seccour
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1619
Merit: 1004


Bitcoiner, Crypto-anarchist and Cypherpunk.


View Profile
December 11, 2016, 05:00:54 PM
 #1644

@seccour: thx for your answer. do you mean i have to do an IN-Ledger transaction or how does it function to send back my coins to my validate BTC adress?

Send it back to the address that have been validated. Be careful though, verify on a block-explorer that your BTC really come from that address.

cryptohunter
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1024



View Profile
December 11, 2016, 06:37:21 PM
 #1645

Okay at the least you are trying to engage in meaningful discussion. So I will discuss and debate this with you in public on civil terms.

And what might that be? Is having people with massive GPU farms or ASICS joining your coin right at the start fair?
Have it instamined like Darkcoin/Dash?
Fair POW distribution is as hard to achieve as any - if not harder


The key is a fair release protocol for POW.

1. announced ahead of time
2. anti instamine meansures - rapid diff adjust and low coin reward for early blocks
3. anyone can hire or lease rigs or buy coins dumped by miners. The only real variable is electricity cost. GPU farms have invested money into hardware that could be used to simply buy the mined coins etc etc. You can lease gpu power or buy your own. The only real advantage is cost of electricity if the anti instamine measures are in place.

How does this compare to the fact BTC whales simply take it all by risking or spending nothing further. It is ridiculous to say that instantly just creating whales via this method is comparable to having everyone fight on a fair playing field except for electricity cost. Over such a short POW phase this factor is not really as large as it seems either.

I agree with your points, they were invented as a stopgap to enable "fairer" launches for POW coins.

The idea here, as far as I gather, is to achieve a wide distribution and to try to mimic BTC's network effect with all its ups and downs.
I think we would agree that no altcoin is as widely distributed as BTC, also I would dare to argue that other coins have bigger whales and to mimic their distribution would be even more disastrous (cue in NXT distribution for example).
Also, I believe the intention here is to lower the cost of entry into BB. Something you cannot achieve with any sort of POW / ICO launch.

Like in Bitbay ICO? Fake volume, fake promise, fake everything ICO? Where was the risk in that?

Exactly my point. Bitcoin whales (except those running the scam and actually the only whale there was really the exchange owner of bter since I would not have called bob previous to the scam a btc whale) had to risk their BTC to become whales in bitbay. Bitbay is a prime example of why you need fair or acceptable ICO protocols with escrows and multisigs holding the funding and released only for milestones met.

A fairly advertised and carefully run ICO is much better for alt coin investors and the project itself if it is not run by scammers. These points I have already explain in my previous posts and you can feel free to refute them as you like as long as you give reasonable logical evidence that we can all examine in public.
Bitbay scammers risked virtually nothing, because the scam was mostly done within BTER (I am obviously not focusing on any whale that might've bought in without being in cahoots with bob'n'co)

I am hard pressed to find ICO's that meet the criteria you wrote of above  - even if they do incorporate escrow and multisig, most of them just meander about with no real milestones.
I will concede the point that a properly run IPO is a way to gather funds which is accepted - even successful - in the "real world", however it took a while to get where we are now and I would hazard a guess that not many people here are willing to pay the regulatory price that comes with "properly run IPOs".

I see this sort of distribution also as a way of "getting us there" with regards to distribution models.

I think it is highly unfair of you to come in here and shit from up high on tony like he is the worlds worst scammer.
At least he is experimenting with this distribution method and trying to do something unusual - inspired by Metcalfe's law.



Again you have omitted most of my important points and have diverted to something I have never said which is both strange and telling. Please show me where I have indicated tonych is himself to benefit from this form of intial distribution more than if he were to keep even 20% with full ledger of costs as I suggest? This accusation again does not hold any water. I do not believe he owns 20% of BTC or even 20% of BTC that will link their wallets. Therefore me saying personally him keeping 20% for development with ledger would be okay does not imply I think him a scammer for keeping 1% and whatever BTC worth he will accrue.

This form of distribution is damaging to all alt holders including you who will even get to claim your small BTC worth. It is the wet dream of BTC whales who would love to see alts crushed.

You never shat upon directly, but I found your usage of all caps (WORST distribution) and overall tone to be one of derision. If I were mistaken, I apologize.
Therefore, there is no "telling" whatsoever here Smiley I hold no beef with you, nor anyone on this forum (well maybe a selected few Cheesy)


Hi again,

The idea here, as far as I gather, is to achieve a wide distribution and to try to mimic BTC's network effect with all its ups and downs.
I think we would agree that no altcoin is as widely distributed as BTC, also I would dare to argue that other coins have bigger whales and to mimic their distribution would be even more disastrous (cue in NXT distribution for example).
Also, I believe the intention here is to lower the cost of entry into BB. Something you cannot achieve with any sort of POW / ICO launch.



I would not suggest we use any other single altcoin except perhaps combining btc , ltc , and doge. That would be better but still not great.

However even if you did use any other sizable alt - let's take using LTC you would nullify a lot of the major issues here.

1. opposing ICO's will not be funded indirectly by this project to dump our BB price down and increase their worth in the altcoin market.
2. exchanges will not have such whale holdings. Yes some people hold their LTC on the exchange but nothing like the amount that hold BTC because the majority of markets are BTC based and all the large ones are. Althogh to be fair I have never heard what percentage of BTC's minting is in exchange wallets compared to LTC or doge.

3. Both of the above points are not important to me though because a far launch POW short mining phase is far fairer than both and give less problems going forward with regard manipulation.


Bitbay scammers risked virtually nothing, because the scam was mostly done within BTER (I am obviously not focusing on any whale that might've bought in without being in cahoots with bob'n'co)

I am hard pressed to find ICO's that meet the criteria you wrote of above  - even if they do incorporate escrow and multisig, most of them just meander about with no real milestones.
I will concede the point that a properly run IPO is a way to gather funds which is accepted - even successful - in the "real world", however it took a while to get where we are now and I would hazard a guess that not many people here are willing to pay the regulatory price that comes with "properly run IPOs".

I see this sort of distribution also as a way of "getting us there" with regards to distribution models.


Yes, I agree the scammers risked little to nothing here. What I meant was that legit BTC whales investors that did invest lost with everyone else. They risked their BTC to get the bay tokens. The scam was the nastiest here. It leveraged trust of large exchange with trust of a very well known dev (not that he knew that at the time and has paid for this mistake by having to work for 2 years for peanuts whilst the others spend their huge amounts of btc and dumped their bay down to 17 sats). Yes there can not be ICO's like this and over all I do not like ICO's on here that much. They are still open to huge manipulation by the ICO teams. However just because you are a BTC whale you still take the risk every other investor takes with an ICO unless you're an insider with that particular scheme. I still say an ICO if conducted with good intention and is fairly conducted is way way better than this method. POW is superior further because with a fair release protocol there are no easy coins. I.e. everyone has to expend the same effort and energy to obtain each coin. The cost of the energy is the only variable and over a very short mining period like 2 months it is not a huge issue. With POW you can show there were no easy coins and it was fair with an ICO you never really know what's happening behind the scenes.


You never shat upon directly, but I found your usage of all caps (WORST distribution) and overall tone to be one of derision. If I were mistaken, I apologize.
Therefore, there is no "telling" whatsoever here Smiley I hold no beef with you, nor anyone on this forum (well maybe a selected few Cheesy)



I never make anything personal. I am here to discuss only the observable events that take place. I stand by what I said though that this is the worst distributional method for alts and this project (for many reasons already stated above) that I have seen yet.

The added fact there is refusal to null the top 2-5%of wallets which would hardly affect how broad the distribution is yet prevent all the exchange issues, ICO's using their windfalls against the project and super whales pumping and dumping everyone over and over is strange although I see no gain for tonych from refusing.

Come on Tonych keep 10% for dev and wages and just make it a POW launch. BB will be a pariah coin with the alt coin community I can guarantee it once word is out beyond this thread. Auto creating Whales in new ALT currencies on the basis of them being whales in BTC already with no risk to them at all is simply not going to go over well. That and handing exchanges and ICO teams super whale portions is even more undesirable.

You seem so smart there must be another angle to this that you are not revealing. There is no way you would be funding your competition and making sure investors don't ever touch this coin for fear of huge whale manipulation. Fess up there is some other reason for this and I don't mean your personal self enrichment. What is it?







journeym@n
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
December 11, 2016, 07:00:32 PM
 #1646

Underlying principles of ByteBall will make it sink or float, in this or some next incarnation. Distribution model is, in my opinion, good enough and pretty much irrelevant compared to factors that are outside of our or its founder's reach.
valley365
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 1001


View Profile
December 11, 2016, 07:49:03 PM
 #1647

Half of this thread is the complaint about distribution method. Whatever we argue about a "fair" method of distribution, there's no absolute fairness there. Whether by mining or others, people who have more resources (eg BTCs) will be advantageous. There's no denial of it. It is the real life. This one proposed by Tony is the most fair and straightforward as far as I can see. With little resources you won't be expect to get more in any circumstance.
greenclover
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 195
Merit: 100



View Profile
December 11, 2016, 07:52:49 PM
 #1648

Great coin and good distribution method. I like the fact it is not an ICO, or CF. Many of which are real scams. Will download the client and join the start Cheesy
strasboug
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 11, 2016, 07:56:40 PM
 #1649

Half of this thread is the complaint about distribution method. Whatever we argue about a "fair" method of distribution, there's no absolute fairness there. Whether by mining or others, people who have more resources (eg BTCs) will be advantageous. There's no denial of it. It is the real life. This one proposed by Tony is the most fair and straightforward as far as I can see. With little resources you won't be expect to get more in any circumstance.

I agree, no 100% fair system of distribution. I like this much better than ICOs. ICOs are simple gambles, often on groundless basis ad pure hype. The only winners in ICOs are dev or scammers. While the intention of the dev here is clearly to popularize the coin, and he did a lot of development and not copying from other coin. It is a great one for future.
hashpuppy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 269
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 11, 2016, 08:14:26 PM
 #1650

Hi dev.  Why only Bitcoin holders, would it be better if you include in the distribution also those holders of other coins.  This would effect in much wider distribution. My suggestion would be to include the top 100 or 200 coins by marketcap, with equal weight by coin supply.  This would be much fairer.  


                      █████████████                
                  ██                                          
              ██                                              
    ██████████████████      ██████      
███    ███████████              ███  ███    
██        ████████                  ██      ██    
██        █████                        ██      ██    
    ██████                                █████      

AlphaCar
  Community Token Economy for the Auto Industry
   ▬▬▬▬ Public Sale Jun 11 -  Sep 9, 2018
OFFICIAL WEBSITE
TWITTER
FACEBOOK
TELEGRAM
REDDIT
MEDIUM
Seccour
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1619
Merit: 1004


Bitcoiner, Crypto-anarchist and Cypherpunk.


View Profile
December 11, 2016, 08:26:00 PM
 #1651

Hi dev.  Why only Bitcoin holders, would it be better if you include in the distribution also those holders of other coins.  This would effect in much wider distribution. My suggestion would be to include the top 100 or 200 coins by marketcap, with equal weight by coin supply.  This would be much fairer.  

That would not be fair because theses shitcoins in top 100 / 200 are easy to manipulate and for some the devs own very large supplies or the distribution of theses coins are or where shady. And it would be a lot of work for nothing.

hashpuppy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 269
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 11, 2016, 08:47:34 PM
 #1652

Hi dev.  Why only Bitcoin holders, would it be better if you include in the distribution also those holders of other coins.  This would effect in much wider distribution. My suggestion would be to include the top 100 or 200 coins by marketcap, with equal weight by coin supply.  This would be much fairer.  

That would not be fair because theses shitcoins in top 100 / 200 are easy to manipulate and for some the devs own very large supplies or the distribution of theses coins are or where shady. And it would be a lot of work for nothing.

Well it will be much fairer because those who will have little BTC will just buy maybe the low marketcap coin if distribution is by equal weight by coin supply. In addition it will attract community in other coins.


                      █████████████                
                  ██                                          
              ██                                              
    ██████████████████      ██████      
███    ███████████              ███  ███    
██        ████████                  ██      ██    
██        █████                        ██      ██    
    ██████                                █████      

AlphaCar
  Community Token Economy for the Auto Industry
   ▬▬▬▬ Public Sale Jun 11 -  Sep 9, 2018
OFFICIAL WEBSITE
TWITTER
FACEBOOK
TELEGRAM
REDDIT
MEDIUM
animalroam
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1074
Merit: 1000


CryptoBE.com - cheap and reliable block explorers


View Profile
December 11, 2016, 08:53:29 PM
 #1653

Hi dev.  Why only Bitcoin holders, would it be better if you include in the distribution also those holders of other coins.  This would effect in much wider distribution. My suggestion would be to include the top 100 or 200 coins by marketcap, with equal weight by coin supply.  This would be much fairer.  

That would not be fair because theses shitcoins in top 100 / 200 are easy to manipulate and for some the devs own very large supplies or the distribution of theses coins are or where shady. And it would be a lot of work for nothing.

Well it will be much fairer because those who will have little BTC will just buy maybe the low marketcap coin if distribution is by equal weight by coin supply. In addition it will attract community in other coins.

I agree with Seccour: this is over-complicating things by a lot. BTC is simpler and a coin most people have. If people want to take part in distribution, they can easily convert their altcoins to BTC.

CryptoBE   
Cheap and Reliable
Altcoin Block Explorers
     PM Me
  or 
#IRC
cryptohunter
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1024



View Profile
December 11, 2016, 09:24:19 PM
 #1654

 

The points that I raised are simply not being answered. I made some comparisons with this method compared to a fair release POW and this way is negative in each of those areas? some very damaging to this coin to the point of making it a non starter.

To say then you agree with this way or not without refuting the points I have claimed are negative is pointless.

You may agree with lots of things that are illogical or just wrong. That does not make them correct.

Let me hear again the positives here with this "let's make whales in BTC whales in all new alts" over and above a POW phase that I have mentioned and laid out as a proposal.


I realise tonych can do what he wants but if you really believe it is superior to POW or even an ICO then explain why. Just saying it is does not make it so without giving reason.



Prove here and now by comparisons to POW, ICO or even nulling the top 2-5% of BTC wallet with random date snapshots how this current intended method is best

a - for you
b - for BB in terms of whatever you want to list - dev funds compared to ICO's (including those getting a ton of BB to dump to fund their own competitive interests), investment confidence , not being a pariah for enriching most the  already rich... etc etc
c - for the alt community in general
d - for tonych

No point saying I agree with it and it's a great new method of distributing alts. Why do you think this ? give a clear comparative example listing the pros and cons over other tried and tested methods.


I challenge anyone here including tony to paint a clear convincing argument for this  strange distributional model over fair launch protocol POW phase. Not just one plus point when there are 10 negatives that can be countered with.

No need for personal attacks. They mean nothing and look like an attempt to avoid the questions.

Simply a list PRO's and CON's of this whales to whales scheme vs fair release POW, and even ICO. I am claiming POW is far superior in every way to this as long as the dev can keep a reasonable % for dev funding.

I've listed my reasons. I see no person here refuting these reasons ? only a lot of people suddenly appearing claiming they believe it's a great way to distribute initially and they agree with it. Oh yeah? why ?

Even if this one slips past I hope no other alt will distribute in this way. I am sad such an interesting project is almost a certain flop due to poor initial distributional methods.

This kind of distribution was suggested by BTC whales for all alts. I have seen this suggested in 2013 that all new alts should be distributed in this way. I was against it then and there is even more reason to be against it now with all these ICO's holding so many BTC. Also back then all exchanges were to be brought on board to distribute internally. I don't even see that happening here.



cryptohunter
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1024



View Profile
December 11, 2016, 09:27:19 PM
 #1655

Hi dev.  Why only Bitcoin holders, would it be better if you include in the distribution also those holders of other coins.  This would effect in much wider distribution. My suggestion would be to include the top 100 or 200 coins by marketcap, with equal weight by coin supply.  This would be much fairer.  

That would not be fair because theses shitcoins in top 100 / 200 are easy to manipulate and for some the devs own very large supplies or the distribution of theses coins are or where shady. And it would be a lot of work for nothing.

Well it will be much fairer because those who will have little BTC will just buy maybe the low marketcap coin if distribution is by equal weight by coin supply. In addition it will attract community in other coins.

I agree with Seccour: this is over-complicating things by a lot. BTC is simpler and a coin most people have. If people want to take part in distribution, they can easily convert their altcoins to BTC.

Ha yeah the BTC whales will love that. Let's crash alt markets further first. Before switching to BTC in which they are already whales. Before giving them the whale share of new alts. So they can pump and dump them to death and make more BTC. This is a great.

Let's not over complicate things. Sell all your alts and send the BTC to the BTC whales. Seems simple.

This is the test run. It is if a lot of others start distributing like this you will have a problem.

CryptoSporidium
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 393
Merit: 250


View Profile
December 11, 2016, 09:45:40 PM
 #1656

Most fair distribution is inverse penis size method (stake gets larger as penis size gets smaller), obviously scope for gaming penis selfie photo applications for genesis block, but internet is not swamped with guys instagramming their micro penis images, so gamers must pay small penis guys for their photos, so redistribution from well hung to less well so must necessarily occur, so overall 'fairness' in the universe must therefore go up. Just start at 6 " as median stake, 1mm smaller penis gets slightly more, 1mm larger gets slightly less, and so on.

Guy with micro penis is a crypto whale, well hung guys need to earn coins from sig campaign ... it's fair, but might be considered ridiculous, so second best method probable just use bitcoin.

Not too late to use my inverse penis size distribution method. Could extend 'fairness' of BB distro considerably, and can add additional rounds to compensate for more of mother natures cruelties.

I propose:
20% - penis size
20% - baldness
20% - height
20% - small breasts
20% - facial warts

Poorly hung bald dwarfs with facial warts become the BB whales, and ladies with small breasts get an airdrop too ... who would ever complain about fairness again, and imagine the marketing potential from all the claim photos! The only downside is Lemmy from Motorhead isn't around to claim for his majestic warts, but otherwise I think my proposal is bulletproof.


Seccour
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1619
Merit: 1004


Bitcoiner, Crypto-anarchist and Cypherpunk.


View Profile
December 11, 2016, 10:16:32 PM
 #1657

Hi dev.  Why only Bitcoin holders, would it be better if you include in the distribution also those holders of other coins.  This would effect in much wider distribution. My suggestion would be to include the top 100 or 200 coins by marketcap, with equal weight by coin supply.  This would be much fairer.  

That would not be fair because theses shitcoins in top 100 / 200 are easy to manipulate and for some the devs own very large supplies or the distribution of theses coins are or where shady. And it would be a lot of work for nothing.

Well it will be much fairer because those who will have little BTC will just buy maybe the low marketcap coin if distribution is by equal weight by coin supply. In addition it will attract community in other coins.

I agree with Seccour: this is over-complicating things by a lot. BTC is simpler and a coin most people have. If people want to take part in distribution, they can easily convert their altcoins to BTC.

Ha yeah the BTC whales will love that. Let's crash alt markets further first. Before switching to BTC in which they are already whales. Before giving them the whale share of new alts. So they can pump and dump them to death and make more BTC. This is a great.

Let's not over complicate things. Sell all your alts and send the BTC to the BTC whales. Seems simple.

This is the test run. It is if a lot of others start distributing like this you will have a problem.

No one force you to sell your alts to get BTC for the distribution what the fuck ? Can you please stop your FUD ?

If you do sell your altcoins for BTC then it's like investing in an ICO. You do it because you think you will get more money with Byteball than the alt you currently hold. So let people do their own choices. BTC whales don't care, proof : Only 11k BTC has been linked so far. Come back when real whales will be here ( at least 10x the current amount pls )

Zer0Sum
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1000


View Profile
December 11, 2016, 10:25:39 PM
 #1658


I never make anything personal. I am here to discuss only the observable events that take place. I stand by what I said though that this is the worst distributional method for alts and this project (for many reasons already stated above) that I have seen yet.

The added fact there is refusal to null the top 2-5%of wallets which would hardly affect how broad the distribution is yet prevent all the exchange issues, ICO's using their windfalls against the project and super whales pumping and dumping everyone over and over is strange although I see no gain for tonych from refusing.

Come on Tonych keep 10% for dev and wages and just make it a POW launch. BB will be a pariah coin with the alt coin community I can guarantee it once word is out beyond this thread. Auto creating Whales in new ALT currencies on the basis of them being whales in BTC already with no risk to them at all is simply not going to go over well. That and handing exchanges and ICO teams super whale portions is even more undesirable.

You seem so smart there must be another angle to this that you are not revealing. There is no way you would be funding your competition and making sure investors don't ever touch this coin for fear of huge whale manipulation. Fess up there is some other reason for this and I don't mean your personal self enrichment. What is it?


Right now 7 accounts control 60.3% of the distribution... a disaster.

A whale skewed distribution is only good for whale pumping/dumping and never corrects itself over time...
It's not about "fairness", this distribution never builds a wide, stable community... so what is Tony really trying to achieve.

I would suggest using LOG or LN on balances to create a much wider distribution...

For example,

ln(1000) = 6.9
ln(100) = 4.6
ln(10) = 2.3

So someone with 1000 BTC only gets about 3 times what 10 BTC gets you...
You wanna be radical and start with a large diverse community... LN is your friend.
Seccour
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1619
Merit: 1004


Bitcoiner, Crypto-anarchist and Cypherpunk.


View Profile
December 11, 2016, 10:28:48 PM
 #1659


I never make anything personal. I am here to discuss only the observable events that take place. I stand by what I said though that this is the worst distributional method for alts and this project (for many reasons already stated above) that I have seen yet.

The added fact there is refusal to null the top 2-5%of wallets which would hardly affect how broad the distribution is yet prevent all the exchange issues, ICO's using their windfalls against the project and super whales pumping and dumping everyone over and over is strange although I see no gain for tonych from refusing.

Come on Tonych keep 10% for dev and wages and just make it a POW launch. BB will be a pariah coin with the alt coin community I can guarantee it once word is out beyond this thread. Auto creating Whales in new ALT currencies on the basis of them being whales in BTC already with no risk to them at all is simply not going to go over well. That and handing exchanges and ICO teams super whale portions is even more undesirable.

You seem so smart there must be another angle to this that you are not revealing. There is no way you would be funding your competition and making sure investors don't ever touch this coin for fear of huge whale manipulation. Fess up there is some other reason for this and I don't mean your personal self enrichment. What is it?


Right now 7 accounts control 60.3% of the distribution... a disaster.

A whale skewed distribution is only good for whale pumping/dumping and never corrects itself over time...
It's not about "fairness", this distribution never builds a wide, stable community... so what is Tony really trying to achieve.

I would suggest using LOG or LN on balances to create a much wider distribution...

For example,

ln(1000) = 6.9
ln(100) = 4.6
ln(10) = 2.3

So someone with 1000 BTC only gets about 3 times what 10 BTC gets you...
You wanna be radical and start with a large diverse community... LN is your friend.


Split your BTC and different address and that's it.

ln(20) < ln(10) + ln(10)

journeym@n
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
December 11, 2016, 10:30:11 PM
 #1660

I think my proposal is bulletproof.

Not really my friend. Who decided small breasts are a disadvantage? If we exclude sailors, which anyway make a minority in crypto world, I am sure most smart and sophisticated people would prefer small breasts. So I say, less points for small breasts!  Grin

Now go back to the drawing table and invent an even fairer distribution of nascent anarcho-capitalist currencies. ( LOL! )

Seriously, asking for ultimate fairness in a system fundamentally based on scarcity is beyond discussion.
Pages: « 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 [83] 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 ... 1003 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!