I don't think ComeFromBeyond is schizophreniac, even if, from my point of view, he is indirectly helping too much the byteball dev by pointing its flaws.
Topic: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments - page 820. (Read 1234271 times)
March 22, 2017, 05:43:36 AM
March 22, 2017, 04:25:56 AM
They are both the same person. Didn't you notice that they are always here at the same time talking to each other? If they were different people than you would see some posts from one without an immediate answer from the other. You can see the same pattern nearly every day:
i agree with you.
i have the same feeling.
March 22, 2017, 03:47:30 AM
It is normal that there is no consensus (yet) about the unstable trailing part.
If we denote the interval of time between a transaction issuance and the transaction finalization (by witnesses) as confirmation time, does an average confirmation time increase monotonically if the global TPS rate increases monotonically?
PS: "Yes" would mean that SatoNatomato was wrong that DAG has no limits on scaling even if we have superpowerful hardware (but the latency still persists).
March 21, 2017, 07:19:56 PM
its really getting boring guys.
I invite you both to a beer, if you discuss this in person...
I invite you both to a beer, if you discuss this in person...
Sorry, having superhuman patience (professional deformation of all low-level coders) I don't feel when it's the right moment to stop. I guess it's now.
Debate is healthy, competition is healthy, why stop? Only problem is cfb was moderating iota thread, which looks like dble standard.
Arguments is way better than mindless speculation of price and moon talk.
discussion is healthy if its about technology, but not if the topic is only argumentless good and bad discussion which can also be called trolling ...
Agreed, discussion needs to be about the tech, and not personal. If both sides are trying to find weaknesses in the others project (even if just to win in their ego war) it serves a good purpose. These two guys are mostly using tech discussion in their battle, and it doesn't matter to iota and BB investors what their motivations for wanting to destroy the other guys position, just that weaknesses are discovered, and tech gets better and more robust.
March 21, 2017, 06:56:29 PM
its really getting boring guys.
I invite you both to a beer, if you discuss this in person...
I invite you both to a beer, if you discuss this in person...
Sorry, having superhuman patience (professional deformation of all low-level coders) I don't feel when it's the right moment to stop. I guess it's now.
Debate is healthy, competition is healthy, why stop? Only problem is cfb was moderating iota thread, which looks like dble standard.
Arguments is way better than mindless speculation of price and moon talk.
discussion is healthy if its about technology, but not if the topic is only argumentless good and bad discussion which can also be called trolling ...
March 21, 2017, 06:35:52 PM
Unless you put all 12 witnesses on a single machine you have to deal with the following situation:
Blue balls are picked by 4 witnesses as the main chain, green balls are picked by other 4 witnesses and there is another version picked by the remaining witnesses (it's not shown to emphasize that noone can have a complete view of the DAG). Under high load every witness will pick its own main chain because none of them will see the whole DAG. The chance of that is high because
Blue balls are picked by 4 witnesses as the main chain, green balls are picked by other 4 witnesses and there is another version picked by the remaining witnesses (it's not shown to emphasize that noone can have a complete view of the DAG). Under high load every witness will pick its own main chain because none of them will see the whole DAG. The chance of that is high because
Quote
In normal use, people mostly link their new units to slightly less recent units, meaning that the DAG grows only in one direction.
is not true in high load, the DAG becomes very wide.Adding to the bolded part above, every node will pick its own main chain (witnesses are no special). You are demonstrating the simple fact that under high throughput and wide DAG, different nodes have different views of the world, hence build different MCs, and that the trailing part of the MC is constantly rebuilt as new units arrive. However, the algorithm that they use to build the MC guarantees that the portion of the MC that is older than certain point (stability point) is never rebuilt, it is stable. It is normal that there is no consensus (yet) about the unstable trailing part.
Sorry, didn't bother to read the actual article. Try https://www.infoq.com/articles/cap-twelve-years-later-how-the-rules-have-changed:
Quote
In its classic interpretation, the CAP theorem ignores latency, although in practice, latency and partitions are deeply related. Operationally, the essence of CAP takes place during a timeout, a period when the program must make a fundamental decision-the partition decision:
cancel the operation and thus decrease availability, or
proceed with the operation and thus risk inconsistency.
cancel the operation and thus decrease availability, or
proceed with the operation and thus risk inconsistency.
Quoting from the whitepaper:
Quote
15. Partitioning risk
The network of Byteball nodes can never be partitioned into two parts that would both continue operating without noticing. Even in the event of a global network disruption such as a sub-Atlantic rat cutting the cable that connects Europe and America, at least one of the sides of the split will notice that it has lost the majority of witnesses, meaning that it can’t advance the stability point, and nobody can spend outputs stuck in the unstable part of the MC. Even if someone tries to send a double-spend, it will remain unstable (and therefore unrecognized) until the connection is restored. The other part of the split where the majority of witnesses happens to be, will continue as normal.
The network of Byteball nodes can never be partitioned into two parts that would both continue operating without noticing. Even in the event of a global network disruption such as a sub-Atlantic rat cutting the cable that connects Europe and America, at least one of the sides of the split will notice that it has lost the majority of witnesses, meaning that it can’t advance the stability point, and nobody can spend outputs stuck in the unstable part of the MC. Even if someone tries to send a double-spend, it will remain unstable (and therefore unrecognized) until the connection is restored. The other part of the split where the majority of witnesses happens to be, will continue as normal.
In other words, in the minority partition, confirmations will just stop before the connection is restored.
March 21, 2017, 06:29:40 PM
its really getting boring guys.
I invite you both to a beer, if you discuss this in person...
I invite you both to a beer, if you discuss this in person...
Sorry, having superhuman patience (professional deformation of all low-level coders) I don't feel when it's the right moment to stop. I guess it's now.
Debate is healthy, competition is healthy, why stop? Only problem is cfb was moderating iota thread, which looks like dble standard.
Arguments is way better than mindless speculation of price and moon talk.
March 21, 2017, 05:30:51 PM
As has been done in the Ubiq thread, it is possible to effectively ban users from posting in your thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1763606.1580
Just sayin'.
Seriously though, you guy(s?) should have chosen another means of discussion weeks ago. This is getting tedious.
I am the brown monkey in the picture.https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1763606.1580
Just sayin'.
Seriously though, you guy(s?) should have chosen another means of discussion weeks ago. This is getting tedious.
March 21, 2017, 03:51:30 PM
As has been done in the Ubiq thread, it is possible to effectively ban users from posting in your thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1763606.1580
Just sayin'.
Seriously though, you guy(s?) should have chosen another means of discussion weeks ago. This is getting tedious.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1763606.1580
Just sayin'.
Seriously though, you guy(s?) should have chosen another means of discussion weeks ago. This is getting tedious.
March 21, 2017, 02:58:37 PM
For me difficult to imagine, but not impossible ..(I am probably too naive for this world)
That would be a bit perfidious. Or perhaps an obsession / egotism?
Who else should invest the time and why. To provoke tony? Or a mysterious way of advertising?
The world is full of mystery..
That would be a bit perfidious. Or perhaps an obsession / egotism?
Who else should invest the time and why. To provoke tony? Or a mysterious way of advertising?
The world is full of mystery..
sybil in flesh and flood. ☺
March 21, 2017, 02:54:56 PM
For me difficult to imagine, but not impossible ..(I am probably too naive for this world)
That would be a bit perfidious. Or perhaps an obsession / egotism?
Who else should invest the time and why. To provoke tony? Or a mysterious way of advertising?
The world is full of mystery..
That would be a bit perfidious. Or perhaps an obsession / egotism?
Who else should invest the time and why. To provoke tony? Or a mysterious way of advertising?
The world is full of mystery..
March 21, 2017, 01:09:15 PM
They are both the same person. Didn't you notice that they are always here at the same time talking to each other? If they were different people than you would see some posts from one without an immediate answer from the other. You can see the same pattern nearly every day:
March 21, 2017, 12:32:35 PM
its really getting boring guys.
I invite you both to a beer, if you discuss this in person...
I invite you both to a beer, if you discuss this in person...
Sorry, having superhuman patience (professional deformation of all low-level coders) I don't feel when it's the right moment to stop. I guess it's now.
March 21, 2017, 12:18:54 PM
its really getting boring guys.
I invite you both to a beer, if you discuss this in person...
I invite you both to a beer, if you discuss this in person...
March 21, 2017, 11:29:04 AM
You overestimate my power.
So, what are you waiting for?
Someone with more knowledge and skills.I mean that it's you who is supposed to prove that DAGs can scale without a limit.
March 21, 2017, 11:21:49 AM
You overestimate my power.
So, what are you waiting for?
Someone with more knowledge and skills. March 21, 2017, 10:39:32 AM
Well that explains a lot.
If you dont want to justs be FUDing and trolling, and is actually "scratching the surface, analyzing", explain why the scenario in your picture would imply a limit in how many transactions/units can be handled. Cant just insinuate your pictures mean there is a limit while not explaining why. Ill wait...
If you dont want to justs be FUDing and trolling, and is actually "scratching the surface, analyzing", explain why the scenario in your picture would imply a limit in how many transactions/units can be handled. Cant just insinuate your pictures mean there is a limit while not explaining why. Ill wait...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof:
The advantage is all the features listed on byteball.org and being a DAG it has no architectural limit on scaling, only implementation and hardware is limiting.
So, what are you waiting for?
March 21, 2017, 10:23:09 AM
Your veiled attempts now at being nice to Byteball by "scratching the surface, asking questions analyzing internals" is ridiculous, reminds me of Eric Cartman "just asking questions, bro". If youre such a good programmer, on such a high shiny horse, analyzing Byteball internals, developing IoT non-scam coin, you would see the answer to your questions faster than it took you to color the pictures.
You overestimate my power.
If you dont want to justs be FUDing and trolling, and is actually "scratching the surface, analyzing", explain why the scenario in your picture would imply a limit in how many transactions/units can be handled. Cant just insinuate your pictures mean there is a limit while not explaining why. Ill wait...
March 21, 2017, 10:14:33 AM
I don't know who is right (not enough technical knowledge about byteball to judge) but the thread is getting dominated by constant altercations between two forum members
If CFB is a troll, then Sato is feeding him and this does not help the thread. If he is not a troll, then this hostile behaviour is uncalled for.
In either case it's best to just step away from this toxic discussion. No one is convincing the other and I believe I speak for most when I say we are getting really tired of this.
March 21, 2017, 09:17:55 AM
Your veiled attempts now at being nice to Byteball by "scratching the surface, asking questions analyzing internals" is ridiculous, reminds me of Eric Cartman "just asking questions, bro". If youre such a good programmer, on such a high shiny horse, analyzing Byteball internals, developing IoT non-scam coin, you would see the answer to your questions faster than it took you to color the pictures.
You overestimate my power.
Jump to: