Bitcoin Forum
May 21, 2019, 04:11:18 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 [1034] 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 ... 1090 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments  (Read 1164783 times)
ttookk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 513


View Profile
October 26, 2018, 09:14:32 PM
Merited by jbreher (5)
 #20661

Oh, good, we finally arrived on the verge of ad hominems. Questioning my intelligence and all that. Great.

It's funny how no one really talks about Byteball, but rather about Bitcoin…

(…)

Only a different consensus mechanism then one purely based on monetary gain can solve this, otherwise the process towards total centralization is automatic.  

I strongly disagree with this. If you have no built-in reward, the ones running the system will eventually make damn sure that they get rewarded in some other way.

I stongly disagree with that statement too!

I said purely monetary.

It is not a first time by ttookk for not understanding the whole sentence, he jumped to my "not comparable" too, ignoring that i said "not DIRECTLY comparable". Attention span nowadays Tongue
But could be language issue too, don't know.

Could be. Also, I'd like to hear if he/she or someone else disagrees with the more interesting part of that statement, namely that basing a consensus mechanism purely on monetary reward will automatically lead to total centralization.

Just like totally free (unregulated) capitalism in a market will automatically lead to a monopoly.

Yeah, maybe I was skimming over that part a bit quickly, but "purely monetary" in the strict sense doesn't exist; there is always other factors associated with it. Do you have to run hardware 24/7, do you have to stake coins/tokens etc.

To answer your question, I can see the danger of centralization in Bitcoin, yes, but I think it is largely mitigated by a strong division of the different interest groups (miners, devs, users, etc.) and the gametheoretical underpinnings that give cooperation on a protocol layer little to no advantage.

Let me try to rephrase the whole question I have:
As tarmo888 has so condescendingly stated, Byteball operates on a very different basis than Bitcoin, so why aren't you guys looking for more comparable real-world projects?

I brought up the witness voting mechanism to DPoS comparison multiple times, because I think it is far more comparable than Byteball/BTC. If you want to see how a future system that is based on voting can look like, there are a lot of DPoS systems out there in which on-chain voting as part of the consensus mechanism is a thing and their behavior can be studied. Lisk, EOS, Ark, Tron, Shift, just to name a few.

…Oh, and by the way, here is something no one in the altcoin space wants to hear: technology is absolutely overrated. Things don't have to work optimally with tons of headroom, they have to work good enough. Almost all Bitcoin clones were trying the "better than BTC" narrative, be it faster blocktimes, bigger blocks, more GPU-friendly mining algos etc. Where are they now? Currently, we are seeing the same phenomenon with ETH and its competitors. If tech would actually matter as much as so many people think it does, at least Ethereum would have been dethroned by now.
In the end, it doesn't matter if something is theoretically better than the competition, if no one uses it. History is full of better versions of the things that became mainstream, where simply the circumstances, like the network effect, helped decide the race.
Bitcoin is more decentralized than all the other projects out there (maybe except for Ethereum in some fields), including Byteball. Bitcoin is the most secure blockchain/distributed ledger. Maybe there are implementations out there which are theoretically more secure, if they had the userbase, the development base, the miner base and all the other metrics of Bitcoin, but they don't. In the end, users will not (and should not) give two shits about whether the system they use to pay their coffee or whatever uses a blockchain or a DAG, PoW, PoS or a different consensus mechanism.

Alright, but now I guess this turns too much into incoherent rambling from my side, plus, I don't like to be insulted, so that's it from my side. You have fun playing with your Byteballs.
1558455078
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558455078

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558455078
Reply with quote  #2

1558455078
Report to moderator
1558455078
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558455078

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558455078
Reply with quote  #2

1558455078
Report to moderator
Crypto Casino Since 2014
Level Up & Get Even More Rewards!
Daily Treasure Chest
& Much More
Roll Hunt
Rakeback
Blackjack
Jackpot
Dice
Slots
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1558455078
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558455078

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558455078
Reply with quote  #2

1558455078
Report to moderator
1558455078
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558455078

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558455078
Reply with quote  #2

1558455078
Report to moderator
julian071
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 895
Merit: 543



View Profile
October 26, 2018, 09:32:23 PM
 #20662

Oh, good, we finally arrived on the verge of ad hominems. Questioning my intelligence and all that. Great.

It's funny how no one really talks about Byteball, but rather about Bitcoin…

(…)

Only a different consensus mechanism then one purely based on monetary gain can solve this, otherwise the process towards total centralization is automatic.  

I strongly disagree with this. If you have no built-in reward, the ones running the system will eventually make damn sure that they get rewarded in some other way.

I stongly disagree with that statement too!

I said purely monetary.

It is not a first time by ttookk for not understanding the whole sentence, he jumped to my "not comparable" too, ignoring that i said "not DIRECTLY comparable". Attention span nowadays Tongue
But could be language issue too, don't know.

Could be. Also, I'd like to hear if he/she or someone else disagrees with the more interesting part of that statement, namely that basing a consensus mechanism purely on monetary reward will automatically lead to total centralization.

Just like totally free (unregulated) capitalism in a market will automatically lead to a monopoly.

Yeah, maybe I was skimming over that part a bit quickly, but "purely monetary" in the strict sense doesn't exist; there is always other factors associated with it. Do you have to run hardware 24/7, do you have to stake coins/tokens etc.

To answer your question, I can see the danger of centralization in Bitcoin, yes, but I think it is largely mitigated by a strong division of the different interest groups (miners, devs, users, etc.) and the gametheoretical underpinnings that give cooperation on a protocol layer little to no advantage.

Let me try to rephrase the whole question I have:
As tarmo888 has so condescendingly stated, Byteball operates on a very different basis than Bitcoin, so why aren't you guys looking for more comparable real-world projects?

I brought up the witness voting mechanism to DPoS comparison multiple times, because I think it is far more comparable than Byteball/BTC. If you want to see how a future system that is based on voting can look like, there are a lot of DPoS systems out there in which on-chain voting as part of the consensus mechanism is a thing and their behavior can be studied. Lisk, EOS, Ark, Tron, Shift, just to name a few.

…Oh, and by the way, here is something no one in the altcoin space wants to hear: technology is absolutely overrated. Things don't have to work optimally with tons of headroom, they have to work good enough. Almost all Bitcoin clones were trying the "better than BTC" narrative, be it faster blocktimes, bigger blocks, more GPU-friendly mining algos etc. Where are they now? Currently, we are seeing the same phenomenon with ETH and its competitors. If tech would actually matter as much as so many people think it does, at least Ethereum would have been dethroned by now.
In the end, it doesn't matter if something is theoretically better than the competition, if no one uses it. History is full of better versions of the things that became mainstream, where simply the circumstances, like the network effect, helped decide the race.
Bitcoin is more decentralized than all the other projects out there (maybe except for Ethereum in some fields), including Byteball. Bitcoin is the most secure blockchain/distributed ledger. Maybe there are implementations out there which are theoretically more secure, if they had the userbase, the development base, the miner base and all the other metrics of Bitcoin, but they don't. In the end, users will not (and should not) give two shits about whether the system they use to pay their coffee or whatever uses a blockchain or a DAG, PoW, PoS or a different consensus mechanism.

Alright, but now I guess this turns too much into incoherent rambling from my side, plus, I don't like to be insulted, so that's it from my side. You have fun playing with your Byteballs.

Good points about practical circumstances and not just technical specifications deciding the race. VHS vs Betamax etc (look it up kids). if history teaches us anything, we just need to use new tech to publish porn in order to make a project succeed.

As for the monetary reward and costs, there is hardly any of that in Byeball, the role of a witness is very different and it is much more about trustworthyness, reputation. In fact the point is, they are only witnesses because they are reputable and to continue to be recognized as such, they should not have any other interest in the ecosystem other then that. Very different from the interests of miners in a PoW-scenario.

Sincere apologies if I was to impolite.

=P
ttookk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 513


View Profile
October 26, 2018, 09:58:42 PM
 #20663

(…)

Sincere apologies if I was to impolite.

… alright, just for you I'll write another post here: no apologies needed, this was not addressed at you.

Quote
As for the monetary reward and costs, there is hardly any of that in Byeball, the role of a witness is very different and it is much more about trustworthyness, reputation. In fact the point is, they are only witnesses because they are reputable and to continue to be recognized as such, they should not have any other interest in the ecosystem other then that. Very different from the interests of miners in a PoW-scenario.

Bitcoins base premise is that you don't have to trust the miners because the system as a whole is built in a way that makes bad behavior expensive and ultimately not worth it. Anyone, regardless of reputation, is able to mine and you as a user should not need to care who confirmed your transaction.
I can see how soe people might feel uncomfortable with this. What if the block was mined by a state-sponsored mining facility in North Korea (to my knowledge not happening right now, but a possible scenario)? Having real world entities who keep the system running may be the preferable choice for some.

Now, this may sound silly, but can you imagine being one of twelve witnesses on a system with the marketcap and transaction throughput of Bitcoin, or even more? I would be terrified. What if there was a bug and I messed something up and someone lost a big amount of money? What if someone knocked on my door and asked me politely but "convincingly" not to confirm transactions on a certain branch of the DAG or something? We were talking about scaling in a different sense, but maybe thinking about scaling in that direction would be worth a thought or two.

Quote
if history teaches us anything, we just need to use new tech to publish porn in order to make a project succeed.

Oh god, does that mean the real future of crypto is Verge? I think we can both agree on that not being a good thing Tongue

Ok, now that's it I think.
tarmo888
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 14


View Profile WWW
October 26, 2018, 10:47:32 PM
Last edit: October 26, 2018, 11:06:30 PM by tarmo888
 #20664

Oh, good, we finally arrived on the verge of ad hominems. Questioning my intelligence and all that. Great.

Alright, but now I guess this turns too much into incoherent rambling from my side, plus, I don't like to be insulted, so that's it from my side. You have fun playing with your Byteballs.

I did not question your intelligence nor called you with any names. I was just wondering if there is some languages issues that you yet again cherry pick a word out without the context and jump a gun on it. "not directly comparable" is not same as "not comparable", also "purely based on monetary gain" is not same as "based on monetary gain". And also, you accuse others talking only about Bitcoin, when post was comparison. Like how hard is that to miss? Must be a language issue or you didn't read it at all.

Yeah, maybe I was skimming over that part a bit quickly

Ahh, right, it seems you didn't read it, try to read the parts about Byteball too, not just Bitcoin, you might get different understanding of the post.

I brought up the witness voting mechanism to DPoS comparison multiple times, because I think it is far more comparable than Byteball/BTC. If you want to see how a future system that is based on voting can look like, there are a lot of DPoS systems out there in which on-chain voting as part of the consensus mechanism is a thing and their behavior can be studied. Lisk, EOS, Ark, Tron, Shift, just to name a few.

If you are suggesting by that, it should have more witnesses and anybody could be randomly a witness and they should be anonymous and so on then that is explained in whitepaper. 12 is optimal amount because less would be not enough and more would be too difficult to keep track of. This is only because they should be public persons or companies with reputation on the line. If it would be anonymous then obviously current system would not work.
It is too early to tell, which is the ultimate consensus mechanism, so if you feel this is not the right combination then you can support any of the mentioned projects above that you think has better mix of rules.

…Oh, and by the way, here is something no one in the altcoin space wants to hear: technology is absolutely overrated. Things don't have to work optimally with tons of headroom, they have to work good enough. Almost all Bitcoin clones were trying the "better than BTC" narrative, be it faster blocktimes, bigger blocks, more GPU-friendly mining algos etc. Where are they now? Currently, we are seeing the same phenomenon with ETH and its competitors. If tech would actually matter as much as so many people think it does, at least Ethereum would have been dethroned by now.
In the end, it doesn't matter if something is theoretically better than the competition, if no one uses it. History is full of better versions of the things that became mainstream, where simply the circumstances, like the network effect, helped decide the race.
Bitcoin is more decentralized than all the other projects out there (maybe except for Ethereum in some fields), including Byteball. Bitcoin is the most secure blockchain/distributed ledger. Maybe there are implementations out there which are theoretically more secure, if they had the userbase, the development base, the miner base and all the other metrics of Bitcoin, but they don't. In the end, users will not (and should not) give two shits about whether the system they use to pay their coffee or whatever uses a blockchain or a DAG, PoW, PoS or a different consensus mechanism.

This is all true what you are saying, can't argue with that, but you are drifting away from the original point where this discussion began:

You are right about incentives.  But there is something else.  PoW mining is an economic activity.  You have capex, you have opex, almost all your profits are burned in your huge costs, and you have to care about efficiency in order to stay in the game.  And in any economic activity, you have economy of scale.  As your mining farm gets bigger, it becomes more efficient and stands better against the competition.  You get volume discounts for miners, you will be the first in line for the new generation of miners, you can get cheaper electricity when you buy wholesale, it becomes worthwhile to relocate to a more favorable location, and you can hire the best talent in the industry.  It doesn't matter if the PoW algorithm is ASICable or not, the economy of scale is universal.  It might be not very important in the growing market when everyone, even a smaller and weaker miner, gets a portion of the growing pie, but nothing lasts forever and as the market matures and gets more competitive, the weaker players are darwinized, and the hash power gets concentrated in the hands of a few bigger miners.  Miners, not mining pools.  This looks like an end-game of any PoW based blockchain, because it has a heavy "hook" into the economy, and the economy favors scale.  You can call it emergent centralization.  Incidentally, Byteball moves in the opposite direction.
tarmo888
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 14


View Profile WWW
October 26, 2018, 11:23:31 PM
Last edit: October 26, 2018, 11:42:23 PM by tarmo888
 #20665

What if someone knocked on my door and asked me politely but "convincingly" not to confirm transactions on a certain branch of the DAG or something?

Byteball is NOT a Bitcoin fork, it doesn't matter if somebody knocked on witness's door and asked them politely but "convincingly" not to confirm transactions on a certain branch of the DAG.

Like, how can this be explained, so it would be understanded and not brought up again. It goes against the rules of the code that witnesses are running that you could censor or not include some transactions. If you do that, everybody will know and you get replaced. All witnesses have to be asked politely but "convincingly" in order to pull it off, but then it would be still visible that it was done.

What you are bringing up again is a feature of Bitcoin that you can pick transactions that go to a block. Not such thing in Byteball. No blocks, it's DAG. Doesn't matter who you are or how much you payed transaction fee, your transaction will be confirmed and final. No rewrites of history. Only exception is double-spending (these will not be confirmed), that is what witnesses are looking out for, so it would not happen.
tonych
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 873
Merit: 793


View Profile WWW
October 27, 2018, 12:44:59 AM
 #20666

There is no inherent incentive to work together as miners, and if there is, a group of miners has no in-system way to punish miners who do not behave as the group wants them to.


You are right about incentives.  But there is something else.  PoW mining is an economic activity.  You have capex, you have opex, almost all your profits are burned in your huge costs, and you have to care about efficiency in order to stay in the game.  And in any economic activity, you have economy of scale.  As your mining farm gets bigger, it becomes more efficient and stands better against the competition.  You get volume discounts for miners, you will be the first in line for the new generation of miners, you can get cheaper electricity when you buy wholesale, it becomes worthwhile to relocate to a more favorable location, and you can hire the best talent in the industry.  It doesn't matter if the PoW algorithm is ASICable or not, the economy of scale is universal.  It might be not very important in the growing market when everyone, even a smaller and weaker miner, gets a portion of the growing pie, but nothing lasts forever and as the market matures and gets more competitive, the weaker players are darwinized, and the hash power gets concentrated in the hands of a few bigger miners.  Miners, not mining pools.  This looks like an end-game of any PoW based blockchain, because it has a heavy "hook" into the economy, and the economy favors scale.  You can call it emergent centralization.  Incidentally, Byteball moves in the opposite direction.

Yes, economy of scale is a thing. But why are you so focussed on talking about Bitcoin?

To give you some perspective.  To encourage comparison not of protocols, but of their practical realizations, where a degree of centralization often emerges naturally.

I mean, as the inventor of Byteball (if that is the appropriate term), I would be much more interested in your views regarding Byteballs inherent problems, not Bitcoins.

Like the DPoS comparison I made in the post. Do you have any thoughts on that, especially with Lisk and EOS as rather gloomy outlooks? I mean, I realize they are not comparable on a 1:1 basis, but there are similarities, don't you think?

Could you be more specific, I don't follow these projects too closely.  And it doesn't look like "gloomy" is a generally accepted opinion.
Of course there are similarities in what there is a class of users who are chosen for their good behavior but the amount of power over transactions that BB witnesses and DPoS delegates possess is vastly different.

Quote
...Incidentally, Byteball moves in the opposite direction.

Can you explain what you mean by that? I can't see how this statement is accurate.

Byteball started in centralized state and now moving to decentralize.

Simplicity is beauty
cybterpunk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 410
Merit: 101


View Profile
October 27, 2018, 03:51:58 AM
 #20667

any plan for future byteball distribution? thanks
Thul
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 27, 2018, 05:52:41 AM
Last edit: October 27, 2018, 06:05:40 AM by Thul
 #20668

Quote
...Incidentally, Byteball moves in the opposite direction.

Can you explain what you mean by that? I can't see how this statement is accurate.

Byteball started in centralized state and now moving to decentralize.

Exactly: "Why the hell should I care about your objections. My word is law."
 Roll Eyes
pineapple express
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 102



View Profile
October 27, 2018, 08:01:51 AM
 #20669

TOP 142 Shocked Byterbal the best



jbreher
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2380
Merit: 1248


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
October 27, 2018, 08:13:18 AM
 #20670

Just like totally free (unregulated) capitalism in a market will automatically lead to a monopoly.

The only monopolies that exist in unfettered free trade are those that already provide optimum product or service at optimum price for the consumer. Otherwise, a new entrant will either provide a better solution at same price or same solution at lower price, thereby eliminating the monopoly.

This is all quite foundational.

So with that understood, are you trying to malign the very existence of such a monopoly?

Haha!

A new entrant will get squashed by the all powerful monopolist, as happens all the time in the oligarchies you can observe in poorly regulated markets around the globe. They get bought up, and their ideas either implemented by the monopolist or shelved (e.g. Shell buying green energy innovations. They have a big shelve full of them, waiting for the right time).

'splain me 'squashed', willya?

Quote
It's all easily observable throughout history. Any new cell phone network operators recently in your part of the world, providing better or cheaper solutions?


mmm hmm... and which upstart 'cell phone network operators' were 'squashed' in this manner?

Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.
milugau
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 136
Merit: 12

Two lovely dogs (Milu & Gau)


View Profile
October 27, 2018, 08:14:00 AM
 #20671

TOP 142 Shocked Byterbal the best




It will be better , much better when Byteball rally to around its price early months this year.
In fact, Byteball has recovered well recent days.
I hope that the coin can maintain its upwards trend.
julian071
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 895
Merit: 543



View Profile
October 27, 2018, 09:53:22 AM
 #20672


'splain me 'squashed', willya?

Quote
It's all easily observable throughout history. Any new cell phone network operators recently in your part of the world, providing better or cheaper solutions?


mmm hmm... and which upstart 'cell phone network operators' were 'squashed' in this manner?

Squashed usually means bought up, but of course there are plenty of other ways to destroy a competitor. It really depends on the state the local judicial system en political system is in. To name but one example in Brazil, a few big construction companies could just bribe some politicians and top brass of Petrobas for all kinds of big deals, that their competitors would not get. That got blown up in the end because the judicial system does still work over there.

About the cell phone operators, I was asking you if you had seen any new ones recently. Because you haven't. An example of a cell phone company that got squashed by being bought in my country (NL) is Ben, which got bought bij T-Mobile. Or Telfort, which is now part of KPN. We only have a couple of operators left, I'm guessing you have too.

Point being of course in practice,in any industry where companies need large amounts of capital to be competitive, it's not only very hard to enter the market as a new player, but existing players will do anything they can to prevent new players to succeed. I mean why wouldn't they. They only thing stopping them is laws, like anti-trust laws.

=P
pineapple express
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 102



View Profile
October 27, 2018, 10:15:33 AM
Last edit: October 27, 2018, 11:03:17 AM by pineapple express
 #20673


'splain me 'squashed', willya?

Quote
It's all easily observable throughout history. Any new cell phone network operators recently in your part of the world, providing better or cheaper solutions?


mmm hmm... and which upstart 'cell phone network operators' were 'squashed' in this manner?
To name but one example in Brazil, a few big construction companies could just bribe some politicians and top brass of Petrobas for all kinds of big deals, that their competitors would not get. That got blown up in the end because the judicial system does still work over there.
Monopoly in your example created by central authority, not a free market. It is very likely that the monopoly of mobile operators is also the result of the work of the corrupt central authority.
tarmo888
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 14


View Profile WWW
October 27, 2018, 06:02:44 PM
 #20674


'splain me 'squashed', willya?

Quote
It's all easily observable throughout history. Any new cell phone network operators recently in your part of the world, providing better or cheaper solutions?


mmm hmm... and which upstart 'cell phone network operators' were 'squashed' in this manner?
To name but one example in Brazil, a few big construction companies could just bribe some politicians and top brass of Petrobas for all kinds of big deals, that their competitors would not get. That got blown up in the end because the judicial system does still work over there.
Monopoly in your example created by central authority, not a free market. It is very likely that the monopoly of mobile operators is also the result of the work of the corrupt central authority.


"It is very likely that the monopoly of mobile operators" ~ so, you are actually guessing that, it's not like you know that it is because central authority. There are probably more obstacles in countries with high corruption, but take any country with low corruption index and you will find the same problem, newcomers can't compete with big mobile operators with existing infrastructure. Sometimes newcomers come out with new packages that are aimed to some niche market, and they can offer cheaper price because their costs are low (except the huge fee they pay to existing mobile operator), but most common end game for newcomers is that existing mobile operators will buy them up if they get enough traction.

Thanks, julian071, comparing miners to telecom companies is spot on. Today, it is cheapest than ever to build your own cell tower with Raspberry Pi, but you can't become a mobile operator like that because customers expect quality that big operators have spent millions and polished for years. So, it has nothing to do with central authority, without central authority, you would have even bigger monopoly (by not letting 2 big mobile operators join).
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/yw35vg/how-to-make-a-diy-mini-cell-phone-tower-using-parts-you-can-order-online
PinchClock
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 36
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 28, 2018, 02:08:51 AM
 #20675

Read the latest Byteball email newsletter: Introducing Smart Vouchers

https://medium.com/@byteballjesus/weekly-byteball-email-newsletter-introducing-smart-vouchers-5d1f38df5dda
Thul
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 28, 2018, 07:32:23 AM
 #20676

"Byteball has an awesome platform under continuous development, but there are people that believe the project would benefit significantly from a new brand and visual identity.

We have spent considerable time engaging with several branding and naming agencies during the past few months, and we are very close to signing a contract. Head of Strategy, Valerius Coppens is in charge of the project."


Gleam of hope... but only a small...

"Introducing Smart Vouchers
[...]
We are optimistic that with time this distribution could grow the network substantially."


Since it makes sense to distribute a value to people who don't use it but exchange it for Fiat at the next opportunity... if that hasn't been forgotten until then and the values disappear in nirvana.  Roll Eyes
pineapple express
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 102



View Profile
October 28, 2018, 10:17:24 AM
 #20677

Quote
a new brand and visual identity
Don't do it! I know there was a paid company against byterbal to get the team to focus on branding and marketing instead of improving scaling and solving the distribution of coins and witnesses. Sad to see how they managed to achieve all their goals Cry
BitcoinArsenal
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 556


View Profile
October 28, 2018, 10:40:24 AM
 #20678

Congratulations guys! Byteball has ended at rank 1 on third round of THOR challenge on WorldCommunityGrid. The final fourth round starts in a week with the best three teams of the third round. We are very near to win the THOR challenge 2018. Would be a great success.
mtraveller
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 6
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 28, 2018, 10:56:24 AM
 #20679

Looking for a byteball voucher code? There's even a steps by step how to guide there. Enjoy.
Thul
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 28, 2018, 11:13:46 AM
 #20680

Quote
a new brand and visual identity
Don't do it! I know there was a paid company against byterbal to get the team to focus on branding and marketing instead of improving scaling and solving the distribution of coins and witnesses. Sad to see how they managed to achieve all their goals Cry
1.) A suitable label, together with logo. Proper designation for the currency units (no Bites/Blackbites).

2.) Increase use and circulation
2.a.) Change Fiat <=> Bites/Blackbites (BISQ)
2.b.) Integration in Open Bazaar (or similar)
2.c.) Discount to Open Bazaar customers (distribution)

3. Unlimited number of witnesses who route over Tor/I2P and are randomly assigned.

4. Scaling
Pages: « 1 ... 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 [1034] 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 ... 1090 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!