Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments

[SatoNatomato]

Is it because you felt harmed when I asked about your little Iota project? Did I ask uncomfortable questions?  

No. Your questions were obvious trolling, I followed your previous posts and noticed a lot of red flags in this thread that made me suspect you are preparing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick. Now I'm paying increased attention to your posts.

Just leave me alone dude, I asked as technical as I could and other people agreed with concerns, let these readers make up their own mind if it was trolling or not. Read the IOTA Unmoderated thread. Besides your own domsch offered some kind peace, then the other guy called me geriatric alcoholic or something, Ive had enough of you Iota people.

Im not out to get you or anyone, in fact, as I said before, I do not even give a shit about you.

But you are spamming this thread, and you are ruining it for the rest of the people when you begin these pity fights with me, instead of staying on focus and not threatening and spreading distrust.

Are you the king of bitcointalk, your legendary status, does that mean new comers must lick your balls and ask your permission before being allowed to talk in peace? OK, All hail king dictator for life Come-froom-Beyond all knowledgable, all-trustful, protector of users and highly skilled con artist detector, mighty cryptographer, legendary talker and kind benevolent lover. Happy valentines. I love you. You are the best.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Just leave me alone dude...

I know why my presence annoys you. And I know how this story will end - you'll create another account and will try to scam another community. I've seen such endings numerous times, few of them, probably, with your participation under other nicknames.

[HomoHenning]

I embedded a valentine's day message for my gf in the dag last night 

https://explorer.byteball.org/#JwUteajaUhsM0iO9NdJRaO10WvLobxf29BYZj4wFNjw=

BYTEBALL RULES!

how much was it in $?

[SatoNatomato]

Just leave me alone dude...

I know why my presence annoys you. And I know how this story will end - you'll create another account and will try to scam another community. I've seen such endings numerous times, few of them, probably, with your participation under other nicknames.

I assure you this is my first and only account on this forum.

But yeah, I may just give up, you seem to be very persistent. You would have driven me away from Iota and away from Byteball, so you win, and you get to stay in this community and watch over it.

EDIT. Yeah Im done, fuck you Come-from-Beyond. Selling my bytes on cryptox.pl, Im out.

[davidoski]

Besides, as far as I know, tonych can't do anything if economy decide to change some witness [..]
I guess, this puts me in the "mindless cheerleaders" category then .

Let me quote the most well informed person:

You are correct, if 12 witnesses so decide, they can block all attempts to replace them. But this is exactly what they were expected not to do when they were added themselves.  If a minority of witnesses appears untrustworthy, they can be promptly replaced before they reach majority.

I discuss in the whitepaper a mechanism which helps make the behavior of witnesses more predictable and earlier detect any breaches of trust:  a would-be witness pledges to follow the witness lists of a few (possibly larger than 12) prominent industry leaders.  The pledge is not enforceable in the protocol but publicly auditable, any breach of the pledge would immediately make the witness a candidate for removal.

I guess, this puts me in the "mindless cheerleaders" category then .

Yes, indeed. I would add ignorant to this and it's not funny.

[portabella]

Besides, as far as I know, tonych can't do anything if economy decide to change some witness [..]
I guess, this puts me in the "mindless cheerleaders" category then .

Let me quote the most well informed person:

You are correct, if 12 witnesses so decide, they can block all attempts to replace them. But this is exactly what they were expected not to do when they were added themselves.  If a minority of witnesses appears untrustworthy, they can be promptly replaced before they reach majority.

I discuss in the whitepaper a mechanism which helps make the behavior of witnesses more predictable and earlier detect any breaches of trust:  a would-be witness pledges to follow the witness lists of a few (possibly larger than 12) prominent industry leaders.  The pledge is not enforceable in the protocol but publicly auditable, any breach of the pledge would immediately make the witness a candidate for removal.

Begin spreading the trust.

The witness 7ULGTPFB72TOYA67YNGMX2Y445FSTL7O replaces UENJPVZ7HVHM6QGVGT6MWOJGGRTUTJXQ

[tonych]

If by "centralized 'mechanism'" you mean the fact that tonych control all 12 witnesses I'd say I don't think the mechanism of changing witnesses is somehow deactivate 'till the distribution is over.
I think it's in full blow validity and someone who present a very compelling argument to be one of the twelve witnesses could assume the role.
Now, tonych may have any number of reasons to be in this role, but one would be: the network had to start securely somewhere, and the other being: no one's showed up yet with the needed reputation and credibility.

Finally some voice of reason. I felt so lonely with my arguments among all "hodl, to the moon etc." mindless cheerleaders. Thanks for that. It would be nice to hear from tonych what is his plan (if any) for relinquishing control over witnesses and breaking down the current one man cartel. It's obvious that it's very early to talk about that but some plan needs to be outlined if the system is to be considered in the future something more than privately controlled currency by one man. It's so centralized at the moment that the wallet "decentralized value" slogan sounds like a joke.

That's a valid concern and freezal got it right: the network had to start centralized and no one's showed up yet with the needed reputation and credibility.  I'm going to use every opportunity to relinquish control over 11 out of 12 witnesses in favor of reputable individuals/organizations/companies that are willing to be part of the network.  That would make the network only stronger thanks to both their involvement and the network becoming more decentralized.

[yvv]

If by "centralized 'mechanism'" you mean the fact that tonych control all 12 witnesses I'd say I don't think the mechanism of changing witnesses is somehow deactivate 'till the distribution is over.
I think it's in full blow validity and someone who present a very compelling argument to be one of the twelve witnesses could assume the role.
Now, tonych may have any number of reasons to be in this role, but one would be: the network had to start securely somewhere, and the other being: no one's showed up yet with the needed reputation and credibility.

Finally some voice of reason. I felt so lonely with my arguments among all "hodl, to the moon etc." mindless cheerleaders. Thanks for that. It would be nice to hear from tonych what is his plan (if any) for relinquishing control over witnesses and breaking down the current one man cartel. It's obvious that it's very early to talk about that but some plan needs to be outlined if the system is to be considered in the future something more than privately controlled currency by one man. It's so centralized at the moment that the wallet "decentralized value" slogan sounds like a joke.

That's a valid concern and freezal got it right: the network had to start centralized and no one's showed up yet with the needed reputation and credibility.  I'm going to use every opportunity to relinquish control over 11 out of 12 witnesses in favor of reputable individuals/organizations/companies that are willing to be part of the network.  That would make the network only stronger thanks to both their involvement and the network becoming more decentralized.

This is even more difficult task than distribution of tokens. Whatever you do, there will be some people who will complain that selection of witnesses is unfair and therefore the network is centralized and corrupted.

[metamorphin]

If by "centralized 'mechanism'" you mean the fact that tonych control all 12 witnesses I'd say I don't think the mechanism of changing witnesses is somehow deactivate 'till the distribution is over.
I think it's in full blow validity and someone who present a very compelling argument to be one of the twelve witnesses could assume the role.
Now, tonych may have any number of reasons to be in this role, but one would be: the network had to start securely somewhere, and the other being: no one's showed up yet with the needed reputation and credibility.

Finally some voice of reason. I felt so lonely with my arguments among all "hodl, to the moon etc." mindless cheerleaders. Thanks for that. It would be nice to hear from tonych what is his plan (if any) for relinquishing control over witnesses and breaking down the current one man cartel. It's obvious that it's very early to talk about that but some plan needs to be outlined if the system is to be considered in the future something more than privately controlled currency by one man. It's so centralized at the moment that the wallet "decentralized value" slogan sounds like a joke.

That's a valid concern and freezal got it right: the network had to start centralized and no one's showed up yet with the needed reputation and credibility.  I'm going to use every opportunity to relinquish control over 11 out of 12 witnesses in favor of reputable individuals/organizations/companies that are willing to be part of the network.  That would make the network only stronger thanks to both their involvement and the network becoming more decentralized.

This is even more difficult task than distribution of tokens. Whatever you do, there will be some people who will complain that selection of witnesses is unfair and therefore the network is centralized and corrupted.

Let them speaking about centralized and corrupted nonsense. :-)

I think, the next months, Tony will show us, how DAG works and how awesome this new technology will be inspired by many developers.

Greetz
Steve

[freezal]

Besides, as far as I know, tonych can't do anything if economy decide to change some witness [..]
I guess, this puts me in the "mindless cheerleaders" category then .

Let me quote the most well informed person:

You are correct, if 12 witnesses so decide, they can block all attempts to replace them. But this is exactly what they were expected not to do when they were added themselves.  If a minority of witnesses appears untrustworthy, they can be promptly replaced before they reach majority.

I discuss in the whitepaper a mechanism which helps make the behavior of witnesses more predictable and earlier detect any breaches of trust:  a would-be witness pledges to follow the witness lists of a few (possibly larger than 12) prominent industry leaders.  The pledge is not enforceable in the protocol but publicly auditable, any breach of the pledge would immediately make the witness a candidate for removal.

To be fair, and in retrospect, I probably misunderstood that you were not concerned discussing byteball centralization generically and in theory, as a quality, but in particular, as it manifest itself at the current situation and stage of the project, with the real people involved, as I think I understand now, and for that I appologize.

As for the general/theoretical situation of collusion of most witnesses and how impotent the rogue cartel would be against an economy that value its platform a lot, please see pages 21/22 of white paper by the same author (not cited here for brevity) about how to deal with them (schism).

Still to be seen how easy/hard collusion of majority witnesses could form, mechanisms of changing witnesses, schism, would be coordinated etc, keeping in mind all incentives (economical, reputational etc) involved.

Yes, indeed. I would add ignorant to this and it's not funny.

That was easy as per my own admission there.

[str4wm4n]

Besides, as far as I know, tonych can't do anything if economy decide to change some witness [..]
I guess, this puts me in the "mindless cheerleaders" category then .

Let me quote the most well informed person:

You are correct, if 12 witnesses so decide, they can block all attempts to replace them. But this is exactly what they were expected not to do when they were added themselves.  If a minority of witnesses appears untrustworthy, they can be promptly replaced before they reach majority.

I discuss in the whitepaper a mechanism which helps make the behavior of witnesses more predictable and earlier detect any breaches of trust:  a would-be witness pledges to follow the witness lists of a few (possibly larger than 12) prominent industry leaders.  The pledge is not enforceable in the protocol but publicly auditable, any breach of the pledge would immediately make the witness a candidate for removal.

Begin spreading the trust.

The witness 7ULGTPFB72TOYA67YNGMX2Y445FSTL7O replaces UENJPVZ7HVHM6QGVGT6MWOJGGRTUTJXQ

portabella is an awesome and knowledgeable person in my opinion from interacting with him in the slack

[davidoski]

That's a valid concern and freezal got it right: the network had to start centralized and no one's showed up yet with the needed reputation and credibility.  I'm going to use every opportunity to relinquish control over 11 out of 12 witnesses in favor of reputable individuals/organizations/companies that are willing to be part of the network.  That would make the network only stronger thanks to both their involvement and the network becoming more decentralized.

Thanks for clarifying that. The other concern that keeps coming to my mind is this: what happens if 2 or more of the 12 witnesses goes down (offline) for various reasons (hardware mulfunction, operator not interested in running it anymore, government seizure etc.). Will this cause any network disruption? If yes, what kind of disruptions would that be?

[Come-from-Beyond]

portabella is an awesome and knowledgeable person in my opinion from interacting with him in the slack

Actually, you have raised 2 red flags:

1. Con artists look as the most awesome persons.
2. Con artists pretend to be experts.

Just a simple question: Do areas of expertise of SatoNatomato and portabella overlap much?

[Big Naturals]

That's a valid concern and freezal got it right: the network had to start centralized and no one's showed up yet with the needed reputation and credibility.  I'm going to use every opportunity to relinquish control over 11 out of 12 witnesses in favor of reputable individuals/organizations/companies that are willing to be part of the network.  That would make the network only stronger thanks to both their involvement and the network becoming more decentralized.

You could have an election for 12 witnesses like Komodo did for their 64 notary nodes.

[devlin]

Regarding to the 12 witnesses, this number (12) is chosen on some calculations? More witnesses, let's say 24, it's not more secure?

[Karartma1]

That's a valid concern and freezal got it right: the network had to start centralized and no one's showed up yet with the needed reputation and credibility.  I'm going to use every opportunity to relinquish control over 11 out of 12 witnesses in favor of reputable individuals/organizations/companies that are willing to be part of the network.  That would make the network only stronger thanks to both their involvement and the network becoming more decentralized.

You could have an election for 12 witnesses like Komodo did for their 64 notary nodes.

Why bringing politics in when there's no need for it? Human intervention shouldn't be as strong as this. I mean Bitcoin works because there's very little human intervention. There's a lot of politics outside the protocol (big blocks, small blocks, BU not BU) but that doesn't harm the continuation of the network.
I'm confused on this one  

[tobeaj2mer01]

What is price of Blackbyteball?

[Krypt]

Regarding to the 12 witnesses, this number (12) is chosen on some calculations? More witnesses, let's say 24, it's not more secure?

Read the whitepaper, its explained there.

[tonych]

That's a valid concern and freezal got it right: the network had to start centralized and no one's showed up yet with the needed reputation and credibility.  I'm going to use every opportunity to relinquish control over 11 out of 12 witnesses in favor of reputable individuals/organizations/companies that are willing to be part of the network.  That would make the network only stronger thanks to both their involvement and the network becoming more decentralized.

Thanks for clarifying that. The other concern that keeps coming to my mind is this: what happens if 2 or more of the 12 witnesses goes down (offline) for various reasons (hardware mulfunction, operator not interested in running it anymore, government seizure etc.). Will this cause any network disruption? If yes, what kind of disruptions would that be?

As long as the majority (7 out of 12) of witnesses are online and behave honestly, the network is healthy.

[devlin]

Regarding to the 12 witnesses, this number (12) is chosen on some calculations? More witnesses, let's say 24, it's not more secure?

Read the whitepaper, its explained there.

I readed. But perhaps I not fully understand this system. Not yet.