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
Topic: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments - page 1012. (Read 1234271 times)
December 24, 2016, 09:09:33 PM
December 24, 2016, 08:56:44 PM
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.
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
but wave, lisk, etc. not 
But! All should have equal rights. And wave etc. too. I dont know equitable solution. 
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.
December 24, 2016, 08:50:32 PM
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.
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
December 24, 2016, 08:42:41 PM
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. 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.
December 24, 2016, 08:34:09 PM
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.
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
but wave, lisk, etc. not But! All should have equal rights. And wave etc. too. I dont know equitable solution. December 24, 2016, 08:17:41 PM
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.
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.
December 24, 2016, 08:13:40 PM
December 24, 2016, 08:12:04 PM
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.
December 24, 2016, 08:09:20 PM
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.
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
December 24, 2016, 08:03:16 PM
Whats this?
December 24, 2016, 07:48:00 PM
which block we use to take the snapshot?
444951？
thank you
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
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/
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
December 24, 2016, 07:41:10 PM
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.
December 24, 2016, 07:39:09 PM
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.
December 24, 2016, 07:38:13 PM
ok maybe ask poloniex to list byteball now...
2 best coin of 2016!
first one is byteball, the second one is elastic（XEL）
2 best coin of 2016!
first one is byteball, the second one is elastic（XEL）
December 24, 2016, 07:37:12 PM
Any info on these tiny BTC addresses that are getting a huge share:
what you want to say?
December 24, 2016, 07:32:04 PM
https://blockchain.info/address/14e5YtfVYn6xJMCj77dRW5ESJCGyExx4vs
тoжe биpжeвoй https://blockchain.info/address/1Btc2UrZTqcbjLrr8trx66K9TozQmKeDGN
2 биpжeвыx кoшeлькa пpивязaли
тoжe биpжeвoй https://blockchain.info/address/1Btc2UrZTqcbjLrr8trx66K9TozQmKeDGN
2 биpжeвыx кoшeлькa пpивязaли
December 24, 2016, 07:29:07 PM
Any info on these tiny BTC addresses that are getting a huge share:
December 24, 2016, 07:28:08 PM
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 
December 24, 2016, 07:25:42 PM
which block we use to take the snapshot?
444951？
thank you
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
Try Blockr.io
December 24, 2016, 07:23:42 PM
which block we use to take the snapshot?
444951？
thank you
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
Jump to: