Quote from: devlin on December 26, 2016, 11:01:56 PM

Quote from: GODLIKE on December 26, 2016, 10:22:52 PM

Quote from: strasboug on December 26, 2016, 08:58:56 PM

Quote from: John_Paul on December 26, 2016, 08:36:36 PM

Quote from: tonych on December 24, 2016, 03:48:05 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.

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 ...

Of course some will, but I doubt some millionaire will take time and split his multimillion addresses to gain Byteballs.
At least this should be tried anyway (imo).
Also, I don't think it's such a difficulty, as there is a coupling going on in a database on a server, for what I see. So when Byteballs are issued, they could easily be capped to X per address.