Quote from: xizmax on December 11, 2016, 02:52:52 PM

Quote from: cryptohunter on December 11, 2016, 01:01:08 PM

This argument does not hold water.

Produce a POW coin with fair launch protocol and then token swap on exchange later.

And what might that be? Is having people with massive GPU farms or ASICS joining your coin right at the start fair?
Have it instamined like Darkcoin/Dash?
Fair POW distribution is as hard to achieve as any - if not harder.

Quote from: cryptohunter on December 11, 2016, 01:01:08 PM

Even in the ICOs the whales have to risk BTC for the new tokens. In this way the Whales risk nothing and still get to be whales in the new alt ..so it is even worse than an ICO. Also it starves this project of btc and give opposing project that BTC whilst giving them incentive to crush this project whilst liquidating BB into BTC to feed their project. How many levels can this be a bad idea on?

POW with fair launch protocol trumps ICO's on here by mile and ICO's trump this method of initial distribution

Like in Bitbay ICO? Fake volume, fake promise, fake everything ICO? Where was the risk in that?

I think it is highly unfair of you to come in here and shit from up high on tony like he is the worlds worst scammer.
At least he is experimenting with this distribution method and trying to do something unusual - inspired by Metcalfe's law.

It is worth a shot, so far it seems like everything is on the table. Join or not, it is your decision to make and, as you say, there is no risk in it

Okay at the least you are trying to engage in meaningful discussion. So I will discuss and debate this with you in public on civil terms.

And what might that be? Is having people with massive GPU farms or ASICS joining your coin right at the start fair?
Have it instamined like Darkcoin/Dash?
Fair POW distribution is as hard to achieve as any - if not harder

The key is a fair release protocol for POW.

1. announced ahead of time
2. anti instamine meansures - rapid diff adjust and low coin reward for early blocks
3. anyone can hire or lease rigs or buy coins dumped by miners. The only real variable is electricity cost. GPU farms have invested money into hardware that could be used to simply buy the mined coins etc etc. You can lease gpu power or buy your own. The only real advantage is cost of electricity if the anti instamine measures are in place.

How does this compare to the fact BTC whales simply take it all by risking or spending nothing further. It is ridiculous to say that instantly just creating whales via this method is comparable to having everyone fight on a fair playing field except for electricity cost. Over such a short POW phase this factor is not really as large as it seems either.

Like in Bitbay ICO? Fake volume, fake promise, fake everything ICO? Where was the risk in that?

Exactly my point. Bitcoin whales (except those running the scam and actually the only whale there was really the exchange owner of bter since I would not have called bob previous to the scam a btc whale) had to risk their BTC to become whales in bitbay. Bitbay is a prime example of why you need fair or acceptable ICO protocols with escrows and multisigs holding the funding and released only for milestones met.

A fairly advertised and carefully run ICO is much better for alt coin investors and the project itself if it is not run by scammers. These points I have already explain in my previous posts and you can feel free to refute them as you like as long as you give reasonable logical evidence that we can all examine in public.

I think it is highly unfair of you to come in here and shit from up high on tony like he is the worlds worst scammer.
At least he is experimenting with this distribution method and trying to do something unusual - inspired by Metcalfe's law.

Again you have omitted most of my important points and have diverted to something I have never said which is both strange and telling. Please show me where I have indicated tonych is himself to benefit from this form of intial distribution more than if he were to keep even 20% with full ledger of costs as I suggest? This accusation again does not hold any water. I do not believe he owns 20% of BTC or even 20% of BTC that will link their wallets. Therefore me saying personally him keeping 20% for development with ledger would be okay does not imply I think him a scammer for keeping 1% and whatever BTC worth he will accrue.

This form of distribution is damaging to all alt holders including you who will even get to claim your small BTC worth. It is the wet dream of BTC whales who would love to see alts crushed.