Topic: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments - page 1018. (Read 1234271 times)

Let's focus on the technical side - accusations fueled by greed are harmful and nothing else. I hope the project will be successful and that's the thing we should pray for.

You are probably missing 1000's of BTC.

The transition chat bot is more interested in chatting to whales right now cramming in their 1000's of BTC so everyone else gets crumbs of crumbs of crumbs.

If you are a whale contact tonych directly I'm sure this issue can be resolved at once.

The "chat with the Transition Bot" isn't working for me on 2 different broswers and on mobile.
Am i missing something? Please help 

distribution for shitcoins does not make sense http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/views/all/#   BTC Dominance: 87.6%
but  ICOs shit is really shit. Especially Waves & Lisk, ones of the most cheaters devs here, that dump their shit premine nonstop
Also Waves dev is a big liar, just reading what he said at ico, something like " guys, after ico i will put buy wall at ico price " and few days later, after coins was distributed, the price dropped to - 50% from ico price lol

Nice suggestions
"give those with the least BTC the most BB" is especially interesting... Sounds like a citation form "L'Internationale"  
Others are somewhat less trilling, but a bit more realistic though...

I really like the idea, but unfortunately such smart tricks will work only for the first distribution...

Nice why not fund all the other ICO' coins. Will be great for BB.

Imagine when someone clones BB and distributes in a way that can't be seen as crazy on most levels.


UNLESS tony is being smart and saying the whales will still get BB but actually they will NOT. That would stop them trying to break their wallets down into smaller chunks and would make the distribution seem less of a btc whale wet dream.

Anyone with greater than 50btc should get nothing. Or give those with the least BTC the most BB. That would be interesting. Or take the average and the further from that average the less you get. I'm sure someone as smart as tonych obviously is can think of a myriad of ways to distribute in a fairer manner.

Who would ever dare buy any of this from an exchange when you know how the distribution is? financial suicide.

Anyway I have posted litterally pages on this thread trying to change how it will be distributed not solely because of BB but because of the knock on effects of a project distributing like this to the alt community. It was suggested in 2013 and luckily it was shouted down then. It is sad to see this model ever made it to market so to speak.

It would be nice if tonych has surprise up his sleeve and it is not as it seems.

Just in case, for anyone confused, this is time left to official phase one ending, as stated on first page:

https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?p0=211&iso=20161224T235959&year=2016&month=12&day=24&hour=23&min=59&sec=59&msg=ByteBall%20phase%201%20distribution

Should have been a random snap shot date to stop them doing this. This was all discussed before tonych deliberately ignored any alternatives to the already planned route.

3HsSR84zReeBt5fTMESWJ2y18pMo5gz2Sq

Its the Lisk address, interesting will this blue whale distribute their BB also to the Lisk holders?

Sure they can, if they care enough to do that work... Though not everyone is able to do that - as Waves ICO address cannot be split, for example.

Those split addresses will be still big and can be traced down anyway, especially now, when not much time left for ICO, so such movements will be obvious...

Anyway, let tonych decide... it is his project, after all . Some people like whales thinking they will do good for the project as they are large stakeholders... Some others like whales, as they hope for an old'n'good P'n'D  . Not sure tonych is one of those, so lets him decide what is good for his project... One thing is for sure - the centralization on this project becomes dangerous.

It might not be coincidence that the biggest addresses come late so not to force any changes in distribution. Imagine some even bigger pop up at the last moment... Big boys will eat us, small fries.

tonych seems to be ignoring these comments, so I guess nothing will be changed. It's kind of a tricky question anyway, since if there is a limit in terms of percent that can be received by any address, these large bitcoin holders could in theory just break their btc up into a bunch of addresses and then link a whole bunch of byteball addresses and perform death by a thousand cuts anyway, right?

Yeah nice hey .... will be able to manipulate the market at will. NULL these whales now and save the project or let it go ahead as a non starter.

I guarantee this project will be a pariah.

Everyone should have put more pressure on tonych to make the distribution fairer from the start. I am the only person that has put any kind of sustained pressure on him and he refuses to even enter the discussion choosing to avoid the questions and rather focus on discussing the tech. Browse this entire thread its full of people praising this distributional model thinking they are getting something for free. You are getting zero for free if you hold other alts. This is a dilution coin that will be controlled by BTC whales and exchanges. Both of whom will get richer by making you get poorer than you already are.

The tech will be cloned and distributed in a more fair manner you can guarantee this.

This coin is merely an experiment by BTC whales to see if they can guarantee whale share in all future altcoin markets without risking their whale BTC stash.

The only people praising this form of distribution should be those with at the minimum of 100 BTC at hand  since they will gain over and over by distributional models like this. I do not support this model although I assume that I would stand to gain substantially more than many of those that do support it if I linked all of my BTC.

This is simply not a fair manner of distribution and I hope the project does not become a success at all. Sorry but although the tech looks great and tonych seems not a bad guy we can not have waves of alts distributing like this in future it is simply the most unfair model you can nearly design.

+1

It is like if an exchange registers their Bitcoin wallet, then claims it will give the Byteballs to their users as dividents, if (note the IF) the project is successful  

They are leaving themselves a space to cheat with that "if" statement. In any case having 10% of supply in hands of a single person (even if he promises to distribute it later) is dangerous.

In case if you decide to keep this linked address, please at least post it in Waves thread, so Waves investors are informed, and could request their share!


Heavy players (cheaters or not.. doesn't matter too much in this case) are popping in... I guess it would be fair to limit the number of Byteballs going into single Byteball address... not to exceed 1-2% of supply... What about that? Otherwise distribution is going to be f**ked up.

It was, there was a limit of 100 simultaneous connections.

This one just popped up while I was finishing mine:
XCQ3LC6BSRGLPKC6LDQBTHZBKHLGIS5B   3HsSR84zReeBt5fTMESWJ2y18pMo5gz2Sq   12295.96991428     20.5916     tx

12.2k BTC  

At the moment going to get 20% of distribution.

I'm doing this at the moment but in stages so if something goes wrong I won't loose everything...

+1. Does it matter if we have multiple BB addresses inside the same wallet?

I have a problem hahaha, transaction bot didn't show me a message after first byteball address giving, so I clicked "insert my BB adress" again and again, turned off clinet, turned on, and then I gave second BB address for bot and now I have third GG address, I have mess in chat window now, I dont know what to do, which adress is good?

I am using the older version of Multibit... It has much more control and info shown... As I often find, older SW turn out to be better It looks like almost all SW developers in every single field are degrading their products to fit some specific kind of users (probably so called "millenials"), who don't care to understand what they are doing... Ok, thats just a unrelated rant..

Yes, you can sign addresses while having Bitcoin wallet and Bytewall app on different machines. Thats exactly what I did...
But probably its better for you just to send the BTC to the linked address now, as you already started that way.