Topic: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments - page 1017. (Read 1234317 times)

thats how the coinwork - the more BTC you have the more BB you will have

For those of you feeling paranoid (I get it), try looking at it this way - if it is a scam, it would be one of the biggest scams evarr, and very very elegant. It's now some $60 million worth of BTC and growing fast. Would you miss a chance to be part of that, even as a victim? Think of the epic stories you could tell your grandchildren!        

My assessment is that tonych will do better by playing it straight rather than scamming, but then I felt that way about Butterfly Labs and Mt. Gox, so you never know. That's why it's called "risk". Tony had me at DAGs, I confess, which seemed so abstract and impractical back in grad school - NP Completeness theory, Garey and Johnson, my head still hurts!

Of course you can do nothing if you want, or expose whatever your risk/greed sensors tell you is OK. If you get something for nothing then you got something for nothing (that's a good thing). If you lose your BTC something, then your risk/greed sensors were wrong. Happens all the time. Relax - this isn't coercive - nobody will mind if you opt out.

I will think less of you if you get something for nothing and whine that somebody else got more than you did though. Heh - no matter what one does in life somebody won't like it.

Edit: strikeout and change in response to cryptonit's remarks.


The overt risk is privacy/identity related. See lml's post downthread, and its useful link about "identity collapse": https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address_reuse#Known_attacks

Specifically, the BB team accumulates and publishes proof that whoever owns BTC account X also owns BB account Y. This is valuable to demonstrate transparency of the BB distribution: http://transition.byteball.org/

It has the side-effect that if someone discovers the real-world identity for one account owner, then they know it for both. There are some tensions involved in making things "transparent", "fair", "private", "untraceable", and so forth.

I'd be twitchy about that exposure if I had a gazillion BTC in play. Since I have only a modest amount in the game, it's a risk that doesn't particularly bother me - I linked an account when BB went live and have no regrets yet. ymmv.

+100

It is not about us not liking it. We like it, that is why we are so pity that this nice project is going to be screwed by ICO scammers.

People always greedy and try to get more, but what do they have for more? It's like a vagabond on welfare, saying why I am not get as much money as the billionaire down the street?? It's not fair, the government is not fair...

A lot of irrationals here. The dev give you free coins, as compared to many stupid ICOs, yet so many complaints about the fairness of distribution. Guys, if you don't like it, just don't get it. Don't be so greedy with nothing at all.

What I would do if it was up to me to decide, is 
- Make a snapshot block random.
- After snapshot is done, cut of whales based on upper 25% percentile of balances. This means that if less than 25% of linked addresses have more than X BTC, cut of every address with more than X BTC.

This way whales would not be able to game a distribution by splitting balances, because they would not know in advance the cutoff cap.

I've just talked to the bot and he's feeling fine!  

Are you sure you have the livenet wallet installed? It's the second row of download links on byteball.org!

Jesus fix the transition bot please

That could be a good tip if only the Transition Bot was operative...

Protip:
for last minute linking it is better to use the signing option, because you don't need to wait for slow bitcoin confirmations! 

OMG, hope it gets fixed very soon or the distribution gets delayed becouse this is pure bs

I'm having the same problems here... not sure what is going on..

Is this working for anyone tho? Or is it just me having problems?

thats a pretty good idea but it should not be anounced because else they just split into many small accounts
let them belive they get a shitload

and after linking is ended adjust coin spread to favor "normal" size users

i think the cap should be 100 BTC
any byteball address with linked amount above 100 should be seen as 100 BTC when coins are splitted

this limit can be set higher in next rounds when 1 BTC earns less byteballs

 tonych have to act clever in this initial most important coin rollout round

its free coins noone have a right on it he can adjust the rules with a 100 BTC cap after first block on 25th and the issue is solved

Get your invite to the byteball slack at http://slack.byteball.org/

Just my opinion, but BTC address that represents a group/foundation/ICO like Lisk or Waves shouldnt be able to participate.

3HsSR84zReeBt5fTMESWJ2y18pMo5gz2Sq - Lisk Foundation
http://www.banklesstimes.com/2016/12/22/lisk-opens-books-announces-not-for-profit-foundation/

Wondered why they waited till the last possible moment 

Either way I hope this project turns to be a success!

Is it a transition bot that chooses whom it would be more appropriate to talk to or someone behind the canvas who fishes for untutored scumbags and methodically writes their names in a ledger of pending rip-off victims. If u are alright to disclose ur finances to a bot u're a probably a naif, and should be jacked.

what difference from this shit and an exchanges stack?
really fuck this distribution) i will sell my micro stack as soon, as it possible lol. Just because you accept ICOs shit. Have fun with waves/lisk devs

Accusations = facts
Greed = logic

Successful ? compared to what?

Pray = I agree for forgiveness.

Love how the larger wallets link last to give the least time for complaints about them taking the bulk of the tokens ... classic.