Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments

[Malek17]

The question for Byteball is: should we try and make this process kid-proof? My opinion is that we should not. Working with contracts is something for adults. Of course the process should be as easy as possible and the explanation of the terms and conditions should be clear, but totally kid-proofing it seems near impossible and not necessary.

There is no way to block 'kids' from investing or even trying to claim free tokens.  'Kids' can also be mentally slow adults.  I see a bunch of people complain about Byteball (and all other projects as well), simply because they have no damn clue as to what they're doing.  They read what they want and ignore everything else.  So, when they can't figure out how they just spent $8, they complain the project is at fault and ignore what the transition bot said.  It's simply amazing how many of those 'kids' have no idea what a change address is or how to move coins but actually have coins to even move (without having lost them).  Almost as amazing is how many of those people have $100 worth of coin and willing to pay an $8 transaction, but complain that they haven't received $1000 worth of free coin.  They just simply have no clue and almost no amount of coaching will every help them or even change their mind that something is good or bad, because they've already made the decision in their head that it can't be their fault for having not followed directions.

No, these are reasonable users that the project is driving away by being asinine. Why on earth should users not be refunded when a project-sponsored verification fails do to technical reasons? And why is it a goal of this project to make everything user-unfriendly as possible while making public no plans for improvement? The market's trust in this project is fading because of poor leadership attitudes and I say that as someone with a lot of GB. Tony doesn't seem to care about the price of GB nor the market perception, saying exchanges and "traders" are unnecessary.

Also, will there or will there not be an aidrop in March? What will happen with all the remaining bytes?

Reasonable users?   Ha!
Your response is akin to saying... Why shouldn't I be refunded by the casino if the ball lands on Red when I put my money on Black?   I mean, I intended to bet on Black, so it should be considered a win even though it was my mistake for physically putting it on Red.   Just like all the people investing on known Ponzi scams working out great until it fails and then complain that they lost their money and want it back.  LOL.  If someone invests in something and it makes money, they are happy.  If they invest and it goes down, it's everyone's fault but their own and they feel entitled to get everything back.

I like the rest of your paragraph.  You simply made everything up.   I don't see where the goal was to make things user-unfriendly - Please quote your source.
You also said Tony doesn't seem to care.  --- Please post where you came up with this far fetched idea as well.
Even better was your statement in which you quoted out of context.

Also, if you read the OP (Original Post) or even look at the website, you will see the next 'tentative' airdrop is in March.  I realize you are standing in line to get the free welfare check and complaining that there is no leather recliner to sit in.

it's a stupid idea to take money from people regardless if they have successful verification or not we're dealing with a business here not a casino and i am sure there are laws out there to protect consumers like this, this people are sort of gangsters not people willing to do fair business.

[1713936188]

1713936188

[1713936188]

1713936188

[1713936188]

1713936188

[Malek17]

The question for Byteball is: should we try and make this process kid-proof? My opinion is that we should not. Working with contracts is something for adults. Of course the process should be as easy as possible and the explanation of the terms and conditions should be clear, but totally kid-proofing it seems near impossible and not necessary.

There is no way to block 'kids' from investing or even trying to claim free tokens.  'Kids' can also be mentally slow adults.  I see a bunch of people complain about Byteball (and all other projects as well), simply because they have no damn clue as to what they're doing.  They read what they want and ignore everything else.  So, when they can't figure out how they just spent $8, they complain the project is at fault and ignore what the transition bot said.  It's simply amazing how many of those 'kids' have no idea what a change address is or how to move coins but actually have coins to even move (without having lost them).  Almost as amazing is how many of those people have $100 worth of coin and willing to pay an $8 transaction, but complain that they haven't received $1000 worth of free coin.  They just simply have no clue and almost no amount of coaching will every help them or even change their mind that something is good or bad, because they've already made the decision in their head that it can't be their fault for having not followed directions.

No, these are reasonable users that the project is driving away by being asinine. Why on earth should users not be refunded when a project-sponsored verification fails do to technical reasons? And why is it a goal of this project to make everything user-unfriendly as possible while making public no plans for improvement? The market's trust in this project is fading because of poor leadership attitudes and I say that as someone with a lot of GB. Tony doesn't seem to care about the price of GB nor the market perception, saying exchanges and "traders" are unnecessary.

Also, will there or will there not be an aidrop in March? What will happen with all the remaining bytes?

Reasonable users?   Ha!
Your response is akin to saying... Why shouldn't I be refunded by the casino if the ball lands on Red when I put my money on Black?   I mean, I intended to bet on Black, so it should be considered a win even though it was my mistake for physically putting it on Red.   Just like all the people investing on known Ponzi scams working out great until it fails and then complain that they lost their money and want it back.  LOL.  If someone invests in something and it makes money, they are happy.  If they invest and it goes down, it's everyone's fault but their own and they feel entitled to get everything back.

I like the rest of your paragraph.  You simply made everything up.   I don't see where the goal was to make things user-unfriendly - Please quote your source.
You also said Tony doesn't seem to care.  --- Please post where you came up with this far fetched idea as well.
Even better was your statement in which you quoted out of context.

Also, if you read the OP (Original Post) or even look at the website, you will see the next 'tentative' airdrop is in March.  I realize you are standing in line to get the free welfare check and complaining that there is no leather recliner to sit in.

it's a stupid idea to take money from people regardless if they have successful verification or not we're dealing with a business here not a casino and i am sure there are laws out there to protect consumers like this, this people are sort of gangsters not people willing to do fair business.

Especially when verification is done by a Bot if it was done by a human and you fail the verification it's probably fair to charge small amount for time wasting but verification id done by a bot and a Bot is not human and most the time the verification failure is due to Bot's fault

[Michail1]

it's a stupid idea to take money from people regardless if they have successful verification or not we're dealing with a business here not a casino and i am sure there are laws out there to protect consumers like this, this people are sort of gangsters not people willing to do fair business.

What money was taken from you?

Thanks Michail, but I was referring to the ID verification for the referral system, as mentioned in this thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ByteBall/comments/7rtixn/byteball_id_verification_program_tutorial/

I don't remember all details of this initiative, this is why my post was not so precise, but I remember that when it was launched time ago I was at first VERY enthusiastic of it but then something in the technical process didn't work out properly and I've started to read of all the complains of people who were just losing their 8$ for the failed verification and I've postponed to deal with the issue until I forgot about it.

Thanks.
I agree with you.  I didn't realize there was such a big issue and that people are so willing to submit passports and drivers licenses.

Personally, I wouldn't sell my identification for $12.

[Malek17]

it's a stupid idea to take money from people regardless if they have successful verification or not we're dealing with a business here not a casino and i am sure there are laws out there to protect consumers like this, this people are sort of gangsters not people willing to do fair business.

What money was taken from you?

i am not talking abut me here i don't do business with gangsters,i am talking about people who lost their money trying to do the verification using the verification bot

[JesusCryptos]

Thanks Michail, but I was referring to the ID verification for the referral system, as mentioned in this thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ByteBall/comments/7rtixn/byteball_id_verification_program_tutorial/

I don't remember all details of this initiative, this is why my post was not so precise, but I remember that when it was launched time ago I was at first VERY enthusiastic of it but then something in the technical process didn't work out properly and I've started to read of all the complains of people who were just losing their 8$ for the failed verification and I've postponed to deal with the issue until I forgot about it.

Thanks.
I agree with you.  I didn't realize there was such a big issue and that people are so willing to submit passports and drivers licenses.

Personally, I wouldn't sell my identification for $12.

Yeah, that's another good point, this is why I have skipped the Polymath airdrop, which I've heard was not bad as value, because they were requiring passport identification etc, which I had found very annoying. But I remember that with the Byteball issue is was not too annoying, since you basically would have to have just one wallet address linked to your identity, and not necessarily the one that you would usually use.

[afbitcoins]

A while back I posted some doubts I had about the idea of 12 witnesses in byteball.

The byteball jesus video (which I thought to be a slightly unfair dig at Roger Ver) nether the less had some great comments, one of which I repost here. Quote from Surirelav

This is exactly the kind of discussion I was looking for..

12 seems like a low number but a witness in the Byteball system ideally is not just a single person but someone who represents a big business or institution with a lot of real world value. Let's take Jeff Bezos as an example. He has so much to lose in the real world that it would be very hard to persuade him to collude with 6 other very high profile people of high market cap companies/high profile institutions across the globe. Let alone, abduct and torture 7 of them before anyone finds out and can replace them.

All the assets of a witness in the real world, its entire reputation, all that is a security bond, not just what it has or what it earns in the internal economy. This makes the witnesses anchors to the real world.

From a game theoretic point of view I would argue that a 12 witness system like this is actually more secure than a PoW based one. If you up the number of witnesses it will be much harder for users to know and recognise them all so they would just go with the "default" and not care about it much. So you have to have a number that is both safe and practical, 12 seems to fit the job. This number is large enough to protect against occasional failures but is not too large so that users can still know every witness.

And we want the witnesses to be accountable, that’s why there is a way to replace them. The way it works is that every user, with every transaction, posts a list of 12 witnesses he trusts. But we won’t have consensus if the lists posted by different users are too far apart. That’s why the lists of neighboring transactions on the DAG must differ by no more than one position.

The fact that witnesses can be replaced is another difference with miners. The witnesses are accountable. If a witness loses trust of users, users immediately signal their mistrust by changing their witness lists.

What miners do, they look at your transactions and decide, “I like this transaction and will include it, or I don’t like this transaction and won’t include it”. With witnesses, it is the reverse. It is users who look for witnesses to determine the consensus order of transactions. Witnesses don’t decide anything about individual transactions. They are expected just to be there.

What we do know from 9 years of Bitcoin / PoW though is this:

    Miners are gatekeepers; they have the power to include or not include your transaction. So the access to the ledger is not quite free, you have to meet the miners’ criteria for your transaction to be included in the next block.

    Miners are not accountable; they are supposed to make money, period.

    Fee market is an uncertainty; When the blocks are full, there is competition to get into the next block. Paying a higher fee supposedly increases your chances to get into the block. But a payment system which is supposed to be used in everyday business, is not a game of chance, there must be guarantees that once you send a transaction according to all the rules, which is properly signed, spends existing money, and is not a double-spend, after you send it, you can immediately disconnect and still be confident that it goes through. In blockchains, when the blocks are full, there is no certainty, no guarantees, no such thing as the right fee.

    Trade-off between security and cost; block reward is supposed to be reduced over time and eventually go to 0. This means that miner incentives from block reward will decrease and they should be replaced by fees. Which means that the system is as secure as the total amount of fees paid, and there is an uncomfortable trade-off between security and cost.

    Negative balance of resources; miners burn energy and have to pay to energy companies, outside the ecosystem. Which means that the balance between resources flowing in and out of the ecosystem is negative.

    Outside incentives are ignored; lastly, miner incentives are only inside the ecosystem. They make more money by mining honestly than by doublespending Bitcoins, that’s true under assumption that all their incentives are inside Bitcoin. If we forget about the outside world, as if it doesn’t exist. But in reality, outside incentives do exist. Even more, if there are other tokens issued on the same ledger, as it is the case on Ethereum, the block reward is still in the native currency only but now this should be balanced against doublespending not only the native currency but the other tokens too. If the tokens are worth more than the native currency, the system becomes insecure.

So it does make sense to try out other consensus mechanisms. I really like Bitcoin a lot, but I love Byteball for trying something new.

[bustedsynx]

Thanks Michail, but I was referring to the ID verification for the referral system, as mentioned in this thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ByteBall/comments/7rtixn/byteball_id_verification_program_tutorial/

I don't remember all details of this initiative, this is why my post was not so precise, but I remember that when it was launched time ago I was at first VERY enthusiastic of it but then something in the technical process didn't work out properly and I've started to read of all the complains of people who were just losing their 8$ for the failed verification and I've postponed to deal with the issue until I forgot about it.

Thanks.
I agree with you.  I didn't realize there was such a big issue and that people are so willing to submit passports and drivers licenses.

Personally, I wouldn't sell my identification for $12.

Yeah, that's another good point, this is why I have skipped the Polymath airdrop, which I've heard was not bad as value, because they were requiring passport identification etc, which I had found very annoying. But I remember that with the Byteball issue is was not too annoying, since you basically would have to have just one wallet address linked to your identity, and not necessarily the one that you would usually use.

Yup, what's the use of cryptocurrencies when you have to voluntarily provide identification to authorities. Isn't PGP keys or crypto itself means to verify you're you.

[sailthor]

Here is a possible list of exchanges we should contact together to list GBYTE. I, myself am fortunate enough to have a Bittrex account at the moment but others are not.

- YoBit
- Mercatox
- Kucoin
- Binance
- Coinexchange
- Upcoin
- Bitpaya
- Okex
- Huobi
- BitHumb
- GDAX
- Poloniex
- HitBtc
- Tidex
- Kuna
- ShapeShift
- CryptoBridge

[sailthor]

Thanks Michail, but I was referring to the ID verification for the referral system, as mentioned in this thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ByteBall/comments/7rtixn/byteball_id_verification_program_tutorial/

I don't remember all details of this initiative, this is why my post was not so precise, but I remember that when it was launched time ago I was at first VERY enthusiastic of it but then something in the technical process didn't work out properly and I've started to read of all the complains of people who were just losing their 8$ for the failed verification and I've postponed to deal with the issue until I forgot about it.

Thanks.
I agree with you.  I didn't realize there was such a big issue and that people are so willing to submit passports and drivers licenses.

Personally, I wouldn't sell my identification for $12.

Yeah, that's another good point, this is why I have skipped the Polymath airdrop, which I've heard was not bad as value, because they were requiring passport identification etc, which I had found very annoying. But I remember that with the Byteball issue is was not too annoying, since you basically would have to have just one wallet address linked to your identity, and not necessarily the one that you would usually use.

Yup, what's the use of cryptocurrencies when you have to voluntarily provide identification to authorities. Isn't PGP keys or crypto itself means to verify you're you.

My take on Tony implementing Jumio ID verification is that he might be considering byteball to become a major platform for ICO's in the future. Implementing a KYC within Byteball allows new ICO's to ensure that consumers meet their specific ICO regulations/rules.

[byteball3r]

Michail1, you're right everything is perfect and nothing should be improved. I finally realized it after all of your whining about every suggestion and reality bending.

Let me jog your memory of when you said verification is a gamble.

Your response is akin to saying... Why shouldn't I be refunded by the casino if the ball lands on Red when I put my money on Black?   I mean, I intended to bet on Black, so it should be considered a win even though it was my mistake for physically putting it on Red.   Just like all the people investing on known Ponzi scams working out great until it fails and then complain that they lost their money and want it back.  LOL.  If someone invests in something and it makes money, they are happy.  If they invest and it goes down, it's everyone's fault but their own and they feel entitled to get everything back.

[byteball3r]

If you read through the instructions fully you should have noticed the warning that this process has to be performed from a single address wallet. It's not a scam, but it certainly doesn't suffer fools. No offence.

Michail1 have you read this post or would you suggest Hhugh is lying? This community is incredibly toxic and that's why it barely grows. The person who failed the verification process that is simultaneously necessary and unnecessary to do with a single address wallet is both a kid and a fool according to posters here.

"See my procedure for verification that has failed many times due to users not doing the right thing is very user friendly because if you're intelligent you would have got it right and we only want technical people but we also want everyday users". If verification is so user friendly then why haven't we gotten more than ~250 Jumio attestations and why are there so many complaining about failure here and on Reddit?

I will add here again for you: I am not asking for an airdrop, I am asking for clear and comprehensive information about the future distribution as it should not be in limbo this long. I do not want more airdrops unless it is a proportional airdrop or burn. While there has been some money contributed to marketing, the community fund is vastly smaller than the undistributed fund and some of the undistributed fund should be utilized for development and marketing going forward. Marketing has been almost entirely done by community members and not by the project itself.

[Malek17]

Here is a possible list of exchanges we should contact together to list GBYTE. I, myself am fortunate enough to have a Bittrex account at the moment but others are not.

- YoBit
- Mercatox
- Kucoin
- Binance
- Coinexchange
- Upcoin
- Bitpaya
- Okex
- Huobi
- BitHumb
- GDAX
- Poloniex
- HitBtc
- Tidex
- Kuna
- ShapeShift
- CryptoBridge

Most of them if not all will require the Dev or one of the Devs team to apply for the exchange not a community member.

[Big Naturals]

Any news on the march airdrop, I could really do with some good news!

[byteball3r]

Here is a possible list of exchanges we should contact together to list GBYTE. I, myself am fortunate enough to have a Bittrex account at the moment but others are not.

- YoBit
- Mercatox
- Kucoin
- Binance
- Coinexchange
- Upcoin
- Bitpaya
- Okex
- Huobi
- BitHumb
- GDAX
- Poloniex
- HitBtc
- Tidex
- Kuna
- ShapeShift
- CryptoBridge

Most of them if not all will require the Dev or one of the Devs team to apply for the exchange not a community member.

Which the dev team will not do because exchanges are bad and we want normal people to get bytes (only $12 of them though) through completing the verification that's only for technical people.

[CryptKeeper]

Any news on the march airdrop, I could really do with some good news!

AFAIK news about march airdrop will be released next week.

[andreibi]

Any news on the march airdrop, I could really do with some good news!

AFAIK news about march airdrop will be released next week.

That's good news. Many are waiting anxiously for the next airdrop since it has been a long time from the last airdrop, November as I recall? The strategy for some of the big investors is to wait out the completion of the free distribution before making any serious investment.

[Wekkel]

Unfortunately the Byteball market @Cryptopia is still in the doldrums. So no Airdrop on my Byteballs locked there.

[ByteFan]

Byteball live stress test result:

https://byteball.slack.com/messages/C94JA33HD/

[jjacob]

"See my procedure for verification that has failed many times due to users not doing the right thing is very user friendly because if you're intelligent you would have got it right and we only want technical people but we also want everyday users". If verification is so user friendly then why haven't we gotten more than ~250 Jumio attestations and why are there so many complaining about failure here and on Reddit?

Just 250 attestations? Where did you get that number? It is a dismally low figure and would indicate a failure in this method of distribution.
The air drop might be expensive, but it creates a buzz around the coin and definitely increases awareness.

[Vint.Cerf]

any wallet for win 32 dev?
I have already download but win 64.
its not compatibel for 32bits.  

Try this: https[Suspicious link removed].
This 32bit version works on my win64, you will be the first to try it in win32.

This project seems to have potential.