Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments

[Thul]

No, currently it is still pretty centralized. [...]

Whether it's one or twelve witnesses, it makes no difference.
"Decentralized" is certainly not.

As storage of values bite ball is therefore hardly to be used (even if the witnesses route over TOR). But that's not what it's meant for (is it?).

The management is still silent about whether they are even thinking in the desired direction from the consumer's point of view.

I would like to have some clarity.
A simple announcement "yes, we are working on integrating the Fiat exchange (=> BISQ) directly into the bite ball wallet" would be helpful.
The opposite of course, too, then I can finally tick off bite ball after all the disappointing last months.

[1713938991]

1713938991

[1713938991]

1713938991

[1713938991]

1713938991

[barborrico]

I encourage whole Byteball team to see some Antonopoulos videos to know why byteball is not decentralized, and why you should not market the platform focusing on that. Because it is not true.

12 witnesses = 12 central points of failure but, of course, with the same power of another node (no absolute power like dpos crap) and marked as trustable by majority of users.

Byteball distributes trust amongst 12 witnesses. It is a distributed trust system, not a decentralized one. Decentralized implies no single point of failure, and this is not the case.

I think new platform name should reflect all those things.

[pineapple express]

I encourage whole Byteball team to see some Antonopoulos videos to know why byteball is not decentralized, and why you should not market the platform focusing on that. Because it is not true.

12 witnesses = 12 central points of failure but, of course, with the same power of another node (no absolute power like dpos crap) and marked as trustable by majority of users.

Byteball distributes trust amongst 12 witnesses. It is a distributed trust system, not a decentralized one. Decentralized implies no single point of failure, and this is not the case.

I think new platform name should reflect all those things.

indeed substitution of concepts does more harm than good
please:
distributed trust system instead of decentralized
anything over 17 tps lead to denial of service instead of scalable DAG

[Random-String-Symphony]

I encourage whole Byteball team to see some Antonopoulos videos to know why byteball is not decentralized, and why you should not market the platform focusing on that. Because it is not true.

12 witnesses = 12 central points of failure but, of course, with the same power of another node (no absolute power like dpos crap) and marked as trustable by majority of users.

Byteball distributes trust amongst 12 witnesses. It is a distributed trust system, not a decentralized one. Decentralized implies no single point of failure, and this is not the case.

I think new platform name should reflect all those things.

What is the single point of failure then? There is none. In fact, I would argue that Byteball  is more decentralized by design than Bitcoin or Ethereum. When we have a lot more than 12 different witnesses to choose from it will also be more decentralized in practice.

[Thul]

I encourage whole Byteball team to see some Antonopoulos videos to know why byteball is not decentralized, and why you should not market the platform focusing on that. Because it is not true.

12 witnesses = 12 central points of failure but, of course, with the same power of another node (no absolute power like dpos crap) and marked as trustable by majority of users.

Byteball distributes trust amongst 12 witnesses. It is a distributed trust system, not a decentralized one. Decentralized implies no single point of failure, and this is not the case.

I think new platform name should reflect all those things.

What is the single point of failure then? There is none. In fact, I would argue that Byteball  is more decentralized by design than Bitcoin or Ethereum. When we have a lot more than 12 different witnesses to choose from it will also be more decentralized in practice.

That would have to be thousands. - How realistic is that?

Just imagine via black bites a growing market for weapons, drugs, child pornography develops...
In connection with this, high-profile entities as witnesses? Seriously?

In the future, every witness would have to fear being overrun by the henchmen of state power.

[ttookk]

(…)

Decentralized? He looks pretty "in-one-piece-ish" to me...

12 public witnesses, explained in whitepaper

Yes, I am aware of that and that's exactly what I was getting at.

The witnesses themselves are not decentralized; they are anything but. You have a maximum of 12 very "central" entities securing the network. And while I believe that the witnesses do not have the same amount of power as, say, EOS delegates have, it is at the very least intellectually dishonest to speak of "decentralized witnesses".

Now, maybe you could actually decentralize a witness, by making it a group of entities, playing merry-go-round or something. I think this has been discussed before.

TL;DR:
Calling a single person a "decentralized witness" is misleading.

I spare us all an inappropriate joke about certain news items and the decentralization of a human being, for obvious reasons.

[Random-String-Symphony]

I encourage whole Byteball team to see some Antonopoulos videos to know why byteball is not decentralized, and why you should not market the platform focusing on that. Because it is not true.

12 witnesses = 12 central points of failure but, of course, with the same power of another node (no absolute power like dpos crap) and marked as trustable by majority of users.

Byteball distributes trust amongst 12 witnesses. It is a distributed trust system, not a decentralized one. Decentralized implies no single point of failure, and this is not the case.

I think new platform name should reflect all those things.

What is the single point of failure then? There is none. In fact, I would argue that Byteball  is more decentralized by design than Bitcoin or Ethereum. When we have a lot more than 12 different witnesses to choose from it will also be more decentralized in practice.

That would have to be thousands. - How realistic is that?

Just imagine via black bites a growing market for weapons, drugs, child pornography develops...
In connection with this, high-profile entities as witnesses? Seriously?

In the future, every witness would have to fear being overrun by the henchmen of state power.

Thousands are not needed, we need enough to replace a compromised witness, or somebody / a business who wants to quit being one. A few dozen would be sufficient.
Fiat also has a growing market for weapons, drugs, etc. We'll have to find out how law enforcement treats "witnesses", they don't actually do anything that breaks the law you know.

[Random-String-Symphony]

(…)

Decentralized? He looks pretty "in-one-piece-ish" to me...

12 public witnesses, explained in whitepaper

Yes, I am aware of that and that's exactly what I was getting at.

The witnesses themselves are not decentralized; they are anything but. You have a maximum of 12 very "central" entities securing the network. And while I believe that the witnesses do not have the same amount of power as, say, EOS delegates have, it is at the very least intellectually dishonest to speak of "decentralized witnesses".

Now, maybe you could actually decentralize a witness, by making it a group of entities, playing merry-go-round or something. I think this has been discussed before.

TL;DR:
Calling a single person a "decentralized witness" is misleading.

I spare us all an inappropriate joke about certain news items and the decentralization of a human being, for obvious reasons.

We could also have 100 or 1000 witnesses but the platform will become less secure if you have more witnesses. A single witness has no power at all and can easily be replaced by users. Users have the real power in the Byteball network, not witnesses. Only when 6 or more witnesses collude they can harm the network, but they still can't change anything in the past. In fact they have very limited options for abuse.

[joe1823]

 ?

[ttookk]

(…)

Decentralized? He looks pretty "in-one-piece-ish" to me...

12 public witnesses, explained in whitepaper

Yes, I am aware of that and that's exactly what I was getting at.

The witnesses themselves are not decentralized; they are anything but. You have a maximum of 12 very "central" entities securing the network. And while I believe that the witnesses do not have the same amount of power as, say, EOS delegates have, it is at the very least intellectually dishonest to speak of "decentralized witnesses".

Now, maybe you could actually decentralize a witness, by making it a group of entities, playing merry-go-round or something. I think this has been discussed before.

TL;DR:
Calling a single person a "decentralized witness" is misleading.

I spare us all an inappropriate joke about certain news items and the decentralization of a human being, for obvious reasons.

We could also have 100 or 1000 witnesses but the platform will become less secure if you have more witnesses. A single witness has no power at all and can easily be replaced by users. Users have the real power in the Byteball network, not witnesses. Only when 6 or more witnesses collude they can harm the network, but they still can't change anything in the past. In fact they have very limited options for abuse.

This is no answer to my original point, which is "a single witness is not decentralized unless the witness consists of multiple entities".

You are trying to make it your point so that you can fire off what you have said earlier, so I'll play along:

Users having the real power sounds nice, but has some serious flaws. I'm too lazy to go into this, but very simplified, choosing witnesses is not much different than choosing delegates in a DPoS system. Go take a look at Lisk and EOS to see how that is going.

[pineapple express]

My concerns are that witnesses can blacklist some users and block outgoing transactions. In this case, most users will not be affected and will not have the motivation to change witnesses.
For example some guy will open SilkRoad and accept balls. Witnesses will decide to block all outgoing transactions from the seen addresses. Most of users will not be affected and SilkRoad users will not be protected from witnesses attack.
Another example: witnesses can block outgoing transactions from the whale address to prevent the dump.
Another example: witnesses can block outgoing transactions for all transactions over $10k. Users will need to pass a KYC, fill in the declaration, indicate the origin of the money for making such transactions.
hmm maybe this is why Byterbal integrate all this KYC solutions? .  Byterbal is Putin's answer to Satoshi?

[cryptohunter]

I encourage whole Byteball team to see some Antonopoulos videos to know why byteball is not decentralized, and why you should not market the platform focusing on that. Because it is not true.

12 witnesses = 12 central points of failure but, of course, with the same power of another node (no absolute power like dpos crap) and marked as trustable by majority of users.

Byteball distributes trust amongst 12 witnesses. It is a distributed trust system, not a decentralized one. Decentralized implies no single point of failure, and this is not the case.

I think new platform name should reflect all those things.

What is the single point of failure then? There is none. In fact, I would argue that Byteball  is more decentralized by design than Bitcoin or Ethereum. When we have a lot more than 12 different witnesses to choose from it will also be more decentralized in practice.

That would have to be thousands. - How realistic is that?

Just imagine via black bites a growing market for weapons, drugs, child pornography develops...
In connection with this, high-profile entities as witnesses? Seriously?

In the future, every witness would have to fear being overrun by the henchmen of state power.

This is kind of a serious concern.

What can be done to shield witnesses from this? mask their id or perhaps 12 pools of witnesses that are on random rotation

I mean if there was super serious opposition regarding anon cc then blackbytes could be dropped to preserve the project

[tarmo888]

My concerns are that witnesses can blacklist some users and block outgoing transactions. In this case, most users will not be affected and will not have the motivation to change witnesses.
For example some guy will open SilkRoad and accept balls. Witnesses will decide to block all outgoing transactions from the seen addresses. Most of users will not be affected and SilkRoad users will not be protected from witnesses attack.
Another example: witnesses can block outgoing transactions from the whale address to prevent the dump.
Another example: witnesses can block outgoing transactions for all transactions over $10k. Users will need to pass a KYC, fill in the declaration, indicate the origin of the money for making such transactions.
hmm maybe this is why Byterbal integrate all this KYC solutions? .  Byterbal is Putin's answer to Satoshi?

What are you talking about? It has been repeatedly told that witnesses don't have such powers as miners do.
If one of the witnesses would do that then other witnesses would notice that because it goes against the protocol rules and this witness would be kicked out from those other witness list of their witnesses. So, only thing that witness can censor is themselves out of the witness list, it is not the users who have to take action whether they approve such transactions or not.

Your scenario can happen if all witnesses are corrupt and that would result a hard-fork by the community, same way it would happen with Bitcoin or Ethereum.

[Thul]

My concerns are that witnesses can blacklist some users and block outgoing transactions. In this case, most users will not be affected and will not have the motivation to change witnesses.
For example some guy will open SilkRoad and accept balls. Witnesses will decide to block all outgoing transactions from the seen addresses. Most of users will not be affected and SilkRoad users will not be protected from witnesses attack.
Another example: witnesses can block outgoing transactions from the whale address to prevent the dump.
Another example: witnesses can block outgoing transactions for all transactions over $10k. Users will need to pass a KYC, fill in the declaration, indicate the origin of the money for making such transactions.
hmm maybe this is why Byterbal integrate all this KYC solutions? .  Byterbal is Putin's answer to Satoshi?

Is that really the case?! 

Then one should not be surprised that bite ball is falling further and further behind in the ranking.

[PinchClock]

23% of transactions included the first decentralized public witnesses address over the past 12 hours. 

[Freefactomizer]

My concerns are that witnesses can blacklist some users and block outgoing transactions. In this case, most users will not be affected and will not have the motivation to change witnesses.
For example some guy will open SilkRoad and accept balls. Witnesses will decide to block all outgoing transactions from the seen addresses. Most of users will not be affected and SilkRoad users will not be protected from witnesses attack.
Another example: witnesses can block outgoing transactions from the whale address to prevent the dump.
Another example: witnesses can block outgoing transactions for all transactions over $10k. Users will need to pass a KYC, fill in the declaration, indicate the origin of the money for making such transactions.
hmm maybe this is why Byterbal integrate all this KYC solutions? .  Byterbal is Putin's answer to Satoshi?

You clearly don't understand how DAG works, a witness cannot cherry pick the units it contributes to confirm. If he tries to do that, all children units from other user wouldn't be confirmed too.

[tarmo888]

My concerns are that witnesses can blacklist some users and block outgoing transactions. In this case, most users will not be affected and will not have the motivation to change witnesses.
For example some guy will open SilkRoad and accept balls. Witnesses will decide to block all outgoing transactions from the seen addresses. Most of users will not be affected and SilkRoad users will not be protected from witnesses attack.
Another example: witnesses can block outgoing transactions from the whale address to prevent the dump.
Another example: witnesses can block outgoing transactions for all transactions over $10k. Users will need to pass a KYC, fill in the declaration, indicate the origin of the money for making such transactions.
hmm maybe this is why Byterbal integrate all this KYC solutions? .  Byterbal is Putin's answer to Satoshi?

Is that really the case?! 

Then one should not be surprised that bite ball is falling further and further behind in the ranking.

It is not the case https://wiki.byteball.org/Witness#FAQ_about_witnesses.2C_double_spending.2C_finality

[barborrico]

(…)

Decentralized? He looks pretty "in-one-piece-ish" to me...

12 public witnesses, explained in whitepaper

Yes, I am aware of that and that's exactly what I was getting at.

The witnesses themselves are not decentralized; they are anything but. You have a maximum of 12 very "central" entities securing the network. And while I believe that the witnesses do not have the same amount of power as, say, EOS delegates have, it is at the very least intellectually dishonest to speak of "decentralized witnesses".

Now, maybe you could actually decentralize a witness, by making it a group of entities, playing merry-go-round or something. I think this has been discussed before.

TL;DR:
Calling a single person a "decentralized witness" is misleading.

I spare us all an inappropriate joke about certain news items and the decentralization of a human being, for obvious reasons.

We could also have 100 or 1000 witnesses but the platform will become less secure if you have more witnesses. A single witness has no power at all and can easily be replaced by users. Users have the real power in the Byteball network, not witnesses. Only when 6 or more witnesses collude they can harm the network, but they still can't change anything in the past. In fact they have very limited options for abuse.

This is no answer to my original point, which is "a single witness is not decentralized unless the witness consists of multiple entities".

You are trying to make it your point so that you can fire off what you have said earlier, so I'll play along:

Users having the real power sounds nice, but has some serious flaws. I'm too lazy to go into this, but very simplified, choosing witnesses is not much different than choosing delegates in a DPoS system. Go take a look at Lisk and EOS to see how that is going.

It is like talking with a wall, right?

Byteball is not decentralized. I am not fudding, only telling facts.

If I could choose my witness truly freely, maybe it could be called decentralized witnesses election... but I can only freely choose 1 witness. I am obligated to trust the witnesses already chosen if I am a new user, or I can't send transactions in a easy way. Of course I can pick any unit compatible with my list (afaik), but normal people won't do that.

This doesn't have to be a bad thing. The bad thing is the people who can't accept the truth, and seems more a hooligan than a person argumenting.

Yes, a witness has little power in the network. Yes, even if majority of witnesses collude, they can't rewrite the past or move funds which not belongs to him or harm deeply the network. Yes, there are no differences between a normal unit and a witness one.
But all above does not change the fact that A WITNESS IS A CENTRALIZED ENTITY AND WE NEED TO TRUST IT.

Seriously byteball, 2nd time I say this: Don't pretend to be what you are not.

[Thul]

Management and development prefer to keep silent about the problems reported instead of taking a concrete position.

Bite ball is not decentralised. That is clear.
Is development willing to change anything about this? I have no idea. The community is in the dark. The Bite ball dictatorship leaves its followers, as usual, in the fog.
A random rotation among hundreds of witnesses sounds good and would probably be a solution. Is it technically feasible? Sure, where there is a will...

I am still waiting in vain after months for corresponding feedback on the requirements I have presented.

The development produces past the demand, the marketing has no idea what this designation means at all and the management boasts with fog bombs and speech bubbles.

[barborrico]

I encourage whole Byteball team to see some Antonopoulos videos to know why byteball is not decentralized, and why you should not market the platform focusing on that. Because it is not true.

12 witnesses = 12 central points of failure but, of course, with the same power of another node (no absolute power like dpos crap) and marked as trustable by majority of users.

Byteball distributes trust amongst 12 witnesses. It is a distributed trust system, not a decentralized one. Decentralized implies no single point of failure, and this is not the case.

I think new platform name should reflect all those things.

What is the single point of failure then? There is none. In fact, I would argue that Byteball  is more decentralized by design than Bitcoin or Ethereum. When we have a lot more than 12 different witnesses to choose from it will also be more decentralized in practice.

Netflix is not decentralized. But Netflix uses decentralized technologies in order to reduce bandwidth costs.

Byteball is not decentralized. But Byteball uses decentralized technologies in order to coordinate admision of new units in the database and distribute it to all full nodes.

You can use decentralized technologies without forming a decentralized consensus. But that does not make platform consensus "magically decentralized".