nevashno
Jr. Member
 Offline
Activity: 140
Merit: 5
|
 |
June 20, 2018, 10:05:23 PM |
|
To clarify, when you say 10% distribution, do you mean 10% of the balance of Bitcoin is accounted for?
Also, will be need our private keys to claim Byteballs in our Byteballs wallet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
gtzanap
|
|
June 21, 2018, 06:26:19 AM |
|
I see that again and again there are people here who claim that Byteball should be not be listed in Gigabytes in exchanges since this would be harming the price, because investors would perceive the high cost of one Gigabyte very expensive. I have always been against the "tactical" idea of scaling down the official unit of measurement just for the purpose to benefit the price. Tony has always stated that he is not interested in the price but in the distribution of the coin, and I have always agreed on that.
But then, I've also seen Byteball listed in Gigabytes on Coinmarketcap and something has suddenly clicked in my mind.
The fact that Byteball is measured in Gigabytes is not a problem because this is harming its price.
The fact that Byteball is measured in Gigabytes is a problem because it is crucially violating Byteball's mission number one: to achieve mass adoption.
Well, the conclusion with both types of reasoning is that unit bias affects byteball, and in this case negatively so. Although, one could argue that with the decline in price, GBYTES have certainly become more affordable for everyone  |
|
|
|
|
bobq
|
|
June 21, 2018, 07:33:54 AM |
|
I see that again and again there are people here who claim that Byteball should be not be listed in Gigabytes in exchanges since this would be harming the price, because investors would perceive the high cost of one Gigabyte very expensive. I have always been against the "tactical" idea of scaling down the official unit of measurement just for the purpose to benefit the price. Tony has always stated that he is not interested in the price but in the distribution of the coin, and I have always agreed on that.
But then, I've also seen Byteball listed in Gigabytes on Coinmarketcap and something has suddenly clicked in my mind.
The fact that Byteball is measured in Gigabytes is not a problem because this is harming its price.
The fact that Byteball is measured in Gigabytes is a problem because it is crucially violating Byteball's mission number one: to achieve mass adoption.
It is an interesting argument, but the real focus is not just widespread distribution of Byteball, but widespread adoption. If you do shift the unit of listing at exchanges to MegaBytes or KiloBytes, you would have more people buying. The problem is that most of them will be speculators with no motive of trying to use bytes. I really don't want to focus on wether changing the listing at exchanges to MegaBytes or KiloBytes would cause more or less buying (speculative or not speculative), because this is anyway just a short term perspective. My point wants to be a deeper one: the fact that to use as the default unit of measurement the "Million of dollars" dimension (the Gigabytes, ie the highest unit of measurement) is deeply wrong and MUST therefore be corrected. The purpose is to give more coherency to Byteball, nothing else. Price will eventually follow, as a consequence, but that's not the real point, nor should be the main concern. |
|
|
|
|
codemanX
|
|
June 21, 2018, 08:07:58 AM |
|
I see that again and again there are people here who claim that Byteball should be not be listed in Gigabytes in exchanges since this would be harming the price, because investors would perceive the high cost of one Gigabyte very expensive. I have always been against the "tactical" idea of scaling down the official unit of measurement just for the purpose to benefit the price. Tony has always stated that he is not interested in the price but in the distribution of the coin, and I have always agreed on that.
But then, I've also seen Byteball listed in Gigabytes on Coinmarketcap and something has suddenly clicked in my mind.
The fact that Byteball is measured in Gigabytes is not a problem because this is harming its price.
The fact that Byteball is measured in Gigabytes is a problem because it is crucially violating Byteball's mission number one: to achieve mass adoption.
It is an interesting argument, but the real focus is not just widespread distribution of Byteball, but widespread adoption. If you do shift the unit of listing at exchanges to MegaBytes or KiloBytes, you would have more people buying. The problem is that most of them will be speculators with no motive of trying to use bytes. I really don't want to focus on wether changing the listing at exchanges to MegaBytes or KiloBytes would cause more or less buying (speculative or not speculative), because this is anyway just a short term perspective. My point wants to be a deeper one: the fact that to use as the default unit of measurement the "Million of dollars" dimension (the Gigabytes, ie the highest unit of measurement) is deeply wrong and MUST therefore be corrected. The purpose is to give more coherency to Byteball, nothing else. Price will eventually follow, as a consequence, but that's not the real point, nor should be the main concern. I agree 100%, very well explained. The sooner that is changed - the better for the project. It was discussed many times already, I hope Tony will think about it again. |
|
|
|
|
|
naska21
|
|
June 21, 2018, 09:19:28 AM |
|
Which technology? Proof of work or proof of stake please?
Algorithm of consensus is neither PoW nor PoS. A core in this algorithm is determinism established by the positions of transactions in the chain. The qualified witnesses approve that determinism. You can find more details concerning Byteball consensus in OP. |
whole nazca signature space owned by naska21 for rent, feel free to PM me
|
|
|
jwinterm
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1087
|
|
June 21, 2018, 02:02:08 PM |
|
Which technology? Proof of work or proof of stake please?
Algorithm of consensus is neither PoW nor PoS. A core in this algorithm is determinism established by the positions of transactions in the chain. The qualified witnesses approve that determinism. You can find more details concerning Byteball consensus in OP. It's essentially delegated proof of stake with twelve validating nodes, all of which are operated by a single person. Maybe should just rebrand to TonysDatabaseCoin. |
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 21, 2018, 04:09:56 PM |
|
The smart contract is stored on the DAG after the amount has been spent (the contract is executed). When setting up the contract, only the hash of the contract is stored on the DAG. The reason behind is probably that it is better to keep the contract secret before it is executed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
altcoinb
|
|
June 21, 2018, 06:12:10 PM |
|
I see that again and again there are people here who claim that Byteball should be not be listed in Gigabytes in exchanges since this would be harming the price, because investors would perceive the high cost of one Gigabyte very expensive. I have always been against the "tactical" idea of scaling down the official unit of measurement just for the purpose to benefit the price. Tony has always stated that he is not interested in the price but in the distribution of the coin, and I have always agreed on that.
But then, I've also seen Byteball listed in Gigabytes on Coinmarketcap and something has suddenly clicked in my mind.
The fact that Byteball is measured in Gigabytes is not a problem because this is harming its price.
The fact that Byteball is measured in Gigabytes is a problem because it is crucially violating Byteball's mission number one: to achieve mass adoption.
It is an interesting argument, but the real focus is not just widespread distribution of Byteball, but widespread adoption. If you do shift the unit of listing at exchanges to MegaBytes or KiloBytes, you would have more people buying. The problem is that most of them will be speculators with no motive of trying to use bytes. No, in real life i have many interested peoples. They say Byteball is very nice but the price is too much. I know it is wrong i explain to them and they say "ok i understand" But after a half year they dont bytes, but they have all other cheap alt/shitcoins. I have 20 Peoples in my local Telegram Group and only one guy is interested in Byteball (He buy offline cash to bytes), all other see only the price in Gbyte  nothing helps. The most people are to stupid to understand different units (iota see this too and fix it) bobq is right in all points (sorry i have no merits) The problem is that most of them will be speculators with no motive of trying to use bytes. Yes but what is the problem of this? Example: If 1000 peoples see this cheap coin (Mbyte) they buy and hold in the wallet. Now they see first time the wallet, check the bots and think "wow very easy" and they share the word! sorry my english is for this catastrophe! i use in next time the german thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
Real14Hero
|
|
June 21, 2018, 07:32:00 PM |
|
Jeez this coin has managed to drop to 112 on CMC  From 1000$ to 120$ in absolute value, but that is not the issue in a bear market, the issue is that this coin has gone from page 1 on CMC to page 2, and is going into oblivion fast. Byteball is the leading coin with DAG algorithm and a great wallet and so on. It takes a lot of idiocy and bad marketing to run it into the ground like this. Having such a small market cap is a major knee jerk, I am 100% sure it would be among the first 30 coins if it was listed in MBYTE instead of GBYTE... MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH crappier coins are further up.   Yes going to mbyte would be a great help for all those noobs that pay attention to per token price and that is a huge % of noobs actually. However there are other pressing issues. 1. the project is not very decentralised 2. the project is not fully distributed either after all of this time. all of these need correcting before any rise will take place. Also there needs to be more focus on putting the tokens into good exchanges. i did have high hopes from the project but seeing the stagnancy in certain things, i thought its better to move on than to see a project slowly dying. It would have been so much better if the community was more supportive and beleived in the coin. |
|
|
|
|
!vanovi4
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 168
Merit: 1
|
|
June 21, 2018, 07:43:01 PM |
|
I like this project in that there are no blocks in Byteball, and there is no problem with the block size. Instead, each new transaction refers to one or more of the earlier (parents) by including and signing their hashes. Links between transactions form a DAG. I think this is a good decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
waszurHölle
|
|
June 21, 2018, 09:47:19 PM |
|
Jeez this coin has managed to drop to 112 on CMC From 1000$ to 120$ in absolute value, but that is not the issue in a bear market, the issue is that this coin has gone from page 1 on CMC to page 2, and is going into oblivion fast. Byteball is the leading coin with DAG algorithm and a great wallet and so on. It takes a lot of idiocy and bad marketing to run it into the ground like this. Having such a small market cap is a major knee jerk, I am 100% sure it would be among the first 30 coins if it was listed in MBYTE instead of GBYTE... MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH crappier coins are further up.  The marketcap and/or price of a coin is not a indicator for the quality of the developer's work. Are EOS and Tron worth their price? My opinion based on the non existing product is but the market has a different opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real14Hero
|
|
June 22, 2018, 12:49:54 AM |
|
The problem is with the live betting support and the availability of markets and odds. Live betting support is totally missing while the markets offered are pathetic. There are other sportsbook such as sportsbook.io that offer much much better service with other cryptos that people wont prefer byteball chat bot to bet when they can already do it with telegram or on sitem |
|
|
|
|
Rumhurius
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1672
Merit: 1043
Here we go again
|
|
June 22, 2018, 06:53:52 AM |
|
The problem is with the live betting support and the availability of markets and odds. Live betting support is totally missing while the markets offered are pathetic. There are other sportsbook such as sportsbook.io that offer much much better service with other cryptos that people wont prefer byteball chat bot to bet when they can already do it with telegram or on sitem i am a simple man. i has all i need and i like it a lot  |
|
|
|
|
Freefactomizer
|
|
June 22, 2018, 07:10:06 AM |
|
The problem is with the live betting support and the availability of markets and odds. Live betting support is totally missing while the markets offered are pathetic. There are other sportsbook such as sportsbook.io that offer much much better service with other cryptos that people wont prefer byteball chat bot to bet when they can already do it with telegram or on sitem lol haters gonna hate |
|
|
|
jjacob
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1026
★Nitrogensports.eu★
|
|
June 22, 2018, 07:14:26 AM |
|
I see that again and again there are people here who claim that Byteball should be not be listed in Gigabytes in exchanges since this would be harming the price, because investors would perceive the high cost of one Gigabyte very expensive. I have always been against the "tactical" idea of scaling down the official unit of measurement just for the purpose to benefit the price. Tony has always stated that he is not interested in the price but in the distribution of the coin, and I have always agreed on that.
But then, I've also seen Byteball listed in Gigabytes on Coinmarketcap and something has suddenly clicked in my mind.
The fact that Byteball is measured in Gigabytes is not a problem because this is harming its price.
The fact that Byteball is measured in Gigabytes is a problem because it is crucially violating Byteball's mission number one: to achieve mass adoption.
It is an interesting argument, but the real focus is not just widespread distribution of Byteball, but widespread adoption. If you do shift the unit of listing at exchanges to MegaBytes or KiloBytes, you would have more people buying. The problem is that most of them will be speculators with no motive of trying to use bytes. Who's using it now? https://byteball.fr/heartbeat.phpThere's maybe a few transactions per minute on average, every node that matters is operated by one person, and the trading volume is only $100k per day (no one is even speculating on it). I don't really see how it can degrade the situation much at this point. It definitely will not degrade the situation. I was just trying to see if the logic of changing the denomination would increase adoption (and not speculative buyers). It is not that straightforward, but worth a shot. It would be pretty easy for Tony and co to implement it as well. |
|
|
|
|
pineapple express
|
|
June 22, 2018, 07:46:11 AM |
|
I see that again and again there are people here who claim that Byteball should be not be listed in Gigabytes in exchanges since this would be harming the price, because investors would perceive the high cost of one Gigabyte very expensive. I have always been against the "tactical" idea of scaling down the official unit of measurement just for the purpose to benefit the price. Tony has always stated that he is not interested in the price but in the distribution of the coin, and I have always agreed on that.
But then, I've also seen Byteball listed in Gigabytes on Coinmarketcap and something has suddenly clicked in my mind.
The fact that Byteball is measured in Gigabytes is not a problem because this is harming its price.
The fact that Byteball is measured in Gigabytes is a problem because it is crucially violating Byteball's mission number one: to achieve mass adoption.
It is an interesting argument, but the real focus is not just widespread distribution of Byteball, but widespread adoption. If you do shift the unit of listing at exchanges to MegaBytes or KiloBytes, you would have more people buying. The problem is that most of them will be speculators with no motive of trying to use bytes. Who's using it now? https://byteball.fr/heartbeat.phpThere's maybe a few transactions per minute on average, every node that matters is operated by one person, and the trading volume is only $100k per day (no one is even speculating on it). I don't really see how it can degrade the situation much at this point. It definitely will not degrade the situation. I was just trying to see if the logic of changing the denomination would increase adoption (and not speculative buyers). It is not that straightforward, but worth a shot. It would be pretty easy for Tony and co to implement it as well. that's up to exchanges, not to Tony. There is already an exchange trade mbytes. I guess they also have a complete lack of interest from traders to TonysDatabaseCoin |
|
|
|
|
cryptohunter
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2100
Merit: 1167
MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG
|
|
June 22, 2018, 09:14:04 AM |
|
I see that again and again there are people here who claim that Byteball should be not be listed in Gigabytes in exchanges since this would be harming the price, because investors would perceive the high cost of one Gigabyte very expensive. I have always been against the "tactical" idea of scaling down the official unit of measurement just for the purpose to benefit the price. Tony has always stated that he is not interested in the price but in the distribution of the coin, and I have always agreed on that.
But then, I've also seen Byteball listed in Gigabytes on Coinmarketcap and something has suddenly clicked in my mind.
The fact that Byteball is measured in Gigabytes is not a problem because this is harming its price.
The fact that Byteball is measured in Gigabytes is a problem because it is crucially violating Byteball's mission number one: to achieve mass adoption.
It is an interesting argument, but the real focus is not just widespread distribution of Byteball, but widespread adoption. If you do shift the unit of listing at exchanges to MegaBytes or KiloBytes, you would have more people buying. The problem is that most of them will be speculators with no motive of trying to use bytes. Who's using it now? https://byteball.fr/heartbeat.phpThere's maybe a few transactions per minute on average, every node that matters is operated by one person, and the trading volume is only $100k per day (no one is even speculating on it). I don't really see how it can degrade the situation much at this point. It definitely will not degrade the situation. I was just trying to see if the logic of changing the denomination would increase adoption (and not speculative buyers). It is not that straightforward, but worth a shot. It would be pretty easy for Tony and co to implement it as well. Look the entire crypto market including btc is for speculators There is no widespread adoption yet so gbytes a basically unheard of untested tech is dreaming of focusing on these pipe dreams right now. It goes like this. 1. get the speculators (we did have those before we fucked them all over a few times) 2. get a high position on that manipulated shit hole coinmarket cap(THIS IS YOUR MARKETING PHASE) 3. get attention get more attention (THIS IS YOUR MARKETING PHASE) 4. bring the tech to maturity so it is not pushed aside for then next latest and greatest design 5. with the attention and tech maturity bring the gradual adoption if the project deserves it. it is not the exchanges who decide the denominations it is packaged it is the developer. Smart projects already noticed the noob wave of imbeciles who seek per unit cheap tokens and ignore high individual cost tokens. It was foolish to ever seek denominations of gbyte from the start iota realised this and went the opposite way. |
|
|
|
|
tonych
|
|
June 23, 2018, 01:02:43 AM |
|
Today is a big day for blackbytes: now they can be sent to anyone, even if they are not in Byteball yet, no pairing required. https://medium.com/byteball/private-textcoins-6a2288d80757 This is part of version 2.3 released today https://github.com/byteball/byteball/releases* Blackbytes and other private assets can now be sent as textcoins. Private textcoins are files with .coin suffix, they can be sent over email, chat apps, or using a USB stick. The file contains the mnemonic, which allows to derive the private key, and private payloads together with their entire history, this is exactly the history which is *not* posted to the public DAG. Double-clicking the .coin file opens the app and starts claiming the textcoin (it can take a while as a long history needs to be validated), the file can be also drag-n-dropped to the app. * Ability to sign arbitrary message to prove one's address. The signer doesn't need to have any bytes. The text to be signed is offered in chat, the signer clicks it and signs. * Ability to spend unconfirmed funds. It will be enabled in the validating code at MCI 2909000 but standard wallets will not be able to select unconfirmed coins as inputs until the next update. Developer projects such as BIoT (which uses payment channels for streaming payments between IoT devices) can immediately take advantage of this update. It is a breaking change, all full nodes will have to upgrade. * Extensions of smart contract language. It is a breaking change, all full nodes will have to upgrade. * Fixes in determining finality of transactions. It is a breaking change, all full nodes will have to upgrade. * Fixes in multi-send feature on non-US locale. * Fixed the display of confirmation message when posting data (data feeds, attestations, etc) from a multi-sig wallet. Now the message includes the data being posted. * Multiple small bugfixes This is a mandatory update for all full nodes (both GUI and headless). |
Simplicity is beauty
|
|
|
|
Alubert
|
|
June 23, 2018, 01:03:37 AM |
|
Great to see the latest update.
|
|
|
|
|
|
