Re: BYTEBALL: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments
The example of Dash in my view is one to look at with great interest. Similar to Tony, Evan Duffield started out as THE dictator / dev in full control of Dash (then Darkcoin) like Tony is with Byteball. What Evan went on to do was genius in my view. He implemented Dash with a self funded treasury and voting mechanisms how to spend it. Nodes are incentivised with rewards which are a portion or mining rewards and thereby incentivised to scale up as network usage increases or lose those rewards. Dash uses this treasury funding to pay its developers and in fact Evan has relinquished control completely from the development side of it. Dash also funds marketing and other things too through the same mechanism. The decision whether to fund or not decided by vote amongst the masternode holders. The number of masternodes is at all time highs just now showing long term faith by the big investors. The technology for all of this was quite simple it was the economics of it that provided the genius. If you haven't spotted it, this is a virtuous circle. Dash funds itself to improve and the value increases which means the funds available in the treasury for the next round go further which increase the value further and so on.
It seems that Tony wishes to use the un-distributed bytes as a treasury of sorts to spend enticing new users and to fund projects to promote and improve byteball. But the differences in how Dash has done it are vastly better with Dash. Tony appears to be looking at the pot of undistributed funds dwindling away through airdrops and panicked, halting the airdrops to stop the outflow and conserve the treasury he has at his disposal. Though he is not being explicit in this. Unlike Dash in which the treasury is replenished, byteball's 'treasury' isn't, and once spent won't be available again. In Dash the treasury is explicitly a treasury to be spent improving Dash, with byteball these undistributed bytes are supposed to be currency circulating through the network and because that has changed is causing uncertainty and angst among investors who are being sold a different thing. In Dash thousands of masternodes vote which proposals to fund, in byteball Tony decides, then sometimes changes his mind.
If the Dash model was to be followed could a portion of the fees collected by byteball witnesses be used to fund a treasury? Just a thought.
It seems that Tony wishes to use the un-distributed bytes as a treasury of sorts to spend enticing new users and to fund projects to promote and improve byteball. But the differences in how Dash has done it are vastly better with Dash. Tony appears to be looking at the pot of undistributed funds dwindling away through airdrops and panicked, halting the airdrops to stop the outflow and conserve the treasury he has at his disposal. Though he is not being explicit in this. Unlike Dash in which the treasury is replenished, byteball's 'treasury' isn't, and once spent won't be available again. In Dash the treasury is explicitly a treasury to be spent improving Dash, with byteball these undistributed bytes are supposed to be currency circulating through the network and because that has changed is causing uncertainty and angst among investors who are being sold a different thing. In Dash thousands of masternodes vote which proposals to fund, in byteball Tony decides, then sometimes changes his mind.
If the Dash model was to be followed could a portion of the fees collected by byteball witnesses be used to fund a treasury? Just a thought.
Awesome to see Bitcoin legends like you, BurtW and dooglus particpate here!!!
Agree that Dash did an amazing job with their platform where anyone can propose to do/create something, and coinholders can vote on it, in decentralizing the power more and engaging the community very well in building and getting things done.
Indeed there is one crucial difference in that Byteball has limited supply whereas Dash his supply is replenished. Still inflation in Dash goes down, so it is replenished less and less compared to value of the project. Byteball could also do a gradual lowering of funding such an initiative and still keep it going for many years.
I personally think that cancelling the March airdrop for Byteball holders was the right move. It replaced people that held bytes for mainly short term gains with more long term thinkers who can see the benefit of cancelling the airdrops to byteball holders for good.
One should be very careful to celebrate people leaving the project, but Byteball due to it's 'free' airdrops had attracted way too many people only in it for a quick buck, complaining constantly about more marketing, change name, change unit of account, more exchange listings etc, while doing themselves nothing productive for the project. Think the project is better off without them.
Let's build this into a diamond.