Topic: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments - page 1083. (Read 1234271 times)

Good coin and concept, very innovative, but the distribution way is terrible, you only serve those btc whales. If someone has 10k-100k btc and verified his addy, so he will get most coins. Fair? It may kill the project.

Nice package, but how to upgrade? (linux64)
I see some effort to make it user friendly, but how it should be installed to get desktop icon.

Back door?

Just wow! 

wow good news..i see that you working in back door..so must save my bytes for update ? it work with old testnet ? 

congratulation bytesball will soon in the place 

I am talking about issuance in the first place. There are a number of problems with centralized issuance, which would not exist if the token was issued in decentralized way. So, you did not consider such possibility. Fair enough.

Byteball v0.5.0 released https://github.com/byteball/byteball/releases

* Light wallet option for desktop wallets (the option is available only in new installs), now you don't have to wait that the sync completes and can start using the wallet immediately
* Show current percentage of sync
* Show more details in transaction history: unit and from address
* Multi-line input in chat
* On Windows and Mac, a badge is displayed on the app icon when a new chat message is received while the app is in the background, so you won't miss a message
* Fixed database locking issues on Android
* Fixed crashes when working with a multisig wallet that is not yet approved by all parties
* Better UI when trying to send private assets outside chat
* Protocol changed from byteball: to byteball-test: to allow future livenet wallet to co-exist with testnet wallet on the same device

Please upgrade desktop clients using the link above.  New version of android client was submitted to Google Play an hour ago, should update automatically unless you disabled autoupdates.

The next big step will be testnet-to-testnet linking, after which we'll launch a new testnet with distribution proportional to Bitcoin testnet balances.

Please retweet https://twitter.com/ByteballOrg/status/792410189966241793

BitcoinRush featured Byteball in his recent show:
https://twitter.com/bitcoin_rush/status/792108519436591104
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxBCG9AbTdc
Enjoy

We are talking about the eventual ownership, not issuance.
There is no problem with centralized issuance when it is a one-time event.

@tonych

Did you ever consider ways to issue tokens in decentralized manner, but without mining?

It is another issue you are raising.  Seems like you want to exclude (or significantly restrict) from the distribution all those who are rich, not just exchanges and ICO funds, but all those who are in the top x% percentile of BTC balance per address.  Your reasoning, it seems, is "just because they are already super rich".  While I do not agree it is enough of a reason, I also try to avoid a situation when a large percentage of bytes are owned by a single person, as this would be not a healthy decentralized financial system.  

Unfortunately all well-intentioned attempts to achieve a more even distribution by capping the balances per address or nulling the top x% are not only not bullet-proof, they can even have the reverse effect.  All these restrictions are gameable, one can simply split a big balance into many smaller ones and mix the coins in multiple steps.  It can be speculated how much they really want to go at such great lengths, many probably won't, but even if a few do game the rules, we'll arrive at a system with a few mega-whales (which are not readily identifiable because they hide behind thousands smaller addresses) when we could have a system with dozens of smaller whales if we didn't put the restrictions in place.  Is this what you want?

So, it seems, the best way to counter a big stake of a single whale, is with the stakes of other whales.

Maybe you read the OP at least.

And he's contacting the competitors to see what they will do, which is weird.

Sorry don't feel like reading full thread. Is distribution based on Bitcoin amount held in address?

anyone want try & test wallet pls ??

agree 100 percent


meanwhile the ZCASH craze is going on full steem.....

https://www.bitmex.com/app/contract/ZECZ16

The problem is not just in rewarding crypto rich. The problem is that he is going to reward crypto rich who are his competitors, and he is going to give them his tokens because they keep huge amount of BTC which they don't really own.

=========================================================================================

  my distribution idea =

your target = get the max users

your idea = free distribution to BTC owner

needed

1/CAP/filter to top out the "one percent" ( the max amt of BTC can be fixed quiet low in fact like 10 btc max)  *** see cryptohunter previous comment


2/cost of transaction/fees/commissions = my distribution idea
*****************************************************

think it's the most important point to increase usage of the byteball's

*/most shop would dream not paying any fee to get payment (they will push byteball to their customers)====(fee payed only by the buyer)

*/ALL of us dream currency without transaction fees ( we pay fees on every payment method around )

so i get equivalent of 10 btc max of byteballs & get free transaction up to x % of that original amount  (best >100%)

so i now i can transact free for a long time ( x years depending of my speed of transaction )

this secondary DISTRIBUTION become your  MARKETING AGENT

BYTEBALL only currency with no transaction fee for the first 5 years .....

the entities recieving the "commissions" will of course resell it in the market, but the effect will be negligeable compare to the size of the "float"

 




THIS

For sure this is your thread and for now you are not getting much criticism over rewarding the super rich with the bulk of your coins since people kiss up to the devs in their own thread. However I can GUARANTEE you if this project takes off that will be the MAIN criticism that you will get going forward. All you will hear in later years is this was the coin that rewarded the already crypto rich. Unfaircoin.



  i can agree on this IDEA S WHY FEED the one %


democracy try protect the weak against powerfull (it's not an easy job)

every choice, every line in the sand will generate loser and winners

the marketing side of it is maybe even more important = one question who is going to be your main user base ?


WHALES or tiny fish ?

(anyway if u feed tiny fish more, most of them are short of cash and will resell BYTEBALL very fast (flippers) in the hand of WHALES..... (democracy not easy job)

IF u think like a "bond issuer" you want stable user base that wont FLIP the byteball ........

not easy decision i must say

 

True the investors should take an interest in this. However not all ICO owners will stick to it like jl777 most will just pocket it and most other ICOs don't even have a ledger for how their BTC is spent? so why would they create any ledger for how their byte ball was spent or converted to BTC. You are putting a lot to trust when you have no need to.

Can you simply explain why you are reluctant to null the top 1 or 2 % of BTC wallets? I see no reason to go to all the hassle of asking exchanges and  ico devs to be fair and distribute the BB ...when we can just take them and BTC whales who already super rich out of the equation.

I mean if you are in the top 2% of BTC wallets can you really not afford to buy some BB if you choose? How many BTC do you have to be in the top 2% at this time??

You get the wide distribution but it will be seen as more fair to the crypto community.

For sure this is your thread and for now you are not getting much criticism over rewarding the super rich with the bulk of your coins since people kiss up to the devs in their own thread. However I can GUARANTEE you if this project takes off that will be the MAIN criticism that you will get going forward. All you will hear in later years is this was the coin that rewarded the already crypto rich. Unfaircoin.

I would even suggest nulling the top 5% of wallets or where ever has the most effect on the distribution curve.

Look at coins that can be seen in any way as being unfair lately... this could be seen as tantamount to a huge premine by BTC whales. It looks a great project I would just hate to see it tarnished with that brush. Imagine the manipulation accusations especially if exchanges don't play ball.

It just seems sensible to null the top x% of wallets and do a random snapshot.  Unless there is a good reason not to that I'm not seeing.