how i can get byteball coin
and where i can get byteball coin
iam read this first page one i can see about Assets issue and about token
in byteball same ethreum all people can use byteball technology can create coin to token
yu cant obtain bytes for moment because it isn' available..for this time yu can upload testnet wallet and play with bytes test..chatbot will distribute some token if yu claiming. yu can also upload last testnet version (tn) and exerce yu to claim proportional bytes at your btc balance than yu will receive before realnet version of bytes..this bytes will be available end november..to claim bytes in this version..yu must link a private btc adresse with btc balance than yu want and processed with chatbot for claim of yur bytes..and it aren't real bytes yu can find bytesballs wallet testnet for play with bytes (v.0.6.0) and wallet testnet (tn) for obtain yur balance btc before realnet here : https://github.com/byteball/byteball/releases enjoy ! |
|
|
|
The amount of bytes you receive will be proportional to the total balance of this Bitcoin address on December 25.
I assume this'll be the same bot which will be used for the real Bitcoin address linking, however seing "December 25" for the testnet linking is a bit confusing, one may think that the testing phase extends to December 25 whereas, if I'm not mistaken, it is supposed to end by the end of November. Thanks, fixed to November 30 to avoid confusion. You are welcome.
So, I managed to link two Bitcoin testnet addresses using the micropayment option (thx lerecidiviste for the links to the testnet online wallet and faucet  ). Once I linked a first address (and closed the chat window), I couldn't find a way to query the bot about the address to which the micropayment should be sent and the amount of the micropayment (so that I can link a second address). Given the fact that there is no chat history, it seems the only way to know the address and the amount is to look in the transactions history. no chatbot history to me also..I think this may be a problem to enforce your rights if a bug occurs  |
|
|
|
ouai bah il ferait bien de reprendre son souffle et nous laissé respirer jusqu'a l'année prochaine..par ce que les alts vont finir par terre..ramasser à la pelle à ce train là  |
|
|
|
c'est un bon calcul ... à rapprocher au fait qu' 1 seul bitcoin contient 100 000 000 de satoshis.
je ne voyais pas l'utilité d'obtenir autant de fongibilité dans une unité mais le futur tend à confondre l'illogique avec la réalité.
parlons en de la fongibilité du bitcoin..il ne vaudra bientôt plus rien si il ne fait pas toute la lumiere sur son utilité plutôt que son utilisation ou utilisateur  |
|
|
|
j'ajoute ce site à la lise : http://aubitcoin.fr/ c'est le bon coin version bitcoin..seulement par manque d'utilisateurs le site n'est pas fonctionnel actuellement..donc si vous souhaitez déposé des annonces et en consulter contactez le dev pour qu'il maj le site et que celui ci soit de nouveau fonctionnel. |
|
|
|
cryptsy c'est du passé..je pense que nous pouvons faire une croix sur nos coins malheureusement  tous les exchanges n'agissent pas de cette façon..bitfinex recemment hacké essaie de faire le necessaire pour rembourser leurs clients..autre exemple..sur coinbase vous pouvez transferer vos coins sur un cold wallet (integrer au site) apres avoir trader. tout ce que je peux conseiller c'est d'être vigilant et de ne pas laisser trainer ses coins dans n'importe quel plateforme..tant que vous n'êtes pas seul à posseder vos clés priver vos coins ne sont pas réellement en sécurité. |
|
|
|
Can i send back btc when i confirm this is my btc?
i'm curious also of know if we must keep our coin on address up distrib or just proof our btc balance ? You can move the coin however you want but it should be on the linked address on the distribution date. pls let me know good..the first distrib will be done 25 december on bb tn or after 25 december on live net ?..we must paired btc addresse before end november or we can wait live net ? |
|
|
|
Edit: also I can devise an attack to side-step your protocol rule. Build a chain branch that has no double-spends and make it public. Gradually change my list of witnesses one-by-one on the units I sign as the old witness happily sign units on my chain branch to advance the stability point. I can spam with as many Sybil address signed units as necessary to convince the witnesses that my chain branch is "real". Then once I've got the old witness down to a minority, I can take my chain branch private and complete the attack I explained to you before.
Again, seems like you are assuming you can convince somebody with the number of your Sybil units. And not just somebody -- the acting witnesses. The acting witnesses, and other users likewise, are not going to change their own witness lists to stay compatible with your Sybil units. Your Sybil units will be accepted into the DAG, but, being incompatible, they are not going to be selected as best parent, hence they have no chance to appear on the MC, hence none of them can ever become last ball (which necessarily lies on MC). Okay so you are telling me that the current witnesses on the branch I am trying to create have to agree with 11 of 12 with my list of witnesses when they sign units on my branch? So this means the entire system has to agree on the same 12 witnesses for all main chains for the entire system?
If that is your design, then yes you can prevent my attack but at the cost of having 12 very entrenched witnesses which can never be migrated away from because political action never reaches 92% agreement.So why not just use 12 federated servers and name this Visa, Mastercard, or Paypal instead? No need for the facade of a DAG nor to claim/insinuate by association to our Satoshi ecosystem that it is decentralized. Distributed is not same as decentralized. maybe 51% of witnesses should be fixed..this will a relative centralization, if the bb community voting is implicated. |
|
|
|
Can i send back btc when i confirm this is my btc?
i'm curious also of know if we must keep our coin on address up distrib or just proof our btc balance ? |
|
|
|
Many people complain about limiting to the "richest" people, why so? in real life the people have more money will be easier to make more than those with less money. It's not really the unfairness.
It's not really unfair? like provable math wise or you mean just average people common sense wise? sometimes you have to see through the eyes of the average person who will reason without doubt that rewarding those that are already super rich with the lions share is not fair at all. If you wish to start a poll on the main board discussing it and sampling opinion then go ahead. I am certain you will not find many in the alt section will share your views. Since your main initial market will be the altcoin traders then this is the market that is important to you. This has been discussed MANY time before in the alt main board and the vast majority are very much against new coins being distributed like this. Without nulling the top 2-5% of BTC wallets you can ensure this will have the "unfair" tag attached to it in the future. It is a major criticism which has been voiced in this thread a great many times already. Why not eliminate this criticism or reduce it and not have to beg the big icos and exchanges to do the right thing. The random snapshots will stop them breaking down their wallets to smaller amounts. The only thing here is the dev can not be accused of gaming it for his gain especially since unless he is a btc super whale or has agreements with those that control a substantial amount of BTC then he could end up having less than any whales that decide to claim or any exchange that does not play ball. Not sure either of those things is a great scenario. The worst aspect for him really is having other large ICO funds dumping BB on the exchanges to fund rival projects. I mean jl777 saying he will not pocket the money but rather fund komodo with it is fair enough what else could he do other than not claim (if he even said this anyway) but how is that good for BB? How can you "nulling the top 2-5% of BTC wallets"? If you do so, people can easily split BTCs into different wallets and make the requests, you won't be able to achieve your goal at all. The big icos often have their Bitcoins locked in multisig wallets that the devs agreed to keep their coins in. They agreed not to move Bitcoins out of those addresses without permission from their communities. However, they can easily use those addresses to claim BB, they made no agreement with their communities about claiming BB with their ico addresses. Our dev could easily miss out the waves, lisk, and komodo ico addresses, and those coin's devs can't move Bitcoins out of them without breaking the promises they made to their communities. If the accounts are locked, how do they make the micro payment to confirm their address? they can't obtain the signature from their escrow in this case. ardor collect is a exemple.. users on the exchanges had no control over their nxt account and the funds raised were moved without user intervention for distribution..this prove tha devs have the super user power when they want. |
|
|
|
But sorry to say the flaw I see in your analysis is that you don't appear to consider the case where a new branch appears (which was formerly hidden by network disruption, propagation delays, or intentionally) which has a sufficiently different set of witnesses from the "current MC" which any particular node analyzed.
There can't be a branch with substantially different set of witnesses. There are no forks by design. This is because the stability point can't advance without support of the majority of witnesses named in the previous stability point. And there is a rule that the set of witnesses in new units should differ from the witness list at the stability point (specified in the new unit) by no more than one mutation. The rules are really tight, you can't go too far from the witness list at the stability point. Can't I sign a unit that has as its parent the, differs by 1 witness from the, genesis. Then sign a unit that has as its parent the, differs by 1 more witness from the, unit I signed in the prior sentence. Repeat as necessary. All those witness can be ones I control which I have sign units in my chain. If necessary I can control different addresses to make it appear that many people were using this chain branch. So I can build a secret chain branch that double-spends one of my units from the public chain, then I release this secret chain branch. Then it is entirely ambiguous which of the double-spends is first and which of the chain branches is the "real" one, i.e. finality was not reached and the "stability" point was not stable. I repeat that afaics your design is flawed unless you set a static global list of 12 witnesses. Your second step ( bolded) won't work, therefore all subsequent reasoning doesn't hold. It won't work because it breaks one of protocol rules. When you compose a new unit, you include a reference to last ball. Balls are units that became stable (in your view), and last ball is the latest of such balls, AKA last stability point. The rule says that your witness list must be compatible with that of last ball, and you are breaking this rule by introducing a second mutation. That means that before introducing a second mutation you have to wait that your first mutation reaches stability, and this is impossible if your chain is secret and the old witnesses can't see it. Referring the part I bolded for emphasis, I can Sybil attack with numerous addresses. I can make my secret chain branch appear just as "real" as the public one. I can have millions of "users" on my secret chain branch (which are all controlled by me) with witnesses (which are all controlled by me) that aren't on the public chain branch. Afaics your design has the "nothing-at-stake" flaw. This is a generalized flaw that applies to most designs that don't use proof-of-work. I suggest you read Vitalik's blogs about this: https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity/https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/05/stake/When I entered Dash's (DarkCoin's) thread and explained to Evan that he had a flaw. He invented masternodes to solve the problem. Dash then became the #1 anonymity coin, because I had helped him early identify a flaw. i enter in this discution without experience..but from a logical point of view..i think that "imnotback" raise a probleme of security..because if one user can become full witness..this one can troll her confirmation branch if this one isn't confirmed by witness genese..user can buil her branch of confirmation and rob bytes of other user passing on her branch..If he no longer needs to report to the genese witnesses. testnet (tn) work good  but i dont undersand..chatbot said distrib starting after 25 december..it isn't the first begin of livenet distrib  in more chatbot cant check address balance of btc testnet..i suppose this is normal ?! |
|
|
|
Pour ceux qui ne sont pas prêt ou qui ne veulent pas déranger leurs coins pour un testnet, vous pouvez utilisez un fake wallet dispo ici : http://testnetwallet.com/wallet et un fake faucet dispo ici : https://testnet.coinfaucet.eu/en/..vous n'aurez plus qu'a effectuer les etapes au dessus et lié votre fake addresse btc au chatbot de bytesball |
|
|
|
lol its a fake blockchain it will work with bb testnet ? i cant use it..i have 2 transac but no balance..how it work pls |
|
|
|
|
hello @tonych
i check new testnet (tn) but i dont know if i will do good choice..so can yu tell me if it is best to choose full wallet or light wallet..wht do yu recommend ? i can reboot after install it if my choice doesn't satified me ?
|
|
|
|
Version 0.6.0 released https://github.com/byteball/byteball/releasesImportant bugfixes: * Fixed bugs that caused all newly created wallets to be broken after turning password protection on (thank you galaxiekyl!) * Fixed crashes while trying to receive private payments with long history Please upgrade. Android release is already in Google Play. will tested that |
|
|
|
|
si tu avait raison..et que le sceptisisme économique conventionnel n'était pas partager..je pense que le cour du bitcoin ne serait probablement pas à 700$.
|
|
|
|
alors quel sont vos nouveaux support ?..je suis monté à 530~550€..je sais je suis bas mais il s"agit de mes achats de holder pas de spec.
Encore une fois c'est pareille ....... ! quand tu holds tu spécules sur la montée du bitcoin, faut arrêter de te mentir à toi même en te pensant plus intelligent que le reste qui "specule" (après ça peut surêment aider à bagholder des shitcoins cette manière de penser). c'est sur en suisse holdé c'est pas la même..ça veut plutôt dire devenir grossiste en spéculos Pourquoi tu me parles de la suisse j'ai rien à voir avec ce pays je n'y suis jamais allé je dois confondre avec sardokan. Et le spéculoos c'est une spécialité belge.
je n'ai jamais dis que c'était suisse..arrête de faire des inteprétations. |
|
|
|
alors quel sont vos nouveaux support ?..je suis monté à 530~550€..je sais je suis bas mais il s"agit de mes achats de holder pas de spec.
Encore une fois c'est pareille ....... ! quand tu holds tu spécules sur la montée du bitcoin, faut arrêter de te mentir à toi même en te pensant plus intelligent que le reste qui "specule" (après ça peut surêment aider à bagholder des shitcoins cette manière de penser). c'est sur en suisse holdé c'est pas la même..ça veut plutôt dire devenir grossiste en spéculos |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
