*compares Byteball with Bitcoin* --> "Byteball isn't directly comparable with other blockchains"

This doesn't add up, does it.


Btw., this whole "it's more decentralized than Bitcoin" is factually wrong. I am not interested in theories about the future, but in facts. Currently, Byteball is more centralized and I doubt that spreading the 12 witnesses geographically and over different entities will not change that much. But since you seem to like theories, let's talk about that:

The way Byteball selects witnesses, as well as their functions, is roughly comparable to DPoS systems. I mentioned that before, but I'll state it again. So, if you want to take a look into Byteballs future, you can take a look at DPoS projects, such as Lisk, EOS, Tron, Ark and so on.

DPoS has a pretty big problem: due to its structure, it is

a) not as permissionless as mining is (and to a lesser degree staking in traditional PoS; both obviously have financial barriers) and

b) it invites collusion (see EOS and Lisk for prime examples), while PoW invites competition.

What that means in practice is that is way more profitable for delegates/witnesses to work together and vote for each other than it is for miners, because miners are basically stuck in a big prisoners dillemma. There is no inherent incentive to work together as miners, and if there is, a group of miners has no in-system way to punish miners who do not behave as the group wants them to.

Which sounds good at first glance ("they are working together, great!") is a huge problem for a trustless and permissionless system. In a trustless system, you don't want people to work together; in fact, it should not play a role whether people work together or not, at least on a protocol level that is. If the protocol layer itself cares about people working together (or not), it most likely means this layer is not as trustless/permissionless as it claims to be.