Topic: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments - page 83. (Read 1234271 times)

Hi Thul,

Since I'm reading you, I can't stop thinking that all your posts and word choices reflect your own unconsciousness. Are you living in some tyrannic, hateful and abnormally puritan country ?

My point is obviously not to offend you but you should stop using despicable words.

You reveal you don't understand the technology, so why continuing to attack something you don't understand ? This neurotic behavior makes you look like an obscurantist.

You should sincerly take the time to understand what is happening and if you're not able to support a bear market caused by greedy and selfish people (early investors, speculators and ignorant people), maybe you should simply sell your bag to protect your own mental health.

Regards

Hi jwinterm,

Yes, indeed, these data could be used against holders by tax administrations and governments.

But it's a naive way of thinking. When I want to buy bitcoins in my country, I have several choices. Unfortunately, in most of them, I have to provide my phone number or go trough a KYC process. Obviously, there are other means to proceed but in most of them, there is always a fingerprint which authorities can follow easily if they consider that I'm a person of interest.

And last methods available to acquire some btc are potentially dangerous.

Worst, if I want to sell my btc or other cryptos without risk, I have always to provide a data that will allow my government to find me if it wishes. Obviously, I can try to sell it dangerously for cash in streets.

And if I want to trade some shitcoins, I have several no-KYC platforms at my disposal but at my own risks obviously. And all good ones require a KYC process.

Basically, I cannot hide without assuming safety risks for myself. So, why trying to hide myself when my money is honest ?

Don't be sorry for the whining because I understand it. I could do the same thing but I have to be rational and defend my bag.  The best way I found to defend it, it's investing myself to educate people to how powerful is the Byteball technology and the opportunity it represents for the future.

My point is definitely not to offend people or to mock them but I hate disloyal arguments and unfair/ignorant propaganda. For instance, using the russophobia against Byteball is an unfair argument in my opinion. And when we know the Byteball KYC process goes through Jumio which is a US company related to US banking system, it's yet more unfair and disloyal.

Obviously, everybody is welcome on the Byteball BitcoinTalk thread but courtesy is required to keep the thread useful to the biggest number possible. That's all.

See you soon ;-)

You don't understand how technically things work, yet you feel that people who do understand should take your opinions seriously?

Question: How does a sectarian react to fundamental arguments?
Answer: With ignorance. It cannot be what may not be.

In a few days/weeks/months the next rounds will come on the subject of witnesses. - Back to the beginning.

The linked article from @jwinterm seems more and more plausible to me.

Thank you very much @pineapple express.

----------------------------
Nothing is carved in stone, not even the current bite ball protocol.
There is still time to change the protocol. Unfortunately you tend not to use this time.

We useless lazybones can't do more than point it out.

None of these attestations are required in order do use Byteball and you don't even have to do it from same devices and for same addresses.
Point of KYC is exactly that, do link your address to a person, so if you are fine with that, there is should be a problem, but if you take any service as a potentially a one who could sell it to Cambridge Analytica then just don't insert info that you are not comfortable with.

Yes. Me and the United States army love spreading fud about shitcoins.

Do you just love to spread FUD or do you actually think though anything at all?
And what is that valuable information that the intelligence could be collecting via Byteball that they couldn't get through other means?

Russia laundered $20.8 billion through European banks between 2011 and 2014.
Just between 2005-2012, Russia laundered $234 billion through single Danske Bank branch in Estonia.
Byteball market cap is under $30 million.
So, does it make any sense for money laundering or funding secret projects?
NO. Cryptocurrency exchanges don't let you move more than $10 thousand without KYC. You can send from address to address, but you can't take out, which makes money laundering useless with cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies are not great for money laundering, even when we are finally able to pay all our everyday purchases with them.

Also, I haven't used myself, but didn't blackbytes work so that it is really difficult to do big payments?

no need even black bites, people will do it with white balls. All witnesses will be arested, because technically they are the administrators of the payment network used for illegal activities, without requirement KYC and AML for all it's users.
Bitcoin was not the first type of online money to be ever created, as it was preceded by E-Gold and Liberty Reserve, to name a few. The creator of Liberty Reserve was sentenced to 20 years in prison on May 6th.
The founder of the digital currency service Liberty Reserve has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Prosecutors in New York said many of its clients had been cybercriminals who had sought to move funds anonymously.
Two other men involved in the business were sentenced to shorter jail terms.
Two more people will be sentenced on 13 May.
The authorities are still trying to locate a further two suspects.
Users had to provide a name, date of birth and an email address - but prosecutors said fake credentials had been accepted.
Account holders "converted" their cash into one of the company's digital currencies, following which an "instantaneous" transfer was made and the sum converted back into real-world cash.
For this, the company charged up to $2.99 (£1.98) per transaction
Arthur Budovsky, who was responsible for creating and running this platform, was taken into custody by Spanish law enforcement agencies, and later on extradited to the US


https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36247289

It's quite a bit different than Bitcoin as I'm sure you're aware, considering one Russian guy is in control of the entire network, but that's not really what I was alluding to in terms of it being a potentially worthwhile venture for Russian intelligence.

Let's say they spent a few hundred thousand USD funding byteball and getting it off the ground. Now they get thousands of bitcoin users linking their coins to get bytes, followed by real name attestation of thousands of users, as well as steem attestation of users. For people that did all three, the Russian intelligence (or at the very least Tony) can tie together the real name, Bitcoin holdings, and political proclivities of thousands of people. Don't you think political operatives or tax authorities or police state might find this information useful? Even if it's not an intelligence operation, doesn't it make you somewhat squeamish that Tony could sell this information to Cambridge analytica or its ilk?

Yes, there's a meme about maybe the CIA launched Bitcoin, but it's not nearly such a straight line as this, and Satoshi never asked for your drivers license and a selfie.

Sorry for the whining. Carry on berating bag holders...

I'll translate the answer:
Without witnesses, the payment system would collapse.

As a result of an international mass adoption (which is what we are striving for) and under the assumption that via black bites contract killers, drugs, weapons, etc. are traded, the witnesses would get into the line of fire as a single point of failures in every state, and would also be just as easily eliminated.
Moreover, it would be questionable whether in such a negative environment reputable witnesses can be found at all.

So let us hope that there is no mass adoption?
In the shadow of Bitcoin and Monero and for a small nerdy target group bite ball could surely survive.

- The sale of marijuana is prohibited in most countries of the world, while the sale of tobacco and alcohol is encouraged. It has been proven that marijuana is the least harmless from this list and even contributes to the treatment of certain disorders.
- AML, KYC
- customs duties impede free trade and encourage monopolism of the elect by government

Hello jwinterm,

So, because it was founded by a Russian guy, maybe even a Russian intelligence guy, the Byteball technical proposal doesn't deserve respect ?

Who was Satoshi Nakamoto ? Could it be a CIA guy or group trying to make CIA money less trackable ?

Your argument is ridiculous.

Btw, thank you for the article :-)

Come on man, when states as a whole agreed to impose something? Are you really scared about that?

Also there would be financial incentives being a "rebel" country. Nash equilibrium.

Their transactions won't confirm. Not a problem in an almost impossible case.

Same impossibility as reverting bitcoin transactions. Theoretically yes, practically no.

Hello cryptohunter

Let me quote you first :


But why should I put the full quote ?


As you wish my dear snowflake 


Is it better now

So let's analyse your answer. By honesty, I will add that you were answering to the second set of questions.


So, basically, you don't really answer to any question. I read all your past answers dear cryptohunter even if I was silent all this time. You are exclusively focus on early adopters, investors and speculators. Worst, you ignore totally the Byteball Foundation aims and all other Byteball target groups. And you definetly don't care about the technology or its possibilities. All your previous posts reveal it without a doubt and by consequence your opinion is biased.

I will allow myself to quote you partly one more time to prove my point.


To conclude


I think you are just a greedy and selfish speculator who wants more free money without effort. And all your past arguments demonstrate my assumption

I'm waiting better answers from you cryptohunter.

It is not centralized. Please read, and then we could discuss, if your thoughts are open to critics.

https://steemit.com/byteball/@barborrico/witnesses-in-byteball

https://steemit.com/byteball/@barborrico/witnesses-in-byteball-and-ii

@Random String Symphony you have a pm

@Random String Symphony

In fact, I understand very little from the technical point of view, and thus I share the state of knowledge with the masses.

What interests me as a layman:
What happens if all witnesses are shut down by state agreements and the further operation of such witnesses is made illegal internationally?

What consequences does such a scenario have for an inexperienced user of the bite ball wallet who does not read along here in the forum or on Slack or obtain information elsewhere?

Thanks for the tip.
This would explain many things, especially the incomprehensible resistance to cognition.

This is the challenge now on BCT most of the discussion hare are not technical it is more of price and marketing and is getting frustrating for developers to give answers to thesame question every time. So what do they do they move to another platform where discussion is less on price talk

The protocol design decides what is right or wrong, it states that witnesses must be public figures or organizations with a real word reputation at stake. Otherwise the consensus mechanism is not secure. It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of design. If you don't like this principle I suggest you find another project because it is not going to change, it's fundamental to the design. Nothing to do with arrogance.

Numerous times people in this thread, including me, have tried to explain to you that a state attack on a witness doesn't mean the network stops working. I can't help it that you don't want to understand how witnesses work and what they can and can not do.

Not all people / users have to care, it would be preferable but if they don't: at least hub operators and other witnesses should care. If they do the system will work almost just as well. If nobody cares then the design will fail.

The number of witnesses is not limited, anybody can become one.
They already operate over TOR, it is a requirement to not reveal their IP to the world.
Random selection of (and access to) witnesses defeats the purpose, you still don't understand why they can't be anonymous and what they actually do to secure the network.