Topic: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments - page 801. (Read 1234271 times)

next round distribution is soon I guess...

He hasn't answered yet. You lie, as usual.

He answered you already. Several times.

By the way, your IOTA-scam still sucks, very shameful project, its implementation is weak and concept is retarded. Proof-of-Work in IoT space is beyond retardation, only a simple narrow-mind could have thought that scam would fly. Your IOTA project has a "consensus by developer keeping a database of everyones balances", has only censored forums, and is a failed scam.

Let's wait for tonych answer and see if the pictures are useless or not.

Personally, I am ready to place trust in community members.

EDIT: Again the CfBs fear strikes, now reposting same useless pictures. Pathetic.

If so - Sorry for the misinformation  . I do not have a Coinbase account and can not test it.
I will edit my posting.
Thanks for the information. 

Ok, what about the other issues above?

It looks nice but won't happen.  Odrak explained this above by quoting the whitepaper:


which means that such units will not be on the main chain but they still get descendants and get confirmed.

The following wasn't trolling:

---

Bloating issue

---

Scalability issue

---

And now fragmentation issue described few pages back

---

Someone should start giving real answers instead of accusations in trolling...

I am a volunteer to set up and run a witness. Would you replace one of your witnesses by mine in the default list at least until we get some well reputed "captain of industry" to replace me ?

That means : are you socialy ready to start release hands on witnesses ?

Can someone please point me on how-to run a byteball explorer ?

Already downloaded  byteball-explorer from github and explorer.js is well running in the background.

Need now an index.xxx to fire up the explorer website in my ngnix virtual host.

Thanks

I was telling people truth and nobody was listening. If u dive deeper into entrails of marxian economy and how it applies to real-world distribution of power u will find similarities with how crypto works and that knowledge will help u understand how the one can inspect mechanisms of crypto economic development and find out to what degree sociality of man has deteriorated.

Replacing witnesses is a social question, its not inbuilt into the protocol to select/pick witnesses, they have to be picked by the users of the system, or if each user doesnt care, then the default hub byteball.org or other hubs can do the choice on behalf of the user.

Its really a design inspired by biology, organic user action is required.

So far only the XSS-finder portabelle has a witness running and it looks like some have selected to use it. Exactly as envisioned.

I haven't dove deep into the technicals of this coin, but from what I understand currently all 12 witnesses are controlled by tonych, so at this point an attack is possible if tonych becomes malicious or if he is coerced into doing something. To me, it's not clear how the transition from one person controlling all 12 witnesses to having them be distributed is likely or possible to occur - it would require active intervention on behalf of (almost) everyone making txs on the network, right? Most people don't care about stuff like this, especially if this doesn't happen early - the more users the higher proportion of them will be casual users who don't care about technical stuff like this.

He has not been right one time in this entire thread, just an IOTA troll.

The network is a separate layer from the witnessing, but if you mean the progression of transactions, or that its actually usable, lets go with that.  Each user can change 1 witness and witnessing goes on as usual, it doesnt affect how the DAG looks like at all. Its the majority of witnesses which matters, as long as a majority exists, even if several witnesses are replaced with many many other, and only 6 remain, it all still works.

The other question, but a user replaces all or 2 witnesses with his own, has been answered, those are invalid transactions. An attack on Byteball is possible only if already existing witnesses collude and conspire.

As you see, it is a very genius concept, a major major invention by Byteball, so it is hard for simpler minds like CfBs to fully grasp it. But he does like to post pictures, look a few pages back when he tried to compare Byteballs DAG to Ethereum blockchain with pictures,  .

He hasnt even read the whitepaper, is just trolling and spreading FUD, every single one of his posts in this thread has been with intent to FUD.

Looks like Come-from-Beyond is right (?)

So end users should not be allowed to change more than 1 witness on the default list or they would be separated from the rest of the network. Obviously this sound too like a problem. Can we have some clarification here ?

I think the witnesses list  revealing who they are and why they are choosen must be published somewhere/ Now we have wallet that shows only their addresses taken from the hub nothing else.  How  anyone can    trust them  knowing nothing ?

If I get the whitepaper correctly then in the mentioned scenario (everyone picked themself as the new witness) we'll get the DAG looking like this:



There is a chance I've got the whitepaper wrong, of course. So far noone has explained what will happen.

Do I misunderstand or are you sprouting out bs scenarios?

The “near-conformity rule”: best parents must be selected only among those parents whose witness list differs from the child’s witness list by no more than one mutation. This rule ensures that witness lists of neighboring units on the MC are similar enough, therefore their histories mostly agree with one another. The parents whose witness list differs by 0 or 1 mutation will be called compatible (with the unit that includes them directly), while the others are incompatible. Incompatible parents are still permitted, but they have no chance of becoming best parent. If there are no compatible potential parents among childless units (an attacker could flood the network with his units that carry a radically different witness list), one should select parents from older units.

The above means that each unit must list its witnesses so that they can be compared. We require that the number of witnesses is exactly 12. This number 12 was selected because:
• it is sufficiently large to protect against the occasional failures of a few witnesses (they might prove dishonest, or be hacked, or go offline for a long time, or lose their private keys and go offline forever);
• it is sufficiently small that humans can keep track of all the witnesses to know who is who and change the list when necessary;
• the one allowed mutation is sufficiently small compared with the 11 unchanged witnesses. In case a user thinks that any of the witnesses has lost his credibility, or there are just better candidates, the user can replace the witness with a new witness in his list, bearing in mind that his witness list may not differ from that of other units by more than one position. This means that any changes can happen only gradually, and a general consensus is required for a change bigger than one position.

You lie again. Max TPS question has never been answered directly. "A few tens of pages" contain only attempts to evade answering this direct question.

EDIT: Oh, with that "few tens of pages" you have just evaded it again, you know that noone will go through 10s of pages.