journeym@n
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
 |
December 25, 2016, 12:25:42 AM |
|
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  Try Blockr.io
|
|
|
|
Belligerent Fool
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
 |
December 25, 2016, 12:28:08 AM |
|
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 
|
|
|
|
jwinterm
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3178
Merit: 1119
|
 |
December 25, 2016, 12:29:07 AM |
|
Any info on these tiny BTC addresses that are getting a huge share: 
|
|
|
|
cfif
|
 |
December 25, 2016, 12:32:04 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
BTCspace
|
 |
December 25, 2016, 12:37:12 AM |
|
Any info on these tiny BTC addresses that are getting a huge share:  what you want to say?
|
running farm worldwide
|
|
|
BTCspace
|
 |
December 25, 2016, 12:38:13 AM |
|
ok maybe ask poloniex to list byteball now...2 best coin of 2016! first one is byteball, the second one is elastic(XEL) 
|
running farm worldwide
|
|
|
jwinterm
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3178
Merit: 1119
|
 |
December 25, 2016, 12:39:09 AM |
|
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
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
 |
December 25, 2016, 12:41:10 AM |
|
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
Activity: 2002
Merit: 1113
|
 |
December 25, 2016, 12:48:00 AM |
|
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  Try Blockr.iowht is that ?..I search bbs blockchain not transac. BBs on deep news https://www.deepdotweb.com/2016/11/28/byteball-make-dags-not-chains/  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 
|
|
|
|
megadouble
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 51
Merit: 10
|
 |
December 25, 2016, 01:03:16 AM |
|
Whats this? 
|
|
|
|
drays
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2590
Merit: 1073
|
 |
December 25, 2016, 01:09:20 AM |
|
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
Activity: 1098
Merit: 1000
Angel investor.
|
 |
December 25, 2016, 01:12:04 AM |
|
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
|
 |
December 25, 2016, 01:13:40 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
SpacemanOne
Full Member
 
Offline
Activity: 336
Merit: 101
icowidgets.com
|
 |
December 25, 2016, 01:17:41 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Yaremi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1160
|
 |
December 25, 2016, 01:34:09 AM |
|
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  but wave, lisk, etc. not  But! All should have equal rights. And wave etc. too. I dont know equitable solution. 
|
|
|
|
tobeaj2mer01
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1098
Merit: 1000
Angel investor.
|
 |
December 25, 2016, 01:42:41 AM |
|
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
Activity: 2002
Merit: 1113
|
 |
December 25, 2016, 01:50:32 AM Last edit: December 25, 2016, 02:14:17 AM by galaxiekyl |
|
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
Activity: 336
Merit: 101
icowidgets.com
|
 |
December 25, 2016, 01:56:44 AM |
|
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  but wave, lisk, etc. not  But! All should have equal rights. And wave etc. too. I dont know equitable solution.  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.
|
|
|
|
CryptoSporidium
|
 |
December 25, 2016, 02:09:33 AM |
|
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
Activity: 2002
Merit: 1113
|
 |
December 25, 2016, 02:17:12 AM |
|
i think is not fixed dev can change distrib method..there has 3 run still  This is exactly what is fun..and intriguing
|
|
|
|
|