Why would lowering the micropayment be riskier than with the current micropayments? (because they would be easily spotted?)
Because the attack would become cheaper, hence worthwhile. mmmm, in my opinion the attack is already worthwhile, anyway such an attack won't succeed unless the attackee is not vigilant and doesn't double check their address (as the bot instructs them), so why not lower it if it permits to filter out exchanges addresses at the detection process (not requiring you to check suspect addresses)? People do make mistakes, and having to be overly vigilant scares them off. I'd rather have a more comfortable environment for the entire process. The attacker's ROI depends on 3 factors: - % of people who do not check that the address is theirs after receiving a second notification "Received your payment from ..." (the attacker's microtransaction is almost certainly later than the legitimate one) - average balance of such users - cost of attacking, which is the average amount of the microtransaction By lowering the cost, we turn the ROI at some point from negative to positive. I see your point. If you are comfortable with filtering out exchanges addresses after adding them and then investigating them, then there is no need to lower the micropayment. Yet, I still think lowering it would easily filter any exchange address out as the transaction won't be possible to begin with. (and if I were an attacker, paying (n times) 0.000x instead of 0.0000x wouldn't hurt my ROI that much  ). Filtering of microtransactions sent from exchange wallets already works in fully automated mode, so no need to apply any other measures. |
|
|
|
Could we just ask big exchanges to claim and distribute their Byteball to their users ? Like Poloniex and others exchange did with Ardor distribution ?
Because really that would make everyone life easier and more people will be aware about Byteball.
That would be ideal, but it's still hard to convince them they should care. |
|
|
|
Personally I would like there to be a vote if this address can be honoured, since I don't think it's beneficial to the network we are creating here. It seems more like they want more of a cash injection into there own project. Ultimately I believe moves like this will damage our market and make it less liquid and more prone to damage in long term along with holding up a large portion of the network. If you agree with these sentiments it is very important at this stage to make your voice known.  I agree addresses containing funds from giant ICOs need excluding to prevent them damaging the byteball market. I searched for the lisk ICO Bitcoin address without luck. That ICO raised 14000 Bitcoins, and waves raised 29636 Bitcoins. If we could compile a list of Bitcoin addresses holding Bitcoins from all giant ICOs it would give the dev the option of easily excluding them all. Does anyone have links to giant ICO Bitcoin funds addresses? Censorship of some Bitcoin addresses will done more harm than good to Byteball. The Komodo team by saying that they will collect byteball just make a big promotion of Byteball to their community. And there is still time until the distribution. That is a fair comment with regard to marketing and promotion. However if continual market extraction occurs it could be very negative. I don't think there is a right answer in this case but I'm happy that other projects are getting involved. Nobody here wants the network to be controlled by superwhales, neither do I. One strategy to avoid that is trying to shoot them, however I believe letting the whales dilute other whales would work better, because it would also make us bigger. I like ICO funds in particular, because, as Seccour says above, their participation is an endorsement, which is going to be heard by their communities. Synereo and BlockPay are going to participate too. |
|
|
|
Is it possible to use different BB address for every BTC address? I tried generating new BB address and bot still asks to sign previous one.
Only if you link from different devices, e.g. desktop and Android. Do you plan to enable this option? Some people have multiple addresses for a reason. It might be irrelevant at this point but BTC is hopefully here to stay. Addresses being tied by common BB address in your transition table do unnecessarily provide additional info to outside entities. Fair enough. Now you can tell the bot your another BB address and then link the next Bitcoin address. To force generation of a new BB address, exit the chat using "< Back" button in the topbar, then return to the chat. |
|
|
|
hello gd morning frds why no blackbytes in the menu of live wallet ?  Because you have no livenet blackbytes yet. |
|
|
|
Is it possible to use different BB address for every BTC address? I tried generating new BB address and bot still asks to sign previous one.
Only if you link from different devices, e.g. desktop and Android. |
|
|
|
Why would lowering the micropayment be riskier than with the current micropayments? (because they would be easily spotted?)
Because the attack would become cheaper, hence worthwhile. mmmm, in my opinion the attack is already worthwhile, anyway such an attack won't succeed unless the attackee is not vigilant and doesn't double check their address (as the bot instructs them), so why not lower it if it permits to filter out exchanges addresses at the detection process (not requiring you to check suspect addresses)? People do make mistakes, and having to be overly vigilant scares them off. I'd rather have a more comfortable environment for the entire process. The attacker's ROI depends on 3 factors: - % of people who do not check that the address is theirs after receiving a second notification "Received your payment from ..." (the attacker's microtransaction is almost certainly later than the legitimate one) - average balance of such users - cost of attacking, which is the average amount of the microtransaction By lowering the cost, we turn the ROI at some point from negative to positive. |
|
|
|
should us prouv bbs balance for next round ? or claimers are listed and get airdrop bonus auto ?
Auto. Your Byteball address is already known, and the balance of this address counts for the 2nd round. You might only have to move funds within your wallet to this address. |
|
|
|
I confirm, this is Bittrex hot wallet address. As soon as I saw it here, it looked familiar, and I have checked, and indeed some (in fact - most) of my recent withdrawals from Bittrex were sent from that address. Thanks, removed this address.
If you link the same Bitcoin address to another Byteball address, the old link is currently removed. We could blacklist such Bitcoin addresses altogether (i.e. if different Byteball addresses try to link to them) but this might negatively affect blockchain.info users who have constant address by default as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong).
There can be a simple strict rule - if some address was linked more than once, just block it and have bot report it, so if a legit owner is trying to link it, he could move his coins to another address and link that one. That will automatically rule out exchange wallets, as there always will be more than one cheater. Now repeated attempts to link the same Bitcoin address will automatically blacklist this address. Yes, signed message cannot be abused easily.
This part below is mostly IMHO Frankly speaking, I believe having only signature way of linking the Bitcoin address would be just enough. This microtracsaction method only messes things up. If user does not know how to sign, he could learn. If his wallet does not have signing capability, he can move his Bitcoins to a wallet which has that capability. This could be a good reason for someone to educate himself, and prove he really wants to have Byteball! Kind of a PoW - "proof of work", "proof of willingness", "proof of worthiness"  Well, the Bitcoin community is not all tech savvy people now, and the learning curve might prove too steep. Now that we have wallets with good design and good UX, forcing people to switch from Copay to Mycelium would be a step backwards, IMHO. And lastly, signed message doesn't work for multisig addresses. |
|
|
|
Hi tonich, The remaining 1% will be given away to the first 100m users who install Byteball wallet, 100 Kbytes to each user. This will start 6 months from now or later, after we get ready for that scale.
One can only be elegible to this by being one of the first 100 thousand to install a certain byteball wallet sometime first half of next year, when you announce it's ready. Is that right? Thanks. Roughly that. The exact eligibility criteria will be decided much later, obviously it will be something that makes it difficult to claim more than once. |
|
|
|
The detection seems to be done after the address is linked, that's whay I raised this concern: Isn't there a risk that someone links an exchange address on December 24 23:59:59 UTC and gets included in the snapshot? Meaning would it be costly to try and detect exchange addresses before adding them?
Or am I missing something and there's no concern to have in this regard? i.e. you/the bot will be able to detect such an address and remove it before the snapshot. If you link the same Bitcoin address to another Byteball address, the old link is currently removed. We could blacklist such Bitcoin addresses altogether (i.e. if different Byteball addresses try to link to them) but this might negatively affect blockchain.info users who have constant address by default as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong).
Okay, given the fact that the old link is removed (fast enough), my question is no longer relevant. It is just that I saw one address linked to two bytaball addresses, so I don't know how fast the bot detects that and removes the link. I assume the bot will be able to remove redundant links done on December 24 at 23:59:59 UTC before the snapshot(?). Thx. Edit: Once again:  Edit2: The second transaction https://btc.blockr.io/tx/info/c546e318eaea173787e55db286c49e90241934fc844dfc77d7ab9231b1e8755a has been done at 20:30 UTC, it has been almost 40 minutes and it is still in the list, this coupled with the fact the the bot doesn't reply on the chat interface means that the bot is again dead ... There are two different things: Detection: works immediately and rejects the microtransaction if it has more than 2 outputs. Deduplication: removing of conflicting links happens after both transactions attain more than 10 confirmations. It will work even after the snapshot and can remove conflicting links created in the last minutes of Dec 24. Further lowering of micropayment amount is risky because it opens an attack vector: an attacker might see your microtransaction on the blockchain and repeat it exactly from his address (i.e. send the same amount to the same our address) trying to link his address and trick you to send all your bitcoins to his address. Most users will notice, and the attacker just loses his bitcoins, but if the amounts are too small, the attack might pay off.
Why would lowering the micropayment be riskier than with the current micropayments? (because they would be easily spotted?) Because the attack would become cheaper, hence worthwhile. Yes, signed message cannot be abused easily.
Yes in most standard cases it can't, but exchanges can sign a message with an address holding funds which are not really theirs, can't they? I contacted most exchanges, and those who replied said they won't. I have their word on that. this coupled with the fact the the bot doesn't reply on the chat interface means that the bot is again dead ...
It was offline for an hour. It tends to die every other time I step away from the computer that you might think I am the bot I'll try to double the memory on the machine, hope it helps. |
|
|
|
pls explain how to on phone transfer account/app from old phone to new one ? thanks No problem, just link again from the new phone. |
|
|
|
I also remember seeing this address earlier today linked to two different byteball addresses, the bot probably kept the first after it updated ... I was wondering if it would be fair to blacklist addresses that try to link to different byteball accounts, I mean can there be any valid case for someone to try that unless they want to cheat the system (or maybe they were trying to find bugs )? Edit: Just thought of a case: I link my address to a first account, I then destroy this account and link the same address to a new account. So does the linking disappear when a byteball account is destroyed? I also remember some discussion about detecting exchanges addresses, so what follows might have been addressed before: How is this detection done? Isn't there a risk that someone links an exchange address on Decmeber 24 23:59:59 UTC and gets included in the snapshot? Meaning would it be costly to try and detect exchange addresses before adding them (and removing them afterwards, as it seems to be done for now)? I also assume that an address that used a signed message can't be an exchange address, or am I mistaken? Exchanges staff might control private keys of addresses at some extent, so I think I'm mistaken (well technically I was for a second ). I was wondering how micro could the micropayment be, some exchanges charge 0.0001 or 0.0002 (maybe others less) as a fee for a withdrawal, is it possible to make the micropyament less than that (or at least less that the minimum they authorize to be withdrawed)? Already watching this address. Looks like it is Bittrex hot wallet but I'm not sure https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/015a002330a8624a?from_address=13vHWR3iLsHeYwT42RnuKYNBoVPrKKZgRv. If somebody did withdrawals from Bittrex and can find this address in history, please confirm. Currently, exchanges are detected by the number of outputs. Normal transactions should have 2 outputs: the micropayment and the the change. Exchanges usually aggregate many withdrawals into single transaction and they have more than 2 outputs. See the history of the above addresses. However this detection is not bullet proof. If you link the same Bitcoin address to another Byteball address, the old link is currently removed. We could blacklist such Bitcoin addresses altogether (i.e. if different Byteball addresses try to link to them) but this might negatively affect blockchain.info users who have constant address by default as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong). Further lowering of micropayment amount is risky because it opens an attack vector: an attacker might see your microtransaction on the blockchain and repeat it exactly from his address (i.e. send the same amount to the same our address) trying to link his address and trick you to send all your bitcoins to his address. Most users will notice, and the attacker just loses his bitcoins, but if the amounts are too small, the attack might pay off. Yes, signed message cannot be abused easily. |
|
|
|
How often the transition bot info will be updated? Say if I link the bitcoin address and then after a while I deposit or withdraw from that address, how often the value of the account will be updated in the above link? If you refresh the page, you'll see the updated balances. |
|
|
|
BTW, Is transition bot down? when I connected to it, nothing happened...
Now it is up again. Looks like bitcoind eats all memory. |
|
|
|
Why 2 wallet ? Test and livenet.. You want say android wallet is livenet ? And 2 version for pc ?
Testnet to experience what you can do in the system. Livenet to link addresses (no other use before Dec 25). For each platform, there are two versions of the wallet: livenet and testnet. |
|
|
|
Track the linking progress at http://transition.byteball.orgSome people tried to send microtransactions from exchange wallets. These addresses have been deleted: 1MFXYK1XucKFfhPhW9HDHD3vsM9BKey4qm poloniex 3ALHU1TB4rS6t23j6nv61bzSyKKzgmSAZX bitstamp 1DEcTtkrbdXxS1wbrMvzub5X4VpByYmAwo poloniex |
|
|
|
Is it better to uninstall the test version before installing livenet wallet? Not really necessary. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
