Bitcoin Forum
September 20, 2020, 09:04:47 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 ... 1117 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments  (Read 1218031 times)
forzendiablo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526
Merit: 1000


the grandpa of cryptos


View Profile
January 05, 2017, 02:48:03 AM
 #3121

i like this coin alot just lets get it to normal exchange like bittrex or so

yolo
1600635887
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1600635887

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1600635887
Reply with quote  #2

1600635887
Report to moderator
"You Asked For Change, We Gave You Coins" -- casascius
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
cyrixcer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 525
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 05, 2017, 02:50:34 AM
 #3122

I did not say the distribution was unfair.

I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters.  This is a distribution without clear rules.

With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.

I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.

Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.

It is unfair, it is the game of lisk, waves and iconomi, let this coin die, the most unfair distribution I have seen, normal investors got almost nothing.
metamorphin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1004


No risk, no fun!


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2017, 02:51:54 AM
 #3123

I did not say the distribution was unfair.

I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters.  This is a distribution without clear rules.

With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.

I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.

Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.

It is unfair, it is the game of lisk, waves and iconomi, let this coin die, the most unfair distribution I have seen, normal investors got almost nothing.

You cannot speak about "normal investors", if you got these coins as a present! Wink

marseille
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 05, 2017, 02:53:05 AM
 #3124

I did not say the distribution was unfair.

I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters.  This is a distribution without clear rules.

With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.

I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.

Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.

It is unfair, it is the game of lisk, waves and iconomi, let this coin die, the most unfair distribution I have seen, normal investors got almost nothing.

Maybe it's not a bad idea to exclude the known ICO accounts. But 2nd round distribution the bitcoin weight will be a lot less, so in this case those who have a lot byteballs will have the advantage.
22naru
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 501


View Profile
January 05, 2017, 04:09:49 AM
 #3125

I did not say the distribution was unfair.

I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters.  This is a distribution without clear rules.

With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.

I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.

Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.

It is unfair, it is the game of lisk, waves and iconomi, let this coin die, the most unfair distribution I have seen, normal investors got almost nothing.

waves sold their coins at very low price
Iconomi keep the coins for long term investment wich is a extra plus for BB , read more about their project.
lisk dunno...

what is the problem... will be more coins for free.  cheers
dfox101
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 05, 2017, 04:36:41 AM
 #3126

I did not say the distribution was unfair.

I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters.  This is a distribution without clear rules.

With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.

I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.

Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.

It is unfair, it is the game of lisk, waves and iconomi, let this coin die, the most unfair distribution I have seen, normal investors got almost nothing.

waves sold their coins at very low price
Iconomi keep the coins for long term investment wich is a extra plus for BB , read more about their project.
lisk dunno...

what is the problem... will be more coins for free.  cheers

The problem is that the purpose of the distribution is to enhance the coin and its support, not give opponent ammunition to attack coin and make profits. Wave dumped at very low price, they have no intention to help this coin, why the heck we will give them free coin?? I'd suggest to ban that address in the next distribution.
sherlock_h
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 10

Byteball: DAG, Built-in Chat, Conditional Payments


View Profile
January 05, 2017, 04:41:17 AM
 #3127

I did not say the distribution was unfair.

I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters.  This is a distribution without clear rules.

With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.

I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.

Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.

It is unfair, it is the game of lisk, waves and iconomi, let this coin die, the most unfair distribution I have seen, normal investors got almost nothing.

waves sold their coins at very low price
Iconomi keep the coins for long term investment wich is a extra plus for BB , read more about their project.
lisk dunno...

what is the problem... will be more coins for free.  cheers


And let's not forget Komodo. They say they are in it for the long run:

is it true that komodo funds have been used to participate in the byteball distribution? if so, will we see some of that?
Byteball looks like a promising technology and we consider it as a long term investment. We will use the byteballs for working capital.

⚪ Byteball (https://byteball.org/)     ❱❱❱     I T   J U S T   W O R K S .    ❱❱❱
Sending Crypto to Email  -  Risk-Free Conditional Smart Payments  -  ICO Platform with KYC
ANN THREAD (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1608859.0)          TELEGRAM (https://t.me/byteball)          TWITTER (https://twitter.com/ByteballOrg)          MEDIUM (https://medium.com/byteball)          SLACK (https://slack.byteball.org/)          REDDIT (https://www.reddit.com/r/ByteBall/)
pwpwpw
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 907
Merit: 503



View Profile
January 05, 2017, 04:52:20 AM
 #3128

I would have not given any BB to ICO fund owners, if for no other reason, they will just dump their free money without giving it back to their investors or if they will give to investors they can simply claim that it was sold for 5x, 10x less than the actual number.. but distribution is already made so, don't know if you can do anything from here on to make it "fairer", maybe to give out free BB for active users even if they have no btc or little btc.

cryptospreader_temp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2017, 05:37:11 AM
 #3129

I would have not given any BB to ICO fund owners, if for no other reason, they will just dump their free money without giving it back to their investors or if they will give to investors they can simply claim that it was sold for 5x, 10x less than the actual number.. but distribution is already made so, don't know if you can do anything from here on to make it "fairer", maybe to give out free BB for active users even if they have no btc or little btc.

You can't force ICO owners to claim BB and distribute to investors. BB did not exist when those ICOs are started. It is their own desire to claim or not to claim. You can't also don't force them to stop selling. Many people will pile up to ask for free BB with no btc mandatory.
pwpwpw
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 907
Merit: 503



View Profile
January 05, 2017, 06:00:36 AM
 #3130

I would have not given any BB to ICO fund owners, if for no other reason, they will just dump their free money without giving it back to their investors or if they will give to investors they can simply claim that it was sold for 5x, 10x less than the actual number.. but distribution is already made so, don't know if you can do anything from here on to make it "fairer", maybe to give out free BB for active users even if they have no btc or little btc.

You can't force ICO owners to claim BB and distribute to investors. BB did not exist when those ICOs are started. It is their own desire to claim or not to claim. You can't also don't force them to stop selling. Many people will pile up to ask for free BB with no btc mandatory.

The problem with ICO owners is the fact that they contribute nothing to BB yet they own most of it. This distribution model was made to reward early active users, that's written in the OP. I do believe this coin will be big because it's unique, it came out with a functioning product (I never even saw an ICO with a functioning product even before the launch, let alone a free pow/pos coin) and it can't scam like an ICO or instamined/premined/ninja launched coin. Those who think this is a database for the FBI or CIA...your PC, phone, tablet, car and your every move is already tracked by cameras, ID cards, credit cards, online shopping, gps whatever you do, your identity is being saved and sold to the highest bidder, it's business as usual. Oh yeah, BB has anonymous transaction did you know that ?

JeffBrad12
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 508



View Profile
January 05, 2017, 06:50:34 AM
 #3131

I did not say the distribution was unfair.

I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters.  This is a distribution without clear rules.

With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.

I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.

Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.

It is unfair, it is the game of lisk, waves and iconomi, let this coin die, the most unfair distribution I have seen, normal investors got almost nothing.

waves sold their coins at very low price
Iconomi keep the coins for long term investment wich is a extra plus for BB , read more about their project.
lisk dunno...

what is the problem... will be more coins for free.  cheers
Some of bitcoin companies are get their advantages from this one.  Grin
Totally crap.






░░░▄▀█░░░▄░▄▄░▄░░░█▀▄
▄▄▄▀▀██▀░█▐▌█ ▀██▀▀▄▄▄
▐▌░░░▐▀░▄▀░▐▌░▀▄░▀▌░░░▐▌
▐▌░░░█░░▄▀▄▐▌▄▀▄░░█░░░▐▌
▐▌░░░█░░▀▄░▀▀░▄▀░░█░░░▐▌
▐▌░░▄░█▄░▀▄▐▌▄▀░▄█░▄░░▐▌
▐▌░█▄█░░▀▀▀██▀▀▀░░█▄█░▐▌
▐▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐▌
▐█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█▌
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
░░░░░░░▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.
░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄█▄░░░░░░░▄█▄
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄█▄░░░
░░░░▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░█▀▄▄▀▄▄▀█░░░▐▌▐▌
░░░░░░░▐▌▐▌
░░░░░░░░█▄░░░░▄█
█▄█▄▄▄▄▄█▄█░░░░▄▄▀▀▀▄▄
░░░░▄▄▄░░░░░▄▀▄██▀█▌▀▄
░░░██▄██▄▄█▀█▌█▐█▄█▌█▐█
░░░░█▄▄▄▄▄█▄█▌█▐█▄█▌█▐█
░░░░█▄█░░░░░█▄▄█▄█▄█▄█
▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀░░░▀▀▄█▄█▄▀▀
.


░░░██▄▄░░██░██
▄▄░░░░░▀█░█▄▐▌░░░░░▄▄▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█▐▌▄█▐▌░░░░█░▀▀
░░░░░░█▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀░░▄▄
░░░░░░█░▀▀▀▀▀▀▄█▀▀▀▀▀▀
░░▄▄▄▄▄░▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▄
░░▀▀░░█▄▀▀▀▀▀█▄▀
░░░░░░░█▐▌▀█░█
██▀▀▀▀▀▀▐▌░█░░▀▀▀▀▀▀█
░░░░░░░░██░░▀▀▀▀▀██░██
.
piebeyb
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1009


IDENA.IO - Proof-Of-Person Blockchain


View Profile
January 05, 2017, 07:01:47 AM
 #3132

I think the need to add other trading sites, at least it's safer for shoppers and merchants Smiley

              ▄▄▄ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▄▄▄
           ▄▀▀    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    ▀▀▄
        ▄▀▀  ▄▄▀█          ▀█▀▄▄  ▀▀▄
      ▄▀▀ ▄▄▀    ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀    ▀▄▄ ▀▀▄
     █   █            ▀            █   █
   ▄▀ █  ▀▄▄                     ▄█▀  █ ▀▄
  ▄▀ ▄▀ █▄ ▀▀▀██▄▄▄       ▄▄▄██▀▀  ██ ▀▄ ▀▄
  ▀▄▀▀▄ ██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄  ▀▄   ▄▀  ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██ ▄▀▀▄▀
 ██   █ ██ ▀▄    ▀▄ █   █ ▄▀    ▄▀ ██ █  ▀██
 █  ▄█  ▀█  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ █   █ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  █   █▄  █
█▀ █  █  █          █   █          █  █  █ ▀▀
 █▀  ▄▀  █▀▄        █   █        ▄▀█  ▀▄  ▀█
 ▄  █▀   █ ▀█▄      ▀   ▀      ▄█▀ █  ▄▀█  ▄
 █▄▀  █  █                         █  █  ▀▄█
 ▀▄  █   ▀█        ▄▄▀▄▀▄▄        █▀   █  ▄
  ▀▄▀▀  █▄ █     ▀█  ▀▀▀  █▀     █ ▄█ ▄▀▀▄▀
   ▀ ▄  ██ █▀▄     ▀▀▄▄▄▀▀     ▄▀█ ██ ▀▄ ▀
    ▀█  ██ █ █▀▄    ▄▄▄▄▄    ▄▀█ █ ██  █▀
      ▀▄ ▀ █ █ ██▄         ▄██ █ █ ▀ ▄▀
        ▀▄ █ █ █ ▀█▄     ▄█▀ █ █ █ ▄▀
          ▀▀▄█ █    ▀▀▀▀▀    █ █▄▀▀
              ▀▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▀▀
   
..I  D  E  N  A..
   
Proof-of-Person Blockchain

Join the mining of the first human-centric
cryptocurrency
 



 
▲    2 6 8 0

..N  O  D  E  S..
   
                ██
                ██
                ██
                ██
                ██
         ▄      ██      ▄
         ███▄   ██   ▄███
          ▀███▄ ██ ▄███▀
            ▀████████▀
              ▀████▀
                ▀▀
██▄                            ▄██
███                            ███
███                            ███
███                            ███
 ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███
  ▀▀██████████████████████████▀▀
   
D O W N L O A D

Idena node

   
   
▄▄▄██████▄▄▄
▄▄████████████████▄▄
▄█████▀▀        ▀▀█████▄
████▀                ▀████
███▀    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄       ▀███
███      █   ▄▄ █▀▄        ███
██▀      █  ███ █  ▀▄      ▀██
███       █   ▀▀ ▀▀▀▀█       ███
███       █  ▄▄▄▄▄▄  █       ███
███       █  ▄▄▄▄▄▄  █       ███
██▄      █  ▄▄▄▄▄▄  █      ▄██
███      █          █      ███
███▄    ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀    ▄███
████▄                ▄████
▀█████▄▄        ▄▄█████▀
▀▀████████████████▀▀
▀▀▀██████▀▀▀
   
    .REQUEST INVITATION.
dfox101
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 05, 2017, 07:21:09 AM
 #3133

I would have not given any BB to ICO fund owners, if for no other reason, they will just dump their free money without giving it back to their investors or if they will give to investors they can simply claim that it was sold for 5x, 10x less than the actual number.. but distribution is already made so, don't know if you can do anything from here on to make it "fairer", maybe to give out free BB for active users even if they have no btc or little btc.

You can't force ICO owners to claim BB and distribute to investors. BB did not exist when those ICOs are started. It is their own desire to claim or not to claim. You can't also don't force them to stop selling. Many people will pile up to ask for free BB with no btc mandatory.

The problem with ICO owners is the fact that they contribute nothing to BB yet they own most of it. This distribution model was made to reward early active users, that's written in the OP. I do believe this coin will be big because it's unique, it came out with a functioning product (I never even saw an ICO with a functioning product even before the launch, let alone a free pow/pos coin) and it can't scam like an ICO or instamined/premined/ninja launched coin. Those who think this is a database for the FBI or CIA...your PC, phone, tablet, car and your every move is already tracked by cameras, ID cards, credit cards, online shopping, gps whatever you do, your identity is being saved and sold to the highest bidder, it's business as usual. Oh yeah, BB has anonymous transaction did you know that ?

Totally agree with what you said. The distribution of the BB should be to its supporters, most are active in this forum, and to the developers of the applications on top of this framework. When I read the white paper, I see tons of features, great features, that will be used by the applications. So we should reward the creator of these applications with byteballs. Random people, when receiving bb, if they don't have an interest to it, will just dump it. It does not help the coin.
valley365
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 1003


View Profile
January 05, 2017, 07:27:15 AM
 #3134

I would have not given any BB to ICO fund owners, if for no other reason, they will just dump their free money without giving it back to their investors or if they will give to investors they can simply claim that it was sold for 5x, 10x less than the actual number.. but distribution is already made so, don't know if you can do anything from here on to make it "fairer", maybe to give out free BB for active users even if they have no btc or little btc.

You can't force ICO owners to claim BB and distribute to investors. BB did not exist when those ICOs are started. It is their own desire to claim or not to claim. You can't also don't force them to stop selling. Many people will pile up to ask for free BB with no btc mandatory.

The problem with ICO owners is the fact that they contribute nothing to BB yet they own most of it. This distribution model was made to reward early active users, that's written in the OP. I do believe this coin will be big because it's unique, it came out with a functioning product (I never even saw an ICO with a functioning product even before the launch, let alone a free pow/pos coin) and it can't scam like an ICO or instamined/premined/ninja launched coin. Those who think this is a database for the FBI or CIA...your PC, phone, tablet, car and your every move is already tracked by cameras, ID cards, credit cards, online shopping, gps whatever you do, your identity is being saved and sold to the highest bidder, it's business as usual. Oh yeah, BB has anonymous transaction did you know that ?

Totally agree with what you said. The distribution of the BB should be to its supporters, most are active in this forum, and to the developers of the applications on top of this framework. When I read the white paper, I see tons of features, great features, that will be used by the applications. So we should reward the creator of these applications with byteballs. Random people, when receiving bb, if they don't have an interest to it, will just dump it. It does not help the coin.

Good point. The strength of the byteball is that it is a platform, so tony should reward those who help to create applications (DAC or those use smart contract) on top of it. Like what Ethereum did to help those projects.
WorldCoiner
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1069
Merit: 681



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2017, 07:59:26 AM
 #3135

You can check this thread, I was one of the early supporters of this project and I blogged two times about Byteball in my German Altcoinblog. Example:
https://altcoinspekulant.wordpress.com/2016/10/06/byteball-exclusive-interview-with-developer-tonych-in-english/

I’m fine with the distribution, but would have initiated a Cap at 10 Bitcoin for each linked address. I doubt guys like Iconomi would really created several hundreds Bitcoin addresses. Same for other whales. Sometimes guys are just lazy.

But in general it’s OK. Good thing now, is that the amount of Byteball for further distributions have an higher impact than the Bitcoin addresses. Waves for example will get much less than in the first distribution. If you are a believer in the project you have now the chance to buy Byteball and receive a better participation in the further distributions. It’s completely up to you which part of the Bytball-cake is yours in the future. If you own now one Bytball you will get +10% with every further distribution. Even if the price remains just stable your holding will increase in value.
Ghoom
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 170
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 05, 2017, 08:01:35 AM
Last edit: January 05, 2017, 08:23:31 AM by Ghoom
 #3136

I know it's weird but someone can send me 1500 (white) bytes for testing blackbytes withdraw between two wallets ?

My address : 3CCFAF5UUXX7BHGV2VDQF56T2DYU3OGF

Thanks

Thank you to the unknown sender.

(Just for info, 1500 bytes = 0.0000375$)
grzem
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 130
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 05, 2017, 09:05:11 AM
 #3137

i like this coin alot just lets get it to normal exchange like bittrex or so
Have you tried Cryptox.pl?

Since 2 years https://cryptox.pl low fees, no KYC.
kola-schaar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 260


View Profile
January 05, 2017, 10:11:47 AM
 #3138

...

These best/worst cases depend on the growth of the linked amount. Can you please elaborate on the growth forumla? I mean is it just speculation, like if it grows by 50% here's what will happen, if it grows by 100% here's what will happen, or is there something else? (Note that the initial question was "if linked wallets remain at 70K btc" Smiley). Thx.
Our chat yesterday caused me to make some supplementary considerations. Smiley
It’s a idea (maybe tonys intention) that would give the distribution clearer rules.
Depending on growth, we can use two abort criteria (for example):
1.   rule: 10% rule (a round linked more or equal 10% of BTC capitalization)
2.   rule: still standing bytes must be more or equal 38% (according to the old rules with 4 rounds 10%,20%,30%,38%)
After one of the abort criteria is achieved the weight of the byte is increased massively (according to the old rules). Using this we are conform with the old rules…
I think tony will find the right way (I'm glad I do not have to decide  Roll Eyes ) -










I’m finished with this slice. Grin
yvv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000

.


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2017, 12:02:51 PM
 #3139



waves sold their coins at very low price


This is a bullshit story for poor waves investors. There is no proof of this. Be sure Shasha Ivanov left all bytes for himself and will use them to get more bytes during the second round.
 

.
kaicrypzen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 653



View Profile
January 05, 2017, 12:42:06 PM
 #3140

Everybody knows that the most honest person in this thread is me, right after tonych Smiley

 Grin Grin Grin



The estimated growing is my pure speculation  Cool. I wanted to show (without a lot of words)that there is'nt (can’t be) a valide answer at this time. Thast’s the problem.. So, tony has to adjust (as he explaint) to give everyone a real chance in the next rounds..

Growing is the key (as tony also explaint) and nobody can extrapolate from only one given point (round 1).

Yes I agree with you, was just wondering if there was something else behind it apart from speculation Tongue.

Our chat yesterday caused me to make some supplementary considerations. Smiley

Good, that's what chatting is for Smiley.

2.   rule: still standing bytes must be more or equal 38% (according to the old rules with 4 rounds 10%,20%,30%,38%)
After one of the abort criteria is achieved the weight of the byte is increased massively (according to the old rules). Using this we are conform with the old rules…

I don't understand this second rule and I don't see why old rules should be taken into account, can you please explain a bit more?

I’m finished with this slice. Grin

Does this mean I can't expect an answer Tongue?

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 ... 1117 »
  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!