Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments

[sxafir]

This actual wallet will also be used when mainnet launch?

[valley365]

From the white paper it seems that the introduction of witness is to do some sort of automatic check points, do I understand correctly? Many coins do manual checkpoint by releasing new software. If we have another automatic way to checkpoint the existing DAG, then witness should no longer be needed.

[marseille]

This actual wallet will also be used when mainnet launch?

Yes I think it is the same wallet.

[Warkop]

how can I take part in this thread and participate in the thread ..
if you could explain to me on how to join ??

[valley365]

how can I take part in this thread and participate in the thread ..
if you could explain to me on how to join ??

read the announcement page, all explained. First you need to download the client, then sync in testnet for now, then before the launch link your bitcoin addresses, and follow the steps, in order to receive your shares

[Warkop]

how can I take part in this thread and participate in the thread ..
if you could explain to me on how to join ??

read the announcement page, all explained. First you need to download the client, then sync in testnet for now, then before the launch link your bitcoin addresses, and follow the steps, in order to receive your shares

Okay, thank you, for your info to me ..

[tonych]

From the white paper it seems that the introduction of witness is to do some sort of automatic check points, do I understand correctly? Many coins do manual checkpoint by releasing new software. If we have another automatic way to checkpoint the existing DAG, then witness should no longer be needed.

Yes, there is some similarity with checkpoints, with important differences though that make the system decentralized:
1.  There are 12 "checkpointing authorities", not 1
2.  Each and every witness can be replaced by users, without developer intervention

[lerecidiviste]

hello tonych & gd day frds

 


starting the test

Your payment from 2MsYNtcpSzcbMMFD24mMmyDiQkP8AtaUp8C has 1 confirmations now.

Please make sure that 2MsYNtcpSzcbMMFD24mMmyDiQkP8AtaUp8C is indeed your address and move all your coins to this address. The amount of bytes you receive will be proportional to the total balance of this Bitcoin address on December 25.

Current balance of this address is 0 BTC.

*****

 am using this wallet  =   http://testnetwallet.com/wallet

*****

and

normally my bal is =

My Wallet
2.37195213 Confirmed Balance
0.00000000 Unconfirmed Balance

*************

seems byteball cannot see my balance coming from this online wallet ; may be its due to level of confirmation or bug of display on the testnetwallet...

will let u know

[tonych]

hello tonych & gd day frds

 


starting the test

Your payment from 2MsYNtcpSzcbMMFD24mMmyDiQkP8AtaUp8C has 1 confirmations now.

Please make sure that 2MsYNtcpSzcbMMFD24mMmyDiQkP8AtaUp8C is indeed your address and move all your coins to this address. The amount of bytes you receive will be proportional to the total balance of this Bitcoin address on December 25.

Current balance of this address is 0 BTC.

*****

 am using this wallet  =   http://testnetwallet.com/wallet

*****

and

normally my bal is =

My Wallet
2.37195213 Confirmed Balance
0.00000000 Unconfirmed Balance

*************

seems byteball cannot see my balance coming from this online wallet ; may be its due to level of confirmation or bug of display on the testnetwallet...

will let u know

Seems like you are confusing wallet and address.
Wallet is a collection of multiple addresses, and wallet balance is the sum of balances of all addresses.  This address has 0 balance indeed http://tbtc.blockr.io/address/info/2MsYNtcpSzcbMMFD24mMmyDiQkP8AtaUp8C.  The bot instructs you to move coins within your wallet to this single address.

[cryptohunter]

im involved in many cryptocoin projects and i would love take part on byteball too

just all my value is in altcoin not in bitcoins

wouldnt it be fair and also attract a lot of the more open mindet non pure bitcoin crowd

if u also share bytes towards owners of altcoins

as long as they are traded on a exchange vs btc its easy to find out their BTC value and reward the with correct amount of bytes

also it help ya to attract many more people

i think the average altcoin investor is way deeper educated about blockchains than the pure bitcoin investor

its a crucial skill in altcoin ecosystem that u understand a bit mpre about blockchain technology else u would burn yourself at most invests

Exactly what I said at the start. Although those in this thread are hoping they are of the select few to link their byteball wallets to their btc so they are not too bothered about this right now. As soon as this distribution method is widely known to the alt coin section i predict an instant pariah coin and subsequent cloning with fairer distribution model.

To me personally I don't have clear benefit either way since I hold some BTC and some alts.

The OP though should have considered this for the longevity of this particular project.

Nulling the top 2 percent of btc wallets would serve as a  token of making it fairer than is currently planned.

Ill be linking my btc wallets regardless but will not argue against the great number of critics that will emerge once word gets out after project launch.

[kaicrypzen]

The amount of bytes you receive will be proportional to the total balance of this Bitcoin address on December 25.

I assume this'll be the same bot which will be used for the real Bitcoin address linking, however seing "December 25" for the testnet linking is a bit confusing, one may think that the testing phase extends to December 25 whereas, if I'm not mistaken, it is supposed to end by the end of November.

[lerecidiviste]

 

Hello again! Your current linked Bitcoin address is 2MsYNtcpSzcbMMFD24mMmyDiQkP8AtaUp8C.

Please make sure that 2MsYNtcpSzcbMMFD24mMmyDiQkP8AtaUp8C is indeed your address and move all your coins to this address. The amount of bytes you receive will be proportional to the total balance of this Bitcoin address on December 25.

Current balance of this address is 2.37 BTC.


*****************************************************

pls can u kindly confirm the steps ( japanese style "step by step" easy instructions......

=================================================

1/ send micro payement

2/ get see the btc adress

3/ send micro payment to adress

4/ check balance is updating & at same avoid risk of hacker robing btc

5/ send full amt btc to safe adress

6/ normally BTC just moved around inside the same wallet


is this correct ?

7/ balance of btc will update inside byteball system  until a cut off date & time

8/ receive byteball & blackbytes

[tonych]

Hello again! Your current linked Bitcoin address is 2MsYNtcpSzcbMMFD24mMmyDiQkP8AtaUp8C.

Please make sure that 2MsYNtcpSzcbMMFD24mMmyDiQkP8AtaUp8C is indeed your address and move all your coins to this address. The amount of bytes you receive will be proportional to the total balance of this Bitcoin address on December 25.

Current balance of this address is 2.37 BTC.


*****************************************************

pls can u kindly confirm the steps ( japanese style "step by step" easy instructions......

=================================================

1/ send micro payement

2/ get see the btc adress

3/ send micro payment to adress

4/ check balance is updating & at same avoid risk of hacker robing btc

5/ send full amt btc to safe adress

6/ normally BTC just moved around inside the same wallet


is this correct ?

7/ balance of btc will update inside byteball system  until a cut off date & time

8/ receive byteball & blackbytes

Yes, that's correct.

[valley365]

From the white paper it seems that the introduction of witness is to do some sort of automatic check points, do I understand correctly? Many coins do manual checkpoint by releasing new software. If we have another automatic way to checkpoint the existing DAG, then witness should no longer be needed.

Yes, there is some similarity with checkpoints, with important differences though that make the system decentralized:
1.  There are 12 "checkpointing authorities", not 1
2.  Each and every witness can be replaced by users, without developer intervention

But do you have a mechanism for ensuring that most users will have the same witnesses? If you let people to choose randomly, it will not be good. As if I am let to choose all by myself, I'd probably make a list of my friends which I trust the most.

[valley365]

im involved in many cryptocoin projects and i would love take part on byteball too

just all my value is in altcoin not in bitcoins

wouldnt it be fair and also attract a lot of the more open mindet non pure bitcoin crowd

if u also share bytes towards owners of altcoins

as long as they are traded on a exchange vs btc its easy to find out their BTC value and reward the with correct amount of bytes

also it help ya to attract many more people

i think the average altcoin investor is way deeper educated about blockchains than the pure bitcoin investor

its a crucial skill in altcoin ecosystem that u understand a bit mpre about blockchain technology else u would burn yourself at most invests

Exactly what I said at the start. Although those in this thread are hoping they are of the select few to link their byteball wallets to their btc so they are not too bothered about this right now. As soon as this distribution method is widely known to the alt coin section i predict an instant pariah coin and subsequent cloning with fairer distribution model.

To me personally I don't have clear benefit either way since I hold some BTC and some alts.

The OP though should have considered this for the longevity of this particular project.

Nulling the top 2 percent of btc wallets would serve as a  token of making it fairer than is currently planned.

Ill be linking my btc wallets regardless but will not argue against the great number of critics that will emerge once word gets out after project launch.

I see a lot discussions on the fair distribution of the bytes (possibly half posts in this thread talk about it). Personally, I think tony's proposal is the best. Whichever way you distribute, there are always some people which feel not fair. To me, as long as it is published clearly, with no clear bias, then it is a good one.

Many people complain about limiting to the "richest" people, why so? in real life the people have more money will be easier to make more than those with less money. It's not really the unfairness.

Come on, just follow the rule and play, everyone will be happy.

[tonych]

From the white paper it seems that the introduction of witness is to do some sort of automatic check points, do I understand correctly? Many coins do manual checkpoint by releasing new software. If we have another automatic way to checkpoint the existing DAG, then witness should no longer be needed.

Yes, there is some similarity with checkpoints, with important differences though that make the system decentralized:
1.  There are 12 "checkpointing authorities", not 1
2.  Each and every witness can be replaced by users, without developer intervention

But do you have a mechanism for ensuring that most users will have the same witnesses? If you let people to choose randomly, it will not be good. As if I am let to choose all by myself, I'd probably make a list of my friends which I trust the most.

Yes.  When you create a new transaction, you choose parents - earlier transactions in the DAG.  At least 1 of the parents must have the witness list that differs from yours by no more than 1 mutation.  That means that users should mostly agree on the witness list.  The white paper discusses this issue in depth.

[dfox101]

Hello again! Your current linked Bitcoin address is 2MsYNtcpSzcbMMFD24mMmyDiQkP8AtaUp8C.

Please make sure that 2MsYNtcpSzcbMMFD24mMmyDiQkP8AtaUp8C is indeed your address and move all your coins to this address. The amount of bytes you receive will be proportional to the total balance of this Bitcoin address on December 25.

Current balance of this address is 2.37 BTC.


*****************************************************

pls can u kindly confirm the steps ( japanese style "step by step" easy instructions......

=================================================

1/ send micro payement

2/ get see the btc adress

3/ send micro payment to adress

4/ check balance is updating & at same avoid risk of hacker robing btc

5/ send full amt btc to safe adress

6/ normally BTC just moved around inside the same wallet


is this correct ?

7/ balance of btc will update inside byteball system  until a cut off date & time

8/ receive byteball & blackbytes

what's the difference between step1 and step3? I think you just need to send one micro payment...

[iamnotback]

Byteball spends transaction fees to the witnesses (and perhaps the payer portion is effectively burned as it is passed along?) instead of employing proof-of-work (but I am not yet clear if this is used as the metric of the chain length in any way in consensus algorithm).. These fees per section “1. Introduction: Exchange rate” on page 3 are tied to the system wide exchange value of adding bytes to the database. Byteball has the incorrect monetary theory, because the confidence in and thus the value of money is greater the higher the senioriage.

3. Native   currency:   bytes

Next,   we   need   to   introduce   some   friction   to   protect   against   spamming   the   database   
with   useless   messages.      The   barrier   to   entry should   roughly   reflect   the   utility   of   
storage   for   the   user   and   the   cost   of   storage   for   the   network.      The   simplest   measure   
for   both   of   these is the   size   of   the storage   unit.

I vehemently disagree. I think utility should not reflect storage costs but rather all costs including validation, etc..

[iamnotback]

Btw, I don't understand why that paper failed to cite the prior art of Iota's and Sergio Demian Lerner's DAGs.

Don't forget Byteball, a new consensus algorithm and private untraceable payments using DAG, no POW, no POS!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1608859.0

Also found this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjT7wQNg_s4

The innovation claimed is that everyone can agree on 11 of 12 centralized supernodes to order the transactions, thus we wouldn't need PoW nor blocks if this claim were true and desirable.

If that claim were true, then we wouldn't have Visa and Mastercard dominant today.

Since people can't agree, this is why the governance of society is a power vacuum. The most ruthless and powerful are sucked into the vacuum to provide the top-down organization (discipline) that society requires to function. So it will be no different outcome in this case, where the 12 supernodes will be controlled by one entity (even pretending to be 12 entities via a Sybil attack). Because the users will never be able to agree on any evolution away from the 12 by forming a consensus on an exact 12, since they are only allowed a mutation of 1 at a time. And any higher rate of mutation would make it implausible to define a total order.

I am sorry he has failed. And every possible¹ DAG design will fail.

Tangentially (off-topic for technical discussion) although the creator appears to have good intentions, I argue his distribution method is highly flawed. Giving away coins for free means most will dump them on the market, thus collapsing the price. Well maybe that is by design, so someone can scoop them up cheap and then later after price hits rock bottom, then that group can pump & dump it making the usual fortune by mining the n00b speculators.

¹ I am referring to the concept of a DAG where branches are undifferentiated. And I have something more specific to say about this, but not ready to publish yet.

Are you the new identity of AnonyMint?
If you have any specific attack vectors in mind, please describe them and let's discuss.

Yes I am AnonyMint.

I haven't been reading the thread to see if there are any follow ups.

I am still analyzing your design. I think the main issue is because afaics witnesses have nothing-at-stake and afaics it can't be objectively determined which witnesses are creating units referencing MCs which create ambiguity about whether finality was really final. It may also not be objective which witnesses are mishaving. But I may not yet completely understand the design.

[tonych]

Yes I am AnonyMint.

I haven't been reading the thread to see if there are any follow ups.

I am still analyzing your design. I think the main issue is because afaics witnesses have nothing-at-stake and afaics it can't be objectively determined which witnesses are creating units referencing MCs which create ambiguity about whether finality was really final. It may also not be objective which witnesses are mishaving. But I may not yet completely understand the design.

Don't confuse with PoS, witnesses' stakes are outside the system.
Looks like you want to get a deep understanding of the design, then you have to read the first few sections of the white paper that discuss consensus.