From the ICO I have like 150k coins or something.. How will I get my coins when the time comes?
Putting the Phrase in the wallet and generating the address.
COOL! easy as CHIPS. Thanks
Topic: [ANN][LSK] Lisk | Blockchain Application Platform for JavaScript Developers - page 2122. (Read 3074169 times)
March 13, 2016, 04:34:54 PM
Putting the Phrase in the wallet and generating the address.
COOL! easy as CHIPS. Thanks
March 13, 2016, 04:13:18 PM
Where i can check the 3600 Bitcoins of ICO? Is the adress public?
Not exactly, but here's the proof.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C3aE9cyTdw
March 13, 2016, 04:05:07 PM
From the ICO I have like 150k coins or something.. How will I get my coins when the time comes?
Putting the Phrase in the wallet and generating the address.
March 13, 2016, 03:55:48 PM
hmmm you know a lot of math. I think you might try and do a 69% attack on the network. No vote.
LOL! I'm not as smart as I think I am, if I tried something sneaky it would fail. It always has in my past! March 13, 2016, 03:48:54 PM
From the ICO I have like 150k coins or something.. How will I get my coins when the time comes?
March 13, 2016, 03:32:27 PM
How is anyone going to get votes?
People don't need to be completely public, a well known username is often more worth than a real identity. 
Please vote for me when the time comes!
Will do
March 13, 2016, 03:30:59 PM
How is anyone going to get votes?
People don't need to be completely public, a well known username is often more worth than a real identity. Please vote for me when the time comes!
hmmm you know a lot of math. I think you might try and do a 69% attack on the network. No vote.
March 13, 2016, 03:14:25 PM
How is anyone going to get votes?
People don't need to be completely public, a well known username is often more worth than a real identity. Please vote for me when the time comes!
March 13, 2016, 02:39:00 PM
You should be good. I download the text file and take screeshots.
Thanks a lot. Might just buy more
March 13, 2016, 02:24:15 PM
Voters will vote, because 1. they might get LISK and even more importantly 2. they secure the whole network with their votes.
#2 is altruism and will not be a motivation. #1 is the right answer.
Quote
Why do we exclude entire countries? Where did I say you MUST join a pool? People don't need to be completely public, a well known username is often more worth than a real identity.
Usernames are not worth more than real identities. That's why the LISK development team used their real identities for this ICO.
Real identity is more legitimate than a user name, but it is going to exclude a lot of people and undermine the robustness of the system.
March 13, 2016, 02:13:53 PM
How is anyone going to get votes? What's in it for the voters? Is this a popularity contest?
Voters are going to vote to get something out of it. So then they all join a pool (who might steal a little weight from each one). Then how will this be decentralized?
This whole system is a recipe for centralization at every turn. First you exclude entire countries by imposing unreasonable liabilities on signatories, then you must join a pool to make it worth your time to vote and even then there is no guarantee that you will get representation for your vote.
In the end, people will vote for Donald Trump because he is a well funded showman, and Chase bank because they have the lawyers to combat the agencies.
You have completely ignored the exposure of signatories to liability by making them reveal their identities.
Voters are going to vote to get something out of it. So then they all join a pool (who might steal a little weight from each one). Then how will this be decentralized?
This whole system is a recipe for centralization at every turn. First you exclude entire countries by imposing unreasonable liabilities on signatories, then you must join a pool to make it worth your time to vote and even then there is no guarantee that you will get representation for your vote.
In the end, people will vote for Donald Trump because he is a well funded showman, and Chase bank because they have the lawyers to combat the agencies.
You have completely ignored the exposure of signatories to liability by making them reveal their identities.
Voters will vote, because 1. they might get LISK and even more importantly 2. they secure the whole network with their votes.
Why do we exclude entire countries? Where did I say you MUST join a pool? People don't need to be completely public, a well known username is often more worth than a real identity.
March 13, 2016, 02:08:54 PM
Quote from: LiskHQ
One question to you guys. If we now have your system and a group with 20% of all LISK. These guys can now split the 20% LISK between 20 accounts and vote 20 delegates into the top 101, which will stay there forever.
Where is my thinking error? The current system would be much better, because it could prevent it. Your system couldn't do anything.
Yes you are right, but the cost would be 20% of Lisk to grab 20 spots, instead of 1% to grab 20 spots
Please see my post above. It seems you don't understand our current system. With 1% you will never grab any seat at Lisk. Not if you are on your own and alone to vote for yourself.
How is anyone going to get votes? What's in it for the voters? Is this a popularity contest?
Voters are going to vote to get something out of it. So then they all join a pool (who might steal a little weight from each one). Then how will this be decentralized?
This whole system is a recipe for centralization at every turn. First you exclude entire countries by imposing unreasonable liabilities on signatories, then you must join a pool to make it worth your time to vote and even then there is no guarantee that you will get representation for your vote.
In the end, people will vote for Donald Trump because he is a well funded showman, and Chase bank because they have the lawyers to combat the agencies.
You have completely ignored the exposure of signatories to liability by making them reveal their identities.
March 13, 2016, 02:05:29 PM
So, that means that you guys have already set up arrangements with exchanges to add Lisk?
I understand when you do not want to announce it before coin release. However, when will this information be officially announced?
We can't disclose this information. It's a matter of the exchanges if they want to announce it already or not.
I understand when you do not want to announce it before coin release. However, when will this information be officially announced?
Which will be the exchange where Lisk will be available? (exchange with BTC for example)
We can't disclose this information. It's a matter of the exchanges if they want to announce it already or not.
It's not like I don't "want" to disclose the information. I just "can't". We will announce it as soon as possible.
March 13, 2016, 02:03:56 PM
So, that means that you guys have already set up arrangements with exchanges to add Lisk?
I understand when you do not want to announce it before coin release. However, when will this information be officially announced?
We can't disclose this information. It's a matter of the exchanges if they want to announce it already or not.
I understand when you do not want to announce it before coin release. However, when will this information be officially announced?
Which will be the exchange where Lisk will be available? (exchange with BTC for example)
We can't disclose this information. It's a matter of the exchanges if they want to announce it already or not.
March 13, 2016, 01:48:37 PM
Quote from: LiskHQ
One question to you guys. If we now have your system and a group with 20% of all LISK. These guys can now split the 20% LISK between 20 accounts and vote 20 delegates into the top 101, which will stay there forever.
Where is my thinking error? The current system would be much better, because it could prevent it. Your system couldn't do anything.
Yes you are right, but the cost would be 20% of Lisk to grab 20 spots, instead of 1% to grab 20 spots
Please see my post above. It seems you don't understand our current system. With 1% you will never grab any seat at Lisk. Not if you are on your own and alone to vote for yourself.
I hope I am, I will read the docs again. My numbers might be off, but I think I am not off on the concept. Never the less, please do not take this as FUD, as I am heavily invested and am interested in grabing a delegate spot, hence why I am concerned that the delegate system might be taken "advantage off".
Thanks for answering my questions.
Also take a look at our blockchain explorer for Crypti: https://cryptichain.lisk.io/delegateMonitor
There you see that even though we own over 62% of all Crypti you will still need about 10M XCR to get control over the Crypti network.
March 13, 2016, 01:40:51 PM
Quote from: LiskHQ
One question to you guys. If we now have your system and a group with 20% of all LISK. These guys can now split the 20% LISK between 20 accounts and vote 20 delegates into the top 101, which will stay there forever.
Where is my thinking error? The current system would be much better, because it could prevent it. Your system couldn't do anything.
Yes you are right, but the cost would be 20% of Lisk to grab 20 spots, instead of 1% to grab 20 spots
Please see my post above. It seems you don't understand our current system. With 1% you will never grab any seat at Lisk. Not if you are on your own and alone to vote for yourself.
I hope I am, I will read the docs again. My numbers might be off, but I think I am not off on the concept. Never the less, please do not take this as FUD, as I am heavily invested and am interested in grabing a delegate spot, hence why I am concerned that the delegate system might be taken "advantage off".
Thanks for answering my questions.
March 13, 2016, 01:35:33 PM
Quote from: LiskHQ
One question to you guys. If we now have your system and a group with 20% of all LISK. These guys can now split the 20% LISK between 20 accounts and vote 20 delegates into the top 101, which will stay there forever.
Where is my thinking error? The current system would be much better, because it could prevent it. Your system couldn't do anything.
Yes you are right, but the cost would be 20% of Lisk to grab 20 spots, instead of 1% to grab 20 spots
Please see my post above. It seems you don't understand our current system. With 1% you will never grab any seat at Lisk. Not if you are on your own and alone to vote for yourself.
March 13, 2016, 01:33:18 PM
Quote from: LiskHQ
One question to you guys. If we now have your system and a group with 20% of all LISK. These guys can now split the 20% LISK between 20 accounts and vote 20 delegates into the top 101, which will stay there forever.
Where is my thinking error? The current system would be much better, because it could prevent it. Your system couldn't do anything.
Yes you are right, but the cost would be 20% of Lisk to grab 20 spots, instead of 1% to grab 20 spots
Edit: the percentage i mention is only example, it not based on actual supply in circulation.
March 13, 2016, 01:32:39 PM
If the voting weight was split between selected delegates instead of same weight applied to all selected delegates, there would be more incentive for said whales to accumulate more Lisk to grab more spots and in-process have greater profound interest in its success. lets put it this way, if they get spot #80, they get addition 21 spots for the price of one.
That means someone who owns 1% of all LISK will ALWAYS be in the top 101. Someone who owns 2% can ALWAYS provide 2 delegates. Nobody could do something against that ever.
I will think more about it with Oliver.
If someone owns 1% Lisk and he grabs sit #80 he will also be able to grab all the sits 81-100 without additional investment. I dont see a single benefit to this.
That's not true. If he owns 1% he can't do anything. At Crypti you needed about 20% of all XCR to be at #80 without any other votes. Due to the forging rewards at Lisk, I suspect this number to be higher in our case.
It seems like you not entirely understand our system. Please read https://lisk.io/documentation?i=lisk-docs/README.
March 13, 2016, 01:23:14 PM
If the voting weight was split between selected delegates instead of same weight applied to all selected delegates, there would be more incentive for said whales to accumulate more Lisk to grab more spots and in-process have greater profound interest in its success. lets put it this way, if they get spot #80, they get addition 21 spots for the price of one.
That means someone who owns 1% of all LISK will ALWAYS be in the top 101. Someone who owns 2% can ALWAYS provide 2 delegates. Nobody could do something against that ever.
I will think more about it with Oliver.
If someone owns 1% Lisk and he grabs sit #80 he will also be able to grab all the sits 81-100 without additional investment. I dont see a single benefit to this.
Jump to: