Quote from: animalroam on December 10, 2016, 11:05:52 PM

Quote from: Seccour on December 10, 2016, 10:38:34 PM

Quote from: animalroam on December 10, 2016, 10:35:54 PM

Quote from: kaicrypzen on December 10, 2016, 10:14:45 PM

Quote from: tonych on December 09, 2016, 07:18:13 PM

Quote from: kaicrypzen on December 09, 2016, 05:25:08 PM

Quote from: tonych on December 08, 2016, 10:33:47 PM

Quote from: kaicrypzen on December 08, 2016, 08:33:51 PM

Why would lowering the micropayment be riskier than with the current micropayments? (because they would be easily spotted?)

Because the attack would become cheaper, hence worthwhile.

mmmm, in my opinion the attack is already worthwhile, anyway such an attack won't succeed unless the attackee is not vigilant and doesn't double check their address (as the bot instructs them), so why not lower it if it permits to filter out exchanges addresses at the detection process (not requiring you to check suspect addresses)?

People do make mistakes, and having to be overly vigilant scares them off. I'd rather have a more comfortable environment for the entire process.
The attacker's ROI depends on 3 factors:
- % of people who do not check that the address is theirs after receiving a second notification "Received your payment from ..." (the attacker's microtransaction is almost certainly later than the legitimate one)
- average balance of such users
- cost of attacking, which is the average amount of the microtransaction
By lowering the cost, we turn the ROI at some point from negative to positive.

I see your point. If you are comfortable with filtering out exchanges addresses after adding them and then investigating them, then there is no need to lower the micropayment. Yet, I still think lowering it would easily filter any exchange address out as the transaction won't be possible to begin with. (and if I were an attacker, paying (n times) 0.000x instead of 0.0000x wouldn't hurt my ROI that much

).

I agree, but instead of manual filtering, maybe requiring signatures on an amount above X would be beneficial since it wouldn't be hurting anyone; those who are not good at technology usually own less Bitcoin. Plus, it would greatly reduce the effect of those who are putting in exchange/joint wallet addresses. That way, it would only exclude those who cheat the system.

Could we just ask big exchanges to claim and distribute their Byteball to their users ? Like Poloniex and others exchange did with Ardor distribution ?

Because really that would make everyone life easier and more people will be aware about Byteball.

I highly doubt all exchanges would agree to do that. Even the small exchanges have considerable amounts of BTC in their wallets.

We just need one big exchange such as Poloniex to do it and it will bring enough attention to Byteball. This + all the ICOs "whales" diluting each others byteball, we can have an equilibrium with our own funds as individuals.