Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments

[Odrak]

A hub can do that, but if a unit (transaction) has more than 1 mutation its invalid. Only when 1 witness is replaced by others as well, when the new witness has posted enough stamps, the "stability point" can be moved forward, and then the next witness replaced.

In other words, if you replace one witness with yourself and I replace another witness with myself we'll split the network into two halves. There will be 50% of users behind your choice and 50% of users behind my choice. And of course, I will never accept you as a witness and you will never accept me. Looks like the consensus will diverge for indefinite period of time in this scenario.

Do I misunderstand or are you sprouting out bs scenarios?

The “near-conformity rule”: best parents must be selected only among those parents whose witness list differs from the child’s witness list by no more than one mutation. This rule ensures that witness lists of neighboring units on the MC are similar enough, therefore their histories mostly agree with one another. The parents whose witness list differs by 0 or 1 mutation will be called compatible (with the unit that includes them directly), while the others are incompatible. Incompatible parents are still permitted, but they have no chance of becoming best parent. If there are no compatible potential parents among childless units (an attacker could flood the network with his units that carry a radically different witness list), one should select parents from older units.

The above means that each unit must list its witnesses so that they can be compared. We require that the number of witnesses is exactly 12. This number 12 was selected because:
• it is sufficiently large to protect against the occasional failures of a few witnesses (they might prove dishonest, or be hacked, or go offline for a long time, or lose their private keys and go offline forever);
• it is sufficiently small that humans can keep track of all the witnesses to know who is who and change the list when necessary;
• the one allowed mutation is sufficiently small compared with the 11 unchanged witnesses. In case a user thinks that any of the witnesses has lost his credibility, or there are just better candidates, the user can replace the witness with a new witness in his list, bearing in mind that his witness list may not differ from that of other units by more than one position. This means that any changes can happen only gradually, and a general consensus is required for a change bigger than one position.

[1714308625]

1714308625

[1714308625]

1714308625

[1714308625]

1714308625

[Come-from-Beyond]

Do I misunderstand or are you sprouting out bs scenarios?

If I get the whitepaper correctly then in the mentioned scenario (everyone picked themself as the new witness) we'll get the DAG looking like this:



There is a chance I've got the whitepaper wrong, of course. So far noone has explained what will happen.

[naska21]

I think the witnesses list  revealing who they are and why they are choosen must be published somewhere/ Now we have wallet that shows only their addresses taken from the hub nothing else.  How  anyone can    trust them  knowing nothing ?

[ByteFan]

A hub can do that, but if a unit (transaction) has more than 1 mutation its invalid. Only when 1 witness is replaced by others as well, when the new witness has posted enough stamps, the "stability point" can be moved forward, and then the next witness replaced.

In other words, if you replace one witness with yourself and I replace another witness with myself we'll split the network into two halves. There will be 50% of users behind your choice and 50% of users behind my choice. And of course, I will never accept you as a witness and you will never accept me. Looks like the consensus will diverge for indefinite period of time in this scenario.

• the one allowed mutation is sufficiently small compared with the 11 unchanged witnesses. In case a user thinks that any of the witnesses has lost his credibility, or there are just better candidates, the user can replace the witness with a new witness in his list, bearing in mind that his witness list may not differ from that of other units by more than one position. This means that any changes can happen only gradually, and a general consensus is required for a change bigger than one position.

Looks like Come-from-Beyond is right (?)

So end users should not be allowed to change more than 1 witness on the default list or they would be separated from the rest of the network. Obviously this sound too like a problem. Can we have some clarification here ?

[SatoNatomato]

A hub can do that, but if a unit (transaction) has more than 1 mutation its invalid. Only when 1 witness is replaced by others as well, when the new witness has posted enough stamps, the "stability point" can be moved forward, and then the next witness replaced.

In other words, if you replace one witness with yourself and I replace another witness with myself we'll split the network into two halves. There will be 50% of users behind your choice and 50% of users behind my choice. And of course, I will never accept you as a witness and you will never accept me. Looks like the consensus will diverge for indefinite period of time in this scenario.

• the one allowed mutation is sufficiently small compared with the 11 unchanged witnesses. In case a user thinks that any of the witnesses has lost his credibility, or there are just better candidates, the user can replace the witness with a new witness in his list, bearing in mind that his witness list may not differ from that of other units by more than one position. This means that any changes can happen only gradually, and a general consensus is required for a change bigger than one position.

Looks like Come-from-Beyond is right (?)

So end users should not be allowed to change more than 1 witness on the default list or they would be separated from the rest of the network. Obviously this sound too like a problem. Can we have some clarification from tonych ?

He has not been right one time in this entire thread, just an IOTA troll.

The network is a separate layer from the witnessing, but if you mean the progression of transactions, or that its actually usable, lets go with that.  Each user can change 1 witness and witnessing goes on as usual, it doesnt affect how the DAG looks like at all. Its the majority of witnesses which matters, as long as a majority exists, even if several witnesses are replaced with many many other, and only 6 remain, it all still works.

The other question, but a user replaces all or 2 witnesses with his own, has been answered, those are invalid transactions. An attack on Byteball is possible only if already existing witnesses collude and conspire.

As you see, it is a very genius concept, a major major invention by Byteball, so it is hard for simpler minds like CfBs to fully grasp it. But he does like to post pictures, look a few pages back when he tried to compare Byteballs DAG to Ethereum blockchain with pictures,  .

He hasnt even read the whitepaper, is just trolling and spreading FUD, every single one of his posts in this thread has been with intent to FUD.

[jwinterm]

...

The network is a separate layer from the witnessing, but if you mean the progression of transactions, or that its actually usable, lets go with that.  Each user can change 1 witness and witnessing goes on as usual, it doesnt affect how the DAG looks like at all. Its the majority of witnesses which matters, as long as a majority exists, even if several witnesses are replaced with many many other, and only 6 remain, it all still works.

The other question, but a user replaces all or 2 witnesses with his own, has been answered, those are invalid transactions. An attack on Byteball is possible only if already existing witnesses collude and conspire.

As you see, it is a very genius concept, a major major invention by Byteball, so it is hard for simpler minds like CfBs to fully grasp it. But he does like to post pictures, look a few pages back when he tried to compare Byteballs DAG to Ethereum blockchain with pictures,  .

He hasnt even read the whitepaper, is just trolling and spreading FUD, every single one of his posts in this thread has been with intent to FUD.

I haven't dove deep into the technicals of this coin, but from what I understand currently all 12 witnesses are controlled by tonych, so at this point an attack is possible if tonych becomes malicious or if he is coerced into doing something. To me, it's not clear how the transition from one person controlling all 12 witnesses to having them be distributed is likely or possible to occur - it would require active intervention on behalf of (almost) everyone making txs on the network, right? Most people don't care about stuff like this, especially if this doesn't happen early - the more users the higher proportion of them will be casual users who don't care about technical stuff like this.

[SatoNatomato]

...

The network is a separate layer from the witnessing, but if you mean the progression of transactions, or that its actually usable, lets go with that.  Each user can change 1 witness and witnessing goes on as usual, it doesnt affect how the DAG looks like at all. Its the majority of witnesses which matters, as long as a majority exists, even if several witnesses are replaced with many many other, and only 6 remain, it all still works.

The other question, but a user replaces all or 2 witnesses with his own, has been answered, those are invalid transactions. An attack on Byteball is possible only if already existing witnesses collude and conspire.

As you see, it is a very genius concept, a major major invention by Byteball, so it is hard for simpler minds like CfBs to fully grasp it. But he does like to post pictures, look a few pages back when he tried to compare Byteballs DAG to Ethereum blockchain with pictures,  .

He hasnt even read the whitepaper, is just trolling and spreading FUD, every single one of his posts in this thread has been with intent to FUD.

I haven't dove deep into the technicals of this coin, but from what I understand currently all 12 witnesses are controlled by tonych, so at this point an attack is possible if tonych becomes malicious or if he is coerced into doing something. To me, it's not clear how the transition from one person controlling all 12 witnesses to having them be distributed is likely or possible to occur - it would require active intervention on behalf of (almost) everyone making txs on the network, right? Most people don't care about stuff like this, especially if this doesn't happen early - the more users the higher proportion of them will be casual users who don't care about technical stuff like this.

Replacing witnesses is a social question, its not inbuilt into the protocol to select/pick witnesses, they have to be picked by the users of the system, or if each user doesnt care, then the default hub byteball.org or other hubs can do the choice on behalf of the user.

Its really a design inspired by biology, organic user action is required.

So far only the XSS-finder portabelle has a witness running and it looks like some have selected to use it. Exactly as envisioned.

[synthgauge]

I was telling people truth and nobody was listening. If u dive deeper into entrails of marxian economy and how it applies to real-world distribution of power u will find similarities with how crypto works and that knowledge will help u understand how the one can inspect mechanisms of crypto economic development and find out to what degree sociality of man has deteriorated.

[ByteFan]

Can someone please point me on how-to run a byteball explorer ?

Already downloaded  byteball-explorer from github and explorer.js is well running in the background.

Need now an index.xxx to fire up the explorer website in my ngnix virtual host.

Thanks

[ByteFan]

Replacing witnesses is a social question, its not inbuilt into the protocol to select/pick witnesses, they have to be picked by the users of the system, or if each user doesnt care, then the default hub byteball.org or other hubs can do the choice on behalf of the user.

Its really a design inspired by biology, organic user action is required.

So far only the XSS-finder portabelle has a witness running and it looks like some have selected to use it. Exactly as envisioned.

I am a volunteer to set up and run a witness. Would you replace one of your witnesses by mine in the default list at least until we get some well reputed "captain of industry" to replace me ?

That means : are you socialy ready to start release hands on witnesses ?

[Come-from-Beyond]

He has not been right one time in this entire thread, just an IOTA troll.

The following wasn't trolling:

Bloating issue

How much hdd space do I need to download full DAG today? Is DAG somehow limited in size, or someone can make billions of transactions and bloat it?

Please read the OP:

The fees paid for storing one’s transactions (or any other data) in the Byteball database are equal to the size of the data being stored.  If the size of your transaction data is 500 bytes, you pay exactly 500 bytes (the native currency of Byteball) in fees.

So what? With a fee of 50$ someone can make DAG twice as big overnight? With a fee 500$ can make it 10 gb more? There is people who can do this just for fun. Is there some prunning mechanism what will allow to cut old transactions from database?

There isn't. I'm pointing this out for a long time but nobody is listening. Byteball has the same scalability problem like any other blockchain with adjustable blocksize limit. Database grows indefinitely and hardware and bandwith are the limiting factors. Moreover if somebody wants to attack byteball by sending huge data to the database it''s pretty easy and cheap at the current price. 8 years old Bitcoin blockchain nears 100 GB and you can make byteball database that big in 1 day for just $6700.

we definitely need an explanation from dev about it.

I dont think the problem exists today, of too fast growth too big load on nodes, hence low priority task. 100GB for bitcoin database is small anyway, compare with how much storage a random bank requires to run its business? Byteball database does grow fast, it can compress well, there can be other implementations to make it even smaller.

It's quite obvious that once people start to care about their GBs they'll do everything to spend as less them on fees as possible. It's a no-brainer to compress data before pushing them to Byteball storage. As the result most of data in Byteball DB will already have near-max entropy. At this point lossless compressing won't give noticeable benefit.

I hope you get now why that your post was misleading...

Scalability issue

I'm still not convinced that Byteball is a pure DAG coin, to prove my position I would need to generate a lot of transactions on Byteball network to show that in certain conditions (related to DAG topology) TPS growth is negatively impacted by necessity to pick the main chain. If you compared Ethereum (which calls itself blockchain) and Byteball you would see that they don't differ much:

If you looked at IOTA you would see this:

I'm not interested enough to make sure that my assumption is correct, but you could help by generating a lot of transactions and posting here the topology of the resulting Byteball DAG. Try 10 TPS on the testnet maybe?

And now fragmentation issue described few pages back


Someone should start giving real answers instead of accusations in trolling...

[tonych]

Do I misunderstand or are you sprouting out bs scenarios?

If I get the whitepaper correctly then in the mentioned scenario (everyone picked themself as the new witness) we'll get the DAG looking like this:



There is a chance I've got the whitepaper wrong, of course. So far noone has explained what will happen.

It looks nice but won't happen.  Odrak explained this above by quoting the whitepaper:

Incompatible parents are still permitted, but they have no chance of becoming best parent.

which means that such units will not be on the main chain but they still get descendants and get confirmed.

[Come-from-Beyond]

It looks nice but won't happen.  Odrak explained this above by quoting the whitepaper:

Incompatible parents are still permitted, but they have no chance of becoming best parent.

which means that such units will not be on the main chain but they still get descendants and get confirmed.

Ok, what about the other issues above?

[kola-schaar]

Are you worried about the security of the linking process for BTC?
Coinbase cold storage is supported.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1608859.6240

Hardware wallets (i.e. Ledger Nano S, Trezor) are supported.
Tutorial Ledger Nano S
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1608859.msg17259024#msg17259024
Tutorial Trezor
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1608859.msg17114185#msg17114185

For questions or problems ask the helpdesk: http://slack.byteball.org/

lol that Coinbase user is going to be pretty disappointed that they didn't read carefully about the # of BTC linked to it in the chatbot.  Coinbase storage doesn't use individual wallets it goes to a pool of wallets so the address you sign from has it's balance swept.
The only wallets that have the actual BTC kept at that address on Coinbase are the multisignature vault addresses and you can't sign from a multisignature address.
The distribution only works with signature method via a non-multisig address that you control the private keys to.  
The byteball chat bot will tell you how many BTC are in your linked addresses, and if you link a Coinbase address you'll see that it actually shows no balance.  But I guess they'll find out the hard way soon enough.

If so - Sorry for the misinformation  . I do not have a Coinbase account and can not test it.
I will edit my posting.
Thanks for the information. 

[SatoNatomato]

Replacing witnesses is a social question, its not inbuilt into the protocol to select/pick witnesses, they have to be picked by the users of the system, or if each user doesnt care, then the default hub byteball.org or other hubs can do the choice on behalf of the user.

Its really a design inspired by biology, organic user action is required.

So far only the XSS-finder portabelle has a witness running and it looks like some have selected to use it. Exactly as envisioned.

I am a volunteer to set up and run a witness. Would you replace one of your witnesses by mine in the default list at least until we get some well reputed "captain of industry" to replace me ?

That means : are you socialy ready to start release hands on witnesses ?

Personally, I am ready to place trust in community members.

EDIT: Again the CfBs fear strikes, now reposting same useless pictures. Pathetic.

[Come-from-Beyond]

EDIT: Again the CfBs fear strikes, now reposting same useless pictures. Pathetic.

Let's wait for tonych answer and see if the pictures are useless or not.

[SatoNatomato]

EDIT: Again the CfBs fear strikes, now reposting same useless pictures. Pathetic.

Let's wait for tonych answer and see if the pictures are useless or not.

He answered you already. Several times.

By the way, your IOTA-scam still sucks, very shameful project, its implementation is weak and concept is retarded. Proof-of-Work in IoT space is beyond retardation, only a simple narrow-mind could have thought that scam would fly. Your IOTA project has a "consensus by developer keeping a database of everyones balances", has only censored forums, and is a failed scam.

[Come-from-Beyond]

He answered you already. Several times.

He hasn't answered yet. You lie, as usual.

[dfox101]

next round distribution is soon I guess...

[naska21]

48%  of sync after 40 hrs of work  and the same 48 after 48 hrs. Does BB use Mickey Mouse network?