waves sold their coins at very low price
This is a bullshit story for poor waves investors. There is no proof of this. Be sure Shasha Ivanov left all bytes for himself and will use them to get more bytes during the second round.
Topic: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments - page 970. (Read 1234271 times)
January 05, 2017, 07:02:51 AM
waves sold their coins at very low price
This is a bullshit story for poor waves investors. There is no proof of this. Be sure Shasha Ivanov left all bytes for himself and will use them to get more bytes during the second round.
January 05, 2017, 05:11:47 AM
...
These best/worst cases depend on the growth of the linked amount. Can you please elaborate on the growth forumla? I mean is it just speculation, like if it grows by 50% here's what will happen, if it grows by 100% here's what will happen, or is there something else? (Note that the initial question was "if linked wallets remain at 70K btc"
). Thx.
Our chat yesterday caused me to make some supplementary considerations. These best/worst cases depend on the growth of the linked amount. Can you please elaborate on the growth forumla? I mean is it just speculation, like if it grows by 50% here's what will happen, if it grows by 100% here's what will happen, or is there something else? (Note that the initial question was "if linked wallets remain at 70K btc"
). Thx.It’s a idea (maybe tonys intention) that would give the distribution clearer rules.
Depending on growth, we can use two abort criteria (for example):
1. rule: 10% rule (a round linked more or equal 10% of BTC capitalization)
2. rule: still standing bytes must be more or equal 38% (according to the old rules with 4 rounds 10%,20%,30%,38%)
After one of the abort criteria is achieved the weight of the byte is increased massively (according to the old rules). Using this we are conform with the old rules…
I think tony will find the right way (I'm glad I do not have to decide
) - 
I’m finished with this slice.
January 05, 2017, 04:05:11 AM
i like this coin alot just lets get it to normal exchange like bittrex or so
Have you tried Cryptox.pl? January 05, 2017, 03:01:35 AM
I know it's weird but someone can send me 1500 (white) bytes for testing blackbytes withdraw between two wallets ?
My address : 3CCFAF5UUXX7BHGV2VDQF56T2DYU3OGF
Thanks
My address : 3CCFAF5UUXX7BHGV2VDQF56T2DYU3OGF
Thanks
Thank you to the unknown sender.
(Just for info, 1500 bytes = 0.0000375$)
January 05, 2017, 02:59:26 AM
You can check this thread, I was one of the early supporters of this project and I blogged two times about Byteball in my German Altcoinblog. Example:
https://altcoinspekulant.wordpress.com/2016/10/06/byteball-exclusive-interview-with-developer-tonych-in-english/
I’m fine with the distribution, but would have initiated a Cap at 10 Bitcoin for each linked address. I doubt guys like Iconomi would really created several hundreds Bitcoin addresses. Same for other whales. Sometimes guys are just lazy.
But in general it’s OK. Good thing now, is that the amount of Byteball for further distributions have an higher impact than the Bitcoin addresses. Waves for example will get much less than in the first distribution. If you are a believer in the project you have now the chance to buy Byteball and receive a better participation in the further distributions. It’s completely up to you which part of the Bytball-cake is yours in the future. If you own now one Bytball you will get +10% with every further distribution. Even if the price remains just stable your holding will increase in value.
https://altcoinspekulant.wordpress.com/2016/10/06/byteball-exclusive-interview-with-developer-tonych-in-english/
I’m fine with the distribution, but would have initiated a Cap at 10 Bitcoin for each linked address. I doubt guys like Iconomi would really created several hundreds Bitcoin addresses. Same for other whales. Sometimes guys are just lazy.
But in general it’s OK. Good thing now, is that the amount of Byteball for further distributions have an higher impact than the Bitcoin addresses. Waves for example will get much less than in the first distribution. If you are a believer in the project you have now the chance to buy Byteball and receive a better participation in the further distributions. It’s completely up to you which part of the Bytball-cake is yours in the future. If you own now one Bytball you will get +10% with every further distribution. Even if the price remains just stable your holding will increase in value.
January 05, 2017, 02:27:15 AM
I would have not given any BB to ICO fund owners, if for no other reason, they will just dump their free money without giving it back to their investors or if they will give to investors they can simply claim that it was sold for 5x, 10x less than the actual number.. but distribution is already made so, don't know if you can do anything from here on to make it "fairer", maybe to give out free BB for active users even if they have no btc or little btc.
You can't force ICO owners to claim BB and distribute to investors. BB did not exist when those ICOs are started. It is their own desire to claim or not to claim. You can't also don't force them to stop selling. Many people will pile up to ask for free BB with no btc mandatory.
The problem with ICO owners is the fact that they contribute nothing to BB yet they own most of it. This distribution model was made to reward early active users, that's written in the OP. I do believe this coin will be big because it's unique, it came out with a functioning product (I never even saw an ICO with a functioning product even before the launch, let alone a free pow/pos coin) and it can't scam like an ICO or instamined/premined/ninja launched coin. Those who think this is a database for the FBI or CIA...your PC, phone, tablet, car and your every move is already tracked by cameras, ID cards, credit cards, online shopping, gps whatever you do, your identity is being saved and sold to the highest bidder, it's business as usual. Oh yeah, BB has anonymous transaction did you know that ?
Totally agree with what you said. The distribution of the BB should be to its supporters, most are active in this forum, and to the developers of the applications on top of this framework. When I read the white paper, I see tons of features, great features, that will be used by the applications. So we should reward the creator of these applications with byteballs. Random people, when receiving bb, if they don't have an interest to it, will just dump it. It does not help the coin.
Good point. The strength of the byteball is that it is a platform, so tony should reward those who help to create applications (DAC or those use smart contract) on top of it. Like what Ethereum did to help those projects.
January 05, 2017, 02:21:09 AM
I would have not given any BB to ICO fund owners, if for no other reason, they will just dump their free money without giving it back to their investors or if they will give to investors they can simply claim that it was sold for 5x, 10x less than the actual number.. but distribution is already made so, don't know if you can do anything from here on to make it "fairer", maybe to give out free BB for active users even if they have no btc or little btc.
You can't force ICO owners to claim BB and distribute to investors. BB did not exist when those ICOs are started. It is their own desire to claim or not to claim. You can't also don't force them to stop selling. Many people will pile up to ask for free BB with no btc mandatory.
The problem with ICO owners is the fact that they contribute nothing to BB yet they own most of it. This distribution model was made to reward early active users, that's written in the OP. I do believe this coin will be big because it's unique, it came out with a functioning product (I never even saw an ICO with a functioning product even before the launch, let alone a free pow/pos coin) and it can't scam like an ICO or instamined/premined/ninja launched coin. Those who think this is a database for the FBI or CIA...your PC, phone, tablet, car and your every move is already tracked by cameras, ID cards, credit cards, online shopping, gps whatever you do, your identity is being saved and sold to the highest bidder, it's business as usual. Oh yeah, BB has anonymous transaction did you know that ?
Totally agree with what you said. The distribution of the BB should be to its supporters, most are active in this forum, and to the developers of the applications on top of this framework. When I read the white paper, I see tons of features, great features, that will be used by the applications. So we should reward the creator of these applications with byteballs. Random people, when receiving bb, if they don't have an interest to it, will just dump it. It does not help the coin.
January 05, 2017, 02:01:47 AM
I think the need to add other trading sites, at least it's safer for shoppers and merchants
January 05, 2017, 01:50:34 AM
I did not say the distribution was unfair.
I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters. This is a distribution without clear rules.
With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.
I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.
Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.
I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters. This is a distribution without clear rules.
With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.
I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.
Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.
It is unfair, it is the game of lisk, waves and iconomi, let this coin die, the most unfair distribution I have seen, normal investors got almost nothing.
waves sold their coins at very low price
Iconomi keep the coins for long term investment wich is a extra plus for BB , read more about their project.
lisk dunno...
what is the problem... will be more coins for free. cheers
Totally crap.
January 05, 2017, 01:00:36 AM
I would have not given any BB to ICO fund owners, if for no other reason, they will just dump their free money without giving it back to their investors or if they will give to investors they can simply claim that it was sold for 5x, 10x less than the actual number.. but distribution is already made so, don't know if you can do anything from here on to make it "fairer", maybe to give out free BB for active users even if they have no btc or little btc.
You can't force ICO owners to claim BB and distribute to investors. BB did not exist when those ICOs are started. It is their own desire to claim or not to claim. You can't also don't force them to stop selling. Many people will pile up to ask for free BB with no btc mandatory.
The problem with ICO owners is the fact that they contribute nothing to BB yet they own most of it. This distribution model was made to reward early active users, that's written in the OP. I do believe this coin will be big because it's unique, it came out with a functioning product (I never even saw an ICO with a functioning product even before the launch, let alone a free pow/pos coin) and it can't scam like an ICO or instamined/premined/ninja launched coin. Those who think this is a database for the FBI or CIA...your PC, phone, tablet, car and your every move is already tracked by cameras, ID cards, credit cards, online shopping, gps whatever you do, your identity is being saved and sold to the highest bidder, it's business as usual. Oh yeah, BB has anonymous transaction did you know that ?
January 05, 2017, 12:37:11 AM
I would have not given any BB to ICO fund owners, if for no other reason, they will just dump their free money without giving it back to their investors or if they will give to investors they can simply claim that it was sold for 5x, 10x less than the actual number.. but distribution is already made so, don't know if you can do anything from here on to make it "fairer", maybe to give out free BB for active users even if they have no btc or little btc.
You can't force ICO owners to claim BB and distribute to investors. BB did not exist when those ICOs are started. It is their own desire to claim or not to claim. You can't also don't force them to stop selling. Many people will pile up to ask for free BB with no btc mandatory.
January 04, 2017, 11:52:20 PM
I would have not given any BB to ICO fund owners, if for no other reason, they will just dump their free money without giving it back to their investors or if they will give to investors they can simply claim that it was sold for 5x, 10x less than the actual number.. but distribution is already made so, don't know if you can do anything from here on to make it "fairer", maybe to give out free BB for active users even if they have no btc or little btc.
January 04, 2017, 11:41:17 PM
I did not say the distribution was unfair.
I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters. This is a distribution without clear rules.
With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.
I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.
Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.
I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters. This is a distribution without clear rules.
With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.
I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.
Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.
It is unfair, it is the game of lisk, waves and iconomi, let this coin die, the most unfair distribution I have seen, normal investors got almost nothing.
waves sold their coins at very low price
Iconomi keep the coins for long term investment wich is a extra plus for BB , read more about their project.
lisk dunno...
what is the problem... will be more coins for free. cheers
And let's not forget Komodo. They say they are in it for the long run:
is it true that komodo funds have been used to participate in the byteball distribution? if so, will we see some of that?
Byteball looks like a promising technology and we consider it as a long term investment. We will use the byteballs for working capital. January 04, 2017, 11:36:41 PM
I did not say the distribution was unfair.
I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters. This is a distribution without clear rules.
With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.
I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.
Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.
I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters. This is a distribution without clear rules.
With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.
I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.
Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.
It is unfair, it is the game of lisk, waves and iconomi, let this coin die, the most unfair distribution I have seen, normal investors got almost nothing.
waves sold their coins at very low price
Iconomi keep the coins for long term investment wich is a extra plus for BB , read more about their project.
lisk dunno...
what is the problem... will be more coins for free. cheers
The problem is that the purpose of the distribution is to enhance the coin and its support, not give opponent ammunition to attack coin and make profits. Wave dumped at very low price, they have no intention to help this coin, why the heck we will give them free coin?? I'd suggest to ban that address in the next distribution.
January 04, 2017, 11:09:49 PM
I did not say the distribution was unfair.
I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters. This is a distribution without clear rules.
With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.
I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.
Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.
I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters. This is a distribution without clear rules.
With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.
I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.
Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.
It is unfair, it is the game of lisk, waves and iconomi, let this coin die, the most unfair distribution I have seen, normal investors got almost nothing.
waves sold their coins at very low price
Iconomi keep the coins for long term investment wich is a extra plus for BB , read more about their project.
lisk dunno...
what is the problem... will be more coins for free. cheers
January 04, 2017, 09:53:05 PM
I did not say the distribution was unfair.
I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters. This is a distribution without clear rules.
With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.
I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.
Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.
I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters. This is a distribution without clear rules.
With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.
I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.
Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.
It is unfair, it is the game of lisk, waves and iconomi, let this coin die, the most unfair distribution I have seen, normal investors got almost nothing.
Maybe it's not a bad idea to exclude the known ICO accounts. But 2nd round distribution the bitcoin weight will be a lot less, so in this case those who have a lot byteballs will have the advantage.
January 04, 2017, 09:51:54 PM
I did not say the distribution was unfair.
I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters. This is a distribution without clear rules.
With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.
I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.
Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.
I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters. This is a distribution without clear rules.
With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.
I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.
Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.
It is unfair, it is the game of lisk, waves and iconomi, let this coin die, the most unfair distribution I have seen, normal investors got almost nothing.
You cannot speak about "normal investors", if you got these coins as a present!
January 04, 2017, 09:50:34 PM
I did not say the distribution was unfair.
I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters. This is a distribution without clear rules.
With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.
I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.
Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.
I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters. This is a distribution without clear rules.
With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.
I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.
Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.
It is unfair, it is the game of lisk, waves and iconomi, let this coin die, the most unfair distribution I have seen, normal investors got almost nothing.
January 04, 2017, 09:48:03 PM
i like this coin alot just lets get it to normal exchange like bittrex or so
January 04, 2017, 08:16:47 PM
I did not say the distribution was unfair.
I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters. This is a distribution without clear rules.
With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.
I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.
Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.
read the 1st page and btw is his coin ... why so much stress . I simply stated that the rules for the distribution of remaining coins are unknown and they depend on one entity. If it was a multisig or foundatiuon, it would not be better. It is still one priviliged group of people who can decide on the future distribution parameters. This is a distribution without clear rules.
With good coins you can see the rules that were set in stone from the beginning. Subsequent changes (for example in mininig subsidy) were possible but a large consensus was necessary, most miners had to agree etc.
I I were tonych I would not give the funds to multisig. Too dangerous. He can lose control, he can get under pressure from people who only pretend interest. It is his creation.
Instead he should improve the rules of the future distribution, make them finite and follow them to the letter. The undistributed coins should be frozen in an address where anybody can see them.
Jump to: