First of all I'm one of the big donators and I'm aware of the fact of "free-riders", but think about this:
1. The world works this way. There will always be fair guys and free-riders.
2. What if IOTA will be BIG SUCCESS, you know, like few billion dollars marketcap and so on? NO PREMINE for foundation makes it look like real community project, and there will be no "free-riders" talking that "they do not need do something cause foundation is paid by premine, so fuck off".
Topic: IOTA - page 562. (Read 1473233 times)
I hear everyone's concerns, and sympathize with both sides. To be clear we - founders and sellers of the IOTA software - has never ever called for a premine or change in terms of software sale after the fact. We decided to kickstart IOTA as a grassroots open source project where everyone was responsible for IOTA's growth. The way we concluded back in October was that if we set aside a premine we'd run into the bystander effect of people thinking that they wouldn't have to do anything because "they already allocated funds to take care of it". Which would mean that the community would grow ever more dependent on us. That was and is still the rationale behind no premine. This is also why I am 100% entitled, in fact obligated by logic, to tell anyone who thinks for a moment that we're working for them for free, or that we owe them anything other than the software they bought, to 'fuck off', because we did not allocate a single iota for ourselves, so as to avoid that exact scenario. I won't mention names right now, but one such example is one guy in this very thread complaining, while he is advertising and selling iotas at a 20x ROI from our work, without having done anything himself.
Now, what we have proposed as the solution to all of this is the foundation and big deal to ensure continued adoption and growth. So far nearly all of the value and tons of things going on behind the scenes are only initiated by ~10 people. That is not to say that there's only 10 people providing value to the IOTA community, there's A LOT of you who do, whether it be through tutorials, translations, forwarding potential leads, managing tons of info, helping out with testing etc. But in terms of people actively working on the adoption and value increase of IOTA, it's few, which is why we need to found this foundation ASAP going forth to ensure IOTA's continued growth and adoption. An alternative I want to avoid is that a consortium is formed of these companies we're in touch with, they port the open source code and the freeloaders get stuck on a tangle with no activity, but this might very well happen if the IOTA community is unable to ensure it's own traction. This is a very simple decision for anyone that are able to do 1st grade math and reasoning.
Now, what we have proposed as the solution to all of this is the foundation and big deal to ensure continued adoption and growth. So far nearly all of the value and tons of things going on behind the scenes are only initiated by ~10 people. That is not to say that there's only 10 people providing value to the IOTA community, there's A LOT of you who do, whether it be through tutorials, translations, forwarding potential leads, managing tons of info, helping out with testing etc. But in terms of people actively working on the adoption and value increase of IOTA, it's few, which is why we need to found this foundation ASAP going forth to ensure IOTA's continued growth and adoption. An alternative I want to avoid is that a consortium is formed of these companies we're in touch with, they port the open source code and the freeloaders get stuck on a tangle with no activity, but this might very well happen if the IOTA community is unable to ensure it's own traction. This is a very simple decision for anyone that are able to do 1st grade math and reasoning.
To be honest: Yes, it would be the much fairer approach if we would do it in this way. Problem at the moment is the free-rider effect. Because the investors are anonym, there are some that are taking advantage of it and just cash out after launch. You can see it in the Excel File, there are not 300 names, there are much less. So the active and honest guys needs to give around 10% to get the funding of 50 million done. So they somehow finance the free-riders. This is the reason why I’m for a Genesis deduction of amount X for foundation and deal. But I know this is now to late because the ICO is over and that was not covered in the terms and conditions. So we need to deal with this but I think it’s quite annoying, that the active parts finance the lazy silent guys, what is the fact at moment.
I agree with rlh that the voting for the imposition of a tax is not at all a good idea. If nothing else, the least we should demand from this project is that they respect our contract (yes, there is a previous known and clear contract).
Anyway, those who feel like donating will donate. Those who now are uncomfortable with the obscurities of the donation+bigdeal proposal will eventually donate, once those obscurities are cleared and confirmed to actually have been for honest reasons.
I personally have got no intentions to donate, as I was already told to fuck off. And, finally, I am sure that the project would receive much more donations and support if that specific iota admin was polite towards other people, or if he was at least less arrogant and respected those who questions his impositions. But he prefers to act like a smart ass who scares people away and, with that, he shows huge competence in shrinking the iota community.
Anyway, those who feel like donating will donate. Those who now are uncomfortable with the obscurities of the donation+bigdeal proposal will eventually donate, once those obscurities are cleared and confirmed to actually have been for honest reasons.
I personally have got no intentions to donate, as I was already told to fuck off. And, finally, I am sure that the project would receive much more donations and support if that specific iota admin was polite towards other people, or if he was at least less arrogant and respected those who questions his impositions. But he prefers to act like a smart ass who scares people away and, with that, he shows huge competence in shrinking the iota community.
a vote is worth nothing. let's keep it simple:
Once iota is live and we get a donation address, we'll fund the foundation.
Easy
Once iota is live and we get a donation address, we'll fund the foundation.
Easy
why is it worth nothing?
Imagine 60% are in favor of allocating the funds for the foundation in the genesis and 40% are against it.
The 40% will be FORCED to give 5%. They'll feel robbed of their holdings.
Generally: Changing rules is very very bad. Let's not do it. Let's just donate.
can we just get a vote from all the iota holders to allocate 5% of their holding to the foundation in the genesis?
there are several advantages to this.
1) it will take into account the opinion of the majority of active stakeholders, which is good enough.
2) if we truly care about the tech and the direction of the project then the future should *only* lie on the hands of those who really care.
3) it will happen at the genesis distribution, so it is much easier than collecting all the pledges.
Also, "calling for donation" is a lengthy and ineffective process because the message and the gravity of the matter may not reach all the targeted audience. while the announcement of a vote and and the voting process will be more effective and more accurately gauging the interest of the active stakeholders.
If we cannot reach the target fund required, we cannot say that the "community" is not interested. because clearly the "Active community" is interested while only the "idle and speculator part" remains inactive and could be counted out. Just like if you do not cast your vote at the election, you lose your say on who will be leading the country (you are even penalised in where i come from).
Apparently, decision on the foundation is an easy one, those remain inactive will do so no matter what we do, so just find a way around them. They will have a few choices, vote no and see their hoard going down the drain OR remain silent and let the majority cast their opinions OR say yes and we move on with a favourable decision.
TLDR; I say we just have a vote using the btc address and nxt address used at the crowdsale. one address for yes and one address for no, anyone interested and eligible should send their corresponding votes,by sending a set amount of btc or nxt (a few cents in fiat term), and we can aggregate the result.
there are several advantages to this.
1) it will take into account the opinion of the majority of active stakeholders, which is good enough.
2) if we truly care about the tech and the direction of the project then the future should *only* lie on the hands of those who really care.
3) it will happen at the genesis distribution, so it is much easier than collecting all the pledges.
Also, "calling for donation" is a lengthy and ineffective process because the message and the gravity of the matter may not reach all the targeted audience. while the announcement of a vote and and the voting process will be more effective and more accurately gauging the interest of the active stakeholders.
If we cannot reach the target fund required, we cannot say that the "community" is not interested. because clearly the "Active community" is interested while only the "idle and speculator part" remains inactive and could be counted out. Just like if you do not cast your vote at the election, you lose your say on who will be leading the country (you are even penalised in where i come from).
Apparently, decision on the foundation is an easy one, those remain inactive will do so no matter what we do, so just find a way around them. They will have a few choices, vote no and see their hoard going down the drain OR remain silent and let the majority cast their opinions OR say yes and we move on with a favourable decision.
TLDR; I say we just have a vote using the btc address and nxt address used at the crowdsale. one address for yes and one address for no, anyone interested and eligible should send their corresponding votes,by sending a set amount of btc or nxt (a few cents in fiat term), and we can aggregate the result.
Personally, for political reasons, I'm opposed to such a vote. When people paid for the ICO, they essentially had a verbal contract that this process would work a certain way, and they would receive a certain number of of iota. Vote or not, even a small minority has the right to expect that they will receive what they purchased per the initial contract set out by the iota team.
With that stated, if the team does determine to hold a vote, I'm not going to become an obstinate little jerk and I'll personally accept this judgement. IMHO, though, the best way to hold this vote is to allow everyone to claim their tokens for a period on a final test chain and, say, for a period of a couple weeks, to a month, we can send 1 iota to one account as a "Yea" vote or 1 iota to a "Nay" account.
Each initial account gets 1 vote. Since initial accounts are known we could allot one, equal weighted vote per contributor so that each person has the same level of pull OR we could opt to do it by account size and votes are weighted by ICO ownership.
After the voting period, the final test chain can be deleted, CfB can either restart the chain fresh, or he can add the appropriate foundation account, re-adjust our balances and then create the new chain.
Just some thoughts on this issue. This requires more work on the iota teams part, and additional delays, but it would allow us to utilize the software we are purchasing and it will make sure that those that care are heard because, you know, they are actually using iota.
a vote is worth nothing. let's keep it simple:
Once iota is live and we get a donation address, we'll fund the foundation.
Easy
Once iota is live and we get a donation address, we'll fund the foundation.
Easy
why is it worth nothing?
can we just get a vote from all the iota holders to allocate 5% of their holding to the foundation in the genesis?
there are several advantages to this.
1) it will take into account the opinion of the majority of active stakeholders, which is good enough.
2) if we truly care about the tech and the direction of the project then the future should *only* lie on the hands of those who really care.
3) it will happen at the genesis distribution, so it is much easier than collecting all the pledges.
Also, "calling for donation" is a lengthy and ineffective process because the message and the gravity of the matter may not reach all the targeted audience. while the announcement of a vote and and the voting process will be more effective and more accurately gauging the interest of the active stakeholders.
If we cannot reach the target fund required, we cannot say that the "community" is not interested. because clearly the "Active community" is interested while only the "idle and speculator part" remains inactive and could be counted out. Just like if you do not cast your vote at the election, you lose your say on who will be leading the country (you are even penalised in where i come from).
Apparently, decision on the foundation is an easy one, those remain inactive will do so no matter what we do, so just find a way around them. They will have a few choices, vote no and see their hoard going down the drain OR remain silent and let the majority cast their opinions OR say yes and we move on with a favourable decision.
TLDR; I say we just have a vote using the btc address and nxt address used at the crowdsale. one address for yes and one address for no, anyone interested and eligible should send their corresponding votes,by sending a set amount of btc or nxt (a few cents in fiat term), and we can aggregate the result.
there are several advantages to this.
1) it will take into account the opinion of the majority of active stakeholders, which is good enough.
2) if we truly care about the tech and the direction of the project then the future should *only* lie on the hands of those who really care.
3) it will happen at the genesis distribution, so it is much easier than collecting all the pledges.
Also, "calling for donation" is a lengthy and ineffective process because the message and the gravity of the matter may not reach all the targeted audience. while the announcement of a vote and and the voting process will be more effective and more accurately gauging the interest of the active stakeholders.
If we cannot reach the target fund required, we cannot say that the "community" is not interested. because clearly the "Active community" is interested while only the "idle and speculator part" remains inactive and could be counted out. Just like if you do not cast your vote at the election, you lose your say on who will be leading the country (you are even penalised in where i come from).
Apparently, decision on the foundation is an easy one, those remain inactive will do so no matter what we do, so just find a way around them. They will have a few choices, vote no and see their hoard going down the drain OR remain silent and let the majority cast their opinions OR say yes and we move on with a favourable decision.
TLDR; I say we just have a vote using the btc address and nxt address used at the crowdsale. one address for yes and one address for no, anyone interested and eligible should send their corresponding votes,by sending a set amount of btc or nxt (a few cents in fiat term), and we can aggregate the result.
I agree with voting! I'd like that foundation will take 50m(old) IOTAs!
Let's start voting! Which one BTC address's?
Cheers.
can we just get a vote from all the iota holders to allocate 5% of their holding to the foundation in the genesis?
there are several advantages to this.
1) it will take into account the opinion of the majority of active stakeholders, which is good enough.
2) if we truly care about the tech and the direction of the project then the future should *only* lie on the hands of those who really care.
3) it will happen at the genesis distribution, so it is much easier than collecting all the pledges.
Also, "calling for donation" is a lengthy and ineffective process because the message and the gravity of the matter may not reach all the targeted audience. while the announcement of a vote and and the voting process will be more effective and more accurately gauging the interest of the active stakeholders.
If we cannot reach the target fund required, we cannot say that the "community" is not interested. because clearly the "Active community" is interested while only the "idle and speculator part" remains inactive and could be counted out. Just like if you do not cast your vote at the election, you lose your say on who will be leading the country (you are even penalised in where i come from).
Apparently, decision on the foundation is an easy one, those remain inactive will do so no matter what we do, so just find a way around them. They will have a few choices, vote no and see their hoard going down the drain OR remain silent and let the majority cast their opinions OR say yes and we move on with a favourable decision.
TLDR; I say we just have a vote using the btc address and nxt address used at the crowdsale. one address for yes and one address for no, anyone interested and eligible should send their corresponding votes,by sending a set amount of btc or nxt (a few cents in fiat term), and we can aggregate the result.
there are several advantages to this.
1) it will take into account the opinion of the majority of active stakeholders, which is good enough.
2) if we truly care about the tech and the direction of the project then the future should *only* lie on the hands of those who really care.
3) it will happen at the genesis distribution, so it is much easier than collecting all the pledges.
Also, "calling for donation" is a lengthy and ineffective process because the message and the gravity of the matter may not reach all the targeted audience. while the announcement of a vote and and the voting process will be more effective and more accurately gauging the interest of the active stakeholders.
If we cannot reach the target fund required, we cannot say that the "community" is not interested. because clearly the "Active community" is interested while only the "idle and speculator part" remains inactive and could be counted out. Just like if you do not cast your vote at the election, you lose your say on who will be leading the country (you are even penalised in where i come from).
Apparently, decision on the foundation is an easy one, those remain inactive will do so no matter what we do, so just find a way around them. They will have a few choices, vote no and see their hoard going down the drain OR remain silent and let the majority cast their opinions OR say yes and we move on with a favourable decision.
TLDR; I say we just have a vote using the btc address and nxt address used at the crowdsale. one address for yes and one address for no, anyone interested and eligible should send their corresponding votes,by sending a set amount of btc or nxt (a few cents in fiat term), and we can aggregate the result.
I got a problem. If I click 'Claim iotas', I get the total sum less than it should be.
It is exactly some (3'812'798'742'493 * x) and no remaining sum. So the remaining amount is missing. Why is it so? Can anybody clarify it please?
It is exactly some (3'812'798'742'493 * x) and no remaining sum. So the remaining amount is missing. Why is it so? Can anybody clarify it please?
"x" is limited to 23 by transaction size limit. Claim twice.
Big corporations around the world making pilot projects on Ethereum already helped it to get 1,15 billion marketcap, and more important 48 000 000 $ daily trading volume.
Such projects as Lisk and Waves gathered 14000 BTC and 9200 BTC and hires stuff and planning marketing campaigns.
The media talks about blockchain projects, nobody cares about bitcoin.
I view this as a signal that 2016 year is the last year of small projects, the "players" at cryptoscene are getting bigger and bigger.
I hope that IOTA will not lose this year
Such projects as Lisk and Waves gathered 14000 BTC and 9200 BTC and hires stuff and planning marketing campaigns.
The media talks about blockchain projects, nobody cares about bitcoin.
I view this as a signal that 2016 year is the last year of small projects, the "players" at cryptoscene are getting bigger and bigger.
I hope that IOTA will not lose this year
I got a problem. If I click 'Claim iotas', I get the total sum less than it should be.
It is exactly some (3'812'798'742'493 * x) and no remaining sum. So the remaining amount is missing. Why is it so? Can anybody clarify it please?
It is exactly some (3'812'798'742'493 * x) and no remaining sum. So the remaining amount is missing. Why is it so? Can anybody clarify it please?
"x" is limited to 23 by transaction size limit. Claim twice.
IOTA version 0.9.4
... 0.9.5
... 0.9.6
... 0.9.7
I can not so quickly download the latest version, until the next version is released
Things are going very well with IOTA.
Hope first ready-to-use version is released soon.
... 0.9.5
... 0.9.6
... 0.9.7
I can not so quickly download the latest version, until the next version is released
Things are going very well with IOTA.Hope first ready-to-use version is released soon.
It basically changes with bug fixes and optimizations every day. There is no harm in joining testing or just trying out the client ever few days, if that's what you'd like to do. I try to help most days that I can, but even I get swamped with work and life and dip out of the discussions for a day or two at a time.
There isn't much to the client because claiming, sending and receiving funds or generating new addresses isn't that complex of an experience.
IOTA testing of 0.9.7
http://forum.iotatoken.com/t/iota-testing-of-0-9-7-has-commenced/274/1
-[Show Bundle] button is fixed.
http://forum.iotatoken.com/t/iota-testing-of-0-9-7-has-commenced/274/1
-[Show Bundle] button is fixed.
yep, it's not official, just cfb's personal schedule.
David will announce the official release date soon.
not yet
not sure this schedule is correct anymore due to the hashing function seeking. You should wait an official statement.
Okay, thanks to you both.
Jump to: