Author

Topic: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments - page 1012. (Read 1234317 times)

sr. member
Activity: 405
Merit: 250
Any retrospective change to the distribution scheme will kill byteball stone dead, nobody would ever believe tonych again.

Just fork and use any distro method you think is better, if you're method is popular you've got a successful coin
full member
Activity: 336
Merit: 101
icowidgets.com
Quote
The max. BTC balance limit per one linked BB address for the share calculation purpose should be set. All the addresses with BTC linked amount exceeding the limit are treated as if they had the max. limit, not more.
Example:
The limit is 200 BTC for the total BTC amount linked to one BB address. All the BB addresses that have more than 200 BTC linked to them are considered to hold 200 BTC for the share distribution calculation.

More smart traders foreseen it. I am made one btc address = BYTEBALL address  Grin but wave, lisk, etc. not Cheesy But! All should have equal rights. And wave etc. too. I dont know equitable solution. Smiley

Yes, there's no solution that would satisfy everybody.

But why should Byteball give a free funding to Waves, Lisk, etc? Those entities would receive the additional funds to promote their platforms, develop them better or to support their reputation. Is it beneficial for Byteball? I doubt that.
legendary
Activity: 2002
Merit: 1113
Let me share my view on the distribution model. I would offer the following:

The max. BTC balance limit per one linked BB address for the share calculation purpose should be set. All the addresses with BTC linked amount exceeding the limit are treated as if they had the max. limit, not more.
Example:
The limit is 200 BTC for the total BTC amount linked to one BB address. All the BB addresses that have more than 200 BTC linked to them are considered to hold 200 BTC for the share distribution calculation.

This step will be supported by the community majority I suppose.
I assume there are no many BTC holders owing more than the limit who created several BB accounts.

The above approach will create more uniform BB distribution without unnecessary centralization at the early stages.

You can argue that some ICO fund holders promised to distribute their Bytes to their token holders. And with this approach they don't receive much.
If they receive the full Bytes amount with the current rules it will create unequal conditions for the regualr BTC holders and other token holders (Waves, for example).
Waves token holders could sell their tokens for BTC before the distribution and buy their tokens back after the distribution. And after that they would receive even more Bytes from the Waves team.
My question is: 'Why should regular BTC holders pay for the Waves token holders investment decisions?'

One of the distribution goals was to include ACTIVE users. The Waves example offers a PASSIVE distribution model.

Another argument for not giving many Bytes to the ICO fund holders: Why should Byteball finance and support its competitors?

Exchanges wallets can be included or excluded in manual mode depending on their will to distribute the Bytes to their users.

http://giphy.com/gifs/nknVOGpB1tSqk/html5



                           LUCKY
legendary
Activity: 1098
Merit: 1000
Angel investor.
Let me share my view on the distribution model. I would offer the following:

The max. BTC balance limit per one linked BB address for the share calculation purpose should be set. All the addresses with BTC linked amount exceeding the limit are treated as if they had the max. limit, not more.
Example:
The limit is 200 BTC for the total BTC amount linked to one BB address. All the BB addresses that have more than 200 BTC linked to them are considered to hold 200 BTC for the share distribution calculation.

This step will be supported by the community majority I suppose.
I assume there are no many BTC holders owing more than the limit who created several BB accounts.

The above approach will create more uniform BB distribution without unnecessary centralization at the early stages.

You can argue that some ICO fund holders promised to distribute their Bytes to their token holders. And with this approach they don't receive much.
If they receive the full Bytes amount with the current rules it will create unequal conditions for the regualr BTC holders and other token holders (Waves, for example).
Waves token holders could sell their tokens for BTC before the distribution and buy their tokens back after the distribution. And after that they would receive even more Bytes from the Waves team.
My question is: 'Why should regular BTC holders pay for the Waves token holders investment decisions?'

One of the distribution goals was to include ACTIVE users. The Waves example offers a PASSIVE distribution model.

Another argument for not giving many Bytes to the ICO fund holders: Why should Byteball finance and support its competitors?

Exchanges wallets can be included or excluded in manual mode depending on their will to distribute the Bytes to their users.
Totally agree.
legendary
Activity: 1974
Merit: 1160
Quote
The max. BTC balance limit per one linked BB address for the share calculation purpose should be set. All the addresses with BTC linked amount exceeding the limit are treated as if they had the max. limit, not more.
Example:
The limit is 200 BTC for the total BTC amount linked to one BB address. All the BB addresses that have more than 200 BTC linked to them are considered to hold 200 BTC for the share distribution calculation.

More smart traders foreseen it. I am made one btc address = BYTEBALL address  Grin but wave, lisk, etc. not Cheesy But! All should have equal rights. And wave etc. too. I dont know equitable solution. Smiley


full member
Activity: 336
Merit: 101
icowidgets.com
Let me share my view on the distribution model. I would offer the following:

The max. BTC balance limit per one linked BB address for the share calculation purpose should be set. All the addresses with BTC linked amount exceeding the limit are treated as if they had the max. limit, not more.
Example:
The limit is 200 BTC for the total BTC amount linked to one BB address. All the BB addresses that have more than 200 BTC linked to them are considered to hold 200 BTC for the share distribution calculation.

This step will be supported by the community majority I suppose.
I assume there are no many BTC holders owing more than the limit who created several BB accounts.

The above approach will create more uniform BB distribution without unnecessary centralization at the early stages.

You can argue that some ICO fund holders promised to distribute their Bytes to their token holders. And with this approach they don't receive much.
If they receive the full Bytes amount with the current rules it will create unequal conditions for the regualr BTC holders and other token holders (Waves, for example).
Waves token holders could sell their tokens for BTC before the distribution and buy their tokens back after the distribution. And after that they would receive even more Bytes from the Waves team.
My question is: 'Why should regular BTC holders pay for the Waves token holders investment decisions?'

One of the distribution goals was to include ACTIVE users. The Waves example offers a PASSIVE distribution model.

Another argument for not giving many Bytes to the ICO fund holders: Why should Byteball finance and support its competitors?

Exchanges wallets can be included or excluded in manual mode depending on their will to distribute the Bytes to their users.
sr. member
Activity: 247
Merit: 250
legendary
Activity: 1098
Merit: 1000
Angel investor.
Any info on these tiny BTC addresses that are getting a huge share:



what you want to say?

There's addresses with tiny BTC amount that are receiving close to 1% of distribution, according to that website.
This is weird and doesn't make sense.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1073
Whats this?



That is this (asked and answered before):
Anyone else getting a "Uncaught exception: Error: missing or empty parent units array" message?

Pops up after a few seconds and then closes the App.

It was working fine earlier.

Don't worry, your linked addresses are still safe!

Watch out for the new wallet release v1.0.0 here, which fixes this error:
https://github.com/byteball/byteball/releases
jr. member
Activity: 51
Merit: 10
legendary
Activity: 2002
Merit: 1113
which block we use to take the snapshot?
444951?

thank you

where u can see block mined pls ?

Total balance linked: 26045.36542280 BTC
Current transition rate: 0.26045365 BTC/gigabyte

good promotion..congrat @TONYCH &BBs team  Grin

Try Blockr.io

wht is that ?..I search bbs blockchain not transac.

BBs on deep news https://www.deepdotweb.com/2016/11/28/byteball-make-dags-not-chains/  Cool

i dont understand when paper worker said.."Bytes are the standard form in which value exchanges hands and it’s also used to pay the transaction fees, which are charged by the network on a one-to-one scale, meaning that if a transaction contains 2000 bytes of data, the sender will be required to pay 2000 Bytes (2 KBytes) for said transaction"

if i spend 10 000 bbs will pay 10 000 tax of fees  Huh Shocked

newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
Any info on these tiny BTC addresses that are getting a huge share:

I think that's formating oversight for shares who have nothing but zeros up to fifth decimal.
I wouldn't worry. BTC linked is what will most likely be used for actual distribution. Transition page is just informative.
legendary
Activity: 3164
Merit: 1116
Any info on these tiny BTC addresses that are getting a huge share:



what you want to say?

There's addresses with tiny BTC amount that are receiving close to 1% of distribution, according to that website.
hero member
Activity: 952
Merit: 501
ok maybe ask poloniex to list byteball now...

2 best coin of 2016!

first one is byteball, the second one is  elastic(XEL) Smiley
hero member
Activity: 952
Merit: 501
Any info on these tiny BTC addresses that are getting a huge share:



what you want to say?
hero member
Activity: 1442
Merit: 535
legendary
Activity: 3164
Merit: 1116
Any info on these tiny BTC addresses that are getting a huge share:

legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
I still don't like it, even if it does take off it will just be P & D'd by the whales that linked their addresses, obviously the distribution is flawed though people don't care about any of that because it's FREE Roll Eyes
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
which block we use to take the snapshot?
444951?

thank you

where u can see block mined pls ?

Total balance linked: 26045.36542280 BTC
Current transition rate: 0.26045365 BTC/gigabyte

good promotion..congrat @TONYCH &BBs team  Grin

Try Blockr.io
legendary
Activity: 2002
Merit: 1113
which block we use to take the snapshot?
444951?

thank you

where u can see block mined pls ?

Total balance linked: 26045.36542280 BTC
Current transition rate: 0.26045365 BTC/gigabyte

good promotion..congrat @TONYCH &BBs team  Grin
Jump to: