Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments

[kola-schaar]

For me difficult to imagine, but not impossible ..(I am probably too naive for this world)
That would be a bit perfidious. Or perhaps an obsession / egotism?
Who else should invest the time and why. To provoke tony? Or a mysterious way of advertising?

The world is full of mystery..

[escapefrom3dom]

For me difficult to imagine, but not impossible ..(I am probably too naive for this world)
That would be a bit perfidious. Or perhaps an obsession / egotism?
Who else should invest the time and why. To provoke tony? Or a mysterious way of advertising?

The world is full of mystery..

sybil in flesh and flood. ☺

[ttookk]

As has been done in the Ubiq thread, it is possible to effectively ban users from posting in your thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1763606.1580

Just sayin'.

Seriously though, you guy(s?) should have chosen another means of discussion weeks ago. This is getting tedious.

[SatoNatomato]

As has been done in the Ubiq thread, it is possible to effectively ban users from posting in your thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1763606.1580

Just sayin'.

Seriously though, you guy(s?) should have chosen another means of discussion weeks ago. This is getting tedious.

I am the brown monkey in the picture.

[Scrotum]

its really getting boring guys.
I invite you both to a beer, if you discuss this in person...

Sorry, having superhuman patience (professional deformation of all low-level coders) I don't feel when it's the right moment to stop. I guess it's now.

Debate is healthy, competition is healthy, why stop? Only problem is cfb was moderating iota thread, which looks like dble standard.

Arguments is way better than mindless speculation of price and moon talk.

[tonych]

Unless you put all 12 witnesses on a single machine you have to deal with the following situation:

Blue balls are picked by 4 witnesses as the main chain, green balls are picked by other 4 witnesses and there is another version picked by the remaining witnesses (it's not shown to emphasize that noone can have a complete view of the DAG). Under high load every witness will pick its own main chain because none of them will see the whole DAG. The chance of that is high because

In normal use, people mostly link their new units to slightly less recent units, meaning that the DAG grows only in one direction.

is not true in high load, the DAG becomes very wide.

Adding to the bolded part above, every node will pick its own main chain (witnesses are no special).  You are demonstrating the simple fact that under high throughput and wide DAG, different nodes have different views of the world, hence build different MCs, and that the trailing part of the MC is constantly rebuilt as new units arrive.  However, the algorithm that they use to build the MC guarantees that the portion of the MC that is older than certain point (stability point) is never rebuilt, it is stable.  It is normal that there is no consensus (yet) about the unstable trailing part.

Sorry, didn't bother to read the actual article. Try https://www.infoq.com/articles/cap-twelve-years-later-how-the-rules-have-changed:

In its classic interpretation, the CAP theorem ignores latency, although in practice, latency and partitions are deeply related. Operationally, the essence of CAP takes place during a timeout, a period when the program must make a fundamental decision-the partition decision:

cancel the operation and thus decrease availability, or

proceed with the operation and thus risk inconsistency.

Quoting from the whitepaper:

15.   Partitioning risk
The network of Byteball nodes can never be partitioned into two parts that would both continue operating without noticing.  Even in the event of a global network disruption such as a sub-Atlantic rat cutting the cable that connects Europe and America, at least one of the sides of the split will notice that it has lost the majority of witnesses, meaning that it can’t advance the stability point, and nobody can spend outputs stuck in the unstable part of the MC.  Even if someone tries to send a double-spend, it will remain unstable (and therefore unrecognized) until the connection is restored.  The other part of the split where the majority of witnesses happens to be, will continue as normal.

In other words, in the minority partition, confirmations will just stop before the connection is restored.

[lordoliver]

its really getting boring guys.
I invite you both to a beer, if you discuss this in person...

Sorry, having superhuman patience (professional deformation of all low-level coders) I don't feel when it's the right moment to stop. I guess it's now.

Debate is healthy, competition is healthy, why stop? Only problem is cfb was moderating iota thread, which looks like dble standard.

Arguments is way better than mindless speculation of price and moon talk.

discussion is healthy if its about technology, but not if the topic is only argumentless good and bad discussion which can also be called trolling ...

[Scrotum]

its really getting boring guys.
I invite you both to a beer, if you discuss this in person...

Sorry, having superhuman patience (professional deformation of all low-level coders) I don't feel when it's the right moment to stop. I guess it's now.

Debate is healthy, competition is healthy, why stop? Only problem is cfb was moderating iota thread, which looks like dble standard.

Arguments is way better than mindless speculation of price and moon talk.

discussion is healthy if its about technology, but not if the topic is only argumentless good and bad discussion which can also be called trolling ...

Agreed, discussion needs to be about the tech, and not personal. If both sides are trying to find weaknesses in the others project (even if just to win in their ego war) it serves a good purpose. These two guys are mostly using tech discussion in their battle, and it doesn't matter to iota and BB investors what their motivations for wanting to destroy the other guys position, just that weaknesses are discovered, and tech gets better and more robust.

[Come-from-Beyond]

It is normal that there is no consensus (yet) about the unstable trailing part.

If we denote the interval of time between a transaction issuance and the transaction finalization (by witnesses) as confirmation time, does an average confirmation time increase monotonically if the global TPS rate increases monotonically?

PS: "Yes" would mean that SatoNatomato was wrong that DAG has no limits on scaling even if we have superpowerful hardware (but the latency still persists).

[BTCspace]

They are both the same person. Didn't you notice that they are always here at the same time talking to each other? If they were different people than you would see some posts from one without an immediate answer from the other. You can see the same pattern nearly every day:

i agree with you.

i have the same feeling.

[Spratan]

I don't think ComeFromBeyond is schizophreniac, even if, from my point of view, he is indirectly helping too much the byteball dev by pointing its flaws.

[SatoNatomato]

I don't think ComeFromBeyond is schizophreniac, even if, from my point of view, he is indirectly helping too much the byteball dev by pointing its flaws.

Im not a Byteball dev and so far he hasnt pointed out a single flaw.

I too have and still continue to look for weaknesses, but at least have read the whitepaper and looked at the source-code before asking for clarifications. Apply critical thinking.

Then there is a difference in asking for clarifications about some issue/potential weakness, or as CfB was saying "Your btc-oracle feature is overkill and over-engineered" and "Byteball is a blockchain not a real DAG" comparing Byteball to blockchains like Ethereum and Monero, now the latest "DAG structure implies limit on tx/s", all of this is just FUD and not "pointing its flaws", but alas not all visitors have the necessary skills to judge this so I do.

[Come-from-Beyond]

...but alas not all visitors have the necessary skills to judge this so I do.

How can you judge that if you lack the required skills? I can remind your fuckups which show that.

[lweuoo]

i cant sync wallet

[tonych]

It is normal that there is no consensus (yet) about the unstable trailing part.

If we denote the interval of time between a transaction issuance and the transaction finalization (by witnesses) as confirmation time, does an average confirmation time increase monotonically if the global TPS rate increases monotonically?

PS: "Yes" would mean that SatoNatomato was wrong that DAG has no limits on scaling even if we have superpowerful hardware (but the latency still persists).

It all depends on the behavior of witnesses.  That said, it is reasonable to expect that as TPS increases, witnesses also post more frequently, therefore confirmation time decreases.  Of course, there is a lower bound defined by network latency, times number of witnesses.

[2012]

I am ready to received some good share from next distribution which is happening soon. This is good same time that Byteball is getting more and more valuable over the time and it's value should keep increasing. I am a simple investor non technical but if there are some issues raised dev will take care of them.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Of course, there is a lower bound defined by network latency, times number of witnesses.

Thank you. I'll point SatoNatomato to this next time he starts telling fantastic stories.

[SatoNatomato]

Of course, there is a lower bound defined by network latency, times number of witnesses.

Thank you. I'll point SatoNatomato to this next time he starts telling fantastic stories.

What will you point out? That you just lack reading comprehension or is your mind incapable of understanding? Does lower mean upper to you? How is a lower bound a limit? Can you explain, that would be great.

My initial statement which you tried to "prove wrong" is in fact "proved right" by tonych, in fact, you had previously insinuated Byteball doesnt scale to which tonych stated and I repeated "DAG has no architectural limits".

The more units there is posted, the higher the throughput. The more transactions, the confirmation time is faster, decreases. Not as you insinuated that more transactions would lead to some kind of congestion and increase/more-waiting for finality/confirmation.

Witnesses do not decide ordering of units.  Ordering is determined by the algorithm that looks back at the witnesses-authored units in the DAG.

What TPS limit do you expect to see in the real world (order of magnitude)?

You know, there is no architectural limit in the DAGs.
Regarding the practical limits, I don't buy into this race to Visa tps.  The most pressing issue of crypto is not tps, it is adoption (which we address in the first place).  Tps will come second after the first is solved.

So, this is a fantastic story, isnt it?

Get over your hurt ego, me and my employer, we not gonna use IOTA for an IoT project, we use Byteball, thats it.

And leave this thread, people and me included are really tired of your shit.

It seems to me your mind is incapable of comprehending Byteball. So you cant "scratch the surface", so please, leave this thread and stick to IOTA.

[BTCspace]

where can i see the rich list?

thank you

[Come-from-Beyond]

What will you point out? That you just lack reading comprehension or is your mind incapable of understanding?

I'm sure that I read it right. If I read it wrong then why I don't see news about Facebook and Twitter adopting Byteball solution?