4 ms·

They arent related, at all. Byteball is live right now, Iota is still in closed/private beta testing with less features.

by antocv 10y ago

DennisP 10y ago
With a little googling, that doesn't seem quite accurate. They both use the same underlying technology, which was originally proposed by IOTA, with some differences in design goals. Both have working production networks, but IOTA's was launched first. http://www.tangleblog.com/2017/01/03/byteball-vs-iota-token/ http://www.tangleblog.com/2017/01/03/byteball-vs-iota-token/ http://www.the-blockchain.com/2016/12/11/happy-holidays-byteball-give-away-new-cryptocurrency-free-bitcoin-holders-christmas-day/ http://www.the-blockchain.com/2016/12/11/happy-holidays-byte... They both seem like interesting projects.
- antocv 10y ago
  DAGcoin was proposed in bitcointalk thread in 2014, long before Iota was conceived and IoT fairly well known. They dont even use the same underlying technology, unless you consider DAG to be a technology rather than a data-structure. Iota nodes are written in Java, Byteball is all in Node.js As is usual in cryptocurrency world, if you want news and technical documentation on Byteball, you ask the Byteball people, do not ask Iota, and vice versa.
  - DennisP 10y ago
    Yep I was referring to the data structure and consensus algorithm, not particular implementation code. The two projects clearly have more differences than I initially realized.
    - antocv 10y ago
      The consensus algorithm of both is very unlike the other. IOTA has something like "Monte Carlo Random Walk for Tip Selection by most Proof-of-Work" while Byteball has 12 trusted witnesses to stamp and order transactions as they see them, stamp only when satisfying consensus rules, a Main Chain can then be built from all possible transaction histories (branches). No proof-of-work aside from signatures.
      - DennisP 10y ago
        Hmm. How are the trusted witnesses selected? Is it the same 12 for the whole network?
        antocv 10y ago
        Great questions. Today all witnesses are run by main developer. A hub on the Byteball network can push witnesses, if users trust a particular hub they can check a box to pull the witness list, this is just user-friendliness. The witnesses are supposed to be selected by humans by talking, like a popularity contest. There is no automatic protocol-selection process aside from described below. Each user/transaction is allowed 1 mutation in the 12 list, so technically there can be more witnesses than 12 in the network, but only 12 selected in each transaction. Then, when enough transactions have replaced same witness with a new one, the stability point, ie best parent, can be advanced and next witness can be replaced. See the whitepaper for more details on this advancing of "best parent" in the Main Chain. Like a snowball. The process is user-driven, the costs to replace it by malicious intent is too high due to transaction fees, the limit on 1 mutation and hence slow time to actually replace all of them or a majority is also to ensure human herd-behaviour doesnt make bad decisions.

They arent related, at all. Byteball is live right now, Iota is still in closed/private beta testing with less features.

by antocv 10y ago

They arent related, at all. Byteball is live right now, Iota is still in closed/private beta testing with less features.

DennisP 10y ago

With a little googling, that doesn't seem quite accurate. They both use the same underlying technology, which was originally proposed by IOTA, with some differences in design goals. Both have working production networks, but IOTA's was launched first. http://www.tangleblog.com/2017/01/03/byteball-vs-iota-token/ http://www.tangleblog.com/2017/01/03/byteball-vs-iota-token/ http://www.the-blockchain.com/2016/12/11/happy-holidays-byteball-give-away-new-cryptocurrency-free-bitcoin-holders-christmas-day/ http://www.the-blockchain.com/2016/12/11/happy-holidays-byte... They both seem like interesting projects.

antocv 10y ago
DAGcoin was proposed in bitcointalk thread in 2014, long before Iota was conceived and IoT fairly well known. They dont even use the same underlying technology, unless you consider DAG to be a technology rather than a data-structure. Iota nodes are written in Java, Byteball is all in Node.js As is usual in cryptocurrency world, if you want news and technical documentation on Byteball, you ask the Byteball people, do not ask Iota, and vice versa.
- DennisP 10y ago
  Yep I was referring to the data structure and consensus algorithm, not particular implementation code. The two projects clearly have more differences than I initially realized.
  - antocv 10y ago
    The consensus algorithm of both is very unlike the other. IOTA has something like "Monte Carlo Random Walk for Tip Selection by most Proof-of-Work" while Byteball has 12 trusted witnesses to stamp and order transactions as they see them, stamp only when satisfying consensus rules, a Main Chain can then be built from all possible transaction histories (branches). No proof-of-work aside from signatures.
    - DennisP 10y ago
      Hmm. How are the trusted witnesses selected? Is it the same 12 for the whole network?
      - antocv 10y ago
        Great questions. Today all witnesses are run by main developer. A hub on the Byteball network can push witnesses, if users trust a particular hub they can check a box to pull the witness list, this is just user-friendliness. The witnesses are supposed to be selected by humans by talking, like a popularity contest. There is no automatic protocol-selection process aside from described below. Each user/transaction is allowed 1 mutation in the 12 list, so technically there can be more witnesses than 12 in the network, but only 12 selected in each transaction. Then, when enough transactions have replaced same witness with a new one, the stability point, ie best parent, can be advanced and next witness can be replaced. See the whitepaper for more details on this advancing of "best parent" in the Main Chain. Like a snowball. The process is user-driven, the costs to replace it by malicious intent is too high due to transaction fees, the limit on 1 mutation and hence slow time to actually replace all of them or a majority is also to ensure human herd-behaviour doesnt make bad decisions.