Bitcoin Forum

It has a "Tangle" instead of a blockchain.

CODED BY THE ONE AND ONLY CFB

IOTA

read more:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1216479.0

Interesting.  What does this mean, can someone explain how this differs from having a blockchain?

You don't need to know about the details, just remember this formula:

SUPER FAST TRANSACTIONS + FREE TRANSACTIONS (0 FEES) + SUPER LIGHT WALLETS + 0% INFLATION + TALENTED TEAM BEHIND + 1ST MOVER ADVANTAGE = BUY = IOTA = KABOOOOOOM ROI  ;) ;)

then the coin and hype die out when the team withdrawing all the free bitcoins

Man there are hundreds of shitcoins scams outside this topic, you can choose any of them to throw your shit but don't come here duck! IOTA is our golden girl that deserves to be well treated! ;)

LOL give me yor b0tc019ns

IOTA is actualy not a coin and wont have utility until people start using IOT enabled devices

I am fed up of this bullshit innovative 2.0 projects. We just need a plain and simple alt to fix BTC mistakes like block size and fungibility. Like Monero with dynamic block size and unlinkability

the devices we're talking about here = scam idea for the dumb morons

Thanks, on my way to investigate more.

Weren't Ripple and Stellar the first scams sans blockchains? So wouldn't this scam be at least the third?

No to both statements disguised as questions

And...

PLEASE, for the love of god.

(Nothing against gays here, have a few gay friends)

Get rid of that faggot ass ninja on the skateboard.
Is that a freaking hot dog in his hand? SMH

If you're going to go around acting like a mindless troll, do it with some dignity you ignorant goof


 ::) ;D ;D ;D

They have much bigger plans than skating with around $250,000 a piece. That's nothing compared to the potential.

I'm sure even non IPO investors will make crazy RoI, 10x at least. May be more.

Part of the hype-and-FUD roily-boily 'round here. The ---coin fad is long gone, and it's been replaced by the "innovative" fad. And what have we got? A lot of innovations looking for a use case. :D

From the cosmic standpoint, it really is funny how things bumble along 'round here. But that said, "development by going overboard" has resulted in a lot of innovative and potentially useful tech - even if the innovations aren't recognized in alt prices because of the we-gotta-go-overboard phenomenon. ;) (Oversupply.)

There is a lot of tech here now that wasn't around eighteen months ago. That's actually a blessing.

Wireless IoT Jinn-powered brushhead-auto-replacing cancer-detecting saliva-analyzing drone-delivered crypto-wallet toothbrushes!

https://i.imgur.com/O9ThLtv.jpg

Quote:
https://m.reddit.com/r/Ripple/comments/3ci0hm/how_big_is_the_ripple_blockchain/

If you're going to be a douchebag, at least try to be a factually accurate douchebag while pumping your favorite new shitcoin.

It is correct that Ripple does not have a blockchain.  It is new code from the ground up.  It works with cryptography, yes, and a ledger, but is very different than bitcoin.

It's intersting in IOTA for me that in moves towards simplicity.

Current 2.0 project moves toward "side chaines" and scripting languages for smart contracts. And this makes things more difficult.

And I wrote already that I think that Ethereum idea  of making things may be overhyped. Innovations that nobody really want. What I really want is trully decentralized lite wallet with fast transactions.

But the good news that we will get all the answers to the end 2016. The 2016 really shows what this 2.0 approach of smart scripting worth and does it makes more sense IOTA approach of simplicity.

Ripple have had been analyzed few years back by CfB:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=203877.0


The main question: is blockchain less coin is trully decentralized ?

Do we need to buy the coins or will it distributed for free?

LMFAO oh please can i send you my account info and my ssn if I find a big enough box I'll send my children also to be slave labor for the cause

It can be if you do it right.  We were working on blockless ideas similar to Tangles a couple years back, and they are what CfB says they are.  Ultimately we went a different route with a channeled ledger (which records history too so don't confuse it with Ripple type stuff).

Its the year of the blockless, Iota first followed by us soon after, finally :)

Of course man, donations for the info are always welcome: BTC: 1P9gGtngioFH7BirNXvjNPVfMPyRtCUezV      (I give all the donations to the poor children)

Thanks!  :)

Absolutely no! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13488833#msg13488833)

So you fud clam and promote a coin thats made for insta profit and dump after? Lol.

And I conjecture it can fork into a double-spending chaos (have fun):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13488328#msg13488328

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13488833#msg13488833

I don't have time to write a white paper analysing Iota's DAG. Sorry. I also have no desire to criticize it further. It adds some interesting ideas. I applaud the technical attempt, but I think it has flaws. Perhaps I have missed some magical way it converges to consensus but I can't see it (as documented in the above linked posts). FWIW, as for the IPO side of it, I will not comment because I been threatened with a lawsuit by David if I comment.

I am not involved in Iota in any direct or derivative relationship or form.

I think IOTA can have guaranteed convergence, but it needs centralised control to achieve this in the short term. The reason convergence is a problem in the early stages of the coin is that the stream of POW is very sparse, thus it would be very easy for an attacker to create double spends with his superior hashing power.

In order to combat this, the IOTA team will need to employ honest miners with their IPO funds (in a kind of reverse block reward) to perpetuate the honest POW stream and force convergence until the nominal POW from regular users picks up enough to take over.

There are lots of coins without blockchain. They use other blockchain and are distributed by some other criteria and not mining.

Sounds innovative, but no blockchain does not necessarily mean better. For a coin to be suscessful, it needs to be used. That is what really makes a coin succeed. Innovation (I think) should be more focused in the easiness of adoption. Come to think of it, a light wallet will be good for that as newcomers would not need to download the blockchain and all, but is it enough?

Of course there's still something left that they haven't told. These guys are not so idiot to share the full info to everyone. It would be a big dishonestity to their work and their investors.

Don't worry about it man, these guys are good, they are not going to sell shit just to raise funds.

The main problem is the communication, definitely social marketing is not their speciality, but I'm sure they also know so. ;) ;)

I don't think so. First i will watch whether they will deliver what has been promised. What I am concern about is their security and convenience.

I thought you said "salvia" at first :( I'm disappointed.

I am not concerned about the distribution but rather whether the coin will converge on one chain and thus not be insecure. You are addressing distribution, not security.

1. Aren't you assuming the honest participants will always reference in their transactions the longest chain of the DAG? But why must they?

2. What happens when there is ambiguity because two or more DAG chains have nearly the same cumulative PoW and then there is a conflicting double-spend on both, so then some honest transactions have to be reversed but who decides which set must capitulate?

1. Honest participants want to favour the longest stream of POW because their transaction will be confirmed most quickly under this scheme.

2. Would it not be optimal for the new transaction to reference both DAG chains in this case?

1. I didn't ask what their incentive is. I asked why MUST they? In block chain design, they MUST reference the longest chain. The distinction may be important in scenarios, e.g. #2 below or others.

2. It can't reference two chains with double-spends in the history. That is invalid.

1. No one forces them to do anything, but if they chose the shortest stream of work, they won't get confirmed in a timely manor.

2. Is the entire branch with the double-spend discarded in Iota? I would have thought not, because that would mean clients would need to resubmit all their transactions, since there are no miners to place them in the longer chain for them. It ought to be possible to keep the double spend branch, but just not apply the double spend transaction, since it spends an already spent output?

1. But it may not always be unambiguous or other reasons that they can't do what you think they are incentivized to do. MUST is not the same as incentive. Be very careful in analyzing the details of consensus designs.

2. The transactions that follow the double-spend must be because they include the double-spend by referencing it. You need to study more closely the concept of the DAG. The transactions reference prior transactions. I thought you know that. So if there is a double-spend, but isn't known to be a double-spend until later, then all the transactions that referenced it will be potentially reversed. But again which set? It is ambiguous. Thus chaos of forks.

1. Maybe, I'm no expert on Iota, I just see parallels between the LCR and longest stream of POW.

2. I know transactions reference prior transactions, I'm just trying to understand why you must invalidate transactions which chain from a double spend, when you could also just not apply the double spend and carry on?

2. DSPEND <- GOODA <- GOODB. How do you modify GOODA or GOODB to not point to DSPEND when you do not have the private key. And if you allow anyone to change the references, then you have chaos.

I might be missing something very obvious here, but why do you need to do that? Nodes won't apply a transaction that is invalid, so the double spend just doesn't get applied - the other transactions which are chained can still get applied without issue as long as they are unrelated to the double spend?

You continue to do this mistake.

Double-spends are not unambiguous. Who decides which double-spend is reversed? That is why we have LCR.

If nodes can ignore the cumulative work, then you have chaos. You are forgetting the most fundamental point of LCR which is that only it gets to decide. Otherwise anyone can Sybil.

This is also why eMunie can't work without blocks. Period.

Why can't the LCR just change the order the transactions get applied in, rather than discarding entire branches?

Who decides that. Why is it unambiguous. ;)

The LCR decides. So:


Order:

D,A (chain 1), A (chain 2, invalid so not applied), E, B, F, C, G

Keep thinking until you realize there are ambiguities. You'll eventually figure it out.

Which A is valid. Duh.

Okay so you change the rule that all double-spends are invalid. But there is still an ambiguity.

The one in the longest chain.

Which isn't a static event. Did you completely forget  your error when analyzing that failed design of mine yesterday.

Ok, so you're saying that the incentive to have transactions confirmed in a timely manor is not sufficient to ensure users extend the longest chain?

I am exasperated. Can't you see that when there is ambiguity then there is conflict. Conflict resolution is why needed LCR and blocks.

Here is an example of a deterministic LCR transaction ordering for a forked chain:

https://i.imgur.com/mIphwWj.png

The numbers denote the order they get processed in, and the time axis shows when they actually arrive.

I just realised I've made a horrible typo here which is not helping at all, this should read:


Order of application:

D,A (chain 2), A (chain 1, invalid so not applied), E, B, F, C, G

A is the transaction which is spent twice.

Lolsuit

We will know soon enough.

It made me a little less worried when I seen that jl777 bought tokens.

For how long is that gonna last? It would be interesting but blockchain is the nice thing about bitcoin.

I don't think there will be a problem at all.

I appreciate TPTB observations, but I think CFB has got this.

Microsoft seems to agree as well.

First "coin" without a blockchain...linden dollars?