Quote from: duphash on August 13, 2015, 05:31:40 PM

Quote from: 98789 on August 13, 2015, 02:14:11 PM

I do not think wide distribution is needed, but to avoid the opposite is quite desirable (why would you trust in a coin which is 90% holded by only one person?). Of course with massive adoption wide distribution will be achieved to some extent (or my idea of wide distribution is wrong?).

Yes, avoiding the opposite is my goal.
When I say wide, I don't mean 100% equal and also I don't mean fair.
Wide means that majority of small holders hold 90% and minority of big holders hold 10%.
Each small holder should not have more than 0.00001% of coins. If any holder has more than that, he is considered major holder and counted towards 10% cap.

Distribution is bad when minority owns more than 50% and has power to take it all from majority through dumping or disruption of network.

Big holders from minority will work hard and invest into coin development.
Passive majority will sit idle, but serve as guarantor of distributed ownership preventing pumps by taking profit selling during pump attempts and buying during dump attempts.

The problem with current coins is that there is no proof of wide distribution.
Many accounts could be owned by one person just to fake wide distribution.
Which is why I suggest to conduct crypto census after convincing everybody to participate because that proof will be valuable and give incredible boost from new investors. Those coins who cannot prove will be left behind.

Of course, if those 10% rich devs or investors abandon the project then coin will die, which is why census can bring value only to long standing coins with good history of development like BTC, NXT, etc.

I don't like this idea.
Can't a crypto coin be developed in which there is a fair and equal distribution Huh

Is there any disadvantage of it Huh