Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments - page 1046.

valley365

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1003

Quote from: Seccour on December 10, 2016, 06:45:36 PM

We just need one big exchange such as Poloniex to do it and it will bring enough attention to Byteball. This + all the ICOs "whales" diluting each others byteball, we can have an equilibrium with our own funds as individuals.

Exchanges have their own things to worry about. To do this kind of distribution is a not-so-small task for them, and what do they get from it? So I don't think they will care unless they get a fee out of it.

Joint Force

hero member

Activity: 804

Merit: 500

DAO ↔ DApp

What's the projected % of total byeball coins each person would receive for setting up a node?

Seccour

legendary

Activity: 1619

Merit: 1004

Bitcoiner, Crypto-anarchist and Cypherpunk.

Quote from: animalroam on December 10, 2016, 06:05:52 PM

Quote from: Seccour on December 10, 2016, 05:38:34 PM

Quote from: animalroam on December 10, 2016, 05:35:54 PM

Quote from: kaicrypzen on December 10, 2016, 05:14:45 PM

Quote from: tonych on December 09, 2016, 02:18:13 PM

Quote from: kaicrypzen on December 09, 2016, 12:25:08 PM

Quote from: tonych on December 08, 2016, 05:33:47 PM

Quote from: kaicrypzen on December 08, 2016, 03:33:51 PM

Why would lowering the micropayment be riskier than with the current micropayments? (because they would be easily spotted?)

Because the attack would become cheaper, hence worthwhile.

mmmm, in my opinion the attack is already worthwhile, anyway such an attack won't succeed unless the attackee is not vigilant and doesn't double check their address (as the bot instructs them), so why not lower it if it permits to filter out exchanges addresses at the detection process (not requiring you to check suspect addresses)?

People do make mistakes, and having to be overly vigilant scares them off. I'd rather have a more comfortable environment for the entire process.
The attacker's ROI depends on 3 factors:
- % of people who do not check that the address is theirs after receiving a second notification "Received your payment from ..." (the attacker's microtransaction is almost certainly later than the legitimate one)
- average balance of such users
- cost of attacking, which is the average amount of the microtransaction
By lowering the cost, we turn the ROI at some point from negative to positive.

I see your point. If you are comfortable with filtering out exchanges addresses after adding them and then investigating them, then there is no need to lower the micropayment. Yet, I still think lowering it would easily filter any exchange address out as the transaction won't be possible to begin with. (and if I were an attacker, paying (n times) 0.000x instead of 0.0000x wouldn't hurt my ROI that much

).

I agree, but instead of manual filtering, maybe requiring signatures on an amount above X would be beneficial since it wouldn't be hurting anyone; those who are not good at technology usually own less Bitcoin. Plus, it would greatly reduce the effect of those who are putting in exchange/joint wallet addresses. That way, it would only exclude those who cheat the system.

Could we just ask big exchanges to claim and distribute their Byteball to their users ? Like Poloniex and others exchange did with Ardor distribution ?

Because really that would make everyone life easier and more people will be aware about Byteball.

I highly doubt all exchanges would agree to do that. Even the small exchanges have considerable amounts of BTC in their wallets.

We just need one big exchange such as Poloniex to do it and it will bring enough attention to Byteball. This + all the ICOs "whales" diluting each others byteball, we can have an equilibrium with our own funds as individuals.

tonych

legendary

Activity: 965

Merit: 1033

Quote from: Seccour on December 10, 2016, 05:38:34 PM

Could we just ask big exchanges to claim and distribute their Byteball to their users ? Like Poloniex and others exchange did with Ardor distribution ?

Because really that would make everyone life easier and more people will be aware about Byteball.

That would be ideal, but it's still hard to convince them they should care.

tonych

legendary

Activity: 965

Merit: 1033

Quote from: ICOcountdown.com on December 10, 2016, 05:37:12 PM

Quote from: Seccour on December 10, 2016, 05:33:51 PM

Quote from: spud21 on December 10, 2016, 05:09:30 PM

Quote from: ICOcountdown.com on December 10, 2016, 04:45:57 PM

Personally I would like there to be a vote if this address can be honoured, since I don't think it's beneficial to the network we are creating here. It seems more like they want more of a cash injection into there own project.

Ultimately I believe moves like this will damage our market and make it less liquid and more prone to damage in long term along with holding up a large portion of the network.

If you agree with these sentiments it is very important at this stage to make your voice known. Cool

I agree addresses containing funds from giant ICOs need excluding to prevent them damaging the byteball market. I searched for the lisk ICO Bitcoin address without luck. That ICO raised 14000 Bitcoins, and waves raised 29636 Bitcoins. If we could compile a list of Bitcoin addresses holding Bitcoins from all giant ICOs it would give the dev the option of easily excluding them all.

Does anyone have links to giant ICO Bitcoin funds addresses?

Censorship of some Bitcoin addresses will done more harm than good to Byteball. The Komodo team by saying that they will collect byteball just make a big promotion of Byteball to their community.

And there is still time until the distribution.

That is a fair comment with regard to marketing and promotion. However if continual market extraction occurs it could be very negative. I don't think there is a right answer in this case but I'm happy that other projects are getting involved.

Nobody here wants the network to be controlled by superwhales, neither do I. One strategy to avoid that is trying to shoot them, however I believe letting the whales dilute other whales would work better, because it would also make us bigger. I like ICO funds in particular, because, as Seccour says above, their participation is an endorsement, which is going to be heard by their communities. Synereo and BlockPay are going to participate too.

animalroam

legendary

Activity: 1073

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Seccour on December 10, 2016, 05:38:34 PM

Quote from: animalroam on December 10, 2016, 05:35:54 PM

Quote from: kaicrypzen on December 10, 2016, 05:14:45 PM

Quote from: tonych on December 09, 2016, 02:18:13 PM

Quote from: kaicrypzen on December 09, 2016, 12:25:08 PM

Quote from: tonych on December 08, 2016, 05:33:47 PM

Quote from: kaicrypzen on December 08, 2016, 03:33:51 PM

Why would lowering the micropayment be riskier than with the current micropayments? (because they would be easily spotted?)

Because the attack would become cheaper, hence worthwhile.

mmmm, in my opinion the attack is already worthwhile, anyway such an attack won't succeed unless the attackee is not vigilant and doesn't double check their address (as the bot instructs them), so why not lower it if it permits to filter out exchanges addresses at the detection process (not requiring you to check suspect addresses)?

People do make mistakes, and having to be overly vigilant scares them off. I'd rather have a more comfortable environment for the entire process.
The attacker's ROI depends on 3 factors:
- % of people who do not check that the address is theirs after receiving a second notification "Received your payment from ..." (the attacker's microtransaction is almost certainly later than the legitimate one)
- average balance of such users
- cost of attacking, which is the average amount of the microtransaction
By lowering the cost, we turn the ROI at some point from negative to positive.

I see your point. If you are comfortable with filtering out exchanges addresses after adding them and then investigating them, then there is no need to lower the micropayment. Yet, I still think lowering it would easily filter any exchange address out as the transaction won't be possible to begin with. (and if I were an attacker, paying (n times) 0.000x instead of 0.0000x wouldn't hurt my ROI that much

).

I agree, but instead of manual filtering, maybe requiring signatures on an amount above X would be beneficial since it wouldn't be hurting anyone; those who are not good at technology usually own less Bitcoin. Plus, it would greatly reduce the effect of those who are putting in exchange/joint wallet addresses. That way, it would only exclude those who cheat the system.

Could we just ask big exchanges to claim and distribute their Byteball to their users ? Like Poloniex and others exchange did with Ardor distribution ?

Because really that would make everyone life easier and more people will be aware about Byteball.

I highly doubt all exchanges would agree to do that. Even the small exchanges have considerable amounts of BTC in their wallets.

journeym@n

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

Quote from: tonych on December 10, 2016, 05:17:40 PM

Fair enough.
Now you can tell the bot your another BB address and then link the next Bitcoin address.
To force generation of a new BB address, exit the chat using "< Back" button in the topbar, then return to the chat.

Thank you

Seccour

legendary

Activity: 1619

Merit: 1004

Bitcoiner, Crypto-anarchist and Cypherpunk.

Quote from: animalroam on December 10, 2016, 05:35:54 PM

Quote from: kaicrypzen on December 10, 2016, 05:14:45 PM

Quote from: tonych on December 09, 2016, 02:18:13 PM

Quote from: kaicrypzen on December 09, 2016, 12:25:08 PM

Quote from: tonych on December 08, 2016, 05:33:47 PM

Quote from: kaicrypzen on December 08, 2016, 03:33:51 PM

Why would lowering the micropayment be riskier than with the current micropayments? (because they would be easily spotted?)

Because the attack would become cheaper, hence worthwhile.

mmmm, in my opinion the attack is already worthwhile, anyway such an attack won't succeed unless the attackee is not vigilant and doesn't double check their address (as the bot instructs them), so why not lower it if it permits to filter out exchanges addresses at the detection process (not requiring you to check suspect addresses)?

People do make mistakes, and having to be overly vigilant scares them off. I'd rather have a more comfortable environment for the entire process.
The attacker's ROI depends on 3 factors:
- % of people who do not check that the address is theirs after receiving a second notification "Received your payment from ..." (the attacker's microtransaction is almost certainly later than the legitimate one)
- average balance of such users
- cost of attacking, which is the average amount of the microtransaction
By lowering the cost, we turn the ROI at some point from negative to positive.

I see your point. If you are comfortable with filtering out exchanges addresses after adding them and then investigating them, then there is no need to lower the micropayment. Yet, I still think lowering it would easily filter any exchange address out as the transaction won't be possible to begin with. (and if I were an attacker, paying (n times) 0.000x instead of 0.0000x wouldn't hurt my ROI that much

).

I agree, but instead of manual filtering, maybe requiring signatures on an amount above X would be beneficial since it wouldn't be hurting anyone; those who are not good at technology usually own less Bitcoin. Plus, it would greatly reduce the effect of those who are putting in exchange/joint wallet addresses. That way, it would only exclude those who cheat the system.

Could we just ask big exchanges to claim and distribute their Byteball to their users ? Like Poloniex and others exchange did with Ardor distribution ?

Because really that would make everyone life easier and more people will be aware about Byteball.

ICOcountdown.com

hero member

Activity: 1008

Merit: 500

Quote from: Seccour on December 10, 2016, 05:33:51 PM

Quote from: spud21 on December 10, 2016, 05:09:30 PM

Quote from: ICOcountdown.com on December 10, 2016, 04:45:57 PM

Personally I would like there to be a vote if this address can be honoured, since I don't think it's beneficial to the network we are creating here. It seems more like they want more of a cash injection into there own project.

Ultimately I believe moves like this will damage our market and make it less liquid and more prone to damage in long term along with holding up a large portion of the network.

If you agree with these sentiments it is very important at this stage to make your voice known. Cool

I agree addresses containing funds from giant ICOs need excluding to prevent them damaging the byteball market. I searched for the lisk ICO Bitcoin address without luck. That ICO raised 14000 Bitcoins, and waves raised 29636 Bitcoins. If we could compile a list of Bitcoin addresses holding Bitcoins from all giant ICOs it would give the dev the option of easily excluding them all.

Does anyone have links to giant ICO Bitcoin funds addresses?

Censorship of some Bitcoin addresses will done more harm than good to Byteball. The Komodo team by saying that they will collect byteball just make a big promotion of Byteball to their community.

And there is still time until the distribution.

That is a fair comment with regard to marketing and promotion. However if continual market extraction occurs it could be very negative. I don't think there is a right answer in this case but I'm happy that other projects are getting involved.

animalroam

legendary

Activity: 1073

Merit: 1000

Quote from: kaicrypzen on December 10, 2016, 05:14:45 PM

Quote from: tonych on December 09, 2016, 02:18:13 PM

Quote from: kaicrypzen on December 09, 2016, 12:25:08 PM

Quote from: tonych on December 08, 2016, 05:33:47 PM

Quote from: kaicrypzen on December 08, 2016, 03:33:51 PM

Why would lowering the micropayment be riskier than with the current micropayments? (because they would be easily spotted?)

Because the attack would become cheaper, hence worthwhile.

mmmm, in my opinion the attack is already worthwhile, anyway such an attack won't succeed unless the attackee is not vigilant and doesn't double check their address (as the bot instructs them), so why not lower it if it permits to filter out exchanges addresses at the detection process (not requiring you to check suspect addresses)?

People do make mistakes, and having to be overly vigilant scares them off. I'd rather have a more comfortable environment for the entire process.
The attacker's ROI depends on 3 factors:
- % of people who do not check that the address is theirs after receiving a second notification "Received your payment from ..." (the attacker's microtransaction is almost certainly later than the legitimate one)
- average balance of such users
- cost of attacking, which is the average amount of the microtransaction
By lowering the cost, we turn the ROI at some point from negative to positive.

I see your point. If you are comfortable with filtering out exchanges addresses after adding them and then investigating them, then there is no need to lower the micropayment. Yet, I still think lowering it would easily filter any exchange address out as the transaction won't be possible to begin with. (and if I were an attacker, paying (n times) 0.000x instead of 0.0000x wouldn't hurt my ROI that much

).

I agree, but instead of manual filtering, maybe requiring signatures on an amount above X would be beneficial since it wouldn't be hurting anyone; those who are not good at technology usually own less Bitcoin. Plus, it would greatly reduce the effect of those who are putting in exchange/joint wallet addresses. That way, it would only exclude those who cheat the system.

Seccour

legendary

Activity: 1619

Merit: 1004

Bitcoiner, Crypto-anarchist and Cypherpunk.

Quote from: spud21 on December 10, 2016, 05:09:30 PM

Quote from: ICOcountdown.com on December 10, 2016, 04:45:57 PM

Personally I would like there to be a vote if this address can be honoured, since I don't think it's beneficial to the network we are creating here. It seems more like they want more of a cash injection into there own project.

Ultimately I believe moves like this will damage our market and make it less liquid and more prone to damage in long term along with holding up a large portion of the network.

If you agree with these sentiments it is very important at this stage to make your voice known. Cool

I agree addresses containing funds from giant ICOs need excluding to prevent them damaging the byteball market. I searched for the lisk ICO Bitcoin address without luck. That ICO raised 14000 Bitcoins, and waves raised 29636 Bitcoins. If we could compile a list of Bitcoin addresses holding Bitcoins from all giant ICOs it would give the dev the option of easily excluding them all.

Does anyone have links to giant ICO Bitcoin funds addresses?

Censorship of some Bitcoin addresses will done more harm than good to Byteball. The Komodo team by saying that they will collect byteball just make a big promotion of Byteball to their community.

And there is still time until the distribution.

devpol

sr. member

Activity: 416

Merit: 250

cek my pm sir

tonych

legendary

Activity: 965

Merit: 1033

Quote from: journeym@n on December 10, 2016, 11:13:49 AM

Quote from: tonych on December 10, 2016, 04:51:19 AM

Quote from: journeym@n on December 09, 2016, 08:34:58 PM

Is it possible to use different BB address for every BTC address? I tried generating new BB address and bot still asks to sign previous one.

Only if you link from different devices, e.g. desktop and Android.

Do you plan to enable this option? Some people have multiple addresses for a reason. It might be irrelevant at this point but BTC is hopefully here to stay. Addresses being tied by common BB address in your transition table do unnecessarily provide additional info to outside entities.

Fair enough.
Now you can tell the bot your another BB address and then link the next Bitcoin address.
To force generation of a new BB address, exit the chat using "< Back" button in the topbar, then return to the chat.

kaicrypzen

hero member

Activity: 1344

Merit: 656

Quote from: tonych on December 09, 2016, 02:18:13 PM

Quote from: kaicrypzen on December 09, 2016, 12:25:08 PM

Quote from: tonych on December 08, 2016, 05:33:47 PM

Quote from: kaicrypzen on December 08, 2016, 03:33:51 PM

Why would lowering the micropayment be riskier than with the current micropayments? (because they would be easily spotted?)

Because the attack would become cheaper, hence worthwhile.

mmmm, in my opinion the attack is already worthwhile, anyway such an attack won't succeed unless the attackee is not vigilant and doesn't double check their address (as the bot instructs them), so why not lower it if it permits to filter out exchanges addresses at the detection process (not requiring you to check suspect addresses)?

People do make mistakes, and having to be overly vigilant scares them off. I'd rather have a more comfortable environment for the entire process.
The attacker's ROI depends on 3 factors:
- % of people who do not check that the address is theirs after receiving a second notification "Received your payment from ..." (the attacker's microtransaction is almost certainly later than the legitimate one)
- average balance of such users
- cost of attacking, which is the average amount of the microtransaction
By lowering the cost, we turn the ROI at some point from negative to positive.

I see your point. If you are comfortable with filtering out exchanges addresses after adding them and then investigating them, then there is no need to lower the micropayment. Yet, I still think lowering it would easily filter any exchange address out as the transaction won't be possible to begin with. (and if I were an attacker, paying (n times) 0.000x instead of 0.0000x wouldn't hurt my ROI that much

).

spud21

sr. member

Activity: 342

Merit: 250

Quote from: ICOcountdown.com on December 10, 2016, 04:45:57 PM

Personally I would like there to be a vote if this address can be honoured, since I don't think it's beneficial to the network we are creating here. It seems more like they want more of a cash injection into there own project.

Ultimately I believe moves like this will damage our market and make it less liquid and more prone to damage in long term along with holding up a large portion of the network.

If you agree with these sentiments it is very important at this stage to make your voice known. Cool

I agree addresses containing funds from giant ICOs need excluding to prevent them damaging the byteball market. I searched for the lisk ICO Bitcoin address without luck. That ICO raised 14000 Bitcoins, and waves raised 29636 Bitcoins. If we could compile a list of Bitcoin addresses holding Bitcoins from all giant ICOs it would give the dev the option of easily excluding them all.

Does anyone have links to giant ICO Bitcoin funds addresses?

LiQio

legendary

Activity: 1181

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ICOcountdown.com on December 10, 2016, 04:45:57 PM

Personally I would like there to be a vote if this address can be honoured, since I don't think it's beneficial to the network we are creating here. It seems more like they want more of a cash injection into there own project.

Ultimately I believe moves like this will damage our market and make it less liquid and more prone to damage in long term along with holding up a large portion of the network.

If you agree with these sentiments it is very important at this stage to make your voice known. Cool

That's the risk that tonych wanted to take. It is an intrinsic (and as stated IMO deadly) risk of the distribution design.
Therefore no censorship.

ICOcountdown.com

hero member

Activity: 1008

Merit: 500

Personally I would like there to be a vote if this address can be honoured, since I don't think it's beneficial to the network we are creating here. It seems more like they want more of a cash injection into there own project.

Ultimately I believe moves like this will damage our market and make it less liquid and more prone to damage in long term along with holding up a large portion of the network.

If you agree with these sentiments it is very important at this stage to make your voice known. Cool

zanzibar

hero member

Activity: 715

Merit: 500

Quote from: Bimmerhead on December 10, 2016, 04:00:30 PM

Meaning? Komodo is claiming some bytes on Dec 25?

Yes, Komodo is another shit pump and dump by James, I'm sure he'll move on to something else before it's finished with it, like every project before. And he'll now own most of Byteball and yes, he'll dump it as soon as it's on exchanges so he can "fund" himself.

journeym@n

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

Quote from: Belligerent Fool on December 10, 2016, 04:11:45 PM

Quote from: mikhael on December 09, 2016, 07:38:27 PM

Quote from: valley365 on December 09, 2016, 07:06:24 PM

Quote from: tonych on December 09, 2016, 04:18:42 PM

Quote from: Bannedseller on December 09, 2016, 02:19:16 PM

Any rough statistics of how many users will be connecting their BTC to Bytball address?

http://transition.byteball.org/

looks like some big fishes linked their BTC. Do we have a count how much BTCs are already linked?

Currently there are 8706.44455897 BTC that you can find on top of the statistic page.

I was originally going to link my Bitcoin address to get some Byteballs but after looking at the website that you postsed in regards to how many Bitcoin is linked and how many per address it seems very much unviable for little everyday joes which most of us are, there is one user with 2578.76557524 BTC Linked to his Byteball address..... Seems like whales already control this coin before release.

As long as a single bitcoin (of all that currently exist) is not included in this initial distribution, we are all undoubtedly advantaged despite how many BTC we have. And in reality, >95% of BTC holders will not take part in this initial distribution. Thus, I do not fully understand your reasoning.

BTW, that 2xxx BTC account is some sort of joint account.. Komodo related, whatever that is.. I was absent for too long

Belligerent Fool

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: mikhael on December 09, 2016, 07:38:27 PM

Quote from: valley365 on December 09, 2016, 07:06:24 PM

Quote from: tonych on December 09, 2016, 04:18:42 PM

Quote from: Bannedseller on December 09, 2016, 02:19:16 PM

Any rough statistics of how many users will be connecting their BTC to Bytball address?

http://transition.byteball.org/

looks like some big fishes linked their BTC. Do we have a count how much BTCs are already linked?

Currently there are 8706.44455897 BTC that you can find on top of the statistic page.

I was originally going to link my Bitcoin address to get some Byteballs but after looking at the website that you postsed in regards to how many Bitcoin is linked and how many per address it seems very much unviable for little everyday joes which most of us are, there is one user with 2578.76557524 BTC Linked to his Byteball address..... Seems like whales already control this coin before release.

Topic: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments - page 1046. (Read 1234271 times)