Quote from: BTCWagering on March 06, 2018, 03:33:15 PM

I think you're wrong. The last airdrop WAS botched, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Regular people don't even know what decentralized means. And the goal is to get to regular people. Regular people aren't scared to show their ID to a legit company like Jumio.

It takes time to reach the next inflection point, and that's what we're waiting on right now.

Ripple is basically the reference point here. Ripple is 60% undistributed and also still has centralized validators.

Byteball is an app (bot) platform. The relevant metric is the quality of the bots in the bot store. Right now I would describe them as promising, not great. But fortunately building bots is easy, and many more are surely on the way.

I think you are wrong Grin

Regular users don't lead they follow (or do what they are told by authority) The adoption curve always shows regular users coming in late to the party like always with new technology. There is no shortcut straight to mainstream unless forced by government. I don't forsee any governments forcing regular users to use byteball in the shortterm. As I said in my previous post, the expected demographic of users in these early days would be crytpo enthusiasts for whom centralisation is a big No and who know the difference between a blockchain and a DAG and who are willing to figure out adding a bot from the bot store or a conditional payment.

Ripple is nothing to aspire to. The mere fact that 60% of XRP is still undistributed after years puts the centralised reality of the token blatently out there in plain view. It stretches credibility a lot to even call it a crypto currency. It has a centralised ledger not a blockchain. Or I'm wrong again? If you hadn't guessed I am not a fan of ripple and have no intention of ever investing in it.

Quote from: pineapple express on March 06, 2018, 03:39:56 PM

Quote

If anyone can provide information about the above distribution methods

cashback https://explorer.byteball.org/#TU3Q44S6H2WXTGQO6BZAGWFKKJCF7Q3W
jumio https://explorer.byteball.org/#RJIUGYIVHM5TAZHU3ZPNTNZL5JF4JUTN

Quote

to be as decentralised as possible. That means all coins distributed as utmost priority

decentralisation is just about algorithm and means no single point of failure. No matter how many witnesses, this model always will be vulnerable to attacks from the government. No company will agree to remain a witness under the threat of imprisonment
as for the distribution of coins, then regardless of the initial distribution, in the future most of the pie will always belong to a few, and most will be satisfied with crumbs. The distribution of wealth is not a criterion determining the trust to the network. The rich get richer, this is a natural process. In turn, an shady, hasty distribution to a narrow circle of individuals, will forever destroy the reputation of the network

Thanks for that. Actually I share those concerns about witnesses but wanted to stick to coin distribution as the focus of my post. And yes I agree that the coins will always be distributed that way. It is the way of things. But I don't think you can really truthfully call 40% of undistributed coins as actually distributed afterall, but to the creator and without ever having circulated first.

Just to add a few additional thoughts. The example of Dash in my view is one to look at with great interest. Similar to Tony, Evan Duffield started out as THE dictator / dev in full control of Dash (then Darkcoin) like Tony is with Byteball. What Evan went on to do was genius in my view. He implemented Dash with a self funded treasury and voting mechanisms how to spend it. Nodes are incentivised with rewards which are a portion or mining rewards and thereby incentivised to scale up as network usage increases or lose those rewards. Dash uses this treasury funding to pay its developers and in fact Evan has relinquished control completely from the development side of it. Dash also funds marketing and other things too through the same mechanism. The decision whether to fund or not decided by vote amongst the masternode holders. The number of masternodes is at all time highs just now showing long term faith by the big investors. The technology for all of this was quite simple it was the economics of it that provided the genius. If you haven't spotted it, this is a virtuous circle. Dash funds itself to improve and the value increases which means the funds available in the treasury for the next round go further which increase the value further and so on.

It seems that Tony wishes to use the un-distributed bytes as a treasury of sorts to spend enticing new users and to fund projects to promote and improve byteball. But the differences in how Dash has done it are vastly better with Dash. Tony appears to be looking at the pot of undistributed funds dwindling away through airdrops and panicked, halting the airdrops to stop the outflow and conserve the treasury he has at his disposal. Though he is not being explicit in this. Unlike Dash in which the treasury is replenished, byteball's 'treasury' isn't, and once spent won't be available again. In Dash the treasury is explicitly a treasury to be spent improving Dash, with byteball these undistributed bytes are supposed to be currency circulating through the network and because that has changed is causing uncertainty and angst among investors who are being sold a different thing. In Dash thousands of masternodes vote which proposals to fund, in byteball Tony decides, then sometimes changes his mind.

If the Dash model was to be followed could a portion of the fees collected by byteball witnesses be used to fund a treasury? Just a thought.

I feel a bit mean saying all this. I'd like to emphasise that I recognise Tony is a genius developer and has created an amazing coin. I hope that is understood. I wouldn't have invested or even be here commenting if I wasn't impressed with what Tony is doing and has already done.