Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments

[fuk]

because of halving

halving does not reduce the number of coins in circulation, but only reduces the printing of new ones.
328500 btc will not be mined annually next years after this halving or less than 1.9% of the supply in circulation. It is unlikely that this is enough to change anything other than a hashrate.
besides that a shit show can't last forever. It possible that it was the last cycle for useless altcoins.
besides that bitcoin is in bad position. It need to keep big hashrate to be safe against 51 attack. This is achieved either by an ever-increasing price, or by fees. Both scenarios unrealistic. Nothing is grow forever. Users will not use system with $100 fees. Community rejected a proposal to increase the block, therefore, increasing the pool of fees by increasing the number of users (without increasing the fees themselves) also will not work.

[1714898993]

1714898993

[1714898993]

1714898993

[1714898993]

1714898993

[tarmo888]

because of halving

halving does not reduce the number of coins in circulation, but only reduces the printing of new ones.
328500 btc will not be mined annually next years after this halving or less than 1.9% of the supply in circulation. It is unlikely that this is enough to change anything other than a hashrate.
besides that a shit show can't last forever. It possible that it was the last cycle for useless altcoins.

So, do you think that miners will start selling BTC without profit? Or they start selling their previously earned profit at lower value?
Like you said, it reduces the printing of the new ones. And who is getting the new ones? Miners.
This means miners need to ask twice as much for BTC than they ask now and half as much new coins enter the market as before. They are not getting magically 2 times more powerful ASICs, that's for sure.

Bitcoin price has increased in anticipation of halving previous times, so you are saying that this time it won't do that anymore? How is this time so much different?
The whole logic of Bitcoin mining distribution is build on that price will increase with every halving for next 100 years, so eventually the price would be high enough that miners can live off the transactions fees.

With every halving, bigger marketcap coins become more stable and have more moderate bull-runs (on logarithmic scale). Altcoins that are still alive and are ready for next bull-run, win the most from it. That's why it's important to keep building while it's bear market.

[D3m0nKinGx]

Any ETA for updating the Branding of the wallet ?

[rendravolt]

Isn't this a thread byteball? since when rebranding to Destination? I don't know the specific information about this, if anyone knows, give me the information link.
Thanks.

[maximumcoin]

Isn't this a thread byteball? since when rebranding to Destination? I don't know the specific information about this, if anyone knows, give me the information link.
Thanks.

Byteball rebranded to Obyte around one month ago.
I am not sure exact day of the rebranding process, but you can spend a couple of mins to check it yourself by scanning previous pages.
New avatar of the project looks simpler than the avatar of former Byteball.

[jhenfelipe]

Isn't this a thread byteball? since when rebranding to Destination? I don't know the specific information about this, if anyone knows, give me the information link.
Thanks.

It was announced last January 17. You can see a detailed explanation in their Medium post about the rebranding:
https://medium.com/obyte/byteball-rebrand-the-next-step-to-real-world-adoption-6a0a924390de

[tarmo888]

Any ETA for updating the Branding of the wallet ?

Rebranding of the wallet is done in source code, will be released with new version.

[Ample_Fire]

Fairly nice discussion here, perhaps we can all do this on Reddit?

Also, Obyte founder discusses more on Reddit. Not Bitcointalk.

https://www.reddit.com/r/obyte

[fuk]

because of halving

halving does not reduce the number of coins in circulation, but only reduces the printing of new ones.
328500 btc will not be mined annually next years after this halving or less than 1.9% of the supply in circulation. It is unlikely that this is enough to change anything other than a hashrate.
besides that a shit show can't last forever. It possible that it was the last cycle for useless altcoins.

1. So, do you think that miners will start selling BTC without profit? Or they start selling their previously earned profit at lower value?
2. Like you said, it reduces the printing of the new ones. And who is getting the new ones? Miners.
This means miners need to ask twice as much for BTC than they ask now and half as much new coins enter the market as before. They are not getting magically 2 times more powerful ASICs, that's for sure.
3. Bitcoin price has increased in anticipation of halving previous times, so you are saying that this time it won't do that anymore? How is this time so much different?
4. The whole logic of Bitcoin mining distribution is build on that price will increase with every halving for next 100 years,
5. so eventually the price would be high enough that miners can live off the transactions fees.

1. Retail miners will not mining BTC in loss for a long time and will shut down their farms. Big farms may do it some time and don't sell BTC in loss, but after all they become bankrupt. You can google these stories.
2. The price is formed not only by miners. The share of new generated coins is below 0.9%. This is a consensus between all sellers and buyers. If miners do not sell at the market price, they will not receive fiat and will not be able to pay bills. They will have to close the farms, mining difficulty will decreasing until reaches the break-even point.
3.
- Correlation does not imply causation
- Historical events are a reflection of the past and not a forecast of the future
- Past performance is no guarantee of future results
- for any conclusions you need a sample of 1000 halvings at least. You make conclusions with sample of 1 halving.
I ddn't say it won't or it will. That's you speak as if you came to us from the future. I am only pointing out flaws in your story. And actually this time is different. Capitalization has increased significantly. Bandwidth has reached the limit (I mean that now it is not just a story of haters).
4. The whole logic of Bitcoin mining distribution is not the law. It can work just as well as not work.
5. Do you mean if BTC will cost $100mm now, it will be fine to pay $1k fees? . The whole logic of Bitcoin mining was fair distribution of coins and network protection. I doubt that the idea was to subsidize miners at the expense of buyers. You can find Satoshi's posts on this forum and read everything yourself. The fact is that 1mb block size was a temporary solution to a problem called spam. Initially there were no block size limit. It is logical to assume that under such conditions miners would live at the expense of volume (volume of transactions) and not at the expense of high fees or subsidies. But again, now it become political. So read yourself, in any case it is interesting to find out how it all began.

[tarmo888]

1. So, do you think that miners will start selling BTC without profit? Or they start selling their previously earned profit at lower value?
2. Like you said, it reduces the printing of the new ones. And who is getting the new ones? Miners.
This means miners need to ask twice as much for BTC than they ask now and half as much new coins enter the market as before. They are not getting magically 2 times more powerful ASICs, that's for sure.
3. Bitcoin price has increased in anticipation of halving previous times, so you are saying that this time it won't do that anymore? How is this time so much different?
4. The whole logic of Bitcoin mining distribution is build on that price will increase with every halving for next 100 years,
5. so eventually the price would be high enough that miners can live off the transactions fees.

1. Retail miners will not mining BTC in loss for a long time and will shut down their farms. Big farms may do it some time and don't sell BTC in loss, but after all they become bankrupt. You can google these stories.
2. The price is formed not only by miners. The share of new generated coins is below 0.9%. This is a consensus between all sellers and buyers. If miners do not sell at the market price, they will not receive fiat and will not be able to pay bills. They will have to close the farms, mining difficulty will decreasing until reaches the break-even point.
3.
- Correlation does not imply causation
- Historical events are a reflection of the past and not a forecast of the future
- Past performance is no guarantee of future results
- for any conclusions you need a sample of 1000 halvings at least. You make conclusions with sample of 1 halving.
I ddn't say it won't or it will. That's you speak as if you came to us from the future. I am only pointing out flaws in your story. And actually this time is different. Capitalization has increased significantly. Bandwidth has reached the limit (I mean that now it is not just a story of haters).
4. The whole logic of Bitcoin mining distribution is not the law. It can work just as well as not work.
5. Do you mean if BTC will cost $100mm now, it will be fine to pay $1k fees? . The whole logic of Bitcoin mining was fair distribution of coins and network protection. I doubt that the idea was to subsidize miners at the expense of buyers. You can find Satoshi's posts on this forum and read everything yourself. The fact is that 1mb block size was a temporary solution to a problem called spam. Initially there were no block size limit. It is logical to assume that under such conditions miners would live at the expense of volume (volume of transactions) and not at the expense of high fees or subsidies. But again, now it become political. So read yourself, in any case it is interesting to find out how it all began.

1. Who is going to mine Bitcoin then? So, you predict that instead of price at least doubling, hashrate will half instead? When has that happened before?
3. There has been more than one halving before and this time it is not different, just like it wasn't different last time. That whole "this time it's different" logic is also why people get burned with bull-runs because they think that this time it won't crash, it will crash again and again.
Historical data can't predict the future for stock, but you can't also ignore it. Because of the distribution, Bitcoin cycles are not so much like stocks.
Bandwidth hit the limit during the bull-run and fees were high, it's not a problem right now. Lightning will make it less an issue during next bull-run.
5. Why $1k fees now? The reward is just halving, not divided by 10. It has 100 years to go in order to replace the rewards with transaction fees. During that time, 1mb block size can be increased as well. Also, because of SegWit, more improvements on how many transactions can be fit into same size block will be done, so both of these will mean that there will be unpredictable amount of transactions on mainnet in 100 years.

I wasn't into Bitcoin in the beginning. To be honest, I even thought that XRP made more sense, but having invested half of my time as developer in this space during last 1.5 years, I have found that somebody who likes altcoin like Obyte, which has found a different solution to problems that Bitcoin has, hating whatever is TOP3 is kind of stupid. More better TOP3 does, the more chances Obyte also has.

I don't mind anymore (but I am glad it has stopped) that over 50% of bytes were airdropped to BTC holders because without BTC, there wouldn't probably be Obyte.

[fuk]

1. So, do you think that miners will start selling BTC without profit? Or they start selling their previously earned profit at lower value?
2. Like you said, it reduces the printing of the new ones. And who is getting the new ones? Miners.
This means miners need to ask twice as much for BTC than they ask now and half as much new coins enter the market as before. They are not getting magically 2 times more powerful ASICs, that's for sure.
3. Bitcoin price has increased in anticipation of halving previous times, so you are saying that this time it won't do that anymore? How is this time so much different?
4. The whole logic of Bitcoin mining distribution is build on that price will increase with every halving for next 100 years,
5. so eventually the price would be high enough that miners can live off the transactions fees.

1. Retail miners will not mining BTC in loss for a long time and will shut down their farms. Big farms may do it some time and don't sell BTC in loss, but after all they become bankrupt. You can google these stories.
2. The price is formed not only by miners. The share of new generated coins is below 0.9%. This is a consensus between all sellers and buyers. If miners do not sell at the market price, they will not receive fiat and will not be able to pay bills. They will have to close the farms, mining difficulty will decreasing until reaches the break-even point.
3.
- Correlation does not imply causation
- Historical events are a reflection of the past and not a forecast of the future
- Past performance is no guarantee of future results
- for any conclusions you need a sample of 1000 halvings at least. You make conclusions with sample of 1 halving.
I ddn't say it won't or it will. That's you speak as if you came to us from the future. I am only pointing out flaws in your story. And actually this time is different. Capitalization has increased significantly. Bandwidth has reached the limit (I mean that now it is not just a story of haters).
4. The whole logic of Bitcoin mining distribution is not the law. It can work just as well as not work.
5. Do you mean if BTC will cost $100mm now, it will be fine to pay $1k fees? . The whole logic of Bitcoin mining was fair distribution of coins and network protection. I doubt that the idea was to subsidize miners at the expense of buyers. You can find Satoshi's posts on this forum and read everything yourself. The fact is that 1mb block size was a temporary solution to a problem called spam. Initially there were no block size limit. It is logical to assume that under such conditions miners would live at the expense of volume (volume of transactions) and not at the expense of high fees or subsidies. But again, now it become political. So read yourself, in any case it is interesting to find out how it all began.

1. Who is going to mine Bitcoin then? So, you predict that instead of price at least doubling, hashrate will half instead? When has that happened before?
3. There has been more than one halving before and this time it is not different, just like it wasn't different last time. That whole "this time it's different" logic is also why people get burned with bull-runs because they think that this time it won't crash, it will crash again and again.
Historical data can't predict the future for stock, but you can't also ignore it. Because of the distribution, Bitcoin cycles are not so much like stocks.
Bandwidth hit the limit during the bull-run and fees were high, it's not a problem right now. Lightning will make it less an issue during next bull-run.
5. Why $1k fees now? The reward is just halving, not divided by 10. It has 100 years to go in order to replace the rewards with transaction fees. During that time, 1mb block size can be increased as well. Also, because of SegWit, more improvements on how many transactions can be fit into same size block will be done, so both of these will mean that there will be unpredictable amount of transactions on mainnet in 100 years.

I wasn't into Bitcoin in the beginning. To be honest, I even thought that XRP made more sense, but having invested half of my time as developer in this space during last 1.5 years, I have found that somebody who likes altcoin like Obyte, which has found a different solution to problems that Bitcoin has, hating whatever is TOP3 is kind of stupid. More better TOP3 does, the more chances Obyte also has.

I don't mind anymore (but I am glad it has stopped) that over 50% of bytes were airdropped to BTC holders because without BTC, there wouldn't probably be Obyte.

1. Different miners have different economic costs. There are miners who will stop mining at $3k, while others will still be fine at $2k. I'm predict nothing. Price can go up, price can go down, price can stay the same. I don't know lol. The same for hashrate. Predict something can people who own necessary information. Like how many farms will be off at X price. The same applies to the price, if you have information about cash flows and plans of billionaires, then perhaps you can predict the price movement.
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/hash-rate?timespan=all you can see correlation of hashrate with BTC price
3. This time is different. Capitalization has increased significantly. Bandwidth has reached the limit. That means we know that Bitcoin is unusable in big scale. You expect a big scale when you think about the next bull run, because you need really much money to push this cap even higher. In the end, it doesn't even matter. A sample of two interactions has no value. Throwing a coin twice and seeing two times one side, you will not say that the coin has no other side or that you can to predict the future. You look like an avid casino visitor who, seeing 5 times red in a row, puts everything on black
 Lightning is in beta on very early stages, there nothing to talk about.
5. Because there no difference now or in 2125. If you ignore usd inflation, people will find $1k fees per tx unusable at any BTC price and any point of time. Replacing the subsidy with transaction fees is possible only if the volume of onchain transactions is increased. Bitcoin community seems strongly reject it. Speculation about their future behavior make no sense.
Do not know what you want to bring here with SegWit. Segwit is a malleability fix mainly. As a side effect, we got an ineffective increase of the block. SegWit reduces transaction size, so miners can put more transactions in the block. While the amount of data moving through the network remains the same. Roughly we got x2 transactions in the 1mb block, but also we got x4 to the amount of data moving through the network. So it would be better to have 4mb blocks with x4 transactions instead. But again SegWit had other goals.
Honestly i think Obyte is a step backward compared to Bitcoin. You may disagree, i'd recommend to read early Bitcoin posts. People tried to escape from Obyte model in 2010, now it's called crypto 3.0 though lol

[tarmo888]

1. Different miners have different economic costs. There are miners who will start working at a loss at $4k, while others will still be fine at $2k. I'm predict nothing. Price can go up, price can go down, price can stay the same. I don't know lol. The same for hashrate. Predict something can people who own necessary information. Like how many farms will be off at X price. The same applies to the price, if you have information about cash flows and plans of billionaires, then perhaps you can predict the price movement.
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/hash-rate?timespan=all you can see correlation of hashrate with BTC price
3. This time is different. Capitalization has increased significantly. Bandwidth has reached the limit. That means we know that Bitcoin is unusable in big scale. You expect a big scale when you think about the next bull run, because you need really much money to push this cap even higher. In the end, it doesn't even matter. A sample of two interactions has no value. Lightning is in beta on very early stages, there nothing to talk about.
5. Because there no difference now or in 2125. If you ignore usd inflation, people will find $1k fees per tx unusable at any BTC price and any year. Replacing the subsidy with transaction fees is possible only if the volume of onchain transactions is increased. Bitcoin community seems strongly reject it. Speculation about their future behavior make no sense. What you want to bring here with SegWit? Segwit is a malleability fix mainly. As a side effect, we got an ineffective increase of the block. SegWit reduces transaction size, so miners can put more transactions in the block. While the amount of data moving through the network remains the same. Roughly we got x2 transactions in the 1mb block, but also we got x4 to the amount of data moving through the network. So it would be better to have 4mb blocks with x4 transactions instead. But again SegWit had other goals.
Honestly i think Obyte is a step backward compared to Bitcoin. You may disagree, i'd recommend to read early Bitcoin posts. People tried to escape from Obyte model in 2010, now it's called crypto 3.0 though lol

1) Like I said, don't see the hashrate drop even half linear or logarithmic scale, there was quite a drop in December, but nothing special. If the hashrate doesn't drop half, then the price needs to double. One or the other.
5) There will be a huge difference during next 100 years, SegWit will make the use of space in a block more efficient, bigger block will allow more transaction throughput, bigger harddrives allow bigger blocks and faster internet need to be accounted into future projections too, Lightning network will take a lot of load off the mainnet too. SHA256 is not forever, 1mb block size is also not forever (if i am not mistaken, can be done with soft-fork). It seems that you think that Bitcoin stays the same for next 100 years.

Bitcoin has never had Obyte model, if you don't get that, it is you who needs to read the whitepaper. So, how did they tried to escape something that wasn't there in 2010?

[Ample_Fire]

Interesting discussion here. 

Can someone here start this chat on Reddit, too? 

https://www.reddit.com/r/obyte

[provenceday]

this is pretty one of the most innovative coin.

[Ample_Fire]

this is pretty one of the most innovative coin.

Yes, however, the Obyte team and community seldom bother with this crappy thread. Full of signature spam.
Go to Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/obyte

[Thul]

The main Obyte hub is currently not available. The admin has been notified and it will be back online shortly. You can use one of the other hubs currently available from this list: https://wiki.obyte.org/Hub#List_of_hubs

Central witnesses, central hubs.
A decentralized currency that cannot be attacked looks different.

Sorry, but nobody really needs that.

[bitpotter]

Still saving some of these coins for a very long time, since its name byteball and now becoming an obyte I still add to the supply little by little, I'm sure the price will reach a very high point later, of course for 2019 I don't think it's time to go.

[tarmo888]

The main Obyte hub is currently not available. The admin has been notified and it will be back online shortly. You can use one of the other hubs currently available from this list: https://wiki.obyte.org/Hub#List_of_hubs

Central witnesses, central hubs.
A decentralized currency that cannot be attacked looks different.

Sorry, but nobody really needs that.

Why are you so butthurt, is it because nobody wants to implement your ideas? Your FUD is not even accurate. If the Hub is down, you replace the Hub, that's why there are multiple Hubs available. If you build your own wallet app on Obyte and don't want to be affected by the availability of the main Hub, then you host your own Hub. That is not centralized.

Witness decentralization is in process and there was just lately news that new witness candidates will be announced soon. https://twitter.com/ObyteOrg/status/1095977601271820288
Witnesses are behind TOR so they are not vulnerable to DDoS, but you don't know that because you just like to FUD without actually learning how things work. Apparently, you don't even understand the difference between the hub and witnesses.

Maybe, if you would not shit-talk a coin that you want it to implement your idea, maybe you would find more like-minded people who take you seriously.

[Thul]

Still saving some of these coins for a very long time, since its name byteball and now becoming an obyte I still add to the supply little by little, I'm sure the price will reach a very high point later, of course for 2019 I don't think it's time to go.

That's to be hoped.
As soon as that's the case, I'll sell the shit.

[Thul]

Witness decentralization is in process and there was just lately news that new witness candidates will be announced soon. https://twitter.com/ObyteOrg/status/1095977601271820288
Witnesses are behind TOR so they are not vulnerable to DDoS, but you don't know that because you just like to FUD without actually learning how things work. Apparently, you don't even understand the difference between the hub and witnesses.

The witnesses are not anonymous, they are tangible by name and thus also their technique.