|
innergy
|
 |
March 19, 2017, 05:09:20 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
favdesu
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1000
|
|
March 19, 2017, 05:10:58 PM |
|
how possible are sidechains with byteball? could you guys make it?
|
|
|
|
|
jeremy grol
|
|
March 19, 2017, 05:11:56 PM |
|
Waitin for next distribution round!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ano
|
|
March 19, 2017, 05:37:01 PM |
|
Waitin for next distribution round!
It will take place on April 11, 2017 till than prepare your coins into your wallet. I also have some and hopefully will take more in next round. |
|
|
|
|
|
escapefrom3dom
|
|
March 19, 2017, 05:46:27 PM |
|
wtf? another unwanted scam proposal. |
|
|
|
|
davidoski
|
|
March 19, 2017, 06:05:09 PM
Last edit: March 19, 2017, 06:25:32 PM by davidoski |
|
I tried to find out how scalable the byteball network actually is. Did not find any information about that topic. So how many transaction can the network handle? Does anybody know this?
The only bottleneck for handling txs for bytebal are: 1. bandwidth 2. storage hardware 3. cost of sending txs - every tx costs as many bytes as it takes in size It is essentially equally scalable (and not more) as any blockchain with dynamic blocksize (ethereum, monero, etc.) although there's no "blocksize limit". You can send as many txs as possible and if it won't cost you a fortune or clog bandwidth or make DAG take terabytes in size the network will handle it seamlessly. It's actually an attack vector at the moment because txs are cheap (bytes are still cheap) and you can make DAG database grow quickly to inconvenient size in just a day or two. Sending tx of 100GB would cost you only $5000 and would make running a full node for a random user rather painful. To completely cripple byteball you need at the moment around $3mln. It would make DAG databese 60TB in size which would exclude most commercial computers from being able to run a full node. |
Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks
|
|
|
bspus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2165
Merit: 1002
|
|
March 19, 2017, 07:09:53 PM |
|
I'm sure it's been mentioned before but I'd better make sure.
Are linkings between byteball and btc addresses permanent throughout all the distributions?
What I mean is, I participated in the match distribution and my bitcoins will not be moving until the next one.
Do I need to chat with the bot again, or are the linkings still valid?
Also, this byteball addresses which I linked to btc ones were previously empty and now have my distribution coins.
Do I need to do something for them to receive the 10%? Like another type of linking, irrespective of btc?
|
|
|
|
nillohit
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
***crypto trader***
|
|
March 19, 2017, 07:25:33 PM |
|
Please, stop spamming here |
|
|
|
|
|
yvv
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000
.
|
|
March 19, 2017, 08:10:18 PM |
|
I'm sure it's been mentioned before but I'd better make sure.
Are linkings between byteball and btc addresses permanent throughout all the distributions?
What I mean is, I participated in the match distribution and my bitcoins will not be moving until the next one.
Do I need to chat with the bot again, or are the linkings still valid?
Also, this byteball addresses which I linked to btc ones were previously empty and now have my distribution coins.
Do I need to do something for them to receive the 10%? Like another type of linking, irrespective of btc?
Chat with the bot, and you'll get answers to your questions. |
.
|
|
|
|
dfd1
|
|
March 19, 2017, 08:25:55 PM |
|
I tried to find out how scalable the byteball network actually is. Did not find any information about that topic. So how many transaction can the network handle? Does anybody know this?
The only bottleneck for handling txs for bytebal are: 1. bandwidth 2. storage hardware 3. cost of sending txs - every tx costs as many bytes as it takes in size It is essentially equally scalable (and not more) as any blockchain with dynamic blocksize (ethereum, monero, etc.) although there's no "blocksize limit". You can send as many txs as possible and if it won't cost you a fortune or clog bandwidth or make DAG take terabytes in size the network will handle it seamlessly. It's actually an attack vector at the moment because txs are cheap (bytes are still cheap) and you can make DAG database grow quickly to inconvenient size in just a day or two. Sending tx of 100GB would cost you only $5000 and would make running a full node for a random user rather painful. To completely cripple byteball you need at the moment around $3mln. It would make DAG databese 60TB in size which would exclude most commercial computers from being able to run a full node. There is a lot of problems with byteball I see after lurking into source code. First of all Byteball code written on Javascript, and all network connections go thrue WebSocket (protocol designed for web browser to allow some AJAX fancy things). Second, it's not clear how genesis block was made and how much power developer, who hold all keys, has over the network. He probably can generate new coins at any time he want. Third, witnesses list can't be really replaced. This list of dev personal witnesses can't be changed easilly and probably here to stay forever. Byteball not immune to any fishing attacks. Network can easily be replaced with malicious one, if some hacker suddenly changed download link on official website or somehow managed to spread wrong client around no chance to stop new network from replacing legit one. The biggest problem I see is a project code on Javascript. Why not emojicode, why javascript? Don't wanted to spread FUD here, but this thing really dangerous. |
|
|
|
|
|
escapefrom3dom
|
|
March 19, 2017, 08:37:11 PM |
|
I tried to find out how scalable the byteball network actually is. Did not find any information about that topic. So how many transaction can the network handle? Does anybody know this?
The only bottleneck for handling txs for bytebal are: 1. bandwidth 2. storage hardware 3. cost of sending txs - every tx costs as many bytes as it takes in size It is essentially equally scalable (and not more) as any blockchain with dynamic blocksize (ethereum, monero, etc.) although there's no "blocksize limit". You can send as many txs as possible and if it won't cost you a fortune or clog bandwidth or make DAG take terabytes in size the network will handle it seamlessly. It's actually an attack vector at the moment because txs are cheap (bytes are still cheap) and you can make DAG database grow quickly to inconvenient size in just a day or two. Sending tx of 100GB would cost you only $5000 and would make running a full node for a random user rather painful. To completely cripple byteball you need at the moment around $3mln. It would make DAG databese 60TB in size which would exclude most commercial computers from being able to run a full node. There is a lot of problems with byteball I see after lurking into source code. First of all Byteball code written on Javascript, and all network connections go thrue WebSocket (protocol designed for web browser to allow some AJAX fancy things). Second, it's not clear how genesis block was made and how much power developer, who hold all keys, has over the network. He probably can generate new coins at any time he want. Third, witnesses list can't be really replaced. This list of dev personal witnesses can't be changed easilly and probably here to stay forever. Byteball not immune to any fishing attacks. Network can easily be replaced with malicious one, if some hacker suddenly changed download link on official website or somehow managed to spread wrong client around no chance to stop new network from replacing legit one.The biggest problem I see is a project code on Javascript. Why not emojicode, why javascript? Don't wanted to spread FUD here, but this thing really dangerous. can you give an example of altcoin for which it is not so? scarcely. |
|
|
|
|
dfd1
|
|
March 19, 2017, 08:45:20 PM |
|
I tried to find out how scalable the byteball network actually is. Did not find any information about that topic. So how many transaction can the network handle? Does anybody know this?
The only bottleneck for handling txs for bytebal are: 1. bandwidth 2. storage hardware 3. cost of sending txs - every tx costs as many bytes as it takes in size It is essentially equally scalable (and not more) as any blockchain with dynamic blocksize (ethereum, monero, etc.) although there's no "blocksize limit". You can send as many txs as possible and if it won't cost you a fortune or clog bandwidth or make DAG take terabytes in size the network will handle it seamlessly. It's actually an attack vector at the moment because txs are cheap (bytes are still cheap) and you can make DAG database grow quickly to inconvenient size in just a day or two. Sending tx of 100GB would cost you only $5000 and would make running a full node for a random user rather painful. To completely cripple byteball you need at the moment around $3mln. It would make DAG databese 60TB in size which would exclude most commercial computers from being able to run a full node. There is a lot of problems with byteball I see after lurking into source code. First of all Byteball code written on Javascript, and all network connections go thrue WebSocket (protocol designed for web browser to allow some AJAX fancy things). Second, it's not clear how genesis block was made and how much power developer, who hold all keys, has over the network. He probably can generate new coins at any time he want. Third, witnesses list can't be really replaced. This list of dev personal witnesses can't be changed easilly and probably here to stay forever. Byteball not immune to any fishing attacks. Network can easily be replaced with malicious one, if some hacker suddenly changed download link on official website or somehow managed to spread wrong client around no chance to stop new network from replacing legit one.The biggest problem I see is a project code on Javascript. Why not emojicode, why javascript? Don't wanted to spread FUD here, but this thing really dangerous. can you give an example of altcoin for which it is not so? scarcely. Original Bitcoin and all clones don't have these problems. Network can't be replaced with wallet update, because attacker need to replace miners somehow too. Malicious network will not be accepted by miners, network (blockchain) will be safe and not affected by hacker fake wallet. All coins generated transparently, POW difficulty made it imposible to rewrite blockchain from first block. PoS coins don't allow easy fork too, since attacker need some huge pile of coins to replace network. And none of them coded on javascript or emojicode. |
|
|
|
|
|
escapefrom3dom
|
|
March 19, 2017, 08:54:38 PM |
|
I tried to find out how scalable the byteball network actually is. Did not find any information about that topic. So how many transaction can the network handle? Does anybody know this?
The only bottleneck for handling txs for bytebal are: 1. bandwidth 2. storage hardware 3. cost of sending txs - every tx costs as many bytes as it takes in size It is essentially equally scalable (and not more) as any blockchain with dynamic blocksize (ethereum, monero, etc.) although there's no "blocksize limit". You can send as many txs as possible and if it won't cost you a fortune or clog bandwidth or make DAG take terabytes in size the network will handle it seamlessly. It's actually an attack vector at the moment because txs are cheap (bytes are still cheap) and you can make DAG database grow quickly to inconvenient size in just a day or two. Sending tx of 100GB would cost you only $5000 and would make running a full node for a random user rather painful. To completely cripple byteball you need at the moment around $3mln. It would make DAG databese 60TB in size which would exclude most commercial computers from being able to run a full node. There is a lot of problems with byteball I see after lurking into source code. First of all Byteball code written on Javascript, and all network connections go thrue WebSocket (protocol designed for web browser to allow some AJAX fancy things). Second, it's not clear how genesis block was made and how much power developer, who hold all keys, has over the network. He probably can generate new coins at any time he want. Third, witnesses list can't be really replaced. This list of dev personal witnesses can't be changed easilly and probably here to stay forever. Byteball not immune to any fishing attacks. Network can easily be replaced with malicious one, if some hacker suddenly changed download link on official website or somehow managed to spread wrong client around no chance to stop new network from replacing legit one.The biggest problem I see is a project code on Javascript. Why not emojicode, why javascript? Don't wanted to spread FUD here, but this thing really dangerous. can you give an example of altcoin for which it is not so? scarcely. Original Bitcoin and all clones don't have these problems. Network can't be replaced with wallet update, because attacker need to replace miners somehow too. Malicious network will not be accepted by miners, network (blockchain) will be safe and not affected by hacker fake wallet. All coins generated transparently, POW difficulty made it imposible to rewrite blockchain from first block. PoS coins don't allow easy fork too, since attacker need some huge pile of coins to replace network. And none of them coded on javascript or emojicode. agree about btc/clones. let's wait for another opinions about byteball. |
|
|
|
|
SatoNatomato
|
|
March 19, 2017, 09:14:01 PM |
|
I tried to find out how scalable the byteball network actually is. Did not find any information about that topic. So how many transaction can the network handle? Does anybody know this?
The only bottleneck for handling txs for bytebal are: 1. bandwidth 2. storage hardware 3. cost of sending txs - every tx costs as many bytes as it takes in size It is essentially equally scalable (and not more) as any blockchain with dynamic blocksize (ethereum, monero, etc.) although there's no "blocksize limit". You can send as many txs as possible and if it won't cost you a fortune or clog bandwidth or make DAG take terabytes in size the network will handle it seamlessly. It's actually an attack vector at the moment because txs are cheap (bytes are still cheap) and you can make DAG database grow quickly to inconvenient size in just a day or two. Sending tx of 100GB would cost you only $5000 and would make running a full node for a random user rather painful. To completely cripple byteball you need at the moment around $3mln. It would make DAG databese 60TB in size which would exclude most commercial computers from being able to run a full node. There is a lot of problems with byteball I see after lurking into source code. First of all Byteball code written on Javascript, and all network connections go thrue WebSocket (protocol designed for web browser to allow some AJAX fancy things). Second, it's not clear how genesis block was made and how much power developer, who hold all keys, has over the network. He probably can generate new coins at any time he want. Third, witnesses list can't be really replaced. This list of dev personal witnesses can't be changed easilly and probably here to stay forever. Byteball not immune to any fishing attacks. Network can easily be replaced with malicious one, if some hacker suddenly changed download link on official website or somehow managed to spread wrong client around no chance to stop new network from replacing legit one. The biggest problem I see is a project code on Javascript. Why not emojicode, why javascript? Don't wanted to spread FUD here, but this thing really dangerous. Interesting discussion, and your post is not FUD at least to my eyes. JavaScript is not the best language for safety critical systems, Rust is better, but not many people know it well yet or the cross-section of cryptocummuntiy and Rust is small, and even in Rust you could make mistakes. For safe-code you need formal verification with languages such as coq, but then if your language is formally verified and your software is formally verified and found safe with no flaws, you still would rely on OS and other software which has faults. Then you would need to build your entire stack on something like L4 and probably make your own hardware. That task is probably out of scope for this project right now.  The scale of safety, less to more, is wide. JavaScript for other reasons, platform diversity, speed, is a good choice, as well as also not being a worse choice which is C++. Other implementations would be welcome, tonych what would you say about other implementations in other languages? Lets say Ada which is very nice and used in safety critical systems? WebSocket with TLS - great choice as filtering Byteball is now harder as ISPs allow WebSocket for most web-sites to function. Security wise relying on TLS / Certificate Authorities is a "defense in depth" the security of the network does not rely on it, only makes it harder to attempt bad attacks, as all content and messages are also encrypted and signed within the transport layer. Also great design! Tonych can not generate new coins at any time - this part smells a bit like fud. Witnesses can change, the default wallet is pulling a list from the byteball.org hub so if tonych decides a new witness is to be rolled out he can do it, the users still have the choice to tick the "Do not pull witness list from hub" option and set their own. Take note, everyone doesnt have to have 12 same witnesses, everyone is allowed 1 change, and over time all witnesses can be replaced. Of course, if it was easy to replace all witnesses at once, or if witnesses were easy to replace say by 3 allowed choices - thats a recipe for easier attacking and stalling the network. These numbers, 12 and 1 mutation are the few constants in Byteball. If network is replaced by a malicious one, is same general problem as for bitcoin and any other network, the user if paranoid or has reasons to suspect such an attack, should check with other sources, say different smartphones on different ISPs different public DAG explorers and compare... |
|
|
|
|
|
dfd1
|
|
March 19, 2017, 09:32:25 PM |
|
WebSocket with TLS - great choice as filtering Byteball is now harder as ISPs allow WebSocket for most web-sites to function. Security wise relying on TLS / Certificate Authorities is a "defense in depth" the security of the network does not rely on it, only makes it harder to attempt bad attacks, as all content and messages are also encrypted and signed within the transport layer. Also great design!
Probably, but I see it as a bottle neck. No UDP connections can be made, not easy to rewrite code on something not web related. WebSocket hammered protocol to web and TCP.
If network is replaced by a malicious one, is same general problem as for bitcoin and any other network, the user if paranoid or has reasons to suspect such an attack, should check with other sources, say different smartphones on different ISPs different public DAG explorers and compare...
No no no, you don't get it. After new malicious client will take over all old clients will stuck, crash and resinc, from start, legit one DAG lost forever. All clients downloaded new DAG with new "old" branch full of some guy coins, accepted by witnesses, finalised. No other DAG more exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
SatoNatomato
|
|
March 19, 2017, 09:33:09 PM |
|
I tried to find out how scalable the byteball network actually is. Did not find any information about that topic. So how many transaction can the network handle? Does anybody know this?
The only bottleneck for handling txs for bytebal are: 1. bandwidth 2. storage hardware 3. cost of sending txs - every tx costs as many bytes as it takes in size It is essentially equally scalable (and not more) as any blockchain with dynamic blocksize (ethereum, monero, etc.) although there's no "blocksize limit". You can send as many txs as possible and if it won't cost you a fortune or clog bandwidth or make DAG take terabytes in size the network will handle it seamlessly. It's actually an attack vector at the moment because txs are cheap (bytes are still cheap) and you can make DAG database grow quickly to inconvenient size in just a day or two. Sending tx of 100GB would cost you only $5000 and would make running full node for random user rather painful. I think its scales more than dynamic blocksize blockchains, since essentially each node or group of nodes can grow its own branch at a speed limited by their hardware and the implementation they use. |
|
|
|
|
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
|
|
March 19, 2017, 09:45:00 PM |
|
...WebSocket (protocol designed for web browser to allow some AJAX fancy things).
This is not very correct. I would even say "misleading"... |
|
|
|
|
|
SatoNatomato
|
|
March 19, 2017, 09:45:53 PM |
|
WebSocket with TLS - great choice as filtering Byteball is now harder as ISPs allow WebSocket for most web-sites to function. Security wise relying on TLS / Certificate Authorities is a "defense in depth" the security of the network does not rely on it, only makes it harder to attempt bad attacks, as all content and messages are also encrypted and signed within the transport layer. Also great design!
Probably, but I see it as a bottle neck. No UDP connections can be made, not easy to rewrite code on something not web related. WebSocket hammered protocol to web and TCP.
If network is replaced by a malicious one, is same general problem as for bitcoin and any other network, the user if paranoid or has reasons to suspect such an attack, should check with other sources, say different smartphones on different ISPs different public DAG explorers and compare...
No no no, you don't get it. After new malicious client will take over all old clients will stuck, crash and resinc, from start, legit one DAG lost forever. All clients downloaded new DAG with new "old" branch full of some guy coins, accepted by witnesses, finalised. No other DAG more exist. Well its quiet easy to rewrite the code for something not web related, we have a prototype running on an microcontroller, written in C, it speaks WebSocket. Dont let the name confuse. UDP alone doesnt have transport layer security, most DTLS libraries Ive seen are not very tested. In any case, the transport protocol is not very important and can be changed later. Sounds like you misunderstand how the network works right now, with the "old clients stuck, crash". The current Byteball network, full wallets, hubs, relays, witnesses, will not magically disappear because someone hacks and modifies a link on byteball.org or github.com, even if the byteball.org hub is taken down, other hubs already can pick up the slack, they and all full wallets have the copy of the current DAG, the one seen on explorer.byteball.org. If your malicious client downloads a modified DAG from hackers-server, where the DAG says hacker-has so much bytes, any transactions coming from it to the real network will just be trashed as spam, signatures would be invalid, by the rest of the full nodes and witnesses. |
|
|
|
|
|
dfd1
|
|
March 19, 2017, 09:58:48 PM |
|
If your malicious client downloads a modified DAG from hackers-server, where the DAG says hacker-has so much bytes, any transactions coming from it to the real network will just be trashed as spam, signatures would be invalid, by the rest of the full nodes and witnesses.
Maybe, don't know, hope so. Yet we have checkpoints in bitcoin code just in case someone with huge computer power will rewrite chain from the start. So, if wallets (nodes) resinc they will not accept non legit blockchain (at least not rewrited from place before checkpoint). Byteball don't have POW, so probably checkpoints or something should be made, since crashed wallet can resinc from Sybil nodes (malicious hacker wallets) and lost legit one DAG forever. Attacker don't need to compute bitcoin level huge POW, all he do is replacing witnesses with wrong ones, new witnesses accept new DAG, finalize. |
|
|
|
|
|
