Bitcoin Forum

DagCoin: a cryptocurrency without blocks

Back in 2012 I thought a lot on a new cryptocurrency that could merge the concepts of transaction and block. Each transaction would carry a proof-of-work and reference one or more previous transactions. The resulting authenticated data structure would be a Direct Acyclic Graph (DAG) of transactions where each transaction “confirms” one or more previous transactions. The confirmation security of a transaction would be measured in accumulated amount of proof-of-work referencing (or confirming) the transaction. This structure is well suited for a cryptocurrency without subsidy (such as a side-chain). On the past years I’ve read a couple of similar proposals on bitcointalk (although I cannot find the references now). When the GHOST paper was published, I perceived it as a reinforcement of my idea that a tree could give more security than a chain in case of high rate of transactions.

My open problems…

The problem that I could not solve in 2012 is how to limit the maximum cut of the generated DAG or, in other words, how to prevent all new transactions from referencing the same set of parent transactions. How to create the incentive to “move forward”? The DAG must not increase in “width”, and it should look more like a DAG-chain. Also one must prevent users from choosing old transactions to extend the DAG. I tried several monetary incentive structures to force users to choose newer transactions, but with no result. To know the last “ledger state” there must be a way to consolidate branches. Merging branches should be good, but not too good such that everyone starts merging the same branches over and over. The problem of spam was also less important, as no transaction would be able to get a “free ride” in a block, as each transaction carries PoW. Ultimately the owners of a computer that is being part of a spamming botnet would realize their computers have been hijacked based on the amount of CPU consumed. For instance, if a transaction requires a proof-of-work that takes 1 second in a standard PC, and each transaction is 400 bytes in size, then a botnet consisting in 10K computers may create transaction reaching 3 Mbytes/second. This high network bandwidth usage itself is not a problem, since it can disrupt the network only as long as the attack is active. However, there must be a way to prevent the DAG-chain from growing at that pace. It turns out that the election of an optimal data structure allows the DAG-chain to be compressed, but it requires us to change how we think about double-spends, and how we conceive the “ledger state”.

A Radical Change

The leap of faith required to find an out-of-the-box solution is to think about double-spends not as a boolean attribute, but as a probabilistic attribute, based on comparing the confirmation work on competing transactions. An the security of a transaction, as the confirmation work compared to the the work expected that an adversary may use. Also it requires to forget about the concept of a “global ledger state”. In Bitcoin there is a global ledger state. Chain reorganizations can always rollback the state, but the state is globally consistent. There is a certain probability of the last block rolling back, but the probability is the same for every transaction in that block. In this proposal, the ledger state is just the overlap of all possible transactions, each with its own confirmation probability, and there is no consistent global state.

Design Premise: “The cryptocurrency network benefits from creating a DAG growing as “thin” as possible.”

In other words, having the average maximal cut as low as possible. It seems that referencing many previous transactions (high out degree) can make the DAG thinner only if the following transactions reference the transaction with high out degree, but are themselves of low out degree. So we want high out degree some times, but low out degree another times.

I designed a DAG that tries to fulfill that premise, and an associated incentive structure such that:

 There is a benefit for users to reference as many previous transactions as possible
 Referencing many previous transactions is incentivized only when there are many previous transactions unreferenced.
 There is no competition between users to reference a previous transaction.

Here is the paper draft  –> DagCoin-v4 https://bitslog.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/dagcoin-v41.pdf (https://bitslog.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/dagcoin-v41.pdf)

This same article can be found in my blog: https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/dagcoin/

Very interesting. I'm coding a very similar system right now. 80% is already done.

I would feel more convinced of the well behaviour of this DAG if every transaction
can be viewed as the end point of a totally ordered valid sequence of transactions.

That would prevent the situation you describe where two ancestor transactions are in conflict.
I think that should make the joint descendant transaction invalid.

For a transaction referencing k parents tx_1..tx_k, we would like to define its total
order in terms of those of its parents. Let TX be the last transaction in their
intersection. Then all these histories agree up to TX and we need to define
a valid merge of the k sequence suffixes. Some merges will have conflicts, which
is something to be avoided. The problem reduces to the question of
which of the next available transactions (whose number is between 2 and k)
should extend the total order defined so far.

Have you considered whether this approach to well-ordering is feasible?

Is it the quorum based Qubic?

No.

Woho, another one. Tell us more.

Just read the OP. That description suits on 90%.

Does it have anything to do with jl777's Crypto777? I remember you sold some technology to jl777.

That tech was about pegging.

This is very interesting.
I'm wondering though how this could ever be rolled out as it literally needs the network to be active (or not ?). If I wanna transact I need someone else to transact as well and confirm my tx with his tx. I guess I could also send some more tx myself but that's not really going to fly.

It only works if there is a backlog of transactions.

The magic behind any new cryptocurrency token is that since you can create money, you can set an incentive to confirm old transactions. So you can bootstrap your cryptocurrency.

When Bitcoin has no or very low subsidy, it will need a backlog of transactions to go forward. So the problem with DagCoin is bootstrapping. If you have an application where you can keep a flow of transactions going, you can make it work. Also you can add a subsidy to each transaction that has a very high PoW, and create an inflationary cryptocurrency whose price varies with electricity cost and inflates with Moore's law.

This is true for DagCoin. If a transaction references two parents having conflicting transactions, only one of them becomes valid, and that is the one with more PoW. If both have the same PoW, then the first one is the valid one. Never a transaction validates two conflicting recursively referenced txs.

The only drawback is that which one is the valid one is not immediate obvious: you need the appropriate data structure and the whole transaction tree (up to a checkpoint) to find which one is the valid one.

I think one of the new ideas about DagCoin is that the number of parents you can reference is not chosen by the user, but by the PoW found: the lower the hash, the higher the number of parents you must reference.

It sounds to me quite interesting.
Actually, I had similar ideas over time, but I didn't bother messing with them.

Comparing to Bitcoin, what are the advantages and disadvantages of Dagcoin?

Sergio, why are you worried about the "width" of the DAG?  I would think that every miner is incentivized to extend the "tips" of the DAG.  It really comes down to the metric for "work".  Bitcoin's measure of work is extremely simplistic because of its linear structure.  With a DAG you're looking at the "work" in the set of transactions upstream of the current transaction.  If miners "widen" the DAG, they are not contributing work...all the transactions have the same amount of work -- that of themselves plus their parent.  So this seems easy to solve by computing "work" in a smarter way.

I have a couple of preliminary formulas for calculating work in a DAG under certain constant-target assumptions that eliminate your concern, I think, but I feel there's still a better solution I haven't found yet.  I also want to get rid of the target difficulty and simply combine whatever hashes show up.  (This then frees "difficulty" to be a node-specific quantity that can be used for bandwidth control and DDoS protection)

In case you haven't seen it, I propose the same thing (DAG-chain) here:

http://blog.sldx.com/three-challenges-for-scaling-bitcoin/

I have a longer draft with a lot more specifics on the DAG/braid concept that I'm not ready to publish just yet.  Only as of last week am I paid to work on bitcoin, so can actually bring it to fruition.  We should see if we can collaborate, feel free to contact me privately.

This smarter way may open the system to Sybil attacks if it removes "linearity", splitting/merging/recombination of transactions may give adversary an advantage in this case.



Without difficulty you don't know if someone did a lot of work or just was superlucky (and got a lot of leading zeros).

As I didn't run simulations, I was worried about how would the width vary for different loads on the network. I want users to be able to reference many parent transactions if the braid is getting "thick", and reference only one if the braid is a chain. What would be the rule for the client wallet to decide ? As processing a transaction having many parents has a cost to the network, then this amount must be linked with the transaction PoW somehow.

I read your post and some other posts about this same matter the last months, so I decided to publish my old draft paper, so that others can use those ideas. But I'm not actively working on it.
 

I was just thinking to myself, "but how will the initial distribution be handled under this coin?"... and then I suddenly realised the problem is already solved  ;).

This, or similar such ideas, sound like a potential solution to the possible problems when bitcoin hits the zero block reward stage. To be exploring that area so early is an optimistic sign  :)

Really Interesting idea, a coin without blocks can solve many problems that bitcoin is having.

Nice ideas and innovation of a future coin. Hope you succeed in making it happen as need something different that stands out from the rest of them. Without blocks will be different but how is this going to be controlled or being accessed. How will the distribution be provided without blocks? Am guessing going to be using a different name or distribution service to provide miners if going to be mineable or another ICO? If this becomes ICO then CMO. Stuck on my watch list for the future to see how this turns out.

The transaction links point to related transactions, such as inputs and outputs in bitcoin, or completely unrelated?

Outputs consumed by the tx are already linked to.

These are unrelated and should be recent tips of the DAG.

You could imagine a DAG where the only connections between transactions are the inputs and outputs - the tips are the unspent outputs. I take it this design is not that?

no need of coin initial distribution in the case it is operated as a sidechain, right?

Well, I was thinking more about replacing the main chain with a chain like this: one that does not depend on 3rd party mining, i.e. directly peer to peer.

I think it's fair to say that it's still an open question as to whether the zero block reward situation can be sustained on fees alone. If differentiation of nodes from miners could be made redundant by a DAG chain design  (or some other tree type chain that enables the same), then why keep that? Such a change would obviously have an ideal decentralising effect on how the hashrate is distributed, it sounds like a big design win to me.

I think we're getting to a point where it's sort of a "Jack of all trades, Master of none" type of situation where more and more cryptos are churned out and not one is being solely focused on to further it.

But all of the cryptos are furthering crypto. gmaxwell said it himself in that elements video - its become difficult (or near impossible) to experiment with the primary blockchain; hence, sidechains. And indeed, other cryptos test things beyond the primary technology - for instance, one interpretation of Monero's apparent staying power is that people have trusted cryptocurrency enough to not even need to see their transaction on the blockchain with their own eyes. I ponder what types of tangential aspects the DAG-type protocol would test.  

sorry for the off topic, those comments confuse me.

Interesting proposal - I thought I came up with something crazy yesterday and then was pointed to this post. My initial confound was the distribution, but as you mentioned, having this function as a sidechain is an interesting solution or just in general having it deployed on an extant blockchain.

IMO, one of the interesting aspects of this concept is that it furthers decentralization. Though one concern I haven't worked through is whether a nefarious actor could control the "blockchain" if they just continued to transact, being willing to part with some % of their money in fees in exchange. But these thoughts could be nascent... need to read more.

I think it could be done entirely without fees, just using valid proof of work as the means for verification.

Fees lose their structural role when the verification is done 100% p2p, because the incentive for the participants to donate proof of work is so that they can use their money the same as all others. And DAG fits the real world usage model; provide the proof of work when it is needed, i.e when the participant wishes to make a transaction. It almost sounds to good to be true though, so I share your cautious optimism, which is why it needs examining. The idea is deserving of it.

Really cool to know people are working on viable cryptocurrency beyond the Bitcoin model.  I have a suggestion for you if your vision is to see your creation become a successful proof of concept like Bitcoin is. Please choose a good name! DagCoin doesn't particularly stand out, or roll off the tongue well in my personal opinion.

A key epiphany is that POW = coins. So you can replace transaction fees with solving a POW to send a transaction. The only real problem with that is the difficulty factor, difficulty must not be so high that sending a transaction is impossible on a home computer, but yet be high enough that the network doesn't start suffering sybil attack as bitcoin's is.

Or you could pay money to someone to find a PoW nonce for you.

I'm reminded of Tier Nolan's helical chains proposal. The idea there was to create a minimum of 4 main chains, as a way of decreasing the (average) block interval by the same factor. This had the secondary advantage that the mining market would experience a decentralising effect, as a lower practical block interval lowers the barriers to entry (finding blocks), but all without compromising the orphan rate. Possibly important to propagation in the world of >1MB blocks.

Be interesting if this could be applied to the main chain as a staged transition; sympathising with the block halving schedule, firstly introducing something like the helical chains idea, with the provision that the helical codebase could be then be ported to the pure p2p of a DAG style system as block reward hits zero.

Hrm - this means I haven't fully digested the research done in the OP. In my imagining of this, the verification is still "crowdsourced" and not directly p2p. I.e., when you make a transaction, you're also making a block candidate, with your transaction "on top". If you're POW fails to meet difficulty, your transaction/block candidate hybrid joins a pool of other failed block candidates. (or one can imagine a temporary failchain, but this might be similar to the DAG). Once a successful POW is obtained, that block candidate is accepted into the blockchain, and the other failed candidates are cleared (or if they are linked on a failchain, they naturally clear). In this version, you prevent spamming the work-space (like is currently done with bitcoin) by forcing every POW to include a novel transaction.

I know there are holes in the above. So I should go back to trying to understand this DAG thing.

But indeed, as you say, if you remove the fees (or the any blatant incentive for supporting the network), then there's no incentive to spam the workspace.

Right, because you have to expend the work for every transaction, so it's not really free, you pay a non-monetary fee. So a cryptographic/work proof fee instead, not unlike the incentive aspect of the original hashcash.

Having a p2p market for hashes opens all kinds of doors

I ponder how full node maintenance is incentivized in this architecture, if at all.

Same as in Bitcoin. Miners are no longer the full nodes maintainers. Only pools and users are.

To incentivize users mining on top of your transaction, you could add a fee to be taken by the confirmating tx. But to prevent orphaning wars, the maximum fee should be limited. DECOR+ is too expensive in terms of additional overhead to implement as per-transaction basis. And if tx fees are shared, txs would need to specify an additional payout address for accumulation of fees. That is not good for a txout-based ledger, because it generates too many spamming utxos. I can work for an account-based ledger. For example, if tx1 attach a fee of F, then the fist confirmation tx gets F*0.4, the next one gets F*0.3, next 0.2, last 0.1.

I'm sorry that this topic is a little above my head.  I'm posting here mainly to monitor it in the future. 
 
That being said, my concerns is that this sounds a lot like the "torrent" based blockchain I was thinking about the other day.... not every node needs to carry the full blockchain; just portions of it.  That way anyone who wanted to verify the entire 7XB blockchain could do so (though laboriously) by assembling all the pieces of the "torrent". 
 
My only concern with a crypto with just nodes would be ELI5 solutions to the obvious problems like double-spending, Sybil attacks, accidentally incentivizing centralization, etc. 
 
The beautiful thing about Bitcoin (and Cryptonote) is that its possible to simplify them down to analogies that even a 'grandmother' can understand.  Let's hope this DAG-concept is capable of the same.

I never even think that this thing exist, this is a brilliant idea!!! :o

This idea naturally follows from blockchain if you do few simple steps:

1. Get rid of the coinbase transaction
2. Allow only one transaction per block
3. Allow to reference several previous blocks at the arbitrary height

As all obvious things this didn't attract much attention, of course.

4. Argue whether the transaction should be limited to 1M or 8MB or ...

Sorry; couldn't resist:-)

 ;D

All transactions can have the same size and chain together to form bigger transactions. So this issue can be solved once and forever.

I completely support this idea, hope this is successful would be interested in how things develop!

What is the name of your system or coin?

One could look at this as a one transaction per block blockchain with no difficulty adjustments. If this algorithm were used in a highly decentralized environment it would be extremely difficult for separate clients to reach consensus about a transaction history.
What would end up happening, because it would render the most consistent transaction history, is transactions would be sent to a node or maybe a handful of centralized nodes that would process the transaction.

You reference this problem here, emphasis mine;

And then you say you address it with the following incentive structure;
The first incentive is what is creating the problem. A node wants to get as many transactions as it can, and those transactions should reference themselves as much as possible.

The second, requiring that many transactions be unreferenced, is putting the cart before the horse. Nodes can't agree on what transactions are unreferenced before already having consensus about the current state of the network, which is what you're trying to solve to begin with.
Even if it wasn't putting the cart before the horse, only the most centralized nodes would have the most information about unreferenced transactions.

The third is irrelevant. Nodes can't compete to reference the same transaction because that would require they have the same information, which again, is the problem we're trying to solve in the first place; Consensus about the data.

So I don't see how this protocol addresses the problem of "degenerating the DAG into a star graph" as you put it, or being subject to extreme centralization pressures, as I would put it.

https://bitslog.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/dagcoin-v41.pdf

Classified till the announcement.

I'm guessing... Coin-From-Beyond

Any ETA for the announcement?

End of this month if the whitepaper is ready in time.

is this tech similar to what Fuserleer is doing with emunie? afaik emunie uses balances now without any blocks

I think emunie uses a trust score now and I also think balance doesn't influence that score but I could be wrong on that.

how do 51% attacks apply in this dag scheme?

I wonder if you have heard this Bitcoin-NG - next generation of Bitcoin - https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/presentations/Day1/8-Ittay-eyal-testbed-for-bitcoin-scaling.pdf

http://www.coindesk.com/cornell-research-blockchain-problems-bitcoin-ng/

Any comments on it?

Will be interesting to see how this coin develops and becomes a next generation coin without blocks. Will be following this one close for updates and developments. Will sure solve a lot of problems that a lot of the current cryptos face with blockchains.

I don't like their design because it leads to a heterogenous system which is harder to analyse and implement. Also it looks like a half-measure.

We were forced to go in another direction because our coin targets micropayment and IoT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_Things) markets and must be friendly to devices with very limited processing power and storage. The goal was achieved by creating strong incentive to behave honestly in cases when "blockchain" data are split among thousands devices. The splitting allows to use different techniques (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MapReduce) and seems to ease the scalability problem.

Its similar in some principles, very different in others.  We don't use blocks at all and just push individual transactions around as a kind of ordered soup.  No chain, but instead use transaction channels of which there can be millions, and we track balances not inputs/outputs.

All radically different and lots of hoops to jump through (balances are a lot harder to deal with than you might think) but allows a lot of benefits.  I'm writing some docs on our ledger stuff at the moment to go along with the consensus info I posted a couple weeks ago, hopefully be done with it this coming week.

Is this thread an altcoin discussion?  OP is well respected.

We discuss an idea and its implementations, where have you come from?

Maybe from Beyond...

One thing is an altcoin: a copy of Bitcoin with minor modifications and nothing interesting. Another thing is a new cryptocurrency design.

This forum has aways been 100% open to discuss any possible cryptocurrency research direction.

Anyway, I'm not planning to implement DagCoin: it's just an idea. But I support all attempts to create new interesting cryptocurrencies. If they work, Bitcoin may use the new technologies using side-chains (and that's why I support side-chains 100%)

Bitcoin benefits from all cryptocurrency research (academic or amateur), because it gives us insight into what are the limits of the technology. As times passes cryptocurrency research is turning more academic, and "new ideas" posted in some blog/forum may become less common.
 

How does the network achieve consensus, on who was the first, who was the second, etc.?

Interesting. I wonder how would I check transactions myself if blocks aren't available. Just read the whole thing and it actually caught my attention. First time for me to hear a cryptocurrency without having to rely on blocks (which was the common feature that almost all cryptocoins have).

I think, theoretically, you would still be able to check transactions... they're just not necessarily in blocks - they are in this ever growing DAG "chain". But, as OP pointed out, some of the fundamental conceptual hurdles are "what do we mean by consensus" and "the current state of the ledger".

So there will be an available transaction parser, and we could actually check our transactions (though they are not included in blocks of data, which I was used to). I'm still puzzled on how would this thing work. First time to hear such a 'block-less' chain and cryptocurrency.

For me, the thing that helped me put it all together was this document which explains directed acyclic graph:

http://ericsink.com/vcbe/html/directed_acyclic_graphs.html

this explains it in terms of version control... but version control is essentially cryptocurrency to some degree. I don't exactly know how the pure DAG approach would deal with double spends (i.e., I sign a transaction on my local PC, the transaction begins propagating the network... 20 ms later I log into some machine on the other side of the world using the same output but sending somewhere else)... now you have the same output in two different branches in the DAG, and from what was presented, I didn't pick up a mechanism to 100% say "this is the right one". I mean, perhaps a timestamp could be used.

What I brought to the table I think was slightly different but similar... where there are still blocks, but a solution can only be found for a block if the worker puts a transaction in the block... and each transaction is an attempt to find a block. Hrm, there'd be psych-economical factors here though.... i may diagram this out...

the block is a wrapper that helps to synchronize the global state, but it isnt actually required and creates a set of problems that a pure txnet wouldnt have.

it just takes more work to make a transaction explorer vs block explorer and of course to achieve consensus in reasonable time.

but a properly designed consensus system should achieve similar "eventual consensus" that blocks achieve

James

 
  
This.  
  
I need to hear a bulletproof ELI5 explanation for how a node-based currency will work and prevent double spends and Sybil attacks before I can even begin to consider it as a real thing.  
  
It almost feels like this is the crypto equivilant of the Five Room House Puzzle.  At first glance you think that a solution might be difficult, but possible -- but in fact it is a completely impossible mathematical task.  
  
https://i.imgur.com/c3Rr2H3.png

what if we changed blocks to have a one tx limit? would that make the blockchain impossible?

just like with a blockchain having forks and reorgs, a txnet will also have the same property. The answer is to wait more than 20 milliseconds before accepting a transaction. Without blocks doesnt mean without confirmations. As time passes, the txnet reaches eventual consensus, just like the blockchain that has more than one tx per block.

there are more overall reorgs needed as the txnet propagates each transaction instead of a block of them, but this is nothing fundamentally different in a qualitative sense. One big problem is that there wont be anyway to debate about blocksizes when there are no blocks

James

I dont see how  a one tx block vs normal blocks has any significant difference as far as sybil resistance goes. each tx will be signed by the one spending the output and in a txnet once that is broadcast to the network, then it will eventually propagate. it decentralizes the block

The idea presented on to this post is enough for me to research further on a 'block-less' cryptocurrency. Everything is new to me, including the "Five Room House Puzzle" linked here by americanpegasus. Though some of the words here presented are unfamiliar to me, I'm grasping some pretty interesting ideas.

Thanks to all who posted after me and gave some explanations regarding the matter. Will watch this thread to see how it progresses. :)

Same here.

I will try to do it later, for now I'll leave a bold claim just to make your brain to analyse this in the background:

It is possible to do payments to a hash without specifying the output amount(s) which will be revealed only upon spending.

Following.

I mean that it's possible to implement the following:

Alice (10 DAG), Bob (40 DAG) and Charlie (50 DAG) pay to David (30 DAG), Eve (30 DAG) and Frank (40 DAG).

Alice, Bob and Charlie create 3 separate transactions that spend outputs of previous payment(s) and specify HASH(HASH(David=30), HASH(Eve=30), HASH(Frank=40)) as the beneficiary.

The system verifies that Alice, Bob and Charlie spent legit outputs, it knows only beneficiaryHash and can't guess even the number of the recipients.

David, Eve and Frank know only their own "publicKey=amount", about other recipients they know only that their total amount doesn't exceed 10+40+50-amount, none of the recipients know how many parties is actually involved (depends on the protocol used during beneficiaryHash calculation, number of parties may be known).

After a while (say, 3 years) Eve may want to spend her 30 DAG, in this case she has to reveal "Eve=30", "HASH(David=30)" and "HASH(Frank=40)". I wrote "HASH(Frank=40)" but actually it can be "HASH(HASH(Joe=20), HASH(Ian=15), HASH(Hillary=5))", we don't know until Frank or Joe, Ian and Hillary try to spend the coins.

At this point the system knows only that 3 years ago Eve got 30 DAG from Alice, Bob and/or Charlie.

PS: Pay attention that beneficiaryHash may correspond to "Eve=500000000", in this case her transaction will be rejected. Also, Eve can't do "Eve=100" to claim all the coins because there is a protocol that allows to verify that total of outputs doesn't exceed total of inputs.

doesnt this have similarities to how the lightening network is supposed to work as far
as transactions will have dependencies on other transactions?

 

Edit: Come From Beyond says in the next message that all this was wrong, so it's italicized so you don't waste your time.  


  
OK, I'm going to simplify some of your statements.  If my simplifications are inacurate, please feel free to correct me.  I am not an expert programmer or cryptographer.  Have you heard of the rubber duck approach to programming?  Consider me the rubber duck -  if it makes sense to me, you can rest assured the proposal is bullet proof.  
  
- Your system proposes to use a node based system vs. a decentralized one.  This way the system isn't just decentralized; it's self healing.  Even if you did significant damage to the network, the best you could achieve would be to fork it, not destroy it.... Vs a decentralized system which could have significant damage done to it if you took out the most important 10% of users.  
  
- Your propose a currency without blocks.  This means that instead of incorporating all new transactions into a new hash which will form the basis of a new block for all members of the network, you *instead* propose to have members broadcast transactions out to the 'system' (comprised of all other nodes).  
  
- The system works in such a way that nodes know their own balance, but do not reveal that balance to 'the system' until the choose to transact.  
  
- When they choose to transact, the system doesn't necessarily prioritize the amount the spent.  It prioritizes the person (node) they sent a transaction to.  
  
I am talking through this myself, so forgive me if anything I said was incorrect.  
  
I can only assume that without blocks, the method will have to somehow create a "living local understanding" of the system which incorporates transactions as it encounters them.  The method by which nodes secure the network is still based on cryptographic work, right?  Also, with the method you are proposing, if Node A broadcasts "I am sending outputs of 30 DAG to Node Z", Node Z (which is very distant to Node A on the network) can rely on that transaction being "confirmed" and respendable the moment it encounters it?  
  
Ok, let me take a break and re-read this thread and see if I can make more sense of what you are saying.  
  

It's completely wrong. There is no nodes, there is no even time (transactions don't have timestamps), there is only work measured in hashes and conflicts are resolved by prioritizing variants having more PoW.

So hows the paper coming along on this? is their any news regarding this? Also hows the future looking for this project any news on current development at looking at a early alpha wallet and progression made into this becoming a reality?

There is no actual 'time' in any cryptocurrency, and any things you might find in blocks called 'time stamps' are not to be trusted because in a p2p environment, nodes lie. This is what satoshi solved in his paper - a time stamping algorithm called POW.

There have to be nodes. There have to be people listening for and forwarding transactions. Maintaining an internal model of the state of the network and forwarding its observations to those who request it.

Wrong; blocks need timestamps in order to retarget the PoW difficulty.
Quoting from

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty

"The difficulty is adjusted every 2016 blocks based on the time it took to find the previous 2016 blocks"

Blocks can lie only a little about their timestamp; if too far out of whack, the block
is not relayed.

Notice how the interval is large enough to make the massive errors in timestamp values insignificant? There is something like a 22 minute window of validity for timestamps in bitcoin. They're basically useless, except when dealing with them over a massive interval, such as in the retargeting.

Right, but consensus model doesn't require to assume anything about nodes.

Only if you need supply inflation schedule tied to the outer world timeline, like 150 BTC per hour goal.

but whats the advantage of not having blocks?

To name a few:

No mining centralization
No block limit drama
No hard TPS limit
Relaxed requirement for bandwidth
True micropayments

Nice few advantages their and can see a lot more coming from this in the future. No doubt will lead the way for crypto and indeed maybe change how future crypto coins are created.

The window of validity is quite a bit wider than that, arguably infinitely wide (at least up to the limit of the timestamp data type). By consensus, the timestamp has to be later than the median of the last 11 blocks, which typically is close to an hour in the past. It can be up to two hours in the future (relative to a node's view of "current time") for relay purposes, but the consensus has no maximum timestamp at all.

In normal usage the window of validity is small compared to the retargeting window, but edge cases can be important too.

Could someone explain how this;


is compatible with this;


Thanks..

the total transaction capacity scales with the total number of nodes.

Every "node" could be in the same location, even the same machine.


https://bitslog.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/dagcoin-v41.pdf

are you disagreeing with the statement that the more nodes there are (whatever you call them, wherever they are) the more transactions can be processed?

PoW protects from all nodes being in one location

Since "nodes"/checkpoints are based on transactions, that's kind of like saying, "are you disagreeing that more transactions means that more transactions can be processed?" Well no, I'm not disagreeing with that.

PoW only protects from all nodes being in one location (centralization) when it is simultaneously coupled with a limit to transactions per second, otherwise one physical location would out-compete others.

I dont understand...

Can you explain how one physical location can out-compete the others, when they are all merged into the single txnet?

The cost to check a tx is much less than to do the PoW, so there can be "islands" pumping out lots of tx, but what prevents them from propagating and merging into a single set of transactions?

why does there have to be any limits to transactions per second?

To allow full nodes to operate with limited bandwidth, i.e. to allow decentralization.

We used to think that bigger blocks increase rate of orphaned blocks and hence it's more profitable to put all miners into a single location (i.e. centralize). For blockless blockchain it's not a case because it's allowable to "mine" on top of old transactions.

DAG makes it much easier to handle intensive data flow because of multicast. A single transaction easily fits into MTU and if it's not received by few of the endpoints it's not a problem. Even more, TPS bursts are automatically smoothed, a full node needs majority of the transactions only if it sends or receives money, in all other cases it needs only to verify PoW and rebroadcast transactions to its neighbors (if multicasting is disabled).

We already mine on top of old transactions, that's certainly not novel.

Yes.

The full node is the heart of the issue. If there are only a handful of full nodes, and thousands of thin clients, then this protocol isn't decentralized, which is the claim in the whitepaper.

Emphasis mine.

No. We mine on top of recent transactions.



Can't comment on that whitepaper.

I was being a little facetious.
I don't see how this protocol avoids the tradeoff between transactions per second and decentralization, and just repeating the claim isn't helping me understand. You mine on old transaction, ok, so what? How does that help us any more than mining on top of recent transactions in regards to centralization?

100 Mbps allows 12'000 TPS for 1 KiB transactions. There is no an incentive to centralize with conventional hardware. VISA peak TPS is reported to be 56'000 TPS (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability). Average is 2'000 TPS.

If I'm trying to transact in Dagcoin, it doesn't matter to me that maybe 100,000 nodes could potentially have my parent transaction, the only thing that matters to me is finding the node which does have it, and that's where my new transaction is going to go. The next transaction, which relies upon mine, is similarly going to go to that node, and so on. No one wants their transactions left out on a loose strand.
On the flipside, nodes want to get as many transactions as they possibly can because that's presumably where they'll get their revenue in Dagcoin.
So there definitely is an incentive on both sides to centralize the network.

Separately, the amount of bandwidth necessary to store a transaction at VISA is orders of magnitude less than what it costs to propagate a transaction across a network. So if we were looking at your example, and say doing 2000KB/s for an average of 2000TPS, we would need at least 7000 times that bandwidth to propagate over 7000 nodes or 218.75MB/s (1750Mb/s).

Note: I'm using "node" here in the usual sense of the word; a geographically separated mining entity.

Looks like we are talking about different DAG-coins. My version of DAG doesn't care about network topology.



Let's check your numbers. IP header size = 40 bytes, UDP header size = 8 bytes, transaction size = 1024 bytes. 40 + 8 + 1024 = 1072. Small world topology with 3 neighbors (this is enough to effectively propagate data) requires to send 3 times of that, which is 25'728 bits. For 100 Mbps we get 3'886 TPS. And this is without multicast enabled on routers between nodes.

Start a different thread, this is for DagCoin the whitepaper.

We're definitely on different pages here. I don't know anything about this thing of yours.

You're not going to be able to "effectively" propagate that transaction in 1 second to 7000 nodes with 3 neighbors. You would never have distributed consensus among those nodes. If user's can't get distributed consensus, then they will gravitate toward the subset of node(s) which has(have) the closest thing to it.
I don't see how DagCoin avoids this issue, and I stress that I'm talking about the DagCoin in this thread and not "a DAG coin" in general. Though I'm skeptical of the latter as well..

Why 1 sec, not 1 min?
Consensus among nodes is not required, it's perpendicular to consensus about ledger state.
I can't comment on the gravitation thing without knowing what reference strategy is being used in your scenario, I know at least one strategy that doesn't lead to fragmentation.

I assume you mean "why not 2000 transactions per minute?" Sergio says himself that it's only limited by the hardware deployed.


He then goes on to talk about the problems with increasing difficulty on transactions in this system;


I'd like to point out that in DagCoin, it is still only miners that vote. If you're a user that applies work on a transaction and broadcasts it, then you're a miner.
Work is a waste from the perspective of the miners. There is no incentive, or even a method to incentivize miners to do work on transactions in DagCoin. Competition would atrophy hashpower on the network in order to drive up transaction speeds, which is the product that the miner provides, users enjoy, and the only method of remuneration. Mining is just a cost that the miner wants to minimize.
This is just like if we removed the block size limit from Bitcoin and removed the subsidy.

That problem, the lack of funding for difficulty increases in order to slow down transaction speeds, isn't referenced in the white paper unless I missed it. So ultimately to get back to answering your original question "Why 1 sec, not 1 min?" the answer is I don't see any decentralized throttling mechanism that could actually work in DagCoin.

If miners == users then I suggest to use a digital signature algorithm which security depends on PoW tied to the transaction. Those who generate little PoW may see their coins double-spent by others.

And so users with slow computers will simply stop using the platform, creating a centralisation of its own form - this is especially bad if difficulty is out of the control of the users, which in this paper it appears to be.

Low security transactions are secured once they are included into the graph, doublespending becomes hard after that point. It's a CPU vs bandwidth tradeoff. Users with very slow computers and very slow Internet will indeed be unable to use the platform unless they cooperate with each other (via multisignatures).

A discriminatory protocol is worse than mining centralisation IMO because you exclude use in countries which would stand to gain the most.

Agree, luckily for us our design solves this issue in a sidechain-like manner.

i must admit i dont understand how this TxNet may work in detail but it sounds interesting.

i have one question though (this also assumes no further tx-obfuscation):
if tx's are mined like blocks with multiple ancestors is it possible to blacklist certain transactions in different jurisdictions and still have the rest working?

only transactions which uses that outputs would be unusable in that country.

any thoughts?

To clarify, you're talking about being a lower part of a chain which gets orphaned here, not weak cryptographic security?

I'm talking about weaker cryptographic security. More PoW done -> stronger the signature is (harder to find another message to sign).

More POW = stronger block hash, but you should never be able to forge a signature.

Why?

If I sign a msg with my private key, the signature is a record that I signed the msg. If you can forge my signature, then you can send fake msgs from me.

This signing algorithm is supposed to be used in a PoW cryptocoin only. Every key can be used only once (every output can be spent only once).

What signing algorithm? I feel this is so far off topic now, that you really should start your own thread about your own design.

I wasn't going to discuss that algorithm at all, but you were asking about it :)

It isn't clear what you were talking about from the thread; it was ambiguous.

it sounds like just a currency turned into a payment processing type structure....

Just like PayPal
How will coins be distributed without mining?

that hasn't been explicitly stated, but I believe it would work as a phase 2 of a cryptocurrency. I.e., once the emission is complete, this kicks in, similar to how some PoS systems work.

So, this is a really neat idea for a new coin and sounds like a possible winner in the long run of things, if bitcoin hits a real snag and can't come up with a plan of attack to fix the block size problem.  But I was curious, so each "node" in the sense would have to be distributed geographically to be able to adequately send transactions in any part of the world?  I'm just having trouble understanding how this could work without the blockchain system, and can't seem to grasp the idea that if say, no nodes where on the continent of Australia... then it would be very hard to transact to anyone that would want a transaction sent to them if they didn't run a "node themselves" ...

I was trying to read a majority of the thread, but honestly, I'm not in the mood for diving into reading a whole thread right now.

Also, has this coin been implemented yet? Or is there a specific release date?

 Does your coin is open source,i know currency half second transaction fast,running from one year

But not open source,.There is not possible to find exchange becouse not open source and not blockchain technology

Now 12 october beta test of yet another is starting,it will be exchangable to fiat.Proof of Time,supply will be through searching internet,currency will be backed by products

if  anybody is intersted in ,feel free to pm me

I'm evidently not as mathematically gifted as some of you in this thread and am having trouble wrapping my head around what is being proposed. 
 
If anyone ever has any spare time, some Alice and Bob graphics to help clarify how exactly this network would work could help immensely.

                              (((((((((o)))))))))
                        ((((                           )))
[ ALICE ]        ((       Vaporware Cloud      )))          [ BOB ]
     |                  ((((                              ))                  |
     |                        ((((((((((((o)))))))))                     |
     |                                                                          |
     |___________ Magical Blockless TXs ____________|


_{Sorry, could not resist. I do hope that one day we get to see an actual implementation and the expectations turn out to be properly set.}

Here is a more informative picture (arrows show references, they are directed opposite to the timeline):
http://s18.postimg.org/t8hzyqjjd/dag.png

+1

No block-chain representation will ever be nicer than that DAG-chain.

If we can't build a Blockchain system without Bitcoin, why will be possible to build a Bitcoin without a Blockchain?
It is interesting, because having a working proof of DagCoin will definitely separate the concepts of Blockchain and Crypto-Currency.

Looking forward to the 0.1 version release.

Ethereum uses DAG aswell, any comparisons that can be made?

DAG != DAG, we can say that Bitcoin uses DAG as well.

Ahh i guess its the way it is used then... 

I've been thinking about this on and off for a bit... How is difficulty handled in this system? The paper doesn't go into much detail, but it does hint at some kind of deterministic difficulty computation?

Unless the difficulty of producing a new block is at maximum network difficulty, the system could be subject to sybil attack?

Why?

By 'maximum network difficulty' I refer to a difficulty adjusted to cope with participation as in bitcoin. Given that, if you have differing sets of difficulty depending on where you put your new block in a DAG, it means that you can produce different numbers of blocks depending on placement for the same CPU power, hence this opens the system up to sybil attack.

If you count weight of blocks depending on difficulty you don't have problems with sybil attack. 10 blocks with difficlty 2 and 1 block with difficulty 20 are the same.

This is a lot of block-talk for a cryptocurrency without blocks.   ::)

This is true, but if you don't have a continuously adjusting difficulty, how can you tell what the amount of work is required to 'confirm' a transaction?

After some adaptation period when a transaction is included into most of tips you need to wait constant time without paying attention to difficulty. A similar thing exists in blockchain-based PoW coins - it's passed time that matters, not number of blocks (if waiting time >> block time, which is necessary to reduce effect of variation).

I don't think transactions in DagCoin go into more than one tip, do they? Not unless we're talking about double spends anyway.

In any case, surely the only actual evidence of passed time *is* the number of blocks, or rather accumulated work? That's why 0 confirmation transactions are not safe in bitcoin - there is no evidence of work done.

If every transaction goes into only one tip then you get a tree, not a DAG.



If that my condition is true (waiting time >> block time) then there is no difference between number of blocks, passed time and accumulated work.

I disagree with this assessment - by that logic simply waiting for 10 minutes in bitcoin for a 0 confirmation transaction would be as good as waiting for a block, but this is obviously false.

Because condition is not true.

PS: ">>" sign means "much greater than".

Not many options there, you either don't allow to create new coins or have to live with very low security caused by miners attempting to invalidate each other's work and creating a superwide DAG.

A question to Sergio.

I'm reading the whitepaper, trying to understand the concept. Fig.1 confuses me.
There is a transaction "5" in fig. 1a, in 1b another transaction 5 arrives. Is it a typo?
Why transactions 6, 7 and 8 need to increase confirmation score of 3? Wouldn't it be better if they follow policy of their parent transaction 5 (the newer one)?
Why confirmation score of 3 suddenly drops to 1 when 9 and 10 arrive? 6, 7 and 8 no longer confirm 3, since their descendant 9 has chosen to confirm another doublespend? At the same time 6,7 and 8 still confirm 2?

Here is the announcement thread of a token based on DAG tech. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1216479.0)

Presale fail.  
  
How can someone be smart enough to understand mathematics and computer science well enough to launch one of these but not understand that no pre-sale coin can ever become a world standard for value (or will succeed against nearly impossible odds if it does)?  
  
In any n-person pirate game, where pirate #1 literally makes up his own magic token and decides to keep a portion for himself, passing the remaining portion to the next.... how can pirate #1 (and any subsequent pirates) ensure that as many people value the token and use it as possible?  Remember that the token carries no initial value, and any value will come through adoption and usage of the token.  
  
I am confident that one losing strategy for such a game is to draw a line in the sand of "haves" vs. "have-nots" where after a certain point in time you are clearly buying into a line that was drawn before you got there.  A pre-sale functions as one such line.  It's not ultimately the distribution that matters, but the fairness of the distribution and the perception that any player could have gotten "in" at any time for a non-fixed cost that rose organically from zero. 
  
As I have always said, if you have a powerful enough technology then simply developing and understanding that tech will eventually make you very wealthy.  There is no need for a pre-sale.  

Look at coinmarketcap, there a bunch of presale funded coins in the top 10 - it makes no difference to performance at all.

You seem to be a smart guy. Here is a challenge for you - design such a system based on DAG that allows to issue coins a-la Bitcoin (we start with 0 supply) without weakening the security of the system. I think 1 week is enough for you. Do you accept the challenge? These links may be helpful:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

None of them have become the world standard of value and using market cap as a metric is suspect due to the "sell one coin to a friend" problem especially in anonymous ICOs where no one can really tell whether they have ever been distributed by an effective market process.

Whether such a coin can in fact become a world standard of value in the future is unclear, so I'm not quite as negative as AP. All those coins in the top 10 are nowhere close to Bitcoin's value though (which in turn is nowhere close to any existing world standard of value). So it seems fairly doubtful at this juncture. In fact on this basis alone your statement that it "makes no difference at all" isn't supportable. How about we try a simple regression between presale and no-presale. Any guesses on the coefficient?

But as CfB says if there technically isn't a way to distribute over time then it needs to be done another way. That much is certainly true.

Sure. You should probably leave bitcoin and litecoin out of it, since they have the first mover(s) advantage.

That's not a simple regression. That's creating a model based on your own opinion of what matters.

Litecoin doesn't have any real first mover advantage either, except by being first to be the second to become big enough for you to consider it worthy of excluding. Say what?

So basically "makes no difference at all" is just something you made up.

I always felt that the CLAMS distribution model was rather interesting (even tough I didn't get any  :'()
Maybe some similar scheme could be devised, perhaps even incorporating a % via presale also.

I stand by that. Arguing that bitcoin and it's clone have the biggest market caps *because* of their distribution model is crazy; for a long time there were no alternatives, that is why they have found such a following.

I didn't argue anything. I pointed out that your statement isn't supportable by any clear evidence. That doesn't even make it incorrect, but unsupported.

 
 
So you believe that if bitcoin had a presale it wouldn't have a.) faced much more hostile attitudes and regulation and b.) failed to gain the critical momentum necessary for mass adoption? 
 
I believe that time will eventually show that pre-sales simply don't work to do anything but temporarily enrich the launchers.  It is a damn fool waste to take what may be valid technology and piss it away on a concept that might endanger the entire implementation at the benefit of padding the creator's pockets a little.  Premines and shadow mines are the same thing. 
 
If Ethereum is crumbling due to it's presale and the attitude of its creators that "we can't do it all, you guys help build it" what do you think will eventually happen to Iota? 
 
Perhaps a solution is not easy to launch a DAG implementation without a presale or premine (and honestly I'm not even 100% sure what this means still despite my best efforts to understand - somehow a lack of blocks and distributed network is supposed to create an infinitely scalable network at the cost that people don't know where money came from until they spent it... or something like that), but that doesn't mean you should take shortcuts. 
 
Worst case scenario?  Don't sell the initial tokens at all.  Allow anyone who is interested to sign up and receive free tokens to seed the initial amount.  Make a topic on the Altcoin ANN section and make an announcement on the cryptographic mailing lists so no one can claim you didn't try to let as many people as possible know.  Let those who received the free tokens then assign their own monetary value to them and let the network's value grow organically afterwards. 
 

Already have seen how it ended for Stellar, NEM and few others.

Crowdfunding works. Look at kickstarter. Cryptocurrencies are fantastically complicated projects, that take years to develop - how do you propose the developers live while working full time on one of these projects?

That's not a good argument. If there are comparable competing cryptocurrencies and one of them is subsided by some altruistic or ideological rich sponsor or by indirect monetization and the other expects users to pay, then users will likely choose the former. File your fairness complaint with the market.

Evidence?

It is self evident.

why not just use an initial POW phase and a standard blockchain that feeds into the DAG? I.e., the POW chain serves no other purpose than to distribute coins that can then be used in the tangle. Once max coins have been emitted (over X years), the chain dies - theres no need for it. Hell, a chain longer than n blocks isn't needed, because the only purpose of the chain's history is to record the current difficulty (i.e., demand) for the currency.

"why not just sell? people will spend money on electricity to create coins, why not just spend money on coins?" Mainly due to the time elongation of the distribution phase. The bootstrap model in bitcoin is... well, just great.

Was it the only option - yes.
Is it great - arguable.

Cryptocurrency is a lot like a religion in that it is free to create, but only has value once a large amount of people "buy-in".  Let's look at two wildly successful religions: Islam and Christianity.  Whether you believe them or not, you can't argue they have been wildly successful in establishing a powerful network that has stood the test of time.  
  
What did both have in common?  A fair launch and distribution.  No line was drawn in the sand between the "haves" and the "have-nots".  At no point did any new member feel they were second-class to previous members (at least by official status or decree).  New members were told there was no barrier to entry for any man - if you wanted in, you got in.  They were then empowered to not only experience this new social network, but also to spread it to others.  It turns out that there was eventual financial value in being an early-adopter once enough people recognized the religion, but the benefits weren't clear at first.  Also it should be noted that this 'value' may not have manifested itself in direct financial compensation, but possibly in other forms such as increased influence, protection, and access to resources.  
  
Now, let's look at an example of a religion that is doomed to failure, as so many in the past have: Scientology.  In this religion there is a clear line of haves vs. have-nots.  New members may be dazzled by the initial presentation and organization but without being empowered by a perpetual feeling of "being on the inside of something great" there is little reason for them to spread their enthusiasm to others.  Eventually the hard lines in the sand which divide the new members from those with status defeat any enthusiasm and exponential network effect.  
  
This is the danger of a presale.  
  
It is not easy to fairly launch a new social network, whether that is a language, currency, government, or religion.  It is very difficult to invent a concept unique and popular enough to merit the creation of such a new network, and once accomplished like you said: people gotta eat.  
  
But as smooth said, the free market doesn't respect "gotta eat".  
  
As I have said, it's not impossible to launch a successful currency with a presale, but you immediately catastrophically damage your chances with such shenanigans.  
  
I am sure if you are brilliant enough to invent something worth a new blockchain, determining a fair and non-monetized launch shouldn't be too difficult of a feat.
  

@AP, I didn't read your entire post, it's an offtopic as I got from the beginning, create a new thread if you want to continue, please.

It's clearly off topic for the Bitcoin section. The original post on this thread talked about being used on a sidechain (where there is no distribution issue), so I guess on topic. But the rest of the discussion is Alt for sure.

Fine, invalidate your own hard work with presale implementations and arrogant ostrich tactics. 
 
Successful strategy only begins with a good product - it also requires broad understanding of psychology and game theory to actually succeed. 

It's not the ostrich tactics, I just have respect to the topic creator. Create a new thread, PM me with the link and we will continue the discussion.

Conceded, you've done so much explaining I forgot you weren't TC.

Yes, that's a big if. Even if a technology seems powerful enough at the launch, it may be obsolete/proven faulty in a year. Having a presale removes that risk from the developer(s).

If say someone who sent me a bitcoin years ago decides to do a double spend, he can create a transaction and that transaction will be ignored because bitcoin has blocks.  It seems to me, dagcoin would be vulnerable to double spends this way.

sdp

In dagcoin as I understand it the second spend would be ignored because the first one would have much more work endorsing it.

Thank you for sharing this very innovative solution.

and then.......what will  happened next.

On the next step the double-spending may get a higher share of approvals and eventually become the legit one. So it's dangerous to include double-spendings even if you ignore them.

Is this project still alive?

No. It could be a part of altcoin

Is the project open source? I'd love to take a look at it and maybe contribute myself. Github link plz :D

For the Github you can check these links:

https://github.com/iotaledger/wallet/releases
https://github.com/iotaledger

also, relevant links:

https://learn.iota.org
http://iota.org
https://forum.iotatoken.com
http://iotasupport.com
http://www.tangleblog.com

I wish they'd stop referring to DAG as "decentralized", especially when years later there is no cryptocurrency in sight that relies on DAG that is also significantly decentralized, for exactly the reasons I explained... More than a year and a half ago.


http://forum.iota.org/t/discussion-removing-peer-discovery/939/2

IOTA requires that you manually assign peers because running on it's own it implodes from the bandwidth, because of course it does. It removed Bitcoin's throttling mechanism and now they want to figure out how to prevent these out-of-control blocks in this "blockless" blockchain. Sometimes the real world really is stranger than fiction.

I wasn't sure if you are troll or not, but then I looked at your nickname and decided to explain an obvious thing:

IOTA is for Internet-of-Things. Real Internet-of-Things which looks as described here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking... Um, probably too complex for you, I'll try ELI3 instead of ELI5...

IOTA is for Internet-of-Things. Real Internet-of-Things where a device broadcasts packets to the neighbors in vicinity only. We deployed IOTA to classical Internet with routers and other nasty things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone... Arghh, still too complex...

Imagine that we want to check how IOTA would work on Internet-of-Things. We deployed IOTA to classical Internet. Luckily ISPs already block global multicasting, but if we enable automatic peer-discovery then anyone can interfere with our battle-testing. This is why we use manual tethering. In the past we tested automatic peer discovery and it worked bad (which didn't surprise me at all).

These words reminded me of http://rickandmorty.wikia.com/wiki/Get_Schwifty, you are like that dude who interpreted inapprehensible events to his own benefit and became the main priest of the new cult. You are very very wrong, my friend. I hope in few years you'll get it...

You could have just saved yourself the effort and said, "Ya you're right, DAG doesn't work as a distributed consensus mechanism.", but whatever floats your boat.

I would save the effort if I saw "Bitcoin Maximalist" stamp on your head earlier...

I'm reading the paper ... I maybe get it wrong... but the first analogy that came on the top of my head was ... "dissemination networking"and ICN - Information-centric networking. On these type of communication protocol the data package itself already have all information needed regards source/destination, cryptographic signatures, etc, data is named, so you don't need to armor the pipes ...

http://imgur.com/a/N2DjD

Just to clarify .. I do an analogy of each 'tx' acting as an 'ICN data package'.

An interesting project. Thanks for sharing .

I am not a "Bitcoin Maximalist". Bitcoin has many flaws, but Bitcoin achieves decentralized trustless consensus which IOTA/DAG can not achieve because the DAG architecture fundamentally breaks the mechanism that allows consensus to form in a decentralized manner.

It's all well and good to use this wherever it's useful, but don't go around pretending that DAG is a magical drop-in replacement for the Bitcoin blockchain which allows "massive scalability" while maintaining anywhere near the same security guarantees and network topology.

Let's continue then?

This is how consensus works - https://forum.iotatoken.com/t/iota-consensus-masterclass/1193. Any flaws?

is it about random function ?

because somehow I'm often stuck on it ...

diceware;

I remember reading Nicolas Dorier book years ago ...

What do you mean by "flaws"? I'm sure it works as written, but the design drives the network topology towards highly centralized nodes.

In other words; The "Green Squares" are on centralized servers and not on a broad distributed system, which is why I object to people that refer to DAG as some kind of alternative to the blockchain when it simply doesn't work in that use-case (A highly distributed trustless consensus).

For example when you answer questions like this;

No it's not "or 100 weak ones". The answer is that DAG works better the more centralized it is. That's the way it's designed. It doesn't work equivalently well between 1 "really strong [node]" or "100 weak ones".

On the flipside, Bitcoin's blocks, through POW and the block size limit, allow all transactions to be transferred to literally anyone that wants to run a full node. It's this rate limitation over time (made possible by POW on discrete limited capacity blocks) which allows this synchronization to happen, which is explicitly destroyed in the DAG protocol.

That doesn't mean DAG is "flawed", it just means that it doesn't work as a method to come to decentralized trustless consensus. That's why DAG/IOTA should be separated from the words "Distributed" and "Decentralized" with several paragraphs of clarification.

Interesting claim, we observed the opposite on the testnet and in simulations... No need to continue the discussion, I think.

Are those observations and  simulations documented somewhere?

Testnet can be observed by anyone helping to test. Feel free to use http://slack.iota.org to join and see. Simulations cover much more than just making sure that it all works as whitepaper says, the results will be published when the simulations are finished.

Have you looked at https://byteball.org what is your opinion on that?

It chose to be decentralized but not trust-less, and let the witnesses take the fees.

By the way, IOTA as claimed is for "Internet of Things", and they use Proof-of-Work.

Let me remind you, as someone who actually works on micro controllers at a big enterprise on IoT producst:

Most IoT chips are supposed to be run on batteries, on 3.3V down to 6mAh. Yes, that is right, the latest BLE chips actually use a full 6mAh when radio is on full power and CPU on hard work mode.

Can you imagine how much "Proof-of-Work" such a device can accomplish? Yes, NONE, nada, zilch. It struggles to maintain an TLS connection. DTLS is what people use as https is too heavy. And why? Because you cant ask your customers go around replacing your batteries every year.

And these guys come in here with their IOTAcoin and claim, the stupid devices will somehow magically perform a Proof-of-Working / wasting electricity, in order to transact?! What the fuck.

So in short, iotacoin is not for IoT. Proof-of-Work does not mix with devices which try to do no work!

The only good coin for IoT is Byteball - the cost of sending a transaction/receiving/subscribing to an address - is similar to cost of doing TLS.

Sounds like bullshit, you didnt even know what IoT is. You thought a raspbery pi was an IoT device.  :D

Yes, would be interesting to get an opinion because...

You keep spamming that image.

The best image of Byteball is this, an actual DAG.
https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fwf22yutl.png&t=576&c=RbxRGi7jK-Tm9w

Byteball is the first DAG-coin, the first! The first IoT coin, and the first on exchanges and actual use in livenet.

^ Still unsure whether you "picked the right library" or not?  :D

Ethereum blockchain looks as a DAG too. Does this mean that Ethereum is actually the first DAG coin?

No, as described in this threads paper, ethereum has nothing to do with a DAGcoin, while Byteball is the First functional DAG coin.

Your argumentation by pictures, brings you to wrong conclusions.

I see in the IOTA thread your scam has born fruit to you, people are saying the "iota tokens" they bought from you are not actually "valid" anymore because they didnt "claim" them.

You do not have the first DAG coin, but you are running one of many scam coins.

^
Still unsure if you picked the right library?
Boss already nagging?
Fear of losing your internship?

What do you mean by "in this threads paper"? Give us the direct link, please.

This is very interesting.
I'm wondering though how this could ever be rolled out as it literally needs the network to be active (or not ?). If I wanna transact I need someone else to transact as well and confirm my tx with his tx. I guess I could also send some more tx myself but that's not really going to fly.

Let me see, it is May, the fifth month, of 2017. Can a person trade iotatokens on exchanges and is the consensus of Iota decided by its consensus-algorithm and not "milestone" databases posted by its developers?

Byteball is on bittrex, changelly, bitsquare to name a few.

I am truly sorry you have invested too much into Iotatoken to not be willing to see/comprehend the inherent incompatibility and oyxmoron of "proof-of-work" designed for devices, devices which are optimized to do as little work as possible.

Iota is as spectacular and big as its promises and failure to deliver anything of value.

Milestones are used as a countermeasure against 34% attack while hashpower backing IOTA is not large enough. Also, last time I checked Byteball description that coin wasn't decentralized, so it's unclear why Byteball is mentioned in this thread at all.

I translate your answer to:
yes
yes
yes

LOL.

Iota as designed will never be secure, no matter how much hashpower you throw at it, will never be done with milestones and "claim" your tokens to actually own them, again.

Besides, proof-of-work, hashpower, on internet-of-things devices. Right. I mean, really, congratulations CfB you are master scammer who fooled many many naive people who know nothing of IoT.

I translate your messages to, "butthurt", and enviousness, do you even have a job?

I look forward to seeing what DagCoin has to offer the community. You seem to be introducing some new concepts to the community. We appreciate your service :) Keep growing and maybe one day I'll even buy a DagCoin.

Don't understand all the mud slinging crap between SatoNatomato and Cfb. The two of you should just go get a room or something.

Byteball is centralized in 12 servers so it's extremely hard to take it seriously as more than an interesting experiment to see how it's version of DAG works out. If it ever actually got to the point someone could make big time money from it, and being the way people are, they could easily co-opt enough of those servers to take control.

IOTA. Already controversy over it's initial distribution and I hear CfB had shopped around for sock puppets to help out with that. Haven't even got to the point of looking into those allegations yet but that's what I already hear. Plus he seems more interested in FUDing Byteball than talking about IOTA in his own thread. I haven't even gone back there yet to continue to try and get some answers to my questions as no one seems interested in discussing anything technical about it. IOTA starts as centralized and only stops IF the hash power gets high enough. If it grows to the point where it's not really feasible for most people to run a full node, it ends up gravitating towards a small number of people running nodes and/or "pools" of people running some form of distributed nodes. i.e. it moves towards the current bitcoin mining situation (centralization).

Even with my current limited knowledge of both, I see flaws in both and all the FUDing is just a huge distraction to trying to discuss any of it.

I caught and exposed SatoNatomato on outright lies, so the root of his hatred is easily understandable.

Laughable, you are only butthurt because I asked uncomfortable questions in your IOTA-thread, then you banned me and started following me around to try to stop me from spreading truth what IOTA actually is, from the perspective of someone who actually works with IoT.

Also, your trolling and Byteball FUD is terrible and has been "exposed" by others as well.

Indeed, its major weakness, yet interesting concept. It is not fully centralized to 12 witnesses, as any full node can collect headers-fees, it is only witnesses who collect payload fees. Byteball is decentralized, but not trust-less. It is also possible to run a witness as tor hidden service or even behind i2p.

Right now supermajority of the witnesses is controlled by a single person, so it's not decentralized. Also no proof of Byteball belonging to DAG-coins family was presented, bold claims of a BTT member with "Activity: 140" can't be accept as proofs. The resume is so obvious I don't even need to post it.

lol nice try at derailing again.

Right now iota is not on any exchanges, since you are the consensus algorithm, do you have your notebook and pen ready to scribble which people you are scamming? You keep track of their balances and post it with the next "milestone". How many btc have you stolen due to people not showing up to "claim" the iotatokens they bought from you and thought they owned?

is there a place to discuss byteball specifically?  I have a byteball wallet but i don't know who these trusted witenesses are supposed to be etc

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

What is the present list of DAG based ledgers? I could find tangle/iota, byteball and this. I'd like to research more into this, so any additional references would be helpful.

I'm pretty sure there is only Byteball and Iota at the moment, well, and this project. Which is really interesting, because if this was anything like traditional blockchain projects, you'd have approximately a billion clones by now, including IotaClassic, ByteballClassic, Bitball, My and so on.

There is no actual 'time' in any cryptocurrency, and any things you might find in blocks called 'time stamps' are not to be trusted because in a p2p environment, nodes lie. This is what satoshi solved in his paper - a time stamping algorithm called POW.

Byteball does not use timestamps at all.

I believe that time will eventually show that pre-sales simply don't work to do anything but temporarily enrich the launchers.

to be honest, i really like this but won't that make de centralized concept little more off the edge ?

It sounds nice, but I don't think this would get very far... It's just not a very smooth concept and it would bring nasty disadvantages with it too... ;/

Could you specify? What coins? Are they exactly the same as this one?

are there any other DAG coins now besides IOTA and Byteball?

One of the issues is that these DAG-based approaches give away the benefit of making "blocks" and merkle trees. This means that the ledger side rises linearly with tx count..there is no way to "prune" it..whereas in blockchain you could just store the headers and have merkle proofs to verify block membership.

Other issue is that the resulting structure is unwieldy and exposes lots of additional attack surfaces. Blockchain on the other hand is ideally a single linear chain or in the worst case some orphan blocks and a few forks..which makes it easier to analyze.

This sounds really interesting, but my biggest concern is that the individual user actually loses out by being forced into mining. Right now, users of a blockchain pay a fee to miners for their services. As a result, big business has developed around mining as cheaply as possible to maximize profits. And this works out well for the end user because they don't have to worry about owning a mining rig or paying the cost in electricity that would be required to run all the hash attempts.

What happens when every person has to mine their own transaction? First of all, the user will be on the hook for that cost in electricity/mining hardware cost. Second, their transaction is dependent on them being able to solve someone else's unreferenced transaction. Doesn't that end up being cost-prohibitive?

I have this same question. Thats the only reason i havent bought dag yet.

here's the visualization of it https://tangle.blox.pm/

what's with the first thing? LoL

what a shill

Is your system a Quorum Based Qubic system???

Exactly...

this is the reason i have reservations with dag.

What is reason that one needs to buy these?

(The optimal way to get anything bootstrapped is a free spinoff, eg. a cryptocurrency receives the highest marketcap if it is given for free according to the amount one paid personal (fiat) taxes last year... The previous would give everyone according to their ability to spend, and propel any reasonably transactable token to billion$ of marketcap in an instant, without moving any other currency in the bootstrapping process.)

Having observed Iota a bit and being a bit disappointed by Byteball, I must say that I haven't understood the exact advantages of a DAG with respect to a blockchain, at least of a DAG based on the "transactions as blocks" paradigm like Iota and Byteball (instead, a limited DAG-based approach like in Ethereum seems to have some advantages).

Iota cites scalability (mainly, as far as I understand it, because of fast transaction propagation/validation), but small-block blockchains should have the same advantages. Iota's zero-fee paradigm seems specific to its design and not to a DAG (Steem, for example, being blockchain based also has zero fees). And then there is the issue to get transactions confirmed that looks pretty difficult in Iota. In both Iota and Byteball, as far as I know, also still centralized servers work as the "clock" of the system.

So I would be really grateful if someone could explain the advantages of a DAGcoin and what is its real potential. (This thread also was not helpful (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1799665.0), but I have some hope that in this subforum there are more technically skilled people than in the altcoin forum.)

Also, I have heard also that research is going on to integrate the concept into Bitcoin in the far future. If someone knows more, I'd be grateful for links about that.

https://github.com/DagcoinOY/dagcoin

Do you have exchanger for Dagcoin?

DagCoin is not an altcoin. It is a concept that originally was meant to be used as a Bitcoin sidechain.

As far as I know, the original idea was never transformed into a working cryptocurrency. But with Byteball and Iota there are two altcoins attempting something similar.

I am strongly in favor to limit the scope of this thread to the "DAG" concept in general and the original DAGcoin implementation, and not discuss Byteball and Iota here, as they are discussed in several threads in the Altcoin subforum.


First I thought, "Interesting." But then I read this:


So it's a second-layer currency built on an altcoin - not really what we're discussing here.

For completeness' sake there's also XRB - RaiBlocks. Very cool distribution model btw - proof of reCAPTCHA :))

Resources worth checking out:

ANN: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1381323.0
XRB vs BTC vs XRP: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1381323.msg19698220#msg19698220
Github: https://github.com/clemahieu/raiblocks

Cool! I was working on a similar problem last year. My approach was to have txs delivered in rounds (also with PoW, in a DAG), such that low value txs happen early in the round and higher value txs happen later in the round (and must point to previous, lower value txs in the round). A “highest value tx in this round” acts as a shelling point to “end the round”, ie. new low value txs start pouring in on top of it for the next round. You’d want to get at least a few rounds of confirmation before accepting a transaction, and an interesting auction economics emerges for rolling into the next round. A more complex variation would target the distribution of tx amounts directly, such that the modes happen early in the round, and the tails end the round.

sir do you have another thread about the information of this project you we can read or signature campaign?
 

Dagcoin will start their 3 month Pre-launch period on July 1,2017. And believe me I know all the details on how and where to buy dagcoins on pre-sale before it goes to exchanges. Just inbox me i'll give you details.  ;)

hmm what is this coin? new comptetitor for byteball/iota/rai?

please tell me it will have a better name and marketing than those three hideous coins/wallets

i am confused so this was in development in 2015 and now coming back to life or did it launch and die and now coming back again?  I am interested given the no block tech.

As far as I know, the original "DAGCoin" by Sergio Lerner was never finished into a working project.

The "Dagcoin" promoted in some of the latest post instead is an altcoin based on Byteball and has nearly nothing to do with the "Dagcoin" described in this thread, so I regard these posts as off-topic. Byteball and Iota, at this moment, are the only cryptocurrencies that use a DAG instead of a blockchain, but both have strong centralized elements.

You must be an amateur trader, only they parrot others' words...

So you're one of those who believe good names and marketing maketh a coin good? What's so hideous about byteball and its wallet anyway? I've actually really grown to like it - and you only need to see the growing number of apps being used within the byteball wallet to understand what's so attractive about it.

I'm just talking shit. don't take it personal. I hold all three of these coins seriously because of the potential and have made great returns on them.

I just expected more from "the next bitcoin" tech, mostly from a marketing standpoint. I agree byteball has the best wallet of the three, hands down. I understand coins can pivot overnight so i'm not too worried about branding long term.

It's just that none of the three current coins in space gives me any warm and fuzzies at all atm. i like individual things about all three, admittedly.. my point is there is room for someone to do better.

Thank you for the reply.  I appreciate the clarity.  :)

Dagcoins wallet is going to be a beauty!

No worries, wasn't taking it personal (okay maybe just a tiny bit as am still in a muddled infatuation with byteball, it being the only alt I properly took in). We all do our share of shittalking anyway. I stand on your point, also searching for the warm and fuzzy in this maze of techno mumbo jumbo every project seems to just love indulging.

It's a ponzi. It's completely centralized with a central party with administrative powers issuing tokens to people at a fixed price. It has no blockchain thus no explorer to look at anything. No nodes to run because it's fully centralized. Onecoin vol^whatever.
Stay clear from this. MLM bullshit. What kind of crypto needs you to buy a education package to open a fucking wallet. No exchange will ever accept this. Won't even get on cmc list because it's a scam centralized bullshit token.
https://daguniversity.com/en

You can't open a wallet if someone has not referred you. just saying.

Big words. They actually allready have a deal with bittrex and also there is internal market. MLM bullshit is just to get all premined coins distributed ASAP!

So you're saying centralized blockchain with no actual chain will get on bittrex? Ha ^HaHa

What coin would be a good coin where you can't create a wallet without being refferred by another person? Also you NEED to pay at least 20 dollars to open a wallet. Great entry-barrier. What do you even know about crypto?

They have 1bil coins and are distributing them for 1 dollar each. Who in their right mind would buy up the entire supply to a full on pyramid coin.

I am - I would even say I'm not even really a trader ;D

But if you're already here: Has the "Coordinator" node been removed from Iota? If yes, then I retract my affirmation about Iota and will look at this concept again (I've followed it a bit around 2015/16 but was disappointed because it simply "didn't seem to work" in a decentralized manner). Byteball, in contrast, seems to rely heavily on their "witnesses" and so will never be really decentralized.

No, Coordinator will be here until at least 1 user needs it. If Coordinator operator made the decision for a user it would be a centralized system. Instead IOTA runs a decentralized system where every user decides himself when to switch to the uncoordinated mode.

I just finished reading Eric Wall's article (https://medium.com/@ercwl/iota-is-centralized-6289246e7b4d) and the comments from some of the Iota team members on it. It seems that the "switch to uncoordinated mode" is, at this moment, a theoretical concept and requires programming skills (or an alternative client?). So I understand that the standard client software still enforces the confirmation of transactions by the Coordinator.

By the way, the aggressive tone David Sønstebø shows in his comments are not really convincing. If confronted with criticism the first reaction is an accusation of "lies" and "FUD", then very probably something is wrong with the project. I have sympathies for Iota, but if Iota's communication strategy continues this way that will end.

Requirement of having a modification can't invalidate the claim of being decentralized. The protocol is decentralized, the implementation is being improved every day, right now the team focused on more important things. Purists can fund development of their own version or wait for someone else to provide it.

Aggressive tone can be shocking to some people living together with their parents. Get used to living without being babysitted.

OK. I'll accept your stance for now and will periodically look at Iota's evolution and the Coordinator issue. (For me, the Coordinator is an important issue. Call me a purist, but I wouldn't be interested in Iota if it was only a second Ripple.).


In German, there's a nice saying "Getroffene Hunde bellen" ("hitten dogs bark"). Aggressive tone like David's comments may convince underaged shills/fanboys but not people that want to know more about the issues.

There are 8 billion people on the planet, guess how many of them care about your or my interest.

100% premine MLM bullshit byteball fork.

Iota is centralized. Coordinator will stay. Since the team is focusing on more important things than decentralization.

There, easier for anyone to understand what youre hiding.

It's enough to check your post history to see how much your words are worth.  :D

I'm following this thread with a lot of interest, started Segio Demian Lerner, with his brilliant "DAG theory",
then came Come-from-Beyond, and brought us a case study of the "DAG theory" is IOTA,
but the IOTA network is centralized, I say something like: P2? . They have a great development team however they still can not implement that the network works in a decentralized way.
In the two case studies named Byteball and IOTA the same thing happens.
I'm starting to wonder if it's possible to build a decentralized P2P system with DAG.
At this point, I would like nothing more than the opinion of who started this thread.
Sergio please: in theory can this system function as a pure and decentralized P2P network?
If yes, then the question follows, and in practice?

did this ever launch? i dont see it on CMC.

i know OP is working on RSK, so that's already a full-time thing.

No, you can not have a DAG-coin be fully decentralized and trust-less like Bitcoin.

DAG-coins can be decentralized, distributed, but not trust-less.

Byteball version is to trust majority of 12 (or any forks/clones suitable chosen number) witnesses to not collude together, but is decentralized, distributed. The trust required is spread over many.

IOTA version, aside from many many other major problems, read my post history, is to trust a single Coordinator and require social connections/trust for node peering, it is centralized, and not trust-less.

Well chosen name for Coordinator in iota. "a person whose job is to organize events or activities and to negotiate with others in order to ensure they work together effectively."

Sergio Demian Lerner has written his last post in 2016 in this forum (he seems to have logged in in May, however). It's unlikely he'll see this post. It's a pity, but I cannot blame him - look at the last pages of this thread, there were more posts promoting some DAG-based altcoins than those dealing with the original subject of the thread.

At this time, Sergio is pretty busy with Rootstock (see the project homepage (http://www.rsk.co)).

PS: There is some research on DAGs outside of the Iota and Byteball communities. Some even think DAG elements could be integrated into Bitcoin in the future.

I was told this dagcoin is something like a side branch of byteball so it would utilise the byteball tangle.

Is the project open source? I'd love to take a look at it and maybe contribute myself. Github link plz Cheesy

None of the existing implementations can be. I proposed a solution here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1992827.0

Can you tell what Sergio's post exactly do you mean?

Wasnt this design basically copied from git model and applied to cryptocurrency. Wouldn't *some* of the practical sybil and bft attacks possible on that be by extension plausible on acyclic graphs aswell?

It takes few minutes to scroll down the posts to find what you need.

https://github.com/DagcoinOY/dagcoin (https://github.com/DagcoinOY/dagcoin)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIasr2AiyZ0

Omg seems like a great idea :o

What comes with DAG as an attack vector? Comparing DAG to block chain, what would be their pros and cons?
Is there a good writing on that topic. I haven't searched much, I admit.

I know DAG COINS is a look like Bytecoins. A cryptocurrency without block. And you know what is the current price of Bytecoins? 0.2 BTC each . And this is the great Bytecoins Developer are apse the developer of Dagcoins so expect the price of DAG when open in the exchangers. If you are interested to this coins  send me a private msg.

I had too and I even tried to mess with them but I failed :/

its byteball not bytecoins! dunno how you get it wrong.

its also 1GB or 1 gigabyte per 0.2btc not 1 coin

1GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes and 1 byte is base unit.

so much wrong in 1 post. makes me wonder sometimes if people know what they are using/investing in or if they just scream pump moon and think easy usd cause some friend told them about teh interwebz money because their dad works at the internet

Thats 100% spot on, great post.

are there any other DAG coin, besides IOTA and byteball

Is the project open source? Is there a github page? I heard this is closely related to byteball.

I feel like all of these new cryptocurrencies coming out are good, but there are so many it is hard to gain significant market cap. It would be cool if one coin took all the technology and put it into one. :o

Can we close this thread now?

It has turned into an advert and diverged from the original creators intent.

Byteball and Dagcoin are identical. Even their wallet has the same design. The dag team says on their website https://dagcoin.org/en that dagcoin works on byteball. May be they use the same tangle! But in difference from iota they apply small fees.

How and from where to buy DAGCOIN?

Your Dagcoin has very little common with DagCoin discussed here.

It sounds to me quite interesting. But i must admit i dont understand how this TxNet may work in detail.
I am sure if you are brilliant enough to invent something worth a new blockchain, determining a fair and non-monetized launch shouldn't be too difficult of a feat. Good luck have fun  ;D

So if somebody sends me a bitcoin long ago does a double spend, he can create a transaction that will be ignored because bitcoin has blocks.  Dagcoin would be vulnerable to double spends this way.

Is reallt true? A crypto without block? How is it possible. Once in my fb group one people.joined he seem to promote.this dagcoin and advertise a very high income if.you buy experts of this group labeled it as scam because of it's out of this worid vision. And now.you are saying this thing.. enlighten me please.

This will be huge in asia where it is being distributed. Transactions take only seconds. DAG (directed acyclic graph). There is no single central entity that manages or coordinates admission of new units into the database, everyone is allowed to add a new unit provided that he signs it and pays a fee equal to the size of added data in bytes.

That does describe Byteball.

Recent research showed that it may be not true for Byteball. To publish the report I need to know what definition of "decentralized" is used by Byteball.

IOTA isn't decentralized either Mr. CFB...

So is Bitcoin and all other currencies I suppose. Depends on your definition of "decentralized". This is why I added Mr. Posting-before-thinking.  :D

How is not Bitcoin decentralized ? It's decentralized - even tho it has a several pools with big hashrate, it's decentralized between these pools.
IOTA isn't - it needs central authority to validate transactions, I can even quote one of your posts, 'the coordinator', for now it's a centralized DAG.

This not so clever, hit, I shall not comment on.

Definition is simple, and you know what is it - P2P network, which can be run without central checkpointing, or central point-of-failure, without central authority.
I didn't refer to Byteball, I want to point out your thinking - you point out something, even tho your coin is tainted in the same way.

I can refer to only more educated than me, which seems to agree:
https://medium.com/@ercwl/iota-is-centralized-6289246e7b4d
https://medium.com/@ercwl/hello-david-b77bbc62c457

Technically his iota coin is tainted in worse way. The Coordinator is a single entity within the network, but Byteball can have many witnesses, there are 14 now, the trust in Byteball is distributed across 12 entitities, who the person behind them is its left for a social/economic decision similae to which pool in bitcoin to join, while the same can not happen with Coordinator. :D

Iota is worst crypto of 2017. Centralized dev controlled fake.

My bet offer is still actual. Willing to put real money into your claim?  ;)

How and where do you buy this?

What bet ? What you want to bet on?
Do you want to say that IOTA is completely decentralized DAG blockless token in the way it's working now? And you want to bet on this?
Ok, but you would have to immediently pay, because it's a known fact, that it's not decentralized, or you will deny yourself, and deny truth.
Why you can't admit it? On medium I have read, some painful comments, to read, because it was full of mocking author of medium article, and it was conducted in a distasteful way.
It have left me with bad impression, if whole team of developers are like these comments from main developer/founder.

nice ideas , without blocks will be different, hope you will success..

You are SatoNatomato's mom? If not then let him reply himself.

https://daguniversity.com/en/

Does this have anything to do with this coin?

Yes thats the only way to purchase dagcoin at the moment. It will launch on bittrex in October.

Where's the information related to mining, GitHub code, and other typical coin data? All I see are education packages that I do not need.

When you pay the debts you owe me from previous lost bets, until then you have not placed your money where your mouth is.

Good game scammer, sleep well at night. Not.

Still I can't believe, someone bought this dream/fairytell about IOTA, and it's current market valuation.

But it seems now it doesn't matter, if something is centralized/decentralized, has one entity/authority, or it's between p2p.
It's all about profit. Cryptospace, became intoxicated by wannabe fast profit gainers, I'm truly angry, about that.
ICOs everywhere, resolving 'world problems', with only just one common purpose - to gather ETH/BTC/LTC, and other crypto, and in reality to gather cash.

and how you think which is better?

Coin is premined, i cant remember the amount.

You are making excuses. Provide the link to that bet, please. You have been using this trick so often.  :D

Iota has worse crypto than developers attitude.

https://medium.com/@neha/cryptographic-vulnerabilities-in-iota-9a6a9ddc4367

im not sure it is actually on any exchanges yet

the fuck? that github link literally says its based on byteball. is this novel work or what

Where to buy DagCoin from? :(

At the moment it is sold on the internal exchange. Should be up soon on some major exchange aswell.

Thanks. Until that time I'll stay off.

It was supposed to happen 1st of October, but there is a delay in the launch.

This is truly interesting. I'm wondering though how this could ever be rolled out as it literally needs the network to be active too !

I wanted to attend their press conference yesterday to ask why they have no marketing in this forum, but it was held in a cafe with a lot of people so had to fold, not my scene.

The price on the internal market is now 1.79$

The first versions of digital wallet have already been released and can be downloaded at dagcoin.org (http://dagcoin.org). The development so far has been performed for more than 7 months, and in 2018 it will see many more improvements and features as we will hire even more IT-specialists.
https://github.com/dagcoin/dagcoin (https://github.com/dagcoin/dagcoin)

CEO: Mr. Nils Grossberg sayd, IT teams are working hard in order to open the merchants’ platform in February 2018. By opening the merchant platform, we plan to go to public exchange to support merchants and make their trading in Dagcoins easier. In addition, the development of several platforms has already started with the aim to create the supporting ecosystem and to ensure stable growth of Dagcoin value.

Since ICO, my 5k invested has turn into 25k. I know the marketing for them is a bit dodgy, but i recommend everyone to have another look on this technology.

tbh good luck with it,if you ever make it,im willing to invest in it,concept seems good tho

1NVnUQNNn7TYFLVoNTa8P82ZXJ8VKJ7vWD

Where is this internal market and where can I see ICO info?

https://daguniversity.com/en/registration/1358914 (https://daguniversity.com/en/registration/1358914)

What's this affiliate link has to do with the question asked?

Only way to see the info is to register. Dont have to use affiliate link.

Great. Just advertising for many users will speed up the speed of IOTA. It is in contrast with the blockchain bitcoin, ETH ...

 ;) excited by this idea. Sound like new definition for crypto currency world

Well they are multi level marketing it to third world countries at the moment, so they can use it as a new currency. Do you know how much Western union charges for international transfer? It is around 40 dollars. That is like average wage in Cambodia. With something like Dagcoin, they could send money with relative ease and little cost. Crypto is not for making 10x profit, it is for making the world better place.

It s a fake currency. Everything is copied after other coins that are said to be scam. Even those who promote this currency until recently promoted another coin that they say is the best. Check twice before invest.

That's better than mine, only got about 30 lines of code and it's shot temp code for now but i seem to have something not
really connected with my code but key exchange that's nagging me in the back of the head and I cannot clear it.

it's like we are watching one hand and forgetting what the other hand is doing with the digits

I need to look at atomic  transactions across servers but just hit fog when trying to think

Third world countries need to be offered the lowest expenses possible because they are not like what US can afford. What matters in this is that, cryptos provide great help for them. For instance, the western union you have mentioned really charges a lot. But through digital currencies, it is so affordable to live now.

I am not sure that crypocurrency without blocks are safe enough because blocks preveting hackers to steal your money... it sounds good but still need to make more work on it.

Yaup.. Onecoin 2. Ewen same crew behind of this.

This is a significant step forward
However, with a nonblock architecture, the system may reveal other shortcomings.
Confirmation of each transaction can make it expensive (for payers) and slow.
Any ideas?

Check peoples who are behind this coin. After that compare names onecoin members name  ;D.
After that tell eweryone what y noticed.

The magic behind any new cryptocurrency token is that since you can create money, you can set an incentive to confirm old transactions. So you can bootstrap your cryptocurrency.

When Bitcoin has no or very low subsidy, it will need a backlog of transactions to go forward. So the problem with DagCoin is bootstrapping. If you have an application where you can keep a flow of transactions going, you can make it work. Also you can add a subsidy to each transaction that has a very high PoW, and create an inflationary cryptocurrency whose price varies with electricity cost and inflates with Moore's law.

Good day. Is the project open source? I'd love to take a look at it and maybe contribute myself. Any link, please, prefer Github.

This whitepaper will serve you to know more...
https://iota.org/IOTA_Whitepaper.pdf

Just watched dagcoin facebook site so sad... Same people were behind onecoin. 

If people would little google.. But no, just beliwing insane profit promises AGAIN.

i dont get it why you need to test new cryptoz? there is already bitcoins with which you can do well!

Better is free of charge blockchain.

Oh crap! Another ponzi crypto? Are you all determined to set the well set financial world into fire?

Interesting.

So I've read, heard and watched a few vids. about this DAGCoin thing, currently they are advertising in some est-european country and other countries.  
My personal belief is that this is a scam and will NOT DO GOOD LONG-TERM.
The whole coin amount is held by the team, they now release the coins by selling them directly for USD or EUR when you buy your entry package.  
They said they are on two public exchanges, but those public exchanges are promoting dagcoin from the first page... so if you ask me, those are their exchanges too. swipex - only have ETH - BTC and DAGCoin   -  Paygety would be the second "public" exchange. NONE OF THEM WILL GIVE YOU ANY INFO ABOUT THE MARKETS ON THEIR SITE WITHOUT HAVING TO REGISTER FIRST.  Something stinks.
The promoter and founder of the coin is the one of the well known scammers in the crypto-space  https://www.playersmoney.com/dagcoin/ (https://www.playersmoney.com/dagcoin/)    
The pyramid shape of the system is yet another reason that should make you ask yourself if you rly want to invest in this.  
The monthly bonuses you are about to recieve are HUGE, the ROI is HUGE, this price will dilute so much that even with 200% ROI/year, you will still be on a loss.
They said they will make a split and add "a few 0's" to your balance, making your 1000 coins be 10000 or 100000, and this made me laugh so hard, they will 10x or 100x your balance because they have 1 BILLION PRE-MINED COINS that will be inflating the market, but yet they state that there will be no inflation.

My questions are:

If this is supposed to help "Third-world-countries and poor people" why are the packages designed to make money for people who already have money?  
Why will they make me lock up my coins for 8 months and after that allow me to sell only 65% of them, keeping the 35% locked.
Who dictates the price of the coin? Taking into consideration that NO BIG AND RESPONSABLE EXCHANGE WILL EVER LIST A MLM BASED COIN.
Why I can't access informations and can't see the price of the coin without having to register on their website or their "public" exchanges sites?
Why are they having all this nice powerpoint slides with presentations and huge roi expectations  EXPRIMATED IN USD or EUR, if the bonuses you recieve are in DAGCoins. ?
WHY THERE IS NO POST HERE ABOUT THIS PROJECT that started last year?


Bitconnect was a scam too, people got rich with Bitconnect too, but a lot more got poorer. Every scam will work untill there will be noone left to be scammed, after that  you'll see the dump.
This smells like some alterated cheese, forgotten in your picnic backpack from last years summer break. LOL


* There is money to be made from everything:  drugs, prostitution, counterfeiting, DAGCoin scam and others, that doesn't mean they are fair money.  
Stop looking for easy-money and start looking for good products that can realy HELP the society, not rip-off the money from 95% of the community to make the 5% richer.  


My Conclusion?

SCAM SCAM SCAM
  
Enjoy the ride.

Seriously is it so? Free of blocks? I gotta try first then answer your queries

For me it's as simple as bitconnect, you make money from bringing in other people. Your money don't come from the utility of the product, but from registering new afiliates.  LOL, does this sound familiar?

It does, resemblance with Bitcoin is uncanny.  :D

I am gonna try out its transaction process and deals or threads tonight but need someone to be with me so that we can transact among ourselves to be sure

FTFY.

---

As has been pointed out a number of times, the original post was not about an altcoin.


Along the way, this thread has been hijacked in order to promote a scheme concocted by a group with no technical background in crypto, but who are using a hard sell MLM structure to market bogus educational packages (DagUniversity!) to gain exposure to


They also state on github


This is similar to the blahblah mission statement of the currently unravelling huge Onecoin scam


It is not therefore surprising to find that the upper management of this Dagcoin are ex Onecoin "Ambassadors".
(Ironically Onecoin, despite its claims, never had a blockchain and Byteball doesn't either, but for differing reasons.)

The idea of investing in a coin infested with the likes of Nils Grossberg and "Mighty Eagle" Kari Wahlroos, selling thru bogus "educational packages" with compulsory lock in periods is frightening, let alone the fact that the coin is based on Byteball technology involving trust in a small number of centrally selected witnesses.

there is dagcoin wallet on playstore, is it legit?

I dont think its a good idea to have its access so early, i mean embracing new is okay but let it be beta tested first

Wake the fuck up!!!  USE GOOGLE before y invest.

Any further information on this one? I'm really interested.

his sounds really interesting, but What happens when every person has to mine their own transaction? First of all, the user will be on the hook for that cost in electricity/mining hardware cost. Second, their transaction is dependent on them being able to solve someone else's unreferenced transaction. Doesn't that end up being cost-prohibitive?

I always felt that the CLAMS distribution model was rather interesting. Maybe some similar scheme could be devised

Exactly - Agreed.  And how did it get to this level of expansion and us, when there are so many use cases showing problems??  (just looking at the threads - not my opinion)...

I was just thinking to myself, "but how will the initial distribution be handled under this coin?"... and then I suddenly realised the problem is already solved .

This, or similar such ideas, sound like a potential solution to the possible problems when bitcoin hits the zero block reward stage. To be exploring that area so early is an optimistic sign  ..

Sorry but that tech was about pegging

Hawe y already invested?? Did y use google checking people behind this bs?

BEFORE Y INVEST CHECK WHO ARE BEHIND THIS COIN!!
After that y want to stay far away from this shitcoin.

hmm interested , innovation of crypto with no "block" , only chain  ;D

Hmmm.that sounds quite same then onecoin  8)
Wondering why? 

Agree, luckily for us our design solves this issue in a sidechain-like manner.

This seems interesting, however, I'm wondering though how this could ever be rolled out as it literally needs the network to be active (or not ?). If I wanna transact I need someone else to transact as well and confirm my tx with his tx. I guess I could also send some more tx myself but that's not really going to fly.

Be Careful affiliates invest real money and are given worthless points. Dagcoin assigns an ever-increasing value to those points and affiliates cash out an ROI.

it sounds like great,but i don't believe this project can take over miota,no fee,very fast,... but i hope dagcoin will be stronger

So many coins are being discovered so how can people worth investing in every of them?

Interesting attempt, new concepts are always welcome

Does it have end-to-end transaction security variations? it can be proved helpful if even block is absent

Atleast i am not going to be engaged with such a crypto having no blockchain

I've interested but cannot understand how to mine that coin

Use Goole before losing ur moneys ;)

What happens when every person has to mine their own transaction? User will be on the hook for that cost in electricity/mining hardware cost and their transaction is dependent on them being able to solve someone else's unreferenced transaction. Doesn't that end up being cost-prohibitive..?

If he ever manage to finish it I'm betting a good portion of my money, we don't see alt-coins that different so often.

I feel like all of these new cryptocurrencies coming out are good, but there are so many it is hard to gain significant market cap.
your project sounds very good hope it will be more developed good luck

My point is that there are only chains, no blocks. Hopefully there will be new innovations, new breakthroughs in crypto.

Hahahha.. New innovations.. New breaktroughs.

No just same old ponzi.

Very interesting idea. There are many problems that this approach can solve!

1. It can solve developers money problems. What else?

Ask me please. Is the project open source? I'd love to take a look at it and maybe contribute myself.

without block ??? hmm interesting

Here is a challenge for you - design such a system based on DAG that allows to issue coins a-la Bitcoin (we start with 0 supply) without weakening the security of the system. It's clearly off topic for the Bitcoin section. Cryptospace, became intoxicated by wannabe fast profit gainers, I'm truly angry, about that.

Since people have taken to spamming this topic with nonsense, this thread will be locked.