Quote from: star citizen on October 05, 2017, 12:41:13 AM

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on October 04, 2017, 11:41:28 PM

Quote from: star citizen on October 04, 2017, 07:03:50 PM

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on October 04, 2017, 06:12:58 PM

-snip-
And Byteball airdropped to exchanges who held so much BTC, so guess for yourself if any kickbacks were involved.
-snip-

Since the beginning there was filtering mechanisms preventing this from happening. And it was further improved:

Quote from: tonych on May 29, 2017, 03:47:45 PM

Inspired by my conversation with Ale Janda (who is very knowledgeable in blockchain analysis and runs walletexplorer.com and chainalysis.com), there is a new rule for microtransaction-proven bitcoin addresses:

- if the address had more than 50 transactions in the last 3 days, it is rejected. Linking by signature is still possible.

Such frequent transactions are common for exchanges and other shared wallets, and the rule prevents its customers from linking the shared address by doing a withdrawal.

This adds to the other two rules that serve the same purpose:
- if the microtransaction has more than 2 outputs, it is rejected (with the exception of Electrum 2fa transactions that have 3 outputs), because exchanges often aggregate several withdrawals into a single transaction
- if the same address was already linked before by another user, the new link is rejected and the old link is canceled. This applies only to tx-proven addresses, and the reason for this rule is that for sufficiently popular exchanges, there will likely be more than one user who tries to cheat.

The two old rules were good enough at filtering large well known exchanges but a small number of addresses of smaller exchanges were still linked. The new rule is to filter them too.

Oh come on. Well Im glad you linked to that because I read it in the past and couldnt find it again.

Afaics, that filtering rule is easily subverted. And most of the exchanges BTC are presumably in deeper storage any way, so the filtering rule will not help.

Besides, wasnt that rule added far too late after the most economically significant air drops were already completed.

For such an important issue, where is the comprehensive document which explains all the filtering methods employed in sufficient, holistic detail and the timing that each was employed and the complete accounting of air drops and dates. We should not have to go searching in a very long project thread to try to dig out the details which are buried in posts.

Also we know for a fact they did not filter out Iconomis ill gotten, illegal security issued ICO hoard, because Iconomi wrote a Medium blog post about how they got 9.766% of the initial Byteball money supply.

if you scratch my back, Ill scratch yours

(but really were just-us working together to build a better world, not scamming)

I guess what irritates me is pretending something is more egalitarian than it really is. I have no problem with admitting that egalitarianism is impossible, so why not be transparent about it. Why make these SJW-like lies to ourselves pretending what isnt.

I suggest you read it again. The filtering is to prevent customers from linking the exchange addresses, not the exchange itself from linking it. If you see, linking by signature is still allowed.

Exchanges, ICONOMI and other ICOs own the private keys for these addresses, which makes them, from a protocol perspective, owners of these coins.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but I also don't see these exchanges linking their cold storages by signature. Even if they are there, again, from a protocol perspective, we can not blame them. In crypto, that's what we're signing for.

Afaics, you have not addressed my main point, which is @tonych claiming he only got 1% which obfuscates whether exchanges (who were holding other peoples BTC) were giving kickbacks to @tonych.

We cant prove nor disprove. I prefer transparency than pretending he was so humble, when in fact maybe he was a fox.

My point is about transparency. And about not issuing illegal securities and then not providing all the material facts for the insiders.

If indeed @tonych was given kickbacks, then this could violate laws about securities or consumer protection laws about proper disclosure.

These tokens which have non-transparent issuance problems are not going to be reliable when the nation-states start using their laws to attack cryptocurrency.