I'd like to resume the discussion on the theme of the default unit of Byteball, since Tony has finally made his point on this in the recent AMA session on Reddit, which people can fully read here:

https://np.reddit.com/r/ByteBall/comments/9yfbvt/i_am_tony_byteball_founder_and_lead_developer_ask/

I had expressed my opinion in June in this post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1608859.msg40547826#msg40547826

and this is Tony's opinion as expressed during the AMA:


My reply to Tony's statements are the following:

1. It would be also unthinkable for Bitcoin to change its name, yet Byteball is just planning to do otherwise and rebrand. To compare Byteball to Bitcoin is useful only if we focus on the technical aspect of both, in which case Byteball can be considered a true peer of Bitcoin, possibly having actually a much better tech. But to extend the comparison to other realms - like brand, adoption rate, etc - it doesn't make any sense because there there's still a true abyss between Bitcoin and Byteball, so what's good for Bitcoin is not at all necessarily good for Byteball.

2. Even though it is theoretically true that "everybody (exchange, bot, user) can still decide individually what display unit makes most sense for them", in the practice this is not true at all. Once again, here we have the big gap between theory and reality, a huge intellectual trap. Coinmarketcap and Exchanges have set the unit standard of GBYTE and now this is the unit 99% of people have in mind when thinking at Byteball. Everyone I know who is aware of Byteball is thinking in terms of Gigabytes. Nobody has a true choice because on mass scale people don't make choices and this is why the science of sociology was born (Gustave Le Bon has put it down already one century ago). Same for "People should be educated, etc.." - sorry my friend, in the history of the world nobody has ever managed to educate A CROWD, and this is why MSM has now been turned into a tool of mass manipulation. You can manipulate a crowd, you cannot educate it. Let's forget the idea of educationg people in thinking in terms of an unit which is different from the one promoted by CMC and Exchanges.
And as I've explained more in detail in my June post, to think in terms of Gigabytes means to think in terms of Million of Dollars - that's not how I would design a currency seeking mass adoption. As for the people who are programming bots in MBYTE, they are a little minority of tech guys. 99% of people will stay stuck with the GBYTE unit which was chosen for them. This could result lethal for Byteball adoption. As I've said in June, I don't care about the price, I care about perception and coherency and avoiding cognitive dissonance. To seek mass adoption with a currency which unit is expressed in "million of dollars" by 99% of adopters is sheer cognitive dissonance. Comparing to Bitcoin here it makes no sense because the two coins are not peers due to Bitcoin's huge first mover advantage.

A final consideration:

While undoubtedly value for a coin is generated in accordance with the principles of Metcalfe's law, we should always keep in mind that there are also other factors beyond adoption which are a cause of value, otherwise neither the Weimer Republik or Zimbawe would have ever experienced hyperinflation. These factors involve causes pertinent to monetary, financial, sociological and psycological sciences, all of which should be taken in consideration when designing a new currency. And when rebranding it and adjusting its path.