Quote from: cryptodromeda on August 14, 2015, 06:39:47 AM

Yeah I've got one of those (a dick).

smooth, I think Monero people have tried to claim that mining for all made their coin the fairest launch. Yet we see even the emission curve declined egregiously faster than Bitcoin (and I pointed that out last year).

We know the miner wasn't optimized on launch.

Isn't it time we come off the high horse?

Bottom line is we need to distribute the coin as transparently and widely as possible. That is my goal. No method can be perfect. But at least I don't want to worry about the accusations about mining optimization which are not proven for Monero. We have no way of knowing who had what optimization and when.

And at least with my proposal, everyone will be able to calculate the math that I documented.

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on August 13, 2015, 04:59:41 AM

The plan has been (unless we receive severe admonishment to do otherwise) to launch a coin with a series of ICOs, not just one. Each ICO would follow the prior one by a month or perhaps two (needs to be decided by the community). Each ICO would be 2X more coins than the prior one. Each ICO will be an auction format, where participants place a bid & qty in a transparent auction and then at the close of the auction, the top bids are filled and the rest refunded from the escrow agent (of course the community must select a trusted escrow agent who has a great reputation or perhaps we can design some sort of block chain escrow that is automated). The point of this is everyone can see the bids and adjust their bids during the auction period, so that there is a market pricing effect. We want an honest market result. This also insures the controlling group can not get any of the funds until after each (monthly or bimonthly) auction closes, thus the controlling group can not bid in the auction using other bidders' funds. This provides a mathematical proof that the controlling group can not own more than a certain amount of coins by the time all the planned ICOs are completed.

For example, assuming there will be 10 millions coins sold in ICO, the ICOs might be:
32,768 x 10 65,536 x 10 131,072 x 10 262,144 x 10 524,288 x 10 ------------------- 1,015,808 x 10 = 10,158,080 coins

The calculation for the maximum coins the controlling group could retain if they used all the proceeds of the auction to purchase their own coins of each subsequent auction is as follows.

Assuming the market driven auction price of the coin was constant across all ICO auctions, the controlling group could purchase 0 coins in first auction, 32,768 x 10 coins in 2nd auction, 65,536 x 10 in 3rd auction, 131,072 x 10 coins in 4th auction, and 262,144 x 10 coins in 5th auction. Thus the controlling group could own at most 491,520 x 10 coins or 48% of the ICO money supply.

Assuming the market driven auction price of the coin increased by 100% of each subsequent ICO auctions, the controlling group could purchase 0 coins in first auction, 16,384 x 10 coins in 2nd auction, 32,768 x 10 in 3rd auction, 65,536 x 10 coins in 4th auction, and 131,072 x 10 coins in 5th auction. Thus the controlling group could own at most 245,760 x 10 coins or 24% of the ICO money supply.

Assuming the market driven auction price of the coin increased by 300% of each subsequent ICO auctions, the controlling group could purchase 0 coins in first auction, 8,192 x 10 coins in 2nd auction, 16,384 x 10 in 3rd auction, 32,768 x 10 coins in 4th auction, and 65,536 x 10 coins in 5th auction. Thus the controlling group could own at most 245,760 x 10 coins or 12% of the ICO money supply.

The point is that no matter what happens with the prices of the ICO auctions, the maximum stake of the controlling group can be mathematically calculated.

The above calculations assume that the controlling group offers no bounties and pays for no development from the time of the first ICO until the last, which is not going to be the case. The controlling group is going to be attempting to spend the funds as quickly as possible...

Correction: upthead I made a mistake in that electric and hardware companies don't get the wealth effect as the coin appreciates in value. The point was the cost of the hardware and electricity is wasted capital.

Edit: one of important factors in distribution is giving a wide range of people the reason to obtain your coin. So to those who say a use case doesn't matter, I think they are delirious.