Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments

[Thul]

You are right in many points, but he depends on the tone.
You say we are not enough objectively and you use words like "The bite ball regime", why?

Because here you can't get any further with friendliness.
The demands, which I repeat from the view of a manufacturer and trader here in every second posting are now more than a year old and are arrogantly ignored. That means you don't even get an answer to your objections, not even by email.
Now I am, considering the unnecessary omissions, just angry.

Since I am probably the only trader here with corresponding needs, I feel like a caller in the desert. The other critics rather complain about points that don't affect me and my colleagues so much.

[1685938520]

1685938520

[1685938520]

1685938520

[1685938520]

1685938520

[1685938520]

1685938520

[cryptohunter]

Maybe you don't see a Byteball community managers here on Bitcointalk because they find it hopeless to have any serious discussions here, where everybody just shouts out their opinions how things should be done, over and over again. It could be also because Bitcointalk lacks proper moderation like Reddit has.

just shouts opinions of how things should be done??

1. the full moon airdrops were what many investors based their investment on. Asking them to continue as promised is not shouting opinions like shouting out random uneducated requests regarding technical matters beyond their understanding. This has destroyed faith in the project.

2. saying don't knowing give HUGE amounts of the entire minting to ico managers from competing projects - same as above

3. noticing swathes of noobs in threads everywhere calling byteball expensive and iota cheap is again simply an observation.

Don't try to claim that reasonable,sensible and logical statements/requests are nothing other that people and screaming random opinions with no foundations worth a debate.

the fact you would try to call them fud is even more amusing.

Go fork your own project is not what you say to a community after receiving their support for years.

The fact someone gave you a merit for such a reply is a demonstration of person lacking basic understanding of english. You can not merit someone for posting totally false and misleading nonsense.

There are many projects with very good community managers and board managers. The fact they can get along with bitcointalk but you can not - - then perhaps you should look at yourselves not point fingers at a dissatisfied community.

I notice the only projects that start complaining about the behaviour of their communities on bitcointalk are those that follow the same pattern of changing the rules half way through and not listening at all to feedback from the community.

[cryptohunter]

In reality, 67% of bytes has been already distributed (most of that to Bitcoin holders). 1% goes to founder and 10% to Byteball Foundation (development and marketing) - this makes that 22% is still left to distribute. It is not that much and it is not that different than Bitcoin. Only difference is that Byteball tries to distribute it fairly, but Bitcoin basically distributes to those already rich guys who have the most computing power.

Look the fact you said this shows me I am dealing with a completely insane individual.

Byteball gave the vast majority of Byteball to the ALREADY RICHEST GUYS THE GUYS THAT HAD ALREADY THE MOST BITCOINS. The tiny % left is not going to change that.

I am not trying to destroy the price of byteball. I own a lot of byteball.

The suggestions I have ever made are for the good of byteball. To try a pass them as fud is complete insanity.

Let's forget the issue with the distribution it is over and we can not change it.

Let's forget the issue with lying to byteball investors about full moon airdrops. It is done.

Let's consider changing the units on exchanges to megabytes before the next bull run and next wave of noobs telling us byteball is too expensive and we will buy cheaper iota.


Let's try and consider and debate in a sensible way any future suggestions from the community that seem logical and are favoured by a proportion of the community and not just ignore them.

I am confident in this project pulling a x20 -x50 if we can make a few small changes and improvments.

[pineapple express]

this makes that 22% is still left to distribute. Only difference is that Byteball tries to distribute it fairly, but Bitcoin basically distributes to those already rich guys who have the most computing power.

meanwhile Max Kordek ceo of lisk own the biggest individual byterbal wallet

[cryptohunter]

this makes that 22% is still left to distribute. Only difference is that Byteball tries to distribute it fairly, but Bitcoin basically distributes to those already rich guys who have the most computing power.

meanwhile Max Kordek ceo of lisk own the biggest byterbal individual wallet, and paid $0. Are you crazy tarmo888?

Let's take a vote to freeze that wallet, and any other huge wallets we know ico managers are holding.

Sure going back on the rules is something we have done before that affected lots of small investors was not cool so going back on the rules to rectify a huge mistake will soon blow over.

I could have linked much more btc to get free byteballs but only linked a tiny amount to not be greedy. Others had no such worries. You can not rely on peoples sense of fair play. They just take the max they can.

Anyway let's all try to get along and not let infighting destroy the community further.

Just in future let's debate any sensible requests from the community that gets some traction with others here.

[jwinterm]

Not to beat a dead house, but this whole emphasis on "fair distribution" by tarmo and shit talking about Bitcoin is laughable.

You know what's not fair? Announcing a distribution schedule and mechanism, then pulling the rug out from under it two or three times - first cancelling BTC air drops, then delaying Bytes drops, and finally abandoning the original distribution mechanism completely.

You know what else isn't fair? Dribbling out coins to people that have access to shit loads of crappy CPUs (WCG) and account farmers on steem. That's really unfair to me as I only have like five computing devices and think steem is a swamp of shit tier content born out of a scam.

You know what is fair? Announcing a distribution mechanism and schedule and standing by it like it's etched in stone. In ten years Bitcoin hasn't changed its mechanism or schedule at all. You think it would be more "fair" to halt mining and pass out remaining BTC to WCG bot nets and steem lords?

[pineapple express]

yeah steem distribution is the apogee of the byterbal madness. Honestly, i won't be surprised if these madmen will close this topic and create a moderated one. This is the only place where these sectarians cannot drown out the voice of the community. LOL they wrote more than a dozen complaints about my posts in the hope that they would ban me.

[tarmo888]

this makes that 22% is still left to distribute. Only difference is that Byteball tries to distribute it fairly, but Bitcoin basically distributes to those already rich guys who have the most computing power.

meanwhile Max Kordek ceo of lisk own the biggest byterbal individual wallet, and paid $0. Are you crazy tarmo888?

Let's take a vote to freeze that wallet, and any other huge wallets we know ico managers are holding.

And I am the crazy one here? Maybe let's take a vote to freeze your wallet?

The fact that you suggest something insane like that confirms that you have zero idea what cryptocurrencies are for and how Byteball works

Just a hint, you can't sensor transactions on Byteball, it would be possible only if majority of the witnesses would collude, but it will go against the protocol rules and it would be visible for everybody and would result in hard-fork.

On Bitcoin, in theory, you could do it, just need to have enough computing power and you can decide, which transactions get added to block.

[pineapple express]

I contacted Sasha Ivanov, founder of Waves, about the linked address 1NGfrU4YNp8dox1gLeUDyjD5Vpfck9no5j that has 4800 BTC from Waves ICO.  His response was that if the project is successful, he is going to distribute our coin as dividend to Waves holders.

So, even the largest (so far) whale in our distribution is a kind of collective investment entity.

What people say and what people do are sometimes not the same thing.

Should have been nulled like the other huge wallets. Project is destroyed before it starts. The enriching the richest automatically does not go over well with most of the crypto community.

This one just popped up while I was finishing mine:
XCQ3LC6BSRGLPKC6LDQBTHZBKHLGIS5B   3HsSR84zReeBt5fTMESWJ2y18pMo5gz2Sq   12295.96991428     20.5916     tx

12.2k BTC  

At the moment going to get 20% of distribution.

Yeah nice hey .... will be able to manipulate the market at will. NULL these whales now and save the project or let it go ahead as a non starter.

I guarantee this project will be a pariah.

Everyone should have put more pressure on tonych to make the distribution fairer from the start. I am the only person that has put any kind of sustained pressure on him and he refuses to even enter the discussion choosing to avoid the questions and rather focus on discussing the tech. Browse this entire thread its full of people praising this distributional model thinking they are getting something for free. You are getting zero for free if you hold other alts. This is a dilution coin that will be controlled by BTC whales and exchanges. Both of whom will get richer by making you get poorer than you already are.

The tech will be cloned and distributed in a more fair manner you can guarantee this.

This coin is merely an experiment by BTC whales to see if they can guarantee whale share in all future altcoin markets without risking their whale BTC stash.

The only people praising this form of distribution should be those with at the minimum of 100 BTC at hand  since they will gain over and over by distributional models like this. I do not support this model although I assume that I would stand to gain substantially more than many of those that do support it if I linked all of my BTC.

This is simply not a fair manner of distribution and I hope the project does not become a success at all. Sorry but although the tech looks great and tonych seems not a bad guy we can not have waves of alts distributing like this in future it is simply the most unfair model you can nearly design.

Great example of great communication from the first days. Nice to reread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1608859.2180

[tarmo888]

Not to beat a dead house, but this whole emphasis on "fair distribution" by tarmo and shit talking about Bitcoin is laughable.

You know what's not fair? Announcing a distribution schedule and mechanism, then pulling the rug out from under it two or three times - first cancelling BTC air drops, then delaying Bytes drops, and finally abandoning the original distribution mechanism completely.

You know what else isn't fair? Dribbling out coins to people that have access to shit loads of crappy CPUs (WCG) and account farmers on steem. That's really unfair to me as I only have like five computing devices and think steem is a swamp of shit tier content born out of a scam.

You know what is fair? Announcing a distribution mechanism and schedule and standing by it like it's etched in stone. In ten years Bitcoin hasn't changed its mechanism or schedule at all. You think it would be more "fair" to halt mining and pass out remaining BTC to WCG bot nets and steem lords?

Another one who doesn't know what fair means. Nobody is entitled to get the bytes and if distribution doesn't work then it needs to be fixed, not just continue with a broken one. Bitcoin is laughable, was designed to be decentralized currency, but thanks to a broken distribution system, becomes more centralized with every day. Byteball is moving in other direction, started as centralized and becomes more decentralized every day.

[cryptohunter]

this makes that 22% is still left to distribute. Only difference is that Byteball tries to distribute it fairly, but Bitcoin basically distributes to those already rich guys who have the most computing power.

meanwhile Max Kordek ceo of lisk own the biggest byterbal individual wallet, and paid $0. Are you crazy tarmo888?

Let's take a vote to freeze that wallet, and any other huge wallets we know ico managers are holding.

And I am the crazy one here? Maybe let's take a vote to freeze your wallet?

The fact that you suggest something insane like that confirms that you have zero idea what cryptocurrencies are for and how Byteball works

Just a hint, you can't sensor transactions on Byteball, it would be possible only if majority of the witnesses would collude, but it will go against the protocol rules and it would be visible for everybody and would result in hard-fork.

On Bitcoin, in theory, you could do it, just need to have enough computing power and you can decide, which transactions get added to block.

Look now,  it's better to admit you just hammer away on your keyboard without giving much thought to what you are writing. That is better than sticking to and try to defending the obviously insane ramblings that are there for anyone to laugh at. The fact you are unable to see why that paragraph is shocking is very worrying.

Let us hope your are "developing" the logo or something non critical that can be altered fairly easily.

To freeze genuine investors who purchased byteball on the open market ( i have purchased 10x more than i got for linking a small amount of btc) is not the same as freezing a HUGE amount of the total byteball that was given for FREE to a competing project manager for the bitcoin of others he was holding for the apparent development of his own competing project.

Tony did not allow this by accident. He was totally aware that competing project managers would link the dev fund wallets and suck up huge swathes of the total byteball minting because we brought it up before it went live.

At this time would it really be difficult for tony to collude with his 11 other personalities? especially if it was what that was what the community wanted.

I don't actually think it would be a great idea since we need to not pull any moves that crush the trust more for byteball. It would just be another change that should not happen.

It would be great to consult the community on big changes like stopping full moon air drops and such. These kinds of decisions are actually better made with vast agreement since otherwise the community loses faith.

I think it is better than tonych does not allow you to post further because your posts seem to confirm the suspicions of the remaining community: that the devs here believe a community should just be ready for any kinds of 180 changes whether good or bad for them regardless of what has been promised. Also the community should not question or raise any debate because only devs have the right to an opinion. Any complaints about not keeping to agreements is whining and fud.

I would keep "developing" the logo and get a new spokes person for byteball if you want any chance of gaining some traction.

I understand on deeper technical matters the community must not expect to have too much input. Although some decisions could be explained if people ask. However on simple matters that I have mentioned already there is no need for the communities opinions to be totally excluded.

Now stop replying to me unless you have something new to add. I can't waste time restating the obvious over and over and asking what is only reasonable and a given in most communities. You want a community to bring you a network effect then you need to treat the community (your investors) with some respect.

Regarding the 20-50x - That is depending on many factors but it is realistic for this to eventually become a top 20 project if a few things can be sorted out.

[tarmo888]

this makes that 22% is still left to distribute. Only difference is that Byteball tries to distribute it fairly, but Bitcoin basically distributes to those already rich guys who have the most computing power.

meanwhile Max Kordek ceo of lisk own the biggest byterbal individual wallet, and paid $0. Are you crazy tarmo888?

Let's take a vote to freeze that wallet, and any other huge wallets we know ico managers are holding.

And I am the crazy one here? Maybe let's take a vote to freeze your wallet?

The fact that you suggest something insane like that confirms that you have zero idea what cryptocurrencies are for and how Byteball works

Just a hint, you can't sensor transactions on Byteball, it would be possible only if majority of the witnesses would collude, but it will go against the protocol rules and it would be visible for everybody and would result in hard-fork.

On Bitcoin, in theory, you could do it, just need to have enough computing power and you can decide, which transactions get added to block.

Look now,  it's better to admit you just hammer away on your keyboard without giving much thought to what you are writing. That is better than sticking to and try to defending the obviously insane ramblings that are there for anyone to laugh at. The fact you are unable to see why that paragraph is shocking is very worrying.

Let us hope your are "developing" the logo or something non critical that can be altered fairly easily.

To freeze genuine investors who purchased byteball on the open market ( i have purchased 10x more than i got for linking a small amount of btc) is not the same as freezing a HUGE amount of the total byteball that was given for FREE to a competing project manager for the bitcoin of others he was holding for the apparent development of his own competing project.

Tony did not allow this by accident. He was totally aware that competing project managers would link the dev fund wallets and suck up huge swathes of the total byteball minting because we brought it up before it went live.

At this time would it really be difficult for tony to collude with his 11 other personalities? especially if it was what that was what the community wanted.

I don't actually think it would be a great idea since we need to not pull any moves that crush the trust more for byteball. It would just be another change that should not happen.

It would be great to consult the community on big changes like stopping full moon air drops and such. These kinds of decisions are actually better made with vast agreement since otherwise the community loses faith.

I think it is better than tonych does not allow you to post further because your posts seem to confirm the suspicions of the remaining community: that the devs here believe a community should just be ready for any kinds of 180 changes whether good or bad for them regardless of what has been promised. Also the community should not question or raise any debate because only devs have the right to an opinion. Any complaints about not keeping to agreements is whining and fud.

I would keep "developing" the logo and get a new spokes person for byteball if you want any chance of gaining some traction.

I understand on deeper technical matters the community must not expect to have too much input. Although some decisions could be explained if people ask. However on simple matters that I have mentioned already there is no need for the communities opinions to be totally excluded.

Now stop replying to me unless you have something new to add. I can't waste time restating the obvious over and over and asking what is only reasonable and a given in most communities. You want a community to bring you a network effect then you need to treat the community (your investors) with some respect.

Regarding the 20-50x - That is depending on many factors but it is realistic for this to eventually become a top 20 project if a few things can be sorted out.

No comments, just quoting for archival purposes because this is internet gold.

[boomboom]

this makes that 22% is still left to distribute. Only difference is that Byteball tries to distribute it fairly, but Bitcoin basically distributes to those already rich guys who have the most computing power.

22% of coin supply distributed as a final new year moon drop, then Tony exits into the background to enjoy his hard-earned 1% and concentrate on dev work, leaving foundation to assist community members in further promotion activities and spreading adoption. That would put byteball back in top50 almost immediately!

[tarmo888]

this makes that 22% is still left to distribute. Only difference is that Byteball tries to distribute it fairly, but Bitcoin basically distributes to those already rich guys who have the most computing power.

22% of coin supply distributed as a final new year moon drop, then Tony exits into the background to enjoy his hard-earned 1% and concentrate on dev work, leaving foundation to assist community members in further promotion activities and spreading adoption. That would put byteball back in top50 almost immediately!

And then what? Moon drops are over, already over half were distributed like that, if they waste the rest of 22% by giving it away like that then they don't have funds to reward newcommers anymore. Everybody suggesting more moon drop like distribution are thinking about getting themselves richer, not about mass adoption, which is the goal. What's the point of having more bytes if there is no users. That's why Bitcoin doesn't distribute everything at once either, but it's distributed over 100 years.

[pineapple express]

this makes that 22% is still left to distribute. Only difference is that Byteball tries to distribute it fairly, but Bitcoin basically distributes to those already rich guys who have the most computing power.

22% of coin supply distributed as a final new year moon drop, then Tony exits into the background to enjoy his hard-earned 1% and concentrate on dev work, leaving foundation to assist community members in further promotion activities and spreading adoption. That would put byteball back in top50 almost immediately!

And then what? Moon drops are over, already over half were distributed like that, if they waste the rest of 22% by giving it away like that then they don't have funds to reward newcommers anymore. Everybody suggesting more moon drop like distribution are thinking about getting themselves richer, not about mass adoption, which is the goal. What's the point of having more bytes if there is no users. That's why Bitcoin doesn't distribute everything at once either, but it's distributed over 100 years.

distribution to steem shitposters doesn't help to adoption. Show me merchants who joined after steem or wcg distribution. (Sigh) 99% of the merchants joined in time of bitcoin distribution. Milano enthusiast joined with help a bitcoin distribution.
Your team is the anchor around byterbal neck.

[tarmo888]

this makes that 22% is still left to distribute. Only difference is that Byteball tries to distribute it fairly, but Bitcoin basically distributes to those already rich guys who have the most computing power.

22% of coin supply distributed as a final new year moon drop, then Tony exits into the background to enjoy his hard-earned 1% and concentrate on dev work, leaving foundation to assist community members in further promotion activities and spreading adoption. That would put byteball back in top50 almost immediately!

And then what? Moon drops are over, already over half were distributed like that, if they waste the rest of 22% by giving it away like that then they don't have funds to reward newcommers anymore. Everybody suggesting more moon drop like distribution are thinking about getting themselves richer, not about mass adoption, which is the goal. What's the point of having more bytes if there is no users. That's why Bitcoin doesn't distribute everything at once either, but it's distributed over 100 years.

distribution to steem shitposters doesn't help to adoption. Show me merchants who joined after steem or wcg distribution. (Sigh) 99% of the merchants joined in time of bitcoin distribution. Milano enthusiast joined with help a bitcoin distribution.
Your team is the anchor around byterbal neck.

Steem and WCG distributions are so small compared to how much was wasted with moon drops. So, where are those HODLers now? Are they still using Byteball? Do they still have bytes or they just sold them to buy more BTC, so they could get more bytes with next moon drop, so they could sell it to buy more BTC again, and so on. Bitcoin distribution didn't work and that's why it was discontinued. Better distribution methods are available now, which engage unique users and distribution will take lot more time, which is better (for mass adoption) in long run.

[boomboom]

this makes that 22% is still left to distribute. Only difference is that Byteball tries to distribute it fairly, but Bitcoin basically distributes to those already rich guys who have the most computing power.

22% of coin supply distributed as a final new year moon drop, then Tony exits into the background to enjoy his hard-earned 1% and concentrate on dev work, leaving foundation to assist community members in further promotion activities and spreading adoption. That would put byteball back in top50 almost immediately!

And then what?

The distro is finished, tony concentrates on dev work ... byteball becomes a shit load more decentralized, adoption is driven by motivated community members (the ones who left and/or became disillusioned when distro rules changed) working with funded foundation.

[tarmo888]

this makes that 22% is still left to distribute. Only difference is that Byteball tries to distribute it fairly, but Bitcoin basically distributes to those already rich guys who have the most computing power.

22% of coin supply distributed as a final new year moon drop, then Tony exits into the background to enjoy his hard-earned 1% and concentrate on dev work, leaving foundation to assist community members in further promotion activities and spreading adoption. That would put byteball back in top50 almost immediately!

And then what?

The distro is finished, tony concentrates on dev work ... byteball becomes a shit load more decentralized, adoption is driven by motivated community members (the ones who left and/or became disillusioned when distro rules changed) working with funded foundation.

And that will slow the adoption down even more because instead of getting some bytes for free, users need to go get the bytes from exchange. Right now, they can use many features without having to sign up to any exchange. That's why smart voucher system is great, they can get started with the help of the referrer and get started. They could even attest their identity without any bytes, so they could buy bytes cheaper with credit card. Requiring new users to go to exchanges is not a great plan for adoption. Crypto-fanatics are ok with exchanges, but one day, your parents and relatives won't even know that cryptocurrency had that kind of shitty user experience https://twitter.com/FedericoTenga/status/1058316647289798656

[Thul]

Adoption can only be achieved by a product that can also be used.
The first step would have been to ensure the usability of the product.

In the consequence then a meaningful distribution, which orients itself exactly at this use. Distribution therefore only to those who take part in economic processes, purchase and sale of goods and services against bites. Of course in a market segment which was created for Cryptos: the unregulated market.

The current distribution does not distribute anything. The receivers of the free Bites exchange these with next opportunity again in Fiat (or forget/loose them).
Who will be the buyer of these bites, with continuously falling prices of course? Exactly! The hardcore sectarians. There everything accumulates... until they also lose faith.

"Byteball Bytes price equal to 45.582 USD at 2018-11-05, but your current investment may be devalued in the future. "
https://walletinvestor.com/forecast/byteball-bytes-prediction

[tarmo888]

Adoption can only be achieved by a product that can also be used.
The first step would have been to ensure the usability of the product.

There is nothing that's stops anybody using Byteball now. You could have said something like that when there was no iOS app, but this is not the case anymore. Usability is an ongoing process, which needs to be worked on all the time, that's why there needs to be a fund for development and that's what Byteball Fountation has done. There used to be one dev, now there is more.

In the consequence then a meaningful distribution, which orients itself exactly at this use. Distribution therefore only to those who take part in economic processes, purchase and sale of goods and services against bites. Of course in a market segment which was created for Cryptos: the unregulated market.

This is your wet dream and not where mass-adoption will come, but nobody stops you from building stuff on that part of the Byteball features, so go ahead, start as many shady marketplaces as you want.

The current distribution does not distribute anything. The receivers of the free Bites exchange these with next opportunity again in Fiat (or forget/loose them).
Who will be the buyer of these bites, with continuously falling prices of course? Exactly! The hardcore sectarians. There everything accumulates... until they also lose faith.

Not exactly, all new distributions lock half of the reward to smart-contract, so they can't sell everything at once, which they were able to do with moondrops. If they loose them then it means that there is even smaller circulation and what you own is worth more.