Topic: IOTA - page 720. (Read 1473405 times)

Which consists of themselfs.

I marked with red an incorrect part, should be replaced with "to company".

This is the official stance:

1. IOTA devs have to buy their own iotas in order to get any.

2. They are not required internally or externally to disclose the amount, this will be 100% up to each person. This is simply because it has no bearing whatsoever on how the funds will be spent post-sale and privacy. I will not force any of my devs to disclose how much they purchased either to me or to the world, it's their choice as it's a personal decision.

3. Anyone that thinks this is some sort of premine scheme, there is a very simple solution to your concerns: don't buy the software.

We honestly do not care what some random coin speculators think, IOTA is a serious project that aims to become the official payment protocol for machine-2-machine in Internet-of-Things, we do not have time to worry about coin speculators, which is why we have a long list of risks disclosed in the risk document. If you don't feel comfortable buying the cryptographical software tokens that are IOTA, then don't.

This project needs serious people who want to see the technology succeed above all else.


As for myself I will decide how much to buy on the last day and will disclose it to an approximate amount, but not the exact amount to avoid having people stalk my address. The IOTA project will not be focused around speculators and I will not play any part in making that the focal point of the community that will arise around IOTA.

Crypto IPOs are opaque. We can't be sure how much of their tokens respective founders bought from theirselfs.

Let's call a 'founder' a person who has a share in funds collected in an IPO, and a 'developer' - a waged person who has no share in those funds, who will be payed for working on the project by e.g. founders.
It's perfectly OK if a developer participates in an IPO of a project which he will be working on.

So what do you claim as regards Ethereum? That their developers participated in their IPO, or founders? In any case a link would be appreciated.

And again:

Guys, guys... try to understand.
If the programmer does not hold a serious amount of tokens, why the hell should he care about the coin after release? It will just die sooner or later then..

The previous scheme was, that the programmer keeps a few as a "premine" (what was completely fine for me). But then you guys complain about not fair and so on.
Thats why iota even chose to give ALL for sell and buy some themselves. They want to show, that they believe in their coin.

Of course we have a little problem now because of the following calculation:
founderBTCout = x BTC + founderBTCin
founderBTCsum = founderBTCout - founderBTCin = (x BTC + founderBTCin) - founderBTCin = x BTC (as xeelee said left pocket - right pocket)

and
foundertokens = founderBTCin * allTokens / (x BTC + founderBTCin)
wich becomes more, if more founderBTCin are spent, what doesn't matter, because they will get it back. So - theoretically - if they borrow and put 1 million BTC there, noone gets a shit any more and after they can give them back without a problem.

Maybe it looks like, they want to "cheat", but I am pretty sure iota did not think about that conflict in the first place.
Internal the BTC will probably not flow flow one pocket to the other but from one guy to another, so it looks only that simple outside...

@iota: imho the only way to get out of that dilemma is tell us exactly, what you are planning to spend.
We have to face, that it's an indirect "premine".

In this crypto world, so far, there are two ways for devs to own the coins from the crowd sale. One is the devs set aside a big chunk of the coins for themselves for the future development and awards. Another is to participate the crowd sale by themselves.

Ethereum did both. They set aside a chunk of ethers for themselves and allow devs to buy in the crowd sale. But they set a kind of limit for their devs. However on one can monitor it. The Augur team did the same in their crowd sale.

Iota team decideed to not set aside a chunk of coins for themselves and their devs have to buy if they want to own some coins. What else can you ask?

Troll on somewhere else.

Let's quote this for posterity.
IOTA founders are going to buy their own token at their own IPO, paying unknown amount of BTC to themselfs. They explicitly state it. They don't perceive it as cheating.

It's not cheating at all, get real.

They are independent of each other. IOTA can be used on all hardware, JINN is simply optimised.

will it be possible that other manufacturer than JINN can use IOTA ?
Or will IOTA only success if JINN success?

Doesn't matter how much of their own token founders buy at an IPO, it is cheating anyway. The more the founders cheat, the greater the impact will be. NXT IPO btw probably was free of that, otherwise their IPO would collect more funds.
It's perfectly OK however if the founders buy their token after the IPO.

I'm still working on Jinn. Iota is needed for efficient functioning of Jinn-powered devices (as backbone of IoT economy).

@DecentralizeEconomics, your posts have been deleted for violation of the rules of this thread.

@superresistant, I deleted your post because it quoted DecentralizeEconomics' one. There was no EDIT option, sorry.

CFB. I am curious about what your personal end game is. You were once a pioneer in NXT yet choose to leave it when some might argue it needed you most.

Then you started Jinn, raised a market cap of over $10 million at one point and I am not sure whether you left that project or not. I just know there have been a lot of promises made with Jinn but I am not sure about the progress.

Now its Iota.  What is your commitment to this project?

This will not happen, for several reasons

#1
We are running a hardware start-up that is developing a new kind of processor for Internet-of-Things, this is what inspired IOTA more than anything. A good portion of the funds raised for IOTA will go to this processor, which will also act as a bootstrapping mechanism for the IOTA network as it scales.

#2
It would be a really stupid strategy. We'll all make infinitely more if IOTA succeeds and gets adopted as a IoT standard even with just a sliver of the tokens than we'd do if we ran a typical pump and dump scheme

#3
We're not just the two of us, we also got another team member and math professor on board (Mtchl). I know he bought some because he told me in a casual comment, none of us has made any effort to inquire amongst each other how much the others will buy, it's a personal decision that does not affect the project in any way.

#4
I was undoubtedly the biggest and most vocal critic of the initial distribution of Nxt, so I would never allow our project to be stifled by bad distribution.


As for how much I will personally buy: not sure yet, still waiting for the last day of pioneer to make the choice. I treat this choice as completley seperate from the project it self.

There are no accounts in Iota, it uses Bitcoin's system of inputs/outputs. You can put Iota address into the sig but it will take some time to spend every input. More inputs - more time, this grows exponentially. Iota was designed for IoT, not humans, so some methods used by humans are not very compatible.

Bitcoin would have the same problem if it used the same security enhancement. While Bitcoin doesn't recommend to reuse addresses, Iota goes further and makes it unprofitable by requiring to burn extra electricity.

It's correct, we don't need checksum for the sale.

Ok, that makes sense.  So your old, address/pubkey creator is broken/not completely correct?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this last statement.  Are you saying that accounts shouldn't be used more than a few times?  In other words, putting an IOTA address in my sig would be a bad idea?  I'd like a bit of clarification so that I understand.

Regarding that C# comment, let me clarify.  It's been my experience than when writing these types of functions in C# vs. Java, C# tends to do  better on Windows machine or even running in a solid Windows VM.  I've not tested .Net apps running in Mono.  I know mono is slower by a considerable factor and in such a case, Java may do MUCH better.

However, concerning the vanitygens I've written, vs. those written in Java, where special dlls (i.e. referencing GPUs or low-level C libraries) are not used, C# has done much better.

I assume this is because Microsoft has greater control of the eco-system and can optimize their jitter to work primarily with their os/kernal, where Oracle is a 3rd party, having to optimize their jitter to work for all environments.

Just a hunch.

Anyway, I've been rolling around in my head, finishing what the old Microcash (lol, I know right!) dreamt up but never saw finished because the head of that ship was... well, I try not to speak ill of anyone, but everyone remembers how CoinHunter/RealSolid was.

Anyway, if I write a coin, it will be in C#.  I like it and no one else (to my knowledge) has done it, so it would be an interesting experience.  Alas, if I'm ever going to do that, I first need to invent a way to add about 4 hours to the average day.