Bitcoin Forum
July 23, 2019, 10:26:36 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 ... 1096 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments  (Read 1172682 times)
journeym@n
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
December 25, 2016, 12:25:42 AM
 #2281

which block we use to take the snapshot?
444951?

thank you

where u can see block mined pls ?

Total balance linked: 26045.36542280 BTC
Current transition rate: 0.26045365 BTC/gigabyte

good promotion..congrat @TONYCH &BBs team  Grin

Try Blockr.io
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Belligerent Fool
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1001



View Profile
December 25, 2016, 12:28:08 AM
 #2282

I still don't like it, even if it does take off it will just be P & D'd by the whales that linked their addresses, obviously the distribution is flawed though people don't care about any of that because it's FREE Roll Eyes
jwinterm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016
Merit: 1035



View Profile
December 25, 2016, 12:29:07 AM
 #2283

Any info on these tiny BTC addresses that are getting a huge share:

cfif
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 524



View Profile
December 25, 2016, 12:32:04 AM
 #2284

 https://blockchain.info/address/14e5YtfVYn6xJMCj77dRW5ESJCGyExx4vs

 тoжe биpжeвoй https://blockchain.info/address/1Btc2UrZTqcbjLrr8trx66K9TozQmKeDGN

2 биpжeвыx  кoшeлькa пpивязaли
BTCspace
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 501


View Profile
December 25, 2016, 12:37:12 AM
 #2285

Any info on these tiny BTC addresses that are getting a huge share:



what you want to say?

running farm worldwide
BTCspace
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 501


View Profile
December 25, 2016, 12:38:13 AM
 #2286

ok maybe ask poloniex to list byteball now...

2 best coin of 2016!

first one is byteball, the second one is  elastic(XEL) Smiley

running farm worldwide
jwinterm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016
Merit: 1035



View Profile
December 25, 2016, 12:39:09 AM
 #2287

Any info on these tiny BTC addresses that are getting a huge share:



what you want to say?

There's addresses with tiny BTC amount that are receiving close to 1% of distribution, according to that website.
journeym@n
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
December 25, 2016, 12:41:10 AM
 #2288

Any info on these tiny BTC addresses that are getting a huge share:

I think that's formating oversight for shares who have nothing but zeros up to fifth decimal.
I wouldn't worry. BTC linked is what will most likely be used for actual distribution. Transition page is just informative.
galaxiekyl
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1024


~we are ledger, we are cryptonimous~


View Profile
December 25, 2016, 12:48:00 AM
 #2289

which block we use to take the snapshot?
444951?

thank you

where u can see block mined pls ?

Total balance linked: 26045.36542280 BTC
Current transition rate: 0.26045365 BTC/gigabyte

good promotion..congrat @TONYCH &BBs team  Grin

Try Blockr.io

wht is that ?..I search bbs blockchain not transac.

BBs on deep news https://www.deepdotweb.com/2016/11/28/byteball-make-dags-not-chains/  Cool

i dont understand when paper worker said.."Bytes are the standard form in which value exchanges hands and it’s also used to pay the transaction fees, which are charged by the network on a one-to-one scale, meaning that if a transaction contains 2000 bytes of data, the sender will be required to pay 2000 Bytes (2 KBytes) for said transaction"

if i spend 10 000 bbs will pay 10 000 tax of fees  Huh Shocked


megadouble
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 51
Merit: 10


View Profile
December 25, 2016, 01:03:16 AM
 #2290

Whats this?

drays
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624
Merit: 1021


View Profile
December 25, 2016, 01:09:20 AM
 #2291

Whats this?



That is this (asked and answered before):
Anyone else getting a "Uncaught exception: Error: missing or empty parent units array" message?

Pops up after a few seconds and then closes the App.

It was working fine earlier.

Don't worry, your linked addresses are still safe!

Watch out for the new wallet release v1.0.0 here, which fixes this error:
https://github.com/byteball/byteball/releases

... this space is not for rent ...
tobeaj2mer01
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1104
Merit: 1000


Angel investor.


View Profile
December 25, 2016, 01:12:04 AM
 #2292

Any info on these tiny BTC addresses that are getting a huge share:



what you want to say?

There's addresses with tiny BTC amount that are receiving close to 1% of distribution, according to that website.
This is weird and doesn't make sense.

Sirx: SQyHJdSRPk5WyvQ5rJpwDUHrLVSvK2ffFa
Fern
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 247
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 25, 2016, 01:13:40 AM
 #2293

Latest release

https://github.com/byteball/byteball/releases
SpacemanOne
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 101

icowidgets.com


View Profile
December 25, 2016, 01:17:41 AM
 #2294

Let me share my view on the distribution model. I would offer the following:

The max. BTC balance limit per one linked BB address for the share calculation purpose should be set. All the addresses with BTC linked amount exceeding the limit are treated as if they had the max. limit, not more.
Example:
The limit is 200 BTC for the total BTC amount linked to one BB address. All the BB addresses that have more than 200 BTC linked to them are considered to hold 200 BTC for the share distribution calculation.

This step will be supported by the community majority I suppose.
I assume there are no many BTC holders owing more than the limit who created several BB accounts.

The above approach will create more uniform BB distribution without unnecessary centralization at the early stages.

You can argue that some ICO fund holders promised to distribute their Bytes to their token holders. And with this approach they don't receive much.
If they receive the full Bytes amount with the current rules it will create unequal conditions for the regualr BTC holders and other token holders (Waves, for example).
Waves token holders could sell their tokens for BTC before the distribution and buy their tokens back after the distribution. And after that they would receive even more Bytes from the Waves team.
My question is: 'Why should regular BTC holders pay for the Waves token holders investment decisions?'

One of the distribution goals was to include ACTIVE users. The Waves example offers a PASSIVE distribution model.

Another argument for not giving many Bytes to the ICO fund holders: Why should Byteball finance and support its competitors?

Exchanges wallets can be included or excluded in manual mode depending on their will to distribute the Bytes to their users.

ICOwidgets.com - ICO's and Their Ratings
Yaremi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568
Merit: 1049


igt-crypto.net - a legal crypto exchange with fiat


View Profile WWW
December 25, 2016, 01:34:09 AM
 #2295

Quote
The max. BTC balance limit per one linked BB address for the share calculation purpose should be set. All the addresses with BTC linked amount exceeding the limit are treated as if they had the max. limit, not more.
Example:
The limit is 200 BTC for the total BTC amount linked to one BB address. All the BB addresses that have more than 200 BTC linked to them are considered to hold 200 BTC for the share distribution calculation.

More smart traders foreseen it. I am made one btc address = BYTEBALL address  Grin but wave, lisk, etc. not Cheesy But! All should have equal rights. And wave etc. too. I dont know equitable solution. Smiley



tobeaj2mer01
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1104
Merit: 1000


Angel investor.


View Profile
December 25, 2016, 01:42:41 AM
 #2296

Let me share my view on the distribution model. I would offer the following:

The max. BTC balance limit per one linked BB address for the share calculation purpose should be set. All the addresses with BTC linked amount exceeding the limit are treated as if they had the max. limit, not more.
Example:
The limit is 200 BTC for the total BTC amount linked to one BB address. All the BB addresses that have more than 200 BTC linked to them are considered to hold 200 BTC for the share distribution calculation.

This step will be supported by the community majority I suppose.
I assume there are no many BTC holders owing more than the limit who created several BB accounts.

The above approach will create more uniform BB distribution without unnecessary centralization at the early stages.

You can argue that some ICO fund holders promised to distribute their Bytes to their token holders. And with this approach they don't receive much.
If they receive the full Bytes amount with the current rules it will create unequal conditions for the regualr BTC holders and other token holders (Waves, for example).
Waves token holders could sell their tokens for BTC before the distribution and buy their tokens back after the distribution. And after that they would receive even more Bytes from the Waves team.
My question is: 'Why should regular BTC holders pay for the Waves token holders investment decisions?'

One of the distribution goals was to include ACTIVE users. The Waves example offers a PASSIVE distribution model.

Another argument for not giving many Bytes to the ICO fund holders: Why should Byteball finance and support its competitors?

Exchanges wallets can be included or excluded in manual mode depending on their will to distribute the Bytes to their users.
Totally agree.

Sirx: SQyHJdSRPk5WyvQ5rJpwDUHrLVSvK2ffFa
galaxiekyl
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1024


~we are ledger, we are cryptonimous~


View Profile
December 25, 2016, 01:50:32 AM
Last edit: December 25, 2016, 02:14:17 AM by galaxiekyl
 #2297

Let me share my view on the distribution model. I would offer the following:

The max. BTC balance limit per one linked BB address for the share calculation purpose should be set. All the addresses with BTC linked amount exceeding the limit are treated as if they had the max. limit, not more.
Example:
The limit is 200 BTC for the total BTC amount linked to one BB address. All the BB addresses that have more than 200 BTC linked to them are considered to hold 200 BTC for the share distribution calculation.

This step will be supported by the community majority I suppose.
I assume there are no many BTC holders owing more than the limit who created several BB accounts.

The above approach will create more uniform BB distribution without unnecessary centralization at the early stages.

You can argue that some ICO fund holders promised to distribute their Bytes to their token holders. And with this approach they don't receive much.
If they receive the full Bytes amount with the current rules it will create unequal conditions for the regualr BTC holders and other token holders (Waves, for example).
Waves token holders could sell their tokens for BTC before the distribution and buy their tokens back after the distribution. And after that they would receive even more Bytes from the Waves team.
My question is: 'Why should regular BTC holders pay for the Waves token holders investment decisions?'

One of the distribution goals was to include ACTIVE users. The Waves example offers a PASSIVE distribution model.

Another argument for not giving many Bytes to the ICO fund holders: Why should Byteball finance and support its competitors?

Exchanges wallets can be included or excluded in manual mode depending on their will to distribute the Bytes to their users.

http://giphy.com/gifs/nknVOGpB1tSqk/html5



                           LUCKY

SpacemanOne
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 101

icowidgets.com


View Profile
December 25, 2016, 01:56:44 AM
 #2298

Quote
The max. BTC balance limit per one linked BB address for the share calculation purpose should be set. All the addresses with BTC linked amount exceeding the limit are treated as if they had the max. limit, not more.
Example:
The limit is 200 BTC for the total BTC amount linked to one BB address. All the BB addresses that have more than 200 BTC linked to them are considered to hold 200 BTC for the share distribution calculation.

More smart traders foreseen it. I am made one btc address = BYTEBALL address  Grin but wave, lisk, etc. not Cheesy But! All should have equal rights. And wave etc. too. I dont know equitable solution. Smiley

Yes, there's no solution that would satisfy everybody.

But why should Byteball give a free funding to Waves, Lisk, etc? Those entities would receive the additional funds to promote their platforms, develop them better or to support their reputation. Is it beneficial for Byteball? I doubt that.

ICOwidgets.com - ICO's and Their Ratings
CryptoSporidium
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 401
Merit: 250


View Profile
December 25, 2016, 02:09:33 AM
 #2299

Any retrospective change to the distribution scheme will kill byteball stone dead, nobody would ever believe tonych again.

Just fork and use any distro method you think is better, if you're method is popular you've got a successful coin
galaxiekyl
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1024


~we are ledger, we are cryptonimous~


View Profile
December 25, 2016, 02:17:12 AM
 #2300

i think is not fixed dev can change distrib method..there has 3 run still  Smiley

This is exactly what is fun..and intriguing

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 ... 1096 »
  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!