I think there may be some people here who want to give their vote to be byteball have their first trading sites there
https://mercatox.com/coins/list
Topic: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments - page 995. (Read 1234271 times)
December 26, 2016, 07:50:43 PM
December 26, 2016, 06:24:44 PM
Hi @tonych
I have two wallets on my mac, that I use interchangeably by replacing "byteball" directory in the Application Support.
The first wallet received both bytes and blackbytes, while the second got only bytes.
Is it related to the p2p method of sending blackbytes? Is there any way around it (for example changing IP, or running wallet on a different machine)?
Thank you in advance.
I have two wallets on my mac, that I use interchangeably by replacing "byteball" directory in the Application Support.
The first wallet received both bytes and blackbytes, while the second got only bytes.
Is it related to the p2p method of sending blackbytes? Is there any way around it (for example changing IP, or running wallet on a different machine)?
Thank you in advance.
December 26, 2016, 06:22:47 PM
Help.
Upgrade to version 1 and all, but it still only shows 0 bytes. How long did it take after updating for you guys to see your bytes?
Upgrade to version 1 and all, but it still only shows 0 bytes. How long did it take after updating for you guys to see your bytes?
If your fully synced, you should see your bytes and blackbytes. Have a look at http://transition.byteball.org/ if your address is listed with btc balance.
I pasted my address in there and it's showing zero balance. I don't understand. I used Electrum wallet. Could that be the issue since it uses so many different wallet. I'm so frustrated now.
December 26, 2016, 06:01:56 PM
I contacted Sasha Ivanov, founder of Waves, about the linked address 1NGfrU4YNp8dox1gLeUDyjD5Vpfck9no5j that has 4800 BTC from Waves ICO. His response was that if the project is successful, he is going to distribute our coin as dividend to Waves holders.
So, even the largest (so far) whale in our distribution is a kind of collective investment entity.
So, even the largest (so far) whale in our distribution is a kind of collective investment entity.
Could it become a potential threat for the Byteball system if the parties like Waves and Lisk and others will hold 10% of byteball for a fairly long time and won't distribute the coins to their investors, especially when they are in competition with Byteball? It may be not a bad idea to block their BTC addresses for the next distribution round if they don't distribute their coins from this round to their investors before the next round.
This is not a bad idea to block all ICO funds from getting Byteballs, as they are in the competition and it's not going to help us in anyway, unless they agree some sort of collaboration.
Maybe the right way is to actually cap the max amount of Byteballs given to any address.
If an address contains more than 1 BTC, in example, just give 1 BTC of Byteballs.
If the objective is to DISTRIBUTE Byteballs, you want this to happen this way, not to give immense quantities of Byteballs to people that ALREADY have a huge amount of real money stored in BTC.
This method seems more fair for community, but in practice is complicated to be managed correctly, people will split BTC to many addresses ...
December 26, 2016, 05:58:51 PM
I am reading the white paper:
Do you remove the invalid transaction from the DAG tree? Or just leave it and mark it as "invalid"? How the tx that cover the invalid one gets re-org'd?
Quote
If two transactions try to spend the same output (double-spend) and there is no partial
order between them, both are allowed into the database but only the one that comes
earlier in the total order is deemed valid.
order between them, both are allowed into the database but only the one that comes
earlier in the total order is deemed valid.
Do you remove the invalid transaction from the DAG tree? Or just leave it and mark it as "invalid"? How the tx that cover the invalid one gets re-org'd?
December 26, 2016, 05:56:09 PM
Help.
Upgrade to version 1 and all, but it still only shows 0 bytes. How long did it take after updating for you guys to see your bytes?
Upgrade to version 1 and all, but it still only shows 0 bytes. How long did it take after updating for you guys to see your bytes?
If your fully synced, you should see your bytes and blackbytes. Have a look at http://transition.byteball.org/ if your address is listed with btc balance.
December 26, 2016, 05:37:47 PM
Help.
Upgrade to version 1 and all, but it still only shows 0 bytes. How long did it take after updating for you guys to see your bytes?
Upgrade to version 1 and all, but it still only shows 0 bytes. How long did it take after updating for you guys to see your bytes?
December 26, 2016, 05:22:52 PM
I contacted Sasha Ivanov, founder of Waves, about the linked address 1NGfrU4YNp8dox1gLeUDyjD5Vpfck9no5j that has 4800 BTC from Waves ICO. His response was that if the project is successful, he is going to distribute our coin as dividend to Waves holders.
So, even the largest (so far) whale in our distribution is a kind of collective investment entity.
So, even the largest (so far) whale in our distribution is a kind of collective investment entity.
Could it become a potential threat for the Byteball system if the parties like Waves and Lisk and others will hold 10% of byteball for a fairly long time and won't distribute the coins to their investors, especially when they are in competition with Byteball? It may be not a bad idea to block their BTC addresses for the next distribution round if they don't distribute their coins from this round to their investors before the next round.
This is not a bad idea to block all ICO funds from getting Byteballs, as they are in the competition and it's not going to help us in anyway, unless they agree some sort of collaboration.
Maybe the right way is to actually cap the max amount of Byteballs given to any address.
If an address contains more than 1 BTC, in example, just give 1 BTC of Byteballs.
If the objective is to DISTRIBUTE Byteballs, you want this to happen this way, not to give immense quantities of Byteballs to people that ALREADY have a huge amount of real money stored in BTC.
December 26, 2016, 05:19:45 PM
hahahaha so many price speculations, no one can set price now,
if project is stable and solid + many great features then price will be high if not... so 1 sat soon
if project is stable and solid + many great features then price will be high if not... so 1 sat soon
Will be much better than 1 sat in any circumstance. 1 sat are only for these shitcoins having nothing new. Any coins have something new, like zcash, zcoin, dash, etc etc all well above it.
If you have not noticed we are already much lower than 1 sat.
December 26, 2016, 05:16:07 PM
hahahaha so many price speculations, no one can set price now,
if project is stable and solid + many great features then price will be high if not... so 1 sat soon
if project is stable and solid + many great features then price will be high if not... so 1 sat soon
Will be much better than 1 sat in any circumstance. 1 sat are only for these shitcoins having nothing new. Any coins have something new, like zcash, zcoin, dash, etc etc all well above it.
If you have not noticed we are already much lower than 1 sat.
I think the unit here is GB, so it is not below 1 sat at all. It is much higher at OTC tradings.
December 26, 2016, 05:14:19 PM
I can't understand one thing: has the TestNet bytes been distributed or the official net ones?
The official live net Byteballs have been distributed.
So what should I do with the testnet byteballs that the faucet has emitted??? Pretty useless I'd say.
December 26, 2016, 05:13:52 PM
hahahaha so many price speculations, no one can set price now,
if project is stable and solid + many great features then price will be high if not... so 1 sat soon
if project is stable and solid + many great features then price will be high if not... so 1 sat soon
Will be much better than 1 sat in any circumstance. 1 sat are only for these shitcoins having nothing new. Any coins have something new, like zcash, zcoin, dash, etc etc all well above it.
If you have not noticed we are already much lower than 1 sat.
December 26, 2016, 05:10:47 PM
hahahaha so many price speculations, no one can set price now,
if project is stable and solid + many great features then price will be high if not... so 1 sat soon
if project is stable and solid + many great features then price will be high if not... so 1 sat soon
Will be much better than 1 sat in any circumstance. 1 sat are only for these shitcoins having nothing new. Any coins have something new, like zcash, zcoin, dash, etc etc all well above it.
Now is time for someone to setup a webshop selling nice (digital) things and accepting bytes as payment. Selling nice things such as computing power or SSH access to a VPS for a few hours.
And someone must make a nameball - the lightweight client should already be more secure and lighter than anything which namecoin has now. Then sell domain-names/key-value pairs. Anyone willing to help me in making nameball?
December 26, 2016, 04:52:52 PM
hahahaha so many price speculations, no one can set price now,
if project is stable and solid + many great features then price will be high if not... so 1 sat soon
if project is stable and solid + many great features then price will be high if not... so 1 sat soon
Will be much better than 1 sat in any circumstance. 1 sat are only for these shitcoins having nothing new. Any coins have something new, like zcash, zcoin, dash, etc etc all well above it.
December 26, 2016, 04:43:23 PM
hahahaha so many price speculations, no one can set price now,
if project is stable and solid + many great features then price will be high if not... so 1 sat soon
if project is stable and solid + many great features then price will be high if not... so 1 sat soon
December 26, 2016, 04:23:19 PM
with 1,000,000 GB of BB supply and BTC ~ $900.
(Yes, currently only 10% distributed)
Here are some sample marketcaps:
If per Gb/BTC
.01 - $9,000,000
.02 - $18,000,000
.03 - $27,000,000
.04 - $36,000,000 (top 10 coin)
.05 - $45,000,000
.1 - $90,000,000
so .025 BTC/Gb gives this a higher marketcap than Factom
(Yes, currently only 10% distributed)
Here are some sample marketcaps:
If per Gb/BTC
.01 - $9,000,000
.02 - $18,000,000
.03 - $27,000,000
.04 - $36,000,000 (top 10 coin)
.05 - $45,000,000
.1 - $90,000,000
so .025 BTC/Gb gives this a higher marketcap than Factom
We have currently only 100.000 GB Bytes ...and 221.000 GB BB.
December 26, 2016, 04:11:28 PM
with 1,000,000 GB of BB supply and BTC ~ $900.
(Yes, currently only 10% distributed)
Here are some sample marketcaps:
If per Gb/BTC
.01 - $9,000,000
.02 - $18,000,000
.03 - $27,000,000
.04 - $36,000,000 (top 10 coin)
.05 - $45,000,000
.1 - $90,000,000
so .025 BTC/Gb gives this a higher marketcap than Factom
(Yes, currently only 10% distributed)
Here are some sample marketcaps:
If per Gb/BTC
.01 - $9,000,000
.02 - $18,000,000
.03 - $27,000,000
.04 - $36,000,000 (top 10 coin)
.05 - $45,000,000
.1 - $90,000,000
so .025 BTC/Gb gives this a higher marketcap than Factom
you can't calculate it this way. Price is a function of supply and demand, and just because there will be higher theoretical supply in the future, doesn't mean that there is now.
Riht now the marketcap is between 2M$ and 4M$... not 40 mil
December 26, 2016, 04:01:57 PM
with 1,000,000 GB of BB supply and BTC ~ $900.
(Yes, currently only 10% distributed)
Here are some sample marketcaps:
If per Gb/BTC
.01 - $9,000,000
.02 - $18,000,000
.03 - $27,000,000
.04 - $36,000,000 (top 10 coin)
.05 - $45,000,000
.1 - $90,000,000
so .025 BTC/Gb gives this a higher marketcap than Factom
(Yes, currently only 10% distributed)
Here are some sample marketcaps:
If per Gb/BTC
.01 - $9,000,000
.02 - $18,000,000
.03 - $27,000,000
.04 - $36,000,000 (top 10 coin)
.05 - $45,000,000
.1 - $90,000,000
so .025 BTC/Gb gives this a higher marketcap than Factom
December 26, 2016, 03:58:56 PM
I contacted Sasha Ivanov, founder of Waves, about the linked address 1NGfrU4YNp8dox1gLeUDyjD5Vpfck9no5j that has 4800 BTC from Waves ICO. His response was that if the project is successful, he is going to distribute our coin as dividend to Waves holders.
So, even the largest (so far) whale in our distribution is a kind of collective investment entity.
So, even the largest (so far) whale in our distribution is a kind of collective investment entity.
Could it become a potential threat for the Byteball system if the parties like Waves and Lisk and others will hold 10% of byteball for a fairly long time and won't distribute the coins to their investors, especially when they are in competition with Byteball? It may be not a bad idea to block their BTC addresses for the next distribution round if they don't distribute their coins from this round to their investors before the next round.
This is not a bad idea to block all ICO funds from getting Byteballs, as they are in the competition and it's not going to help us in anyway, unless they agree some sort of collaboration.
December 26, 2016, 03:36:36 PM
I contacted Sasha Ivanov, founder of Waves, about the linked address 1NGfrU4YNp8dox1gLeUDyjD5Vpfck9no5j that has 4800 BTC from Waves ICO. His response was that if the project is successful, he is going to distribute our coin as dividend to Waves holders.
So, even the largest (so far) whale in our distribution is a kind of collective investment entity.
So, even the largest (so far) whale in our distribution is a kind of collective investment entity.
Could it become a potential threat for the Byteball system if the parties like Waves and Lisk and others will hold 10% of byteball for a fairly long time and won't distribute the coins to their investors, especially when they are in competition with Byteball? It may be not a bad idea to block their BTC addresses for the next distribution round if they don't distribute their coins from this round to their investors before the next round.
Jump to: