Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments

[tarmo888]

Oh, good, we finally arrived on the verge of ad hominems. Questioning my intelligence and all that. Great.

Alright, but now I guess this turns too much into incoherent rambling from my side, plus, I don't like to be insulted, so that's it from my side. You have fun playing with your Byteballs.

I did not question your intelligence nor called you with any names. I was just wondering if there is some languages issues that you yet again cherry pick a word out without the context and jump a gun on it. "not directly comparable" is not same as "not comparable", also "purely based on monetary gain" is not same as "based on monetary gain". And also, you accuse others talking only about Bitcoin, when post was comparison. Like how hard is that to miss? Must be a language issue or you didn't read it at all.

Yeah, maybe I was skimming over that part a bit quickly

Ahh, right, it seems you didn't read it, try to read the parts about Byteball too, not just Bitcoin, you might get different understanding of the post.

I brought up the witness voting mechanism to DPoS comparison multiple times, because I think it is far more comparable than Byteball/BTC. If you want to see how a future system that is based on voting can look like, there are a lot of DPoS systems out there in which on-chain voting as part of the consensus mechanism is a thing and their behavior can be studied. Lisk, EOS, Ark, Tron, Shift, just to name a few.

If you are suggesting by that, it should have more witnesses and anybody could be randomly a witness and they should be anonymous and so on then that is explained in whitepaper. 12 is optimal amount because less would be not enough and more would be too difficult to keep track of. This is only because they should be public persons or companies with reputation on the line. If it would be anonymous then obviously current system would not work.
It is too early to tell, which is the ultimate consensus mechanism, so if you feel this is not the right combination then you can support any of the mentioned projects above that you think has better mix of rules.

…Oh, and by the way, here is something no one in the altcoin space wants to hear: technology is absolutely overrated. Things don't have to work optimally with tons of headroom, they have to work good enough. Almost all Bitcoin clones were trying the "better than BTC" narrative, be it faster blocktimes, bigger blocks, more GPU-friendly mining algos etc. Where are they now? Currently, we are seeing the same phenomenon with ETH and its competitors. If tech would actually matter as much as so many people think it does, at least Ethereum would have been dethroned by now.
In the end, it doesn't matter if something is theoretically better than the competition, if no one uses it. History is full of better versions of the things that became mainstream, where simply the circumstances, like the network effect, helped decide the race.
Bitcoin is more decentralized than all the other projects out there (maybe except for Ethereum in some fields), including Byteball. Bitcoin is the most secure blockchain/distributed ledger. Maybe there are implementations out there which are theoretically more secure, if they had the userbase, the development base, the miner base and all the other metrics of Bitcoin, but they don't. In the end, users will not (and should not) give two shits about whether the system they use to pay their coffee or whatever uses a blockchain or a DAG, PoW, PoS or a different consensus mechanism.

This is all true what you are saying, can't argue with that, but you are drifting away from the original point where this discussion began:

You are right about incentives.  But there is something else.  PoW mining is an economic activity.  You have capex, you have opex, almost all your profits are burned in your huge costs, and you have to care about efficiency in order to stay in the game.  And in any economic activity, you have economy of scale.  As your mining farm gets bigger, it becomes more efficient and stands better against the competition.  You get volume discounts for miners, you will be the first in line for the new generation of miners, you can get cheaper electricity when you buy wholesale, it becomes worthwhile to relocate to a more favorable location, and you can hire the best talent in the industry.  It doesn't matter if the PoW algorithm is ASICable or not, the economy of scale is universal.  It might be not very important in the growing market when everyone, even a smaller and weaker miner, gets a portion of the growing pie, but nothing lasts forever and as the market matures and gets more competitive, the weaker players are darwinized, and the hash power gets concentrated in the hands of a few bigger miners.  Miners, not mining pools.  This looks like an end-game of any PoW based blockchain, because it has a heavy "hook" into the economy, and the economy favors scale.  You can call it emergent centralization.  Incidentally, Byteball moves in the opposite direction.

[1713857795]

1713857795

[1713857795]

1713857795

[tarmo888]

What if someone knocked on my door and asked me politely but "convincingly" not to confirm transactions on a certain branch of the DAG or something?

Byteball is NOT a Bitcoin fork, it doesn't matter if somebody knocked on witness's door and asked them politely but "convincingly" not to confirm transactions on a certain branch of the DAG.

Like, how can this be explained, so it would be understanded and not brought up again. It goes against the rules of the code that witnesses are running that you could censor or not include some transactions. If you do that, everybody will know and you get replaced. All witnesses have to be asked politely but "convincingly" in order to pull it off, but then it would be still visible that it was done.

What you are bringing up again is a feature of Bitcoin that you can pick transactions that go to a block. Not such thing in Byteball. No blocks, it's DAG. Doesn't matter who you are or how much you payed transaction fee, your transaction will be confirmed and final. No rewrites of history. Only exception is double-spending (these will not be confirmed), that is what witnesses are looking out for, so it would not happen.

[tonych]

There is no inherent incentive to work together as miners, and if there is, a group of miners has no in-system way to punish miners who do not behave as the group wants them to.

You are right about incentives.  But there is something else.  PoW mining is an economic activity.  You have capex, you have opex, almost all your profits are burned in your huge costs, and you have to care about efficiency in order to stay in the game.  And in any economic activity, you have economy of scale.  As your mining farm gets bigger, it becomes more efficient and stands better against the competition.  You get volume discounts for miners, you will be the first in line for the new generation of miners, you can get cheaper electricity when you buy wholesale, it becomes worthwhile to relocate to a more favorable location, and you can hire the best talent in the industry.  It doesn't matter if the PoW algorithm is ASICable or not, the economy of scale is universal.  It might be not very important in the growing market when everyone, even a smaller and weaker miner, gets a portion of the growing pie, but nothing lasts forever and as the market matures and gets more competitive, the weaker players are darwinized, and the hash power gets concentrated in the hands of a few bigger miners.  Miners, not mining pools.  This looks like an end-game of any PoW based blockchain, because it has a heavy "hook" into the economy, and the economy favors scale.  You can call it emergent centralization.  Incidentally, Byteball moves in the opposite direction.

Yes, economy of scale is a thing. But why are you so focussed on talking about Bitcoin?

To give you some perspective.  To encourage comparison not of protocols, but of their practical realizations, where a degree of centralization often emerges naturally.

I mean, as the inventor of Byteball (if that is the appropriate term), I would be much more interested in your views regarding Byteballs inherent problems, not Bitcoins.

Like the DPoS comparison I made in the post. Do you have any thoughts on that, especially with Lisk and EOS as rather gloomy outlooks? I mean, I realize they are not comparable on a 1:1 basis, but there are similarities, don't you think?

Could you be more specific, I don't follow these projects too closely.  And it doesn't look like "gloomy" is a generally accepted opinion.
Of course there are similarities in what there is a class of users who are chosen for their good behavior but the amount of power over transactions that BB witnesses and DPoS delegates possess is vastly different.

...Incidentally, Byteball moves in the opposite direction.

Can you explain what you mean by that? I can't see how this statement is accurate.

Byteball started in centralized state and now moving to decentralize.

[cybterpunk]

any plan for future byteball distribution? thanks

[Thul]

...Incidentally, Byteball moves in the opposite direction.

Can you explain what you mean by that? I can't see how this statement is accurate.

Byteball started in centralized state and now moving to decentralize.

Exactly: "Why the hell should I care about your objections. My word is law."
 

[pineapple express]

TOP 142 Byterbal the best

[jbreher]

Just like totally free (unregulated) capitalism in a market will automatically lead to a monopoly.

The only monopolies that exist in unfettered free trade are those that already provide optimum product or service at optimum price for the consumer. Otherwise, a new entrant will either provide a better solution at same price or same solution at lower price, thereby eliminating the monopoly.

This is all quite foundational.

So with that understood, are you trying to malign the very existence of such a monopoly?

Haha!

A new entrant will get squashed by the all powerful monopolist, as happens all the time in the oligarchies you can observe in poorly regulated markets around the globe. They get bought up, and their ideas either implemented by the monopolist or shelved (e.g. Shell buying green energy innovations. They have a big shelve full of them, waiting for the right time).

'splain me 'squashed', willya?

It's all easily observable throughout history. Any new cell phone network operators recently in your part of the world, providing better or cheaper solutions?

mmm hmm... and which upstart 'cell phone network operators' were 'squashed' in this manner?

[milugau]

TOP 142 Byterbal the best

It will be better , much better when Byteball rally to around its price early months this year.
In fact, Byteball has recovered well recent days.
I hope that the coin can maintain its upwards trend.

[julian071]

'splain me 'squashed', willya?

It's all easily observable throughout history. Any new cell phone network operators recently in your part of the world, providing better or cheaper solutions?

mmm hmm... and which upstart 'cell phone network operators' were 'squashed' in this manner?

Squashed usually means bought up, but of course there are plenty of other ways to destroy a competitor. It really depends on the state the local judicial system en political system is in. To name but one example in Brazil, a few big construction companies could just bribe some politicians and top brass of Petrobas for all kinds of big deals, that their competitors would not get. That got blown up in the end because the judicial system does still work over there.

About the cell phone operators, I was asking you if you had seen any new ones recently. Because you haven't. An example of a cell phone company that got squashed by being bought in my country (NL) is Ben, which got bought bij T-Mobile. Or Telfort, which is now part of KPN. We only have a couple of operators left, I'm guessing you have too.

Point being of course in practice,in any industry where companies need large amounts of capital to be competitive, it's not only very hard to enter the market as a new player, but existing players will do anything they can to prevent new players to succeed. I mean why wouldn't they. They only thing stopping them is laws, like anti-trust laws.

[pineapple express]

'splain me 'squashed', willya?

It's all easily observable throughout history. Any new cell phone network operators recently in your part of the world, providing better or cheaper solutions?

mmm hmm... and which upstart 'cell phone network operators' were 'squashed' in this manner?

To name but one example in Brazil, a few big construction companies could just bribe some politicians and top brass of Petrobas for all kinds of big deals, that their competitors would not get. That got blown up in the end because the judicial system does still work over there.

Monopoly in your example created by central authority, not a free market. It is very likely that the monopoly of mobile operators is also the result of the work of the corrupt central authority.

[tarmo888]

'splain me 'squashed', willya?

It's all easily observable throughout history. Any new cell phone network operators recently in your part of the world, providing better or cheaper solutions?

mmm hmm... and which upstart 'cell phone network operators' were 'squashed' in this manner?

To name but one example in Brazil, a few big construction companies could just bribe some politicians and top brass of Petrobas for all kinds of big deals, that their competitors would not get. That got blown up in the end because the judicial system does still work over there.

Monopoly in your example created by central authority, not a free market. It is very likely that the monopoly of mobile operators is also the result of the work of the corrupt central authority.

"It is very likely that the monopoly of mobile operators" ~ so, you are actually guessing that, it's not like you know that it is because central authority. There are probably more obstacles in countries with high corruption, but take any country with low corruption index and you will find the same problem, newcomers can't compete with big mobile operators with existing infrastructure. Sometimes newcomers come out with new packages that are aimed to some niche market, and they can offer cheaper price because their costs are low (except the huge fee they pay to existing mobile operator), but most common end game for newcomers is that existing mobile operators will buy them up if they get enough traction.

Thanks, julian071, comparing miners to telecom companies is spot on. Today, it is cheapest than ever to build your own cell tower with Raspberry Pi, but you can't become a mobile operator like that because customers expect quality that big operators have spent millions and polished for years. So, it has nothing to do with central authority, without central authority, you would have even bigger monopoly (by not letting 2 big mobile operators join).
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/yw35vg/how-to-make-a-diy-mini-cell-phone-tower-using-parts-you-can-order-online

[PinchClock]

Read the latest Byteball email newsletter: Introducing Smart Vouchers

https://medium.com/@byteballjesus/weekly-byteball-email-newsletter-introducing-smart-vouchers-5d1f38df5dda

[Thul]

Read the latest Byteball email newsletter: Introducing Smart Vouchers

https://medium.com/@byteballjesus/weekly-byteball-email-newsletter-introducing-smart-vouchers-5d1f38df5dda

"Byteball has an awesome platform under continuous development, but there are people that believe the project would benefit significantly from a new brand and visual identity.

We have spent considerable time engaging with several branding and naming agencies during the past few months, and we are very close to signing a contract. Head of Strategy, Valerius Coppens is in charge of the project."

Gleam of hope... but only a small...

"Introducing Smart Vouchers
[...]
We are optimistic that with time this distribution could grow the network substantially."

Since it makes sense to distribute a value to people who don't use it but exchange it for Fiat at the next opportunity... if that hasn't been forgotten until then and the values disappear in nirvana. 

[pineapple express]

a new brand and visual identity

Don't do it! I know there was a paid company against byterbal to get the team to focus on branding and marketing instead of improving scaling and solving the distribution of coins and witnesses. Sad to see how they managed to achieve all their goals

[BitcoinArsenal]

Congratulations guys! Byteball has ended at rank 1 on third round of THOR challenge on WorldCommunityGrid. The final fourth round starts in a week with the best three teams of the third round. We are very near to win the THOR challenge 2018. Would be a great success.

[mtraveller]

Looking for a byteball voucher code? There's even a steps by step how to guide there. Enjoy.

[Thul]

a new brand and visual identity

Don't do it! I know there was a paid company against byterbal to get the team to focus on branding and marketing instead of improving scaling and solving the distribution of coins and witnesses. Sad to see how they managed to achieve all their goals

1.) A suitable label, together with logo. Proper designation for the currency units (no Bites/Blackbites).

2.) Increase use and circulation
2.a.) Change Fiat <=> Bites/Blackbites (BISQ)
2.b.) Integration in Open Bazaar (or similar)
2.c.) Discount to Open Bazaar customers (distribution)

3. Unlimited number of witnesses who route over Tor/I2P and are randomly assigned.

4. Scaling

[barborrico]

Byte is going to stay, is too fundamental.

Snowbyte
Flatbyte
Rollbyte
Linkbyte
Jointbyte  
Ballbyte lol

or my favs:
Witnessbyte
Witbyte<- seriously, I would choose it

Another thing is the pair name/currency.

If you put Byte first, bytes will be the currency.

If you put Byte last, name could be the currency.

For instance:
bytesnow-> byte currency, bytesnow name -> I don't like it, too complex. Also, to me, bytesnow as a currency which represent 1 byte sounds way bad.
snowbyte-> snowbyte currency, snowbyte name -> better

[Thul]

The name of the project should be the same as the name of the currency units.

Bits and Bytes are already defined. Using it as a currency is confusing.

[pineapple express]

Powerful people were alarmed by growing popularity of byterbal. They were thinking about how to stop it. Scalable and distributed byterball represented the danger for shitcoins in the top 10. Then they found an elegant way to push the balls out of the top 100. Media attack. They hired hundreds of FUDers to spread the FUD about bitcoin distribution, bad name, lack of marketing. They always write that scalability is not needed at the current stage and this can be done at any time.That bitcoin airdrop was unsuccessful. That name is bad. That marketing is suck. Good tech. Most of them a paid FUDers. I understand people who consciously support these ideas. But stop for a moment and ask yourself the question - did you think that the name and marketing was bad when balls exploded from $20 to $1200? That the distribution was unsuccessful when slack and forums was full of users, when byterbal community was one of the most active communtiy in shitcoins space, when GBYTE was in top 40? NO no and no! This opinion is completely artificial and was planted in our heads by people who want to get rid of a strong competitor. Hold your balls dry my brothers.