Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments

[Coin++]

Distribution of Bytes is now finished.
61,299.720840161 GB distributed
645,222.052937914 GB is available supply after the distribution.

Distribution of blackbytes will start in a few hours and will take a few days, be patient.  I'll post here when it is complete.

I'll decide and announce the plans for future distribution around mid-November.  But it is already certain that we skip the December full moon.  The purpose of the free distribution is in acquiring new users, and we should use the remaining undistributed coins most efficiently.  That's why we are slowing down the distribution and gradually phasing out the method based on balances, which is not expected to produce much positive impact any more.  Cashback has already proved more efficient in terms of cost of user acquisition, albeit it is still slow.  Other product updates linked to the distribution are still in the making but not certain enough to speak about them now, I expect more certainty in the middle of November.

Have some link where we can read your plans for future distribution ?
What are your ideas and the explanation ?
I was thinking that your method was absolutely fine, but apparently no.

[1713485951]

1713485951

[1713485951]

1713485951

[1713485951]

1713485951

[vlom]

Distribution of Bytes is now finished.
61,299.720840161 GB distributed
645,222.052937914 GB is available supply after the distribution.

Distribution of blackbytes will start in a few hours and will take a few days, be patient.  I'll post here when it is complete.

I'll decide and announce the plans for future distribution around mid-November.  But it is already certain that we skip the December full moon.  The purpose of the free distribution is in acquiring new users, and we should use the remaining undistributed coins most efficiently.  That's why we are slowing down the distribution and gradually phasing out the method based on balances, which is not expected to produce much positive impact any more.  Cashback has already proved more efficient in terms of cost of user acquisition, albeit it is still slow.  Other product updates linked to the distribution are still in the making but not certain enough to speak about them now, I expect more certainty in the middle of November.

thanks for all the work you have done so far. i hope that you received an adequate return for your work.

[jackfruit]

We've finally got our last airdrop and price dump is not a surprice at all. This project made us understand that airdrops are not good for coins, and especially when it is more than once. Byteball is a good example for the future.

[Coiner_]

I would be up for a signature campaign!

By all means. Sell your hymen, your reputation, and your self-respect for a few measly shekels.

Oh. I see you already have.

Heh.  Glad I don't have a hymen.... I'm safe, right?

The moralistic grandstanding continues.

Interesting to see that the price has dipped as usual following the airdrop even though it didn't rise much this time.

Only 13% more - so far.  Of course it's tanking.  All alts are tanking.   Everyone jumping out of alts to buy bitcoin simply because of FOMO.  Not only is bitcoin jumping, but people want the forks.

True. The longer I'm in the crypto world the more I realize great tech, a working product and an active dev (team) does not necessarily translate to price on the market.

We've finally got our last airdrop and price dump is not a surprice at all. This project made us understand that airdrops are not good for coins, and especially when it is more than once. Byteball is a good example for the future.

It's not like ICO's (or "token/membership sales" as some now like to call theirs) are any better. Aside from the legal issues it incurs, there's nary an ICO'd token/crypto that doesn't dump to below the ICO price following a listing on an exchange and a place on CMC. The coins have to be gotten into the hands of the public somehow.

Besides, I've seen at least 3 airdropped projects try to handle this somehow. Someone has already mentioned Bitcore (the most similar to ByteBall) which distributes it on a weekly basis based on how much you're holding and other than the price spike today most likely caused by a fat-fingering, the price has, on average, been trending upwards since they started in April. There's also Hawala (HAT) which bans anyone caught dumping after the airdrop and Elixir which similarly increases based on your holding even though it was a one time thing (the FUD it received due to CMC's sloppiness didn't do it any favors).

But like I said above, "[t]he longer I am in the crypto world the more I realize great tech, a working product and an active dev (team) does not necessarily translate to price on the market". Case in point: Bitconnect/eBTC vs ByteBall/LBRY.

[kola-schaar]

I have just received my Blackbytes. 
Thanks to Tony, the team and everyone who is expanding the Byteball ecosystem and populating the DAG.
@Tony: have fun in Berlin!

...
I'll decide and announce the plans for future distribution around mid-November.  But it is already certain that we skip the December full moon.  The purpose of the free distribution is in acquiring new users, and we should use the remaining undistributed coins most efficiently.  That's why we are slowing down the distribution and gradually phasing out the method based on balances, which is not expected to produce much positive impact any more.  Cashback has already proved more efficient in terms of cost of user acquisition, albeit it is still slow.  Other product updates linked to the distribution are still in the making but not certain enough to speak about them now, I expect more certainty in the middle of November.

Agreed, the efficiency of the airdrop decreases. It takes more people to fill the coin with value through their work.
...but they need a reward

[SealTx]

Question: Can the contract language in byteball handle crosschain atomic swaps?

Bitcoin's lightning network Atomic Swaps are working now on Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin, Decred, possibly Vertcoin, Particl, and there are different types of atomic swaps (not requiring Lightning) for other networks: Komodo, ETH, ETC, maybe Waves, Steem / Bitshares and others I would expect?

• How Lightning Network swaps work
• First tests have just been made in BCC
• A more generalized view
• Barterdex: Fast(er) decentralized exchange idea

[bobq]

In the past before an airdrop there would be pages and pages of people making stupid commenst liken "wow only 3 days to the airdrop" etc. This time nothing until the day before. You'd say: good! Finally less spam on the thread. Well, yes, but... it depends. As a result of this lack of hype, since I have been one and a half day offline this time I didn't become aware of the fact that there was the airdrop today and I didn't relink my addresses (the wallet keeps moving my bytes to a new address whatever I do). No blackbytes for me this time

[hamza987]

Interesting to see that the price has dipped as usual following the airdrop even though it didn't rise much this time.
Byteball needs better community more investors to go it big.

[majestymage]

the airdrop has happened last night? damn..i forgot about it..i was very lucky that some time ago i had some buying orders and have done my moving in the linked adress.

[cryptohunter]

Distribution of Bytes is now finished.
61,299.720840161 GB distributed
645,222.052937914 GB is available supply after the distribution.

Distribution of blackbytes will start in a few hours and will take a few days, be patient.  I'll post here when it is complete.

I'll decide and announce the plans for future distribution around mid-November.  But it is already certain that we skip the December full moon.  The purpose of the free distribution is in acquiring new users, and we should use the remaining undistributed coins most efficiently.  That's why we are slowing down the distribution and gradually phasing out the method based on balances, which is not expected to produce much positive impact any more.  Cashback has already proved more efficient in terms of cost of user acquisition, albeit it is still slow.  Other product updates linked to the distribution are still in the making but not certain enough to speak about them now, I expect more certainty in the middle of November.

So now even people who have bought byteball on the promise of future airdrops of to their byteball address until complete disbursement are not going to get further byteballs as promised.

I understood the ceasing of btc linkage. This though is not at all good and I can see why even after the nifty ico taking place and going well there is another huge dump there is no real reason at all to hold byteball now unless you are a true believer.

I see. I wonder why faith is stalling in the project?

The tech is great but you can not simply encourage accumulation of byteballs promising one thing then chopping that incentive off once they have bought.

The entire distributional process was very very flawed. This is coming to light now but the vast damage by awarding the huge lions share to other ico managers from other projects and btc whales is now quite clear.

You would have been better simply running a fair ico and now having btc for development.

Better still if you had chopped the top 2% of wallets out as i suggested and done a retrospective random date snapshot to start it would have be WAY Better.

I would say do this

Reward only byteball holders that have bought or received at any stage and never sold or moved their byteballs. Not these churners and short term traders wanting only profit. Reward only those that believe and have never sold a single byteball even now.

You have created something great only to have almost destroyed it with such a foolish distributional model and subsequent changes to the rules as it goes along. Faith and trust is a hard thing to reinstall once broken. When you say something will take place in a certain way and people buy on the basis of how you say it will happen. It must indeed happen that way.

I still think the project can rise to be a top 10 contender or top 5. The dumping you are seeing is not because the project is not great it is because the people who YOU GAVE the lions share too have no real will to see it do well. The notion of willingly giving competing projects and exchanges the lions share of your project is complete and utter madness and I can only imagine behind the scenes such a smart person as yourself must must have had a very good reason to do this that we can not understand. I hope this reason will come to light and i hope it was not just related in the end to self enrichment through back handers and deals with those that took far more tokens than you seemingly will ever get or the businesses you now seek to attract.

The entire distributional model was complete an utter madness if taken at face value.

This dumping can go on for months or even years when the whales who hold it all want it up it will rise. Until then you can code out and create the best technical product on here and it will sink like a stone.

On the basis of what you have created this should be a top 10 project. It would have been if you had distributed it nulling the top 2% of wallets and rewarding only those that held byteball until full disbursement has taken place with no spends or max of 10% spends only.

I do not believe someone this smart would of distributed like this and is now forced to break agreements on distribution at this time. Seems ludicrous.

Reward only those that have held their byteball from the start or that have held it from the point at which they bought it with no spends. Support those that have supported the project.  Null the top 10% of those they dont need more for free.

[European Central Bank]

I would say do this

his game. his rules. if it isn't working how he wants then he should change it.

i agree that the distribution method so far has been kinda silly, but if you look a little closer very few of the really big holders have made any kind of move. it's all still sitting there.

[bobq]

Full wallet does not help the network like with bitcoin clients, here you need headless / hubs / witnesses, those are the real full wallets. So basically everyone should use light wallets unless you're developing. (as far as I understood it from slack)

i'm very glad i went light wallet from minute one reading about the problems people have had with full wallets. i didn't know full wallets didn't give a helping hand to the network. is that clearly laid out for people?

OK, I think I've got it. But I remember to have read in the past that backups from a full node wallet are safer as it regards the blackbytes, which, if the backup is not done properly, may get lost. Is there anything true there? Is it easier to lose blackbytes backing light wallets vs full node wallets?

I don't know of any problems with full wallet that they don't have with a light wallet other than syncing.
The syncing issue is that someone would run the wallet once a month and then complain that it takes so long to catch up a months worth of data.  The same complaint those people have with Bitcoin Core wallets running a full node.  Other than syncing (time), I've never had an issue with a full wallet and used mine many times to recover people's funds for them.  (This has since been resolved in that you can recover a wallet from seed to a light wallet.)

Backups are the same in full as they are in light.  You get the same funds.  It's no safer to use light or full.   Backups backups backups.   Not sure what you mean by being done properly.  There is no secret, just click backup.

The main way I see people losing blackbytes is doing a recovery from seed.  This will wipe out blackbytes which the user is warned about when they make the backup.
A way to lose partial blackbytes is to recover from an earlier full backup.  I have recovered partial/most blackbytes for people from this type of error many times.  (typically time consuming)
- That problem typically occurs around a distribution/airdrop when all the complaints come in about how people haven't received their free money and I offer to help.

Another point: I can't get android apps with multisig wallets to work properly on BOTH my mobile devices, regardless of how many times I have deleted and reinstalled the app. Especially the blackbytes have big difficulties to synchronize and at some point they would just not any more. I can live without that, but this is a problem that has to be address and to be solved, looking forward for a mass adoption of Byteball, which I am hoping for. People would not adopt Byteball if they believe the mobile version is not reliable.

I would love to answer that, but I haven't played with multisig wallets enough.
Keep in mind that the same source code is for android as it is for windows and linux.
I did want to note that the first part is in reference to blackbytes, but then comments on byteball not being reliable.  Remember, Byteball and Blackbytes are two diff things.  Byteball being the platform and blackbytes being a private asset on the platform.

Thank you for this answer, I think it can be useful for many people as it explains how not to lose one own's blackbytes. (BTW I've just manage to lose quite a lot of them by forgetting to re-link my address today).
As for the multisignature wallets I think this is one of the coolest features of Byteball's app. Not only you can have all your bytes and blackbytes and any other supported asset on hand in all your devices, but if you make a 2of3 or better a 2of4 or even better a 2of5 multisignature wallet (this means every withdraw of coins must be approved at least by two devices) you also have an exceptional protection against having your coins stolen.
The problem, however, as I've said, is that android multisig wallets are not reliable enough yet, at least in my experience. I hope they will become in future.

[MurrayRothbard77]

Question: Can the contract language in byteball handle crosschain atomic swaps?

Bitcoin's lightning network Atomic Swaps are working now on Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin, Decred, possibly Vertcoin, Particl, and there are different types of atomic swaps (not requiring Lightning) for other networks: Komodo, ETH, ETC, maybe Waves, Steem / Bitshares and others I would expect?

• How Lightning Network swaps work
• First tests have just been made in BCC
• A more generalized view
• Barterdex: Fast(er) decentralized exchange idea

Atomic swaps can be done on Byteball. It is one of the many features.

[cryptohunter]

I would say do this

his game. his rules. if it isn't working how he wants then he should change it.

i agree that the distribution method so far has been kinda silly, but if you look a little closer very few of the really big holders have made any kind of move. it's all still sitting there.

Well if that is the case my later suggestions will work great.

Reward the loyal but not the super rich loyal who have been rewarded quite enough already.

The rest of the short term traders and churners can eat cake.

The rest goes for development.

I realise his game his rules but you keep changing the rules people start to wonder if they are the game.

If it isnt working already then perhaps his own council is not his best.

I think tonych is great and I am quite a fan. However this great work of his is getting killed by his not so great idealistic distributional model.

I would love him to explain to me why he never just nulled the top 2% of btc claiming wallets or even top 5% and done a retrospective snapshot from there?
I mean answer me this so that i can follow it and understand and i will double my efforts to support byteball.

There must be a good reason but I can not find it without his help. I find it impossible to believe someone so smart would do something like that at face value. There must be a deeper reason i can not fathom with my limited mind.

[byteball3r]

It would have been very dumb to null top 2% of balances, because then people who have their balances spread over multiple addresses would continue to receive GB (and ones who cared would simply distribute over multiple addresses). If you had done retroactive snapshot, you could have effectively distributed all at once and airdrops would be meaningless, defeating the purpose of getting more users to link. Also, those who held BTC on an exchange, would not be able to withdraw and participate.

Also, the idea of not distributing to bytes that have been moved is ludicrous. The whole point of byteball is using the currency and platform. Most bytes that have moved were not sold on exchanges.

I think a new solution is needed, e.g. continue cashback program, keep 50,000+ GB for development and bring on a bigger core team, including some marketing people, and "ICO" some for the foundation to have BTC and $/ruble or sell on market at a higher price. Or some new method which tonych is implying he came up with.

I think a good sketch of an overall plan would be:

• halt further distribution to btc holders OR cut it by ~90%, outline maximum GB/GBB to be distributed this way, and add a proportional distribution to ETH holders, and halt distribution when out of allocated GB/GBB
• outline exactly how many of the remaining GB/GBB will be sent to GB holders, and distribute it in a special distribution or a definite airdrop schedule
• hold back roughly 50,000-100,000 GB and use it for a foundation to support development and marketing (but mostly development)
• hold back roughly 10,000-50,000 GB for continuing cashback program
• use 0-100,000 GB for whatever other mechanisms you have in mind

This way the knowledge of future inflation will be precise and the price/project can have some confidence boost.

[MurrayRothbard77]

So now even people who have bought byteball on the promise of future airdrops of to their byteball address until complete disbursement are not going to get further byteballs as promised.

I understood the ceasing of btc linkage. This though is not at all good and I can see why even after the nifty ico taking place and going well there is another huge dump there is no real reason at all to hold byteball now unless you are a true believer.

I see. I wonder why faith is stalling in the project?

The tech is great but you can not simply encourage accumulation of byteballs promising one thing then chopping that incentive off once they have bought.

The entire distributional process was very very flawed. This is coming to light now but the vast damage by awarding the huge lions share to other ico managers from other projects and btc whales is now quite clear.

You would have been better simply running a fair ico and now having btc for development.

Better still if you had chopped the top 2% of wallets out as i suggested and done a retrospective random date snapshot to start it would have be WAY Better.

I would say do this

Reward only byteball holders that have bought or received at any stage and never sold or moved their byteballs. Not these churners and short term traders wanting only profit. Reward only those that believe and have never sold a single byteball even now.

You have created something great only to have almost destroyed it with such a foolish distributional model and subsequent changes to the rules as it goes along. Faith and trust is a hard thing to reinstall once broken. When you say something will take place in a certain way and people buy on the basis of how you say it will happen. It must indeed happen that way.

I still think the project can rise to be a top 10 contender or top 5. The dumping you are seeing is not because the project is not great it is because the people who YOU GAVE the lions share too have no real will to see it do well. The notion of willingly giving competing projects and exchanges the lions share of your project is complete and utter madness and I can only imagine behind the scenes such a smart person as yourself must must have had a very good reason to do this that we can not understand. I hope this reason will come to light and i hope it was not just related in the end to self enrichment through back handers and deals with those that took far more tokens than you seemingly will ever get or the businesses you now seek to attract.

The entire distributional model was complete an utter madness if taken at face value.

This dumping can go on for months or even years when the whales who hold it all want it up it will rise. Until then you can code out and create the best technical product on here and it will sink like a stone.

On the basis of what you have created this should be a top 10 project. It would have been if you had distributed it nulling the top 2% of wallets and rewarding only those that held byteball until full disbursement has taken place with no spends or max of 10% spends only.

I do not believe someone this smart would of distributed like this and is now forced to break agreements on distribution at this time. Seems ludicrous.

Reward only those that have held their byteball from the start or that have held it from the point at which they bought it with no spends. Support those that have supported the project.  Null the top 10% of those they dont need more for free.

You make a good point about distributing to competitors being a bad idea. For the first few airdrops it made sense to raise awareness, but everyone that has already known about Byteball more or less already linked. The only BTC holders really incentivized at this point to link are MASSIVE whales. These people have contributed nothing to the project, and most have done nothing but undermine confidence in the project. It is too late to change the model however, as the bad actors already have been handed out enough coins to continue to wreak havoc like you say. As a large holder and true believer in the project, I personally think the airdrops should be stopped. There really is no need to continue to inflate the money supply, the remaining coins could be burned, put into time lock community fund, dev fund, ect. I think once there is no more possibility of additional airdropped coins (inflation), the deflationary nature of the coin will cause an increase in price, which will increase interest and confidence. Your solutions are impossible to carry out by the way. There was never any promise of any number of airdrops and Tony always reserved the right to change the distribution model in the future. Suggesting that already distributed coins be retracted has horrible implications (a government has a problem with someone and requests that funds be taken away from a user, ect.)

I think a good sketch of an overall plan would be:

halt further distribution to btc holders OR cut it by ~90%, outline maximum GB/GBB to be distributed this way, and add a proportional distribution to ETH holders, and halt distribution when out of allocated GB/GBB
outline exactly how many of the remaining GB/GBB will be sent to GB holders, and distribute it in a special distribution or a definite airdrop schedule
hold back roughly 50,000-100,000 GB and use it for a foundation to support development and marketing (but mostly development)
hold back roughly 10,000-50,000 GB for continuing cashback program
use 0-100,000 GB for whatever other mechanisms you have in mind

This way the knowledge of future inflation will be precise and the price/project can have some confidence boost.

I don't like the idea of airdrop to ETH (I doubt there is many ETH users that don't fall in the set of former or current BTC users). The other ideas are similar to mine that I stated above and I think they are much better alternatives to continue the current model of airdrops until the price reaches zero. MUCH less BTC was linked this round, which is probably an even scarier indication of diminishing interest in the project than the price dropping 1500%.

[jbreher]

However this great work of his is getting killed by his not so great idealistic distributional model.

Disagree completely. If it wasn't for the airdrop, I would likely never have heard of the project.

[Big Naturals]

However this great work of his is getting killed by his not so great idealistic distributional model.

Disagree completely. If it wasn't for the airdrop, I would likely never have heard of the project.

The distribution method has worked well, coins are 60% distributed, no ICO smell, and price is still low enough to attract new investors. Every distribution method has pros & cons - PoW is incredibly energy intensive, ICO's have legal risk and are scammy, and airdrops favour early adopters and some whales. Nothing is perfect, but velocity of circulation ensures that eventually the coins end up in the hands of people who value them, and support the project.

Stop whining guys, BB distribution is going well, and if tonych decides to tweek some aspects no worries, it's his project, and he didn't earn a cent from any ICO.

[byteball3r]

The byteball bytes market cap is just under half of the all time high. I think what we are seeing here is a long consolidation period.

[cryptohunter]

It would have been very dumb to null top 2% of balances, because then people who have their balances spread over multiple addresses would continue to receive GB (and ones who cared would simply distribute over multiple addresses). If you had done retroactive snapshot, you could have effectively distributed all at once and airdrops would be meaningless, defeating the purpose of getting more users to link. Also, those who held BTC on an exchange, would not be able to withdraw and participate.

Also, the idea of not distributing to bytes that have been moved is ludicrous. The whole point of byteball is using the currency and platform. Most bytes that have moved were not sold on exchanges.

I think a new solution is needed, e.g. continue cashback program, keep 50,000+ GB for development and bring on a bigger core team, including some marketing people, and "ICO" some for the foundation to have BTC and $/ruble or sell on market at a higher price. Or some new method which tonych is implying he came up with.

I think a good sketch of an overall plan would be:

• halt further distribution to btc holders OR cut it by ~90%, outline maximum GB/GBB to be distributed this way, and add a proportional distribution to ETH holders, and halt distribution when out of allocated GB/GBB
• outline exactly how many of the remaining GB/GBB will be sent to GB holders, and distribute it in a special distribution or a definite airdrop schedule
• hold back roughly 50,000-100,000 GB and use it for a foundation to support development and marketing (but mostly development)
• hold back roughly 10,000-50,000 GB for continuing cashback program
• use 0-100,000 GB for whatever other mechanisms you have in mind

This way the knowledge of future inflation will be precise and the price/project can have some confidence boost.

Please go back and re read my posts near the start of this thread so i need not explain it again.

The first distribution was the crushing one and far more important than all of the rest.

The retroactive snap shot would have prevented people splitting their wallet for the sole purpose of linking to byteball.
Or just put a cap on how many bb a single could be given to one address without announcing such limitations ahead of time. Tony has no issue changing a few small details here and there anyway as we go.

I never said fully distribute in one hit please do not create new statements or ideas that you can refute that didnt exist before you invented them.

Sorry mr eth holder I don't feel we should introduce more confusing and convoluted schemes here. Tony flat out refused to consider any other alts at the start.