Topic: IOTA - page 745. (Read 1473405 times)

Good point. It's best to let these things evolve organically rather than artificially and quite arbitrarily setting a cap.

Some investors here trying to set a max cap for ICO (5000 BTC) or the maximum amount which other investors can send (500 USD). They think that this will affect their RoI.
They are wrong. Crypti set the maximum cap for itself as 750 BTC and is in deep shit now. Ethereum has gathered 30 000 BTC and it's investors made around x6 RoI.
So the key to good RoI is not low max cap for ICO.

This is certainly not a bad idea, but it presumes that we can reasonably predict what kind of numbers we'll get, which we really can't. It's borderline impossible to estimate how much will be raised, and if we set a hardcap we essentially decide for the market what the value of these token are, which is not good either. Plus like you mention it could easily be gamed by writing a little script that would send a ton of small deposits.

I have no problem with people being skeptical of ICOs and we're not selling securities so it's not in our place to give anyone advice on whether or not they want to buy IOTA tokens. It's essentially a software sale, the iotas being the software, either you want some or you don't. If you don't, that is 100% fine by us. If you do want some, you are free to purchase them. It's really that simple and so we are immune to this kind of criticism because we are completely open and honest here. We are not selling anyone a dream or promising an investment that we guarantee will grow 10x. All of this will be settled by the market which we have no control over.

What we do promise is that we will launch IOTA which has been in development for quite some time already and all the technical aspects are available for people to review and we are here to answer those questions. Anyone that does not find this fair should just exit the discussion.

Let me help you with that, Myers-Briggs is absolute bullshit equivalent to astrology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator#Criticism

If by invalidating a tangle fragment a miner can increase his profit then he will do that. It's easy to invalidate a branch if you split your tokens and include small transactions into all branches, you can use any to doublespend. A countermeasure will be to not include someone's else transactions leading to a lot of tips with each tip mined only by a single miner.

What is this blockchain supposed to checkpoint? DAG topology? Then this blockchain must possess fragmentation flexibility of DAG which is impossible in high-load, unless DAG waits for the blockchain to catchup. You can wait for 1 month before getting ability to spend coinbase coin, but once a corresponding checkpoint is recorded into the blockchain a greedy miner will generate another (better) tip containing a double-spending transaction invalidating tip which has been recorded.

man this thing is gonna be bigger than techno music

This needs elaborating. Why would the coinbase txs be treated any different from other tx?

Very interesting, Will keep an eye on this one, very ambitious. Crowd sale options will be interesting to see too

I get an idea from Jinn's Dutch Auction for distribution: a maximum target is set for ICO, say 5,000 Bitcoins, and then the small depositions will be included if the total depositions are greater than the target. For example, the biggest one is 200 BTC, and now the total is 5050 BTC, so the biggest one 200 BTC is excluded, so right now the total funding is 4850 BTC and there is also 150 BTC can be put into the pool. Of course, it can be gamed with many small depositions, but a single Satoshi can also take party in and get some token.

Let's see. They can sell out all 250 million shares at say a fair value of $250,000 initial market cap, $250,000 cash, and 0% for themselves. Or they can set prices at $0.1 per share, sell only 0.1% of the shares so they get the $25,000 cash, $2.5 million market cap and 99.9% for themselves. Then as the price drops to a tenth to $0.01 those investors who didn't buy in the ICO come rushing in to buy the dip, and they still get their $250,000 cash and retain 90% for themselves.

Hopefully you understand now why the market cap of Dash is entirely meaningless.

*Note I am not asserting what I think the initial valuation of Iota should be. I have no idea. $1 million? Will depend on many things that are learned between now and launch, etc.. And I have no interest in expressing any opinion on the valuation.


That would include those who can't do arithmetic.  

I don't agree. This is a valid concept. Micro transactions will become increasingly relevant in the coming years.

And I don't see copycats as a major threat, or necessarily diminishing a projects value in such a meaningful way as you do.

Im impressed by the way.

Kinda hard to keep up at times as this is deep!

But I'm learning A LOT from everyone.

So many of you are as sharp as a razor. Damn

IT and Cfb.

Do you really see anyone here trying to be malicious?

Don't get frustrated to the point that you miss the important examples of what people in general could have as concerns.

This is good feedback you're getting.

"Insults" and "don't buy then" arent constructive. Right?

I disagree.
A higher price per share (artificial or not), naturally balances the forces of (developer) greed vs (investor) demand. The higher the price, the more investor interest is dissipated on account of the lesser upside potential, and in the extreme case, one ends up left with a minority of investors/users, as well as has severely handicapped the adoption potential. Then again, as you said, maybe not all investors are equally astute...
With a low enough price per share, the ICO naturally sells out. In such instance, would the developer trade a bit of external funding for some pie of their own token? Maybe. Would they do this for a significant portion of the total tokens for sale? Doubtful.

Personally, I see unproven technology for emerging markets as being an extremely high risk investment, and I will value it accordingly. Talents and accomplishments might become extremely valuable (if functional success is delivered), but comparatively speaking, the product itself, is of little value, especially when it can be replicated/cloned/forked to exhaustion.

Aye, I do not share your opinion, sorry. The question is to garanty (almost) the avoidvance of the dilution of the initial investors fund. Otherwise, it only stand on promise. Imo, thing need to be clear from the start of the project.

No need for the buy limit. Sales like Ether and Augur worked very well without any limit to buy. It is important to raise as much as you can in the fundraising becasue the success and sustainable development of this project will largely depends on the funds. It will be lose-lose if the project can not succeed becasue of lack of funds. So the more the better. It does not matter who and how much one person will own the coins. The exchanges will take care that eventually. It is about how much a person will believe in this project.

Bottleneck to what? It is only recording checkpoints. It is not slowing down the forward advance of the DAG. It is orthogonal, except for the coinbases which can be spent into the DAG (after sufficient # of blocks to be probabilistically sure of coinbases not being reverted by an orphaned chain).

The downside is a 51% attack could revert the coinbases, but again the DAG is the objective truth, so I assume the minority block chain can ignore the 51% attack. Would need to think this out a bit. DAGs are voting on which chain of the block chain is valid. Any way if the attacker has 51% PoW, he can attack the DAG also.

Where there is smoke there is fire. No insults intended, just being realistic. Feel free to delete my posts if you want.

Edit: I admire your strict (and level-headed) adherence to sensing versus intuition. I am EN?P (nearly balanced between F and T). I am like 81% N. So I rely a lot on intuition and don't wait to have every fact sensed with full verification. I admire those who are ISTP (but not so much ISTJ). I have to learn to appreciate the virtues of that and yet maintain respect/balance where my intuitions helps me.

Then why not use blockchain? It won't scale anyway because orthogonal blockchain will be a bottleneck here.