Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments

[tonych]

Tony, i understand the main difference between IOTA and Byteball is ordering.

If Byteball needs transaction ordering won't this mean it automatically reduces its scalability 100-fold?

What exactly do you call ordering?

[1714065228]

1714065228

[1714065228]

1714065228

[1714065228]

1714065228

[1714065228]

1714065228

[1714065228]

1714065228

[masterluc]

Satoshi invented Blockchain and PoW to escape and remove third-party authority.

You invented third-party authority (Witnesses) to escape from blockchain concept.

Fucking genius   Paypal is better.

"Totally new consensus algorithm" - witnesses click "Coin is valid" button   OMFG, FTW

[galaxiekyl]

The 2nd and subsequent rounds are slightly different.  You show both your BTC balances (as before) and your balance in bytes.  You have a sort of basket that consists of a mixture of BTC and bytes.  To determine the weight of the basket, every 62.5 MB are counted as 1 BTC.  For example, if you have 125 MB and 3 BTC, the weight is 2+3=5 BTC.  The distribution of new bytes on the 2nd and subsequent stages is proportional to the weight of your basket.

how yu verif BBs solde for the next distribute ? should we send BBs on bytes adresse and submit a micro pay like btc ?

[tonych]

Satoshi invented Blockchain and PoW to escape and remove third-party authority.

You invented third-party authority (Witnesses) to escape from blockchain concept.

Fucking genius  Paypal is better.

Satoshi's work was great, but we shouldn't stop there.

A few important details to keep in mind:
1.  Witnesses are chosen by users (unlike miners)
2.  The trust model is pretty limited: you trust that the majority of witnesses do not try to post nonserial transactions.  Nothing more.
3.  PoW is still owned and operated by people, fallible and corruptible.

[tonych]

The 2nd and subsequent rounds are slightly different.  You show both your BTC balances (as before) and your balance in bytes.  You have a sort of basket that consists of a mixture of BTC and bytes.  To determine the weight of the basket, every 62.5 MB are counted as 1 BTC.  For example, if you have 125 MB and 3 BTC, the weight is 2+3=5 BTC.  The distribution of new bytes on the 2nd and subsequent stages is proportional to the weight of your basket.

how yu verif BBs solde for the next distribute ? should we send BBs on bytes adresse and submit a micro pay like btc ?

No, you don't have to make a micropayment in bytes.  You just tell (the chatbot) your Byteball address.  This is the same address that will receive the new bytes, so there's no point in lying and telling somebody else's address.

[masterluc]

So you offer to choose between Trump and  Clinton - who will accept our coins authority?  

2.  The trust model is pretty limited: you trust that the majority of witnesses do not try to post nonserial transactions.  Nothing more.

This is huge responsibility - trust them to proove your coins are "honest". This is what actually banks do. This is a power of authority. They may just reject your chain and you will stay naked.

What if major Witnesses are honest for some time and then - boom and they are now bad guys? (analogue of 51% attack).

[biggernugs]

Important announcement.

1.  I've significantly underestimated the amount of time and work required to build a large enough community around Byteball.  Also, there is development work to be done that's unlikely to be completed and properly tested before the originally planned launch date in early November.  That's why I'm pushing back the launch date to Christmas.  The snapshot will be taken on the first Bitcoin block timestamped on or after December 25, 2016 00:00:00 UTC (Christmas block).  I’ll begin to send out bytes in the afternoon of Dec 25, unless there are major reorgs on the Bitcoin network.

2.  I stay true to my original intention to distribute 98% for free, but find it useful to split the distribution into several pieces.  On December 25, we’ll distribute only 10%.  A month later, we’ll make a new snapshot and distribute another 20%.  Two months later, the next 30%.  Three months later, the remaining 38%.  The exact numbers may me adjusted depending on the results of previous rounds and the progress of the address linking campaign.

The reason I chose to split the distribution into several rounds is that it gives more people an opportunity to participate.  It is impossible to reach every Bitcoin holder before livenet is launched.  We’ll make news by distributing the first 10%, the network will become fully functional, hopefully we’ll get listed on exchanges, all that will help many more people notice Byteball.  Each subsequent distribution round will have similar effect.

In each distribution round, we take a new snapshot.  Exactly as previously advertised, the amount of bytes you receive in the 1st round will be proportional to the BTC balances that you show on the linked Bitcoin addresses in the Christmas block.

The 2nd and subsequent rounds are slightly different.  You show both your BTC balances (as before) and your balance in bytes.  You have a sort of basket that consists of a mixture of BTC and bytes.  To determine the weight of the basket, every 62.5 MB are counted as 1 BTC.  For example, if you have 125 MB and 3 BTC, the weight is 2+3=5 BTC.  The distribution of new bytes on the 2nd and subsequent stages is proportional to the weight of your basket.

The ratio 62.5 MB per 1 BTC is chosen so that the total money supply of bytes (10¹⁵) and the total number of BTC in circulation (16,000,000) are equivalent.

Earlier adopters have the opportunity to participate in greater number of distribution rounds and receive new bytes in each round by using the same BTC balance and bytes received in previous rounds.  You are effectively doubling your stake in each additional round you take part in.

3.  The linking phase (when you link your Byteball and Bitcoin addresses) of the 1st round will start in early December or late November.

4.  We’ll run more active marketing in the coming months to grow our community before the 1st distribution round.

5.  We doubled our development team: my colleague https://github.com/kakysha (not a real photo) is already helping me improve the wallet.

6.  We’ll run a test flight of the distribution in November.  You will be able to link your Bitcoin testnet address to your Byteball testnet address, and the distribution will be proportional to your BTC testnet balance.

https://twitter.com/ByteballOrg/status/787248332469112836

This is really great news in all ways. To start, accepting that the finished product isn't ready and pushing back the release is smart. Most teams would release a flawed product and either abandon it or just patch/fork their way through it. This completely shows the Dev's responsibility & commitment to this project's success.

Second, the new distribution model makes much more sense. Staggering the snapshots and percentages should absolutely help in spreading the coin. If all goes well at the start people will be eager to get in next time.

And, I can't help but laugh at the ass saying distribution should be ICO because this isn't fair, BTC whales will own most of the coin based on holdings. Well genius, if you don't think whales buy huge amounts of ICO coins to control & manipulate the market then you should either do a bit more research or maybe get outta the game. Not to mention those whales have to actually care enough to send their large chunks of BTC to checkmark  addresses...and I have a hunch they're not all going to do

[masterluc]

3.  PoW is still owned and operated by people, fallible and corruptible.

Yes, but PoW doesn't allow to concentrate majority of voters in federal reserve, Washington DC. Because Washington and USA at all - doesn't produce enough electricity to gain majority of network power.

Your PoW (Proof of Witness hehe) allows it without any significant expenses for Big Brother. As he easily manages thousands of IRL puppets. There will be no problem to create and inject thousands virtual "good guys" into community. Photos, IDs, facebook pages - not a problem. Even creation of real life person not a problem.

[tonych]

So you offer to choose between Trump and  Clinton - who will accept our coins authority?  

2.  The trust model is pretty limited: you trust that the majority of witnesses do not try to post nonserial transactions.  Nothing more.

This is huge responsibility - trust them to proove your coins are "honest". This is what actually banks do. This is a power of authority. They may just reject your chain and you will stay naked.

What are your sources?  Where did you read that witnesses have a responsibility to prove somebody's coins?

What if major Witnesses are honest for some time and then - boom and they are now bad guys? (analogue of 51% attack).

Well, your threat model is that 12 witnesses were carefully selected exactly for their trustworthiness, closely monitored (all their actions on Byteball are clearly visible by everybody), replaced from time to time, this all went well for years, and now, 7 out of 12 witnesses, all at the same time, turn their asses on everybody else.  What for?  Yes, they can double-spend against somebody, and by doing that they nuke the network, along with the profits from their double-spend.

[tonych]

3.  PoW is still owned and operated by people, fallible and corruptible.

Yes, but PoW doesn't allow to concentrate majority of voters in federal reserve, Washington DC. Because Washington and USA at all - doesn't produce enough electricity to gain majority of network power.

Your PoW (Proof of Witness hehe) allows it without any significant expenses for Big Brother. As he easily manages thousands of IRL puppets. There will be no problem to create and inject thousands virtual "good guys" into community. Photos, IDs, facebook pages - not a problem. Even creation of real life person not a problem.

Quick question: did you read the white paper?

[biggernugs]

3.  PoW is still owned and operated by people, fallible and corruptible.

Yes, but PoW doesn't allow to concentrate majority of voters in federal reserve, Washington DC. Because Washington and USA at all - doesn't produce enough electricity to gain majority of network power.

Your PoW (Proof of Witness hehe) allows it without any significant expenses for Big Brother. As he easily manages thousands of IRL puppets. There will be no problem to create and inject thousands virtual "good guys" into community. Photos, IDs, facebook pages - not a problem. Even creation of real life person not a problem.

Did you even read the whitepaper on how witnesses work? Of course the gov't can do what you say. They can also produce a BTC mining Op that could coordinate a 51% attack. Not enough power, lol. Eff power. You don't think that there's already large financial backers behind some of the bigger BTC mining operations? You don't believe that the US gov't may be one of them? You don't need power when you have unlimited money. Why are you so concerned about them attacking an unlaunched & unproven coin, one of many, when they clearly have the money/power to attack the mother of all cryptos, BTC??

Hell, between the Silk Road & Ulbricht confiscations they could've already had a huge market share. Not to say they didn't reinvest that money under anonymous terms but I still am having trouble understanding your paranoia. Nothing personal, just trying to understand your thinking.

[Sam123]

Hi ,

Is there any ETA on lunch main net?

Thank

No ETA available yet, wait for further announcement.

Watch yesterday the interview. The first snapshot will happen in Christmas

[masterluc]

Quick question: did you read the white paper?

I posted after reading your paper. And there explicitly defined that group of Witnesses may orphan the part of chain. You returned to model of trust. It is not innovation.

Did you read Satoshi white paper?

1. Introduction
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as
trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for
most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.
Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot
avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the
minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions,
and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible
services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must
be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need.
A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties
can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments
over a communications channel without a trusted party.
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers
from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers. In
this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed
timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions. The
system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any
cooperating group of attacker nodes.

6. Incentive
The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to
assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it
to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to
find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than
everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.

And what encourages your Witnesses to stay honest? Politik debates in facebook? Primaries? We see this shit in politiks. Nobody is honest there. Public face trading doesn't work as honesty enforcement IRL.

[masterluc]

And please add "I replaced Proof Of Work by the Proof of Witness and returned to model of trust" in the head of your OP to not mislead people.

[tonych]

Quick question: did you read the white paper?

I posted after reading your paper. And there explicitly defined that group of Witnesses may orphan the part of chain. You returned to model of trust. It is not innovation.

Please point me to the place in the white paper that made you think that "group of Witnesses may orphan the part of chain".

Did you read Satoshi white paper?

1. Introduction
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as
trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for
most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.
Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot
avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the
minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions,
and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible
services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must
be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need.
A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties
can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments
over a communications channel without a trusted party.
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers
from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers. In
this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed
timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions. The
system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any
cooperating group of attacker nodes.

6. Incentive
The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to
assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it
to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to
find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than
everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.

That's what I started with.  And transactions in Byteball are irreversible exactly as in Bitcoin.

And what encourages your Witnesses to stay honest? Politik debates in facebook? Primaries? We see this shit in politiks. Nobody is honest there. Public face trading doesn't work as honesty enforcement IRL.

They have to be honest long before they become witnesses.  They have to invest a lot in building a reputation in the real world, and they have to have a lot to lose (again, in the real world, not just in their witnessing fees in Byteball) in case they ruin the reputation.  And after they become witness, everything they do on Byteball is transparent, visible, and auditable in real time.  Given the slightest doubt in trustworthiness of any particular witness, there will be quite a few people to shout that witness A should be replaced with a new witness B.

[szafa]

If i correct understand byteball i can put adres btc from reach list and received byteball to my own adres.

[Krypt]

i can put adres btc from reach list

Only if you manage to send some satoshis from that address.

[CryptKeeper]

Finally the bitcoin maximalists have found this thread! 

We're getting famous now!
    

But back to the topic:
The Byteball system is not based on a blockchain and that makes it necessary to tackle some problems in a different way. I wouldn't say it won't work, think of Proof-of-Stake. A lot of people also say POS can't work but this will surely stop when Etherum implements it. The DAG and the system with the 12 witnesses is new tech and must prove itself on the battlefield. So my opinion is that reviews of the consensus algo and a fruitful discussion about this are very welcome!

[radley]

Whats the current price running on of BYTEBALL?

[tonych]

There was a question in the German thread if I'm going to use in the distribution rounds the 1% of bytes that I keep for myself and the 1% that I keep for future distribution to 100m users.

Short answer: I don't use them.

The 1% held for future giveaways: I’ll store these funds on a publicly known address and won’t touch them for a long time.
The 1% I keep for myself:  I’ll store the funds on an address that I publicly announce, but I might move the funds.  However, it will be easy to track the movements.
I’ll keep this 1% separate from the funds that I receive from my bitcoins, which I will obviously use in every round.

To sum up, I don’t use these 2% in distribution rounds and it will be easy to verify.