Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments

[zanzibar]

.1 BTC Bounty for someone to write up a tutorial on linking Trezor or Ledger wallet to Byteball account via signing a message. This should include details on what needs to be done with full balance (do we need to send it to one address within wallet) before signing message. Thanks.

Here you go
1NXoWMpvHX7FamzXDB5e9LEqQHVFY3fE7G

Sent bounty, thank you.

[1713426920]

1713426920

[1713426920]

1713426920

[tonych]

Is there a counter somewhere showing how many BTC have been linked?

http://transition.byteball.org/

How often the transition bot info will be updated? Say if I link the bitcoin address and then after a while I deposit or withdraw from that address, how often the value of the account will be updated in the above link?

If you refresh the page, you'll see the updated balances.

[tonych]

Track the linking progress at http://transition.byteball.org

Some people tried to send microtransactions from exchange wallets.  These addresses have been deleted:

1MFXYK1XucKFfhPhW9HDHD3vsM9BKey4qm poloniex
3ALHU1TB4rS6t23j6nv61bzSyKKzgmSAZX bitstamp
1DEcTtkrbdXxS1wbrMvzub5X4VpByYmAwo poloniex

Tony, please check 13vHWR3iLsHeYwT42RnuKYNBoVPrKKZgRv
https://blockchain.info/address/13vHWR3iLsHeYwT42RnuKYNBoVPrKKZgRv

With this huge activity it seems to be an exchange wallet as well!

I also remember seeing this address earlier today linked to two different byteball addresses, the bot probably kept the first after it updated ... I was wondering if it would be fair to blacklist addresses that try to link to different byteball accounts, I mean can there be any valid case for someone to try that unless they want to cheat the system (or maybe they were trying to find bugs )?

Edit: Just thought of a case: I link my address to a first account, I then destroy this account and link the same address to a new account. So does the linking disappear when a byteball account is destroyed?

I also remember some discussion about detecting exchanges addresses, so what follows might have been addressed before:

How is this detection done? Isn't there a risk that someone links an exchange address on Decmeber 24 23:59:59 UTC and gets included in the snapshot? Meaning would it be costly to try and detect exchange addresses before adding them (and removing them afterwards, as it seems to be done for now)?

I also assume that an address that used a signed message can't be an exchange address, or am I mistaken? Exchanges staff might control private keys of addresses at some extent, so I think I'm mistaken (well technically I was for a second ).

I was wondering how micro could the micropayment be, some exchanges charge 0.0001 or 0.0002 (maybe others less) as a fee for a withdrawal, is it possible to make the micropyament less than that (or at least less that the minimum they authorize to be withdrawed)?

Already watching this address.  Looks like it is Bittrex hot wallet but I'm not sure https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/015a002330a8624a?from_address=13vHWR3iLsHeYwT42RnuKYNBoVPrKKZgRv.
If somebody did withdrawals from Bittrex and can find this address in history, please confirm.

Currently, exchanges are detected by the number of outputs.  Normal transactions should have 2 outputs: the micropayment and the the change.  Exchanges usually aggregate many withdrawals into single transaction and they have more than 2 outputs.  See the history of the above addresses.  However this detection is not bullet proof.

If you link the same Bitcoin address to another Byteball address, the old link is currently removed.  We could blacklist such Bitcoin addresses altogether (i.e. if different Byteball addresses try to link to them) but this might negatively affect blockchain.info users who have constant address by default as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong).

Further lowering of micropayment amount is risky because it opens an attack vector: an attacker might see your microtransaction on the blockchain and repeat it exactly from his address (i.e. send the same amount to the same our address) trying to link his address and trick you to send all your bitcoins to his address.  Most users will notice, and the attacker just loses his bitcoins, but if the amounts are too small, the attack might pay off.

Yes, signed message cannot be abused easily.

[tonych]

pls explain how to on phone

transfer account/app from old phone to new one ?

thanks

No problem, just link again from the new phone.

[kaicrypzen]

The detection seems to be done after the address is linked, that's whay I raised this concern:

Isn't there a risk that someone links an exchange address on December 24 23:59:59 UTC and gets included in the snapshot? Meaning would it be costly to try and detect exchange addresses before adding them?

Or am I missing something and there's no concern to have in this regard? i.e. you/the bot will be able to detect such an address and remove it before the snapshot.

If you link the same Bitcoin address to another Byteball address, the old link is currently removed.  We could blacklist such Bitcoin addresses altogether (i.e. if different Byteball addresses try to link to them) but this might negatively affect blockchain.info users who have constant address by default as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong).

Okay, given the fact that the old link is removed (fast enough), my question is no longer relevant. It is just that I saw one address linked to two bytaball addresses, so I don't know how fast the bot detects that and removes the link. I assume the bot will be able to remove redundant links done on December 24 at 23:59:59 UTC before the snapshot(?).

Further lowering of micropayment amount is risky because it opens an attack vector: an attacker might see your microtransaction on the blockchain and repeat it exactly from his address (i.e. send the same amount to the same our address) trying to link his address and trick you to send all your bitcoins to his address.  Most users will notice, and the attacker just loses his bitcoins, but if the amounts are too small, the attack might pay off.

Why would lowering the micropayment be riskier than with the current micropayments? (because they would be easily spotted?)

Yes, signed message cannot be abused easily.

Yes in most standard cases it can't, but exchanges can sign a message with an address holding funds which are not really theirs, can't they?

Thx.

Edit: Once again:


Edit2: The second transaction https://btc.blockr.io/tx/info/c546e318eaea173787e55db286c49e90241934fc844dfc77d7ab9231b1e8755a has been done at 20:30 UTC, it has been almost 40 minutes and it is still in the list, this coupled with the fact the the bot doesn't reply on the chat interface means that the bot is again dead ...

[dfox101]

Track the linking progress at http://transition.byteball.org

Some people tried to send microtransactions from exchange wallets.  These addresses have been deleted:

1MFXYK1XucKFfhPhW9HDHD3vsM9BKey4qm poloniex
3ALHU1TB4rS6t23j6nv61bzSyKKzgmSAZX bitstamp
1DEcTtkrbdXxS1wbrMvzub5X4VpByYmAwo poloniex

Tony, please check 13vHWR3iLsHeYwT42RnuKYNBoVPrKKZgRv
https://blockchain.info/address/13vHWR3iLsHeYwT42RnuKYNBoVPrKKZgRv

With this huge activity it seems to be an exchange wallet as well!

I also remember seeing this address earlier today linked to two different byteball addresses, the bot probably kept the first after it updated ... I was wondering if it would be fair to blacklist addresses that try to link to different byteball accounts, I mean can there be any valid case for someone to try that unless they want to cheat the system (or maybe they were trying to find bugs )?

Edit: Just thought of a case: I link my address to a first account, I then destroy this account and link the same address to a new account. So does the linking disappear when a byteball account is destroyed?

I also remember some discussion about detecting exchanges addresses, so what follows might have been addressed before:

How is this detection done? Isn't there a risk that someone links an exchange address on Decmeber 24 23:59:59 UTC and gets included in the snapshot? Meaning would it be costly to try and detect exchange addresses before adding them (and removing them afterwards, as it seems to be done for now)?

I also assume that an address that used a signed message can't be an exchange address, or am I mistaken? Exchanges staff might control private keys of addresses at some extent, so I think I'm mistaken (well technically I was for a second ).

I was wondering how micro could the micropayment be, some exchanges charge 0.0001 or 0.0002 (maybe others less) as a fee for a withdrawal, is it possible to make the micropyament less than that (or at least less that the minimum they authorize to be withdrawed)?

Already watching this address.  Looks like it is Bittrex hot wallet but I'm not sure https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/015a002330a8624a?from_address=13vHWR3iLsHeYwT42RnuKYNBoVPrKKZgRv.
If somebody did withdrawals from Bittrex and can find this address in history, please confirm.

Currently, exchanges are detected by the number of outputs.  Normal transactions should have 2 outputs: the micropayment and the the change.  Exchanges usually aggregate many withdrawals into single transaction and they have more than 2 outputs.  See the history of the above addresses.  However this detection is not bullet proof.

If you link the same Bitcoin address to another Byteball address, the old link is currently removed.  We could blacklist such Bitcoin addresses altogether (i.e. if different Byteball addresses try to link to them) but this might negatively affect blockchain.info users who have constant address by default as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong).

Further lowering of micropayment amount is risky because it opens an attack vector: an attacker might see your microtransaction on the blockchain and repeat it exactly from his address (i.e. send the same amount to the same our address) trying to link his address and trick you to send all your bitcoins to his address.  Most users will notice, and the attacker just loses his bitcoins, but if the amounts are too small, the attack might pay off.

Yes, signed message cannot be abused easily.

This will be too much detective for for the devs. I'd prefer the dev team focus on the features which are much more important. Dev should use some easier rules, such as (1) signed message are 100% trusted (2) send coin, as long as no one else claim it and its daily tx count less than certain amount it should be accepted.

[repdev]

Ok, thanks for the info.

[journeym@n]

Can someone tell me current live BB database size and roughly estimate its growth? I am deciding between light and full client.
Remarks and advices welcome.
Thanks

[CryptKeeper]

Can someone tell me current live BB database size and roughly estimate its growth? I am deciding between light and full client.
Remarks and advices welcome.
Thanks

My educated guess is that it's currently the same as there are no transactions on the mainnet yet.

[journeym@n]

Can someone tell me current live BB database size and roughly estimate its growth? I am deciding between light and full client.
Remarks and advices welcome.
Thanks

My educated guess is that it's currently the same as there are no transactions on the mainnet yet.

My bad. Do you have general idea of growth when it does start?

[logictense]

Is it possible to link several bitcoin addresses with a single byteball account?

Yes, bot answers full list of linked addresses on every ask.

Is this a slack bot? If so are the invites still given out? Id love to chip in with few suggestions how to expand bots thesaurus.

[CryptKeeper]

Is it possible to link several bitcoin addresses with a single byteball account?

Yes, bot answers full list of linked addresses on every ask.

Is this a slack bot? If so are the invites still given out? Id love to chip in with few suggestions how to expand bots thesaurus.

I don't know about slack bots but here's the link to the merchant bot's source on github:
https://github.com/byteball/byteball-merchant

[tonych]

The detection seems to be done after the address is linked, that's whay I raised this concern:

Isn't there a risk that someone links an exchange address on December 24 23:59:59 UTC and gets included in the snapshot? Meaning would it be costly to try and detect exchange addresses before adding them?

Or am I missing something and there's no concern to have in this regard? i.e. you/the bot will be able to detect such an address and remove it before the snapshot.

If you link the same Bitcoin address to another Byteball address, the old link is currently removed.  We could blacklist such Bitcoin addresses altogether (i.e. if different Byteball addresses try to link to them) but this might negatively affect blockchain.info users who have constant address by default as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong).

Okay, given the fact that the old link is removed (fast enough), my question is no longer relevant. It is just that I saw one address linked to two bytaball addresses, so I don't know how fast the bot detects that and removes the link. I assume the bot will be able to remove redundant links done on December 24 at 23:59:59 UTC before the snapshot(?).

Thx.

Edit: Once again:


Edit2: The second transaction https://btc.blockr.io/tx/info/c546e318eaea173787e55db286c49e90241934fc844dfc77d7ab9231b1e8755a has been done at 20:30 UTC, it has been almost 40 minutes and it is still in the list, this coupled with the fact the the bot doesn't reply on the chat interface means that the bot is again dead ...

There are two different things:
Detection: works immediately and rejects the microtransaction if it has more than 2 outputs.
Deduplication: removing of conflicting links happens after both transactions attain more than 10 confirmations.  It will work even after the snapshot and can remove conflicting links created in the last minutes of Dec 24.

Further lowering of micropayment amount is risky because it opens an attack vector: an attacker might see your microtransaction on the blockchain and repeat it exactly from his address (i.e. send the same amount to the same our address) trying to link his address and trick you to send all your bitcoins to his address.  Most users will notice, and the attacker just loses his bitcoins, but if the amounts are too small, the attack might pay off.

Why would lowering the micropayment be riskier than with the current micropayments? (because they would be easily spotted?)

Because the attack would become cheaper, hence worthwhile.

Yes, signed message cannot be abused easily.

Yes in most standard cases it can't, but exchanges can sign a message with an address holding funds which are not really theirs, can't they?

I contacted most exchanges, and those who replied said they won't.  I have their word on that.

this coupled with the fact the the bot doesn't reply on the chat interface means that the bot is again dead ...

It was offline for an hour.  It tends to die every other time I step away from the computer that you might think I am the bot  I'll try to double the memory on the machine, hope it helps.

[S3cco]

How to make a safe backup of the wallet?

The text in the wallet warns that saving the seed is not enough. See image below.

 

Is that correct? If so, where is the data directory to save?

[ICOcountdown.com]

How to make a safe backup of the wallet?

The text in the wallet warns that saving the seed is not enough. See image below.

 

Is that correct? If so, where is the data directory to save?

1.) Search %APPDATA% if on Windows.

2.) Navigate to "local" folder.

3.) Copy and paste byteball folder. (DO NOT DELETE OR MOVE IT.)

4.) Place the byteball folder in selected backup location with the paste function.

 

[freezal]

Hi tonich,

The remaining 1% will be given away to the first 100m users who install Byteball wallet, 100 Kbytes to each user.  This will start 6 months from now or later, after we get ready for that scale.

One can only be elegible to this by being one of the first 100 thousand to install a certain byteball wallet sometime first half of next year, when you announce it's ready.
Is that right?

Thanks.

[Belligerent Fool]

I'm just wondering about something now as all the coins seem to be premined would this be classified as a Centralized project since they choose who and when to send to.... Sounds a bit like MangoCoins but without the whole shaking your phone to mine, I'd give it a go but after reading mixed receptions on the wallet & what is the point of the coin I don't know what I should do since I'm sitting on the fence now.

[ICOcountdown.com]

I'm just wondering about something now as all the coins seem to be premined would this be classified as a Centralized project since they choose who and when to send to.... Sounds a bit like MangoCoins but without the whole shaking your phone to mine, I'd give it a go but after reading mixed receptions on the wallet & what is the point of the coin I don't know what I should do since I'm sitting on the fence now.

This is an airdrop for example how CLAMS was airdropped to BTC / LTC and DOGE holders.

[tonych]

Hi tonich,

The remaining 1% will be given away to the first 100m users who install Byteball wallet, 100 Kbytes to each user.  This will start 6 months from now or later, after we get ready for that scale.

One can only be elegible to this by being one of the first 100 thousand to install a certain byteball wallet sometime first half of next year, when you announce it's ready.
Is that right?

Thanks.

Roughly that.  The exact eligibility criteria will be decided much later, obviously it will be something that makes it difficult to claim more than once.

[drays]

Already watching this address.  Looks like it is Bittrex hot wallet but I'm not sure https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/015a002330a8624a?from_address=13vHWR3iLsHeYwT42RnuKYNBoVPrKKZgRv.
If somebody did withdrawals from Bittrex and can find this address in history, please confirm.

I confirm, this is Bittrex hot wallet address. As soon as I saw it here, it looked familiar, and I have checked, and indeed some (in fact - most) of my recent withdrawals from Bittrex were sent from that address.

If you link the same Bitcoin address to another Byteball address, the old link is currently removed.  We could blacklist such Bitcoin addresses altogether (i.e. if different Byteball addresses try to link to them) but this might negatively affect blockchain.info users who have constant address by default as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong).

There can be a simple strict rule - if some address was linked more than once, just block it and have bot report it, so if a legit owner is trying to link it, he could move his coins to another address and link that one.
That will automatically rule out exchange wallets, as there always will be more than one cheater.

Yes, signed message cannot be abused easily.

This part below is mostly IMHO
Frankly speaking, I believe having only signature way of linking the Bitcoin address would be just enough. This microtracsaction method only messes things up. If user does not know how to sign, he could learn. If his wallet does not have signing capability, he can move his Bitcoins to a wallet which has that capability. This could be a good reason for someone to educate himself, and prove he really wants to have Byteball! Kind of a PoW - "proof of work", "proof of willingness", "proof of worthiness"