if one person holds the vast bulk of the coins, controls the network, does not listen at all to the entire community then that is already a project that has failed to be trustless and decentralised.
Yet Byteball has a market cap of about $450 Million USD. Perhaps this is prima facie evidence that decentralization is not necessarily the be-all, end-all in crypto value?
IOTA and XRB sky rocketed ...
Yes...
... because of the unit price.
This assertion is made, bereft of any evidence to support it. Why do you claim A is the cause of B?
Perhaps those so insistent they know better than tony how to 'make this coin a success' should fork the code and create a new coin. Here ya go:
https://github.com/byteball/byteball
We really have two arguments going here. One is: what is objectively correct to raise the
value price of Byteball; and the other is what can be done with it.
Let's deal with the second one first, as it is shorter and more direct. I already gave you the answer:
https://github.com/byteball/byteball. Go forth and forkify thyself.
With that out of the way, let us discuss the first. You claim that 'the community wants a lower denomination'. First, where is your data? Seems to me all you have to point to is some handful of disembodied names on some forum on some corner of the internet.
And you decry the lack of decentralization. Frankly, I agree with you here. Though I find your specific worry to be trivial - certainly tonych's control over all the validators is a fundamentally more severe problem than some 'control' over the denomination. But again, in practical matters, tonych has pointed out that the fundamental unit is a byte. The fact that it is typically discussed as Gbytes is a triviality. You want decentralization? Lobby the exchanges to make the change. Get off your ass and do it yourself.
Amuses me that you go on about decentralization while pleading with the 'central point of control' to make a change.
And WhoTF are you to claim that "Tonys actions outside of his coding are actually damaging to the project."? The way I see it, he has put scads of money in my pocket. You? Not so much.
And while you seem to assert that decentralization is a necessary property for a coin to succeed, the counterexample of XRP's #2 market cap quite clearly disproves your assertion.
"Also let's get some polls for BB so we can tell really how many people want things and dont want it."
OK, now you are on to something. Without hard data, your claim of 'what people want' is mere bullshit. So figure out a way to implement a scientifically-valid means of polling the community, and run it. Perhaps with unassailable data, tonych can be persuaded. Or are you waiting for the 'single centralized point' to do that work for you?
I get it. The centralization is sub-optimal. I actually agree with you. What can be done about it? Tonych's position is rather clear. Quit whingeing and do something.
With all due respect.
Okay let's enter discussion of these points.With that out of the way, let us discuss the first. You claim that 'the community wants a lower denomination'. First, where is your data? Seems to me all you have to point to is some handful of disembodied names on some forum on some corner of the internet.Is it reasonable to conclude that there is a significant proportion of the community wanting these changes since I notice from this thread that there are many voices asking for this and few voices opposing? It is not hard data but if you cant see that is a probable outcome of a poll on here then that is up to you.
Are you saying you believe the majority is not in favour given the last 20 pages of this thread?
If i go to far in asserting the majority want these changes then that is my mistake although I find it probable that is the case as i said and does not invalidate my point really. The poll again could be problematic on here in many ways
Calling bct a strange little corner of the internet in relation to crypto currency is probably again unrealistic. It is crypto central and the very place byteball was born.
Your point about requesting the point of central control to bring about more decentralised measures is again unrealistic . I mean if there is only centralised control at this point how else could it become more decentralised without his involvement other than creating a hostile takeover which again is more far fetched? Actually ever going from such a point of central control arguably means the project can never be trustless fully in the future.
And WhoTF are you to claim that "Tonys actions outside of his coding are actually damaging to the project."? The way I see it, he has put scads of money in my pocket. You? Not so much. It does not matter who presents an argument nor and idea it is merely the merit of such argument or idea that is important. I present the argument that it was damaging to knowingly go ahead with a distribution where you knew the ICO managers from other projects were going to take huge swathes of your minting. I say also it was foolish to encourage investors with the notion of full moon distributions only to tell them that that was false and that is now not going to happen since we need those coins for dev and marketing.... when the opposing ICO managers have huge bulks of coins that could have been used for that. I mean if you don't think these obvious mistakes even though many persons advised against it are damaging..then again that is a strange view which I would have you justify. Else join me in my view that these knowing actions were damaging.
And while you seem to assert that decentralization is a necessary property for a coin to succeed, the counterexample of XRP's #2 market cap quite clearly disproves your assertion.
I never said this please find and post where i said that. If you deem success as a huge collusion and market making move to generate a huge market cap then that is a view I can understand. I simply said that these actions do not denote a trustless decentralised project. Success is not something easy to define here. I would define success as a huge REAL natural market cap whilst ensuring a trustless and decentralised project.
Let me say though here that i very much LIKE tonych as a peron and I FULLY respect his genius in design and coding. I do not however think he has a clue about market psychology nor marketing nor installing investor confidence. I promote byteball out of respect for his coding and design and actually i think he is very honest too. I have way less financial stake here than i do in many projects that i never promote.
I still think BB even with Tony making glaring mistakes in marketing and bringing investors confidence will end up a top 10 project merely on the basis of that he will turn out to be honest and distribute the entire minting in an honest way and that his design will be better than most of the other projects here. He is just making it a way more drawn out and tough route to success.
My intention is merely to demonstrate Tony should code and design and other teams for marketing should be formed and that it should move to a more decentralised process for decision making and for securing the network as soon as possible.
I am totally willing to discuss any points with you or anyone else in a reasonable manner and if I am proven wrong I would gladly embrace other views.
As yet I remain convinced I am correct in what i have said.
Your suggestion for me to fork Byteball if I am not happy with the way tony is handling all matters is sadly not going to be possible at this time nor any other time so I will stick with as you say
pleading suggesting he decentralises all aspects of byteball as soon as possible and also takes on board feedback from the community as far as they can give valid input.
