Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments

[PinchClock]

Some food for thought 

The Bitcoin pizza story struggles to compete with this: Byteball is like a magic pizza, each time you split it in two, the calorific value of each new slice is doubled.

https://busy.org/@henric/byteball-a-pizza-for-two-generals

[1713485382]

1713485382

[1713485382]

1713485382

[1713485382]

1713485382

[boomboom]

The distro is finished, tony concentrates on dev work ... byteball becomes a shit load more decentralized, adoption is driven by motivated community members (the ones who left and/or became disillusioned when distro rules changed) working with funded foundation.

And that will slow the adoption down even more because instead of getting some bytes for free, users need to go get the bytes from exchange. Right now, they can use many features without having to sign up to any exchange. That's why smart voucher system is great, they can get started with the help of the referrer and get started. They could even attest their identity without any bytes, so they could buy bytes cheaper with credit card. Requiring new users to go to exchanges is not a great plan for adoption. Crypto-fanatics are ok with exchanges, but one day, your parents and relatives won't even know that cryptocurrency had that kind of shitty user experience https://twitter.com/FedericoTenga/status/1058316647289798656

Adoption will increase rapidly when the distro is finished, or byteball will fail ... those are the two possible outcomes.

Tony dribbling out small amounts from the undistributed 22% for years isn't spreading adoption if the vast majority of recipients don't become active users, and most are just mindlessly collecting tiny freebies, and not buying more coins and most won't become regular users.

Adoption will spread when current users who have big holdings and have a vested interest in seeing the project succeed get motivated to start working on adoption, BUT, those guys need certainty from the distro being finished, and no more changes that lower confidence.

Real adoption comes organically from people spreading something they believe in, and changing the original distro plan killed a lot of community belief and enthusiasm.

[Thul]

All these objections lead to nothing. 
The needs of users are obviously still being ignored.
The bite ball dictator prefers to surround himself with submissive courtiers who talk after his mouth.

Fantasy must enter this project again. A roadmap in which the required points would be considered would not only increase the price of the currency but also its value.

At this point, everyone's just disillusioned.

"Byteball Bytes price equal to 45.458 USD at 2018-11-06, but your current investment may be devalued in the future."
https://walletinvestor.com/forecast/byteball-bytes-prediction

[tarmo888]

The distro is finished, tony concentrates on dev work ... byteball becomes a shit load more decentralized, adoption is driven by motivated community members (the ones who left and/or became disillusioned when distro rules changed) working with funded foundation.

And that will slow the adoption down even more because instead of getting some bytes for free, users need to go get the bytes from exchange. Right now, they can use many features without having to sign up to any exchange. That's why smart voucher system is great, they can get started with the help of the referrer and get started. They could even attest their identity without any bytes, so they could buy bytes cheaper with credit card. Requiring new users to go to exchanges is not a great plan for adoption. Crypto-fanatics are ok with exchanges, but one day, your parents and relatives won't even know that cryptocurrency had that kind of shitty user experience https://twitter.com/FedericoTenga/status/1058316647289798656

Adoption will increase rapidly when the distro is finished, or byteball will fail ... those are the two possible outcomes.

Tony dribbling out small amounts from the undistributed 22% for years isn't spreading adoption if the vast majority of recipients don't become active users, and most are just mindlessly collecting tiny freebies, and not buying more coins and most won't become regular users.

Adoption will spread when current users who have big holdings and have a vested interest in seeing the project succeed get motivated to start working on adoption, BUT, those guys need certainty from the distro being finished, and no more changes that lower confidence.

Real adoption comes organically from people spreading something they believe in, and changing the original distro plan killed a lot of community belief and enthusiasm.

Any examples from real life where this has been the case? Or even in cryptoverse, which coin has suddenly got adoption and still alive because the distro has finished? Does your theory have any base or just a hunch?

Reality is, if the distro is finished and you still don't have adoption by that time then the coin is doomed. And if there is no development fund either then maintance stops too, it gets dropped from exchanges and dies during bear market. Just look what has been common to all the previous Bitcoin forks. Luckily, even that Byteball fucked up (wasted over 50%) with Bitcoin airdrop, they are more forward thinking now.

[Thul]

"All You Need to Know About Decentralized Cryptocurrency Exchange Bisq.Network"
https://btcmanager.com/decentralized-cryptocurrency-exchange-bisq-network/

A "BISQ" integrated into the wallet with bite ball as base currency would be a unique selling point compared to all other projects. One that finally also has a real benefit.

Another group of developers should be working on the programming of a marketplace in parallel.

[altcoinb]

Twitter (retweetet):
"So far my Smart Voucher gave me 40% ROI, yes you read that right: 40%. Also want to make money by introducing people to the easiest to use crypto platform in existence? Read this article to find out how. ..."

That's what bite ball fanboys want: "to make money". - Of course $, €, ...

It only increases speculation, but not use and certainly not adoption.

And where do the sold bites finally accumulate?

Rewards in bytes for spread the word and help for real world adoption, perfect stimulation! or not?
People works better with rewards, that's a nature law.

[Thul]

Twitter (retweetet):
"So far my Smart Voucher gave me 40% ROI, yes you read that right: 40%. Also want to make money by introducing people to the easiest to use crypto platform in existence? Read this article to find out how. ..."

That's what bite ball fanboys want: "to make money". - Of course $, €, ...

It only increases speculation, but not use and certainly not adoption.

And where do the sold bites finally accumulate?

Rewards in bytes for spread the word and help for real world adoption, perfect stimulation! or not?
People works better with rewards, that's a nature law.

Without use case there is no "real world adoption".
Result: The bites are turned into Fiat and the project is forgotten.

[tarmo888]

Twitter (retweetet):
"So far my Smart Voucher gave me 40% ROI, yes you read that right: 40%. Also want to make money by introducing people to the easiest to use crypto platform in existence? Read this article to find out how. ..."

That's what bite ball fanboys want: "to make money". - Of course $, €, ...

It only increases speculation, but not use and certainly not adoption.

And where do the sold bites finally accumulate?

Rewards in bytes for spread the word and help for real world adoption, perfect stimulation! or not?
People works better with rewards, that's a nature law.

Without use case there is no "real world adoption".
Result: The bites are turned into Fiat and the project is forgotten.

So, you are basically saying that because there is no blackbytes marketplace to sell shady stuff, there is no use cases? Buying stuff with blackbytes is just one use case, which seems nobody is interested to build a marketplace for. If nobody is interested to build it, why would there be suddenly interest to use it?

There are many other use cases already and more than enough features that support those use cases - what is still missing is real users, we have just bunch of hodlers. Creating a new use case doesn't automatically bring new users same way like burning away whole distribution fund would bring magically user adoption.

[altcoinb]

Without use case there is no "real world adoption".
Result: The bites are turned into Fiat and the project is forgotten.

Thul 2008 / 2009

"why do you mine or give away bitcoins?

As a reminder:
"Adoption can only be achieved by a product that can also be used.
The first step would have been to ensure the usability of the product."

"Who exactly is the bit coin target group?
Mine, i.e. the producer and trader at least not. As a result, not the consumers either."

"My customers pay with visa. The customers of others especially with cash."

"Bit coin have no chance for adoption, wakes up finally!
you are all here bitcoin fanboys! mimimimi nobody agrees me "

is this your second account?
Date Registered: 11.10.2018 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2432356;sa=showPosts

what else do you want here?

[boomboom]

Any examples from real life where this has been the case? Or even in cryptoverse, which coin has suddenly got adoption and still alive because the distro has finished? Does your theory have any base or just a hunch?

NXT/Ardor, back in 2013 100% of the coins were distributed to 73 early adopters in the second ever ICO right from the start (Mastercoin was the first ICO a few months earlier), then the dev (BCnxt, aka CfB of Iota fame) basically handed the project over to the community which empowered large holders to get active and 'do things' to keep the project alive, including spreading adoption.

NXT started with 73 people, 100% of coins distributed, dev concentrated on actual dev work, everything else was left to the community. It was the most beautiful disorganized clusterfuck to observe, and it most definitely was decentralised, and it was 100% the community who made it work because the distribution was completed very early, and the dev did a perfect Satoshi 2.0 and got out of the way.

If Tony finishes the distro and gets out of the way he creates a void, and motivated holders will fill it, that's decentralization in practice, relinquish control to the community.

edit: if Tony completed the distro and went into the shadows to work on code, maybe a big holder like Max from Lisk would see a 'space' for him to fill and he would get motivated to 'do something' for BB out of self interest, at the moment everything is top-down from Tony, no room for anyone else, 22% still in centralised hands causing worries.

[cryptohunter]

I think we are worrying about the wrong thing at the wrong time.

CC is all about speculation right now.

Who is using eos, ada, iota, right now?

Adoption will come later. For now speculators is who you need to worry about. Give them reason to buy and hold byteball. You want to be in the top 10 to top 15 on cmc. Although we know that can be faked and means little because many have such a narrow distribution.

However annoyingly a lot of companies believe in those caps and volume.

Companies will only adopt currencies that have a lot of volume because otherwise they are quite unusable for them.

Also to get adoption you need users. To get users they need to know about your project. The largest form of advertising right now is to get a high cap. Since 99% of people interested in CC right now are investors/speculators you need to get them interested.

My 3 favourite projects right now and suffering not because they do not offer great dev teams with great products that are already functional (if not completely finished) but because of lack of interest. The lack of interest is 1. they are not in the high cap projects so don't get much notice  2. as a result of (1) nobody is talking about them and they can gain no network effect.

Most investors and hodlers (which you need right now) are not conceptual designers nor game theory experts nor coders nor have really any skills to decide which projects from a technical level solve more or less issues and are easily scammed with snake oil blockchain 2.0 3.0 4.0. They follow like lemmings repeating all kinds of snake oil selling nonsense to the others.  I was one of these for years and ended up getting sucked into all kinds of promising sounding now almost dead projects that faded out or were made redundant by the next better sounding snake oil.

The best you can do is find those that can analyse designs and watch their predictions and listen to their analysis and try to use some of your own common sense too. Or make friends with some good developers and just ask for their opinions.
 
Bring your MC up and get more attention, more hodlers, higher cap and more hodlers whilst making your project as functional and ready for mainstream adoption as possible and when companies are ready to adopt you will be in the running and not hidden away on page 10 of coinmarketcap with no volume

I do not think spreading out a few bucks worth to a ton of people does anything. If I had 10 bucks worth I would not be incentivised to work hard to promote or adopt I would likely just think thats 10 bucks I can cash in now or just leave it for another day and likely forget all about it. You are better to get BB in larger chunks right now into the hands of people that have some shove in this arena that will work to promote or bring on development in certain areas. The worst part is the huge chunks are in the hands of people that are leading other projects and have a lot less incentive to work in pushing BB forward.  This will change over time but it has held BB back thus far.

All I am saying is stop worrying about spreading BB out now that is already so concentrated in the hands of a few. Better to increase functionality in terms of tx, scalability etc and interesting hodlers/investors and those that will help promote with a lot of incentive.
Focus more on raising the cap and bringing in interest that way for now. Then more exchanges like coinbase may consider. Then when big companies come looking bb will be in the running. Amazon is not going to look at bitcoin, ethereum, litecoin, and randomly consider something that looks obscure and has 2000 usd daily volume.

Most people only consider the top 100. Many will only invest in the top 25. Anything else is considered high risk. When really the highest risk with lowest returns are the fake higher caps. However that's how it is.

If you are trying to bypass or criticise peoples desire to make money and call them just greedy you alienate 99.9% of the human race. You need these ones to get a network effect at this stage. Later people/businesses will just use the product that is best suited to their needs in a functional way. We are still miles away from leaving speculation as the biggest driver for success which will lead to adoption. Trying to give it out to 10000s of people in crumbs will not bring adoption at this point.

This is just my opinion of course there could be a great counter argument that I am interested to hear.

[Thul]

The creation of use case is the only and most meaningful thing that pushes up the value of this project sustainably and not only the price.

Hundreds of other projects vie for speculators. But almost none of them can really be used.

What we finally need is a paradigm shift in the thinking of the developers.

The orientation towards the fiat-focused regulated markets (Amazon) is much too exhausting.
With unregulated markets, on the other hand, there is still a lot of room for improvement. Furthermore, this would have a social benefit.

[tarmo888]

Any examples from real life where this has been the case? Or even in cryptoverse, which coin has suddenly got adoption and still alive because the distro has finished? Does your theory have any base or just a hunch?

NXT/Ardor, back in 2013 100% of the coins were distributed to 73 early adopters in the second ever ICO right from the start (Mastercoin was the first ICO a few months earlier), then the dev (BCnxt, aka CfB of Iota fame) basically handed the project over to the community which empowered large holders to get active and 'do things' to keep the project alive, including spreading adoption.

NXT started with 73 people, 100% of coins distributed, dev concentrated on actual dev work, everything else was left to the community. It was the most beautiful disorganized clusterfuck to observe, and it most definitely was decentralised, and it was 100% the community who made it work because the distribution was completed very early, and the dev did a perfect Satoshi 2.0 and got out of the way.

If Tony finishes the distro and gets out of the way he creates a void, and motivated holders will fill it, that's decentralization in practice, relinquish control to the community.

edit: if Tony completed the distro and went into the shadows to work on code, maybe a big holder like Max from Lisk would see a 'space' for him to fill and he would get motivated to 'do something' for BB out of self interest, at the moment everything is top-down from Tony, no room for anyone else, 22% still in centralised hands causing worries.

I meant "successful projects that got adoption". How many active users are there on NXT? Like 400 daily? I wouldn't call that adoption. And what is Ardor, a fork of NXT? Why was that created? Because somebody disagreed with the NXT vision?

Why does Tony need to go away so Max could replace him? This just doesn't make any sense. It is not a wife-swap TV show, both founders have their own projects to work on. And I don't understand why one needs to go away in order for others to contribute? If you don't agree where it is going, create a fork and do it the way you think it is right.

Instead of thinking that 22% is still yet to distribute, think about that more than 50% is already distributed. If that wasn't problem when nothing was distributed then how is that now suddenly a problem? Distribution will continue based on what is best for mass adoption and from the amount of current active users, Bitcoin distribution was not the best for mass adoption.

[tarmo888]

I do not think spreading out a few bucks worth to a ton of people does anything. If I had 10 bucks worth I would not be incentivised to work hard to promote or adopt I would likely just think thats 10 bucks I can cash in now or just leave it for another day and likely forget all about it.

It is not just 10 bucks if the user becomes active referrer and brings in more people. Many of the distribution methods have referral system, which gets improved to a new level with every new distribution method. Bytes are not airdropped for just linking your address anymore, one needs to put some effort in and grown the community in order to earn more. Those who put more effort in it are also more likely to become real users than those who got just 10 quick bucks.

[cryptohunter]

I do not think spreading out a few bucks worth to a ton of people does anything. If I had 10 bucks worth I would not be incentivised to work hard to promote or adopt I would likely just think thats 10 bucks I can cash in now or just leave it for another day and likely forget all about it.

It is not just 10 bucks if the user becomes active referrer and brings in more people. Many of the distribution methods have referral system, which gets improved to a new level with every new distribution method. Bytes are not airdropped for just linking your address anymore, one needs to put some effort in and grown the community in order to earn more. Those who put more effort in it are also more likely to become real users than those who got just 10 quick bucks.

I like referral systems and I very much like MLM. It can be very powerful.

I can see your point of view from where we are now, and do not argue there is certain merit.

The thing I would say is. Although byteball hodlers (not bitcoin holders) are not expanding effort exactly to futher adoption directly. They are in a different way expanding their influence of the value they hold (in Byteball) to push up the price on exchanges. Which pushes up MC which brings attention, which brings more investors and hodlers in to a spiral.

 It would have been better perhaps if the airdrops could have analysed if byteballs had aged in the wallets for a certain time before being eligible for an airdrop. (not sure technically how easy that would be to have implemented)

Now eventually some one has to use these things we are creating here and the use case and functionality will have the final say. I agree. However, for now the fastest way to bring users/investors on is appeal to the main group that have any interest in CC at all. This is 99% speculators and sadly you must appeal to their greed. This is not a place for just idealists right now - in the long term yes.

When BB is in a form which is clearly finished and polished and will shine when compared to other projects on technical merit alone. This is the time to show those seeking to adopt crypto for function and use for business or whatever. Then eventually it will be more beneficial to appeal to those whose use cases fit with BB's tech.

So although you say " just for linking your address" yes that takes no effort. But to make it worth linking your address you need something in that address worth linking and that requires value/capital.  The fact you can get people to hold their personal wealth in your project to indirectly do your advertising to the only group really interested in crypto right now is worth quite a bit.

This avenue is pointless now I guess because returning airdrops in their old form will not fix the trust broken by stopping them.

I do not think they were stopped for any selfish reasons of the developers. I think they really thought it was the best way forward for BB. I'm not even sure stopping them can really be blamed for the dramatic price fall. Lots of projects have been crushed this much or even more.

Although it is not in the spirit of crypto. Perhaps regarding the way forward just in the short term. The distribution could be done a bit like this.
Those perhaps locking down the most BB for the longest periods would receive the greatest % rewards which were tiered. Sort of like a tiered pos scheme.

Most people think it is a crazy idea but I wonder what a public appeal to those ico managers that claimed huge amounts for free at the start to return just 50% of the bytes to be used in such a tiered POS scheme would achieve?
PR is quite important and those ico managers that have not already distributed the BB to their investors might like to show how fair they can be.  Of course a polite request not to partake in our new pos scheme and suck them all back would be cool

Just ideas, may be technically impossible or just logically unsound.

[tarmo888]

Although it is not in the spirit of crypto. Perhaps regarding the way forward just in the short term. The distribution could be done a bit like this.
Those perhaps locking down the most BB for the longest periods would receive the greatest % rewards which were tiered. Sort of like a tiered pos scheme.

Most people think it is a crazy idea but I wonder what a public appeal to those ico managers that claimed huge amounts for free at the start to return just 50% of the bytes to be used in such a tiered POS scheme would achieve?
PR is quite important and those ico managers that have not already distributed the BB to their investors might like to show how fair they can be.  Of course a polite request not to partake in our new pos scheme and suck them all back would be cool

Just ideas, may be technically impossible or just logically unsound.

Locking down someones address in crypto world is worse than changing the distribution. If that fork would happen then the price would go below $1 for sure.

PoW has the economy of scale, where the weaker players are darwinized, and the hash power gets concentrated in the hands of a few bigger miners.
PoS has the nothing in stake problem, where the validator has no downside for staking both forks.
https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/a/31476

Both of them are pseudo-anonymous, so you don't know who is the biggest. It can be that instead of 5 biggest, there is actually 2 biggest. This is especially bad for PoS because you don't even have to risk with real world cost (expensive mining rigs). This makes them vulnerable for Sybil attack. Solution for Sybil attack is non-anonymity or PoW.

Instead of PoW, Byteball has chosen non-anonymity for witnesses, who doesn't have the same powers as PoW miners too. They just make sure of the order of transactions, so there would not be double-spend. This means that until over half of the 12 witnesses don't collude, there can't be double-spends or transaction censoring. It doesn't matter who you are or how much transactions fee you pay, your transactions will be confirmed and final.

As you can see, all of them have their own pros and cons, depending what you think is important.

What does changing the consensus model now solve? What is the issue that is currently valid that it needs to be solved with tiered PoS right now? Keep the whales from dumping? Every coin has whales.

It is funny that everybody bitches about distribution change and how all the trust was immediately lost with that change, yet everybody also sees that there is something else that is fundamental to this coin, that should also be changed. How is that not gonna make it even more unstable?

There is simple process for fundamental changes, you just fork it and make your own coin, or you pick another coin to support. It's like a train, if you like where it is going then you get on it, if you don't then you get off and pick another train.

[Kavallo]

However, for now the fastest way to bring users/investors on is appeal to the main group that have any interest in CC at all. This is 99% speculators and sadly you must appeal to their greed. This is not a place for just idealists right now - in the long term yes.

I've quoted this line of yours in black because that's a sad, cynical, but alas tragically true reality check. While some of us dream of the possibilities of a wonderful world, Sturgeon's law reminds us that "ninety percent of everything is crap" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law) - and this unfortunatelly is true also for our beloved crypto community.
In the light of this, you are right on the fact that to ensure the success of a coin one may have to take advantage also of all available "dirty tricks". That's called Realpolitik, my fellow Byteballers. As for which "dirty tricks" exactly should be thought and adopted so as to widely spread adoption also to the 90% of crap people which are living in the crypto space and on earth in general, the discussion is open.

[Thul]

However, for now the fastest way to bring users/investors on is appeal to the main group that have any interest in CC at all. This is 99% speculators and sadly you must appeal to their greed. This is not a place for just idealists right now - in the long term yes.

I've quoted this line of yours in black because that's a sad, cynical, but alas tragically true reality check. While some of us dream of the possibilities of a wonderful world, Sturgeon's law reminds us that "ninety percent of everything is crap" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law) - and this unfortunatelly is true also for our beloved crypto community.
In the light of this, you are right on the fact that to ensure the success of a coin one may have to take advantage also of all available "dirty tricks". That's called Realpolitik, my fellow Byteballers. As for which "dirty tricks" exactly should be thought and adopted so as to widely spread adoption also to the 90% of crap people which are living in the crypto space and on earth in general, the discussion is open.

Since I no longer believe in the success of bite ball anyway, I can only agree.  

To be better than the competition you should do it just like the competition.
Sounds logical or not?

[cryptohunter]

Although it is not in the spirit of crypto. Perhaps regarding the way forward just in the short term. The distribution could be done a bit like this.
Those perhaps locking down the most BB for the longest periods would receive the greatest % rewards which were tiered. Sort of like a tiered pos scheme.

Most people think it is a crazy idea but I wonder what a public appeal to those ico managers that claimed huge amounts for free at the start to return just 50% of the bytes to be used in such a tiered POS scheme would achieve?
PR is quite important and those ico managers that have not already distributed the BB to their investors might like to show how fair they can be.  Of course a polite request not to partake in our new pos scheme and suck them all back would be cool

Just ideas, may be technically impossible or just logically unsound.

Locking down someones address in crypto world is worse than changing the distribution. If that fork would happen then the price would go below $1 for sure.

PoW has the economy of scale, where the weaker players are darwinized, and the hash power gets concentrated in the hands of a few bigger miners.
PoS has the nothing in stake problem, where the validator has no downside for staking both forks.
https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/a/31476

Both of them are pseudo-anonymous, so you don't know who is the biggest. It can be that instead of 5 biggest, there is actually 2 biggest. This is especially bad for PoS because you don't even have to risk with real world cost (expensive mining rigs). This makes them vulnerable for Sybil attack. Solution for Sybil attack is non-anonymity or PoW.

Instead of PoW, Byteball has chosen non-anonymity for witnesses, who doesn't have the same powers as PoW miners too. They just make sure of the order of transactions, so there would not be double-spend. This means that until over half of the 12 witnesses don't collude, there can't be double-spends or transaction censoring. It doesn't matter who you are or how much transactions fee you pay, your transactions will be confirmed and final.

As you can see, all of them have their own pros and cons, depending what you think is important.

What does changing the consensus model now solve? What is the issue that is currently valid that it needs to be solved with tiered PoS right now? Keep the whales from dumping? Every coin has whales.

It is funny that everybody bitches about distribution change and how all the trust was immediately lost with that change, yet everybody also sees that there is something else that is fundamental to this coin, that should also be changed. How is that not gonna make it even more unstable?

There is simple process for fundamental changes, you just fork it and make your own coin, or you pick another coin to support. It's like a train, if you like where it is going then you get on it, if you don't then you get off and pick another train.

I'm not sure if you got what I really meant by locking down.

If you can voluntarily lock down a proportion of your coins for a certain amount of time. Those that volunteer to lock the most down for the longest time will attain a higher pos rate upon them becoming unlocked. I wasn't still talking about by force locking down those that got huge amounts of free coins. Although if they decided of their own free will to return say 50% of the BB they got for nothing by holding other peoples BTC then that would be nice for us here and could be used for the good of BB too in other ways.

Also you must not conflate changes that the vast majority of holders do not want because they saw that as not sating their speculative greed  (full moon drops terminated) and which they assumed they had been promised....with changes the vast majority would perhaps like to see and were consulted on before hand That is not the same thing and would not kill trust in the same way. 

Why does that mean changing the consensus model?

I didn't mean make it a tiered POS model as such. Just that it could be viewed as being like that. For example if you were to voluntarily lock down certain amounts of BB for certain amounts of time you would be awarded larger reward than those locking down less for less time. This would be how the final 22% was distributed over time. You could even perhaps say if you locked down more for longer and in addtion to this were actively promoting BB (with some criteria to meet for this) and even higher pos rate could be attained.

Anyway just ideas but of course like I said that could not be automated to a level that made it practical or feasible.

I think you are improving nicely on your people skills but the words bitching ect are still not perfect. It is nice to be able to discuss things even with people that you believe do not understand or are asking for unreasonable or even impossible things in a manner than does not offend or sound condescending. That level of diplomacy is a great skill that can only benefit the project in the long term.

Also just explaining clearly why things are unreasonable or impossible with no real upside is better than telling people go fork your own version. Of course 99.99% of people here have no possible way to do this as they do not have the skill set but can still be valuable to keep on side when considering building a big community and creating a network effect.

[tarmo888]

Also just explaining clearly why things are unreasonable or impossible with no real upside is better than telling people go fork your own version. Of course 99.99% of people here have no possible way to do this as they do not have the skill set but can still be valuable to keep on side when considering building a big community and creating a network effect.

I do not agree with this because if you think you have skills to come up with better consensus or distribution method then you should be able to gather around you a people who are able to code that thing what you think is better. Not knowing how to code is not an excuse, there are many roles in any project that do not need coding skills, so it is not 99.99% against 0.01%

Throwing up an idea for somebody to pick it up is one thing, constantly bitching about somebody to implement something is another thing, what is happening here is constant whining: "implement this!". Mob-mentality, very common in recent years.