Topic: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments - page 701. (Read 1234286 times)

You probably didn't believe me. This will happen once I get more time, odds of this happening within next 30 days is 90%.

Such an event already happened on the network, isnt anyone else looking at the db/network? It was too expensive, as expected, and costs would increase to maintain the attack for longer. Nobody even noticed "the attack".

Read the whitepaper, witnesses cant be replaced just by flooding.

Its similar to CfBs, "hurr durr Im gonna flood your db with messages hurr".

This is definetly an issue to be cleared,

bytes on bytes on bytes on bytes

That's what I think. And the main chain will follow the 'fork' because of the number of units inside (and then the honestly posted units - with good witnesses - will no longer be selected on the subsequent main chain)

byte holders have always been getting more

This means that byte holders will get much more than BTC holders from now on.

BTC holders stay in the game, the distribution for byte holders has doubled indeed (quote from byteball.org): "In the 6th round, which is scheduled for the full moon of June (June 9, 2017 at 13:10 UTC), we'll distribute 62.5 MB for each 1 BTC of linked balance and 0.2 new byte for each 1 byte you already hold"

What does this mean the distribution for Bitcoin holders is going to have an end ? I didn't even take my share yet as next distribution will be my first time receiving. I can hope it is not late to join the distribution. Do you mean there is not left much to distribute then it is all fine for me.

With social engineering (sockpuppeting on BTT, for example) "everybody" will be changed to "some".

Others Byteball users won't reference their units to the attackers's unit because the witnesses are too much differents. All the attacker will do is to create is own byteball network fork that everybody will ignore.

Taking control the Byteball network with 10 USD a day ?

I have read the byteball white paper and I find this new concept really promising, in particular insofar as byteball does not need millions of asics processors running 24/24 to ensure network stability.

However I am wondering about its global stability strength.

I see on byteball.fr stats that witnesses post around 5000 units per day to ensure the "reality strenght" of the network.

The minimal cost (header + payload commission) of posting a unit is 501 bytes.

So, at the current byteball GB price on exchange markets, posting 5000 units costs 0,5 USD.

It seems that an attacker, bringing with him his own witnesses, could easily (with a budget of, say, less than 10 USD a day) completely flood the network and eject the current honest witnesses.

Will the "near conformity rule" prevent from such a take over ?

As far as I understand the rule, attacker can modify the witness list incrementally (one by one) so it will just take 12 units on the main chain to make the complete switch toward his bad witnesses list.

He could then impose his own "vision of reality", allowing double spend and so on...

I add that the required budget would actually be *even lower* as the attacker would get back most of the header and payload fees.

Did I misunderstand something or is it just a weakness of youth ?

Just relax people, the rest of the distribution is for bytes holders, not much for BTC holders.

IMO Tony has a solid distribution scheme going on here. There's zero room for interpretation; x btc will grant you y bytes. Simple to understand and equal for everyone.

Less complexity = less room to question the fairness.
 
With your idea for example, while perhaps logical, people would first complain about Tony changing his mind. Changing conditions in the middle of the distribution is never optimal and easily leads to resentment. People would be annoyed that all of sudden you'd have to start splitting up your BTC to get as much as before. Also since it's not an actually hinderance but rather an extra layer of inconvenience it'll be viewed as just that. People would also call out the the move for being unfair; they'll say they didn't have time to do the splits, that they forgot or that they missed the sudden rule change. Tony would have a hard time motivating this decision when people come to him or post in this topic complaining. It'd be quite unnecessary for him to get heat over such a minor tweak in the system.

IMO the only way Tony could have minimized the gap between the ultra rich and the rest would have been to scan the blockchain ONCE. Then we at least wouldn't have the compounded interest issue. But then not nearly enough people would be able to participate. Perhaps only a fraction of the current user base. And one of the strengths of BB will be the size of the community. In fact one of the most interesting and successful crypto projects I've seen (and actually been a part of myself), NEM, started out by giving 2-3k people free stakes. Everyone including myself thought people would just dump everything since the stakes were free (or at most costed very very little for late participants). Well many did dump along the way but since so many participated a very strong and long lasting community was formed.

In the end I think the benefits of forming a large community will overweigh any issue people currently have over the distribution gaps.

it might be instantly or can be late too.

A spend proof is posted to Byteball, a hash, this prevents double spends of blackbytes.

On this point you are right, I agree. But on the other side there's the argument that the smartest people getting more coins doesn't sound too bad all things considered . Moreover, if the progressive decrease of the airdrop is very smooth, with 10 BTC in one address you wouldn't lose much, so that the Newbie could afford dismissing this complication entirely. But people with hundreds or thousands of BTCs are not newbies, and they being already very rich, many of them wouldn't probably go through the hassle of ditributing their BTCs on many addresses to get more Gigabytes. But I agree on your point that unnecessary complications should usually be avoided. So now on the theme I have conflicting opinions myself, the issue remains open to debate.

No, your idea would make it x10 more complex. Just imagine that you are newbie with 10 BTC and going into random altcoin thread (Byteball) and see: "you need to link your BTC address to get Bytes, go to transition bot bla bla bla (this process alone is too complicated for 90% of users), BUT if you want to receive more coins, you would need to split your BTC into 10 wallets and THEN you will get more". That's just shady. We don't need that.

Don't worry, Tony already has thought of this and I support his plan. Tony will distribute 1% of all bytes in the end between all people who bother to download the wallet. This is even better marketing than including altcoins in the equation. This will potentially introduce fresh new people to ByteBall not just altcoin pumpers.

Bspus has put an interesting question here, but I didn't see any reply yet.