Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments

[Krypt]

Is is possible to link multiple addresses?

|
|
V

You'll receive all bytes at the first BB address.  It's perfectly legal to link several Bitcoin addresses to the same BB address.

[ryvirath]

I was reading Gavin Wood's polkadot paper and came across this:

"Tangle [17] is a novel approach to consensus systems.
Rather than arranging transactions into blocks and forming
consensus over a strictly linked list to give a globally
canonical ordering of state-changes, it largely abandons
the idea of a heavily structured ordering and instead
pushes for a directed acyclic graph of dependent transactions
with later items helping canonicalise earlier items
through explicit referencing. For arbitrary state-changes,
this dependency graph would quickly become intractable,
however for the much simpler UTXO model2
this becomes
quite reasonable. Because the system is only loosely coherent
and transactions are generally independent of each
other, a large amount of global parallelism becomes quite
natural. Using the UTXO model does have the effect
of limiting Tangle to a purely value-transfer “currency”
system rather than anything more general or extensible.
Furthermore without the hard global coherency, interaction
with other systems—which tend to need an absolute
degree knowledge over the system state—becomes impractical."

How does byteball deal with arbitrary state changes?

[SatoNatomato]

I was reading Gavin Wood's polkadot paper and came across this:

"Tangle [17] —becomes impractical."

How does byteball deal with arbitrary state changes?

Byteball has the ball its in the name, that is the global state, witnesses decide it. Witnesses decide ordering of units. This is not "the tangle" where developers decide the consensus with milestones and snapshots.

[Come-from-Beyond]

This is not "the tangle" where developers decide the consensus with milestones and snapshots.

You are again spreading lies. I bet you'll play chicken if I ask you to put your money where your mouth is. 

[kola-schaar]

Is is possible to link multiple addresses?

|
|
V

You'll receive all bytes at the first BB address.  It's perfectly legal to link several Bitcoin addresses to the same BB address.

Perhaps a small addition to the general understanding for the new:

If you browse here http://transition.byteball.org/ . Then you will see that this is very common.
It is also more convenient than any BTC address to link to a new / discrete BB address (this is also possible).
In such a case, after each distribution, the shares received at the various BB addresses must be consolidated again at the address specified by the bot (primary BB address). This is needed to receive blackbytes for all these bytes (in the following distribution(s)).

If you only use one BB address (and connect multiple BTC addresses with this), then this is not required.
If you don’t touch the wallet (trade, buy .. Bytes), you will automatically get your blackbytes for the shown bytes in every round.
The BTC's can be transferred from the linked address some hours after the snapshot.
They must then be shown again to the next round(s) (at one of the linked BTC-addresses or a newly linked BTC-address).

[grzem]

Dear Cryptox users. We recommend to take out of exchange your BTC and GBYTE balances in order to participate in 2nd round of Byteball distribution.
Those who forget, will be credited according to their 95% balance BTC and 95% GBYTE at the time of transition.
Blackbytes will wait for you to contact admin@cryptox.pl

[tonych]

I'll do the 2nd round distribution on testnet later today.
If you participated in the 1st round, get your testnet wallets ready and synced.
The pairing code of testnet transition bot is A89N05sSYB+ZakW6HH16mAHuFsf+HDi+Us3DeP/MyoAQ@byteball.org/bb-test#0000

Testnet distribution is complete, please check your balances if you linked your testnet coins.
Dust-size balances were not credited with new bytes: if an address had balance less than 10000 bytes (i.e. less than 1000 new bytes to be received), it was ignored.

[SatoNatomato]

This is not "the tangle" where developers decide the consensus with milestones and snapshots.

You are again spreading lies. I bet you'll play chicken if I ask you to put your money where your mouth is. 

Why are you still here?

You had ample opportunity to explain all my concerns in the IOTA Unmoderated thread - which you didnt, instead you, and iotatoken guy, again attacked me verbally and domsch fake acted nicely without in any way addressing technical concerns. And no selling vaporware and imaginary future where it will magically work doesnt count as a good answer.

Ive seen what shit you write about Byteball in your slack channel - now there we can talk about FUD and lies.

[tonych]

I was reading Gavin Wood's polkadot paper and came across this:

"Tangle [17] —becomes impractical."

How does byteball deal with arbitrary state changes?

Byteball has the ball its in the name, that is the global state, witnesses decide it. Witnesses decide ordering of units. This is not "the tangle" where developers decide the consensus with milestones and snapshots.

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

[Come-from-Beyond]

You had ample opportunity to explain all my concerns in the IOTA Unmoderated thread...

In a thread dedicated solely for trolling? C'mon. I won't waste time there.
I'm here to reveal your lies. You are still doing all those tricks that scammers do to conduct a long con.

[SatoNatomato]

I was reading Gavin Wood's polkadot paper and came across this:

"Tangle [17] —becomes impractical."

How does byteball deal with arbitrary state changes?

Byteball has the ball its in the name, that is the global state, witnesses decide it. Witnesses decide ordering of units. This is not "the tangle" where developers decide the consensus with milestones and snapshots.

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

Thanks for the correction, and even better explanation.

The important thing to note in relevance to the quote which spurred discussion, is that there is an ordering.

[Come-from-Beyond]

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)?

[tonych]

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.

[tonych]

I was reading Gavin Wood's polkadot paper and came across this:

"Tangle [17] is a novel approach to consensus systems.
Rather than arranging transactions into blocks and forming
consensus over a strictly linked list to give a globally
canonical ordering of state-changes, it largely abandons
the idea of a heavily structured ordering and instead
pushes for a directed acyclic graph of dependent transactions
with later items helping canonicalise earlier items
through explicit referencing. For arbitrary state-changes,
this dependency graph would quickly become intractable,
however for the much simpler UTXO model2
this becomes
quite reasonable. Because the system is only loosely coherent
and transactions are generally independent of each
other, a large amount of global parallelism becomes quite
natural. Using the UTXO model does have the effect
of limiting Tangle to a purely value-transfer “currency”
system rather than anything more general or extensible.
Furthermore without the hard global coherency, interaction
with other systems—which tend to need an absolute
degree knowledge over the system state—becomes impractical."

How does byteball deal with arbitrary state changes?

With total order (which we have thanks to Main Chain) and deterministic finality (which we also have), there are no problems with arbitrary state changes.

[freezal]

Is is possible to link multiple addresses?

|
|
V

You'll receive all bytes at the first BB address.  It's perfectly legal to link several Bitcoin addresses to the same BB address.

Perhaps a small addition to the general understanding for the new:

If you browse here http://transition.byteball.org/ . Then you will see that this is very common.
It is also more convenient than any BTC address to link to a new / discrete BB address (this is also possible).
In such a case, after each distribution, the shares received at the various BB addresses must be consolidated again at the address specified by the bot (primary BB address). This is needed to receive blackbytes for all these bytes (in the following distribution(s)).

If you only use one BB address (and connect multiple BTC addresses with this), then this is not required.
If you don’t touch the wallet (trade, buy .. Bytes), you will automatically get your blackbytes for the shown bytes in every round.
The BTC's can be transferred from the linked address some hours after the snapshot.
They must then be shown again to the next round(s) (at one of the linked BTC-addresses or a newly linked BTC-address).

I don't think if you have many bitcoin addresses linked to many byteball addresses that you need to consolidate them in a unique byteball address in order to receive the corresponding blackbytes in the second distribution, nor that it would be more convenient to do so.

Am I correct tonych?

But even if I am correct why the transition  bot shows the many byteball linked addresses, their balances and then inform: "Move your bytes to one of the linked addresses in order to maximize the amount of blackbytes you receive"?
"Maximize" here means only account for some dust you won't receive because of rounding problems etc. or you risk loosing many of the blackbytes you'd otherwise receive if you'd consolidated in one of the linked byteball addresses?

edit: small correction near the end.

[kaicrypzen]

I don't think if you have many bitcoin addresses linked to many byteball addresses that you need to consolidate them in a unique byteball address in order to receive the corresponding blackbytes in the second distribution, nor that it would be more convenient to do so.

Am I correct tonych?

Not tonych speaking ^^ but yes you are correct, blackbytes will be transferred to all the linked byteball addresses, it might be convenient for some people to have only one address and for others to have many .

But even if I am correct why the transition  bot shows the many byteball linked addresses, their balances and then inform: "Move your bytes to one of the linked addresses in order to maximize the amount of blackbytes you receive"?

This only implies moving bytes to linked addresses to get blackbytes I guess. Maybe it should be rephrased "to one or more" or "to one of the linked addresses" ...

"Maximize" here means only account for some dust you won't receive because of rounding problems etc. or you risk loosing many of the blackbytes you'd otherwise receive if you'd consolidated in one of the linked byteball addresses?

This could be a good interpretation especially since the testnet distribution didn't take small balances into account ... Anyway if you have any dust then move it to an address with a bigger balance.

[freezal]

I don't think if you have many bitcoin addresses linked to many byteball addresses that you need to consolidate them in a unique byteball address in order to receive the corresponding blackbytes in the second distribution, nor that it would be more convenient to do so.

Am I correct tonych?

Not tonych speaking ^^ but yes you are correct, blackbytes will be transferred to all the linked byteball addresses, it might be convenient for some people to have only one address and for others to have many .

But even if I am correct why the transition  bot shows the many byteball linked addresses, their balances and then inform: "Move your bytes to one of the linked addresses in order to maximize the amount of blackbytes you receive"?

This only implies moving bytes to linked addresses to get blackbytes I guess. Maybe it should be rephrased "to one or more" or "to one of the linked addresses" ...

"Maximize" here means only account for some dust you won't receive because of rounding problems etc. or you risk loosing many of the blackbytes you'd otherwise receive if you'd consolidated in one of the linked byteball addresses?

This could be a good interpretation especially since the testnet distribution didn't take small balances into account ... Anyway if you have any dust then move it to an address with a bigger balance.

I agree with everything you said. Thank you.

[andrebai]

only thing that prevents me from linking my BTC is that it shows the address publicly on http://transition.byteball.org/
i do not like thatt

why do we have to publish the addresses public?


i think we trust the byteball team by now to not fake numbers.

adding to this, you can't really say you are a "private untraceable payment" whenever you can link a bitcoin address to every byteball address that has ever been created??

[Kryptowerk]

I have two questions:
1. After having creaeted my first wallet in  The byteball program I saved my seed-words and used the option in the wallet to delete the seed. Then i created two more wallets. Now when I click on Settings->Backup it says "wallet seed not available". Even for the newly created wallets. Does that mean they all share the same seed? Or is it a bug.

2. When I upgrade the wallet-software to the latest version, will I be able to use the same wallets without needing the restore-seed words?

[yvv]

only thing that prevents me from linking my BTC is that it shows the address publicly on http://transition.byteball.org/
i do not like thatt

why do we have to publish the addresses public?


i think we trust the byteball team by now to not fake numbers.

adding to this, you can't really say you are a "private untraceable payment" whenever you can link a bitcoin address to every byteball address that has ever been created??

You should read carefully instructions to your tin foil hat. It should inform you that your BTC address is publicly shown in bitcoin blockchain, such that everybody can see its activity. Your tin foil hat can't change this.