how long does it usually take for the first confirmation?
10 minutes and still nothing.
5-15 minutes to be confirmed and final. |
|
|
|
Imagine if with bitcoin you could decide to turn off miners rewards after they purchased machinery.
This is not Bitcoin! I repeat, NOT A Bitcoin, not even a fork. There is no miners - no economy of scale. By linking your Bitcoin address to Byteball one, you did not need to buy any machinery. Nobody is entitled for Byteball bytes and nothing is taken away from anybody if they don't get it. Goal of Byteball distribution is to be fair and as wide as possible, doesn't matter which distribution method archives that goal. If anybody thinks that they know how to have even fairer and wider distribution then ideas are welcome and if you are developer then you can apply for grant too to build that distribution method. If you are wondering why some kind of distribution methods have not implemented yet then there is probably reasons for that, it's pretty easy: just ask yourself, would that be fair and wide distribution? And then next one, does it bring any other value to platform after the distribution is over or is it just for sake of distribution. I'm actually one of the main promoters on the main board regarding byteball actually. You should be very pleased to have me onboard and not be instructing me to start my own fork off of byteball.
All forks are welcome, it is not a bad thing, everybody wins (from more developers on similar tech). If I were community manager here I would have huge community behind byteball by now. Obviously I would not have made some of the rash decisions that have been made without getting the community onboard first. But what is done is done we can still succeed if we all work together.
Maybe you could be a great community manager, I do not know that, but I am skeptical about it if you consider locking somebody's funds retro-actively as viable solution for a cryptocurrency. Also, would help if you understood the differences of Bitcoin and Byteball. No miners is pretty obvious thing, which should be super difficult to miss. I am also not aware if there is a position like that available, I am not running for that position, I am just fighting against the FUD that this Byteball announcements topic is full of. |
|
|
|
I'm guessing English is not your first language. Which could in part be why there is a slight communication loss. Not that is a criticism at all.
What communication loss? Wasn't it you who said that we should freeze Max Kordek (ceo of lisk) wallet? And then changed your story to voluntary staking idea. I think you have problems with English. meanwhile Max Kordek ceo of lisk own the biggest byterbal individual wallet, and paid $0. Are you crazy tarmo888?
Let's take a vote to freeze that wallet, and any other huge wallets we know ico managers are holding I see now that it is a language barrier. 1. is the taking back an unfair amount of free coins given to someone on the basis of bitcoin that were not even theirs. How do I know I am not being trolled here Do you understand that this is the main reason why Bitcoin was created (2008 bailout anybody?), so nobody could not take away something that you already have? This is not a language barrier, it is crazy to even suggest something like that like freezing somebody's account retro-actively. You are being trolling by yourself. |
|
|
|
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/out-of-contextYou quoted me by cutting out everything that explained why the rankings are meaningless because you wanted to make me look stupid. Let me explain you again: if the prices of almost all cryptocurrencies dropped over 90%, but also a lot of new cryptocurrencies were created during the bull-run then did Byteball dropped in rankings because it lost a lot more in price or because a lot new cryptocurrencies were created. That's why rankings are meaningless, because rank 51 and 52 itself doesn't tell you anything besides the order of marketcap size. Oh come on bro, editing reply posts to make them more readable is standard practice on forums, don't be a dick Your logic is flawed, I can find numerous examples of coins that have stayed in the top50 for years now, despite all the new coins, BUT, during this same period byteball dropped approx 150 ranking places, and you say that is meaningless ... XMR, NEM, LTC, Dash are all still top20, most next tier coins down to rank 50 are relatively stable in rankings too. Yes, prices have tanked for everything, but CMC rankings are quite stable especially the top50, despite all the new coins. CMC ranking is an important metric, especially over time. Your logic is ridiculous if it doesn't recognize a ranking drop of approx 150 places is very meaningful, some new projects struggle for recognition which explains their low rankings, BUT byteball was a top50 coin (not exactly sure what the highest rank BB achieved was), it was highly visible with lots of support, and then BB LOST it, people who liked Tony as a dev, and the tech itself have stopped supporting. That is clearly shown by the ranking drop of 150 places on CMC, and it's meaningful, despite all the obvious flaws with young crypto markets. Trimming quotes is fine, if you don't take them out of context. Of course there are coins that stayed in TOP50 for years, these are TOP20 coins you are talking about. The ranking there is less to change because marketcap is in billions. The further down the ranking list, the more meaningless the ranking becomes. There is huge difference if the coin is on 7th place or 8th place, there is little difference, if the coin is on 157th or 207th. TOP10 is stable now, it used to be that TOP5 was stable, even so that many index funds won't touch anything out of TOP5. TOP50 is not stable, many new coins shot up in there during bull-run. |
|
|
|
Oh god, the CMC ranking again - the most meaningless metric ever
Well, that opinion makes you look very very stupid, enough said  Of course, if you take it out of context like that. What is the context, you said CMC rankings are meaningless ... You quoted me by cutting out everything that explained why the rankings are meaningless because you wanted to make me look stupid. Let me explain you again: if the prices of almost all cryptocurrencies dropped over 90%, but also a lot of new cryptocurrencies were created during the bull-run then did Byteball dropped in rankings because it lost a lot more in price or because a lot new cryptocurrencies were created. That's why rankings are meaningless, because rank 51 and 52 itself doesn't tell you anything besides the order of marketcap size. |
|
|
|
Oh god, the CMC ranking again - the most meaningless metric ever
Well, that opinion makes you look very very stupid, enough said Of course, if you take it out of context like that. |
|
|
|
Yes there are other changes some people request, but finishing the distribution is the big issue for most, personally, I wouldn't care if the distro was finished without more airdrops, the issue for me is the uncertainty of having dev control such a large amount, and not knowing how long until until the distro will be finished. Once the distro is finished the market is free to operate, but with 22% in dev hands for an unknown length of time ... that kills the market mechanism for price discovery, and that's not good for adoption.
If tony announced he was going to finish distro in 6 months I don't really care of the method, I would prefer airdrops because it would instantly get people buying BB and that gets 'noticed', but if he chose another method and actually completed the distro soon I would be happy. Tony is a great dev, like most I really like this project, I want it to succeed.
You do understand that everything you said in previous paragraph, zeros out this compliment? Let me translate how it sounds: "you are great dev and I like your project, but I think you don't want what is best for your project because I think you are going to misuse the last 22% of the funds." I just can't understand, what is it so difficult to understand that cancelling of Bitcoin airdop was because of understanding that it won't bring the expected adoption and continuing that would have not been best for the project. Undistributed funds don't devalue your share, it is for fair distribution that is as wide as possible, the more people get the bytes, the better it is for everybody. It doesn't matter what I think, or you, we can see the judgement of the market, byteball dropped from top50 to outside top200, that is the market voting with their self interest. This is not personal, I can definitely compliment Tony for some things, disagree with him on others, and there is no inconsistencies, BUT it is a fact that byteball slipped a lot down the rankings, I see a connection with the distribution uncertainty. Tony doesn't need sycophantic yes men, people questioning his decisions on the distribution are not necessarily motivated by greed, some are, but some see wasted potential , and the evidence is the coinmarketcap ranking. Oh god, the CMC ranking again - the most meaningless metric ever (for coins under 1b marketcap). Create 100 shitcoins with higher marketcap and you kick somebody out of top 100. What I see is that many altcoins have lost over 90% since the ATH and many new shitcoins were created during last bull-run. Did they also changed their distribution methods that caused them to lose over 90%? If you keep telling that it was because of the distribution and you keep telling others that it was because of distribution then after the while, it becomes the reason, no matter if it's true or not. |
|
|
|
If you don't agree where it is going, create a fork and do it the way you think it is right.
You mean someone clone byteball and redo the full moon airdrops distribution with some modifications, like removing certain Bitcoin addresses from known ico's and exchanges ? There is more requested changes than that. It's not just distribution, the concept of witnesses is also alien for some, it is hard to gasp for some there is no blocks, so it doesn't matter how much transaction fees you pay, your transaction will be confirmed and final. Yes there are other changes some people request, but finishing the distribution is the big issue for most, personally, I wouldn't care if the distro was finished without more airdrops, the issue for me is the uncertainty of having dev control such a large amount, and not knowing how long until until the distro will be finished. Once the distro is finished the market is free to operate, but with 22% in dev hands for an unknown length of time ... that kills the market mechanism for price discovery, and that's not good for adoption. If tony announced he was going to finish distro in 6 months I don't really care of the method, I would prefer airdrops because it would instantly get people buying BB and that gets 'noticed', but if he chose another method and actually completed the distro soon I would be happy. Tony is a great dev, like most I really like this project, I want it to succeed.You do understand that everything you said in previous paragraph, zeros out this compliment? Let me translate how it sounds: "you are great dev and I like your project, but I think you don't want what is best for your project because I think you are going to misuse the last 22% of the funds." I just can't understand, what is it so difficult to understand that cancelling of Bitcoin airdop was because of understanding that it won't bring the expected adoption and continuing that would have not been best for the project. Undistributed funds don't devalue your share, it is for fair distribution that is as wide as possible, the more people get the bytes, the better it is for everybody. If everybody keeps FUDing and telling how bad this is that there is still funds left to distribute then of course it's bad for the price, but if you take it as a positive advantage over other projects (that there is still funds for new users) then it will be also positively reflected in price. Glass half full or glass half empty. |
|
|
|
If you don't agree where it is going, create a fork and do it the way you think it is right.
You mean someone clone byteball and redo the full moon airdrops distribution with some modifications, like removing certain Bitcoin addresses from known ico's and exchanges ? There is more requested changes than that. It's not just distribution, the concept of witnesses is also alien for some, it is hard to gasp for some there is no blocks, so it doesn't matter how much transaction fees you pay, your transaction will be confirmed and final. Can you give me some examples of "constantly bitching about somebody to implement something is another thing, what is happening here is constant whining: "implement this!". Mob-mentality" in the specific context of Byteball I mean.
Do I really have to give you the list of all the same stuff that is repeated here again and again already? By "implement this!" I meant all the change requests. * asking GBYTE to be changed to MBYTE just because noobs don't understand supply. this would result a 100x bigger total supply number because it would measured in MBYTE. * saying that Byteball is immature name and constantly asking it to be renamed. congrats, Byteball foundation gave up on that and hired branding agency, just because the community would just shut up about it. no guarantee that the community will like the new name, there always will be somebody who doesn't like the name. * constantly asking Bitcoin airdrop to be brought back, even if just for last one more time. * asking the distribution to be finished immediately even though that is needed to acquire new users in long run. * once a while, somebody comes up again with the idea that 12 witnesses should be randomly picked from the pool of anonymous witnesses, so everybody could be a witness. * Thul constantly spamming his OpenBazaar and BISQ blackbytes idea. * any other FUD when the price drops, but FUDster failed to notice that all cryptocurrencies prices dropped on that day. I mean, if the list of things that are wrong with this coin is that long for somebody, maybe it is not right coin for them. |
|
|
|
I'm guessing English is not your first language. Which could in part be why there is a slight communication loss. Not that is a criticism at all.
What communication loss? Wasn't it you who said that we should freeze Max Kordek (ceo of lisk) wallet? And then changed your story to voluntary staking idea. I think you have problems with English. meanwhile Max Kordek ceo of lisk own the biggest byterbal individual wallet, and paid $0. Are you crazy tarmo888?
Let's take a vote to freeze that wallet, and any other huge wallets we know ico managers are holding |
|
|
|
Also just explaining clearly why things are unreasonable or impossible with no real upside is better than telling people go fork your own version. Of course 99.99% of people here have no possible way to do this as they do not have the skill set but can still be valuable to keep on side when considering building a big community and creating a network effect.
I do not agree with this because if you think you have skills to come up with better consensus or distribution method then you should be able to gather around you a people who are able to code that thing what you think is better. Not knowing how to code is not an excuse, there are many roles in any project that do not need coding skills, so it is not 99.99% against 0.01% Throwing up an idea for somebody to pick it up is one thing, constantly bitching about somebody to implement something is another thing, what is happening here is constant whining: "implement this!". Mob-mentality, very common in recent years. |
|
|
|
Although it is not in the spirit of crypto. Perhaps regarding the way forward just in the short term. The distribution could be done a bit like this. Those perhaps locking down the most BB for the longest periods would receive the greatest % rewards which were tiered. Sort of like a tiered pos scheme. Most people think it is a crazy idea but I wonder what a public appeal to those ico managers that claimed huge amounts for free at the start to return just 50% of the bytes to be used in such a tiered POS scheme would achieve? PR is quite important and those ico managers that have not already distributed the BB to their investors might like to show how fair they can be. Of course a polite request not to partake in our new pos scheme and suck them all back would be cool Just ideas, may be technically impossible or just logically unsound. Locking down someones address in crypto world is worse than changing the distribution. If that fork would happen then the price would go below $1 for sure. PoW has the economy of scale, where the weaker players are darwinized, and the hash power gets concentrated in the hands of a few bigger miners. PoS has the nothing in stake problem, where the validator has no downside for staking both forks. https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/a/31476Both of them are pseudo-anonymous, so you don't know who is the biggest. It can be that instead of 5 biggest, there is actually 2 biggest. This is especially bad for PoS because you don't even have to risk with real world cost (expensive mining rigs). This makes them vulnerable for Sybil attack. Solution for Sybil attack is non-anonymity or PoW. Instead of PoW, Byteball has chosen non-anonymity for witnesses, who doesn't have the same powers as PoW miners too. They just make sure of the order of transactions, so there would not be double-spend. This means that until over half of the 12 witnesses don't collude, there can't be double-spends or transaction censoring. It doesn't matter who you are or how much transactions fee you pay, your transactions will be confirmed and final. As you can see, all of them have their own pros and cons, depending what you think is important. What does changing the consensus model now solve? What is the issue that is currently valid that it needs to be solved with tiered PoS right now? Keep the whales from dumping? Every coin has whales. It is funny that everybody bitches about distribution change and how all the trust was immediately lost with that change, yet everybody also sees that there is something else that is fundamental to this coin, that should also be changed. How is that not gonna make it even more unstable?There is simple process for fundamental changes, you just fork it and make your own coin, or you pick another coin to support. It's like a train, if you like where it is going then you get on it, if you don't then you get off and pick another train. |
|
|
|
I do not think spreading out a few bucks worth to a ton of people does anything. If I had 10 bucks worth I would not be incentivised to work hard to promote or adopt I would likely just think thats 10 bucks I can cash in now or just leave it for another day and likely forget all about it.
It is not just 10 bucks if the user becomes active referrer and brings in more people. Many of the distribution methods have referral system, which gets improved to a new level with every new distribution method. Bytes are not airdropped for just linking your address anymore, one needs to put some effort in and grown the community in order to earn more. Those who put more effort in it are also more likely to become real users than those who got just 10 quick bucks. |
|
|
|
Any examples from real life where this has been the case? Or even in cryptoverse, which coin has suddenly got adoption and still alive because the distro has finished? Does your theory have any base or just a hunch?
NXT/Ardor, back in 2013 100% of the coins were distributed to 73 early adopters in the second ever ICO right from the start (Mastercoin was the first ICO a few months earlier), then the dev (BCnxt, aka CfB of Iota fame) basically handed the project over to the community which empowered large holders to get active and 'do things' to keep the project alive, including spreading adoption. NXT started with 73 people, 100% of coins distributed, dev concentrated on actual dev work, everything else was left to the community. It was the most beautiful disorganized clusterfuck to observe, and it most definitely was decentralised, and it was 100% the community who made it work because the distribution was completed very early, and the dev did a perfect Satoshi 2.0 and got out of the way. If Tony finishes the distro and gets out of the way he creates a void, and motivated holders will fill it, that's decentralization in practice, relinquish control to the community. edit: if Tony completed the distro and went into the shadows to work on code, maybe a big holder like Max from Lisk would see a 'space' for him to fill and he would get motivated to 'do something' for BB out of self interest, at the moment everything is top-down from Tony, no room for anyone else, 22% still in centralised hands causing worries. I meant "successful projects that got adoption". How many active users are there on NXT? Like 400 daily? I wouldn't call that adoption. And what is Ardor, a fork of NXT? Why was that created? Because somebody disagreed with the NXT vision? Why does Tony need to go away so Max could replace him? This just doesn't make any sense. It is not a wife-swap TV show, both founders have their own projects to work on. And I don't understand why one needs to go away in order for others to contribute? If you don't agree where it is going, create a fork and do it the way you think it is right. Instead of thinking that 22% is still yet to distribute, think about that more than 50% is already distributed. If that wasn't problem when nothing was distributed then how is that now suddenly a problem? Distribution will continue based on what is best for mass adoption and from the amount of current active users, Bitcoin distribution was not the best for mass adoption. |
|
|
|
Twitter (retweetet): "So far my Smart Voucher gave me 40% ROI, yes you read that right: 40%. Also want to make money by introducing people to the easiest to use crypto platform in existence? Read this article to find out how. ..."That's what bite ball fanboys want: "to make money". - Of course $, €, ...  It only increases speculation, but not use and certainly not adoption. And where do the sold bites finally accumulate? Rewards in bytes for spread the word and help for real world adoption, perfect stimulation! or not? People works better with rewards, that's a nature law. Without use case there is no "real world adoption". Result: The bites are turned into Fiat and the project is forgotten. So, you are basically saying that because there is no blackbytes marketplace to sell shady stuff, there is no use cases? Buying stuff with blackbytes is just one use case, which seems nobody is interested to build a marketplace for. If nobody is interested to build it, why would there be suddenly interest to use it? There are many other use cases already and more than enough features that support those use cases - what is still missing is real users, we have just bunch of hodlers. Creating a new use case doesn't automatically bring new users same way like burning away whole distribution fund would bring magically user adoption. |
|
|
|
The distro is finished, tony concentrates on dev work ... byteball becomes a shit load more decentralized, adoption is driven by motivated community members (the ones who left and/or became disillusioned when distro rules changed) working with funded foundation.
And that will slow the adoption down even more because instead of getting some bytes for free, users need to go get the bytes from exchange. Right now, they can use many features without having to sign up to any exchange. That's why smart voucher system is great, they can get started with the help of the referrer and get started. They could even attest their identity without any bytes, so they could buy bytes cheaper with credit card. Requiring new users to go to exchanges is not a great plan for adoption. Crypto-fanatics are ok with exchanges, but one day, your parents and relatives won't even know that cryptocurrency had that kind of shitty user experience https://twitter.com/FedericoTenga/status/1058316647289798656Adoption will increase rapidly when the distro is finished, or byteball will fail ... those are the two possible outcomes. Tony dribbling out small amounts from the undistributed 22% for years isn't spreading adoption if the vast majority of recipients don't become active users, and most are just mindlessly collecting tiny freebies, and not buying more coins and most won't become regular users. Adoption will spread when current users who have big holdings and have a vested interest in seeing the project succeed get motivated to start working on adoption, BUT, those guys need certainty from the distro being finished, and no more changes that lower confidence. Real adoption comes organically from people spreading something they believe in, and changing the original distro plan killed a lot of community belief and enthusiasm. Any examples from real life where this has been the case? Or even in cryptoverse, which coin has suddenly got adoption and still alive because the distro has finished? Does your theory have any base or just a hunch? Reality is, if the distro is finished and you still don't have adoption by that time then the coin is doomed. And if there is no development fund either then maintance stops too, it gets dropped from exchanges and dies during bear market. Just look what has been common to all the previous Bitcoin forks. Luckily, even that Byteball fucked up (wasted over 50%) with Bitcoin airdrop, they are more forward thinking now. |
|
|
|
Can anbody tell me what this error message of the Byteball wallet means means and how to solve it? :  "Uncaught exception: error: message encrypted to unknown key,device 0XU..., len=140. The error might be caused by restoring from an old backup or using the same keys on another device." This error causes the wallet to immediately close after confirmation so I cannot do anything further now. Before this error I changed the Hub address from byteball.fr/bb to byteball.org/bb which was used on my mobile phone Try restarting couple more times, it maybe because you use really old backup or your wallet got somehow out of sync while byteball.fe/hub went down. If this keeps happening, are you using same backup on multiple devices? You shouldn't, multi-device wallets are for that. For quicker help from more community members (most active uaers are there, no helpdesk here), please join Slack community and write what exactly you did in #helpdesk channel https://slack.byteball.org |
|
|
|
Not to beat a dead house, but this whole emphasis on "fair distribution" by tarmo and shit talking about Bitcoin is laughable.
You know what's not fair? Announcing a distribution schedule and mechanism, then pulling the rug out from under it two or three times - first cancelling BTC air drops, then delaying Bytes drops, and finally abandoning the original distribution mechanism completely.
You know what else isn't fair? Dribbling out coins to people that have access to shit loads of crappy CPUs (WCG) and account farmers on steem. That's really unfair to me as I only have like five computing devices and think steem is a swamp of shit tier content born out of a scam.
You know what is fair? Announcing a distribution mechanism and schedule and standing by it like it's etched in stone. In ten years Bitcoin hasn't changed its mechanism or schedule at all. You think it would be more "fair" to halt mining and pass out remaining BTC to WCG bot nets and steem lords?
Another one who doesn't know what fair means. Nobody is entitled to get the bytes and if distribution doesn't work then it needs to be fixed, not just continue with a broken one. Bitcoin is laughable, was designed to be decentralized currency, but thanks to a broken distribution system, becomes more centralized with every day. Byteball is moving in other direction, started as centralized and becomes more decentralized every day. "Bitcoin is laughable" Posts 800 times per day on bitcointalk... 🤔 Another one with zero attention span. Do you realize that Bitcointalk is not about only Bitcoins, but about all cryptocurrencies. And this is not a Bitcoin thread, but Byteball thread, where everything gets compared to the big old Bitcoin. Do you get trigger by single words without understanding the whole sentance? Didn't you notice that it was a reply using? What are you guys smoking? I just realized that this could be a reason why you are talking nonsense. |
|
|
|
Twitter (retweetet): "So far my Smart Voucher gave me 40% ROI, yes you read that right: 40%. Also want to make money by introducing people to the easiest to use crypto platform in existence? Read this article to find out how. ..."That's what bite ball fanboys want: "to make money". - Of course $, €, ... It only increases speculation, but not use and certainly not adoption. And where do the sold bites finally accumulate? Isn't that what everybody wants? An additonal revenue stream besides their daytime-job? Why do you want that blackbytes marketplaces for? For selling illegal crap below market value? 😂 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
