Re: BYTEBALL: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments
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.
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.
I agree with your points, they were invented as a stopgap to enable "fairer" launches for POW coins.
The idea here, as far as I gather, is to achieve a wide distribution and to try to mimic BTC's network effect with all its ups and downs.
I think we would agree that no altcoin is as widely distributed as BTC, also I would dare to argue that other coins have bigger whales and to mimic their distribution would be even more disastrous (cue in NXT distribution for example).
Also, I believe the intention here is to lower the cost of entry into BB. Something you cannot achieve with any sort of POW / ICO launch.
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.
Bitbay scammers risked virtually nothing, because the scam was mostly done within BTER (I am obviously not focusing on any whale that might've bought in without being in cahoots with bob'n'co)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 am hard pressed to find ICO's that meet the criteria you wrote of above - even if they do incorporate escrow and multisig, most of them just meander about with no real milestones.
I will concede the point that a properly run IPO is a way to gather funds which is accepted - even successful - in the "real world", however it took a while to get where we are now and I would hazard a guess that not many people here are willing to pay the regulatory price that comes with "properly run IPOs".
I see this sort of distribution also as a way of "getting us there" with regards to distribution models.
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.
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.
You never shat upon directly, but I found your usage of all caps (WORST distribution) and overall tone to be one of derision. If I were mistaken, I apologize.
Therefore, there is no "telling" whatsoever here
I hold no beef with you, nor anyone on this forum (well maybe a selected few 
)