Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments

[tarmo888]

Although it is not in the spirit of crypto. Perhaps regarding the way forward just in the short term. The distribution could be done a bit like this.
Those perhaps locking down the most BB for the longest periods would receive the greatest % rewards which were tiered. Sort of like a tiered pos scheme.

Most people think it is a crazy idea but I wonder what a public appeal to those ico managers that claimed huge amounts for free at the start to return just 50% of the bytes to be used in such a tiered POS scheme would achieve?
PR is quite important and those ico managers that have not already distributed the BB to their investors might like to show how fair they can be.  Of course a polite request not to partake in our new pos scheme and suck them all back would be cool

Just ideas, may be technically impossible or just logically unsound.

Locking down someones address in crypto world is worse than changing the distribution. If that fork would happen then the price would go below $1 for sure.

PoW has the economy of scale, where the weaker players are darwinized, and the hash power gets concentrated in the hands of a few bigger miners.
PoS has the nothing in stake problem, where the validator has no downside for staking both forks.
https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/a/31476

Both of them are pseudo-anonymous, so you don't know who is the biggest. It can be that instead of 5 biggest, there is actually 2 biggest. This is especially bad for PoS because you don't even have to risk with real world cost (expensive mining rigs). This makes them vulnerable for Sybil attack. Solution for Sybil attack is non-anonymity or PoW.

Instead of PoW, Byteball has chosen non-anonymity for witnesses, who doesn't have the same powers as PoW miners too. They just make sure of the order of transactions, so there would not be double-spend. This means that until over half of the 12 witnesses don't collude, there can't be double-spends or transaction censoring. It doesn't matter who you are or how much transactions fee you pay, your transactions will be confirmed and final.

As you can see, all of them have their own pros and cons, depending what you think is important.

What does changing the consensus model now solve? What is the issue that is currently valid that it needs to be solved with tiered PoS right now? Keep the whales from dumping? Every coin has whales.

It is funny that everybody bitches about distribution change and how all the trust was immediately lost with that change, yet everybody also sees that there is something else that is fundamental to this coin, that should also be changed. How is that not gonna make it even more unstable?

There is simple process for fundamental changes, you just fork it and make your own coin, or you pick another coin to support. It's like a train, if you like where it is going then you get on it, if you don't then you get off and pick another train.

[1685698187]

1685698187

[1685698187]

1685698187

[Kavallo]

However, for now the fastest way to bring users/investors on is appeal to the main group that have any interest in CC at all. This is 99% speculators and sadly you must appeal to their greed. This is not a place for just idealists right now - in the long term yes.

I've quoted this line of yours in black because that's a sad, cynical, but alas tragically true reality check. While some of us dream of the possibilities of a wonderful world, Sturgeon's law reminds us that "ninety percent of everything is crap" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law) - and this unfortunatelly is true also for our beloved crypto community.
In the light of this, you are right on the fact that to ensure the success of a coin one may have to take advantage also of all available "dirty tricks". That's called Realpolitik, my fellow Byteballers. As for which "dirty tricks" exactly should be thought and adopted so as to widely spread adoption also to the 90% of crap people which are living in the crypto space and on earth in general, the discussion is open.

[Thul]

However, for now the fastest way to bring users/investors on is appeal to the main group that have any interest in CC at all. This is 99% speculators and sadly you must appeal to their greed. This is not a place for just idealists right now - in the long term yes.

I've quoted this line of yours in black because that's a sad, cynical, but alas tragically true reality check. While some of us dream of the possibilities of a wonderful world, Sturgeon's law reminds us that "ninety percent of everything is crap" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law) - and this unfortunatelly is true also for our beloved crypto community.
In the light of this, you are right on the fact that to ensure the success of a coin one may have to take advantage also of all available "dirty tricks". That's called Realpolitik, my fellow Byteballers. As for which "dirty tricks" exactly should be thought and adopted so as to widely spread adoption also to the 90% of crap people which are living in the crypto space and on earth in general, the discussion is open.

Since I no longer believe in the success of bite ball anyway, I can only agree.  

To be better than the competition you should do it just like the competition.
Sounds logical or not?

[cryptohunter]

Although it is not in the spirit of crypto. Perhaps regarding the way forward just in the short term. The distribution could be done a bit like this.
Those perhaps locking down the most BB for the longest periods would receive the greatest % rewards which were tiered. Sort of like a tiered pos scheme.

Most people think it is a crazy idea but I wonder what a public appeal to those ico managers that claimed huge amounts for free at the start to return just 50% of the bytes to be used in such a tiered POS scheme would achieve?
PR is quite important and those ico managers that have not already distributed the BB to their investors might like to show how fair they can be.  Of course a polite request not to partake in our new pos scheme and suck them all back would be cool

Just ideas, may be technically impossible or just logically unsound.

Locking down someones address in crypto world is worse than changing the distribution. If that fork would happen then the price would go below $1 for sure.

PoW has the economy of scale, where the weaker players are darwinized, and the hash power gets concentrated in the hands of a few bigger miners.
PoS has the nothing in stake problem, where the validator has no downside for staking both forks.
https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/a/31476

Both of them are pseudo-anonymous, so you don't know who is the biggest. It can be that instead of 5 biggest, there is actually 2 biggest. This is especially bad for PoS because you don't even have to risk with real world cost (expensive mining rigs). This makes them vulnerable for Sybil attack. Solution for Sybil attack is non-anonymity or PoW.

Instead of PoW, Byteball has chosen non-anonymity for witnesses, who doesn't have the same powers as PoW miners too. They just make sure of the order of transactions, so there would not be double-spend. This means that until over half of the 12 witnesses don't collude, there can't be double-spends or transaction censoring. It doesn't matter who you are or how much transactions fee you pay, your transactions will be confirmed and final.

As you can see, all of them have their own pros and cons, depending what you think is important.

What does changing the consensus model now solve? What is the issue that is currently valid that it needs to be solved with tiered PoS right now? Keep the whales from dumping? Every coin has whales.

It is funny that everybody bitches about distribution change and how all the trust was immediately lost with that change, yet everybody also sees that there is something else that is fundamental to this coin, that should also be changed. How is that not gonna make it even more unstable?

There is simple process for fundamental changes, you just fork it and make your own coin, or you pick another coin to support. It's like a train, if you like where it is going then you get on it, if you don't then you get off and pick another train.

I'm not sure if you got what I really meant by locking down.

If you can voluntarily lock down a proportion of your coins for a certain amount of time. Those that volunteer to lock the most down for the longest time will attain a higher pos rate upon them becoming unlocked. I wasn't still talking about by force locking down those that got huge amounts of free coins. Although if they decided of their own free will to return say 50% of the BB they got for nothing by holding other peoples BTC then that would be nice for us here and could be used for the good of BB too in other ways.

Also you must not conflate changes that the vast majority of holders do not want because they saw that as not sating their speculative greed  (full moon drops terminated) and which they assumed they had been promised....with changes the vast majority would perhaps like to see and were consulted on before hand That is not the same thing and would not kill trust in the same way. 

Why does that mean changing the consensus model?

I didn't mean make it a tiered POS model as such. Just that it could be viewed as being like that. For example if you were to voluntarily lock down certain amounts of BB for certain amounts of time you would be awarded larger reward than those locking down less for less time. This would be how the final 22% was distributed over time. You could even perhaps say if you locked down more for longer and in addtion to this were actively promoting BB (with some criteria to meet for this) and even higher pos rate could be attained.

Anyway just ideas but of course like I said that could not be automated to a level that made it practical or feasible.

I think you are improving nicely on your people skills but the words bitching ect are still not perfect. It is nice to be able to discuss things even with people that you believe do not understand or are asking for unreasonable or even impossible things in a manner than does not offend or sound condescending. That level of diplomacy is a great skill that can only benefit the project in the long term.

Also just explaining clearly why things are unreasonable or impossible with no real upside is better than telling people go fork your own version. Of course 99.99% of people here have no possible way to do this as they do not have the skill set but can still be valuable to keep on side when considering building a big community and creating a network effect.

[tarmo888]

Also just explaining clearly why things are unreasonable or impossible with no real upside is better than telling people go fork your own version. Of course 99.99% of people here have no possible way to do this as they do not have the skill set but can still be valuable to keep on side when considering building a big community and creating a network effect.

I do not agree with this because if you think you have skills to come up with better consensus or distribution method then you should be able to gather around you a people who are able to code that thing what you think is better. Not knowing how to code is not an excuse, there are many roles in any project that do not need coding skills, so it is not 99.99% against 0.01%

Throwing up an idea for somebody to pick it up is one thing, constantly bitching about somebody to implement something is another thing, what is happening here is constant whining: "implement this!". Mob-mentality, very common in recent years.

[cryptohunter]

Also just explaining clearly why things are unreasonable or impossible with no real upside is better than telling people go fork your own version. Of course 99.99% of people here have no possible way to do this as they do not have the skill set but can still be valuable to keep on side when considering building a big community and creating a network effect.

I do not agree with this because if you think you have skills to come up with better consensus or distribution method then you should be able to gather around you a people who are able to code that thing what you think is better. Not knowing how to code is not an excuse, there are many roles in any project that do not need coding skills, so it is not 99.99% against 0.01%

Throwing up an idea for somebody to pick it up is one thing, constantly bitching about somebody to implement something is another thing, what is happening here is constant whining: "implement this!". Mob-mentality, very common in recent years.

I'm guessing English is not your first language. Which could in part be why there is a slight communication loss. Not that is a criticism at all.


Can you give me some examples of "constantly bitching about somebody to implement something is another thing, what is happening here is constant whining: "implement this!". Mob-mentality"  in the specific context of Byteball I mean.

[mtraveller]

Easiest $20 you'll ever make - Remember PayPal they used to give out $10 to bring in a friend or two? This cryptocurrency is doing the same thing - You Must Have A Driver's License - https://byteb.al/rna-referral

[boomboom]

If you don't agree where it is going, create a fork and do it the way you think it is right.

You mean someone clone byteball and redo the full moon airdrops distribution  with some modifications, like removing certain Bitcoin addresses from known ico's and exchanges ?

[tarmo888]

I'm guessing English is not your first language. Which could in part be why there is a slight communication loss. Not that is a criticism at all.

What communication loss? Wasn't it you who said that we should freeze Max Kordek (ceo of lisk) wallet? And then changed your story to voluntary staking idea. I think you have problems with English.

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

[tarmo888]

If you don't agree where it is going, create a fork and do it the way you think it is right.

You mean someone clone byteball and redo the full moon airdrops distribution  with some modifications, like removing certain Bitcoin addresses from known ico's and exchanges ?

There is more requested changes than that. It's not just distribution, the concept of witnesses is also alien for some, it is hard to gasp for some there is no blocks, so it doesn't matter how much transaction fees you pay, your transaction will be confirmed and final.

Can you give me some examples of "constantly bitching about somebody to implement something is another thing, what is happening here is constant whining: "implement this!". Mob-mentality"  in the specific context of Byteball I mean.

Do I really have to give you the list of all the same stuff that is repeated here again and again already? By "implement this!" I meant all the change requests.
* asking GBYTE to be changed to MBYTE just because noobs don't understand supply. this would result a 100x bigger total supply number because it would measured in MBYTE.
* saying that Byteball is immature name and constantly asking it to be renamed. congrats, Byteball foundation gave up on that and hired branding agency, just because the community would just shut up about it. no guarantee that the community will like the new name, there always will be somebody who doesn't like the name.
* constantly asking Bitcoin airdrop to be brought back, even if just for last one more time.
* asking the distribution to be finished immediately even though that is needed to acquire new users in long run.
* once a while, somebody comes up again with the idea that 12 witnesses should be randomly picked from the pool of anonymous witnesses, so everybody could be a witness.
* Thul constantly spamming his OpenBazaar and BISQ blackbytes idea.
* any other FUD when the price drops, but FUDster failed to notice that all cryptocurrencies prices dropped on that day.

I mean, if the list of things that are wrong with this coin is that long for somebody, maybe it is not right coin for them.

[boomboom]

If you don't agree where it is going, create a fork and do it the way you think it is right.

You mean someone clone byteball and redo the full moon airdrops distribution  with some modifications, like removing certain Bitcoin addresses from known ico's and exchanges ?

There is more requested changes than that. It's not just distribution, the concept of witnesses is also alien for some, it is hard to gasp for some there is no blocks, so it doesn't matter how much transaction fees you pay, your transaction will be confirmed and final.

Yes there are other changes some people request, but finishing the distribution is the big issue for most, personally, I wouldn't care if the distro was finished without more airdrops, the issue for me is the uncertainty of having dev control such a large amount, and not knowing how long until until the distro will be finished. Once the distro is finished the market is free to operate, but with 22% in dev hands for an unknown length of time ... that kills the market mechanism for price discovery, and that's not good for adoption.

If tony announced he was going to finish distro in 6 months I don't really care of the method, I would prefer airdrops because it would instantly get people buying BB and that gets 'noticed', but if he chose another method and actually completed the distro soon I would be happy. Tony is a great dev, like most I really like this project, I want it to succeed.

[tarmo888]

If you don't agree where it is going, create a fork and do it the way you think it is right.

You mean someone clone byteball and redo the full moon airdrops distribution  with some modifications, like removing certain Bitcoin addresses from known ico's and exchanges ?

There is more requested changes than that. It's not just distribution, the concept of witnesses is also alien for some, it is hard to gasp for some there is no blocks, so it doesn't matter how much transaction fees you pay, your transaction will be confirmed and final.

Yes there are other changes some people request, but finishing the distribution is the big issue for most, personally, I wouldn't care if the distro was finished without more airdrops, the issue for me is the uncertainty of having dev control such a large amount, and not knowing how long until until the distro will be finished. Once the distro is finished the market is free to operate, but with 22% in dev hands for an unknown length of time ... that kills the market mechanism for price discovery, and that's not good for adoption.

If tony announced he was going to finish distro in 6 months I don't really care of the method, I would prefer airdrops because it would instantly get people buying BB and that gets 'noticed', but if he chose another method and actually completed the distro soon I would be happy. Tony is a great dev, like most I really like this project, I want it to succeed.

You do understand that everything you said in previous paragraph, zeros out this compliment? Let me translate how it sounds: "you are great dev and I like your project, but I think you don't want what is best for your project because I think you are going to misuse the last 22% of the funds."

I just can't understand, what is it so difficult to understand that cancelling of Bitcoin airdop was because of understanding that it won't bring the expected adoption and continuing that would have not been best for the project. Undistributed funds don't devalue your share, it is for fair distribution that is as wide as possible, the more people get the bytes, the better it is for everybody.

If everybody keeps FUDing and telling how bad this is that there is still funds left to distribute then of course it's bad for the price, but if you take it as a positive advantage over other projects (that there is still funds for new users) then it will be also positively reflected in price. Glass half full or glass half empty.

[boomboom]

Yes there are other changes some people request, but finishing the distribution is the big issue for most, personally, I wouldn't care if the distro was finished without more airdrops, the issue for me is the uncertainty of having dev control such a large amount, and not knowing how long until until the distro will be finished. Once the distro is finished the market is free to operate, but with 22% in dev hands for an unknown length of time ... that kills the market mechanism for price discovery, and that's not good for adoption.

If tony announced he was going to finish distro in 6 months I don't really care of the method, I would prefer airdrops because it would instantly get people buying BB and that gets 'noticed', but if he chose another method and actually completed the distro soon I would be happy. Tony is a great dev, like most I really like this project, I want it to succeed.

You do understand that everything you said in previous paragraph, zeros out this compliment? Let me translate how it sounds: "you are great dev and I like your project, but I think you don't want what is best for your project because I think you are going to misuse the last 22% of the funds."

I just can't understand, what is it so difficult to understand that cancelling of Bitcoin airdop was because of understanding that it won't bring the expected adoption and continuing that would have not been best for the project. Undistributed funds don't devalue your share, it is for fair distribution that is as wide as possible, the more people get the bytes, the better it is for everybody.

It doesn't matter what I think, or you, we can see the judgement of the market, byteball dropped from top50 to outside top200, that is the market voting with their self interest. This is not personal, I can definitely compliment Tony for some things, disagree with him on others, and there is no inconsistencies,  BUT it is a fact that byteball slipped a lot down the rankings, I see a connection with the distribution uncertainty.

Tony doesn't need sycophantic yes men, people questioning his decisions on the distribution are not necessarily motivated by greed, some are, but some see wasted potential , and the evidence is the coinmarketcap ranking.

[tarmo888]

Yes there are other changes some people request, but finishing the distribution is the big issue for most, personally, I wouldn't care if the distro was finished without more airdrops, the issue for me is the uncertainty of having dev control such a large amount, and not knowing how long until until the distro will be finished. Once the distro is finished the market is free to operate, but with 22% in dev hands for an unknown length of time ... that kills the market mechanism for price discovery, and that's not good for adoption.

If tony announced he was going to finish distro in 6 months I don't really care of the method, I would prefer airdrops because it would instantly get people buying BB and that gets 'noticed', but if he chose another method and actually completed the distro soon I would be happy. Tony is a great dev, like most I really like this project, I want it to succeed.

You do understand that everything you said in previous paragraph, zeros out this compliment? Let me translate how it sounds: "you are great dev and I like your project, but I think you don't want what is best for your project because I think you are going to misuse the last 22% of the funds."

I just can't understand, what is it so difficult to understand that cancelling of Bitcoin airdop was because of understanding that it won't bring the expected adoption and continuing that would have not been best for the project. Undistributed funds don't devalue your share, it is for fair distribution that is as wide as possible, the more people get the bytes, the better it is for everybody.

It doesn't matter what I think, or you, we can see the judgement of the market, byteball dropped from top50 to outside top200, that is the market voting with their self interest. This is not personal, I can definitely compliment Tony for some things, disagree with him on others, and there is no inconsistencies,  BUT it is a fact that byteball slipped a lot down the rankings, I see a connection with the distribution uncertainty.

Tony doesn't need sycophantic yes men, people questioning his decisions on the distribution are not necessarily motivated by greed, some are, but some see wasted potential , and the evidence is the coinmarketcap ranking.

Oh god, the CMC ranking again - the most meaningless metric ever (for coins under 1b marketcap). Create 100 shitcoins with higher marketcap and you kick somebody out of top 100.

What I see is that many altcoins have lost over 90% since the ATH and many new shitcoins were created during last bull-run. Did they also changed their distribution methods that caused them to lose over 90%? If you keep telling that it was because of the distribution and you keep telling others that it was because of distribution then after the while, it becomes the reason, no matter if it's true or not.

[gefander]

Is it possible to send bytes using other chats? or only through the byte wallet? I think if you add a similar function to discard or Slark, it will be a huge success. 

[tarmo888]

Is it possible to send bytes using other chats? or only through the byte wallet? I think if you add a similar function to discard or Slark, it will be a huge success.  

There was Discord bot developed during Steem Use-a-thon https://steemit.com/byteball/@genievot/byteball-use-a-thon-1st-entry-submission-request-discord-byteball-bot-completing-my-first-entry-1537618092396

[boomboom]

Oh god, the CMC ranking again - the most meaningless metric ever

Well, that opinion makes you look very very stupid, enough said

[tarmo888]

Oh god, the CMC ranking again - the most meaningless metric ever

Well, that opinion makes you look very very stupid, enough said

Of course, if you take it out of context like that.

[boomboom]

Oh god, the CMC ranking again - the most meaningless metric ever

Well, that opinion makes you look very very stupid, enough said

Of course, if you take it out of context like that.

What is the context, you said CMC rankings are meaningless ...

[tarmo888]

Oh god, the CMC ranking again - the most meaningless metric ever

Well, that opinion makes you look very very stupid, enough said

Of course, if you take it out of context like that.

What is the context, you said CMC rankings are meaningless ...

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/out-of-context

You quoted me by cutting out everything that explained why the rankings are meaningless because you wanted to make me look stupid. Let me explain you again: if the prices of almost all cryptocurrencies dropped over 90%, but also a lot of new cryptocurrencies were created during the bull-run then did Byteball dropped in rankings because it lost a lot more in price or because a lot new cryptocurrencies were created. That's why rankings are meaningless, because rank 51 and 52 itself doesn't tell you anything besides the order of marketcap size.