Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments

[drngocct]

With the price chart like this:
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/byteball/
Have you had interests in Byteball project and potential investments? 

[1556283857]

1556283857

[1556283857]

1556283857

[1556283857]

1556283857

[1556283857]

1556283857

[1556283857]

1556283857

[mizukage123]

ICO owners are always the most winners because coins are cheaper before they go to the market and they also give a bonus. and when coins rise most, it is time to first go to the market. the best ICOs are ICOs created by whale groups. All of the LBR's directors are members of the whale group.

[kamtugis]

Which technology? Proof of work or proof of stake please?

[codemanX]

Which technology? Proof of work or proof of stake please?

Byteball has a complete different technology - it uses Tangle which is neither PoW nor PoS. Just google for it if you want to learn further details.

[bobq]

New managers, ambassadors and ICO’s (Byteball email newsletter)
https://medium.com/@byteballjesus/new-managers-ambassadors-and-icos-byteball-email-newsletter-badd5808a1c

This sounds all good. I like the comparison of Byteball to a huge box of Legos. Happy about the new Polish ambassador and the ongoing Venezuelan project. Ideally, we would need at least one great ambassador per country.

[cryptohunter]

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.

[ePesoInitiative]

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.

I don't think so. Basically all coins were down, no exceptions. So, even if good news were coming out of Byteball's ears, it wouldn't impact the price at all. Remember during the insane bull run of 2017, even bullshit coins were pumped without reason. Same thing now in reverse.

[22naru]

But you have more bytes 

but i wanted more bitcoins

funny how ppl think... buying  altcoins and wish to make more btc after selling  the coin  ... so that means you dont need that altcoin or you use it  you need BTC  so go buy BTC... WTF is with this mentality.

BYTEBALL project is a big thing in crypto world but  not so many ppl know yet ... only  the smart money  who buy in dip .

[22naru]

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.

@tony need to come with a great idea... how to change   this to problems... hope the community will help aswell

[bobq]

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.

Even though Byteball's monetary base is consisting in billions of bytes, only 650.000 Gigabytes or so are existing now, and max supply will be 1 Million.
Therefore, if you are thinking in terms of Gigabytes, mass adoption is virtually impossible. People will always feel the frustration of not being able to own even one single Gigabyte and they will likely not even take into consideration the currency. Since there are whales who own a lot of Gigabytes, people who will be able to afford one entire Gigabyte will be in the thousands - best case scenario. This is NOT mass adoption.
People will argue that something similar is happening with Bitcoin - most of the people today can afford to own only fractions of a Bitcoin. But this, in fact, is one of the main problems of Bitcoin, people have always to carefully count how many zeroes there are before the quantity of satoshis of their transactions. This is totally absurd and in fact Bitcoin today is used only as a speculative store of value, and NOT as a real currency.
Byteball aimed to be better, but if the total monetary base is consisting in just 1 Million coins the fact is that it has just AMPLIFIED 21 times this problem of Bitcoin, it has not at all solved it. There will be max 21 Million Bitcoins, and Byteball won't ever have more than one Million Gigabytes. If you are thinking in term of Gigabytes, you have just made the problem 21 times worse. And now we are thinking in terms of Gigabytes. When I'm speaking with my friend we are talking about how many Gigabytes we have, not Megabytes or Bytes. This is a mistake.

We have to think at Gigabytes as we are thinking at the Million of dollars.

The few who can afford owning the Gigabytes are the rich elite, just like those who are owning the Million of dollars. Most of the people don't own Million of dollars (or euros), they just own dollars (or euros). Perhaps thousands of Euros/Dollars ("grands"), but not Millions.
And if Byteball will achieve mass adoption most of the people won't own Gigabytes, they will just own Bytes. Or Kilobytes. If you consider bytes to be cents, then you should consider the ideal unity of Byteball being Kilobytes. Not even Megabytes. Megabytes would somehow semantically sound like the "grands" - one thousand dollars or pounds according to the urban dictionary of FIAT money.
Just as you don't buy a packet of cigarettes with 0.00001 Million of Dollars, you shouldn't have to buy it with 0.001 Gigabytes.
This all could seem a trivial problem to many, but it is not. Reality is a state of mind and perception is playing a fundamental role in the shaping of reality.
To use Gigabytes to measure Byteball generates a cognitive dissonance with the mission of achieving mass adoption. It makes feel Byteball to be an elitarian coin/platform, not a popular one. The exchanges, and more than that Coinmarketcap, are the places where the measurment unit of Byteball is officialized. If exchanges and Coinmarketcap will tell Gigabytes, people will think in Gigabytes, and this makes no sense, since in ordinary life you don't think in terms of Million of Dollars/Euros. That would be crazy. And to insist to speak about Byteball in terms of Gigabytes is crazy too. It basically makes bo sense.

As I've said, I'm not interested in the price of Byteball. In a healthy environment the price is just a natural consequence. But I am interested in seeing one little problem corrected, which alone is able to jeopardize Byteball's entire mission, since it's in complete dissonance with the "philosophy" of Byteball.

Just my two cents (or Bytes)

[jjacob]

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.

[AVATAR777]

I think now is the time for beginners to look at this project and study it in detail, because there comes a time when you need to look after the purchase of coins. This coin still seems to me has the right to exist and may be a success in the future.

[majestymage]

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.

Even though Byteball's monetary base is consisting in billions of bytes, only 650.000 Gigabytes or so are existing now, and max supply will be 1 Million.
Therefore, if you are thinking in terms of Gigabytes, mass adoption is virtually impossible. People will always feel the frustration of not being able to own even one single Gigabyte and they will likely not even take into consideration the currency. Since there are whales who own a lot of Gigabytes, people who will be able to afford one entire Gigabyte will be in the thousands - best case scenario. This is NOT mass adoption.
People will argue that something similar is happening with Bitcoin - most of the people today can afford to own only fractions of a Bitcoin. But this, in fact, is one of the main problems of Bitcoin, people have always to carefully count how many zeroes there are before the quantity of satoshis of their transactions. This is totally absurd and in fact Bitcoin today is used only as a speculative store of value, and NOT as a real currency.
Byteball aimed to be better, but if the total monetary base is consisting in just 1 Million coins the fact is that it has just AMPLIFIED 21 times this problem of Bitcoin, it has not at all solved it. There will be max 21 Million Bitcoins, and Byteball won't ever have more than one Million Gigabytes. If you are thinking in term of Gigabytes, you have just made the problem 21 times worse. And now we are thinking in terms of Gigabytes. When I'm speaking with my friend we are talking about how many Gigabytes we have, not Megabytes or Bytes. This is a mistake.

We have to think at Gigabytes as we are thinking at the Million of dollars.

The few who can afford owning the Gigabytes are the rich elite, just like those who are owning the Million of dollars. Most of the people don't own Million of dollars (or euros), they just own dollars (or euros). Perhaps thousands of Euros/Dollars ("grands"), but not Millions.
And if Byteball will achieve mass adoption most of the people won't own Gigabytes, they will just own Bytes. Or Kilobytes. If you consider bytes to be cents, then you should consider the ideal unity of Byteball being Kilobytes. Not even Megabytes. Megabytes would somehow semantically sound like the "grands" - one thousand dollars or pounds according to the urban dictionary of FIAT money.
Just as you don't buy a packet of cigarettes with 0.00001 Million of Dollars, you shouldn't have to buy it with 0.001 Gigabytes.
This all could seem a trivial problem to many, but it is not. Reality is a state of mind and perception is playing a fundamental role in the shaping of reality.
To use Gigabytes to measure Byteball generates a cognitive dissonance with the mission of achieving mass adoption. It makes feel Byteball to be an elitarian coin/platform, not a popular one. The exchanges, and more than that Coinmarketcap, are the places where the measurment unit of Byteball is officialized. If exchanges and Coinmarketcap will tell Gigabytes, people will think in Gigabytes, and this makes no sense, since in ordinary life you don't think in terms of Million of Dollars/Euros. That would be crazy. And to insist to speak about Byteball in terms of Gigabytes is crazy too. It basically makes bo sense.

As I've said, I'm not interested in the price of Byteball. In a healthy environment the price is just a natural consequence. But I am interested in seeing one little problem corrected, which alone is able to jeopardize Byteball's entire mission, since it's in complete dissonance with the "philosophy" of Byteball.

Just my two cents (or Bytes)

interesting scalling perspective. maybe it would indeed help on the adoption phase a little. but maybe it is too early in the game for that. if the community will grow, it would eventually reach that point by itself. a few years ago we would talk about owning a few btc, now fractions of it...in the future...who knows? for the adoption goal the idea is actually very good. merited the post.

[jwinterm]

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.php

There'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.

[nevashno]

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?

[gtzanap]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[jwinterm]

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.