Reasonable users?   Ha!
Your response is akin to saying... Why shouldn't I be refunded by the casino if the ball lands on Red when I put my money on Black?   I mean, I intended to bet on Black, so it should be considered a win even though it was my mistake for physically putting it on Red.   Just like all the people investing on known Ponzi scams working out great until it fails and then complain that they lost their money and want it back.  LOL.  If someone invests in something and it makes money, they are happy.  If they invest and it goes down, it's everyone's fault but their own and they feel entitled to get everything back.

I like the rest of your paragraph.  You simply made everything up.   I don't see where the goal was to make things user-unfriendly - Please quote your source.
You also said Tony doesn't seem to care.  --- Please post where you came up with this far fetched idea as well.
Even better was your statement in which you quoted out of context.

Also, if you read the OP (Original Post) or even look at the website, you will see the next 'tentative' airdrop is in March.  I realize you are standing in line to get the free welfare check and complaining that there is no leather recliner to sit in.

ByteballJesus made a great video:

Jesus shames Roger Ver for sins against Bitcoin

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7vwole/jesus_shames_roger_ver_for_sins_against_bitcoin/

Please upvote!

    

Haha. Verifying yourself is supposed to be a gamble (!!!?). Nice joke. I really like your gymnastics. User unfriendly - read this thread maybe? Users have failed verification because they didn't use a single address wallet. Why doesn't the verification handle the case when they don't have a single address wallet? Why is the current tps limited to 10 and why are there no plans to improve that? Why are so many unable to use a full wallet? No optimization plans? Why doesn't the project require Jumio to refund users when verification fails due to technical reasons or due to Jumio's inadequacy? Why has Tony completely ignored the community desire for a more professional/agreeable name? Why has Tony brushed off silvercatman's help with redesigning the website look?

I'm not asking for any handouts. I would much prefer the airdrops  and Jumio program cease because they are very ineffective at gaining users. Why doesn't Tony set aside some bytes for the development and marketing instead of foolishly giving away more bytes? Any plans for a secure web wallet? Tony thinks that new exchanges are not necessary as stated in recent interview (look on Reddit), so we are stuck with one low volume exchange that is open (cryptox).

Why don't I do all of those things myself you ask? I don't have the time or expertise and well Tony is in charge of the project. He's also the one sitting on over $100,000,000 worth of undistributed bytes.

Trying to understand what you mean by ID verification.
Byteball doesn't require an ID.   No ID is requested.  No camera is needed.  So, picture quality is a mute point.

If you mean Transition bot (address linking (again, nothing to do with a camera)) then the process is simple.  NO ID is needed.  NO Camera.  NO Picture.

Quote simply to link your address to get a part of the distribution, you follow the bot questions.
You tell it your byteball address.   two clicks.
You can pay the address it says (small amount)    OR    tell it your address and sign the message  (NO fee)

It's that simple.

If someone is having a camera to convert the address to qr code and then scan, etc, then that's added steps someone is doing that isn't needed.
The problem in that case has nothing to do with byteball and simply the end user making the process far more complicated than needed.

If someone is paying an address and the bot shows a zero balance, then it's because they had a change address their coins went to.  This is a part of bitcoin, not byteball.  People need to learn how bitcoin works and maybe just read a little more on byteball about what might have happened as to why byteball transition shows a balance that isn't expected.  There is no way for byteball to know your wallet has the coins you own distributed throughout many addresses.

it's a stupid idea to take money from people regardless if they have successful verification or not we're dealing with a business here not a casino and i am sure there are laws out there to protect consumers like this, this people are sort of gangsters not people willing to do fair business.

What money was taken from you?

12 seems like a low number but a witness in the Byteball system ideally is not just a single person but someone who represents a big business or institution with a lot of real world value. Let's take Jeff Bezos as an example. He has so much to lose in the real world that it would be very hard to persuade him to collude with 6 other very high profile people of high market cap companies/high profile institutions across the globe. Let alone, abduct and torture 7 of them before anyone finds out and can replace them.

All the assets of a witness in the real world, its entire reputation, all that is a security bond, not just what it has or what it earns in the internal economy. This makes the witnesses anchors to the real world.

From a game theoretic point of view I would argue that a 12 witness system like this is actually more secure than a PoW based one. 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, that’s 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 won’t have consensus if the lists posted by different users are too far apart. That’s 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.

What miners do, they look at your transactions and decide, “I like this transaction and will include it, or I don’t like this transaction and won’t include it”. With witnesses, it is the reverse. It is users who look for witnesses to determine the consensus order of transactions. Witnesses don’t decide anything about individual transactions. They are expected just to be there.

What we do know from 9 years of Bitcoin PoW though is this:

    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, that’s true under assumption that all their incentives are inside Bitcoin. If we forget about the outside world, as if it doesn’t 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.

So it does make sense to try out other consensus mechanisms. I really like Bitcoin a lot, but I love Byteball for trying something new.

Your response is akin to saying... Why shouldn't I be refunded by the casino if the ball lands on Red when I put my money on Black?   I mean, I intended to bet on Black, so it should be considered a win even though it was my mistake for physically putting it on Red.   Just like all the people investing on known Ponzi scams working out great until it fails and then complain that they lost their money and want it back.  LOL.  If someone invests in something and it makes money, they are happy.  If they invest and it goes down, it's everyone's fault but their own and they feel entitled to get everything back.