Topic: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments - page 899. (Read 1234271 times)

but not that cheap...
I think there are not a lot of people willing to sell under 0,06 any more...

why don't u just install wallet that supports signing (btc core for example) and use new btc address for gettin bb just for few days?

and after this u may return to the initial conditions.

Seems to be problematic with Jaxx i dont have any private keys for my btc adresses i dont even have any overview on which adresses my btc are
all this testing and moving cost me btc i think its not worth it when you have btcs in mulitply wallets.

I have an idea on how to be events unfold after charging byteball for signing bitcoin addresses, now the price is in the region of $ 80-100 per coin, with output remaining tokens, the price can quickly fall to $ 5-10 at a minimum, many will sell their tokens

Around five dollars. 1 GB is traded for between 0.07 and 0.08 BTC, 1 GB = 1000 MB, I'll let you do the math .


You can link multiple Bitcoin addresses to the same or to many Byteball addresses. On Electrum, you can import your Bitcoin addresses by using your private keys and then sign your Byteball address(es) as you wish.

The seed is a device attribute, not a wallet one, so the seed should normally enable you to restore all your wallets on a given device.


Normally when you update you have nothing to do. As a precaution you can save your data directory and your seed.

Any of the linked BB addresses will do, or any combination thereof.  It is most easy to move all bytes to to a single address, that's why the instruction says that.


It is not about dust, it is about receiving blackbytes for the largest share of your bytes.  Only bytes that are on the linked addresses qualify for blackbytes.

I see your point, and can say I know some that have felt very conflicted about linking exactly for the reasons you mentioned.

I agree that byteball team is very much trusted here and most importantly strive to be trusted by new comers which will increasingly come everyday.
Trust was achieved by constantly being transparent and many other actions that we witnessed  , but it also can be lost in a wink.

About your concern I can not see a way out, except by constantly striving to keep your bitcoin and byteball anonymous all the time (very difficult, I know).
What I mean is that when both your bitcoin (difficult but doable) and your bytes (very easy) cannot be easily linked back to you, it becomes less of a concern if your bitcoin could be linked, in a certain point in time, to your bytes and vice-versa.

For byteball privacy I think it suffices to use something like whonix (see page 64 of this thread instructions on how to setup; it worked for me; please forget about "git clone" and just grab "source code zip" on https://github.com/byteball/byteball/releases of last byteball version, create /home/user/byteball directory and unzip content inside) which, before tonych finish implementing sock5/tor support in desktop wallet, can solve the problem of reveling your ip (I think this problem plagues almost all crypto currencies there are, it's not in any way about byteball exclusively). Even when we have tor support in byteball desktop wallet, some may still use whonix just to be (almost) sure of no licking (as we could recently see in a dependency (nw.js) which licked ip).
Besides of that, byteball privacy is still relatively easy, as you can still trade byteball without exposure to KYC/AML mechanisms (make sure to properly mix bitcoin you use to buy or receive for selling bytes, and use exchange via torbrowser).

how much are 65 mb in dollar atm?

and i have a question about the wallet.
i have a jaxx wallet and the amount of my btc are saved in different adresses.
i heard that it is possible to sign the different wallets to one adress with the electrum wallet.
is this possible? i dont want to move all my bitcoins from a to b thats to risky with that amount and the different adresses for me.
i dont want to make any mistakes. can anybody help me out?

You don't need to link your addresses for this. Your identity can be derived just from your btc activity.

You dont have to make a microtransaction, you can sign a message. That way, unless someone is looking for your address on transition.byteball.org they wont even know you had "activity" on your address.

Also, the private untraceable payments are not done with the native currency bytes, but with an asset called blackbytes, and those have been distributed according to the first link, but henceafter transferring blackbytes between addresses in untraceable and not stored in public database.

not the point.
and im not being "tin foil"
they CAN link a btc address to your byteball address, which can link to your identity
which is undeniable...

You should read carefully instructions to your tin foil hat. It should inform you that your BTC address is publicly shown in bitcoin blockchain, such that everybody can see its activity. Your tin foil hat can't change this.
 

I have two questions:
1. After having creaeted my first wallet in  The byteball program I saved my seed-words and used the option in the wallet to delete the seed. Then i created two more wallets. Now when I click on Settings->Backup it says "wallet seed not available". Even for the newly created wallets. Does that mean they all share the same seed? Or is it a bug.

2. When I upgrade the wallet-software to the latest version, will I be able to use the same wallets without needing the restore-seed words?

only thing that prevents me from linking my BTC is that it shows the address publicly on http://transition.byteball.org/
i do not like thatt

why do we have to publish the addresses public?


i think we trust the byteball team by now to not fake numbers.

adding to this, you can't really say you are a "private untraceable payment" whenever you can link a bitcoin address to every byteball address that has ever been created??

I agree with everything you said. Thank you.

Not tonych speaking ^^ but yes you are correct, blackbytes will be transferred to all the linked byteball addresses, it might be convenient for some people to have only one address and for others to have many .


This only implies moving bytes to linked addresses to get blackbytes I guess. Maybe it should be rephrased "to one or more" or "to one of the linked addresses" ...


This could be a good interpretation especially since the testnet distribution didn't take small balances into account ... Anyway if you have any dust then move it to an address with a bigger balance.

I don't think if you have many bitcoin addresses linked to many byteball addresses that you need to consolidate them in a unique byteball address in order to receive the corresponding blackbytes in the second distribution, nor that it would be more convenient to do so.

Am I correct tonych?

But even if I am correct why the transition  bot shows the many byteball linked addresses, their balances and then inform: "Move your bytes to one of the linked addresses in order to maximize the amount of blackbytes you receive"?
"Maximize" here means only account for some dust you won't receive because of rounding problems etc. or you risk loosing many of the blackbytes you'd otherwise receive if you'd consolidated in one of the linked byteball addresses?

edit: small correction near the end.

With total order (which we have thanks to Main Chain) and deterministic finality (which we also have), there are no problems with arbitrary state changes.

You know, there is no architectural limit in the DAGs.
Regarding the practical limits, I don't buy into this race to Visa tps.  The most pressing issue of crypto is not tps, it is adoption (which we address in the first place).  Tps will come second after the first is solved.