The 6.7 came from your post in (Technical & operational discussion … topic) which I see now you edited. So I inadvertently copied your mistake. Forgive me for believing you earlier Sorry I did not do the maths for myself. Could you not have remembered back one day to your fixing of you making the error and simply say the maths without suggesting I am an idiot for not knowing sigh
Yes you are right its not 6.7 The 6.66666666667 come from a case of exactly 10% MAID and 5% reserved but your right there was a wee bit more MAID than 10%
15% of 2^32 is exactly 644.245,094.4 (6.66666667 per unit of the 15%)
But in fact there is something like 452,552,412 MAID which is more than 10%. So in fact there is approx 667,300,776 in the original terms to be turned into 2^32
[EDIT: see later posts as to why the 5% remains as 5% of 2^32 and not 1/2 of 452552412]
2^32 / 667,300,776 ~= 6.436 If you want to split hairs. Since you did not show the grace to admit the figure of 6.7 originally came from you (until a day ago in the other topic) I think splitting hairs will help others know the actual conversion rate to 3 decimal places.
And yes the investors get the same benefits as MAID holders because they put into $$$ at a higher rate than MAID buyers in the ICO so they definitely deserve it. They were always told they’d get their part of the 5% if they decided to convert and MAID was 10% of it.
We would need to create more coins just to make the shareholders whole.
Current supply I believe is
So 50 % of that would need creating.
I am however unsure if that figure also represents the extra coins that were mistakenly issued or how they were accounted for.
The amount difference is not much at all. Insignificant really and MaidSafe foundation actually held most, if not all, of the extra anyhow, so actually no loss to the investors.
Yes it was an error in over supply during the ICO but not sold to public
Indeed, I’m not trying to cause issues, just pointing out if that figure includes those extra coins, it wouldn’t be 50% exactly of that number that needed creating.
It’d still be 50% of what the people who bought in the ICO since the amount actually bought was 10%. There is no need to discuss any issues since that was dealt with a long time ago and cannot be changed now.
That was what the original papers for the ICO effectively stated. They correspondingly put more $$$ into the project than what half of the ICO raised.
isnt that the same thing quantitywise? Or do you mean to ask if the investors are included in the maid. To my knowledge they are not. So a total of 15% of SNT is already allocated. (10 for maid, 5 for investors)
If I was a investor who put in a lot of money into the project and wanted to convert to SNT but only got my portion of the 5% and the 5% was 5% of total, but MAID holders got ~9 SNT per MAID then I would never convert, it’d be dumb to do so. You realise what these investors did for the company/project in terms of financial and other support. The money from the ICO pales in comparison to what the investors invested and they only get a portion of the 5% pie, not the 10% pie???
Anyhow I will leave it there. Its in the original papers for all to read
The discussion of the split factor is not really relevant to the OP and can be sorted out later if we end up doing a split. If folks want to continue that discussion, maybe it would be better on a separate topic @moderators?
In that quoted context yes, but that is not my point.
To avoid derailing the op further and not wanting to aggravate Mark anymore I will read the whitepaper again and then make a separate thread trying to explain why I am confuzzled.
This is a question that spurs the need for a reality check imo. For a moment assume a scenario where all 2^32 tokens have been delivered to humans. This could have occurred at launch, or it may be a state of the network far into the future.
If the elders are compromised in a section, couldn’t they do any of the following:
Not validate dbc to stall puts and put payments?
Send/siphon dbc outputs for storage rewards to addresses they control rather than the intended farmers?
Destroy metadata or data chunk location?
To claim that elimination of a section wallet/dbc is a panacea to elder collusion/malevolence is asking a lot. I still think section dbcs could offer a lot of functionality, why throw it away if these other problems do in fact persist? Shouldn’t elimination of malicious elders be the focus?
p.s. I’ve actually gamed out elder collusion with dice for a board game I’m working on and it is surprisingly easy to take control of a section in this toy model when elder group sizes are small.
Looks to be going the direction of all at once. I.e. the network won’t be making new SNT post launch. But I think they are still looking at all angles.
Sorry I did not do the maths for myself. Could you not have remembered back one day to your fixing of you making the error and simply say the maths without suggesting I am an idiot for not knowing sigh
I will read the whitepaper again and then make a separate thread trying to explain why I am confuzzled.