Quote from: oHnK on March 31, 2018, 10:18:53 AM

Quote from: Melody Jelly on March 31, 2018, 10:00:18 AM

Quote from: Jedgar on March 31, 2018, 09:43:10 AM

Quote from: StandingTall on March 30, 2018, 07:33:05 PM

Byteball allows anybody to upload arbitrary data (like docs, pdf, pictures or whatever) on the dag chain which makes it permanently part of the database stored by all full nodes. Now - what if somebody posts criminal stuff like child porn or something and suddenly all full nodes will store this shit forever? I think we need some safeguards against such abuse. Maybe only real ID verified users should be allowed to upload data? Any ideas or thoughts on this? How to ensure legality without censorship?

frankly, I didn't know about that until saw this. How could I upload and after that download arbitrary data into Byteball DAG? Please, step-by-step.

With DAG you sacrifice decentralization by removing POW and POS. Any Byteball holder can be forced to censorship and responsibility.

Doesnt this mean that if anybody can be forced to censorship then those that control alot of it could be having advantage over the other? That pretty much mean that it isnt really decentralized isnt it? I kinda hard to analyze it on my own, care to explain it in short instead or is there a link reference for it?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but decentralization is not the main selling point of Byteball.
I guess there might be some censorship, but not any kind of censorship. Witnesses actions will depend on how much it affects their businesses.

Here is some quote that I found very useful:

Quote from: Random-String-Symphony on March 23, 2018, 06:49:50 PM

Quote from: Alcibiades Agnes on March 23, 2018, 06:36:20 PM

Hi Tony, I have seen most of your interviews and presentation. I have seen many question and doude about the "witness". Many people ask question about it over and over again. I think you or your team should give a presentation just about "witness".

By the way I have a question about it. Every one ask about the "12 witnesses" but in the Byteball Witnesses monitoring service https://byteball.fr/stats.php there are more than 12, so to my underestanding there can more 12 witnessess. Let say there can be at some point 20 witnesses and it each user choose 12 out of 20 at random for confimation of the transaccion. Am I corrrect?

I think you should address the "witness" questions in a very deep presentation about it because you are getting it rid off "the minners". And in today cryptoverse miners have a lot of power, they are a multibilion industry that you are trying not use it at all.

OK, here's a little bit more about the 12 witness system Byteball uses versus PoW.

What miners do, they look at your transactions and decide, I like this transaction and will include it, or I dont like this transaction and wont include it. With witnesses, it is the reverse. It is users who look for witnesses to determine the consensus order of transactions. Witnesses dont decide anything about individual transactions. They are expected just to be there.

12 witnesses seems low?

If you up the number of witnesses it will be much harder for users to know and recognise them all so they would just go with the "default" and not care about it much. So you have to have a number that is both safe and practical, 12 seems to fit the job. This number is large enough to protect against occasional failures but is not too large so that users can still know every witness.

And we want the witnesses to be accountable, thats why there is a way to replace them. The way it works is that every user, with every transaction, posts a list of 12 witnesses he trusts. But we wont have consensus if the lists posted by different users are too far apart. Thats why the lists of neighboring transactions on the DAG must differ by no more than one position. The fact that witnesses can be replaced is another difference with miners. The witnesses are accountable. If a witness loses trust of users, users immediately signal their mistrust by changing their witness lists.

Why DAG?

PoW, most notably Bitcoin has a number of drawbacks:

Miners are gatekeepers; they have the power to include or not include your transaction. So the access to the ledger is not quite free, you have to meet the miners criteria for your transaction to be included in the next block.
Miners are not accountable; they are supposed to make money, period.
Fee market is an uncertainty; When the blocks are full, there is competition to get into the next block. Paying a higher fee supposedly increases your chances to get into the block. But a payment system which is supposed to be used in everyday business, is not a game of chance, there must be guarantees that once you send a transaction according to all the rules, which is properly signed, spends existing money, and is not a double-spend, after you send it, you can immediately disconnect and still be confident that it goes through. In blockchains, when the blocks are full, there is no certainty, no guarantees, no such thing as the right fee.
Trade-off between security and cost; block reward is supposed to be reduced over time and eventually go to 0. This means that miner incentives from block reward will decrease and they should be replaced by fees. Which means that the system is as secure as the total amount of fees paid, and there is an uncomfortable trade-off between security and cost.
Negative balance of resources; miners burn energy and have to pay to energy companies, outside the ecosystem. Which means that the balance between resources flowing in and out of the ecosystem is negative.
Outside incentives are ignored; lastly, miner incentives are only inside the ecosystem. They make more money by mining honestly than by doublespending Bitcoins, thats true under assumption that all their incentives are inside Bitcoin. If we forget about the outside world, as if it doesnt exist. But in reality, outside incentives do exist. Even more, if there are other tokens issued on the same ledger, as it is the case on Ethereum, the block reward is still in the native currency only but now this should be balanced against doublespending not only the native currency but the other tokens too. If the tokens are worth more than the native currency, the system becomes insecure.

Text mostly taken from this excellent presentation from Tony in Zürich: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1dpbE1l4Aj8Te2_i9wjVsW48igZMhdyjKJVcWY-45qd8/edit#slide=id.p5

Highly recommended reading!