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
I hold no beef with you, nor anyone on this forum (well maybe a selected few
)
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?
