Re: BYTEBALL: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments
I have nothing against the concept of rich people getting richer, I just was thinking at which way could favour the best distribution and thus the adoption of the coin. It is true that whales would distribute their BTC between many addresses, but as I said, they would not waste their time in creating the THOUSANDS of addresses needed to store one BTC each, even if this could be done with automation (but to create an automate system still needs time and skills), so in the end even if whales distribute their BTC between some addresses they would still end up receiving proportionally less coins than the little holders, which means more coins available for more people.
And I also agree that the distribution also to holders of XRP and ETH and other altcoins would create mothers of all whales, and making the distribution process too complex, while the idea which I've suggested would be very easy to realize.
On this point you are right, I agree. But on the other side there's the argument that the smartest people getting more coins doesn't sound too bad all things considered
. Moreover, if the progressive decrease of the airdrop is very smooth, with 10 BTC in one address you wouldn't lose much, so that the Newbie could afford dismissing this complication entirely. But people with hundreds or thousands of BTCs are not newbies, and they being already very rich, many of them wouldn't probably go through the hassle of ditributing their BTCs on many addresses to get more Gigabytes. But I agree on your point that unnecessary complications should usually be avoided. So now on the theme I have conflicting opinions myself, the issue remains open to debate.IMO Tony has a solid distribution scheme going on here. There's zero room for interpretation; x btc will grant you y bytes. Simple to understand and equal for everyone.
Less complexity = less room to question the fairness.
With your idea for example, while perhaps logical, people would first complain about Tony changing his mind. Changing conditions in the middle of the distribution is never optimal and easily leads to resentment. People would be annoyed that all of sudden you'd have to start splitting up your BTC to get as much as before. Also since it's not an actually hinderance but rather an extra layer of inconvenience it'll be viewed as just that. People would also call out the the move for being unfair; they'll say they didn't have time to do the splits, that they forgot or that they missed the sudden rule change. Tony would have a hard time motivating this decision when people come to him or post in this topic complaining. It'd be quite unnecessary for him to get heat over such a minor tweak in the system.
IMO the only way Tony could have minimized the gap between the ultra rich and the rest would have been to scan the blockchain ONCE. Then we at least wouldn't have the compounded interest issue. But then not nearly enough people would be able to participate. Perhaps only a fraction of the current user base. And one of the strengths of BB will be the size of the community. In fact one of the most interesting and successful crypto projects I've seen (and actually been a part of myself), NEM, started out by giving 2-3k people free stakes. Everyone including myself thought people would just dump everything since the stakes were free (or at most costed very very little for late participants). Well many did dump along the way but since so many participated a very strong and long lasting community was formed.
In the end I think the benefits of forming a large community will overweigh any issue people currently have over the distribution gaps.