Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments

[grzem]

Hello,
I'm the ovner of still small crypto exchange, cryptox.pl. Since few weeks we are working on byteball, to be added to our exchange.
Things go quite well, so we will be ready at about 27-12 to start market. We will publish official announcement at 9:00 AM 24-12-2016.
I can answer some questions now, everything should be clear in announcement (later this thread).  

Hi Grzem, that's great!

Which trading pairs are you going to list and with which Byte unit (Megabyte, Gigabyte)?

GBYTE/BTC

there are now:
LTC/BTC
DASH/BTC
XMR/BTC

[1714196050]

1714196050

[1714196050]

1714196050

[1714196050]

1714196050

[1714196050]

1714196050

[DooMAD]

Got the windows version running fine.  What are the requirements for the Android version?  Play Store keeps telling me my device isn't compatible with this version.  But to be fair, my phone is almost 5 years old, so I'm not setting my expectations unrealistically high for getting it running.  Still an impressive launch so far.  

[CryptKeeper]

Got the windows version running fine.  What are the requirements for the Android version?  Play Store keeps telling me my device isn't compatible with this version.  But to be fair, my phone is almost 5 years old, so I'm not setting my expectations unrealistically high for getting it running.  Still an impressive launch so far.  

Have a look at cyanogenmod, maybe your smartphone is listed and you can upgrade it with this free firmware!
https://www.cyanogenmod.org/

[o0o0]

Hello,
I'm the ovner of still small crypto exchange, cryptox.pl. Since few weeks we are working on byteball, to be added to our exchange.
Things go quite well, so we will be ready at about 27-12 to start market. We will publish official announcement at 9:00 AM 24-12-2016.
I can answer some questions now, everything should be clear in announcement (later this thread).  

Hi Grzem, that's great!

Which trading pairs are you going to list and with which Byte unit (Megabyte, Gigabyte)?

GBYTE/BTC

there are now:
LTC/BTC
DASH/BTC
XMR/BTC

GBYTE/BTC will be quite low. as a comparison those with 100btc linked will get 300GB. unless you expect 0.5btc per GB rates then MB is a better measure. its why i asked tony on it. 1GB is a huge measure on overall percent. when the tipbot gives 1MB or 1000KB in proportion 1GB is too huge to be a base unit. very few would have 1TB if any. i think you should use MB

[o0o0]

whats everyones speculation of
1MB of byteball = btc/satoshi value on exchange float? im just curious

[grzem]

GBYTE/BTC will be quite low. as a comparison those with 100btc linked will get 300GB. unless you expect 0.5btc per GB rates then MB is a better measure. its why i asked tony on it. 1GB is a huge measure on overall percent. when the tipbot gives 1MB or 1000KB in proportion 1GB is too huge to be a base unit. very few would have 1TB if any. i think you should use MB

I don't think byteball gains BTC market cap easily, there will be 1 milion GBYTE market suply, compared to 21 milion BTC, price of GBYTE should be below 1 as all other crypto. MBYTE price would have 3 leading zeros more (after dot) which leeds to confusion.

[freezal]

So I cloned master again, run build steps leaving only the final "grunt" to be run.
Then find byteball/node_modules/byteballcore renamed it to get ride of it.
Put in its place the content of your unfinished byteballcore, and run grunt and tried to run byteball as before.
But after chose full wallet it shows and exclamation icon with message:
An exception occurred: TypeError: Wallet.readBalance is not a function: cause: undefined
And after click OK button it closes.
it seems I'm doing it the wrong way.
If you still want me to test this sock5 thing, could you please point me to some instruction on how to make it works.

Besides of this, I think I'm afraid  I could not use this new version of byteball with sock5 to link and participate on byteball first round of distribution, as it probably won't be ready soon enough;
I still want to use TOR and so my only option seems to be whonix building livenet myself.

You did everything right, but the versions appeared to be incompatible (the fork was lagging a few commits), so forget it, better wait that we merge, or given the time constraints, the whonix ways seems safer.

If by doing: git clone https://github.com/byteball/byteball.git I get "new testnet", how can I clone live 0.7.1 (with I assume is the version everybody linking their bitcoins is using) to build it to proceed with live wallet generation and linking process via TOR?
Thanks.

Switch to "livenet" branch, it corresponds to live 0.7.1.

OK, that works and I've successfully build and run  livenet. Thank you.
Now, my security model imply, as a way to link byteball to bitcoins, that I sign byteball addresses offline.
So I've tried to generate a certain number of byteball address in order to create a file to take it offline to another computer and while there I would sign each byteball address with a bitcoin address and save the signed text.
Then I would bring that file back to the online computer start byteball again and inform to the linking bot those addresses and signed results and have everything linked.
So, to generate the byteball addresses I went to receive and press generate address button several times and then went to Preferences > Advanced > Wallet Information and at button copied the generated byteball addresses.
First thing I noticed was that it seems to only show the last about 6 generated addresses.
Never mind, I come back to receive and generate some more and go back to Walled Information and copy the new ones from there,
Then I noticed that after some time receive stop generating new addresses and every time that I press generate button it generates one of those already generated.
I tried to close and run again the wallet and the same thing happened
Is there a way around this?
Even thou I'm not being able to see all addresses can I be sure to have all them registered inside the wallet?
Thanks again

[freezal]

So I cloned master again, run build steps leaving only the final "grunt" to be run.
Then find byteball/node_modules/byteballcore renamed it to get ride of it.
Put in its place the content of your unfinished byteballcore, and run grunt and tried to run byteball as before.
But after chose full wallet it shows and exclamation icon with message:
An exception occurred: TypeError: Wallet.readBalance is not a function: cause: undefined
And after click OK button it closes.
it seems I'm doing it the wrong way.
If you still want me to test this sock5 thing, could you please point me to some instruction on how to make it works.

Besides of this, I think I'm afraid  I could not use this new version of byteball with sock5 to link and participate on byteball first round of distribution, as it probably won't be ready soon enough;
I still want to use TOR and so my only option seems to be whonix building livenet myself.

You did everything right, but the versions appeared to be incompatible (the fork was lagging a few commits), so forget it, better wait that we merge, or given the time constraints, the whonix ways seems safer.

If by doing: git clone https://github.com/byteball/byteball.git I get "new testnet", how can I clone live 0.7.1 (with I assume is the version everybody linking their bitcoins is using) to build it to proceed with live wallet generation and linking process via TOR?
Thanks.

Switch to "livenet" branch, it corresponds to live 0.7.1.

OK, that works and I've successfully build and run  livenet. Thank you.
Now, my security model imply, as a way to link byteball to bitcoins, that I sign byteball addresses offline.
So I've tried to generate a certain number of byteball address in order to create a file to take it offline to another computer and while there I would sign each byteball address with a bitcoin address and save the signed text.
Then I would bring that file back to the online computer start byteball again and inform to the linking bot those addresses and signed results and have everything linked.
So, to generate the byteball addresses I went to receive and press generate address button several times and then went to Preferences > Advanced > Wallet Information and at button copied the generated byteball addresses.
First thing I noticed was that it seems to only show the last about 6 generated addresses.
Never mind, I come back to receive and generate some more and go back to Walled Information and copy the new ones from there,
Then I noticed that after some time receive stop generating new addresses and every time that I press generate button it generates one of those already generated.
I tried to close and run again the wallet and the same thing happened
Is there a way around this?
Even thou I'm not being able to see all addresses can I be sure to have all them registered inside the wallet?
Thanks again

Complementing....

I've also noticed that when I press insert address button on transition bot it place there one of the previouslly generated ađresses  and not a newly generated one.

thanks

[tonych]

So I cloned master again, run build steps leaving only the final "grunt" to be run.
Then find byteball/node_modules/byteballcore renamed it to get ride of it.
Put in its place the content of your unfinished byteballcore, and run grunt and tried to run byteball as before.
But after chose full wallet it shows and exclamation icon with message:
An exception occurred: TypeError: Wallet.readBalance is not a function: cause: undefined
And after click OK button it closes.
it seems I'm doing it the wrong way.
If you still want me to test this sock5 thing, could you please point me to some instruction on how to make it works.

Besides of this, I think I'm afraid  I could not use this new version of byteball with sock5 to link and participate on byteball first round of distribution, as it probably won't be ready soon enough;
I still want to use TOR and so my only option seems to be whonix building livenet myself.

You did everything right, but the versions appeared to be incompatible (the fork was lagging a few commits), so forget it, better wait that we merge, or given the time constraints, the whonix ways seems safer.

If by doing: git clone https://github.com/byteball/byteball.git I get "new testnet", how can I clone live 0.7.1 (with I assume is the version everybody linking their bitcoins is using) to build it to proceed with live wallet generation and linking process via TOR?
Thanks.

Switch to "livenet" branch, it corresponds to live 0.7.1.

OK, that works and I've successfully build and run  livenet. Thank you.
Now, my security model imply, as a way to link byteball to bitcoins, that I sign byteball addresses offline.
So I've tried to generate a certain number of byteball address in order to create a file to take it offline to another computer and while there I would sign each byteball address with a bitcoin address and save the signed text.
Then I would bring that file back to the online computer start byteball again and inform to the linking bot those addresses and signed results and have everything linked.
So, to generate the byteball addresses I went to receive and press generate address button several times and then went to Preferences > Advanced > Wallet Information and at button copied the generated byteball addresses.
First thing I noticed was that it seems to only show the last about 6 generated addresses.
Never mind, I come back to receive and generate some more and go back to Walled Information and copy the new ones from there,
Then I noticed that after some time receive stop generating new addresses and every time that I press generate button it generates one of those already generated.
I tried to close and run again the wallet and the same thing happened
Is there a way around this?
Even thou I'm not being able to see all addresses can I be sure to have all them registered inside the wallet?
Thanks again

Complementing....

I've also noticed that when I press insert address button on transition bot it place there one of the previouslly generated ađresses  and not a newly generated one.

thanks

BIP44 recommends to avoid having more than 20 unused addresses in a row, that's why we stop generating new addresses at this point and give a random unused one.  However, you can hack this around by editing MAX_BIP44_GAP constant at https://github.com/byteball/byteballcore/blob/master/wallet_defined_by_keys.js#L25.

Note that signed message is expected to sign the last BB address that you told the bot.  So if you want to avoid all your Bitcoin addresses being associated with the same BB address, your dialog with the bot should consist of repeated series of these 3 steps:
- BB address
- Bitcoin address
- signed message

[freezal]

BIP44 recommends to avoid having more than 20 unused addresses in a row, that's why we stop generating new addresses at this point and give a random unused one.  However, you can hack this around by editing MAX_BIP44_GAP constant at https://github.com/byteball/byteballcore/blob/master/wallet_defined_by_keys.js#L25.

Note that signed message is expected to sign the last BB address that you told the bot.  So if you want to avoid all your Bitcoin addresses being associated with the same BB address, your dialog with the bot should consist of repeated series of these 3 steps:
- BB address
- Bitcoin address
- signed message

Thank you very much tonych for the detailed response.
I now understand that behaviour.
I can now procced with my original plan an I will succed.
Thanks

[crypt0hash]

GBYTE/BTC will be quite low. as a comparison those with 100btc linked will get 300GB. unless you expect 0.5btc per GB rates then MB is a better measure. its why i asked tony on it. 1GB is a huge measure on overall percent. when the tipbot gives 1MB or 1000KB in proportion 1GB is too huge to be a base unit. very few would have 1TB if any. i think you should use MB

I don't think byteball gains BTC market cap easily, there will be 1 milion GBYTE market suply, compared to 21 milion BTC, price of GBYTE should be below 1 as all other crypto. MBYTE price would have 3 leading zeros more (after dot) which leeds to confusion.

No. Not yet, maybe in a year. I guess, it`s better to start with small units so that we have the potential for gradual growth. At the beginning there is only 100 000 and not 1 mln. GB.

tonych, what do you thing about it?

[yvv]

The exchange is not built-in (as in Nxt, Ripple, and Bitshares), it is an application built on smart contracts.  It is the first application on our network that uses smart contracts.  By keeping the exchange out of the core, we achieve that we don't have to add complexity to the core, as well as greater flexibility in how the exchange can work.

This is interesting approach. Nxt, Ripple or Bitshares don't have businesses which run their exchanges, but they all need businesses to run gateways which take care of deposits/withdrawals of funds. Do you suggest that exchange and gateway are combined and ran by same business? How would assets issued by different exchanges be traded against each other in this case?

[Krypt]

How would assets issued by different exchanges be traded against each other in this case?

They are public assets issued (by exchange or gateway) on the DAG. So they'll be traded by the same tonych's smart contract run by whatever business.

[Seccour]

30,000 BTC linked!

And there is already a 15% whale.

It was worse before. 15% is "nothing" and we still have some days left before the snapshot.

[tonych]

GBYTE/BTC will be quite low. as a comparison those with 100btc linked will get 300GB. unless you expect 0.5btc per GB rates then MB is a better measure. its why i asked tony on it. 1GB is a huge measure on overall percent. when the tipbot gives 1MB or 1000KB in proportion 1GB is too huge to be a base unit. very few would have 1TB if any. i think you should use MB

I don't think byteball gains BTC market cap easily, there will be 1 milion GBYTE market suply, compared to 21 milion BTC, price of GBYTE should be below 1 as all other crypto. MBYTE price would have 3 leading zeros more (after dot) which leeds to confusion.

No. Not yet, maybe in a year. I guess, it`s better to start with small units so that we have the potential for gradual growth. At the beginning there is only 100 000 and not 1 mln. GB.

tonych, what do you thing about it?

It's just the numbers, they have nothing to do with potential for growth.  Gigabyte is ok with me.

[willowfoot]

I think there is a bug in transition.byteball.org  People with 0.00587999 BTC balance have 0.9270 share? What is happening here?
Check it with this bitcoin address for example: 1KKTysfLfnDrFx2ZmBdFj9dSey9yPHxYBX

Looks like it is a bug:

[ImI]

Is there another way of connecting a BTC address than the Chatbot?

[22naru]

Is there another way of connecting a BTC address than the Chatbot?

i guess not , but  why you will not use it?

[tonych]

The exchange is not built-in (as in Nxt, Ripple, and Bitshares), it is an application built on smart contracts.  It is the first application on our network that uses smart contracts.  By keeping the exchange out of the core, we achieve that we don't have to add complexity to the core, as well as greater flexibility in how the exchange can work.

This is interesting approach. Nxt, Ripple or Bitshares don't have businesses which run their exchanges, but they all need businesses to run gateways which take care of deposits/withdrawals of funds. Do you suggest that exchange and gateway are combined and ran by same business? How would assets issued by different exchanges be traded against each other in this case?

Issuers and exchanges can be combined or not.  If a business issues assets that try to mirror fiat currencies, i.e. acts as a gateway, it does make sense to run the two activities under the same roof because customers would benefit from one-stop shopping.

[Franky2010]

So when is exacly snapshot made, what time on 25th December 2016.