I've added this link to the OP:It's a very good read to get some in-depth knowledge about blackbytes:So if I understand correctly, the public block chain is just a "bag of hashes" which cannot be verified or anything by any node or miner. It is just a block chain of "data". These data only have meaning for the people receiving "banknote files", which allows them to check the validity of the whole "banknote". The hashes are in fact nothing else but hashes of "signed transactions", like with bitcoin, except that only the *signature hash* goes on the public block chain, and the actual transaction data remain on the individual banknote file. Is that the gist ? In fact, you need, as you say, TWO signatures (or hashes of signatures): one is the transaction signature (including the new beneficiary) and the other is the "spend" signature of simply the previous output. The first signature (spending signature) makes that you cannot do double spending any more (you have invalidated the file up to the point where you transmit it), and the second signature allows the receiver to have a valid "new address" that he can spend (and only he, because only he has the secret key that goes with it like on bitcoin).
This is indeed a very, very good idea !
I am now wondering if this is the reason Tonych created Byteball. Although currently Blackbytes seem highly undervalued and barely understood, the more I understand about them, the more I think this is the real value of Byteball.Is there some reason why GBB can't be traded on an exchange?
An exchange would need to pair wallets to transfer Blackbytes, it requires some coding but should be possible.
Also: read Tonych's thread above, it explains how the entire history of blackbytes is stored with the current owner. That makes a decentralized exchange better for privacy of blackbytes.