Post
Topic
Board Announcements (Altcoins)
Re: BYTEBALL: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments
by
tonych
on 13/09/2016, 16:43:27 UTC
Having both options adds complexity on both technical and usability sides:
1.  More code that needs to be written, debugged, and tested.  Despite all the testing, more code is always more complexity and greater probability of errors, including security errors.  Complexity is the enemy of security.
2.  More options for users means more options for attackers too.  This needs to be analyzed, and with growing complexity the chances of missing something increase.
3.  Longer instructions for users.  They are scared off by the abundance of text or unfamiliar words, like "signing a message".
4.  Users have to evaluate both options and make their choices.  Choice is difficult when the difference between the choices is not immediately clear.

All this is fine as long as there is a real tangible benefit in adding more options that overweights the negatives.  In this particular case, there isn't.

Thx for clarifying these points. Points 3 and 4 are okay but as I said earlier they do not apply to all users, I think we won't reach an agreement on that and that's okay Smiley.

What I find negative about this, is the lack of options ... (I want to send a signed message to claim, I can't. I want to see the transaction id and/or fees before sending, I can't. I don't want to use Google Play Smiley, I can't).

Looks like you want more control than an average user (well, as I perceive an average user).  That's OK, there is no one size that fits all.  I envisage that we'll have multiple wallets in Byteball ecosystem that fit different preferences, like we already have in Bitcoin.