Bitcoin Forum

Alternate cryptocurrencies => Announcements (Altcoins) => Topic started by: Come-from-Beyond on October 21, 2015, 06:06:02 PM



Title: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 21, 2015, 06:06:02 PM
http://i.imgur.com/dytRAAz.png

www.iotatoken.com (http://www.iotatoken.com)
https://twitter.com/iotatoken

Iota

Iota is a brand new and novel micro-transaction cryptotoken optimized for the Internet-of-Things (IoT). Unlike the complex and heavy blockchains of Bitcoin and the like, which were designed with other uses in mind, Iota is created to be as lightweight as possible, hence the name "Iota" with emphasis on the ‘IoT’ part.

The number of connected devices that will permeate our modern landscape in the coming decade is estimated to be 50 billion(!) Each of these are designed to make the world a better and more seamless place for us. Tied to this fantastic promise are of course a ton of obstacles to be overcome, of which one major one is micro-transactions. These connected IoT devices must be able to automatically pay miniscule amounts to one another in a frictionless manner without having to compromise on product design by introducing additional hardware. This is why Iota was conceived.

While it was developed as a solution to scalability issues faced in IoT, the underlying protocol is agnostic and can be applied in any other use-cases that utilize micro-transactions.

In order to achieve these audacious goals Iota’s design diverged radically from blockchain cryptocurrencies. It still retains the core principle ideas of the distributed consensus blockchain, but in order to be able to scale to the size of the coming Internet-of-Things ecosystem with tens of billions of devices that are connected to each other, it needed to be very lightweight and efficient. This problem is solved by Iota’s core innovation: the tangle.

Tangle

A Tangle is a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG).
http://i.imgur.com/dB7zOho.jpg


Tangle vs Blockchain

Iota’s blockchain solves the following problems of its blockchain cousin:

Centralization of control
As history shows, small miners form big groups to reduce variation of the reward. This leads to concentration of power (computational and political) in hands of few pool operators and gives them ability to apply wide spectrum of policies (filtering, postponing) on certain transactions. Although there are no known cases where pool operators abused their power, there have been several instances where the opportunity were present. This possibility in a monetary system powering a multibillion (in USD) industry is completely unacceptable.

“Obsolete” cryptography
Although large scale quantum computers do not exist yet, future oriented companies have already begun initiating the steps towards quantum-resistant cryptography. From a security point of view it makes perfect sense to assume that hardware capable of cracking classical cryptoalgorithms may appear in the very near future, so preparation is the only defense.

Inability to conduct micropayments
Transaction fees are used to cover miner expenses and mitigate spam-attacks. They also set a threshold on the minimum amount of a payment below which money transfers become inexpedient.

Partition intolerance
Blockchain-based currencies are unable to survive long-sustained partitioning of the network because this may lead to reversal of a large number of transactions. It is also impossible to initiate an intentional partitioning in cases when it is required.

Discrimination of participants
Existing cryptocurrencies are heterogeneous systems with clear separation of roles (transaction issuers, transaction approvers). Such systems create unavoidable discrimination of some of their elements which in turn creates conflicts and makes all elements spend resources on conflict resolution.

Scalability limits
Some cryptocurrencies have hard limits on the maximum transaction rate and this limits cannot be removed in a decentralized manner. A magic number of a limit set before the launch cannot satisfy requirements of a system unless it is set by a person with extraordinary prediction skill. A too low value may hinder growth of the userbase, a too high value may open system to different kinds of attacks.

High requirements for hardware
Bitcoin-derived cryptocurrencies use its original script-based approach which allows implementation of a wide range of use-cases. Other currencies use an approach similar to one used by banks but add extra features. They both substantially raise requirements for hardware because of complex transaction processing logic.

Unlimited data growth
Storing of all state transitions leads to fast growth of data while does not increase stored balance information significantly. This inefficiency cannot be removed even with data pruning technique and high popularity of the currency may lead to its collapse.


Tangle-blockchain interoperability

Iota does not seek to replace the blockchain entirely, it also acts as a supplementation to the current blockchain ecosystem by acting as a oracle for smart contract platforms like Ethereum and Rootstock. Additionally it increases security of blockchains by enabling the ability to include checkpoints for transactions.



special thanks to: Jimmy2011 and Kushti for reviews.

Also worth noting: Sergio_Demian_Lerner's thread about DAG in crypto here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1177633.0



http://cointelegraph.com/news/115508/iota-a-blockchain-less-gasp-token-for-the-internet-of-things




If you did not claim your iotas in the automatic claiming period contact @David over at https://slack.iotatoken.com where you will be given further instructions to manually claim your tokens. Tokens not claimed by 11th of July 2017 will be forfeited and considered donations.




A little FAQ section
On necessity to have quantum-resistant algorithms: Look here - http://9to5google.com/2015/11/11/google-planning-a-watershed-quantum-computing-announcement-december-8/
On resource requirements: A cheap microcontroller and 16 KiB RAM should be enough for payments once payment channels with peers are established
On IoT market capitalization: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi/in_the_news/by_2025_internet_of_things_applications_could_have_11_trillion_impact
On supported platforms: Most of popular OSes with help of http://www.jwrapper.com
On hardware support: Included https://cdn2.iconfinder.com/data/icons/fugue/bonus/icons-24/tick.png


WARNING: https://twitter.com/comefrombeyond is an imposter who will likely try to conduct a scam.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 21, 2015, 06:07:05 PM
reserved


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Sir_Astral on October 21, 2015, 06:09:01 PM
ICO again  ???


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Crypto Promotions on October 21, 2015, 06:10:21 PM
Wish You good luck. Interesting project.

If You're interested to promote your project to more people, please take a look here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1214526.0

www.twitter.com/CryptoPromote


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: bitspender on October 21, 2015, 06:12:14 PM
If i'm not mistaken, this project is already in long development since i've read about this, let's call it a year ago, by a Hero member in PM.
Reserved.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Febo on October 21, 2015, 06:13:29 PM
next NXT?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 21, 2015, 06:15:26 PM
ICO again  ???

Details surrounding distribution and crowdsale regarding IOTA will come at a later time. This thread is for discussion of IOTA technology.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: billotronic on October 21, 2015, 06:18:23 PM
interesting read.

ball park eta til you have something in the wild?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Anon136 on October 21, 2015, 06:21:57 PM
thanks for the heads up cfb. ill go ahead and claim some real estate on the first page.  :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: bit1 on October 21, 2015, 06:23:11 PM
Scale quantum computers do not exist yet maybe until 3000 year and who knows, While we need things to current devices to be used 2016-2999, So why hurry? What's the rush to “Obsolete” all convert?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: kimosan on October 21, 2015, 06:25:16 PM

Watching. Tried to subscribe to the newsletter but getting an error, please try later. So.. will do.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 21, 2015, 06:31:28 PM
ball park eta til you have something in the wild?

By Christmas.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: macsga on October 21, 2015, 06:31:41 PM
Interesting technology; worth watching. Following and expecting details on distribution.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 21, 2015, 06:32:57 PM
Scale quantum computers do not exist yet maybe until 3000 year and who knows, While we need things to current devices to be used 2016-2999, So why hurry? What's the rush to “Obsolete” all convert?

This is largely a myth. If you have kept up to date on quantum computer development in the last years, you will see that this is indeed something that needs to be prepared for right away, especially for Internet-of-Things reliant technology that will automate virtually everything.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 21, 2015, 06:34:35 PM
Scale quantum computers do not exist yet maybe until 3000 year and who knows, While we need things to current devices to be used 2016-2999, So why hurry? What's the rush to “Obsolete” all convert?

https://www.nsa.gov/ia/programs/suiteb_cryptography/


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: BanzaiBTC on October 21, 2015, 06:38:02 PM
Very interesting concept. I read the whitepaper, and I must say I am pretty impressed..

Good luck with your project


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: BTCDDev on October 21, 2015, 06:47:05 PM
Great job Cfb. Can't wait.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: CryptoHobo on October 21, 2015, 06:47:24 PM
intriguing


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: EvilDave on October 21, 2015, 06:48:10 PM
Interesting....anything CfB shaped gets my attention.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: bit1 on October 21, 2015, 06:49:26 PM
Scale quantum computers do not exist yet maybe until 3000 year and who knows, While we need things to current devices to be used 2016-2999, So why hurry? What's the rush to “Obsolete” all convert?

This is largely a myth. If you have kept up to date on quantum computer development in the last years, you will see that this is indeed something that needs to be prepared for right away, especially for Internet-of-Things reliant technology that will automate virtually everything.
Scale quantum computers do not exist yet maybe until 3000 year and who knows, While we need things to current devices to be used 2016-2999, So why hurry? What's the rush to “Obsolete” all convert?

https://www.nsa.gov/ia/programs/suiteb_cryptography/

I'm trying to say is that because both things hasten the latent danger to turn humans in obsolete creating very powerful machines and moving the human interaction  more and more into a virtual world like to a matrix. Progress is good when it this can be controlled but who says that this will always could be so. Turn it on blockchain and considering that  was born on 2009 it could be very soon to call it obsolete.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: myagui on October 21, 2015, 06:53:18 PM
[watching]


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: eB101 on October 21, 2015, 06:58:55 PM
Interesting....anything CfB shaped gets my attention.

Same here.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: escalicha on October 21, 2015, 07:11:33 PM
Getting place! The coin of the year for sure.

I will be watching this thread very closer!


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Steak Cloud on October 21, 2015, 07:19:40 PM
We are keeping an eye out, looks like an interesting concept.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: achimsmile on October 21, 2015, 07:39:27 PM
watching.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: minerfool on October 21, 2015, 07:40:54 PM
Noted: so I can find this later ...


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TrueAnon on October 21, 2015, 07:41:53 PM
Watching.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: VanBreuk on October 21, 2015, 07:42:55 PM
Following.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: franckuestein on October 21, 2015, 07:43:11 PM
@Come-from-Beyond?  ::) ;D
Let's see what comes out from here. Waiting for news and updates, curious.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: gnargnar on October 21, 2015, 07:47:20 PM
curious. instant watch


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rlh on October 21, 2015, 08:02:31 PM
Following.  All, new or old, when the Oracle-of-CfB speaks... listen!


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: P-Funk on October 21, 2015, 08:09:13 PM
Nifty. Good luck.

What distribution method will this token have?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 21, 2015, 08:15:22 PM
I don't really understand the pros and cons between the two yet.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1203228.msg12642425#msg12642425

The designs are different. Trees VS DAG.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Peachy on October 21, 2015, 08:17:55 PM
Fuserleer and the emonkeys were doing the same design then scrapped it for something else better.  I don't really understand the pros and cons between the two yet.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1203228.msg12642425#msg12642425

FTFY

We get that you don't understand it yet. 
That'll change soon enough even with your obvious belligerent attitude towards anything different.



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: r0ach on October 21, 2015, 08:32:53 PM
The designs are different. Trees VS DAG.

Well yea, but what are the pros and cons between the two?  The tree scales better but has more potential for some type of critical failure in the ACID test? 

That'll change soon enough even with your obvious belligerent attitude towards anything different.

Main problem with Emunie, besides the issue of if it works or not, is due to the way the monetary system works, the coin issuer is set to make lots of money but investors aren't.  Somewhat high risk for investors with no big payout like for Bitcoin early adopters.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on October 21, 2015, 08:34:23 PM
Fuserleer and the emonkeys were doing the same design then scrapped it for something else.  I don't really understand the pros and cons between the two yet.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1203228.msg12642425#msg12642425
The designs are different. Trees VS DAG.

I guess some people would feel tangled when they see the Tangle. ;D At least my vision is tangled over the Tangle pic.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Peachy on October 21, 2015, 08:38:13 PM

The designs are different. Trees VS DAG.

We're no longer using trees, but rather a channeled ledger.  It's easy to understand the confusion as we scrapped them (trees) a while ago.  

Interesting that you plan to use this for IoT as I likewise plan to present our solution to several Cisco engineering teams for inclusion as a solution to the IoT/IoE problems you concisely articulated.  

Good luck with your development and I look forward to reading more about this project.  



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Peachy on October 21, 2015, 08:42:32 PM
Main problem with Emunie, besides the issue of if it works or not, is due to the way the monetary system works, the coin issuer is set to make lots of money but investors aren't.  Somewhat high risk for investors with no big payout like for Bitcoin early adopters.

Again, shows how you don't understand anything about the economics and ROI of the application.  Don't worry, that'll be explained soon enough so that you can understand.  

Hint:  2 ways you can increase the "value" of a portfolio:  
  a. How much it costs (per unit)
  b. How many you have
If you have 'more' of them doesn't that equate to an ROI?

Regardless, don't want to continue discussions on this thread with Debbie Downer as this is clearly CfB's time to shine.  


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: kushti on October 21, 2015, 08:46:17 PM
Though I was invited to review the whitepaper, it seems all my questions remains unanswered. And section "4.1 Resistance to quantum computations" (added after my review?) seems pretty controversial by its reasoning. Anyway, Popov's work is the deepest made on DAG cryptocurrencies(all I've seen before were just forum & blog posts), I'm not sure what's presented enough to make something production-ready though. Let's see what will happen here. Have luck guys!  :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: WilderX on October 21, 2015, 08:47:16 PM
What no mining  ???


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 21, 2015, 08:54:20 PM
Though I was invited to review the whitepaper, it seems all my questions remains unanswered. And section "4.1 Resistance to quantum computations" (added after my review?) seems pretty controversial by its reasoning. Anyway, Popov's work is the deepest made on DAG cryptocurrencies(all I've seen before were just forum & blog posts), I'm not sure what's presented enough to make something production-ready though. Let's see what will happen here. Have luck guys!  :)

Sorry, maybe I didn't see a question, sometimes Skype messages are not delivered. Here is the complete transcript of our conversation, did I miss anything:

Code:
[16.10.2015 20:40:19] David: Alex, when you're on leave the feedback in this channel
[16.10.2015 22:08:27] sandylabs: hi guys
[16.10.2015 22:08:49] Come-from-Beyond: hi
[16.10.2015 22:09:30] sandylabs: so well, the attack section is starting sharply, and it's proposing as is fact contradicting txs could live in DAG
[16.10.2015 22:09:52] sandylabs: a lot of interesting things possible with that aside of double-spending
[16.10.2015 22:10:10] sandylabs: say e.g. I'm submitting two contradicting txs simultaneously
[16.10.2015 22:10:38] sandylabs: then with 1/2 probability one of them will have more weight(so be more true?)
[16.10.2015 22:11:00] sandylabs: and in next round another could be leader
[16.10.2015 22:11:33] sandylabs: so we're going to a system with potentially unstable view(existing for a long time)
[16.10.2015 22:14:28] Come-from-Beyond: The rule is to reject transactions that reference contradicting transactions.
[16.10.2015 22:15:10] sandylabs: Am I missing something in paper?
[16.10.2015 22:16:15] Come-from-Beyond: no
[16.10.2015 22:16:27] sandylabs: ah
[16.10.2015 22:16:28] sandylabs: so
[16.10.2015 22:16:38] sandylabs: I'm just reviewing the paper
[16.10.2015 22:20:36] Come-from-Beyond: aye, I'm explaning how that attack is counteracted. the paper is a draft and doesn't contain all the stuff
[16.10.2015 22:21:21] sandylabs: ok so why contradicting txs are possible in the paper?
[16.10.2015 22:23:00] Come-from-Beyond: is it specified explicitly?
[16.10.2015 22:25:49] sandylabs: section on attack scenarios
[16.10.2015 22:26:37] Come-from-Beyond: it's the whole DAG that can contain conflicting state
[16.10.2015 22:27:07] Come-from-Beyond: but none of the transactions can reference directly or indirectly conflicting transactions
[16.10.2015 22:27:22] Come-from-Beyond: conflict is possible if there are more than 1 tip
[19.10.2015 12:48:16] sandylabs: So Sergey(mthcl), it would be good to see coverage on that
[19.10.2015 12:48:32] sandylabs: and in this case mb it's worth to move
[19.10.2015 12:49:12] sandylabs: "3.1 How fast the cumulative weight typically grow?" into an appendix


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: WilderX on October 21, 2015, 08:58:32 PM
IPO?

http://www.udorami.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Shut-Up-And-Take-My-Money-1024x1280.jpg


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: r0ach on October 21, 2015, 08:59:34 PM
Here's a really stupid question.  As a regular human being on the planet earth, why exactly do I want IoT to be invented in the first place?  How do I benefit from this?  There was what IoT seems like to me from another post.  Basically me walking or driving around and having the government attacking me with surveillance and microtransactions:

Sounds great if IoT wasn't a code word for giant surveillance grid of doom.  Yes, this is the type of structure things like unmanned cars will be built around.  People will be required to carry devices to travel on public infrastructre, maybe a cell phone type device that acts as a transponder.  In addition to their sensors simulating sight, unmanned cars will detect the RF from the device and act as a collision avoidance plus navigation system.  Your wallet and identity will then be connected to the same transponder.  Everyone will be tracked like cattle. 

So yea, there is really no such thing as a "decentralized IoT".  All it is, is a system to broadcast as much personal information as possible to be centrally administratively controlled.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: kushti on October 21, 2015, 09:01:02 PM
Sorry, maybe I didn't see a question, sometimes Skype messages are not delivered. Here is the complete transcript of our conversation, did I miss anything:

I confirm the transcript is complete(and my Skype nickname is 'sandylabs').


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 21, 2015, 09:05:38 PM
Here's a really stupid question.  As a regular human being on the planet earth, why exactly do I want IoT to be invented in the first place?  How do I benefit from this?  There was what IoT seems like to me from another post.  Basically me walking or driving around and having the government attacking me with surveillance and microtransactions:

Sounds great if IoT wasn't a code word for giant surveillance grid of doom.  Yes, this is the type of structure things like unmanned cars will be built around.  People will be required to carry devices to travel on public infrastructre, maybe a cell phone type device that acts as a transponder.  In addition to their sensors simulating sight, unmanned cars will detect the RF from the device and act as a collision avoidance plus navigation system.  Your wallet and identity will then be connected to the same transponder.  Everyone will be tracked like cattle. 

So yea, there is really no such thing as a "decentralized IoT".  All it is, is a system to broadcast as much personal information as possible to be centrally administratively controlled.

Like everything in this world: there are two sides. Any technological breakthrough can be used positively and negatively from nuclear energy and nuclear bombs to anonymity and complete surveillance in ledger technology. Usually the benefits outweigh the potential nefarious use-cases. IoT will bring about a revolution in virtually every field from medicine to comfort. IoT will happen no matter what you do, you can try to Ted Kaczynski it away, but it wont happen. The benefits are simply too great. IOTA want to enable a decentral payment method between these devices and give power back to users.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Peachy on October 21, 2015, 09:08:42 PM
Here's a really stupid question.  As a regular human being on the planet earth, why exactly do I want IoT to be invented in the first place?  How do I benefit from this?  There was what IoT seems like to me from another post.  Basically me walking or driving around and having the government attacking me with surveillance and microtransactions:

Sounds great if IoT wasn't a code word for giant surveillance grid of doom.  Yes, this is the type of structure things like unmanned cars will be built around.  People will be required to carry devices to travel on public infrastructre, maybe a cell phone type device that acts as a transponder.  In addition to their sensors simulating sight, unmanned cars will detect the RF from the device and act as a collision avoidance plus navigation system.  Your wallet and identity will then be connected to the same transponder.  Everyone will be tracked like cattle. 

So yea, there is really no such thing as a "decentralized IoT".  All it is, is a system to broadcast as much personal information as possible to be centrally administratively controlled.

Well I guess if you quote yourself then it must be true as you've never been wrong before. Right?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 21, 2015, 09:08:56 PM
Well yea, but what are the pros and cons between the two?  The tree scales better but has more potential for some type of critical failure in the ACID test? 

I can't say how good trees are without spending a lot of time on analysis, so I can't compare.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: illodin on October 21, 2015, 09:10:11 PM
IPO?

And/or distributed to the NXT holders?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 21, 2015, 09:12:21 PM
IPO?

And/or distributed to the NXT holders?

Distributed to whoever purchase IOTA tokens


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 21, 2015, 09:13:03 PM
And section "4.1 Resistance to quantum computations" (added after my review?) seems pretty controversial by its reasoning.

This is worth an extensive discussion, because this is one of the USPs of iota, could you provide more details?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Peachy on October 21, 2015, 09:13:54 PM
Like everything in this world: there are two sides. Any technological breakthrough can be used positively and negatively from nuclear energy and nuclear bombs to anonymity and complete surveillance in ledger technology. Usually the benefits outweigh the potential nefarious use-cases. IoT will bring about a revolution in virtually every field from medicine to comfort. IoT will happen no matter what you do, you can try to Ted Kaczynski it away, but it wont happen. The benefits are simply too great. IOTA want to enable a decentral payment method between these devices and give power back to users.

Well said.  

Don't bother trying to convince Debbie Downer. She's too busy building her tinfoil hat.  Besides, you can't reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: monsterer on October 21, 2015, 09:14:38 PM
Are you going to produce a whitepaper? The OP is a list a of what rather than how... I'm interested in the how.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 21, 2015, 09:17:00 PM
What no mining  ???

Unfortunatelly for you (if you imply generation of tokens), mining would weaken the security of iota leading to miners invalidating each other's work.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Fuserleer on October 21, 2015, 09:19:16 PM
Fuserleer and the emonkeys were doing the same design then scrapped it for something else.  I don't really understand the pros and cons between the two yet.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1203228.msg12642425#msg12642425

The designs are different. Trees VS DAG.

Heh eMonkeys, has it resorted to name calling?

CFB, actually our "tree" resembled more of a DAG, but I didn't have a better name for it at the time, trees seemed to be a good enough explanation.

Anyway we don't use either anymore as we moved on to channels at the end of 2014, which is more of a hybrid between a chain and a DAG.  It can leverage the properties of a DAG structure when required, yet apply the fundamentals of a chain for other requirements. Channels then live in partitions, and partitions float about the network and use various meta data which resides in a special global channel we call the LAC (Live Action Channel) to ensure alignment and consistency among partitions (so that one partition isn't doing something that violates another) .

There are some differences between the 2 innovations though, pure DAG can do some stuff that channels cant, and vice versa, for example:

One thing I love about DAGs (and miss from our channel stuff) is handling network splitting, where a sub-portion of the network can operate independently from the main net, then rejoin later at a later time.  DAGs can do this very well, channels not so much.

On the flip side, a DAG is fast but only to a point (one of the main reasons we dropped it) as its a vertical scale, channels and partitions can scale horizontal to many 100,000s tps with sufficient network size.  

Similarities, DAGs and channels both lend themselves to more efficient consensus methods, high performance verification, lighter resource use and a bunch of other things.

IMO choosing between the 2 depends entirely on what it is you want to achieve, both are however, better technologies than pure chains.

Looking forward to more info, please keep us well fed :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: monsterer on October 21, 2015, 09:22:24 PM
Unfortunatelly for you (if you imply generation of tokens), mining would weaken the security of iota leading to miners invalidating each other's work.

So, POW with no block reward? Is this a side chain?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 21, 2015, 09:22:43 PM
I confirm the transcript is complete(and my Skype nickname is 'sandylabs').

Ah, looks like it was mthcl who didn't answer, I'll invite him here but I don't know if he is available now.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Crypto_Towelie on October 21, 2015, 09:25:16 PM
Is it me or is this becoming a sr/hero/legendary thread  ;)

Good sign


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 21, 2015, 09:26:10 PM
Here's a really stupid question.  As a regular human being on the planet earth, why exactly do I want IoT to be invented in the first place?  How do I benefit from this?  There was what IoT seems like to me from another post.  Basically me walking or driving around and having the government attacking me with surveillance and microtransactions:

This is the future and it's inevitable because of these numbers - http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi/in_the_news/by_2025_internet_of_things_applications_could_have_11_trillion_impact


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: r0ach on October 21, 2015, 09:29:04 PM
Like everything in this world: there are two sides. Any technological breakthrough can be used positively and negatively from nuclear energy and nuclear bombs to anonymity and complete surveillance in ledger technology. Usually the benefits outweigh the potential nefarious use-cases. IoT will bring about a revolution in virtually every field from medicine to comfort. IoT will happen no matter what you do, you can try to Ted Kaczynski it away, but it wont happen. The benefits are simply too great. IOTA want to enable a decentral payment method between these devices and give power back to users.

I don't think nuclear power is a valid comparison because I see IoT lending itself far more towards a surveillance state than anything else.  It's not like choosing between energy and bombs.  IoT is inherently kind of an anti-privacy function because it's purpose is to broadcast, communicate, and interact with other devices.  Once you talk about bringing payments into the equation, that brings human on and off ramps to correlate all data with.

One of it's main functions will be to try and force internet users to subsidize websites with micro transactions for content instead of advertising.  Those micro payments will be correlated with unique human identifiers in the end and probably parlayed into some kind of internet ID card.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 21, 2015, 09:34:21 PM
Are you going to produce a whitepaper?

Yes, you can see the draft here - http://188.138.57.93/tangle.pdf.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 21, 2015, 09:37:53 PM
@r0ach, I removed a post of yours that looked as a personal insult.

@all, I'm going to heavily use my moderation privilege against trolling, insults and offtopic. I warned you.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: monsterer on October 21, 2015, 09:38:57 PM
Yes, you can see the draft here - http://188.138.57.93/tangle.pdf.

Excellent, thank you very much - reading :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 21, 2015, 09:43:25 PM
CFB, actually our "tree" resembled more of a DAG, but I didn't have a better name for it at the time, trees seemed to be a good enough explanation.

Anyway we don't use either anymore as we moved on to channels at the end of 2014, which is more of a hybrid between a chain and a DAG.  It can leverage the properties of a DAG structure when required, yet apply the fundamentals of a chain for other requirements. Channels then live in partitions, and partitions float about the network and use various meta data which resides in a special global channel we call the LAC (Live Action Channel) to ensure alignment and consistency among partitions (so that one partition isn't doing something that violates another) .

There are some differences between the 2 innovations though, pure DAG can do some stuff that channels cant, and vice versa, for example:

One thing I love about DAGs (and miss from our channel stuff) is handling network splitting, where a sub-portion of the network can operate independently from the main net, then rejoin later at a later time.  DAGs can do this very well, channels not so much.

On the flip side, a DAG is fast but only to a point (one of the main reasons we dropped it) as its a vertical scale, channels and partitions can scale horizontal to many 100,000s tps with sufficient network size.  

Similarities, DAGs and channels both lend themselves to more efficient consensus methods, high performance verification, lighter resource use and a bunch of other things.

IMO choosing between the 2 depends entirely on what it is you want to achieve, both are however, better technologies than pure chains.

Looking forward to more info, please keep us well fed :)

Did you mean these channels - http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/716b955c130e6c703fac336ea17b1670/duplex-micropayment-channels.pdf? If yes, then iota will have the both.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 21, 2015, 09:45:42 PM
So, POW with no block reward? Is this a side chain?

PoW with no block reward [to avoid centralization]. No, it's not a sidechain, it's a tangle.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Ludom on October 21, 2015, 09:51:39 PM
Quote
PoW with no block reward [to avoid centralization].

If there is no block reward, why people will care about the mining and secure the network?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 21, 2015, 09:55:53 PM
Like everything in this world: there are two sides. Any technological breakthrough can be used positively and negatively from nuclear energy and nuclear bombs to anonymity and complete surveillance in ledger technology. Usually the benefits outweigh the potential nefarious use-cases. IoT will bring about a revolution in virtually every field from medicine to comfort. IoT will happen no matter what you do, you can try to Ted Kaczynski it away, but it wont happen. The benefits are simply too great. IOTA want to enable a decentral payment method between these devices and give power back to users.

I don't think nuclear power is a valid comparison because I see IoT lending itself far more towards a surveillance state than anything else.  It's not like choosing between energy and bombs.  IoT is inherently kind of an anti-privacy function because it's purpose is to broadcast, communicate, and interact with other devices.  Once you talk about bringing payments into the equation, that brings human on and off ramps to correlate all data with.

One of it's main functions will be to try and force internet users to subsidize websites with micro transactions for content instead of advertising.  Those micro payments will be correlated with unique human identifiers in the end and probably parlayed into some kind of internet ID card.

This is blatantly false. IoT is brought about because humans want more efficient systems, better health, more comfort, more security, more atonomy, better life quality, more immersive experiences, more productivity etc. etc. Are there ways to use this for surveillance? Yes. Is that the main goal? No and if you think so: please go to the doctor.

And there are plenty of decentral anonym ID projects going on that is 100% compatible with IOTA.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 21, 2015, 09:57:08 PM
If there is no block reward, why people will care about the mining and secure the network?

They won't, there must be a constant flow of new transactions for iota to be secure. Or IOTA owners have to "hire" miners. The market will find the best solution, till that there will be decentralized checkpoints made by the initial holders.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Fuserleer on October 21, 2015, 10:14:32 PM
CFB, actually our "tree" resembled more of a DAG, but I didn't have a better name for it at the time, trees seemed to be a good enough explanation.

Anyway we don't use either anymore as we moved on to channels at the end of 2014, which is more of a hybrid between a chain and a DAG.  It can leverage the properties of a DAG structure when required, yet apply the fundamentals of a chain for other requirements. Channels then live in partitions, and partitions float about the network and use various meta data which resides in a special global channel we call the LAC (Live Action Channel) to ensure alignment and consistency among partitions (so that one partition isn't doing something that violates another) .

There are some differences between the 2 innovations though, pure DAG can do some stuff that channels cant, and vice versa, for example:

One thing I love about DAGs (and miss from our channel stuff) is handling network splitting, where a sub-portion of the network can operate independently from the main net, then rejoin later at a later time.  DAGs can do this very well, channels not so much.

On the flip side, a DAG is fast but only to a point (one of the main reasons we dropped it) as its a vertical scale, channels and partitions can scale horizontal to many 100,000s tps with sufficient network size.  

Similarities, DAGs and channels both lend themselves to more efficient consensus methods, high performance verification, lighter resource use and a bunch of other things.

IMO choosing between the 2 depends entirely on what it is you want to achieve, both are however, better technologies than pure chains.

Looking forward to more info, please keep us well fed :)

Did you mean these channels - http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/716b955c130e6c703fac336ea17b1670/duplex-micropayment-channels.pdf? If yes, then iota will have the both.

No nothing like those, the concept is completely different.  All transactions are committed to the ledger, and don't live in "limbo" at any point off-ledger like that solution.

I'm happy to get more into it now, but its your party :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: GingerAle on October 21, 2015, 10:24:28 PM
Looking forward to seeing it in the wild. How do you distribute


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: durerus on October 21, 2015, 10:35:33 PM
How many currency units will there be? Will there be unlimited inflation? If there will be no permanent inflation, will all currency units come into existence at once or over time?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 21, 2015, 10:38:22 PM
How many currency units will there be? Will there be unlimited inflation? If there will be no permanent inflation, will all currency units come into existence at once or over time?

999'999'999.999999999 units. No inflation, only deflation caused by lost tokens. At once, there is no a way to do it over time.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: jelin1984 on October 21, 2015, 10:46:41 PM
How we can buy some?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 21, 2015, 10:54:12 PM
Can you explain to me why this doesn't require every connected IoT that wants to sign a transaction to not have to listen to every transaction on the network?

Doesn't the bandwidth requirements of that limit which sort of devices can participate?

Can a IoT device proxy its request a well powered server?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 21, 2015, 10:55:06 PM
How we can buy some?

Details will come in the coming days. Stay tuned in this thread and/or join our just created twitter account www.twitter.com/iotatoken to keep posted on the developments


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: ZonedOutSpace on October 21, 2015, 11:00:17 PM
Very interesting project I'll be following Goodluck Dev


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: allwelder on October 21, 2015, 11:03:08 PM
So,there will be another TOKEN except Jinn on NXT AE both for Tangle tech?
 


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 21, 2015, 11:05:36 PM
Can you explain to me why this doesn't require every connected IoT that wants to sign a transaction to not have to listen to every transaction on the network?

Doesn't the bandwidth requirements of that limit which sort of devices can participate?

Can a IoT device proxy its request a well powered server?

Are you talking about on- or off-tangle payments?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 21, 2015, 11:07:21 PM
So,there will be another TOKEN except Jinn on NXT AE both for Tangle tech?
 



Could you expand on your question? Not entirely sure what you are asking. JINN tokens are unrelated to IOTAs


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 21, 2015, 11:09:44 PM
Can you explain to me why this doesn't require every connected IoT that wants to sign a transaction to not have to listen to every transaction on the network?

Doesn't the bandwidth requirements of that limit which sort of devices can participate?

Can a IoT device proxy its request a well powered server?

Are you talking about on- or off-tangle payments?

Lol I don't know. I guess I mean on-tangle, those participating in your algorithm?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 21, 2015, 11:14:03 PM
Lol I don't know. I guess I mean on-tangle, those participating in your algorithm?

For on-tangle payments a device needs to see majority of the transactions. Good news is that it needs this only if it's about to make or check a payment, most of time it can store and broadcast transactions without their verification (only PoW needs to be verified to avoid spam attacks).


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: lucky88888 on October 21, 2015, 11:50:32 PM
guess you really are BCNext! Talk about split personalities/good acting!


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: nexern on October 22, 2015, 12:30:46 AM
a fluid, self-organizing swarmchain?
what are the data storage requirements for each node/device over time?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: allwelder on October 22, 2015, 01:23:09 AM
So,there will be another TOKEN except Jinn on NXT AE both for Tangle tech?
 



Could you expand on your question? Not entirely sure what you are asking. JINN tokens are unrelated to IOTAs

What's the difference between JINN token and IOTA token?
or what do these two tokens stand for respectively?

Could you simply explain?
Thanks. :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: allwelder on October 22, 2015, 01:25:24 AM
Another ,I like this logo of IOTA . :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 22, 2015, 01:38:10 AM
Though I was invited to review the whitepaper, it seems all my questions remains unanswered. And section "4.1 Resistance to quantum computations" (added after my review?) seems pretty controversial by its reasoning. Anyway, Popov's work is the deepest made on DAG cryptocurrencies(all I've seen before were just forum & blog posts), I'm not sure what's presented enough to make something production-ready though. Let's see what will happen here. Have luck guys!  :)
I'm not sure if I understand what exactly your question is. If it's about submitting two conflicting tx's, then there is no problem - one will survive, and the other will die (that is, at some moment it will stop gaining cumulative weight). Besides, if you're buying smth from a merchant and submit a conflicting transaction at the same time, the merchant would call a police  :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Anon136 on October 22, 2015, 02:13:03 AM
So I suppose if we want to start talking about this idea I can go ahead and talk about my concern. And I will fully admit that this may be my lack of understanding or imagination only and nothing wrong with the concept at all.

If the network is fracture tolerant, than there is a concern that you might be validating a doublespend transaction without realizing it when creating your own transaction. This wouldn't be much of a big deal assuming only a hand full of dinguses trying to doublespend for personal profit, but what if someone(s) tries to exploit this as an attack vector against the network its self with no intention of personally profiting from the actual double-spend.

Dev's tried to explain to me why this reservation was unfounded but either the answers were nonsense or I wasn't smart enough to understand (probably the second one). So this seems like a better place to continue that discussion than my private messages since someone else might benefit.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rigel on October 22, 2015, 03:11:58 AM
Looks interesting.
Watching this.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: zodiac3011 on October 22, 2015, 04:18:09 AM
Looked through the whitepaper. Really good concept you have there! will wait for this ;D


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Seccour on October 22, 2015, 04:28:13 AM
Though I was invited to review the whitepaper, it seems all my questions remains unanswered. And section "4.1 Resistance to quantum computations" (added after my review?) seems pretty controversial by its reasoning. Anyway, Popov's work is the deepest made on DAG cryptocurrencies(all I've seen before were just forum & blog posts), I'm not sure what's presented enough to make something production-ready though. Let's see what will happen here. Have luck guys!  :)
I'm not sure if I understand what exactly your question is. If it's about submitting two conflicting tx's, then there is no problem - one will survive, and the other will die (that is, at some moment it will stop gaining cumulative weight). Besides, if you're buying smth from a merchant and submit a conflicting transaction at the same time, the merchant would call a police  :)

The attacker can leave after he received the good and then issue the double spend as said in the Whitepaper. So the merchant will not see anything until the attack succeed ( if it succeed )


EDIT : I love IOTA. Good luck guys ! :D


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Seccour on October 22, 2015, 04:33:40 AM
Here's a really stupid question.  As a regular human being on the planet earth, why exactly do I want IoT to be invented in the first place?  How do I benefit from this?  There was what IoT seems like to me from another post.  Basically me walking or driving around and having the government attacking me with surveillance and microtransactions:

Sounds great if IoT wasn't a code word for giant surveillance grid of doom.  Yes, this is the type of structure things like unmanned cars will be built around.  People will be required to carry devices to travel on public infrastructre, maybe a cell phone type device that acts as a transponder.  In addition to their sensors simulating sight, unmanned cars will detect the RF from the device and act as a collision avoidance plus navigation system.  Your wallet and identity will then be connected to the same transponder.  Everyone will be tracked like cattle. 

So yea, there is really no such thing as a "decentralized IoT".  All it is, is a system to broadcast as much personal information as possible to be centrally administratively controlled.

" As a regular human being on the planet earth, why exactly do I want IoT to be invented in the first place? " - It will make people life easier. So they will adopt it even if it's can be a great surveillance tool for government or company.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: zaph3t on October 22, 2015, 05:29:00 AM
hmmm! Interesting project  ::)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: yassin54 on October 22, 2015, 06:38:59 AM
So,there will be another TOKEN except Jinn on NXT AE both for Tangle tech?
 



Could you expand on your question? Not entirely sure what you are asking. JINN tokens are unrelated to IOTAs

https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/%28ann%29-jinn/msg197270/#msg197270


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: LiQio on October 22, 2015, 07:00:10 AM
Centralization of control
As history shows, small miners form big groups to reduce variation of the reward. This leads to concentration of power (computational and political) in hands of few pool operators and gives them ability to apply wide spectrum of policies (filtering, postponing) on certain transactions. Although there are no known cases where pool operators abused their power, there have been several instances where the opportunity were present. This possibility in a monetary system powering a multibillion (in USD) industry is completely unacceptable.

PoW with no block reward [to avoid centralization]. [...]

[...] Or IOTA owners have to "hire" miners. [...]

Looks like a contradiction at the first glance. CfB/iotatoken could you shed more light on the mining/PoW requirement?

Besides, needless to say: Following.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: makoto1337 on October 22, 2015, 07:27:04 AM
Interesting, but isn't quantum secure cryptography slow in its current form?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: superresistant on October 22, 2015, 08:12:02 AM
 
https://static.spiceworks.com/shared/post/0008/9555/mother_of_god_by_rober_raik-d4cw2di.png

Come-from-Beyond
brand new
the Internet-of-Things
quantum-resistant cryptography
This is why Iota was conceived
Tangle


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 22, 2015, 08:36:53 AM
a fluid, self-organizing swarmchain?
what are the data storage requirements for each node/device over time?

Lower bound is TOTAL/numberOfDevice, upper bound is TOTAL, the truth is somewhere in between, because redundancy above the lower bound is needed. TOTAL can be pretty little, though, beause majority of the payments will be done off-tangle, I think.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: wildduck on October 22, 2015, 08:40:57 AM
Great project i will be watching this one :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 22, 2015, 08:49:12 AM
If the network is fracture tolerant, than there is a concern that you might be validating a doublespend transaction without realizing it when creating your own transaction. This wouldn't be much of a big deal assuming only a hand full of dinguses trying to doublespend for personal profit, but what if someone(s) tries to exploit this as an attack vector against the network its self with no intention of personally profiting from the actual double-spend.

Assuming that the main part of the network has most of hashing power, only nodes on the separated part will be affected.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 22, 2015, 08:50:50 AM
The attacker can leave after he received the good and then issue the double spend as said in the Whitepaper. So the merchant will not see anything until the attack succeed ( if it succeed )

Tangle doesn't remove necessity to wait for enough confirmations for on-tangle payments.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 22, 2015, 08:53:50 AM
Looks like a contradiction at the first glance. CfB/iotatoken could you shed more light on the mining/PoW requirement?

Hiring of miners is required when it's a choice between life or death of the network. In this case you have to move away of total decentralization.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 22, 2015, 08:57:38 AM
Interesting, but isn't quantum secure cryptography slow in its current form?

No (http://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/8979/winternitz-one-time-signature).


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Jimmy2011 on October 22, 2015, 09:04:07 AM
ball park eta til you have something in the wild?

By Christmas.

Look forward to the Christmas gift :)

BTW, as it doesn't need to get global state of the tangle for the node, so is the tangle possible for decentralized game?



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 22, 2015, 09:06:16 AM
BTW, as it doesn't need to get global state of the tangle for the node, so is the tangle possible for decentralized game?

Some players may not see actions of others in time. Not sure tangle is good for games.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: jabo38 on October 22, 2015, 09:12:10 AM
BTW, as it doesn't need to get global state of the tangle for the node, so is the tangle possible for decentralized game?

Some players may not see actions of others in time. Not sure tangle is good for games.

Is that because of the network being fractured? 

Also, is there a rough estimate of how long a transaction must be in the system to be considered more or less final?

Like in Bitcoin, there is a 3 block confirmation time and a person can be reasonably assured that transaction won't be reversed. 


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: jabo38 on October 22, 2015, 09:17:19 AM
999'999'999.999999999 units.

That is a lot of 9's.  Any logic behind picking this number?  Chinese people believe 9 is the "ever lasting number".  


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 22, 2015, 09:20:54 AM
Is that because of the network being fractured? 

Also, is there a rough estimate of how long a transaction must be in the system to be considered more or less final?

Like in Bitcoin, there is a 3 block confirmation time and a person can be reasonably assured that transaction won't be reversed. 

It's because of latency.

Confirmation time depends on TPS rate. Before TPS becomes constant we'll be using checkpoints issued every 5 minutes, so after your transaction gets more than 50% of the votes you can treat it as confirmed.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 22, 2015, 09:24:18 AM
999'999'999.999999999 units.

That is a lot of 9's.  Any logic behind picking this number?  Chinese people believe 9 is the "ever lasting number".  

"Iota" is the 9th letter of the Greek alphabet.

I also thought of GUI devs, 1 billion coins would require to extend the field for the amount more, so subtracting the min allowed unit helps a little by saving millions of kilometers of user screen space per year. :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: jabo38 on October 22, 2015, 09:54:16 AM
999'999'999.999999999 units.

That is a lot of 9's.  Any logic behind picking this number?  Chinese people believe 9 is the "ever lasting number".  

"Iota" is the 9th letter of the Greek alphabet.

I also thought of GUI devs, 1 billion coins would require to extend the field for the amount more, so subtracting the min allowed unit helps a little by saving millions of kilometers of user screen space per year. :)

hahahaha, good.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: martismartis on October 22, 2015, 10:11:37 AM
Maybe really stupid question: Jean-Luc posted roadmap for NXT and one of the planned features will be blockchain "pruning" (next year). Could Iota help using checkpoints not only for security, but also for "pruning" blockchain resulting data size decrease of it? :)
In other words, how close NXT and Iota can cooperate?

P.S. Not native English, sorry :)


Quote
Tangle-blockchain interoperability

Iota does not seek to replace the blockchain entirely, it also acts as a supplementation to the current blockchain ecosystem by acting as a oracle for smart contract platforms like Ethereum and Rootstock. Additionally it increases security of blockchains by enabling the ability to include checkpoints for transactions.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 22, 2015, 10:31:14 AM
Maybe really stupid question: Jean-Luc posted roadmap for NXT and one of the planned features will be blockchain "pruning" (next year). Could Iota help using checkpoints not only for security, but also for "pruning" blockchain resulting data size decrease of it? :)
In other words, how close NXT and Iota can cooperate?

They can cooperate on that. Every iota transaction has "attachment" field that can store up to 385.14 bits of data which can be used for checkpointing and other things. One of such thing is the root of a Merkle tree storing a complete snapshot of Nxt ledger at some block height.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Jimmy2011 on October 22, 2015, 10:34:17 AM
BTW, as it doesn't need to get global state of the tangle for the node, so is the tangle possible for decentralized game?

Some players may not see actions of others in time. Not sure tangle is good for games.

domob published a paper about "Game Channels for Trustless Off -Chain Interactions" the other day, and I think it is also interesting for tangle.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=435170.msg12737521#msg12737521
http://extra.domob.eu/gamechannels.pdf


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tonych on October 22, 2015, 10:41:15 AM
Are you going to produce a whitepaper?

Yes, you can see the draft here - http://188.138.57.93/tangle.pdf.

I'm working on a similar DAG based design and it was interesting to read your whitepaper. A few questions/concerns:

1. Could you explain in layman's terms, why capping the amount of work per transaction makes double-spend attacks less likely to succeed? It doesn't sound intuitive.

2. What is the incentive for honest nodes to keep PoW on the legit sub-tangle high enough, so that no single attacker (even ASIC-powered one) can create a fake sub-tangle that has higher cumulative weight and contains his doublespend?

3. The whitepaper says that the subtangle that contains a failed doublespend is discarded. Does it mean that all other transactions that happened to approve the doublespend transaction are also discarded? If so, an attacker would try to inject two conflicting transactions at nearly the same time. Since synchronization is not instantaneous, some users will unknowingly approve one of these two transactions before they learn about the other. If they were unlucky to approve the transaction that eventually dies, their own transactions are also discarded, correct? Then it sounds like poor user experience, since user's transaction can be effectively canceled for reasons that he doesn't control. Next, if the attacker continuously sends penny doublespend transactions, he will split the network into multiple branches, most of them will be discarded, and the network will be effectively stalled. This is DoS attack. Next, observe that when a subtangle is discarded, the PoW invested in its creation is also discarded. Then if the attacker tries to doublespend a more sizable amount at the same time, he will reduce the hashpower of the honest part of the network by DoSing it this way, and he will need less resources to produce a subtangle that overweighs this weak legitimate subtangle.



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 22, 2015, 11:11:12 AM
I'm working on a similar DAG based design and it was interesting to read your whitepaper. A few questions/concerns:

1. Could you explain in layman's terms, why capping the amount of work per transaction makes double-spend attacks less likely to succeed? It doesn't sound intuitive.

2. What is the incentive for honest nodes to keep PoW on the legit sub-tangle high enough, so that no single attacker (even ASIC-powered one) can create a fake sub-tangle that has higher cumulative weight and contains his doublespend?

3. The whitepaper says that the subtangle that contains a failed doublespend is discarded. Does it mean that all other transactions that happened to approve the doublespend transaction are also discarded? If so, an attacker would try to inject two conflicting transactions at nearly the same time. Since synchronization is not instantaneous, some users will unknowingly approve one of these two transactions before they learn about the other. If they were unlucky to approve the transaction that eventually dies, their own transactions are also discarded, correct? Then it sounds like poor user experience, since user's transaction can be effectively canceled for reasons that he doesn't control. Next, if the attacker continuously sends penny doublespend transactions, he will split the network into multiple branches, most of them will be discarded, and the network will be effectively stalled. This is DoS attack. Next, observe that when a subtangle is discarded, the PoW invested in its creation is also discarded. Then if the attacker tries to doublespend a more sizable amount at the same time, he will reduce the hashpower of the honest part of the network by DoSing it this way, and he will need less resources to produce a subtangle that overweighs this weak legitimate subtangle.

The author of the whitepaper is in a location with a terrible Internet connection now, I'll try to answer instead of him but keep in mind that I may be wrong.

1. Imagine that you need to do N work to outbalance the rest of the network. A winning strategy is to do number crunching in hope to be lucky and find a solution much earlier than in average. If the network reaches the point where N is not enough to outbalance its work then you simply increase N by some value and keep doing hashing until you find a solution. You may need to move your goal again and again though.

2. Nodes don't need to continue to do hashing once their transaction is accepted, others will do that for them if the majority confirms those transactions that confirm others' ones.

3. If a transaction happens to reference double-spending transactions then anyone can change the references. More likely it will be the issuer themselves if they hasn't got the purchased item yet, or the merchant who has already delivered the item and now is interested in transaction confirmation because otherwise he will be unable to spend these coins. A DoS attack is possible but iota has inherent protection against it because every transaction needs to do some work (PoW) before it becomes valid. Every transaction has 2 parts - essential data signed by the owner and references to other transactions, - the latter can be changed without transaction resigning.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 22, 2015, 11:17:54 AM
Though I was invited to review the whitepaper, it seems all my questions remains unanswered. And section "4.1 Resistance to quantum computations" (added after my review?) seems pretty controversial by its reasoning. Anyway, Popov's work is the deepest made on DAG cryptocurrencies(all I've seen before were just forum & blog posts), I'm not sure what's presented enough to make something production-ready though. Let's see what will happen here. Have luck guys!  :)
I'm not sure if I understand what exactly your question is. If it's about submitting two conflicting tx's, then there is no problem - one will survive, and the other will die (that is, at some moment it will stop gaining cumulative weight). Besides, if you're buying smth from a merchant and submit a conflicting transaction at the same time, the merchant would call a police  :)

The attacker can leave after he received the good and then issue the double spend as said in the Whitepaper. So the merchant will not see anything until the attack succeed ( if it succeed )


EDIT : I love IOTA. Good luck guys ! :D
That's exactly the point: if it succeeds. If the legit tx already got enough cumulative weight, then the probability of a successful attack will be very small. Exactly as in bitcoin and other cryptos.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 22, 2015, 11:32:54 AM


1. Could you explain in layman's terms, why capping the amount of work per transaction makes double-spend attacks less likely to succeed? It doesn't sound intuitive.


Consider two situations:
1. You need to generate 1 block with 10 zeros in front,
2. You need to generate 1024 blocks with 1 zero.

Let T be the time you need in the 1st case, R is the time you need in the 2nd. T, R are random variables, of course. Now, it is true that T and R have the same expectation, but it is *not* true that their distributions are the same. In particular, the variance of T will be much bigger. What is even more important, is the difference in large deviation probabilities.


 Assume that you need to complete you task within time (expected time)/10. What would you choose, 1 or 2, to maximize your chances? Well, better choose 1. That's quite intuitive. What is not intuitive, is how different these chances are. In situation 1, you will succeed with probability around 10% or so. However, in situation 2, it will be *very* low. Don't want to calculate, but it will be smth like 0.0000000000001... anyhow, practically zero. That's why, if you want to beat the rest of the network, it's much better to bet on "heavy" tx's, and so we avoid this kind of attacks by putting an upper limit on the own weight.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tonych on October 22, 2015, 12:00:37 PM


1. Could you explain in layman's terms, why capping the amount of work per transaction makes double-spend attacks less likely to succeed? It doesn't sound intuitive.


Consider two situations:
1. You need to generate 1 block with 10 zeros in front,
2. You need to generate 1024 blocks with 1 zero.

Let T be the time you need in the 1st case, R is the time you need in the 2nd. T, R are random variables, of course. Now, it is true that T and R have the same expectation, but it is *not* true that their distributions are the same. In particular, the variance of T will be much bigger. What is even more important, is the difference in large deviation probabilities.


 Assume that you need to complete you task within time (expected time)/10. What would you choose, 1 or 2, to maximize your chances? Well, better choose 1. That's quite intuitive. What is not intuitive, is how different these chances are. In situation 1, you will succeed with probability around 10% or so. However, in situation 2, it will be *very* low. Don't want to calculate, but it will be smth like 0.0000000000001... anyhow, practically zero. That's why, if you want to beat the rest of the network, it's much better to bet on "heavy" tx's, and so we avoid this kind of attacks by putting an upper limit on the own weight.

Excellent! This is perfectly clear now.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tonych on October 22, 2015, 12:26:15 PM
2. Nodes don't need to continue to do hashing once their transaction is accepted, others will do that for them if the majority confirms those transactions that confirm others' ones.
Still I can't see why nodes would try to put more PoW into their transactions. Looks like it is enough to submit minimal PoW and have others confirm my transaction with their PoW. It is in the common interest of all users to have more PoW on the legit branch to secure the network against doublespends, but individual interest, it seems, is not aligned with the common one.

3. If a transaction happens to reference double-spending transactions then anyone can change the references.
I hope the change is deterministic? Otherwise we'll end up having many conflicting "fixes" of references.

Every transaction has 2 parts - essential data signed by the owner and references to other transactions, - the latter can be changed without transaction resigning.
This raises another concern. What if a malicious node changes references of a third-party transaction before forwarding it to peers? Different nodes will receive different versions of the same transaction that differ only in references to parents. Also, if references are not secured by signatures, nor by anything else, is it possible to reorder and even censor old transactions, thus changing the graph structure?




Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: jcksteve on October 22, 2015, 12:29:47 PM
What this...??? 50 billion TOKEN..??


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 22, 2015, 12:52:16 PM
Still I can't see why nodes would try to put more PoW into their transactions. Looks like it is enough to submit minimal PoW and have others confirm my transaction with their PoW. It is in the common interest of all users to have more PoW on the legit branch to secure the network against doublespends, but individual interest, it seems, is not aligned with the common one.

Minimal PoW is enough, we assume that there exist a constant flow of new transactions which is a pretty reasonable assumption.


I hope the change is deterministic? Otherwise we'll end up having many conflicting "fixes" of references.

The change is not deterministic. No conflicts are created if there are several fixes, because the transaction data are not changed. It's just copied several times.


This raises another concern. What if a malicious node changes references of a third-party transaction before forwarding it to peers? Different nodes will receive different versions of the same transaction that differ only in references to parents. Also, if references are not secured by signatures, nor by anything else, is it possible to reorder and even censor old transactions, thus changing the graph structure?

Several copies of a transaction increase security of the network, not decrease it. I think there is a confusion caused by different terminology. Let's call data required to be signed (amount, beneficiary, etc.) a transaction and the part that contains references and the transaction an envelope. Envelopes reference each other, their sole purpose is to help to achieve consensus, transactions do reference each other indirectly by using outputs of parent transactions as inputs of child transactions. An adversary can't change references inside transactions, anyone can change references inside envelopes but this will only create the 2nd envelope. To be able to censor transactions you need to conduct a successful global eclipse attack, if you only change envelope then you contribute to network security increase. Note, that references inside envelopes are secured by PoW. If you spend electricity on PoW you just make tangle more tangled, which is good.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 22, 2015, 12:59:34 PM
What this...??? 50 billion TOKEN..??

Where have you seen "50 billion"?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Ratatosk on October 22, 2015, 01:19:33 PM
Hi
As I understand (I'm far from a tech/dev guy), the anonymous and privacy level of IOTA universe is closer to the Bitcoin anon/priv level than to the Monero one ?
Or will/could it be some future options to improve or choose level of anon/priv ?
Great project, it seems :-)
Thanks :-)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 22, 2015, 01:56:29 PM
Hi
As I understand (I'm far from a tech/dev guy), the anonymous and privacy level of IOTA universe is closer to the Bitcoin anon/priv level than to the Monero one ?
Or will/could it be some future options to improve or choose level of anon/priv ?
Great project, it seems :-)
Thanks :-)

Privacy level of Iota is not Bitcoin's nor Monero's. Transactions can be done off-tangle being seen only by few nodes, off-tangle transactions are not stored on the tangle.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: superresistant on October 22, 2015, 02:06:03 PM
Privacy level of Iota is not Bitcoin's nor Monero's. Transactions can be done off-tangle being seen only by few nodes, off-tangle transactions are not stored on the tangle.

What do you call a "transaction" here if it is not stored on the tangle ?
How is it off-tangle if few nodes are aware of the transaction ?

EDIT: I think I get it, off-transactions must be done by 2 nodes that doesn't broadcast the transaction.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: jcksteve on October 22, 2015, 02:14:06 PM
What this...??? 50 billion TOKEN..??

Where have you seen "50 billion"?
ouchh..i'm wrong..??


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 22, 2015, 02:23:13 PM
EDIT: I think I get it, off-transactions must be done by 2 nodes that doesn't broadcast the transaction.

Yes.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Ratatosk on October 22, 2015, 02:29:48 PM
EDIT: I think I get it, off-transactions must be done by 2 nodes that doesn't broadcast the transaction.

Yes.

OK, thanks to you 2.

So, basically, IOTA "universe" doesn't offer more privacy or anonymity than Bitcoin by default, but if the users decide or ask for, some operations will not be "shared and recorded" excepted by some few specific nodes, interresting.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 22, 2015, 02:39:47 PM
So, basically, IOTA "universe" doesn't offer more privacy or anonymity than Bitcoin by default, but if the users decide or ask for, some operations will not be "shared and recorded" excepted by some few specific nodes, interresting.

Frankly saying, this feature is not unique to Iota. It's based on the idea of payment channels (http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/716b955c130e6c703fac336ea17b1670/duplex-micropayment-channels.pdf) invented for Bitcoin. When Bitcoin adopts the changes required for payment channel realization is another question.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: 50cent_rapper on October 22, 2015, 02:45:54 PM
Will there be a software client/wallet for this, so people can send and receive tokens ? Or we must wait for IoT-devices to spend tokens ?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 22, 2015, 02:55:56 PM
Will there be a software client/wallet for this, so people can send and receive tokens ? Or we must wait for IoT-devices to spend tokens ?

We will provide software written in Java, its source code and executables for several popular OSes generated with http://www.jwrapper.com.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tonych on October 22, 2015, 04:04:15 PM
Minimal PoW is enough, we assume that there exist a constant flow of new transactions which is a pretty reasonable assumption.
Got it. But I still doubt it is secure. With roughly constant flow of transactions, we have roughly constant PoW generated on the legit branch.
In Bitcoin, we always have better, more power efficient ASICs. The miner who is first to install a new ASIC, obtains temporary advantage over other miners (assuming all other variables equal). A new ASIC basically redistributes the constant flow of wealth (25BTC/block) among miners, ordinary users don't care. And it was one of design goals of Bitcoin that mining is more profitable than attacking.
In Iota, I'm afraid, it'll be profitable to use ASICs against users. If minimal PoW per transaction is small enough then a small battery of ASICs might be enough to outPoW the whole legitimate network armed with CPU PoW.

Several copies of a transaction increase security of the network, not decrease it. I think there is a confusion caused by different terminology. Let's call data required to be signed (amount, beneficiary, etc.) a transaction and the part that contains references and the transaction an envelope. Envelopes reference each other, their sole purpose is to help to achieve consensus, transactions do reference each other indirectly by using outputs of parent transactions as inputs of child transactions. An adversary can't change references inside transactions, anyone can change references inside envelopes but this will only create the 2nd envelope. To be able to censor transactions you need to conduct a successful global eclipse attack, if you only change envelope then you contribute to network security increase. Note, that references inside envelopes are secured by PoW. If you spend electricity on PoW you just make tangle more tangled, which is good.
Thanks, terminology definitely helped.
So you allow to duplicate a transaction as long as PoW is also duplicated.
What about attempts to rewrite history by rewriting the envelopes?

http://i.imgur.com/ncfk7bO.png

In this example from the whitepaper, if I wanted to censor envelope F and the corresponding transaction (because e.g. it contained a spend that I want to roll back), could I "route around" it by spending some electricity and rewriting references in envelopes of E and B so that they no longer point to F but somewhere else? Then there are no references to F in the graph any more, I can safely delete it and share my version of the history with other nodes. How will they know which history is right?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 22, 2015, 04:33:44 PM
Got it. But I still doubt it is secure. With roughly constant flow of transactions, we have roughly constant PoW generated on the legit branch.
In Bitcoin, we always have better, more power efficient ASICs. The miner who is first to install a new ASIC, obtains temporary advantage over other miners (assuming all other variables equal). A new ASIC basically redistributes the constant flow of wealth (25BTC/block) among miners, ordinary users don't care.
In Iota, I'm afraid, it'll be profitable to use ASICs against users. If minimal PoW per transaction is small enough then a small battery of ASICs might be enough to outPoW the whole legitimate network armed with CPU PoW.

Bitcoin has constant PoW during a week too, I don't see how constant PoW leads to an insecure state. Would anyone create ASICs for Bitcoin mining if there was no subsidy (25 BTC) nor transaction fees?
Security of Iota relies on assumption that an adversary controls less than 50% of hashing power. This is a standard assumption in cryptoindustry. Bootstrapping period will be protected by checkpoints.


Thanks, terminology definitely helped.
So you allow to duplicate a transaction as long as PoW is also duplicated.
What about attempts to rewrite history by rewriting the envelopes?

http://i.imgur.com/ncfk7bO.png

In this example from the whitepaper, if I wanted to censor envelope F and the corresponding transaction (because e.g. it contained a spend that I want to roll back), could I "route around" it by spending some electricity and rewriting references in envelopes of E and B so that they no longer point to F but somewhere else? Then there are no references to F in the graph any more, I can safely delete it and share my version of the history with other nodes. How will they know which history is right?

The history with the heaviest tangle is right. To rewrite the history you need to control most of the hashing power.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rlh on October 22, 2015, 05:11:31 PM
Ok, I just skimmed the white paper (a little better than reading just the conclusions, but not fully digesting the formulas.)

I have a question about a type of attack.  Since this is an IoT coin, it is my understanding that in order to fully confirm a transaction, you should validate the full chain from the TX to the genesis transaction correct?  Over time this shouldn't be a problem because a node should only have to download transactions that are missing from any tip.  For example, if I get a Transaction F, and I already have transactions A->B->C in the F's chain, I only need to download transactions D->E, and validate the associated signatures for these transactions, in order to fully validate F.  Once F is fully validated in this manner, I can validate/sign F to post with my transaction G.

Now, what's to prevent someone from accepting a payment and creating a massive, off-chain tangle?  Maybe I spend 1-2 days, generating really long, off-net tangles.

I then submit a single transaction that relies on gigabytes of transnational details that only my Sybil nodes hold.  Wouldn't the network flood with requests for information on these transactions?  This may not seem like a big deal, but if IOTA is to be used with small(ish) IoT devices that can benefit from micro-payments, can't such information requests overload such devices?

Solution: When confirming a transaction, if you have to back-search a constant number of transactions, toss out the transaction.  In other words, if I have to request 5 transaction generations and I'm still not on the main-chain, I can toss out the transaction.

Is my scenario even a problem?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 22, 2015, 05:51:54 PM
Ok, I just skimmed the white paper (a little better than reading just the conclusions, but not fully digesting the formulas.)

I have a question about a type of attack.  Since this is an IoT coin, it is my understanding that in order to fully confirm a transaction, you should validate the full chain from the TX to the genesis transaction correct?  Over time this shouldn't be a problem because a node should only have to download transactions that are missing from any tip.  For example, if I get a Transaction F, and I already have transactions A->B->C in the F's chain, I only need to download transactions D->E, and validate the associated signatures for these transactions, in order to fully validate F.  Once F is fully validated in this manner, I can validate/sign F to post with my transaction G.

Now, what's to prevent someone from accepting a payment and creating a massive, off-chain tangle?  Maybe I spend 1-2 days, generating really long, off-net tangles.

I then submit a single transaction that relies on gigabytes of transnational details that only my Sybil nodes hold.  Wouldn't the network flood with requests for information on these transactions?  This may not seem like a big deal, but if IOTA is to be used with small(ish) IoT devices that can benefit from micro-payments, can't such information requests overload such devices?

Solution: When confirming a transaction, if you have to back-search a constant number of transactions, toss out the transaction.  In other words, if I have to request 5 transaction generations and I'm still not on the main-chain, I can toss out the transaction.

Is my scenario even a problem?

A low-end device may be unable to process gigabytes of data within a short period of time, but it can cooperate with other low-end devices and split the burden by using techniques like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MapReduce. A M-of-N multisignature with virtually unlimited M and N will make elements of such swarms to behave honestly (otherwise they will lose money or won't get their transactions accepted). Luckily for devices which don't have "friends", it's not necessary to "see" the whole tangle if they spend money, they can reference old transactions and wait a little longer. If they accept money then they can explicitly warn their customers that a payment may take very long time for verification. On the other hand, if they provide a service they may spend a lot of time and create off-tangle payment channels (or even ask their owner to do it for them by using his computer) and then accept payments without worrying about the size of the tangle.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rlh on October 22, 2015, 06:01:18 PM
Using MapReduce is an interesting approach and would certainly make sense.  However, if it's not implemented (say, in a tech product by a company that didn't think to integrate it) this is a viable form of a spam attack.

I certainly understand that IOTA will initially be what the initial client software provides, but if you are planning on a robust IoT use-case, there should be a standardized communications protocol so that people companies can roll their client-code for their hardware. 

Providing pre-existing implementations of MapReduce logic could help encourage responsible development.  Otherwise, it might not be even an after-thought and once products and nodes exist, this type of attack would be considerably easy to implement.

These are just some additional thoughts on the matter.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 22, 2015, 06:14:16 PM
Using MapReduce is an interesting approach and would certainly make sense.  However, if it's not implemented (say, in a tech product by a company that didn't think to integrate it) this is a viable form of a spam attack.

I certainly understand that IOTA will initially be what the initial client software provides, but if you are planning on a robust IoT use-case, there should be a standardized communications protocol so that people companies can roll their client-code for their hardware. 

Providing pre-existing implementations of MapReduce logic could help encourage responsible development.  Otherwise, it might not be even an after-thought and once products and nodes exist, this type of attack would be considerably easy to implement.

These are just some additional thoughts on the matter.

Valid point, we just need to make sure that we won't fit too much into the standard making Iota lose its lightweightness.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: petko on October 22, 2015, 09:27:01 PM
Minimal PoW is enough, we assume that there exist a constant flow of new transactions which is a pretty reasonable assumption.

Security of Iota relies on assumption that an adversary controls less than 50% of hashing power. This is a standard assumption in cryptoindustry. Bootstrapping period will be protected by checkpoints.

So for a transaction to be considered confirmed, the number of approving transactions multiplied by the minimal PoW must exceed the maximal possible adversary's PoW?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 22, 2015, 09:32:05 PM
So for a transaction to be considered confirmed, the number of approving transactions multiplied by the minimal PoW must exceed the maximal possible adversary's PoW?

No, it's not that easy, if transaction flow drops then an adversary can catch up and double-spend. It's a never ending race.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tobeaj2mer01 on October 23, 2015, 06:53:48 AM
How can we get IOTA? Can we mine it or buy it?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: petko on October 23, 2015, 06:56:27 AM
No, it's not that easy, if transaction flow drops then an adversary can catch up and double-spend. It's a never ending race.

Indeed, right. Another try:

To consider the system secure, the average number of transactions per second, multiplied by the minimal PoW, must exceed the maximal hash power per second of a probable attacker


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 23, 2015, 07:15:29 AM
Indeed, right. Another try:

To consider the system secure, the average number of transactions per second, multiplied by the minimal PoW, must exceed the maximal hash power per second of a probable attacker

This looks good for the edge case of a tangle degenerated to a chain. It should be the same for a tangle with arbitrary topology for transactions that have already been considered confirmed, but intuition says that it's incorrect for transactions that haven't passed their adaptation period (i.e. there are a lot of tips not referencing them) yet.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 23, 2015, 07:41:16 AM
How can we get IOTA? Can we mine it or buy it?

There will be a crowdsale, yes.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: patmast3r on October 23, 2015, 07:56:57 AM
So for a transaction to be considered confirmed, the number of approving transactions multiplied by the minimal PoW must exceed the maximal possible adversary's PoW?

No, it's not that easy, if transaction flow drops then an adversary can catch up and double-spend. It's a never ending race.

So when can a tx be considered unreversable ?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: petko on October 23, 2015, 08:06:04 AM

This looks good for the edge case of a tangle degenerated to a chain. It should be the same for a tangle with arbitrary topology for transactions that have already been considered confirmed, but intuition says that it's incorrect for transactions that haven't passed their adaptation period (i.e. there are a lot of tips not referencing them) yet.

OK, guess the transactions will get entangled fast enough. Let's and do a quick calc considering they do:

  • Let J be the average Joe hash rate
  • You cannot ask Joe to wait more than 60 sec to issue a single transaction, so the minimal PoW cannot be more than 60 * J
  • Let E be the attacker's hash rate

The minimal number of transactions per second that you need in order to keep the system secure is N = E / (60 * J)

So for SHA-256 (in fact, what hashing do you consider?):

  • Let's take the Core 2 Duo hash rate for Joe
    J = 2.5 MH/s
  • Today's hash rate of the Bitcoin network is around 430 PH/s. It is plausible to assume that a single entity owns 1% of that hash power
    E = 4.3 PH/s = 4 300 000 000 MH/s

 => The minimal number of transactions per second is the astonishing N = 28 666 666

Did I misunderstand something?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 23, 2015, 08:12:50 AM
So when can a tx be considered unreversable ?

Never, look at formula #14 in http://188.138.57.93/tangle.pdf. Just like in Bitcoin there is always a chance of doublespending.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: patmast3r on October 23, 2015, 08:21:00 AM
So when can a tx be considered unreversable ?

Never, look at formula #14 in http://188.138.57.93/tangle.pdf. Just like in Bitcoin there is always a chance of doublespending.

Not even when the weight cap is reached ? (The paper mentions the cap but I'm not sure it ever states if the cap will actually be applied)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tonych on October 23, 2015, 08:25:03 AM
Got it. But I still doubt it is secure. With roughly constant flow of transactions, we have roughly constant PoW generated on the legit branch.
In Bitcoin, we always have better, more power efficient ASICs. The miner who is first to install a new ASIC, obtains temporary advantage over other miners (assuming all other variables equal). A new ASIC basically redistributes the constant flow of wealth (25BTC/block) among miners, ordinary users don't care.
In Iota, I'm afraid, it'll be profitable to use ASICs against users. If minimal PoW per transaction is small enough then a small battery of ASICs might be enough to outPoW the whole legitimate network armed with CPU PoW.

Bitcoin has constant PoW during a week too, I don't see how constant PoW leads to an insecure state. Would anyone create ASICs for Bitcoin mining if there was no subsidy (25 BTC) nor transaction fees?
While it is true that Bitcoin has constant PoW during two weeks, it is adjusted every two weeks in response to changes in the total hash power available. It is able to adapt. There is no reason to assume that the flow of transactions in Iota will increase in response to more hash power being available.

Will anyone create ASICs or build botnets specifically to attack Iota users? If Iota token becomes valuable enough, why not?

Security of Iota relies on assumption that an adversary controls less than 50% of hashing power. This is a standard assumption in cryptoindustry. Bootstrapping period will be protected by checkpoints.
It is not just an assumption, it is carefully designed incentives that drive people to behave honestly rather than try to attack other users. Satoshi writes this in section 6 of Bitcoin whitepaper:
Quote
The   incentive   may   help   encourage   nodes   to   stay   honest.     If   a   greedy   attacker   is   able   to
assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it
to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins.  He ought to
find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than
everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.
In Iota, there is no mining that would have absorbed any surplus hashpower. Where will this wild hashpower go?

Thanks, terminology definitely helped.
So you allow to duplicate a transaction as long as PoW is also duplicated.
What about attempts to rewrite history by rewriting the envelopes?

http://i.imgur.com/ncfk7bO.png

In this example from the whitepaper, if I wanted to censor envelope F and the corresponding transaction (because e.g. it contained a spend that I want to roll back), could I "route around" it by spending some electricity and rewriting references in envelopes of E and B so that they no longer point to F but somewhere else? Then there are no references to F in the graph any more, I can safely delete it and share my version of the history with other nodes. How will they know which history is right?

The history with the heaviest tangle is right. To rewrite the history you need to control most of the hashing power.
Why? I'm guessing after I rewrite envelopes of E and B, I have to also rewrite all envelopes that reference them (A and C), then the envelopes that reference those who reference, and so on until the tips, correct?



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 23, 2015, 08:27:38 AM
The minimal number of transactions per second that you need in order to keep the system secure is N = E / (60 * J)

So for SHA-256 (in fact, what hashing do you consider?):

  • Let's take the Core 2 Duo hash rate for Joe
    J = 2.5 MH/s
  • Today's hash rate of the Bitcoin network is around 430 PH/s. It is plausible to assume that a single entity owns 1% of that hash power
    E = 4.3 PH/s = 4 300 000 000 MH/s

 => The minimal number of transactions per second is the astonishing N = 28 666 666

Did I misunderstand something?

Looks good, it's just unclear why you picked Bitcoin hashrate which is generated by ASICs working a million times faster than a computer.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 23, 2015, 08:31:40 AM
Not even when the weight cap is reached ? (The paper mentions the cap but I'm not sure it ever states if the cap will actually be applied)

No. The cap is related to another issue.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 23, 2015, 08:43:41 AM
Got it. But I still doubt it is secure. With roughly constant flow of transactions, we have roughly constant PoW generated on the legit branch.
In Bitcoin, we always have better, more power efficient ASICs. The miner who is first to install a new ASIC, obtains temporary advantage over other miners (assuming all other variables equal). A new ASIC basically redistributes the constant flow of wealth (25BTC/block) among miners, ordinary users don't care.
In Iota, I'm afraid, it'll be profitable to use ASICs against users. If minimal PoW per transaction is small enough then a small battery of ASICs might be enough to outPoW the whole legitimate network armed with CPU PoW.

Bitcoin has constant PoW during a week too, I don't see how constant PoW leads to an insecure state. Would anyone create ASICs for Bitcoin mining if there was no subsidy (25 BTC) nor transaction fees?
While it is true that Bitcoin has constant PoW during two weeks, it is adjusted every two weeks in response to changes in the total hash power available. It is able to adapt. There is no reason to assume that the flow of transactions in Iota will increase in response to more hash power being available.

Will anyone create ASICs or build botnets specifically to attack Iota users? If Iota token becomes valuable enough, why not?

Security of Iota relies on assumption that an adversary controls less than 50% of hashing power. This is a standard assumption in cryptoindustry. Bootstrapping period will be protected by checkpoints.
It is not just an assumption, it is carefully designed incentives that drive people to behave honestly rather than try to attack other users. Satoshi writes this in section 6 of Bitcoin whitepaper:
Quote
The   incentive   may   help   encourage   nodes   to   stay   honest.     If   a   greedy   attacker   is   able   to
assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it
to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins.  He ought to
find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than
everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.
In Iota, there is no mining that would have absorbed any surplus hashpower. Where will this wild hashpower go?

Thanks, terminology definitely helped.
So you allow to duplicate a transaction as long as PoW is also duplicated.
What about attempts to rewrite history by rewriting the envelopes?

http://i.imgur.com/ncfk7bO.png

In this example from the whitepaper, if I wanted to censor envelope F and the corresponding transaction (because e.g. it contained a spend that I want to roll back), could I "route around" it by spending some electricity and rewriting references in envelopes of E and B so that they no longer point to F but somewhere else? Then there are no references to F in the graph any more, I can safely delete it and share my version of the history with other nodes. How will they know which history is right?

The history with the heaviest tangle is right. To rewrite the history you need to control most of the hashing power.
Why? I'm guessing after I rewrite envelopes of E and B, I have to also rewrite all envelopes that reference them (A and C), then the envelopes that reference those who reference, and so on until the tips, correct?



Min transaction PoW will naturally increase over time mimicking Moore's law when more powerful hardware appears. Multiply this by TPS increase caused by increased popularity.

ASICs indeed will be created.

Satoshi's assumption was shown to be incorrect - http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~ie53/publications/btcProcFC.pdf.

Necessity to absorb surplus hashpower is not obvious, also what numbers do you have in mind (1% of not used hashpower, 10%, 99%)?

There is no such thing as rewriting of envelopes, you can only add new ones unless you conducted a global eclipse attack.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: patmast3r on October 23, 2015, 08:47:50 AM
So what's the plan to bootstrap this thing ? Just pump "useless" transactions into it until the market/actual usage can sustain a constant flow?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 23, 2015, 08:53:11 AM
So what's the plan to bootstrap this thing ? Just pump "useless" transactions into it until the market/actual usage can sustain a constant flow?

The plan is to do checkpointing every 5 minutes. Initial holders will vote proportionally to amount owned in the very beginning. Checkpoints are not mandatory and can be disabled by any node.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tobeaj2mer01 on October 23, 2015, 10:45:39 AM
Is there any code/prototype now or only a whitepaper?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 23, 2015, 10:53:01 AM
Is there any code/prototype now or only a whitepaper?

It's in development.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tobeaj2mer01 on October 23, 2015, 10:59:52 AM
How can we get IOTA? Can we mine it or buy it?

There will be a crowdsale, yes.

At about what time? Will it hold before or after testing IOTA release?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 23, 2015, 12:17:39 PM
Come-from-Beyond has been very cordial to me, so I don't want to defecate on his effort. I have my doubts about viability for the following reason. The ramifications of this probably needs to be discussed more. But it seems to me that having users who send transactions viewing all the transactions before they can send is the antithesis of instant microtransactions and also places a burden on who can send a transaction. You need certain minimum level of connectivity and bandwidth on your connection just to send a transaction. It is an interesting concept and maybe DAG can be integrated in other ways into cryptocurrency. Maybe he needs to figure out how to eliminate this apparent weakness with some paradigm shift. Note it appears to me that Lightning Networks (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1153740.msg12759454#msg12759454) is in some facets (not all) similar to a DAG concept. Perhaps thinking about those two different paradigms will lead to some epiphany.

Hey cool name Iota (IoT)! Good one!

Can you explain to me why this doesn't require every connected IoT that wants to sign a transaction to not have to listen to every transaction on the network?

Doesn't the bandwidth requirements of that limit which sort of devices can participate?

Can a IoT device proxy its request a well powered server?

Are you talking about on- or off-tangle payments?

Lol I don't know. I guess I mean on-tangle, those participating in your algorithm?

For on-tangle payments a device needs to see majority of the transactions. Good news is that it needs this only if it's about to make or check a payment, most of time it can store and broadcast transactions without their verification (only PoW needs to be verified to avoid spam attacks).


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: petko on October 23, 2015, 12:24:18 PM
Looks good, it's just unclear why you picked Bitcoin hashrate which is generated by ASICs working a million times faster than a computer.

I picked it in a search for a maximum possible hash rate owned by an attacker.

In fact here I assume the biggest ASICs farm is like a billion times faster than a computer. You are correct that ASICs farms wouldn't exist without the Bitcoin economic model. I.e. the ratio E/J wouldn't have grown to billions. But even if it was smaller, you still need a minimal number of transactions per second with the magnitude of E/J.

Anyways, good luck!

PS: :) Iota is like a russian car: if it stop, it cannot start, but once it start, it cannot be stopped :D



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 23, 2015, 12:26:07 PM
So when can a tx be considered unreversable ?

Never, look at formula #14 in http://188.138.57.93/tangle.pdf. Just like in Bitcoin there is always a chance of doublespending.

Not even when the weight cap is reached ? (The paper mentions the cap but I'm not sure it ever states if the cap will actually be applied)

That cap is only for the own weight of a tx (in fact, as far as I know, the plan is to set it to constant). The cumulative weight may (and will) grow.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 23, 2015, 12:44:50 PM
Come-from-Beyond has been very cordial to me, so I don't want to defecate on his effort. I have my doubts about viability for the following reason. The ramifications of this probably needs to be discussed more. But it seems to me that having users who send transactions viewing all the transactions before they can send is the antithesis of instant microtransactions and also places a burden on who can send a transaction. You need certain minimum level of connectivity and bandwidth on your connection just to send a transaction. It is an interesting concept and maybe DAG can be integrated in other ways into cryptocurrency. Maybe he needs to figure out how to eliminate this apparent weakness with some paradigm shift. Note it appears to me that Lightning Networks (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1153740.msg12759454#msg12759454) is in some facets (not all) similar to a DAG concept. Perhaps thinking about those two different paradigms will lead to some epiphany.

Hey cool name Iota (IoT)! Good one!

It's not needed to see all the transactions before sending a payment, one could have a few days old snapshot and still get their transaction included into the tangle. This is an advantage of the tangle over the blockchain - consistency requirement is much lower than in Bitcoin. Lightning Networks approach (more precisely its improvement made by Christian Decker and Roger Wattenhofer in "A Fast and Scalable Payment Network with Bitcoin Duplex Micropayment Channels") is already utilized in Iota.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Fuserleer on October 23, 2015, 01:46:46 PM
Come-from-Beyond has been very cordial to me, so I don't want to defecate on his effort. I have my doubts about viability for the following reason. The ramifications of this probably needs to be discussed more. But it seems to me that having users who send transactions viewing all the transactions before they can send is the antithesis of instant microtransactions and also places a burden on who can send a transaction. You need certain minimum level of connectivity and bandwidth on your connection just to send a transaction. It is an interesting concept and maybe DAG can be integrated in other ways into cryptocurrency. Maybe he needs to figure out how to eliminate this apparent weakness with some paradigm shift. Note it appears to me that Lightning Networks (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1153740.msg12759454#msg12759454) is in some facets (not all) similar to a DAG concept. Perhaps thinking about those two different paradigms will lead to some epiphany.

Hey cool name Iota (IoT)! Good one!

It's not needed to see all the transactions before sending a payment, one could have a few days old snapshot and still get their transaction included into the tangle. This is an advantage of the tangle over the blockchain - consistency requirement is much lower than in Bitcoin. Lightning Networks approach (more precisely its improvement made by Christian Decker and Roger Wattenhofer in "A Fast and Scalable Payment Network with Bitcoin Duplex Micropayment Channels") is already utilized in Iota.

^ this

Its one of the strengths of a tangle/DAG/whatever you want to call it as I explained further up.

I too though am a little unsure about the use of POW as you describe it, I have the anticipation that this "race" if the network loses could have some serious consequences.  I plan to dig into the theory -> practice of it more over the weekend as a break from regular eMunie stuff before I make any judgements.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 23, 2015, 01:52:52 PM
I too though am a little unsure about the use of POW as you describe it, I have the anticipation that this "race" if the network loses could have some serious consequences.

We have an ace up our sleeve, but it's too early to reveal it.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Fuserleer on October 23, 2015, 02:53:03 PM
I too though am a little unsure about the use of POW as you describe it, I have the anticipation that this "race" if the network loses could have some serious consequences.

We have an ace up our sleeve, but it's too early to reveal it.

Fair enough.  In that case I wont waste any time until you've divulged what that is :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 23, 2015, 03:07:39 PM
Come-from-Beyond has been very cordial to me, so I don't want to defecate on his effort. I have my doubts about viability for the following reason. The ramifications of this probably needs to be discussed more. But it seems to me that having users who send transactions viewing all the transactions before they can send is the antithesis of instant microtransactions and also places a burden on who can send a transaction. You need certain minimum level of connectivity and bandwidth on your connection just to send a transaction. It is an interesting concept and maybe DAG can be integrated in other ways into cryptocurrency. Maybe he needs to figure out how to eliminate this apparent weakness with some paradigm shift. Note it appears to me that Lightning Networks (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1153740.msg12759454#msg12759454) is in some facets (not all) similar to a DAG concept. Perhaps thinking about those two different paradigms will lead to some epiphany.

Hey cool name Iota (IoT)! Good one!

It's not needed to see all the transactions before sending a payment, one could have a few days old snapshot and still get their transaction included into the tangle. This is an advantage of the tangle over the blockchain - consistency requirement is much lower than in Bitcoin. Lightning Networks approach (more precisely its improvement made by Christian Decker and Roger Wattenhofer in "A Fast and Scalable Payment Network with Bitcoin Duplex Micropayment Channels") is already utilized in Iota.

I haven't dug into the core issues of the breadth of tree and its implication on convergence versus divergence and as pertains to double-spends and other metrics. So I am limited in terms of making insights at this time until I do.

I thought you replied to me up thread that the payer needs to accumulate a significant portion of the breadth of the tree (even historically) in order to evaluate where strategically to optimally insert his/her node in the DAG. Thus it seems to me that each payer has to see some N other payers, so this bandwidth and computation load on the payer is scaling as N x N for payers versus to a normal PoW system where the payer's signature is autonomous from the network. The latter is the end-to-end principle because the intermediaries—between the originator and the construction of a transaction to the destination—are incapable of harm, substitutable, and fungible. Put more abstractly, the intermediaries are idempotent, referentially transparent, transitive, and commutative.

I understand conceptually the global consistency requirement is lower than a more deterministic traditional PoW or even PoS system (although these diverge on reorganizations and total divergence at 51% attack), but doesn't that come with the tradeoff of a risk of divergence of the tree's *final* conclusion about a double-spend (two reasonably balanced leaves each with a double-spend)?

I guess what I am after in terms of characterizing the tradeoffs is some quantification or conceptualization of the frequency/probably (or characteristic principles) of divergence as we have succinctly with PoW (selfish mining, 51% attack, orphaned chains, etc). Something expressed in the English language and not requiring differential equations models to comprehend.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: maokoto on October 23, 2015, 03:08:32 PM
Do not really understand how all this of the tangle works, but I am all in for a currency that allows for better microtransactions.

I really think microtransactions are very important in order to change the internet and reward content creators by small tips done to them by readers, watchers, etc. and getting rid of ad monetization.

So I will stay alert for this coin :D


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: patmast3r on October 23, 2015, 03:14:41 PM
So when can a tx be considered unreversable ?

Never, look at formula #14 in http://188.138.57.93/tangle.pdf. Just like in Bitcoin there is always a chance of doublespending.

Not even when the weight cap is reached ? (The paper mentions the cap but I'm not sure it ever states if the cap will actually be applied)

That cap is only for the own weight of a tx (in fact, as far as I know, the plan is to set it to constant). The cumulative weight may (and will) grow.

Gotcha! Thanks for clarifying.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Ludom on October 23, 2015, 04:45:03 PM
If I understand correctly, there is no fees for the Iota transactions.
No reward for the miners and Tangle security.

Is it possible to spam the system with fake transactions? If no fees, you can spam the Tangle for free.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tromp on October 23, 2015, 04:50:38 PM
If I understand correctly, there is no fees for the Iota transactions.
No reward for the miners and Tangle security.

Is it possible to spam the system with fake transactions? If no fees, you can spam the Tangle for free.

All transaction must come with a PoW, so spamming has a computational cost.
If you fake the PoW, then the tx won't be relayed and thus does little damage...


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Ludom on October 23, 2015, 04:58:19 PM
Interesting. Very interesting. It's a "user motivation" to give hash rate to secure the system. Very very interesting.

You don't pay fee with tokens but with computation... every user should give computation power. Very very very interesting


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 23, 2015, 05:02:06 PM
Hey cool name Iota (IoT)! Good one!

FWIW, we thought of this name to use as the smallest units of the coin we were thinking of using the name Dots in 2014. But that effort did not come to fruition. We purchased Dots.com for $500 and then the registrar went bankrupt and stole the registration from us. I didn't feel like hassling to try to get it back because we had registered it anonymously.

Interesting flip of perspective to name the coin that. I think we didn't like it for coin name because it is literally defined "nearly nothing", and we felt Dots were more social networking friendly.

I like the tech appeal of IoT and the sound of Iota. But I am not sure it sounds right, "I don't care one iota". "The price is 5 iota".

Interesting. Very interesting. It's a "user motivation" to give hash rate to secure the system. Very very interesting.

You don't pay fee with tokens but with computation... every user should give computation power. Very very very interesting

Isn't that what Bitcoin was supposed to do, before ASICs and pool mining denuded it.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 23, 2015, 05:06:36 PM
I understand conceptually the global consistency requirement is lower than a more deterministic traditional PoW or even PoS system (although these diverge on reorganizations and total divergence at 51% attack), but doesn't that come with the tradeoff of a risk of divergence of the tree's *final* conclusion about a double-spend (two reasonably balanced leaves each with a double-spend)?

This is a case where common sense loses against math, I thought like you but mthcl proved that I was wrong. Surprisingly, if a transaction got included into the majority of the tips (i.e. adaptation period is over) then we get near the same assurance against a double-spending as in a blockchain-based coin.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Ludom on October 23, 2015, 05:13:28 PM
Quote
Isn't that what Bitcoin was supposed to do, before ASICs and pool mining denuded it.

Yes but the design of Iota looks like more appropriate.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 23, 2015, 06:35:44 PM
I understand conceptually the global consistency requirement is lower than a more deterministic traditional PoW or even PoS system (although these diverge on reorganizations and total divergence at 51% attack), but doesn't that come with the tradeoff of a risk of divergence of the tree's *final* conclusion about a double-spend (two reasonably balanced leaves each with a double-spend)?

This is a case where common sense loses against math, I thought like you but mthcl proved that I was wrong. Surprisingly, if a transaction got included into the majority of the tips (i.e. adaptation period is over) then we get near the same assurance against a double-spending as in a blockchain-based coin.

Well that seems to make common sense that we entangle such that all transactions are included in the majority of the tips, then the consensus is those transactions are more likely final than the ones in the minority of the tips, since there doesn't appear to be an incentive to favor tangling with minority tips over majority tips. But that seems to imply that before I combine two tree branches into my signature, I must insure there is no double spend in the (combined) history otherwise my signature is invalid and no other node should include my branch tip as input to their node in the graph. Thus it seems each payer has to keep an entire history and table of conflicting branches (at least back to check points but aren't check points the antithesis of unmanaged, decentralized crypto-currency)? Are payer nodes supposed to entrust this verification to other nodes?

Okay I think I can see intuitively how participants have an incentive to maximally tangle (extend the depth of) the graph and not broaden it too much, but I will still need to go deeper to analyze attack vectors.

So far my main intuitive concern seems to stem around the apparently much more intensive (exponentially more?) resources that payers will need to have versus in a system where they can autonomously sign a transaction without context of other transactions in the network.

Also I can't see how anonymity technology such as ring signatures can be integrated into a system like this, nor Lightning Networks. My mistake. I realize the inputs and outputs of the transaction are orthogonal to the DAG. So yes transactions could still be signed with on-chain anonymity I presume. Afaics, Lightning Networks appears to not be compatible with the anonymity methods we've used for block chains.

It is very interesting the concept of a chain without the aliasing error of stepwise blocks. Somehow I think this stuff is important, but I haven't yet figured out the sweet spot for this technology. I need to understand more about the benefits and tradeoffs.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 23, 2015, 06:43:19 PM
Thus it seems each payer has to keep an entire history and table of conflicting branches (at least back to check points but aren't check points the antithesis of unmanaged, decentralized crypto-currency)?

Signed part doesn't contain references to other transactions. A low-end device paying to a service provider can send him the payment and the provider will choose which transactions to reference.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 23, 2015, 07:14:51 PM
Thus it seems each payer has to keep an entire history and table of conflicting branches (at least back to check points but aren't check points the antithesis of unmanaged, decentralized crypto-currency)?

Signed part doesn't contain references to other transactions. A low-end device paying to a service provider can send him the payment and the provider will choose which transactions to reference.

Okay so placement into the DAG (consensus) graph can be assisted by a service provider. Payer signs the TX and that signature authorizes the service provider. Service provider signs the graph node. Or service provider sends the DAG node choice to payer who signs it, giving authority to place his signed TX at DAG node.

This has some nuances of difference versus the autonomous ability to directly formulate and send a transaction to the consensus block chain network (although in practice existing PoW systems devolve into essentially sending to pools in most scenarios, but this maybe could be fixed in other ways). But I don't as of yet see a problem with using a service provider.



Changing the topic, one of the issues which I doubt is on your radar and probably not a priority in your view, is that a DAG system apparently can't order transactions (or can you?) and I believe ordering will be important for implement anonymity ring signatures entirely correctly (something I had pointed out to Monero but still need to get back to Shen and his 2007 prior art and such to make sure if I was correct or not).

How long does it take for a transaction to become "confirmed" such that it is very, very unlikely it can't be double-spent into the DAG?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 23, 2015, 07:50:25 PM
Changing the topic, one of the issues which I doubt is on your radar and probably not a priority in your view, is that a DAG system apparently can't order transactions (or can you?) and I believe ordering will be important for implement anonymity ring signatures entirely correctly (something I had pointed out to Monero but still need to get back to Shen and his 2007 prior art and such to make sure if I was correct or not).

How long does it take for a transaction to become "confirmed" such that it is very, very unlikely it can't be double-spent into the DAG?

Anonymity ring signatures won't be used to preserve lightweightness of Iota. Ordering of transactions is not needed, nothing bad will happen if withdrawing transaction appears before depositing one as long as after processing all transactions approved by a tip we don't get negative balance.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 23, 2015, 08:02:41 PM
Changing the topic, one of the issues which I doubt is on your radar and probably not a priority in your view, is that a DAG system apparently can't order transactions (or can you?) and I believe ordering will be important for implement anonymity ring signatures entirely correctly (something I had pointed out to Monero but still need to get back to Shen and his 2007 prior art and such to make sure if I was correct or not).

How long does it take for a transaction to become "confirmed" such that it is very, very unlikely it can't be double-spent into the DAG?

Anonymity ring signatures won't be used [so as] to preserve lightweightness of Iota. Ordering of transactions is not needed, nothing bad will happen if withdrawing transaction appears before depositing one as long as after processing all transactions approved by a tip we don't get negative balance.

Do you have other means to obtain equivalent untraceability or do you feel anonymity isn't important for these transactions?

Do you have any rough idea of the confirmation delay?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 23, 2015, 08:14:08 PM
Do you have other means to obtain equivalent untraceability or do you feel anonymity isn't important for these transactions?

Do you have any rough idea of the confirmation delay?

Mandatory anonymity is bad for a coin that is supposed to be linked to smart contracts system. If someone wants to hide payments he can use off-tangle mixing.

What is "confirmation delay"? Time before a transaction is approved by another transaction?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 23, 2015, 08:26:03 PM
Mandatory anonymity is bad for a coin that is supposed to be linked to smart contracts system.

That isn't the only use case of fast confirming transactions, regardless whether microTX or normal values.

If someone wants to hide payments he can use off-tangle mixing.

So off-chain mixing of TX inputs and outputs. But algorithms for that which work without any trust such as CoinShuffle are slow. And off chain mixing is not autonomous, violates the end-to-end principle, has a simultaneity requirement waiting for other users to join your mix.

(I have suggested a novel use of CoinShuffle for hiding IP addresses where it is a useful addition to on-chain mixing, but that is irrelevant to my point here)

Every design has some weakness, so don't fret. I am just trying to determine what the parameters are.

What is "confirmation delay"? Time before a transaction is approved by another transaction?

Comparable to a 6 confirmation probability against double-spend in Bitcoin?

https://bitcoil.co.il/Doublespend.pdf

How long does it take for a transaction to become "confirmed" such that it is very, very unlikely it can't be double-spent into the DAG?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 23, 2015, 08:34:57 PM
What is "confirmation delay"? Time before a transaction is approved by another transaction?

Comparable to a 6 confirmation probability against double-spend in Bitcoin?

https://bitcoil.co.il/Doublespend.pdf

How long does it take for a transaction to become "confirmed" such that it is very, very unlikely it can't be double-spent into the DAG?

I'll leave this question for the whitepaper author, his formulas scare me. :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Jimmy2011 on October 24, 2015, 02:54:18 AM

A similarity to Bitmessage, one should do some work to send message, here Iota sends token. On the other hand, what's the difference between Iota and Bitmessage?




Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stellargratis on October 24, 2015, 03:25:46 AM
reserved...............  :D :D :D


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 24, 2015, 07:52:26 AM
A similarity to Bitmessage, one should do some work to send message, here Iota sends token. On the other hand, what's the difference between Iota and Bitmessage?

Someone from outside should do this comparison, I may be biased.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: zsp on October 24, 2015, 09:34:59 AM
Interesting and good luck. GadgetCoin has been working on IoT for a while, not an easy area.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Cryptorials on October 24, 2015, 10:29:12 AM
People have been saying the 'internet of things' is the next big thing since at least 5 big things ago.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 24, 2015, 10:37:54 AM
People have been saying the 'internet of things' is the next big thing since at least 5 big things ago.

Were those big things as big as http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi/in_the_news/by_2025_internet_of_things_applications_could_have_11_trillion_impact ?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 24, 2015, 10:50:13 AM
People have been saying the 'internet of things' is the next big thing since at least 5 big things ago.

The problem is that a lot of people seem to believe that all these 'next big things' just happen overnight. They don't.
 
Internet-of-Things is already here and we're all using it in one way or another. Every day there are new gadgets and use-cases being deployed and adopted.

We're already in the beginning of it and it's only going to grow, grow and grow, just like applications and the internet did and do still.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Cryptorials on October 24, 2015, 11:08:13 AM
People have been saying the 'internet of things' is the next big thing since at least 5 big things ago.

Were those big things as big as http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi/in_the_news/by_2025_internet_of_things_applications_could_have_11_trillion_impact ?

It all sounds interesting, but I've been reading articles like that for years and the only significant applications seem to be very limited and within a specific company (eg tracking product, assembly lines etc). What few consumer applications there have been have been highly prone to security breaches and largely related to gimmicky products that people don't really want to use.  When I first started hearing about this one of the classic examples was the fridge which could order milk for itself when you're running low, but people don't want a fridge which thinks it knows better than them. Perhaps I decided to cut down on my coffee drinking or lose weight by switching to semi-skimmed, perhaps I fancy getting it from a different shop - I simply don't want my fridge to have already made the decision for me.

Also the costs of security, public distaste for sensors monitoring them all the time and then claiming ownership of data about them, the big organisational changes needed to make the most of this kind of thing - these are all big costs and barriers. Technologies don't just need to be possible, they also need to be desirable and cost-effective.

The whole term 'internet of things' is also something of a rhetorical device. Things can already use the internet. They have been able to for quite some time. But for the most part, they just don't need to.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 24, 2015, 11:14:18 AM
It all sounds interesting, but I've been reading articles like that for years and the only significant applications seem to be very limited and within a specific company (eg tracking product, assembly lines etc). What few consumer applications there have been have been highly prone to security breaches and largely related to gimmicky products that people don't really want to use.  When I first started hearing about this one of the classic examples was the fridge which could order milk for itself when you're running low, but people don't want a fridge which thinks it knows better than them. Perhaps I decided to cut down on my coffee drinking or lose weight by switching to semi-skimmed, perhaps I fancy getting it from a different shop - I simply don't want my fridge to have already made the decision for me.

Also the costs of security, public distaste for sensors monitoring them all the time and then claiming ownership of data about them, the big organisational changes needed to make the most of this kind of thing - these are all big costs and barriers. Technologies don't just need to be possible, they also need to be desirable and cost-effective.

The whole term 'internet of things' is also something of a rhetorical device. Things can already use the internet. They have been able to for quite some time. But for the most part, they just don't need to.

Well, we can argue on if IoT is good or bad for privacy, etc., but I think it's obvious that this future is inevitable.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: patmast3r on October 24, 2015, 11:19:10 AM
It all sounds interesting, but I've been reading articles like that for years and the only significant applications seem to be very limited and within a specific company (eg tracking product, assembly lines etc). What few consumer applications there have been have been highly prone to security breaches and largely related to gimmicky products that people don't really want to use.  When I first started hearing about this one of the classic examples was the fridge which could order milk for itself when you're running low, but people don't want a fridge which thinks it knows better than them. Perhaps I decided to cut down on my coffee drinking or lose weight by switching to semi-skimmed, perhaps I fancy getting it from a different shop - I simply don't want my fridge to have already made the decision for me.

Also the costs of security, public distaste for sensors monitoring them all the time and then claiming ownership of data about them, the big organisational changes needed to make the most of this kind of thing - these are all big costs and barriers. Technologies don't just need to be possible, they also need to be desirable and cost-effective.

The whole term 'internet of things' is also something of a rhetorical device. Things can already use the internet. They have been able to for quite some time. But for the most part, they just don't need to.

Well, we can argue on if IoT is good or bad for privacy, etc., but I think it's obvious that this future is inevitable.

I wish i could say that you were wrong but yeah...people will be on board with anything that makes their life "easier".


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 24, 2015, 11:30:43 AM
It all sounds interesting, but I've been reading articles like that for years and the only significant applications seem to be very limited and within a specific company (eg tracking product, assembly lines etc). What few consumer applications there have been have been highly prone to security breaches and largely related to gimmicky products that people don't really want to use.  When I first started hearing about this one of the classic examples was the fridge which could order milk for itself when you're running low, but people don't want a fridge which thinks it knows better than them. Perhaps I decided to cut down on my coffee drinking or lose weight by switching to semi-skimmed, perhaps I fancy getting it from a different shop - I simply don't want my fridge to have already made the decision for me.

Also the costs of security, public distaste for sensors monitoring them all the time and then claiming ownership of data about them, the big organisational changes needed to make the most of this kind of thing - these are all big costs and barriers. Technologies don't just need to be possible, they also need to be desirable and cost-effective.

The whole term 'internet of things' is also something of a rhetorical device. Things can already use the internet. They have been able to for quite some time. But for the most part, they just don't need to.

Well, we can argue on if IoT is good or bad for privacy, etc., but I think it's obvious that this future is inevitable.

I wish i could say that you were wrong but yeah...people will be on board with anything that makes their life "easier".

It's not just about making life easier, it's about upping productivity substantially which will bring about a growth in wealth unseen in the history of mankind. The industrial revolution is nothing compared. In the end this technological progression will eventually free mankind from its 'slave' relationship with money and revolutionize virtually every field from medicine to entertainment.



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Cryptorials on October 24, 2015, 11:47:00 AM
free mankind from its 'slave' relationship with money

It will do this by monetizing everything?

It will 'free' humanity by automating human decision making? It may increase efficiency in some areas, but if it does then it will do it by directly de-humanizing them (making the machines the decision makers and humans their servants).

I notice from my previous post that only the small part about privacy got a response and not the rest, so I'll repeat: I don't want a fridge which thinks its better than me. I don't want my free will to be automated away. And neither do I share the general pessimism that this is what the majority of ordinary people want for their lives.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: patmast3r on October 24, 2015, 12:21:51 PM
It all sounds interesting, but I've been reading articles like that for years and the only significant applications seem to be very limited and within a specific company (eg tracking product, assembly lines etc). What few consumer applications there have been have been highly prone to security breaches and largely related to gimmicky products that people don't really want to use.  When I first started hearing about this one of the classic examples was the fridge which could order milk for itself when you're running low, but people don't want a fridge which thinks it knows better than them. Perhaps I decided to cut down on my coffee drinking or lose weight by switching to semi-skimmed, perhaps I fancy getting it from a different shop - I simply don't want my fridge to have already made the decision for me.

Also the costs of security, public distaste for sensors monitoring them all the time and then claiming ownership of data about them, the big organisational changes needed to make the most of this kind of thing - these are all big costs and barriers. Technologies don't just need to be possible, they also need to be desirable and cost-effective.

The whole term 'internet of things' is also something of a rhetorical device. Things can already use the internet. They have been able to for quite some time. But for the most part, they just don't need to.

Well, we can argue on if IoT is good or bad for privacy, etc., but I think it's obvious that this future is inevitable.

I wish i could say that you were wrong but yeah...people will be on board with anything that makes their life "easier".

It's not just about making life easier, it's about upping productivity substantially which will bring about a growth in wealth unseen in the history of mankind. The industrial revolution is nothing compared. In the end this technological progression will eventually free mankind from its 'slave' relationship with money and revolutionize virtually every field from medicine to entertainment.



you're kidding right ?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: BitcoinForumator on October 24, 2015, 12:27:06 PM
free mankind from its 'slave' relationship with money

It will do this by monetizing everything?

It will 'free' humanity by automating human decision making? It may increase efficiency in some areas, but if it does then it will do it by directly de-humanizing them (making the machines the decision makers and humans their servants).

I notice from my previous post that only the small part about privacy got a response and not the rest, so I'll repeat: I don't want a fridge which thinks its better than me. I don't want my free will to be automated away. And neither do I share the general pessimism that this is what the majority of ordinary people want for their lives.


Let's push this even further. What you're describing here is very similar to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUc_3CZHzAM

Watch it from 19:00 forward. Either this is the best sci-fi movie you will watch/hear today or it's the worst horror movie.

keywords: iot, technocracy, dictatorship, transhumanism, data collection, surveillance, artificial intelligence...

You're a bunch of smart guys here. Has this woman gone completely off the rails? Is she unrealistic? Is she making wrong conclusions because she's not tech-literate enough? Is she lying?

Anyways, I just did a little search and I see that some of what she says has grounds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRAIN_Initiative

http://www.zdnet.com/article/raytheon-riot-defense-spying-is-coming-to-social-networks/

http://neurosky.com/

...


Also, some of you Iot pushers are towing the line that everything will be peachy. Are you sure you're not building the ultimate prison?


Turning living cells into computers? Sounds great!


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 24, 2015, 12:27:12 PM
free mankind from its 'slave' relationship with money

It will do this by monetizing everything?

It will 'free' humanity by automating human decision making? It may increase efficiency in some areas, but if it does then it will do it by directly de-humanizing them (making the machines the decision makers and humans their servants).

Let me ask you this, did the wheels of the bicycle or subsequent car 'dehumanize' people?
Just because things become more autonomous and efficient doesn't mean that humans are unable to make decisions, on the contrary you'll be able to make decisions based on what you wish rather than what you HAVE to do. This is always the result of technological progress. Are there ways this can be abused? Of course. As automation becomes more efficient a lot of human manual labour will become superfluous and so the owners of companies will probably choose to fire these people and replace them with automation. But this is a political question, not a technological one. One solution to this is basic income, others believe that further radical decentralizaton and distribution will lead to a kind of equilibrium. But this discussion is for another topic. IOTA is a neutral technology.

Quote
I notice from my previous post that only the small part about privacy got a response and not the rest, so I'll repeat: I don't want a fridge which thinks its better than me. I don't want my free will to be automated away. And neither do I share the general pessimism that this is what the majority of ordinary people want for their lives.

So don't buy a fridge that is smarter than you. It's really that simple. It's a choice. When the internet started going mainstream there was A LOT of similar complaints along the line of: "I don't want to be online all the time", "I don't want the entire world in my livingroom" etc. etc. So don't. It's your choice. Personally I am looking forward to the day where as much of the mundane tasks and chore can be automated so that I can spend my time doing productive things or things that I find rewarding instead.

Look at the ongoing IoT-robotics-smarthome 'revolution' where more and more people acquire automatic vacuum cleaners and lawnmowers, this saves people several hours each week and enable them to always live in a clean home. But nothing is forcing this on you. It's entirely your own choice. Just because your fridge orders food for you when you're out, doesn't mean that it has somehow made you its slave.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 24, 2015, 12:36:10 PM

...

Also, some of you Iot pushers are towing the line that everything will be peachy. Are you sure you're not building the ultimate prison?


Turning living cells into computers? Sounds great!

I have been in the 'futurology' community for a decade and have given deep thought to all these issues that you mention. I highly suggest the book 'Superintelligence' by seminal thinker Nick Boström for everyone. His work over the last decades paved the way for taking these things seriously, which in the last year has made people such as Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking etc. 'warn' about AI. And this is a good thing, SuperAI is no joke. I highly suggest reading the work by Eliezer Yudkowsky on 'Friendly AI' to get a deeper perspective on the pioneering work in this field.

Same goes for IoT, if society makes the wrong decisions it can lead to more joblessness, on the other hand if society embraces it and makes good decisions, it will lead to an utopian world where money is essentially eradicated through an overwhelming abundance. Read 'zero marginal cost society' by Jeremy Rifkin or 'Abundance'/'BOLD' by Peter Diamandis for an overall view of this.

Of course reality is never black/white there will be nuances. But in general most people will benefit greatly from technology. Because that is what we're discussing here. All these terms are just that, terms, it's semantics, at the end of the day IoT, AI/Machine Learning/Neural networks etc. is just technological progression.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 24, 2015, 12:36:28 PM
you're kidding right ?

I think he is not kidding. If you hope to see utopian future you'd better place "dys" in front of it, this way you'll increase chances for hope realization.  :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smooth on October 24, 2015, 12:37:44 PM
It's not just about making life easier, it's about upping productivity substantially which will bring about a growth in wealth unseen in the history of mankind. The industrial revolution is nothing compared. In the end this technological progression will eventually free mankind from its 'slave' relationship with money and revolutionize virtually every field from medicine to entertainment.

According to the report CfB linked earlier it will not bring wealth "unseen in the history of mankind", it will (according to industry hype at least) bring "impact" of $3.9 trillion to $11.1 trillion which is something like 3%-15% of world GDP. A lot of that will be totally boring but still economically important "impacts" like better automating supply chains. You're overdosing on kool aid.



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 24, 2015, 12:43:39 PM
It's not just about making life easier, it's about upping productivity substantially which will bring about a growth in wealth unseen in the history of mankind. The industrial revolution is nothing compared. In the end this technological progression will eventually free mankind from its 'slave' relationship with money and revolutionize virtually every field from medicine to entertainment.

According to the report CfB linked earlier it will not bring wealth "unseen in the history of mankind", it will (according to industry hype at least) bring "impact" of $3.9 trillion to $11.1 trillion which is something like 3%-15% of world GDP. A lot of that will be totally boring but still economically important "impacts" like better automating supply chains. You're overdosing on kool aid.



No. Read again, that'sthe forecast for the next few years. Can you think of any other time in mankind where wealth impact went up 15% in a few years? This effect is cumulative, go forward 10-15-30 years and you should start to get the picture.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: chicken65 on October 24, 2015, 12:48:02 PM
ICO again  ???

I hope so...yes Ive been scammed a few times with ICO's but I still prefer them for the purposes of speculation. All Alt coins are gambling...I think  :o


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Cryptorials on October 24, 2015, 12:53:34 PM

Let me ask you this, did the wheels of the bicycle or subsequent car 'dehumanize' people?


You are trying to smear me by suggesting that because I criticize one technology I must be a luddite who is against all technology. This is very childish logic.



Just because things become more autonomous and efficient doesn't mean that humans are unable to make decisions, on the contrary you'll be able to make decisions based on what you wish rather than what you HAVE to do. This is always the result of technological progress. Are there ways this can be abused? Of course. As automation becomes more efficient a lot of human manual labour will become superfluous and so the owners of companies will probably choose to fire these people and replace them with automation. But this is a political question, not a technological one. One solution to this is basic income, others believe that further radical decentralizaton and distribution will lead to a kind of equilibrium. But this discussion is for another topic. IOTA is a neutral technology.


To suggest that anything is 'always the result' of anything is dogmatic and reveals a kind of pseudo-religious rather than rational attitude you seem to have. Also I explicitly mentioned human decision making not human labour. I have no problem automating human labour. Also what really scares me is not firing workers, its keeping them on, but chipped and tracked and with no scope for them to use their own initiative, creativity or even intelligence as every single part of their day with be monitored and prescribed in the name of efficiency.


So don't buy a fridge that is smarter than you. It's really that simple. It's a choice. When the internet started going mainstream there was A LOT of similar complaints along the line of: "I don't want to be online all the time", "I don't want the entire world in my livingroom" etc. etc. So don't. It's your choice. Personally I am looking forward to the day where as much of the mundane tasks and chore can be automated so that I can spend my time doing productive things or things that I find rewarding instead.


This is emphatically not an example of a fridge which is smarter than me. It is an example of a fridge which thinks it is smarter than me but in actual practical use is definitely not, which is why people don't choose to buy this kind of thing, which has actually been technologically possible for a long time. People act like the internet of things is a new idea, but its as old as the internet itself. Many of these IoT things have been possible for a long time and do not require cutting edge technology, but people are already choosing not to buy them.


Look at the ongoing IoT-robotics-smarthome 'revolution' where more and more people acquire automatic vacuum cleaners and lawnmowers, this saves people several hours each week and enable them to always live in a clean home.


I am not sure you actually know what IoT is. Robotic vacuum cleaners and lawnmowers are not IoT devices. They are self-contained robotic devices which need little or no connection with the outside world at all to operate. Yes you can add a connection to your smartphone to switch them on and off, but once again this is hardly cutting edge - its a fancy switch. I do see some growth in 'smart home' technologies but mostly I see it as just what you say there - people using their phone as a remote control. Nothing revolutionary, and not really machine to machine communication which is what IoT really is, just a fancy switch.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 24, 2015, 01:02:40 PM

Let me ask you this, did the wheels of the bicycle or subsequent car 'dehumanize' people?


You are trying to smear me by suggesting that because I criticize one technology I must be a luddite who is against all technology. This is very childish logic.


What are you talking about? I am simply drawing a parallel, no need to go all ad hominem conspiracy theory.


Quote

To suggest that anything is 'always the result' of anything is dogmatic and reveals a kind of pseudo-religious rather than rational attitude you seem to have. Also I explicitly mentioned human decision making not human labour. I have no problem automating human labour. Also what really scares me is not firing workers, its keeping them on, but chipped and tracked and with no scope for them to use their own initiative, creativity or even intelligence as every single part of their day with be monitored and prescribed in the name of efficiency.


I always wonder why people have this idea in their head that the world is always out to 'get them', chip them, trace them and then kill their spirits. Sorry I don't buy this narrative at all. Are there potentials for abuse as we become ever more reliant on technology? Of course, we have a plethora of examples to draw from. Are these organized efforts dehumanize us? No.


Quote

This is emphatically not an example of a fridge which is smarter than me. It is an example of a fridge which thinks it is smarter than me but in actual practical use is definitely not, which is why people don't choose to buy this kind of thing, which has actually been technologically possible for a long time. People act like the internet of things is a new idea, but its as old as the internet itself. Many of these IoT things have been possible for a long time and do not require cutting edge technology, but people are already choosing not to buy them.


It has not been technologically possible for a long time. A lot of hardware and software is needed for this to become a seamless reality. Just because something was possible to prototype 10 years ago, does NOT mean it was ready for market. Bell Telephone essentially invented Skype in the 60s, but it was not possible to get mass adoption in the technological ecosystem of the time. Similarly the smartphone existed in the early 90s, but it was not suited for the market landscape of that era. Now with the new hardware sensors, acutators and software APIs, IoT is becoming feasible, which is why we are seeing people starting to adopt it. And this is why IOTA exists, it's another one of those bricks needed to make it a reality.

Quote
I am not sure you actually know what IoT is. Robotic vacuum cleaners and lawnmowers are not IoT devices. They are self-contained robotic devices which need little or no connection with the outside world at all to operate. Yes you can add a connection to your smartphone to switch them on and off, but once again this is hardly cutting edge - its a fancy switch. I do see some growth in 'smart home' technologies but mostly I see it as just what you say there - people using their phone as a remote control. Nothing revolutionary, and not really machine to machine communication which is what IoT really is, just a fancy switch.

Yes, they are. These robots already communicate with their environment. And again: we're just at the beginning of this. It seems you believe that technological progression happens overnight. The smartphone was revolutionary, but it didn't happen overnight, in fact it was over a decade in development and had numerous iterative steps it needed to take before it had great impact. So just adopt some patience:)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on October 24, 2015, 01:14:41 PM
Were those big things as big as http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi/in_the_news/by_2025_internet_of_things_applications_could_have_11_trillion_impact ?

In this article, the author mentioned one of the biggest challenges for IoT is privacy and security issue - protecting company and customer data. How can IOTA help and do better in this area? 


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smooth on October 24, 2015, 01:14:50 PM
It's not just about making life easier, it's about upping productivity substantially which will bring about a growth in wealth unseen in the history of mankind. The industrial revolution is nothing compared. In the end this technological progression will eventually free mankind from its 'slave' relationship with money and revolutionize virtually every field from medicine to entertainment.

According to the report CfB linked earlier it will not bring wealth "unseen in the history of mankind", it will (according to industry hype at least) bring "impact" of $3.9 trillion to $11.1 trillion which is something like 3%-15% of world GDP. A lot of that will be totally boring but still economically important "impacts" like better automating supply chains. You're overdosing on kool aid.



No. Read again, that'sthe forecast for the next few years.

How about you put down the kool aid and read it for the first time.

"could have a total economic impact of $3.9 trillion to $11.1 trillion per year in 2025"

"We also found that more than two-thirds of value will be generated in business-to-business settings"

That is 10 years away, so taken as an annual growth rate represents between 0.3% and 0.8% per year, assuming it even happens ("could"), and even then will be mostly boring things like supply chain management.




Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 24, 2015, 01:19:54 PM
In this article, the author mentioned one of the biggest challenges for IoT is privacy and security issue - protecting company and customer data. How can IOTA help and do better in this area? 

Iota gives ability to do off-tangle payments which are known to only 2 parties.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 24, 2015, 01:33:37 PM

How about you put down the kool aid and read it for the first time.

"could have a total economic impact of $3.9 trillion to $11.1 trillion per year in 2025"

"We also found that more than two-thirds of value will be generated in business-to-business settings"

That is 10 years away, so taken as an annual growth rate represents between 0.3% and 0.8% per year, assuming it even happens ("could"), and even then will be mostly boring things like supply chain management.


Hah 'kool aid', what are you talking about? I am going by all the reports that currently exist for IoT. Here is another one from Cisco http://internetofeverything.cisco.com/sites/default/files/docs/en/ioe_public_sector_vas_white%20paper_121913final.pdf and here is another one from   Accenture https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-industrial-internet-of-things.aspx . Ballpark numbers are similar, bur vary.

As I alluded to earlier, total economic impact != wealth impact. The economic impact of say the internet does not convert easily into the actual wealth it has brought with it for users. Money is a fickle concept that is extremely hard to measure. What matters is life quality and production. 15 years ago you had CDs with 15 songs, now you got for all practical purposes infinite songs on every device. Media and entertainment has become completely ubiquitous which translates into immeasurable growth in the wealth of entertainment.  
To again draw a parallel back to the industrial revolution, it's impossible to measure how much it impacted society just by looking at the monetary numbers. Instead look at actual output and how it affects lives.

Here there is virtually no controversy among the people in the field, IoT (which is just an umbrella term for technological progression) will bring about wealth impact unlike what has ever been seen before.

As for the numbers in McKinsey report, they point out that improving supply chains is just one fraction of it. I suggest you read it again, this time in entirety.



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Cryptorials on October 24, 2015, 01:35:59 PM

No need to go all ad hominem conspiracy theory.
 

Dude, I'm not a conspiracy theorist I'm a conspiracy analyst, lol.

Quote

I always wonder why people have this idea in their head that the world is always out to 'get them', chip them, trace them and then kill their spirits. Sorry I don't buy this narrative at all.

You're lucky you don't work in an Amazon warehouse. http://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon-warehouse-jobs-push-workers-to-physical-limit/


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 24, 2015, 01:49:07 PM

I always wonder why people have this idea in their head that the world is always out to 'get them', chip them, trace them and then kill their spirits. Sorry I don't buy this narrative at all.

You're lucky you don't work in an Amazon warehouse. http://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon-warehouse-jobs-push-workers-to-physical-limit/


This is a business, you are free to leave whenever you want to. But today you can't if you don't have another job to go to, this is what I said earlier in the thread: today we live in a perpetual state of things that we HAVE TO DO despite of not WANTING to. The reason for this is the good ol' supply and demand that runs the world. My point is that as technology progresses the entire concept of supply will become more and more irrelevant.

We live in a universe with virtualy infinite resources. Now of course anno 2015, we are still stuck on planet earth with limited access to these resources, but as things become digital and automated there are certain things that we have virtually made infinite in supply. Even if you were the richest man on Earth 50 years ago, no amount could buy you a 70" OLED screen or direct access to all accumulated knowledge by mankind in the palm of your hand. Same goes for virtually everything. Electricity? Today we still need to get the majority of it through manual labour intensive means, but as solar, wind, nuclear, water etc. energy goes up, this too become more and more ubiquitous. As systems become more automated, people get more free time, more free time leads to more creativity and innovation as people cando what they really want. We ALL have more free time today than virtually anyone had in the 1990s. How we spend it is of course our own choice.

My point is that this will only continue and continue until we reach a point where we literally have an overabundance of everything (this is long term future, not short term). This will give us MORE freedom, not less, just like it always has.

The concern is of course for the 'transition period' that we are entering, where people lose their jobs when corporations optimize their supply chains, how will these people fare without jobs in this transition period? This is something that requires societal solutions.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smooth on October 24, 2015, 01:51:37 PM
Here is another one from Cisco

No remote possibility of bias there right? You think Cisco might want to get contracts and sell gear by hyping its economic value?

Quote
Ballpark numbers are similar

Yes they are but Cisco defined its own metric in a way that makes the headline numbers even more obviously exaggerated hype:

Quote
Cisco defines IoE “Value at Stake” as “the potential value that can be created ... based on their ability to harness IoE over the next decade

On other words, the absolute maximum potential amount of value that is possible, not what even Cisco claims to expect to happen.

When annualized Cisco's (by their own definition optimistic) numbers represent a similarly tiny annual rate of <1% and probably well under 1/2%.

BTW, does the IOTA project have any relationship with Cisco that would suggest IOTA will be used in Cisco's (and its customers') IoT deployment efforts?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on October 24, 2015, 01:53:06 PM
In this article, the author mentioned one of the biggest challenges for IoT is privacy and security issue - protecting company and customer data. How can IOTA help and do better in this area? 
Iota gives ability to do off-tangle payments which are known to only 2 parties.

Will you program IOTA into Jinn chips to be able to make each chip to become a node?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 24, 2015, 01:59:53 PM
Here is another one from Cisco

No remote possibility of bias there right? You think Cisco might want to get contracts and sell gear by hyping its economic value?


Of course. But you don't have to take their word for it, just sit down for a few weeks and go through technological journals and go through all the new innovations that are occuring RIGHT NOW. This is not about putting a chip in everything for the sake of putting a chip into everything, but virtually everything can be optimized and / or be used for new use-cases.

Quote
Cisco defines IoE “Value at Stake” as “the potential value that can be created ... based on their ability to harness IoE over the next decade

On other words, the absolute maximum potential amount of value that is possible, not what even Cisco claims to expect to happen.

When annualized Cisco's (by their own definition optimistic) numbers represent a similarly tiny annual rate of <1% and probably well under 1/2%.

Yes, for DIRECT economic growth related to these devices. This misses the bigger picture and cumulative impact.

Quote
BTW, does the IOTA project have any relationship with Cisco that would suggest IOTA will be used in Cisco's (and its customers') IoT deployment efforts?

IOTA could very well be used by Cisco, but we have no relation directly to them (yet). But the wheels are in motion, we will kickstart this and then the community that forms around IOTA will continue it. There are a lot of use-cases that will be displayed more directly soon :)

Personally we are heavily invested in processor technology (developing a new kind of processor) that is being developed with IoT in mind, this is what lead us to realize that we had to utilize our expertise in crypto to develop something like IOTA, since it is absolutely needed for IoT and none of the current crypto projects solve microtransactions.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 24, 2015, 02:04:06 PM
Will you program IOTA into Jinn chips to be able to make each chip to become a node?

You have spoiled an announcement about hardware support of Iota.  ;D


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on October 24, 2015, 02:08:08 PM
Will you program IOTA into Jinn chips to be able to make each chip to become a node?
You have spoiled an announcement about hardware support of Iota.  ;D

Woohoo! Sorry I couldn't help to keep asking because I own some Jinn assets. ;D

edit - then bootstrapping of Iota network will be much likely with the help of Jinn's adoption. Make totally sense. need a massive marketing effort for jinn eventually. 


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Cryptorials on October 24, 2015, 02:10:52 PM

This is a business, you are free to leave whenever you want to. But today you can't if you don't have another job to go to, this is what I said earlier in the thread: today we live in a perpetual state of things that we HAVE TO DO despite of not WANTING to. The reason for this is the good ol' supply and demand that runs the world. My point is that as technology progresses the entire concept of supply will become more and more irrelevant.

We live in a universe with virtualy infinite resources. Now of course anno 2015, we are still stuck on planet earth with limited access to these resources, but as things become digital and automated there are certain things that we have virtually made infinite in supply. Even if you were the richest man on Earth 50 years ago, no amount could buy you a 70" OLED screen or direct access to all accumulated knowledge by mankind in the palm of your hand. Same goes for virtually everything. Electricity? Today we still need to get the majority of it through manual labour intensive means, but as solar, wind, nuclear, water etc. energy goes up, this too become more and more ubiquitous. As systems become more automated, people get more free time, more free time leads to more creativity and innovation as people cando what they really want. We ALL have more free time today than virtually anyone had in the 1990s. How we spend it is of course our own choice.

My point is that this will only continue and continue until we reach a point where we literally have an overabundance of everything (this is long term future, not short term). This will give us MORE freedom, not less, just like it always has.

The concern is of course for the 'transition period' that we are entering, where people lose their jobs when corporations optimize their supply chains, how will these people fare without jobs in this transition period? This is something that requires societal solutions.

Automating human labour (eg. robotics) = More Freedom.

Automating human control and decision making (IoT) = Less Freedom.

You say 'As technology progresses' as if all technology is a single thing which all has the same effect and all technology is by its nature good, but I strongly disagree with that. Technology is like anything else, some inventions are a good idea and some are not. You cannot defend or promote a specific technology based on arguments pertaining to technology in general, somehow suggesting that technology is good and this is technology therefore this is good.

I admire your optimism though.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 24, 2015, 02:51:12 PM

Automating human labour (eg. robotics) = More Freedom.

Automating human control and decision making (IoT) = Less Freedom.

You say 'As technology progresses' as if all technology is a single thing which all has the same effect and all technology is by its nature good, but I strongly disagree with that. Technology is like anything else, some inventions are a good idea and some are not. You cannot defend or promote a specific technology based on arguments pertaining to technology in general, somehow suggesting that technology is good and this is technology therefore this is good.

I admire your optimism though.


I never said that, I specifically said that no technology is black or white, it's nuanced. All technology can be used for both good and bad, from nukes to medicines. The reason I say 'technological progression' is that it is really all it is. There is no clear dividing line for when normal technology and the 'Internet-of-Things' begins, with the exception of connectivity criteria.

When it comes to automating human control I take it you refer to self-driving cars and the like, which will obviously be mandatory in a few decades to prevent auto-accidents. This will become a huge debate quickly, so let's stick to IoT that requires transactions in this thread, since that is what IOTA is about. But I'd love to join a deeper discussion on this topic at any time anywhere else.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 24, 2015, 03:38:24 PM
What is "confirmation delay"? Time before a transaction is approved by another transaction?

Comparable to a 6 confirmation probability against double-spend in Bitcoin?

https://bitcoil.co.il/Doublespend.pdf

How long does it take for a transaction to become "confirmed" such that it is very, very unlikely it can't be double-spent into the DAG?

I'll leave this question for the whitepaper author, his formulas scare me. :)

Protest, my formulas are always beautiful   :D

Well, in iota you cannot say anything like "cumulative weight of X is enough for a tx to be considered confirmed", since the time enters the story. For the system to be secure on its own (i.e., without additional checkpoints or smth), the ability of the attacker to issue tx's must be much less than the "natural" flow of tx's in the system.  So, what you have in iota is rather statements like "if a tx got cumulative weight X by time T, then the probability that this tx can be annihilated is at most p, provided that the potential attacker's hashing power is at most h and the natural tx's flow in the system is at least m", see examples in the bottom of page 14 in the paper. In that "6 blocks confirmation rule" of Bitcoin there are some implicit assumptions as well, by the way.

"Everything must be made as simple as possible, but not simpler"  (c)
:)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: nexern on October 24, 2015, 04:11:37 PM
@iotatoken

productivity gains (due to automation etc.) never shared fairly in mankinds history so far.
comparing former to current states and arguing current state is better without having a
look whats on the table in total to share is just guessing, an assumption, not more.

however, i very welcome iota because boiled down iot will come and it has big potential,
bad and good, now or later, with or without us. so a good question is, should it be defined
and build with or without it's later users, for instance by closed global players only or does
an alternative build/dev make sense. yes or no?

this is a no brainer, at least for me. not much to loose here to support iota from my pov.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 24, 2015, 04:18:14 PM
@iotatoken

productivity gains (due to automation etc.) never shared fairly in mankinds history so far.
comparing former to current states and arguing current state is better without having a
look whats on the table in total to share is just guessing, an assumption, not more.

This is why I have already stated several times in this thread that this is a societal issue. Basic Income is one solution to this. As joblessness goes up exponentially we will see Basic Income being proposed as a solution more and more.

Quote
however, i very welcome iota because boiled down iot will come and it has big potential,
bad and good, now or later, with or without us. so a good question is, should it be defined
and build with or without it's later users, for instance by closed global players only or does
an alternative build/dev make sense. yes or no?

this is a no brainer, at least for me. not much to loose here to support iota from my pov.


Great to see you support us :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Jimmy2011 on October 24, 2015, 05:50:10 PM

To "hire" miners for the race, can one send IOTA tokens to himself(the same address) or from one address to the other address he owns? To avoid double spending, tx weight cap will be set, so is the cap as small as possible? It seems that the cap is related to the tx flow rate, tx network topology and maybe other things, so is there any principle to set the cap manually or is it hard coded in the software?




Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 24, 2015, 05:52:40 PM
To "hire" miners for the race, can one send IOTA tokens to himself(the same address) or from one address to the other address he owns? To avoid double spending, tx weight cap will be set, so is the cap as small as possible? It seems that the cap is related to the tx flow rate, tx network topology and maybe other things, so is there any principle to set the cap manually or is it hard coded in the software?

Cap is set manually, each nodes decides if it wants to approve this transaction or not depending on its weight, too low and too high values will be filtered.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 24, 2015, 11:46:33 PM
What is "confirmation delay"? Time before a transaction is approved by another transaction?

Comparable to a 6 confirmation probability against double-spend in Bitcoin?

https://bitcoil.co.il/Doublespend.pdf

How long does it take for a transaction to become "confirmed" such that it is very, very unlikely it can't be double-spent into the DAG?

I'll leave this question for the whitepaper author, his formulas scare me. :)

Protest, my formulas are always beautiful   :D

Well, in iota you cannot say anything like "cumulative weight of X is enough for a tx to be considered confirmed", since the time enters the story. For the system to be secure on its own (i.e., without additional checkpoints or smth), the ability of the attacker to issue tx's must be much less than the "natural" flow of tx's in the system.  So, what you have in iota is rather statements like "if a tx got cumulative weight X by time T, then the probability that this tx can be annihilated is at most p, provided that the potential attacker's hashing power is at most h and the natural tx's flow in the system is at least m", see examples in the bottom of page 14 in the paper. In that "6 blocks confirmation rule" of Bitcoin there are some implicit assumptions as well, by the way.

"Everything must be made as simple as possible, but not simpler"  (c)
:)

Please translate that general math to some concrete examples for us, so we can compare likely confirmation delays.

I could work it out but I don't have time to dig into your math. You already know that math like the back of your hand. Please help us quantify in terms we all can readily compare to other coins.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 24, 2015, 11:51:49 PM
Does Iota (DAG tangles) need to be only for IoT applications?

What advantage does it have over a normal block chain? Only the faster confirmation time (yet to be quantified) and not needing large blocks (yet all "full" nodes still pretty much need to see all transactions so that aspect of scaling isn't changed from Bitcoin)?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 25, 2015, 12:22:17 AM
Does Iota (DAG tangles) need to be only for IoT applications?

What advantage does it have over a normal block chain? Only the faster confirmation time (yet to be quantified) and not needing large blocks (yet all "full" nodes still pretty much need to see all transactions so that aspect of scaling isn't changed from Bitcoin)?

Iota can be used outside of IoT too.

Some advantages are listed here (that thread may be interesting) - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1177633.msg12492916#msg12492916


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 25, 2015, 12:26:04 AM

Please translate that general math to some concrete examples for us, so we can compare likely confirmation delays.

Did you see the examples on p. 14 ?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: luckykitty on October 25, 2015, 12:28:08 AM
so, when will launch?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 25, 2015, 08:14:35 AM
so, when will launch?

We aim for development being done by Christmas;)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: freemind1 on October 25, 2015, 08:22:24 AM
Watching. Really it looks interesting.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Timeline on October 25, 2015, 11:45:28 AM
so, when will launch?

We aim for development being done by Christmas;)

There are a acouple of interesting altoins coming soon and IOTA is one of them  :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Ratatosk on October 25, 2015, 12:05:48 PM
I read this interesting thread, but did not find this info, maybe I did not see it sorry :

What is the speed of on/off-tangle payments ?

I mean the total maximum time for an operation to be 100% accepted/confirmed by the system ?
Are we speaking of 5-10 seconds, 1-30 minutes or hours ?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 25, 2015, 12:11:06 PM
I read this interesting thread, but did not find this info, maybe I did not see it sorry :

What is the speed of on/off-tangle payments ?

I mean the total maximum time for an operation to be 100% accepted/confirmed by the system ?
Are we speaking of 5-10 seconds, 1-30 minutes or hours ?

On-tangle payment speed depends on a lot of factors which numerical values are unknown yet. Off-tangle payment speed is around 1 second.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Jimmy2011 on October 25, 2015, 01:54:17 PM
To "hire" miners for the race, can one send IOTA tokens to himself(the same address) or from one address to the other address he owns? To avoid double spending, tx weight cap will be set, so is the cap as small as possible? It seems that the cap is related to the tx flow rate, tx network topology and maybe other things, so is there any principle to set the cap manually or is it hard coded in the software?

Cap is set manually, each nodes decides if it wants to approve this transaction or not depending on its weight, too low and too high values will be filtered.

Thanks. Wait for how the code "thinks" low and high.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 25, 2015, 02:26:05 PM
Thanks. Wait for how the code "thinks" low and high.

It's just a parameter set by the user.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 25, 2015, 05:23:03 PM
Well, in iota you cannot say anything like "cumulative weight of X is enough for a tx to be considered confirmed", since the time enters the story. For the system to be secure on its own (i.e., without additional checkpoints or smth), the ability of the attacker to issue tx's must be much less than the "natural" flow of tx's in the system.  So, what you have in iota is rather statements like "if a tx got cumulative weight X by time T, then the probability that this tx can be annihilated is at most p, provided that the potential attacker's hashing power is at most h and the natural tx's flow in the system is at least m", see examples in the bottom of page 14 in the paper. In that "6 blocks confirmation rule" of Bitcoin there are some implicit assumptions as well, by the way.


Please translate that general math to some concrete examples for us, so we can compare likely confirmation delays.

Did you see the examples on p. 14 ?

Okay so qualitatively we just need to wait for some chain of subsequent TXs to reference the DAG node for our TX, and as long as the attacker's capacity to generate TXs is sufficiently low (perhaps similar to Bitcoin at less than 25 - 33% for selfish mining), then the double-spend probability will also be practically very low for tangles consensus. Indeed Bitcoin has similar probabilistic risk of double-spend:

https://bitcoil.co.il/Doublespend.pdf

Three observations:

  • Confirmation is not instant, as it can be in other designs such as Lightning Networks (and also my design). Yet it will also be much faster then Bitcoin's block period. You are probably estimating at a few seconds at most assuming attacker's power is sufficiently low?
  • The attacker's power is given by his ability to incur TX fees relative to the total TX fees being paid for TXs. This is qualitatively different situation than PoW block chains, because in a tangle every payer has to incur the cost of security by paying higher TX fees (which I assume be burned so the coin is deflationary to 0 supply, unless you burn PoW hashes instead which is what I would advise). In Bitcoin all users pay the cost of mining security as well though either through debasement or TX fees, so it seems about the same. A potential advantage for a tangle is if you burn PoW hashes as I suggest, then every user is mining, unless they delegate this hash to a server. However appears neither tangle nor traditional PoW block chain can be immune to a 51% attack, whereas in my block chain scaling design I do claim this immunity (sorry to plug my work here but is necessary in order to point out relative strengths and weaknesses of all designs available to the crypto community).
  • No way to prevent double-spends in partitions of the network (no fault tolerance to network partitioning). I claim to solve this in my design and I think perhaps Lightning Network is also.

So overall I think this DAG stuff is an improvement over traditional PoW block chains in general, not just for IoT. But I do think I may have a superior design, but I am still analyzing to see what attributes the DAG might have that are superior. The elimination of the blocks and the aliasing error of chain reorganizations perhaps, but seems there are analogous issues in the DAG.

Please do not take my post as desiring to rain on your thread. I won't belabor my points. I am just trying to see where for example we might even collaborate if at all. Looking with an open mind. Cheers.

P.S. to the mathematician, kudos on working out all that math. I haven't made a decision to wrap my head around it yet. So pressed for time.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 25, 2015, 06:04:04 PM
Confirmation is not instant, as it can be in other designs such as Lightning Networks (and also my design). Yet it will also be much faster then Bitcoin's block period. You are probably estimating at a few seconds at most assuming attacker's power is sufficiently low?

Probably yes, should be matter of seconds (in the regime where there is a reasonable flow of tx's already).

The attacker's power is given by his ability to incur TX fees relative to the total TX fees being paid for TXs. This is qualitatively different situation than PoW block chains, because in a tangle every payer has to incur the cost of security by paying higher TX fees (which I assume be burned so the coin is deflationary to 0 supply, unless you burn PoW hashes instead which is what I would advise). In Bitcoin all users pay the cost of mining security as well though either through debasement or TX fees, so it seems about the same. A potential advantage for a tangle is if you burn PoW hashes as I suggest, then every user is mining, unless they delegate this hash to a server. However appears neither tangle nor traditional PoW block chain can be immune to a 51% attack, whereas in my block chain scaling design I do claim this immunity (sorry to plug my work here but is necessary in order to point out relative strengths and weaknesses of all designs available to the crypto community).

As far as I remember, there are no tx fees (CfB?..). The nodes invest only PoW.

No way to prevent double-spends in partitions of the network (no fault tolerance to network partitioning). I claim to solve this in my design and I think perhaps Lightning Network is also.
In the event when the attacker's node is the only one who sees that two branches, yes.  I'm not sure that would be a recurrent situation, though.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 25, 2015, 06:26:27 PM
As far as I remember, there are no tx fees (CfB?..). The nodes invest only PoW.

Correct.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on October 26, 2015, 11:29:51 AM
So don't buy a fridge that is smarter than you. It's really that simple.
No, it is not that simple. It's impossible for example to buy a new smartphone not equipped with a camera nowadays.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on October 26, 2015, 12:06:43 PM
A question on the whitepaper.
Why does h - the average time a device needs to do the calculations necessary to issue a transaction depend on L - the total number of tips and N - the total number of transactions? That "total number of transactions" is it the total number of transactions incorporated in the DAG (probably unknown to the device) or what?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 26, 2015, 12:25:30 PM
A question on the whitepaper.
Why does h - the average time a device needs to do the calculations necessary to issue a transaction depend on L - the total number of tips and N - the total number of transactions? That "total number of transactions" is it the total number of transactions incorporated in the DAG (probably unknown to the device) or what?

It's a general case analysis, a special case (for a particular implementation) may give average time not dependent on some or all these parameters.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 26, 2015, 01:32:48 PM
So don't buy a fridge that is smarter than you. It's really that simple.
No, it is not that simple. It's impossible for example to buy a new smartphone not equipped with a camera nowadays.

But it's not impossible to buy an older one without, wait for project ara or worst case scenario: crush the camera lens.

If there is a genuine demand in the future for 'dumb fridges', then they will still be produced.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 26, 2015, 01:54:46 PM
https://medium.com/quantum-bits/how-secure-will-our-data-be-in-the-post-quantum-era-6a7f444ce7d5


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Timeline on October 26, 2015, 02:44:46 PM
https://medium.com/quantum-bits/how-secure-will-our-data-be-in-the-post-quantum-era-6a7f444ce7d5

Thanks for the link, reading it now.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: gioma on October 26, 2015, 03:22:03 PM
https://medium.com/quantum-bits/how-secure-will-our-data-be-in-the-post-quantum-era-6a7f444ce7d5

Need some time to read this but I will follow, legendary dev's ftw ;D ;D


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 26, 2015, 05:20:23 PM
Does Iota (DAG tangles) need to be only for IoT applications?

What advantage does it have over a normal block chain? Only the faster confirmation time (yet to be quantified) and not needing large blocks (yet all "full" nodes still pretty much need to see all transactions so that aspect of scaling isn't changed from Bitcoin)?

Iota can be used outside of IoT too.

Some advantages are listed here (that thread may be interesting) - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1177633.msg12492916#msg12492916

...

So overall I think this DAG stuff is an improvement over traditional PoW block chains in general, not just for IoT. But I do think I may have a superior design, but I am still analyzing to see what attributes the DAG might have that are superior. The elimination of the blocks and the aliasing error of chain reorganizations perhaps, but seems there are analogous issues in the DAG.

Please do not take my post as desiring to rain on your thread. I won't belabor my points. I am just trying to see where for example we might even collaborate if at all. Looking with an open mind. Cheers.

...

They key advantage I see for DAG tangle form of consensus versus a block chain, my ClickzSync design, and Lightning Networks, is that appending your transaction into the DAG tangle is autonomous and permission-less (notwithstanding you probably want to see as much of the breadth of the tree as possible thus need a reasonably powerful server and internet connection, or delegate to one)! That is a very profound distinction!

This means that any user can append their transaction to the consensus network and can't be censored per se. Now their transaction might not get included in any other branches of the tree if there is 100% censorship of that transaction, but this isn't very likely. It isn't a 51% all-or-nothing control as in Bitcoin and the conceptual reason is because a DAG tangle has multiple branches of consensus! And even if the probability of double-spend is high on a transaction that has been censored by a large % of the network (not included in their branches), the transaction still has a record in the DAG tangle and so the recipient can still accept the funds if they so choose to take that risk. In other words, the consensus network can multifurcate to route around censorship.

Having said this, the most optimum design for block scaling is not DAG tangles alone, but integrated with my ClickzSync design. And then also supporting the necessary opcodes so LN can also run on the system (because LN has the least overhead but has some drawbacks (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg12777413#msg12777413) that an Iota+ClickzSync design would offer alternatives to). In other words, these 3 designs all address a slightly different aspect of the consensus scaling network optimization. The Iota design is going to need some tweaking any way, because I see some issues.

Thus I will open private discussions with the Iota team (apparently mthcl and Come-from-Beyond only?) now to see if they are interested in collaborating.

We are at a momentous point where (if I am not mistaken on the myriad of technical details) Iota+ClickzSync could radically overhaul crypto consensus network scaling, security, and TX/s. I hope they are interested to attempt it along with me if the parameters work for both of us.

I have some optimism because Come-from-Beyond is apparently programming to the Java Virtual Machine as I am as well. We seemed to have (very limited) amicable and agreeable forum discussion in the recent month or so.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 26, 2015, 05:50:09 PM
Thus I will open private discussions with the Iota team (apparently mthcl and Come-from-Beyond only?) now to see if they are interested in collaborating.

Contact iotatoken (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=574177) instead of me, please. I'm just a programmer who happened to know some stuff because of necessity to implement it in the code.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: klee on October 26, 2015, 05:56:29 PM
Thus I will open private discussions with the Iota team (apparently mthcl and Come-from-Beyond only?) now to see if they are interested in collaborating.

Contact iotatoken (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=574177) instead of me, please. I'm just a programmer who happened to know some stuff because of necessity to implement it in the code.
TPTB talking with David? I wanna see this...


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 26, 2015, 05:59:53 PM
TPTB talking with David? I wanna see this...

I'll ask David to invite you into the convo.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: klee on October 26, 2015, 06:34:51 PM
TPTB talking with David? I wanna see this...

I'll ask David to invite you into the convo.
Wish every success to this project btw (it does not need my wishes of course, it will be a sure success).


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 26, 2015, 06:40:25 PM
Wish every success to this project btw (it does not need my wishes of course, it will be a sure success).

Thank you, I hope we'll share it with you.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 26, 2015, 07:14:49 PM
Thus I will open private discussions with the Iota team (apparently mthcl and Come-from-Beyond only?) now to see if they are interested in collaborating.

Contact iotatoken (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=574177) instead of me, please. I'm just a programmer who happened to know some stuff because of necessity to implement it in the code.
TPTB talking with David? I wanna see this...

Okay let the idea for collaboration die on the vine. Neither of us need more drama to slow us down.

I was hoping you (Come-from-Beyond) were the only person I had to coordinate with. My guess is "David" is more of the marketing guy. Too many different personalities to harmonize with while we are trying to rush development, thus sounds like a potential recipe for disaster.

Best.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 26, 2015, 07:34:32 PM
Thus I will open private discussions with the Iota team (apparently mthcl and Come-from-Beyond only?) now to see if they are interested in collaborating.

Contact iotatoken (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=574177) instead of me, please. I'm just a programmer who happened to know some stuff because of necessity to implement it in the code.
TPTB talking with David? I wanna see this...

Okay let the idea for collaboration die on the vine. Neither of us need more drama to slow us down.

I was hoping you (Come-from-Beyond) were the only person I had to coordinate with. My guess is "David" is more of the marketing guy. Too many different personalities to harmonize with while we are trying to rush development, thus sounds like a potential recipe for disaster.

Best.

Indeed, my role is management and marketing, not the code. Re: your proposal of collaboration, we have finalized the design of iota at this point and are in full development. This means that unless there is found to be some flaw in our design or your solutions would be truly revolutionary, (which would require that you have a whitepaper available within a few days) we will respectfully decline.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 26, 2015, 08:36:50 PM
Agreed. Best to you. Hopefully my feedback helped in some small way.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: -Greed- on October 26, 2015, 08:57:55 PM
I know this might have been asked but...

1) Devs/owners are you going to have a token sale (pre-sale, ICO or something)?
2) Did anyone verify the whitepaper? Can the system work as it's supposed to? (I'm not qualified enough for this...)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 26, 2015, 09:02:01 PM
I know this might have been asked but...

1) Devs/owners are you going to have a token sale (pre-sale, ICO or something)?
2) Did anyone verify the whitepaper? Can the system work as it's supposed to? (I'm not qualified enough for this...)


1) Yes

2) We've had some reviews and have sent it out to numerous prominent experts in the space awaiting further review. So far no one has found any flaws, which is why we felt ready to go public and let everyone review it openly.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: illodin on October 26, 2015, 09:25:28 PM
Hi, a couple of quick questions since the ICO seems to be the topic now:

How many % of the coins will the team keep?

Are you planning to prove somehow you're not "buying your own coins" from the ICO?

Is the ICO the only distribution method?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: NextGenCrypto on October 26, 2015, 09:26:52 PM
Are you planning to prove somehow you're not "buying your own coins" from the ICO?

Not possible regardless of what they tell you.  This is cryptocurrency, there is 0 validation of who is buying anything.  You know better than that.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: illodin on October 26, 2015, 09:31:19 PM
Are you planning to prove somehow you're not "buying your own coins" from the ICO?

Not possible regardless of what they tell you.  This is cryptocurrency, there is 0 validation of who is buying anything.  You know better than that.

I don't know. A lot of things have been considered impossible before, like scalable trustless electronic cash. :P


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 26, 2015, 09:33:28 PM
Hi, a couple of quick questions since the ICO seems to be the topic now:

How many % of the coins will the team keep?

Are you planning to prove somehow you're not "buying your own coins" from the ICO?

Is the ICO the only distribution method?

0% of the coins go to the team. The team will be compensated via funds raised in the ICO, no pre-mine. We'll have to buy our tokens just like everyone else.

Yes

ICO is indeed the only distributon method for this project for a couple of reasons:

1) It's the only way we'll get compensated for our work and development, since we have zero premine
2) It's the only way to ensure that the tokens are actually valued, which is needed to kickstart the ecosystem that will form around them and be part of their function


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 26, 2015, 09:35:28 PM
ICO is indeed the only distributon method for this project for a couple of reasons:

1) It's the only way we'll get compensated for our work and development, since we have zero premine
2) It's the only way to ensure that the tokens are actually valued, which is needed to kickstart the ecosystem that will form around them and be part of their function

You forgot about technical impossibility to issue coins over time.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: lajz99 on October 26, 2015, 09:36:03 PM

0% of the coins go to the team. The team will be compensated via funds raised in the ICO, no pre-mine. We'll have to buy our tokens just like everyone else.


ie. we will have no reason to continue working on the coin as we will not be vested in it and have already received another currency we could cash out into FIAT



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: gaba on October 26, 2015, 09:43:45 PM


ie. we will have no reason to continue working on the coin as we will not be vested in it and have already received another currency we could cash out into FIAT



They will still have 90% of JINN.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 26, 2015, 09:47:17 PM

0% of the coins go to the team. The team will be compensated via funds raised in the ICO, no pre-mine. We'll have to buy our tokens just like everyone else.


ie. we will have no reason to continue working on the coin as we will not be vested in it and have already received another currency we could cash out into FIAT



I have no problem understanding this concern, given the space that we're in (crypto is the wild wild wild west after all), but your assumption here is blatantly wrong. We chose 0% premine because that is what is the absolute most fair to every party involved. We are basing our entire start-up around IoT, which we've been working on in stealth for a year, as explained in OP this is what prompted us to develop IOTA. It is a necessary ingredient for the vision of IoT that our start-up is focused on. On top of this all of us will invest our personal funds into IOTA, so no we have a ton of incentive to make IOTA a success.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: lajz99 on October 26, 2015, 09:51:33 PM

0% of the coins go to the team. The team will be compensated via funds raised in the ICO, no pre-mine. We'll have to buy our tokens just like everyone else.


ie. we will have no reason to continue working on the coin as we will not be vested in it and have already received another currency we could cash out into FIAT



I have no problem understanding this concern, given the space that we're in (crypto is the wild wild wild west after all), but your assumption here is blatantly wrong. We chose 0% premine because that is what is the absolute most fair to every party involved. We are basing our entire start-up around IoT, which we've been working on in stealth for a year, as explained in OP this is what prompted us to develop IOTA. It is a necessary ingredient for the vision of IoT that our start-up is focused on. On top of this all of us will invest our personal funds into IOTA, so no we have a ton of incentive to make IOTA a success.

how is a 0% premine any more fair than you raising BTC and repaying yourself for the coins you "purchased"?  
either way you are receiving BTC and you are using BTC to buy said coins.  they're free coins for you and less BTC for development.

if you were investing personal funds, why not put that into the development and just take a premine?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 26, 2015, 09:56:57 PM

0% of the coins go to the team. The team will be compensated via funds raised in the ICO, no pre-mine. We'll have to buy our tokens just like everyone else.


ie. we will have no reason to continue working on the coin as we will not be vested in it and have already received another currency we could cash out into FIAT



I have no problem understanding this concern, given the space that we're in (crypto is the wild wild wild west after all), but your assumption here is blatantly wrong. We chose 0% premine because that is what is the absolute most fair to every party involved. We are basing our entire start-up around IoT, which we've been working on in stealth for a year, as explained in OP this is what prompted us to develop IOTA. It is a necessary ingredient for the vision of IoT that our start-up is focused on. On top of this all of us will invest our personal funds into IOTA, so no we have a ton of incentive to make IOTA a success.

how is a 0% premine any more fair than you raising BTC and repaying yourself for the coins you "purchased"?  
either way you are receiving BTC and you are using BTC to buy said coins.  they're free coins for you and less BTC for development.

if you were investing personal funds, why not put that into the development and just take a premine?


It is more fair because it means it's entirely up for grabs to anyone. There is no coins arbitrarily set aside for the developers. If the community insist, please feel free to donate free iotas to us after the ico ;)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 26, 2015, 10:01:21 PM
how is a 0% premine any more fair than you raising BTC and repaying yourself for the coins you "purchased"?  
either way you are receiving BTC and you are using BTC to buy said coins.  they're free coins for you and less BTC for development.

if you were investing personal funds, why not put that into the development and just take a premine?

What is the difference?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 26, 2015, 10:03:35 PM
Guys, if you don't stop trolling I'll start abusing moderating power without paying much attention who is right and who is wrong. It's my thread and I set the rule "no trolling allowed".


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 26, 2015, 10:20:42 PM
@NextGenCrypto

You are wrong, posts were deleted for violation of my rules. You are welcome back if you don't violate the rules. BitcoinTalk mirror still contains your posts with personal insults.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: msin on October 26, 2015, 10:20:56 PM
Guys, if you don't stop trolling I'll start abusing moderating power without paying much attention who is right and who is wrong. It's my thread and I set the rule "no trolling allowed".

He's right, my cool watch"ing" picture post was deleted.  :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: chocobo on October 26, 2015, 10:52:23 PM
Hi, a couple of quick questions since the ICO seems to be the topic now:

How many % of the coins will the team keep?

Are you planning to prove somehow you're not "buying your own coins" from the ICO?

Is the ICO the only distribution method?

0% of the coins go to the team. The team will be compensated via funds raised in the ICO, no pre-mine. We'll have to buy our tokens just like everyone else.

Yes

ICO is indeed the only distributon method for this project for a couple of reasons:

1) It's the only way we'll get compensated for our work and development, since we have zero premine
2) It's the only way to ensure that the tokens are actually valued, which is needed to kickstart the ecosystem that will form around them and be part of their function


Won't you be compensated by your start-up? ICO's are NOT a good way to establish value, much less the only way.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 26, 2015, 10:57:39 PM
Hi, a couple of quick questions since the ICO seems to be the topic now:

How many % of the coins will the team keep?

Are you planning to prove somehow you're not "buying your own coins" from the ICO?

Is the ICO the only distribution method?

0% of the coins go to the team. The team will be compensated via funds raised in the ICO, no pre-mine. We'll have to buy our tokens just like everyone else.

Yes

ICO is indeed the only distributon method for this project for a couple of reasons:

1) It's the only way we'll get compensated for our work and development, since we have zero premine
2) It's the only way to ensure that the tokens are actually valued, which is needed to kickstart the ecosystem that will form around them and be part of their function


Won't you be compensated by your start-up? ICO's are NOT a good way to establish value, much less the only way.

Start-ups in the hardware industry does not pay dividends for quite some time, especially when it's not just a shiny toy for Kickstarter.

But ICOs are indeed a good way to establish value, it automatically spawns a sizable community that has a direct incentive to keep a platform alive. This is the problem with all these 1000 plus random PoW coins, they have absolutely no incentive. ICOs are not perfect, but they are better than the alternatives for a project such as this.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: 50cent_rapper on October 26, 2015, 11:05:25 PM
I'm supporting this IPO.

There are a number of silent readers, who, as I think, supporting this too.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: chocobo on October 26, 2015, 11:08:07 PM
Hi, a couple of quick questions since the ICO seems to be the topic now:

How many % of the coins will the team keep?

Are you planning to prove somehow you're not "buying your own coins" from the ICO?

Is the ICO the only distribution method?

0% of the coins go to the team. The team will be compensated via funds raised in the ICO, no pre-mine. We'll have to buy our tokens just like everyone else.

Yes

ICO is indeed the only distributon method for this project for a couple of reasons:

1) It's the only way we'll get compensated for our work and development, since we have zero premine
2) It's the only way to ensure that the tokens are actually valued, which is needed to kickstart the ecosystem that will form around them and be part of their function


Won't you be compensated by your start-up? ICO's are NOT a good way to establish value, much less the only way.

Start-ups in the hardware industry does not pay dividends for quite some time, especially when it's not just a shiny toy for Kickstarter.

But ICOs are indeed a good way to establish value, it automatically spawns a sizable community that has a direct incentive to keep a platform alive. This is the problem with all these 1000 plus random PoW coins, they have absolutely no incentive. ICOs are not perfect, but they are better than the alternatives for a project such as this.

All I have found so far is the tangle whitepaper. Do you have an outline of the goal of the start-up and how exactly the coin ties into it?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mentaldepth on October 27, 2015, 05:25:40 AM
Yeah I mean it sounds amazing, but for the basic user <-- ? And you think the community will be big enough to sustain any value set by the ico?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 27, 2015, 05:53:25 AM
All I have found so far is the tangle whitepaper. Do you have an outline of the goal of the start-up and how exactly the coin ties into it?

Yes, it'll be made available in the coming week.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: freedomno1 on October 27, 2015, 06:16:46 AM
All I have found so far is the tangle whitepaper. Do you have an outline of the goal of the start-up and how exactly the coin ties into it?

Yes, it'll be made available in the coming week.

Observing as I am assuming the coin has not launched yet
Will need to recheck this thread later.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: chicken65 on October 27, 2015, 10:15:33 AM



Any idea when the IPO will be held and which exchange?



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 27, 2015, 10:16:52 AM



Any idea when the IPO will be held and which exchange?



An idea, yes, but it's not yet and I prefer not to give ballpark date as it always distracts from what matters: the technology and getting more and more people into it.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: 50cent_rapper on October 27, 2015, 10:58:04 AM



Any idea when the IPO will be held and which exchange?



An idea, yes, but it's not yet and I prefer not to give ballpark date as it always distracts from what matters: the technology and getting more and more people into it.

I suggest to not use exchange for IPO, cause Crypti's experience shows that 70% of all coins will be hold on exchange (people will not withdraw them), and then, a hack of exchange may happen (bter.com). 


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 27, 2015, 11:43:09 AM



Any idea when the IPO will be held and which exchange?



An idea, yes, but it's not yet and I prefer not to give ballpark date as it always distracts from what matters: the technology and getting more and more people into it.

I suggest to not use exchange for IPO, cause Crypti's experience shows that 70% of all coins will be hold on exchange (people will not withdraw them), and then, a hack of exchange may happen (bter.com). 

No worries, we wont:)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: altcoinUK on October 27, 2015, 11:54:30 AM



Any idea when the IPO will be held and which exchange?



An idea, yes, but it's not yet and I prefer not to give ballpark date as it always distracts from what matters: the technology and getting more and more people into it.

I suggest to not use exchange for IPO, cause Crypti's experience shows that 70% of all coins will be hold on exchange (people will not withdraw them), and then, a hack of exchange may happen (bter.com). 

No worries, we wont:)

So the ICO money party is on.

I am not sure, but you might know that I have the bad habit to detect scams. I did it with regards to Bitbay and many other scams such as Bob's money collecting parties. My unmoderated threads discussed those scams, and those threads are more or less successfully prevented a larger damage caused to the digital currency community.

Can I ask what is your experience in Internet of Things?

What will be your monetization strategy to make money in a field (IoT) where nobody could make any money yet, not even Xively?

Your NXT coin and Supernet assets used by nobody in real world. These are digital assets/coin the NXT crowd sell to each other. What makes you think you will be able to succeed with a new coin in the most difficult technology field (IoT) when with NXT and Supernet you could not achieve real world adoption in the last 2 years and 1 year respectively?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 27, 2015, 12:09:04 PM

I am not sure, but you might know that I have the bad habit to detect scams. I did it with regards to Bitbay and many other scams such as Bob's money collecting parties. My unmoderated threads discussed those scams, and those threads are more or less successfully prevented a larger damage caused to the digital currency community.

Never heard of you.

Quote

Can I ask what is your experience in Internet of Things?


Been interested in the field and experimented with early IoT since its inception. Read all the reports and all the books.
We have also ran a start-up that is focused on IoT for 1 year now.

Quote
What will be your monetization strategy to make money in a field (IoT) where nobody could make any money yet, not even Xively?

Plenty of people make money in IoT, no idea where you got that idea into your head.

Quote
Your NXT coin and Supernet assets used by nobody in real world. These are digital assets/coin the NXT crowd sell to each other. What makes you think you will be able to succeed with a new coin in the most difficult technology field (IoT) when with NXT and Supernet you could not achieve real world adoption in the last 2 years and 1 year respectively?

If these blatant lies continue, you will be permanently banned from this thread. Consider this your sole warning.
We don't hold a single SuperNET asset and never have. As for 'your nxt coin', just because CfB was a lead dev for one of the most innovative cryptos, does not mean we are somehow liable for its community 2 years later. Everyone that got involved in Nxt when CfB was the lead dev got the best ROI in crypto history with exception of Bitcoin itself.

So if you got real questions, by all means ask, but when you talk this random bullshit that has no root in reality about us having anything to do with Nxt or SuperNET, I will just ignore you and your posts will be deleted.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 27, 2015, 12:23:06 PM
I am not sure, but you might know that I have the bad habit to detect scams.

I didn't know that but it's definitely a useful skill. Depends on your definition of "scam", of course. What is a scam from your point of view?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: altcoinUK on October 27, 2015, 12:52:01 PM
OK then.

Good luck with your project, and I suggest the GadgetCoin team and supporters do the same, wish good luck to IOTA. There are many projects could exists in the IoT field.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on October 27, 2015, 01:44:01 PM
An idea, yes, but it's not yet and I prefer not to give ballpark date as it always distracts from what matters: the technology and getting more and more people into it.

I think what you guys did right about this coin is to laser-focus on a niche market - IoT. This is a rather interesting and hot market which has not really been exploited by cryptos yet. Iota (with Jinn) will be an innovation for this market. If you can use plain language to show the audience a clear big picture people will come. 


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: allwelder on October 27, 2015, 02:23:57 PM
So this is the real project of BCNext? ::)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: msin on October 27, 2015, 04:54:28 PM
CFB; I haven't had much time to read over the whitepaper, but can you briefly explain IOTA's ability to interact with other Blockchain's (like BTC and ETH).  I think this is a killer app that has yet to be achieve in an efficient manner by anyone else.  Here is all I've gathered from the IOTA website:

Iota can communicate to blockchains such as Bitcoin and Ethereum to form a cohesive collaboration with these networks. It can strengthen these blockchains' security by providing checkpoints and also act as an oracle for smart contracts.

Can you elaborate alt all, perhaps with a use case?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: bitcoinpaul on October 27, 2015, 05:27:32 PM
ball park eta til you have something in the wild?

By Christmas.

Exciting times ahead. Once again.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: marcus1986 on October 27, 2015, 05:34:15 PM
So this is the real project of BCNext? ::)

Yeah, BCNext's Christmas gift ::)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 27, 2015, 05:39:54 PM
CFB; I haven't had much time to read over the whitepaper, but can you briefly explain IOTA's ability to interact with other Blockchain's (like BTC and ETH).  I think this is a killer app that has yet to be achieve in an efficient manner by anyone else.  Here is all I've gathered from the IOTA website:

Iota can communicate to blockchains such as Bitcoin and Ethereum to form a cohesive collaboration with these networks. It can strengthen these blockchains' security by providing checkpoints and also act as an oracle for smart contracts.

Can you elaborate alt all, perhaps with a use case?

A good description will require a lot of brain resources, I'm working on a whitepaper now and can't distract much, I'll ask David to reply instead of me.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Wob on October 27, 2015, 05:45:34 PM
Following


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: farl4web on October 27, 2015, 06:18:02 PM
What no mining  ???

Really mining?? ??? That's so 2013...



Interesting project CfB, following!  :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 27, 2015, 06:45:26 PM
CFB; I haven't had much time to read over the whitepaper, but can you briefly explain IOTA's ability to interact with other Blockchain's (like BTC and ETH).  I think this is a killer app that has yet to be achieve in an efficient manner by anyone else.  Here is all I've gathered from the IOTA website:

Iota can communicate to blockchains such as Bitcoin and Ethereum to form a cohesive collaboration with these networks. It can strengthen these blockchains' security by providing checkpoints and also act as an oracle for smart contracts.

Can you elaborate alt all, perhaps with a use case?

More use-cases will be illustrated soon as well as more information will be made available. We were actually just talking with a core Ethereum developer about this topic. Still a lot of discussion to be done to come up with very clear overlap that everyone agrees on of course, but this will also be up to the community.

We are open to talk with any community which has a great platform, but can't support scalable micro-transactions for lightweight devices.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on October 27, 2015, 08:11:47 PM
machine-to-machine payment rings a bell here.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: msin on October 27, 2015, 10:20:50 PM
CFB; I haven't had much time to read over the whitepaper, but can you briefly explain IOTA's ability to interact with other Blockchain's (like BTC and ETH).  I think this is a killer app that has yet to be achieve in an efficient manner by anyone else.  Here is all I've gathered from the IOTA website:

Iota can communicate to blockchains such as Bitcoin and Ethereum to form a cohesive collaboration with these networks. It can strengthen these blockchains' security by providing checkpoints and also act as an oracle for smart contracts.

Can you elaborate alt all, perhaps with a use case?

More use-cases will be illustrated soon as well as more information will be made available. We were actually just talking with a core Ethereum developer about this topic. Still a lot of discussion to be done to come up with very clear overlap that everyone agrees on of course, but this will also be up to the community.

We are open to talk with any community which has a great platform, but can't support scalable micro-transactions for lightweight devices.

Okay, thanks, I figured it might be too early to get a definitive answer.  It has a lot of potential use cases which is exciting!


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: msin on October 27, 2015, 11:25:25 PM
a lot of brain resources

Isn't that your specialty  :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: yeahitsme on October 28, 2015, 02:12:37 AM
I'm excited for this whats the dev time currently?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: 21million on October 28, 2015, 02:30:01 AM
Problem of adoption is real issue u may have great idea but most people still not know what bitcoin is. Is good u pave path with this but is no market outside altcoin niche.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: saladin89 on October 28, 2015, 03:55:29 AM
exciting


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Bitcoininspace on October 28, 2015, 04:09:39 AM

It is more fair because it means it's entirely up for grabs to anyone. There is no coins arbitrarily set aside for the developers. If the community insist, please feel free to donate free iotas to us after the ico ;)

So there won't even be any restrictions as to how many a person can buy and hold, I'm guessing.

Which leads to the question, how easy would it be for someone to buy 20% of the ICO and just play around with the market for the next coming months and manipulate it to gain more and more coins?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mladen00 on October 28, 2015, 06:27:59 AM
I hope it will be greater project than Jinn


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: chicken65 on October 28, 2015, 10:06:13 AM
AM I missing something?
Where is the date for ICO/IPO


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 28, 2015, 12:24:47 PM
I'm excited for this whats the dev time currently?

ETA for launch of the IOTA client is ~Christmas. Details surrounding ICO will come soon.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 28, 2015, 12:27:37 PM

It is more fair because it means it's entirely up for grabs to anyone. There is no coins arbitrarily set aside for the developers. If the community insist, please feel free to donate free iotas to us after the ico ;)

So there won't even be any restrictions as to how many a person can buy and hold, I'm guessing.

Which leads to the question, how easy would it be for someone to buy 20% of the ICO and just play around with the market for the next coming months and manipulate it to gain more and more coins?

This is obviously true for any coin of any kind that can be bought whether it's bitcoin, ether, nxt, bts, or any other crypto. But to purchase 20% and then successfully manipulate the market to acquire more and more seems dubious at best and would cost a lot. Those who elect to purchase IOTA tokens will hopefully do so because they are interested in the tech and thus wont be manipulated easily.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Hollowman338 on October 28, 2015, 12:59:33 PM
You could always issue it as a NXT asset and accept only SuperBTC if you're not looking for a NXT investment


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on October 28, 2015, 01:21:51 PM
I hope it will be greater project than Jinn

if you missed the Jinn original auction, you can catch the Iota crowd-sale to make up. ;)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on October 28, 2015, 01:52:19 PM
A question on the whitepaper.
Why does h - the average time a device needs to do the calculations necessary to issue a transaction depend on L - the total number of tips and N - the total number of transactions? That "total number of transactions" is it the total number of transactions incorporated in the DAG (probably unknown to the device) or what?

It's a general case analysis, a special case (for a particular implementation) may give average time not dependent on some or all these parameters.
You should have some considerations, why could h depend on L and N. Otherwise, for broader generality you should also consider dependence on Moon phase, which btw is easier to know for the device than L and N.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 02:23:35 PM
You should have some considerations, why could h depend on L and N. Otherwise, for broader generality you should also consider dependence on Moon phase, which btw is easier to know for the device than L and N.

I don't know how to react to your post. It looks half-trollish, half-jokish. For a programmer the dependence between those 3 parameters is so obvious that it's impossible to explain to someone else (as most of obvious things).


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on October 28, 2015, 02:40:10 PM
You should have some considerations, why could h depend on L and N. Otherwise, for broader generality you should also consider dependence on Moon phase, which btw is easier to know for the device than L and N.

I don't know how to react to your post. It looks half-trollish, half-jokish. For a programmer the dependence between those 3 parameters is so obvious that it's impossible to explain to someone else (as most of obvious things).
OK, maybe you'll try to explain. Let's first consider dependency on L. So PoW difficulty to generate an envelope depends on current number of tips. And the device probably doesn't even know that number. Why does it depend? In Bitcoin and its clones for example difficulty doesn't depend on tps rate or whatever parameter that could be comparable to the number of tips in the DAG.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 02:56:05 PM
OK, maybe you'll try to explain. Let's first consider dependency on L. So PoW difficulty to generate an envelope depends on current number of tips. And the device probably doesn't even know that number. Why does it depend? In Bitcoin and its clones for example difficulty doesn't depend on tps rate or whatever parameter that could be comparable to the number of tips in the DAG.

It depends because some work on finding optimal 2 tips is done.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on October 28, 2015, 03:09:31 PM
OK, maybe you'll try to explain. Let's first consider dependency on L. So PoW difficulty to generate an envelope depends on current number of tips. And the device probably doesn't even know that number. Why does it depend? In Bitcoin and its clones for example difficulty doesn't depend on tps rate or whatever parameter that could be comparable to the number of tips in the DAG.

It depends because some work on finding optimal 2 tips is done.
Do you mean that a node should traverse more or less the whole DAG to detect doublespends and choose tips that confirm more confirmed doublespends?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 03:16:02 PM
Do you mean that a node should traverse more or less the whole DAG to detect doublespends and choose tips that confirm more confirmed doublespends?

No, it should go through tips that it sees and pick 2 good ones.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on October 28, 2015, 03:22:39 PM
Do you mean that a node should traverse more or less the whole DAG to detect doublespends and choose tips that confirm more confirmed doublespends?

No, it should go through tips that it sees and pick 2 good ones.
Then time needed for such a search should be incomparable to time needed for generating PoW (intuitively microseconds vs seconds) and should be neglected.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 03:45:49 PM
Then time needed for such a search should be incomparable to time needed for generating PoW (intuitively microseconds vs seconds) and should be neglected.

If it's an IoT-device asking peers from the swarm then times can be comparable.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on October 28, 2015, 05:23:29 PM
Then time needed for such a search should be incomparable to time needed for generating PoW (intuitively microseconds vs seconds) and should be neglected.

If it's an IoT-device asking peers from the swarm then times can be comparable.
In that case h rather depends on amount of peers polled or on the slowest peer to respond than on amount of tips.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 05:24:01 PM
In that case h rather depends on amount of peers polled or on the slowest peer to respond than on amount of tips.

Why?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on October 28, 2015, 05:52:45 PM
In that case h rather depends on amount of peers polled or on the slowest peer to respond than on amount of tips.

Why?
Amount of tips is supposed to be small, so amount of data transfered is small. So the time to send a request and receive an answer should depend mostly on network and peers latency. If all requests are performed in parallel, than the slowest to respond peer determines the time. If requests are sent serially, then the time is roughly proportional to requests amount.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 28, 2015, 06:07:03 PM

Amount of tips is supposed to be small

This is not necessarily the case, in the heavy load regime.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on October 28, 2015, 06:33:39 PM

Amount of tips is supposed to be small

This is not necessarily the case, in the heavy load regime.
That could help to conduct a doublespend btw. A hacker accumulates a lot of PoW in legit small transactions forming huge amount of new tips, but doesn't broadcast them. Then he sends a legit transaction, waits for it to be confirmed, gets his purchase sent to him. Then he creates a doublespend (for example sends the same money back to himself) and floods the network with his precomputed legit transactions. So network hashpower now is spread over his tips and he needs much less hashpower to create enough transactions confirming his doublespend to overtake the first transaction.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on October 28, 2015, 06:40:26 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what prevents the following attack?
A hacker creates two transactions, one of them will be a legit transaction, used to purchase something, another is a doublespend. Then the hacker invests a lot of PoW in confirming the second transaction. In order to do that he just creates a lot of transactions sending money between his addresses, all his trnsactions refer directly or indirectly the doublespend, so his doublespend gets huge confirmation score. Then he broadcasts the first transaction, and when it gets confirmed he broadcasts the whole doublespend branch.
Do I miss something?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: MickGhee on October 28, 2015, 06:51:22 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what prevents the following attack?
A hacker creates two transactions, one of them will be a legit transaction, used to purchase something, another is a doublespend. Then the hacker invests a lot of PoW in confirming the second transaction. In order to do that he just creates a lot of transactions sending money between his addresses, all his trnsactions refer directly or indirectly the doublespend, so his doublespend gets huge confirmation score. Then he broadcasts the first transaction, and when it gets confirmed he broadcasts the whole doublespend branch.
Do I miss something?

^^^^^^this guy right here this is why i love this place.. some smart mofos up in here.  


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 07:03:22 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what prevents the following attack?
A hacker creates two transactions, one of them will be a legit transaction, used to purchase something, another is a doublespend. Then the hacker invests a lot of PoW in confirming the second transaction. In order to do that he just creates a lot of transactions sending money between his addresses, all his trnsactions refer directly or indirectly the doublespend, so his doublespend gets huge confirmation score. Then he broadcasts the first transaction, and when it gets confirmed he broadcasts the whole doublespend branch.
Do I miss something?

Nothing is missed.

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/4942/what-is-a-finney-attack


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 28, 2015, 07:07:55 PM

Amount of tips is supposed to be small

This is not necessarily the case, in the heavy load regime.
That could help to conduct a doublespend btw. A hacker accumulates a lot of PoW in legit small transactions forming huge amount of new tips, but doesn't broadcast them. Then he sends a legit transaction, waits for it to be confirmed, gets his purchase sent to him. Then he creates a doublespend (for example sends the same money back to himself) and floods the network with his precomputed legit transactions. So network hashpower now is spread over his tips and he needs much less hashpower to create enough transactions confirming his doublespend to overtake the first transaction.

The algorithm for choosing the tips to reference "prefers" tips with larger height. Those precomputed legit transactions will have much smaller cumulative weight (than other tips), and so they will probably not be referenced by others.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what prevents the following attack?
A hacker creates two transactions, one of them will be a legit transaction, used to purchase something, another is a doublespend. Then the hacker invests a lot of PoW in confirming the second transaction. In order to do that he just creates a lot of transactions sending money between his addresses, all his trnsactions refer directly or indirectly the doublespend, so his doublespend gets huge confirmation score. Then he broadcasts the first transaction, and when it gets confirmed he broadcasts the whole doublespend branch.
Do I miss something?

If the attacker started to create his double-spending subtangle long time ago, then the initial tx's of this subtangle reference some rather old tx's, with not-so-big cumulative weight. While the attacker waits, the cumulative weight of the legit tangle continues to grow, so he won't be able to catch up.

Of course, this assumes that the attacker's max possible tx's rate is much less then the "usual" tx's rate of the rest of the network.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: alicex on October 28, 2015, 07:22:08 PM
ill keep watching on this project


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: nzminer on October 28, 2015, 08:09:53 PM
reserved


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on October 28, 2015, 08:48:41 PM
If the attacker started to create his double-spending subtangle long time ago, then the initial tx's of this subtangle reference some rather old tx's, with not-so-big cumulative weight. While the attacker waits, the cumulative weight of the legit tangle continues to grow, so he won't be able to catch up.

Of course, this assumes that the attacker's max possible tx's rate is much less then the "usual" tx's rate of the rest of the network.
The first (legit) transaction references the same old transactions as the doublespend. The attacker doesn't need to compete with the rest of network.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 28, 2015, 08:59:59 PM
If the attacker started to create his double-spending subtangle long time ago, then the initial tx's of this subtangle reference some rather old tx's, with not-so-big cumulative weight. While the attacker waits, the cumulative weight of the legit tangle continues to grow, so he won't be able to catch up.

Of course, this assumes that the attacker's max possible tx's rate is much less then the "usual" tx's rate of the rest of the network.
The first (legit) transaction references the same old transactions as the doublespend. The attacker doesn't need to compete with the rest of network.
OK, but the legit tx quickly starts to accumulate weight (as the honest nodes reference it, directly or indirectly), so, by the time the merchant accepts it, most of the tips of the legit tangle are already referencing it.  Even if the attacker publishes his subtangle at that moment, why the honest guys would reference it? The tips from the attacker's subtangle have smaller cumulative weight, and, in the event a honest guy tries to reference a legit tip and the attacker's tip, he'll detect the contradiction and won't do it. Therefore, the attacker's subtangle will be abandoned.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tromp on October 28, 2015, 09:10:12 PM
in the event a honest guy tries to reference a legit tip and the attacker's tip, he'll detect the contradiction and won't do it. Therefore, the attacker's subtangle will be abandoned.

This requires not just an honest guy, but a diligent one as well.
The risk is that honest guys will be lazy and rely on others to go far back in history to check all tx for double spending.

Even in bitcoin we've seen some miners being too lazy to do full node checking and instead relying on SPV, and thus risk building on top of invalid blocks.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 09:19:32 PM
Even in bitcoin we've seen some miners being too lazy to do full node checking and instead relying on SPV, and thus risk building on top of invalid blocks.

This reminded me that miners are that lazy that don't even do double-spends when control 51% of hashing power (Deepbit).


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on October 28, 2015, 09:21:20 PM
The algorithm for choosing the tips to reference "prefers" tips with larger cumulative weight. Those precomputed legit transactions will have much smaller cumulative weight (than other tips), and so they will probably not be referenced by others.


Isn't there are problem with merger of a split tangle then. If the network was split, then tips of the stronger part will have greater cumulative weight and will always be chosen to be referenced. The weaker subtangle just dies off.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 28, 2015, 09:25:57 PM
in the event a honest guy tries to reference a legit tip and the attacker's tip, he'll detect the contradiction and won't do it. Therefore, the attacker's subtangle will be abandoned.

This requires not just an honest guy, but a diligent one as well.
The risk is that honest guys will be lazy and rely on others to go far back in history to check all tx for double spending.


The lazy guys risk that their tx's will be abandoned, because the majority of the nodes won't reference them.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 28, 2015, 09:27:36 PM
The algorithm for choosing the tips to reference "prefers" tips with larger cumulative weight. Those precomputed legit transactions will have much smaller cumulative weight (than other tips), and so they will probably not be referenced by others.


Isn't there are problem with merger of a split tangle then. If the network was split, then tips of the stronger part will have greater cumulative weight and will always be chosen to be referenced. The weaker subtangle just dies off.
The party which is interested in the survival of the weaker subtangle would "connect" it to the stronger subtangle by referencing 1 tx from here and 1 from there. If both subtangles are legit, they'll quickly merge.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 09:34:03 PM
Isn't there are problem with merger of a split tangle then.

Maybe, I'm just not sure what you mean.

Is here our scenario:

http://s30.postimg.org/dxp3jl6sh/attack.png

Black squares are double-spends. Green ones - legit tangle, red - non-legit. Legit tip has score 11, attacker's tip has score 10.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: myagui on October 28, 2015, 09:39:24 PM
So transaction security is actually reliant on the subsequent transaction volume for the overall network?
I imagine that the picture above would look quite different if the attacker simply chooses to mount his attack during a period of negligible transaction volume (thus low weight build-up on the legitimate tangle). I'm probably missing something (or a lot)...


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 09:42:23 PM
So transaction security is actually reliant on the subsequent transaction volume for the overall network?
I imagine that the picture above would look quite different if the attacker simply chooses to mount his attack during a period of negligible transaction volume (thus low weight build-up on the legitimate tangle). I'm probably missing something (or a lot)...

Yes, we assume that there is a constant flow of transactions. If it's not the case (for example, tangle runs in North Korea where noone spends money during night time) then merchants should rise confirmation threshold during such hours.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 28, 2015, 09:52:49 PM
in the event a honest guy tries to reference a legit tip and the attacker's tip, he'll detect the contradiction and won't do it. Therefore, the attacker's subtangle will be abandoned.

This requires not just an honest guy, but a diligent one as well.
The risk is that honest guys will be lazy and rely on others to go far back in history to check all tx for double spending.


The lazy guys risk that their tx's will be abandoned, because the majority of the nodes won't reference them.

That is precisely how I would have answered. It is quite clear that everyone has a strong incentive to be on a correct branch, else any time down stream someone can broadcast a notice that a branch is incongruent then that branch gets abandoned.

But doesn't this mean that there is a great incentive to not include tips in your branch, because these don't yet have enough veracity to be sure they won't end up being a double-spend. In your system there is often no way to prove which of the double-spends were first, so they both are invalid.

Seems to me no one has an incentive to lengthen instead of broaden the tree. But I haven't absorbed the white paper. Did you address that?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: crazywack on October 28, 2015, 09:56:41 PM
Awesome a real project, good luck to you and will follow closely.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 28, 2015, 09:58:02 PM
in the event a honest guy tries to reference a legit tip and the attacker's tip, he'll detect the contradiction and won't do it. Therefore, the attacker's subtangle will be abandoned.

This requires not just an honest guy, but a diligent one as well.
The risk is that honest guys will be lazy and rely on others to go far back in history to check all tx for double spending.


The lazy guys risk that their tx's will be abandoned, because the majority of the nodes won't reference them.

That is precisely how I would have answered. It is quite clear that everyone has a strong incentive to be on a correct branch, else any time down stream someone can broadcast a notice that a branch is incongruent then that branch gets abandoned.

But doesn't this mean that there is a great incentive to not include tips in your branch, because these don't yet have enough veracity to be sure they won't end up being a double-spend. In your system there is often no way to prove which of the double-spends were first, so they both are invalid.

Seems to me no one has an incentive to lengthen instead of broaden the tree. But I haven't absorbed the white paper. Did you address that?
Yes. As mentioned somewhere above on this page (or maybe on the previous one), the (default) referencing algorithm works in such a way that it prefers tips with bigger height. So, if you're too lazy and reference some very old tx's, you take the risk that your tx won't be referenced by others.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 09:59:50 PM
In your system there is often no way to prove which of the double-spends were first, so they both are invalid.

If we can provide deterministic way to order double-spends then we can include both and ignore the younger one. It's not related to Iota though, just an idea.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 28, 2015, 10:01:59 PM
In your system there is often no way to prove which of the double-spends were first, so they both are invalid.

If we can provide deterministic way to order double-spends then we can include both and ignore the younger one. It's not related to Iota though, just an idea.
Anyhow, for that to happen, both double-spending tx's need to be broadcast more or less at the same time. Doesn't sound as a good idea for the attacker...


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tromp on October 28, 2015, 10:05:52 PM
If we can provide deterministic way to order double-spends then we can include both and ignore the younger one. It's not related to Iota though, just an idea.

That puts undue stress on others. For instance, it no longer suffices for a merchant to see a payment confirmed by tons of PoW from followup tx.

She additionally needs to go all the way back in history to check for potential double-spends that change the status of the recent payment to "please ignore".


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 10:19:48 PM
That puts undue stress on others. For instance, it no longer suffices for a merchant to see a payment confirmed by tons of PoW from followup tx.

She additionally needs to go all the way back in history to check for potential double-spends that change the status of the recent payment to "please ignore".

Valid point.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on October 28, 2015, 10:25:47 PM
Maybe, I'm just not sure what you mean.

This is the scenario I'm talking about. Green filled, black edged are transactions of the honest network. Red edged - are transactions of the attacker. The doublespends are filled with yellow.
As far as I understand your algo, weight of the red tip is greater by 3 than weight of the green tip.

http://i.imgur.com/9SPYPNt.png


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 28, 2015, 10:31:31 PM

0% of the coins go to the team. The team will be compensated via funds raised in the ICO, no pre-mine. We'll have to buy our tokens just like everyone else.


ie. we will have no reason to continue working on the coin as we will not be vested in it and have already received another currency we could cash out into FIAT



I have no problem understanding this concern, given the space that we're in (crypto is the wild wild wild west after all), but your assumption here is blatantly wrong. We chose 0% premine because that is what is the absolute most fair to every party involved. We are basing our entire start-up around IoT, which we've been working on in stealth for a year, as explained in OP this is what prompted us to develop IOTA. It is a necessary ingredient for the vision of IoT that our start-up is focused on. On top of this all of us will invest our personal funds into IOTA, so no we have a ton of incentive to make IOTA a success.

how is a 0% premine any more fair than you raising BTC and repaying yourself for the coins you "purchased"?  
either way you are receiving BTC and you are using BTC to buy said coins.  they're free coins for you...


It is more fair because it means it's entirely up for grabs to anyone. There is no coins arbitrarily set aside for the developers...

This is still a form of premine. You can convert all of you ICO funding to coins in any scenario while paying those funds to yourself. Since you can pay yourself numerous times, and recycle the funds to pay yourself again, there is no limit to the number of coins you can buy from yourself.

Even if you require all funds to be presented up front, that doesn't prevent you from taking out a loan which you can pay back fully because you buy the coins from yourself.

Even if you limit the supply of coins and force all offers to be tendered at once and randomly choose in a publicly verifiable process, you can still stack the bids to be sure you get the % of coins you want.

If you instead have a market driven price for the ICO and a fixed supply of coins, then you can bid on your own coins driving the price higher and generating more funds while obtaining some of the coins cheaper than others who have paid you to buy your coins cheaper.

The only way around this would be to verify the identify of every purchaser and make this information public (or audited by a trusted entity), which I doubt most purchasers would agree to.

The only solution I see for this dilemma is to identify each purchaser, but do it in a convenient and non-intrusive way. That is why I have been thinking to only sell up to say $500 to each user (no investors! so as to avoid creating an illegal unregistered investment security (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1218269.msg12814596#msg12814596) so you all don't all end up in jail in the future) and allowing these purchases only by credit card (or verified bank account funding via Paypal to avoid chargebacks) with an auditing process that insures each name on the card is unique. I suppose you are clever enough you can pay people to let you use their credit cards (or steal them), but this is a crime and probably easy to track down (especially during any SEC investigation), so it is very risky and one would assume legit developers won't risk crime (heck they are talented, and can earn a lot of money taking programming jobs outside of crypto).

The only other way is some mining distribution, but wastes resources that could be better used to fund development.

Or you can just tell everyone honestly that all they know is how many coins they have and the total supply of coins, but they can't know how many coins you have unless all the buyers get together and tally their purchases.

This a serious dilemma. I have thought about it a lot. Has anyone else devised a better solution?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 10:34:31 PM
This is the scenario I'm talking about. Green filled, black edged are transactions of the honest network. Red edged - are transactions of the attacker. The doublespends are filled with yellow.
As far as I understand your algo, weight of the red tip is greater by 3 than weight of the green tip.

http://i.imgur.com/9SPYPNt.png

Does this assume that the merchant waited for enough confirmations? Because his transaction seems to have very little confirmation.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 28, 2015, 10:36:48 PM
This is the scenario I'm talking about. Green filled, black edged are transactions of the honest network. Red edged - are transactions of the attacker. The doublespends are filled with yellow.
As far as I understand your algo, weight of the red tip is greater by 3 than weight of the green tip.

http://i.imgur.com/9SPYPNt.png

Does this assume that the merchant waited for enough confirmations? Because his transaction seems to have very little confirmation.
Yes, normally the left yellow tx would have been referenced by many green ones already.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on October 28, 2015, 10:37:50 PM
This is the scenario I'm talking about. Green filled, black edged are transactions of the honest network. Red edged - are transactions of the attacker. The doublespends are filled with yellow.
As far as I understand your algo, weight of the red tip is greater by 3 than weight of the green tip.

http://i.imgur.com/9SPYPNt.png

Does this assume that the merchant waited for enough confirmations? Because his transaction seems to have very little confirmation.
My picture contains as low amount of transaction as possible, just to express the idea. You can imagine several more transactions of the honest network on top of the green tip, but many more red transactions above the second doublespend.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Sebastien256 on October 28, 2015, 10:39:15 PM

0% of the coins go to the team. The team will be compensated via funds raised in the ICO, no pre-mine. We'll have to buy our tokens just like everyone else.


ie. we will have no reason to continue working on the coin as we will not be vested in it and have already received another currency we could cash out into FIAT



I have no problem understanding this concern, given the space that we're in (crypto is the wild wild wild west after all), but your assumption here is blatantly wrong. We chose 0% premine because that is what is the absolute most fair to every party involved. We are basing our entire start-up around IoT, which we've been working on in stealth for a year, as explained in OP this is what prompted us to develop IOTA. It is a necessary ingredient for the vision of IoT that our start-up is focused on. On top of this all of us will invest our personal funds into IOTA, so no we have a ton of incentive to make IOTA a success.

how is a 0% premine any more fair than you raising BTC and repaying yourself for the coins you "purchased"?  
either way you are receiving BTC and you are using BTC to buy said coins.  they're free coins for you...


It is more fair because it means it's entirely up for grabs to anyone. There is no coins arbitrarily set aside for the developers...

This is still a form of premine. You can convert all of you ICO funding to coins in any scenario while paying those funds to yourself. Since you can pay yourself numerous times, and recycle the funds to pay yourself again, there is no limit to the number of coins you can buy from yourself.

Even if you require all funds to be presented up front, that doesn't prevent you from taking out a loan which you can pay back fully because you buy the coins from yourself.

Even if you limit the supply of coins and force all offers to be tendered at once and randomly choose in a publicly verifiable process, you can still stack the bids to be sure you get the % of coins you want.

If you instead have a market driven price for the ICO and a fixed supply of coins, then you can bid on your own coins driving the price higher and generating more funds while obtaining some of the coins cheaper than others who have paid you to buy your coins cheaper.

The only way around this would be to verify the identify of every purchaser and make this information public (or audited by a trusted entity), which I doubt most purchasers would agree to.

The only solution I see for this dilemma is to identify each purchaser, but do it in a convenient and non-intrusive way. That is why I have been thinking to only sell up to say $500 to each user (no investors! so as to avoid creating an illegal unregistered investment security (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1218269.msg12814596#msg12814596) so you all don't all end up in jail in the future) and allowing these purchases only by credit card (or verified bank account funding via Paypal to avoid chargebacks) with an auditing process that insures each name on the card is unique. I suppose you are clever enough you can pay people to let you use their credit cards (or steal them), but this is a crime and probably easy to track down (especially during any SEC investigation), so it is very risky and one would assume legit developers won't risk crime (heck they are talented, and can earn a lot of money taking programming jobs outside of crypto).

The only other way is some mining distribution, but wastes resources that could be better used to fund development.

This a serious dilemma. I have thought about it a lot. Has anyone else devised a better solution?

I agree that it would be nicer to do something else than an ico.
CFB, I see you did not come up with a better idea. In the recent past, if im not mistaken, you were looking at a way to distribution to unique user. Why not pay a third party to do this verification process?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 10:40:36 PM
My picture contains as low amount of transaction as possible, just to express the idea. You can imagine several more transactions of the honest network on top of the green tip, but many more red transactions above the second doublespend.

Your picture is very unprobable in this case, odds that other transactions (legit ones) don't reference legit payment after the adaptation period is over are near zero.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 28, 2015, 10:41:22 PM
This is the scenario I'm talking about. Green filled, black edged are transactions of the honest network. Red edged - are transactions of the attacker. The doublespends are filled with yellow.
As far as I understand your algo, weight of the red tip is greater by 3 than weight of the green tip.

http://i.imgur.com/9SPYPNt.png

Does this assume that the merchant waited for enough confirmations? Because his transaction seems to have very little confirmation.
My picture contains as low amount of transaction as possible, just to express the idea. You can imagine several more transactions of the honest network on top of the green tip, but many more red transactions above the second doublespend.
Our point is that normally the left yellow tx would be referenced e.g. already by the second green tx.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 28, 2015, 10:44:02 PM
in the event a honest guy tries to reference a legit tip and the attacker's tip, he'll detect the contradiction and won't do it. Therefore, the attacker's subtangle will be abandoned.

This requires not just an honest guy, but a diligent one as well.
The risk is that honest guys will be lazy and rely on others to go far back in history to check all tx for double spending.


The lazy guys risk that their tx's will be abandoned, because the majority of the nodes won't reference them.

That is precisely how I would have answered. It is quite clear that everyone has a strong incentive to be on a correct branch, else any time down stream someone can broadcast a notice that a branch is incongruent then that branch gets abandoned.

But doesn't this mean that there is a great incentive to not include tips in your branch, because these don't yet have enough veracity to be sure they won't end up being a double-spend. In your system there is often no way to prove which of the double-spends were first, so they both are invalid.

Seems to me no one has an incentive to lengthen instead of broaden the tree. But I haven't absorbed the white paper. Did you address that?
Yes. As mentioned somewhere above on this page (or maybe on the previous one), the (default) referencing algorithm works in such a way that it prefers tips with bigger height. So, if you're too lazy and reference some very old tx's, you take the risk that your tx won't be referenced by others.

But that default doesn't seem to be the correct game theory? This is Prisoner's Dilemma game. Afaics, lower incentive to go first on including a new tip. Just noticed yesterday this research (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049048.msg12792506#msg12792506) on cases where the pessimistic Nash equilibrium is claimed not to hold (but on quick glance I ponder if they have overly simplistic assumptions in their models).

Obviously if everyone defects to making their own branches (maximally broaden the tree), then no one's tips get lengthened and thus the entire system doesn't function. But is the optimum strategy the default that you assume?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 10:45:19 PM
I agree that it would be nicer to do something else than an ico.
CFB, I see you did not come up with a better idea. In the recent past, if im not mistaken, you were looking at a way to distribution to unique user. Why not pay a third party to do this verification process?

No a better idea. It's impossible to prove that we don't buy our own coins, if we kept some coins as premine we still could buy extra coins, so we put ourselves into the most unprofitable position to lessen advantage of our position to the max degree.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on October 28, 2015, 10:46:20 PM
Our point is that normally the left yellow tx would be referenced e.g. already by the second green tx.
The attacker doesn't publish it untill he has enough transactions referencing the second doublespending transaction.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Sebastien256 on October 28, 2015, 10:47:47 PM
I agree that it would be nicer to do something else than an ico.
CFB, I see you did not come up with a better idea. In the recent past, if im not mistaken, you were looking at a way to distribution to unique user. Why not pay a third party to do this verification process?

No a better idea. It's impossible to prove that we don't buy our own coins, if we kept some coins as premine we still could buy extra coins, so we put ourselves into the most unprofitable position to lessen advantage of our position to the max degree.

There are way to validate unique user, it only required a trustable third party.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smooth on October 28, 2015, 10:49:43 PM
This a serious dilemma. I have thought about it a lot. Has anyone else devised a better solution?

We know that mining can't be used here because CfB has stated that it undermines the security model.

If the idea is bootstrapping the distribution and not raising money, then spin off from an existing coin, preferably a widely used one. Multiple coins are even okay but make sure the weighting bears some sane relationship with fair market value (does not have to be exact).

If the idea is raising money while unambiguously complying with all the (perhaps mutually contradictory) laws in the world while at the same time using a structure that achieves a widespread distribution in practice, and is verifiably resistant to cheating, well good luck. I don't know how to do that either.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 10:51:46 PM
We know that mining can't be used here because CfB has stated that it undermines the security model.

If the idea is bootstrapping the distribution and not raising money, then spin off from an existing coin, preferably a widely used one. Multiple coins are even okay but make sure the weighting bears some sane relationship with fair market value (does not have to be exact).

If the idea is raising money while unambiguously complying with all the (perhaps mutually contradictory) laws in the world while at the same time using a structure that is achieves a widespread distribution in practice, and is verifiably resistant to cheating, well good luck. I don't know how to do that either.

The idea is to raise money for hardware supporting Iota.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 10:53:22 PM
The attacker doesn't publish it untill he has enough transactions referencing the second doublespending transaction.

The second doublespending won't be referenced because the longest tip already contains the legit transaction.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on October 28, 2015, 10:56:56 PM
The second doublespending won't be referenced because the longest tip already contains the legit transaction.
That's why the transaction which references both the legit subtangle and the second doublespend is red on my picture.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 28, 2015, 10:57:35 PM
I agree that it would be nicer to do something else than an ico.
CFB, I see you did not come up with a better idea. In the recent past, if im not mistaken, you were looking at a way to distribution to unique user. Why not pay a third party to do this verification process?

No a better idea. It's impossible to prove that we don't buy our own coins, if we kept some coins as premine we still could buy extra coins, so we put ourselves into the most unprofitable position to lessen advantage of our position to the max degree.

Sorry I don't follow this logic. Can you unpack that and make it more clear? I don't see any way around what I wrote.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 28, 2015, 10:58:19 PM
Our point is that normally the left yellow tx would be referenced e.g. already by the second green tx.
The attacker doesn't publish it untill he has enough transactions referencing the second doublespending transaction.
Then why the merchant would accept it?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 28, 2015, 11:00:11 PM
in the event a honest guy tries to reference a legit tip and the attacker's tip, he'll detect the contradiction and won't do it. Therefore, the attacker's subtangle will be abandoned.

This requires not just an honest guy, but a diligent one as well.
The risk is that honest guys will be lazy and rely on others to go far back in history to check all tx for double spending.


The lazy guys risk that their tx's will be abandoned, because the majority of the nodes won't reference them.

That is precisely how I would have answered. It is quite clear that everyone has a strong incentive to be on a correct branch, else any time down stream someone can broadcast a notice that a branch is incongruent then that branch gets abandoned.

But doesn't this mean that there is a great incentive to not include tips in your branch, because these don't yet have enough veracity to be sure they won't end up being a double-spend. In your system there is often no way to prove which of the double-spends were first, so they both are invalid.

Seems to me no one has an incentive to lengthen instead of broaden the tree. But I haven't absorbed the white paper. Did you address that?
Yes. As mentioned somewhere above on this page (or maybe on the previous one), the (default) referencing algorithm works in such a way that it prefers tips with bigger height. So, if you're too lazy and reference some very old tx's, you take the risk that your tx won't be referenced by others.

But that default doesn't seem to be the correct game theory? This is Prisoner's Dilemma game. Afaics, lower incentive to go first on including a new tip. Just noticed yesterday this research (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049048.msg12792506#msg12792506) on cases where the pessimistic Nash equilibrium is claimed not to hold (but on quick glance I ponder if they have overly simplistic assumptions in their models).

Obviously if everyone defects to making their own branches (maximally broaden the tree), then no one's tips get lengthened and thus the entire system doesn't function. But is the optimum strategy the default that you assume?
We assume that the node knows that most nodes will behave well, and so it's obliged to behave well too.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on October 28, 2015, 11:02:27 PM
Then why the merchant would accept it?
It is released and confirmed. If necessary the attacker himself provides the first confirmation, which connects it to a recent tip. The transaction looks legit.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 28, 2015, 11:03:52 PM
Then why the merchant would accept it?
It is released and confirmed. If necessary the attacker himself provides the first confirmation, which connects it to a recent tip. The transaction looks legit.
But the cumulative weight of that tx is not so big, so why the merchant should accept it?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 28, 2015, 11:04:34 PM
In short: yes we could take up loans by people to buy up IOTA token. There are plenty of these opportunities if one wants to and this would not change if we had premine either, it would just give us even more IOTA.

As for verification process: there is no way to beat sybil, there would be numerous ways to fool this third party too. We could just pay some random people to buy coins via their IDs and then send them to us.

We wont cheat the system, it would be a detriment to IOTA and thus a larger detriment to ourselves than the profit we could get out of manipulating the ICO. This boils down to how inclined you are to believe in conspiracy theories. Fortunately participating in ICO is 100% voluntary.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 28, 2015, 11:05:47 PM
The attacker doesn't publish it untill he has enough transactions referencing the second doublespending transaction.

The second doublespending won't be referenced because the longest tip already contains the legit transaction.
Anyhow, we are discussing now with CfB ways to define better referral algorithms, which would permit to fence off such attacks in a more efficient way.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on October 28, 2015, 11:06:25 PM
But the cumulative weight of that tx is not so big, so why the merchant should accept it?
NP, the merchant waits of course for normal amount of confirmations.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 11:07:05 PM
I don't see any way around what I wrote.

Sorry, you wrote so much that I'm not sure what exactly you are talking about.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 28, 2015, 11:07:21 PM
But the cumulative weight of that tx is not so big, so why the merchant should accept it?
NP, the merchant waits of course for normal amount of confirmations.
On your picture it has 1 confirmation only?..


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 28, 2015, 11:10:33 PM
We know that mining can't be used here because CfB has stated that it undermines the security model.

Can someone link me to that and/or the relevant page of the white paper? Seems to be mining could be used to generate check points. That was one of tweaks I had in mind.

If the idea is bootstrapping the distribution and not raising money, then spin off from an existing coin, preferably a widely used one. Multiple coins are even okay but make sure the weighting bears some sane relationship with fair market value (does not have to be exact).

But then I am responsible for how those shares were promoted as investment securities and I don't want to run afoul of the law against selling or offering for sale to the general public unregistered investment securities.

If the idea is raising money while unambiguously complying with all the (perhaps mutually contradictory) laws in the world while at the same time using a structure that achieves a widespread distribution in practice, and is verifiably resistant to cheating, well good luck. I don't know how to do that either.

The only way I can see to do this is either make no promises as to the number of coins you as the seller will end up holding, or do unique buyer verification.

As for complying with laws, my current thinking is to sell the software with some tokens for use at set prices to end users (not investors) with a cap on the size of the sale and user verification (by name and payment account is sufficient), so that it is not a significant amount to be worthwhile for investment and profusely disclaim any expection of future gains. Selling software internationally has not been illegal. Selling shares to investors is very illegal if they are not registered with the SEC in the USA.

Any investors who want large size would have to buy in on the open market later. Typically prices sag after an ICO, but maybe with this strategy where no one can buy in large quantity at the ICO, would have a more positive effect, but again no one knows and expectations of gain can be profusely disclaimed.

Why not give the little guy (the actual users) a chance to get in and maximally spread the distribution? That creates a wider base of support. Mining is dominated by professionals and a small cross-section of the actual users of crypto.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Sebastien256 on October 28, 2015, 11:14:02 PM
In short: yes we could take up loans by people to buy up IOTA token. There are plenty of these opportunities if one wants to and this would not change if we had premine either, it would just give us even more IOTA.

As for verification process: there is no way to beat sybil, there would be numerous ways to fool this third party too. We could just pay some random people to buy coins via their IDs and then send them to us.

We wont cheat the system, it would be a detriment to IOTA and thus a larger detriment to ourselves than the profit we could get out of manipulating the ICO. This boils down to how inclined you are to believe in conspiracy theories. Fortunately participating in ICO is 100% voluntary.

I understand you can fool to some extent the verification process, but requiring a limit buy-in per user complicated the fooling process a lot.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on October 28, 2015, 11:14:19 PM
But the cumulative weight of that tx is not so big, so why the merchant should accept it?
NP, the merchant waits of course for normal amount of confirmations.
On your picture it has 1 confirmation only?..
I can draw more pictures. But I don't think it's necessary. Imagine that the attacker started preparing for the attack a month ago. He spent the whole month to accumulate PoW on top of the second doublespend. He published no transactions during the month. Then he publishes the first doublespending transaction, provides the first confirmation, thus attaching it to recent part of the tangle, waits for the merchant to send him his puchase. Then publishes his secret subtangle and attaches in to the legit subtangle. The first doublespending transaction now is rejected by the network, the second doublespend has more weight.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 28, 2015, 11:14:23 PM
We know that mining can't be used here because CfB has stated that it undermines the security model.

Can someone link me to that and/or the relevant page of the white paper? Seems to be mining could be used to generate check points. That was one of tweaks I had in mind.


PoS can be used for that as well.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smooth on October 28, 2015, 11:15:25 PM
As for complying with laws, my current thinking is to sell the software with some tokens for use at set prices to end users (not investors)

It is not at all clear there are "end users" for something like this for years to come. It will take a significant period of time to build a market with supporting devices, services, and a large enough population of users, all interacting with each other using the token as a tool to accomplish something else. So I doubt that anyone buying it now could be viewed as anything but a speculator (including long term investor).

That might be different for some other kind of token such as one backing assets in a game or even maybe decentralized storage. Something with actual ready-to-go uses. But that seems a bit off topic on this thread.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 11:16:11 PM
Can someone link me to that and/or the relevant page of the white paper? Seems to be mining could be used to generate check points. That was one of tweaks I had in mind.

There is no about that in the whitepaper. There is no a formal proof that coin generation is impossible, intensive search for a coin generation technique was done to have 2% annual inflation (because it's a near-optimal number) and none of the ideas let to keep the security of the system at an acceptable level. This is a well-known problem of proof asymmetry, it's hard to prove that unicorns don't exist while it's trivial to prove the opposite if you have such a unicorn. If you have an idea how to add 2% inflation, share it, please.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 28, 2015, 11:16:47 PM
As for verification process: there is no way to beat sybil, there would be numerous ways to fool this third party too. We could just pay some random people to buy coins via their IDs and then send them to us.

If the maximum amount that can be purchased by name & fiat account is small, then you'd need to have many, many people involved in your Sybil attack, which would put you at much greater risk of being caught. Thus I think it radically lowers the risk of cheating.

Versus a promise (not to buy your own coins) which unverifiable.

But I am not telling you what to do. I am just stating the options that are available. You are choosing one of the options I stated, which is to admit you could buy as many of your own coins as you want to, but promising not to do so. It is not my role to judge that option. Your investors must judge that. At least you've been honest about which option you are planning to choose.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smooth on October 28, 2015, 11:17:20 PM
In short: yes we could take up loans by people to buy up IOTA token. There are plenty of these opportunities if one wants to and this would not change if we had premine either, it would just give us even more IOTA.

As for verification process: there is no way to beat sybil, there would be numerous ways to fool this third party too. We could just pay some random people to buy coins via their IDs and then send them to us.

We wont cheat the system, it would be a detriment to IOTA and thus a larger detriment to ourselves than the profit we could get out of manipulating the ICO. This boils down to how inclined you are to believe in conspiracy theories. Fortunately participating in ICO is 100% voluntary.

I understand you can fool to some extent the verification process, but requiring a limit buy-in per user complicated the fooling process a lot.

The track record in trying to do that is pretty bad. Limit per buy-in just raises the stakes to create/recruit/impersonate more straw buyers. See Stellar and probably some others.



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 28, 2015, 11:18:44 PM
The track record in trying to do that is pretty bad. Limit per buy-in just raises the stakes to create/recruit/impersonate more straw buyers. See Stellar and probably some others.

That is more difficult if you can't pay with crypto and have to pay with a fiat account. And if the maximum amount per buyer is say $500. Not saying they should do that. We all hate the fiat world right? (I paid my rent today with BTC)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 28, 2015, 11:19:06 PM
But the cumulative weight of that tx is not so big, so why the merchant should accept it?
NP, the merchant waits of course for normal amount of confirmations.
On your picture it has 1 confirmation only?..
I can draw more pictures. But I don't think it's necessary. Imagine that the attacker started preparing for the attack a month ago. He spent the whole month to accumulate PoW on top of the second doublespend. He published no transactions during the month. Then he publishes the first doublespending transaction, provides the first confirmation, thus attaching it to recent part of the tangle, waits for the merchant to send him his puchase. Then publishes his secret subtangle and attaches in to the legit subtangle. The first doublespending transaction now is rejected by the network, the second doublespend has more weight.
He would have to attach it "below" the merchant's tx, but yes, you're right, it's a possible attack vector. Anyhow, the referencing algorithm is not yet finished, so we are discussing it with CfB right now.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 28, 2015, 11:22:41 PM
As for complying with laws, my current thinking is to sell the software with some tokens for use at set prices to end users (not investors)

It is not at all clear there are "end users" for something like this for years to come. It will take a significant period of time to build a market with supporting devices, services, and a large enough population of users, all interacting with each other using the token as a tool to accomplish something else. So I doubt that anyone buying it now could be viewed as anything but a speculator (including long term investor).

That might be different for some other kind of token such as one backing assets in a game or even maybe decentralized storage. Something with actual ready-to-go uses. But that seems a bit off topic on this thread.

Developers are an example of early adopter users who need access to a real world system in order to build out the ecosystem. Yes the number of users and people who want to play/experiment with such a system is small at the start. That is why if you sell to end users and not speculative investors, don't expect to raise $10 million at the ICO. You might raise $50,000 perhaps ($500 x 100).


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smooth on October 28, 2015, 11:23:36 PM
The track record in trying to do that is pretty bad. Limit per buy-in just raises the stakes to create/recruit/impersonate more straw buyers. See Stellar and probably some others.

That is more difficult if you can't pay with crypto and have to pay with a fiat account. And if the maximum amount per buyer is say $500. Not saying they should do that. We all hate the fiat world right? (I paid my rent today with BTC)

For paying that may be true (the earlier attempts at "per person" distribution were mostly free). But then that raises other legal, institutional, and logistical costs and obstacles, as you have previously reported with respect to your social media experiments.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: myagui on October 28, 2015, 11:24:39 PM
Re: Premine vs PoW vs ICO vs User ID vs 'a life of crime':

Why not simply make a fixed number of tokens available, at a fixed price per token?
(If not sold out, any unsold tokens would then be provably burned)

This way, developers can still buy their own tokens, but in doing so, they are competing with the other users/buyers. Any tokens bought up by the developers, are tokens that become unavailable for someone else to buy. This is much better than the usual premine, in the sense that the developers are trading a portion of potential outside funding, in exchange for whatever tokens they buy for themselves (aka, putting their money where their mouths are, because they then become a truly interested party, after funding).

Tying up to an existing coin (or coins) seems interesting as well. That would likely attract the widest user foundation, though possibly at the expense of most (all?) of the funding potential...


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smooth on October 28, 2015, 11:25:01 PM
don't expect to raise $10 million at the ICO. You might raise $50,000 perhaps ($500 x 100).

I would guess that $50 000 would not be sufficient to develop hardware to support IOTA, but I could be wrong.



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Sebastien256 on October 28, 2015, 11:25:21 PM
As for complying with laws, my current thinking is to sell the software with some tokens for use at set prices to end users (not investors)

It is not at all clear there are "end users" for something like this for years to come. It will take a significant period of time to build a market with supporting devices, services, and a large enough population of users, all interacting with each other using the token as a tool to accomplish something else. So I doubt that anyone buying it now could be viewed as anything but a speculator (including long term investor).

That might be different for some other kind of token such as one backing assets in a game or even maybe decentralized storage. Something with actual ready-to-go uses. But that seems a bit off topic on this thread.

Developers are an example of early adopter users who need access to a real world system in order to build out the ecosystem. Yes the number of users and people who want to play with such a system is small at the start. That is why if you sell to end users and not speculative investors, don't expect to raise $10 million at the ICO. You might raise $50,000 perhaps ($500 x 100).

If only raise 50k, it would be reasonable to allow certain amount premine for the devs, but everything would be clear from the start.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 11:26:07 PM
He would have to attach it "below" the merchant's tx, but yes, you're right, it's a possible attack vector. Anyhow, the referencing algorithm is not yet finished, so we are discussing it with CfB right now.

Possible? I don't see how it's possible to draw a picture to have longest-path-as-the-score rule to be broken by an adversary.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 28, 2015, 11:27:07 PM
But the cumulative weight of that tx is not so big, so why the merchant should accept it?
NP, the merchant waits of course for normal amount of confirmations.
On your picture it has 1 confirmation only?..
I can draw more pictures. But I don't think it's necessary. Imagine that the attacker started preparing for the attack a month ago. He spent the whole month to accumulate PoW on top of the second doublespend. He published no transactions during the month. Then he publishes the first doublespending transaction, provides the first confirmation, thus attaching it to recent part of the tangle, waits for the merchant to send him his puchase. Then publishes his secret subtangle and attaches in to the legit subtangle. The first doublespending transaction now is rejected by the network, the second doublespend has more weight.
He would have to attach it "below" the merchant's tx, but yes, you're right, it's a possible attack vector. Anyhow, the referencing algorithm is not yet finished, so we are discussing it with CfB right now.
... there is also a complication that the current height calculation algorithm is not very computationally efficient. We'll have to modify it in any case, and there are already several good candidates.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 28, 2015, 11:27:54 PM
The track record in trying to do that is pretty bad. Limit per buy-in just raises the stakes to create/recruit/impersonate more straw buyers. See Stellar and probably some others.

That is more difficult if you can't pay with crypto and have to pay with a fiat account. And if the maximum amount per buyer is say $500. Not saying they should do that. We all hate the fiat world right? (I paid my rent today with BTC)

For paying that may be true (the earlier attempts at "per person" distribution were mostly free). But then that raises other legal, institutional, and logistical costs and obstacles, as you have previously reported with respect to your social media experiments.

Agreed it could. Paypal often withholds funds, especially if there is a sudden surge of payment volume.  Selling via BTC is much easier.

But it is possible to verify an account with Paypal (or Amazon payments) without taking payment via Paypal (or only take a small payment), then take the rest from that person via BTC. So then you don't care what Paypal does.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 28, 2015, 11:29:40 PM
He would have to attach it "below" the merchant's tx, but yes, you're right, it's a possible attack vector. Anyhow, the referencing algorithm is not yet finished, so we are discussing it with CfB right now.

Possible? I don't see how it's possible to draw a picture to have longest-path-as-the-score rule to be broken by an adversary.
Remember that the "longest path algo" is not what's written in the whitepaper   :)    Anyhow, let's finish our private discussion in slack and only then make the results public.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on October 28, 2015, 11:30:46 PM
Possible? I don't see how it's possible to draw a picture to have longest-path-as-the-score rule to be broken by an adversary.
"Longest-path-as-the-score" differs from what is proposed in the whitepaper. We were talking about another algo.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 28, 2015, 11:34:47 PM
Re: Premine vs PoW vs ICO vs User ID vs 'a life of crime':

Why not simply make a fixed number of tokens available, at a fixed price per token?
(If not sold out, any unsold tokens would then be provably burned)

This way, developers can still buy their own tokens, but in doing so, they are competing with the other users/buyers. Any tokens bought up by the developers, are tokens that become unavailable for someone else to buy. This is much better than the usual premine, in the sense that the developers are trading a portion of potential outside funding, in exchange for whatever tokens they buy for themselves (aka, putting their money where their mouths are, because they then become a truly interested party, after funding).

Tying up to an existing coin (or coins) seems interesting as well. That would likely attract the widest user foundation, though possibly at the expense of most (all?) of the funding potential...

Sorry there is no difference from a premine. They can buy up most of the coins thus limiting the supply and thus they can set an artificially higher price per share for the ICO (some fewer investors are willing to pay a higher price than other investors, i.e. not all investors are equally astute). Review the math of my post again. Remember all ICO from other investors money ends up in their pocket, no matter how many coins they buy.

Now you know why Ethereum's sale was so large yet they ran out of money so fast. They were buying their own coins recycling the same money over and over. And suckering investors into thinking they needed to rush before the priced moved higher on the next pre-timed price increment.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 28, 2015, 11:36:59 PM
Possible? I don't see how it's possible to draw a picture to have longest-path-as-the-score rule to be broken by an adversary.
"Longest-path-as-the-score" differs from what is proposed in the whitepaper. We were talking about another algo.
Еxactly  :)    Just wait a bit until we finish our internal discussion...


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 11:37:22 PM
Remember that the "longest path algo" is not what's written in the whitepaper   :)    Anyhow, let's finish our private discussion in slack and only then make the results public.

It's still worth discussing my algo publicly even if we don't adopt it.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tromp on October 28, 2015, 11:37:30 PM
If you have an idea how to add 2% inflation, share it, please.

Simple. Just allow special coinbase txs that additionally need to reference the previous coinbase tx and need so much PoW that they can only happen on average every 10 mins:)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 11:40:16 PM
Now you know why ... They were ... And ...

Insults are not welcome in this thread, without an evidence I treat your words as insulting.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 11:41:02 PM
Simple. Just allow special coinbase txs that additionally need to reference the previous coinbase tx and need so much PoW that they can only happen on average every 10 mins:)

This magically moves Nash equilibrium towards superwide DAG.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 28, 2015, 11:45:21 PM
Can someone link me to that and/or the relevant page of the white paper? Seems to be mining could be used to generate check points. That was one of tweaks I had in mind.

There is no about that in the whitepaper. There is no a formal proof that coin generation is impossible, intensive search for a coin generation technique was done to have 2% annual inflation (because it's a near-optimal number) and none of the ideas let to keep the security of the system at an acceptable level. This is a well-known problem of proof asymmetry, it's hard to prove that unicorns don't exist while it's trivial to prove the opposite if you have such a unicorn. If you have an idea how to add 2% inflation, share it, please.

You can have an orthogonal block chain which records a consensus on the state of the tree (hash). Voila checkpoints and debasement. Since the trees are the objective reality, then the block chain can't lie with a 51% attack. The block chain could be PoW or PoS.

I shouldn't be giving away ideas for free, but any way you all have shared a lot for free and you'd eventually figure this out.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 28, 2015, 11:47:15 PM
You can have an orthogonal block chain which records a consensus on the state of the tree (hash). Voila checkpoints and debasement. Since the trees are the objective reality, then the block chain can't lie with a 51% attack. The block chain could be PoW or PoS.

Then why not use blockchain? It won't scale anyway because orthogonal blockchain will be a bottleneck here.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 28, 2015, 11:49:16 PM
Now you know why ... They were ... And ...

Insults are not welcome in this thread, without an evidence I treat your words as insulting.

Where there is smoke there is fire. No insults intended, just being realistic. Feel free to delete my posts if you want.

Edit: I admire your strict (and level-headed) adherence to sensing versus intuition. I am EN?P (nearly balanced between F and T). I am like 81% N. So I rely a lot on intuition and don't wait to have every fact sensed with full verification. I admire those who are ISTP (but not so much ISTJ). I have to learn to appreciate the virtues of that and yet maintain respect/balance where my intuitions helps me.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 28, 2015, 11:51:43 PM
You can have an orthogonal block chain which records a consensus on the state of the tree (hash). Voila checkpoints and debasement. Since the trees are the objective reality, then the block chain can't lie with a 51% attack. The block chain could be PoW or PoS.

Then why not use blockchain? It won't scale anyway because orthogonal blockchain will be a bottleneck here.

Bottleneck to what? It is only recording checkpoints. It is not slowing down the forward advance of the DAG. It is orthogonal, except for the coinbases which can be spent into the DAG (after sufficient # of blocks to be probabilistically sure of coinbases not being reverted by an orphaned chain).

The downside is a 51% attack could revert the coinbases, but again the DAG is the objective truth, so I assume the minority block chain can ignore the 51% attack. Would need to think this out a bit. DAGs are voting on which chain of the block chain is valid. Any way if the attacker has 51% PoW, he can attack the DAG also.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on October 29, 2015, 12:03:27 AM
I understand you can fool to some extent the verification process, but requiring a limit buy-in per user complicated the fooling process a lot.

No need for the buy limit. Sales like Ether and Augur worked very well without any limit to buy. It is important to raise as much as you can in the fundraising becasue the success and sustainable development of this project will largely depends on the funds. It will be lose-lose if the project can not succeed becasue of lack of funds. So the more the better. It does not matter who and how much one person will own the coins. The exchanges will take care that eventually. It is about how much a person will believe in this project.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Sebastien256 on October 29, 2015, 12:12:06 AM
I understand you can fool to some extent the verification process, but requiring a limit buy-in per user complicated the fooling process a lot.

No need for the buy limit. Sales like Ether and Augur worked very well without any limit to buy. It is important to raise as much as you can in the fundraising becasue the success and sustainable development of this project will largely depends on the funds. It will be lose-lose if the project can not succeed becasue of lack of funds. So the more the better. It does not matter who and how much one person will own the coins. The exchanges will take care that eventually. It is about how much a person will believe in this project.

Aye, I do not share your opinion, sorry. The question is to garanty (almost) the avoidvance of the dilution of the initial investors fund. Otherwise, it only stand on promise. Imo, thing need to be clear from the start of the project.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: myagui on October 29, 2015, 01:40:52 AM
Re: Premine vs PoW vs ICO vs User ID vs 'a life of crime':

Why not simply make a fixed number of tokens available, at a fixed price per token?
(If not sold out, any unsold tokens would then be provably burned)

This way, developers can still buy their own tokens, but in doing so, they are competing with the other users/buyers. Any tokens bought up by the developers, are tokens that become unavailable for someone else to buy. This is much better than the usual premine, in the sense that the developers are trading a portion of potential outside funding, in exchange for whatever tokens they buy for themselves (aka, putting their money where their mouths are, because they then become a truly interested party, after funding).

Tying up to an existing coin (or coins) seems interesting as well. That would likely attract the widest user foundation, though possibly at the expense of most (all?) of the funding potential...

Sorry there is no difference from a premine. They can buy up most of the coins thus limiting the supply and thus they can set an artificially higher price per share for the ICO (some fewer investors are willing to pay a higher price than other investors, i.e. not all investors are equally astute). Review the math of my post again. Remember all ICO from other investors money ends up in their pocket, no matter how many coins they buy.
[...]

I disagree.
A higher price per share (artificial or not), naturally balances the forces of (developer) greed vs (investor) demand. The higher the price, the more investor interest is dissipated on account of the lesser upside potential, and in the extreme case, one ends up left with a minority of investors/users, as well as has severely handicapped the adoption potential. Then again, as you said, maybe not all investors are equally astute...
With a low enough price per share, the ICO naturally sells out. In such instance, would the developer trade a bit of external funding for some pie of their own token? Maybe. Would they do this for a significant portion of the total tokens for sale? Doubtful.

Personally, I see unproven technology for emerging markets as being an extremely high risk investment, and I will value it accordingly. Talents and accomplishments might become extremely valuable (if functional success is delivered), but comparatively speaking, the product itself, is of little value, especially when it can be replicated/cloned/forked to exhaustion.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: hashtag101 on October 29, 2015, 02:03:55 AM
IT and Cfb.

Do you really see anyone here trying to be malicious?

Don't get frustrated to the point that you miss the important examples of what people in general could have as concerns.

This is good feedback you're getting.

"Insults" and "don't buy then" arent constructive. Right?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: hashtag101 on October 29, 2015, 02:10:05 AM
Im impressed by the way.

Kinda hard to keep up at times as this is deep!

But I'm learning A LOT from everyone.

So many of you are as sharp as a razor. Damn 8)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: hashtag101 on October 29, 2015, 02:31:30 AM


Personally, I see unproven technology for emerging markets as being an extremely high risk investment, and I will value it accordingly. Talents and accomplishments might become extremely valuable (if functional success is delivered), but comparatively speaking, the product itself, is of little value, especially when it can be replicated/cloned/forked to exhaustion.

I don't agree. This is a valid concept. Micro transactions will become increasingly relevant in the coming years.

And I don't see copycats as a major threat, or necessarily diminishing a projects value in such a meaningful way as you do.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 29, 2015, 03:01:38 AM
Re: Premine vs PoW vs ICO vs User ID vs 'a life of crime':

Why not simply make a fixed number of tokens available, at a fixed price per token?
(If not sold out, any unsold tokens would then be provably burned)

This way, developers can still buy their own tokens, but in doing so, they are competing with the other users/buyers. Any tokens bought up by the developers, are tokens that become unavailable for someone else to buy. This is much better than the usual premine, in the sense that the developers are trading a portion of potential outside funding, in exchange for whatever tokens they buy for themselves (aka, putting their money where their mouths are, because they then become a truly interested party, after funding).

Tying up to an existing coin (or coins) seems interesting as well. That would likely attract the widest user foundation, though possibly at the expense of most (all?) of the funding potential...

Sorry there is no difference from a premine. They can buy up most of the coins thus limiting the supply and thus they can set an artificially higher price per share for the ICO (some fewer investors are willing to pay a higher price than other investors, i.e. not all investors are equally astute). Review the math of my post again. Remember all ICO from other investors money ends up in their pocket, no matter how many coins they buy.
[...]

I disagree.
A higher price per share (artificial or not), naturally balances the forces of (developer) greed vs (investor) demand. The higher the price, the more investor interest is dissipated on account of the lesser upside potential, and in the extreme case, one ends up left with a minority of investors/users, as well as has severely handicapped the adoption potential.

Let's see. They can sell out all 250 million shares at say a fair value of $250,000 initial market cap, $250,000 cash, and 0% for themselves. Or they can set prices at $0.1 per share, sell only 0.1% of the shares so they get the $25,000 cash, $2.5 million market cap and 99.9% for themselves. Then as the price drops to a tenth to $0.01 those investors who didn't buy in the ICO come rushing in to buy the dip, and they still get their $250,000 cash and retain 90% for themselves.

Hopefully you understand now why the market cap of Dash is entirely meaningless.

*Note I am not asserting what I think the initial valuation of Iota should be. I have no idea. $1 million? Will depend on many things that are learned between now and launch, etc.. And I have no interest in expressing any opinion on the valuation.

Then again, as you said, maybe not all investors are equally astute...

That would include those who can't do arithmetic.  :P


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Jimmy2011 on October 29, 2015, 03:07:47 AM

I get an idea from Jinn's Dutch Auction for distribution: a maximum target is set for ICO, say 5,000 Bitcoins, and then the small depositions will be included if the total depositions are greater than the target. For example, the biggest one is 200 BTC, and now the total is 5050 BTC, so the biggest one 200 BTC is excluded, so right now the total funding is 4850 BTC and there is also 150 BTC can be put into the pool. Of course, it can be gamed with many small depositions, but a single Satoshi can also take party in and get some token.




Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: DrPaid on October 29, 2015, 03:11:12 AM
Very interesting, Will keep an eye on this one, very ambitious. Crowd sale options will be interesting to see too :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tromp on October 29, 2015, 03:36:59 AM
Simple. Just allow special coinbase txs that additionally need to reference the previous coinbase tx and need so much PoW that they can only happen on average every 10 mins:)
This magically moves Nash equilibrium towards superwide DAG.

This needs elaborating. Why would the coinbase txs be treated any different from other tx?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: MickGhee on October 29, 2015, 04:47:27 AM
man this thing is gonna be bigger than techno music


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 29, 2015, 06:03:48 AM
Bottleneck to what? It is only recording checkpoints. It is not slowing down the forward advance of the DAG. It is orthogonal, except for the coinbases which can be spent into the DAG (after sufficient # of blocks to be probabilistically sure of coinbases not being reverted by an orphaned chain).

What is this blockchain supposed to checkpoint? DAG topology? Then this blockchain must possess fragmentation flexibility of DAG which is impossible in high-load, unless DAG waits for the blockchain to catchup. You can wait for 1 month before getting ability to spend coinbase coin, but once a corresponding checkpoint is recorded into the blockchain a greedy miner will generate another (better) tip containing a double-spending transaction invalidating tip which has been recorded.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 29, 2015, 06:09:17 AM
This needs elaborating. Why would the coinbase txs be treated any different from other tx?

If by invalidating a tangle fragment a miner can increase his profit then he will do that. It's easy to invalidate a branch if you split your tokens and include small transactions into all branches, you can use any to doublespend. A countermeasure will be to not include someone's else transactions leading to a lot of tips with each tip mined only by a single miner.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 29, 2015, 07:15:01 AM
Now you know why ... They were ... And ...

Insults are not welcome in this thread, without an evidence I treat your words as insulting.

Where there is smoke there is fire. No insults intended, just being realistic. Feel free to delete my posts if you want.

Edit: I admire your strict (and level-headed) adherence to sensing versus intuition. I am EN?P (nearly balanced between F and T). I am like 81% N. So I rely a lot on intuition and don't wait to have every fact sensed with full verification. I admire those who are ISTP (but not so much ISTJ). I have to learn to appreciate the virtues of that and yet maintain respect/balance where my intuitions helps me.

Let me help you with that, Myers-Briggs is absolute bullshit equivalent to astrology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator#Criticism


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 29, 2015, 07:37:37 AM

I get an idea from Jinn's Dutch Auction for distribution: a maximum target is set for ICO, say 5,000 Bitcoins, and then the small depositions will be included if the total depositions are greater than the target. For example, the biggest one is 200 BTC, and now the total is 5050 BTC, so the biggest one 200 BTC is excluded, so right now the total funding is 4850 BTC and there is also 150 BTC can be put into the pool. Of course, it can be gamed with many small depositions, but a single Satoshi can also take party in and get some token.




This is certainly not a bad idea, but it presumes that we can reasonably predict what kind of numbers we'll get, which we really can't. It's borderline impossible to estimate how much will be raised, and if we set a hardcap we essentially decide for the market what the value of these token are, which is not good either. Plus like you mention it could easily be gamed by writing a little script that would send a ton of small deposits.

I have no problem with people being skeptical of ICOs and we're not selling securities so it's not in our place to give anyone advice on whether or not they want to buy IOTA tokens. It's essentially a software sale, the iotas being the software, either you want some or you don't. If you don't, that is 100% fine by us. If you do want some, you are free to purchase them. It's really that simple and so we are immune to this kind of criticism because we are completely open and honest here. We are not selling anyone a dream or promising an investment that we guarantee will grow 10x. All of this will be settled by the market which we have no control over.

What we do promise is that we will launch IOTA which has been in development for quite some time already and all the technical aspects are available for people to review and we are here to answer those questions. Anyone that does not find this fair should just exit the discussion.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: 50cent_rapper on October 29, 2015, 08:03:17 AM
Some investors here trying to set a max cap for ICO (5000 BTC) or the maximum amount which other investors can send (500 USD). They think that this will affect their RoI.
They are wrong. Crypti set the maximum cap for itself as 750 BTC and is in deep shit now. Ethereum has gathered 30 000 BTC and it's investors made around x6 RoI.
So the key to good RoI is not low max cap for ICO.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 29, 2015, 09:58:29 AM
Some investors here trying to set a max cap for ICO (5000 BTC) or the maximum amount which other investors can send (500 USD). They think that this will affect their RoI.
They are wrong. Crypti set the maximum cap for itself as 750 BTC and is in deep shit now. Ethereum has gathered 30 000 BTC and it's investors made around x6 RoI.
So the key to good RoI is not low max cap for ICO.

Good point. It's best to let these things evolve organically rather than artificially and quite arbitrarily setting a cap.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: myagui on October 29, 2015, 11:29:31 AM
Let's see. They can sell out all 250 million shares at say a fair value of $250,000 initial market cap, $250,000 cash, and 0% for themselves. Or they can set prices at $0.1 per share, sell only 0.1% of the shares so they get the $25,000 cash, $2.5 million market cap and 99.9% for themselves. Then as the price drops to a tenth to $0.01 those investors who didn't buy in the ICO come rushing in to buy the dip, and they still get their $250,000 cash and retain 90% for themselves.

Hopefully you understand now why the market cap of Dash is entirely meaningless.

*Note I am not asserting what I think the initial valuation of Iota should be. I have no idea. $1 million? Will depend on many things that are learned between now and launch, etc.. And I have no interest in expressing any opinion on the valuation.

Then again, as you said, maybe not all investors are equally astute...

That would include those who can't do arithmetic.  :P

Granted, my statements fall into the very subjective matter of what one considers to be a high or low price per share, and in effect, the initial valuation of Iota. Arguing the arithmetic posted is utterly pointless, as we have fundamentally distinct views on the potential realizations of demand and price. Funny enough, going by your own example, I draw quite different investment indicators and conclusions. I will not debate this further as I wish for my particular valuation to remain my own.

Personally, I see unproven technology for emerging markets as being an extremely high risk investment, and I will value it accordingly. Talents and accomplishments might become extremely valuable (if functional success is delivered), but comparatively speaking, the product itself, is of little value, especially when it can be replicated/cloned/forked to exhaustion.

I don't agree. This is a valid concept. Micro transactions will become increasingly relevant in the coming years.
And I don't see copycats as a major threat, or necessarily diminishing a projects value in such a meaningful way as you do.

Reread my post. I did not say this was an invalid concept, nor anything even remotely close.
In fact, I generally agree with your statement over the relevance of micro transactions in the coming years. However, I place no certainties on one technology or product succeeding over another, and I take no future achievements for granted (wide scale adoption being a key one), in this, or any other complex system still in development. So, you know, ... high risk.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on October 29, 2015, 11:53:29 AM
Some investors here trying to set a max cap for ICO (5000 BTC) or the maximum amount which other investors can send (500 USD). They think that this will affect their RoI.
They are wrong. Crypti set the maximum cap for itself as 750 BTC and is in deep shit now. Ethereum has gathered 30 000 BTC and it's investors made around x6 RoI.
So the key to good RoI is not low max cap for ICO.

So far, I think Ethereum and Augur had the best crowd-sale models.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: EmilioMann on October 29, 2015, 01:25:00 PM
Interesting...


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tromp on October 29, 2015, 01:32:18 PM
This needs elaborating. Why would the coinbase txs be treated any different from other tx?

If by invalidating a tangle fragment a miner can increase his profit

Do you mean that invalidating tangle fragments increases the chance of
a coinbase tx getting confirmations? Why would that be the case?
And wouldn't that apply to any tx that someone wants to see confirmed badly?

Quote
then he will do that. It's easy to invalidate a branch if you split your tokens and include small transactions into all branches, you can use any to doublespend.

This argument is not convincing, since you can just replace "miner" by "attacker",
and face the same problem?!


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Anon136 on October 29, 2015, 01:35:27 PM
Re: Premine vs PoW vs ICO vs User ID vs 'a life of crime':

Why not simply make a fixed number of tokens available, at a fixed price per token?
(If not sold out, any unsold tokens would then be provably burned)

This way, developers can still buy their own tokens, but in doing so, they are competing with the other users/buyers. Any tokens bought up by the developers, are tokens that become unavailable for someone else to buy. This is much better than the usual premine, in the sense that the developers are trading a portion of potential outside funding, in exchange for whatever tokens they buy for themselves (aka, putting their money where their mouths are, because they then become a truly interested party, after funding).

Tying up to an existing coin (or coins) seems interesting as well. That would likely attract the widest user foundation, though possibly at the expense of most (all?) of the funding potential...

Sorry there is no difference from a premine. They can buy up most of the coins thus limiting the supply and thus they can set an artificially higher price per share for the ICO (some fewer investors are willing to pay a higher price than other investors, i.e. not all investors are equally astute). Review the math of my post again. Remember all ICO from other investors money ends up in their pocket, no matter how many coins they buy.
[...]

I disagree.
A higher price per share (artificial or not), naturally balances the forces of (developer) greed vs (investor) demand. The higher the price, the more investor interest is dissipated on account of the lesser upside potential, and in the extreme case, one ends up left with a minority of investors/users, as well as has severely handicapped the adoption potential. Then again, as you said, maybe not all investors are equally astute...
With a low enough price per share, the ICO naturally sells out. In such instance, would the developer trade a bit of external funding for some pie of their own token? Maybe. Would they do this for a significant portion of the total tokens for sale? Doubtful.

Personally, I see unproven technology for emerging markets as being an extremely high risk investment, and I will value it accordingly. Talents and accomplishments might become extremely valuable (if functional success is delivered), but comparatively speaking, the product itself, is of little value, especially when it can be replicated/cloned/forked to exhaustion.

Isn't this way over thinking it? Just let everyone invest as much as they want to, and devide the total currency supply proportionately to each persons contribution.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: EdgarTheEdge on October 29, 2015, 01:37:43 PM
Such interesting tech, want to dig more :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: DuckYeah! on October 29, 2015, 01:39:31 PM
Internet of Things, How about Things for The Internet Powered by IOTA


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: myagui on October 29, 2015, 01:51:06 PM
Isn't this way over thinking it? Just let everyone invest as much as they want to, and devide the total currency supply proportionately to each persons contribution.

If you are prepared to fully trust the developers to not be buying their own tokens, sure, it's as good a solution as any.
This approach does not rock my boat I should add. One might even say I have trust issues.  ::)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: aleix on October 29, 2015, 01:51:41 PM
I'll follow this thread closely.  :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 29, 2015, 01:59:13 PM
CoinTelegraph did an interview with me ( David ) yesterday. It will be of interest and answer some questions that people who is following IOTA might have. http://cointelegraph.com/news/115508/iota-a-blockchain-less-gasp-token-for-the-internet-of-things


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 29, 2015, 01:59:26 PM
Do you mean that invalidating tangle fragments increases the chance of
a coinbase tx getting confirmations? Why would that be the case?
And wouldn't that apply to any tx that someone wants to see confirmed badly?

By invalidating a fragment you earn more coins.


This argument is not convincing, since you can just replace "miner" by "attacker",
and face the same problem?!

You can't just replace miner by attacker. The payoff matrix is different for the cases of with and without coin generation, in the former case participants are not interested in approval of each other's transactions.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: ciappa on October 29, 2015, 02:16:51 PM
When ICO will take place?  :o


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tromp on October 29, 2015, 02:17:14 PM
By invalidating a fragment you earn more coins.

How so?

Quote
You can't just replace miner by attacker. The payoff matrix is different for the cases of with and without coin generation, in the former caIt's easy to invalidate a branchse participants are not interested in approval of each other's transactions.

Your design has a problem if as you say "It's easy to invalidate a branch".


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 29, 2015, 02:21:19 PM
How so?

If there are only Alice and Bob then Alice will get more coins if Bob gets none.


Your design has a problem if as you say "It's easy to invalidate a branch".

Not my design, a design with coin generation has it.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 29, 2015, 05:08:19 PM
Possible? I don't see how it's possible to draw a picture to have longest-path-as-the-score rule to be broken by an adversary.
"Longest-path-as-the-score" differs from what is proposed in the whitepaper. We were talking about another algo.

Longest-chain. There can only be one. Reverting to a block chain, except that chain grows per TX and not per block. But afaics double-spend coherence and complex game theories thereof would require you to violate the CAP theorem.

Simple. Just allow special coinbase txs that additionally need to reference the previous coinbase tx and need so much PoW that they can only happen on average every 10 mins:)

This magically moves Nash equilibrium towards superwide DAG.

Bottleneck to what? It is only recording checkpoints. It is not slowing down the forward advance of the DAG. It is orthogonal, except for the coinbases which can be spent into the DAG (after sufficient # of blocks to be probabilistically sure of coinbases not being reverted by an orphaned chain).

What is this blockchain supposed to checkpoint? DAG topology? Then this blockchain must possess fragmentation flexibility of DAG which is impossible in high-load, unless DAG waits for the blockchain to catchup. You can wait for 1 month before getting ability to spend coinbase coin, but once a corresponding checkpoint is recorded into the blockchain a greedy miner will generate another (better) tip containing a double-spending transaction invalidating tip which has been recorded.

in the event a honest guy tries to reference a legit tip and the attacker's tip, he'll detect the contradiction and won't do it. Therefore, the attacker's subtangle will be abandoned.

This requires not just an honest guy, but a diligent one as well.
The risk is that honest guys will be lazy and rely on others to go far back in history to check all tx for double spending.


The lazy guys risk that their tx's will be abandoned, because the majority of the nodes won't reference them.

That is precisely how I would have answered. It is quite clear that everyone has a strong incentive to be on a correct branch, else any time down stream someone can broadcast a notice that a branch is incongruent then that branch gets abandoned.

But doesn't this mean that there is a great incentive to not include tips in your branch, because these don't yet have enough veracity to be sure they won't end up being a double-spend. In your system there is often no way to prove which of the double-spends were first, so they both are invalid.

Seems to me no one has an incentive to lengthen instead of broaden the tree. But I haven't absorbed the white paper. Did you address that?
Yes. As mentioned somewhere above on this page (or maybe on the previous one), the (default) referencing algorithm works in such a way that it prefers tips with bigger height. So, if you're too lazy and reference some very old tx's, you take the risk that your tx won't be referenced by others.

But that default doesn't seem to be the correct game theory? This is Prisoner's Dilemma game. Afaics, lower incentive to go first on including a new tip. Just noticed yesterday this research (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049048.msg12792506#msg12792506) on cases where the pessimistic Nash equilibrium is claimed not to hold (but on quick glance I ponder if they have overly simplistic assumptions in their models).

Obviously if everyone defects to making their own branches (maximally broaden the tree), then no one's tips get lengthened and thus the entire system doesn't function. But is the optimum strategy the default that you assume?
We assume that the node knows that most nodes will behave well, and so it's obliged to behave well too.

The attacker doesn't publish it untill he has enough transactions referencing the second doublespending transaction.

The second doublespending won't be referenced because the longest tip already contains the legit transaction.
Anyhow, we are discussing now with CfB ways to define better referral algorithms, which would permit to fence off such attacks in a more efficient way.

Contrary to my initial upthread enthusiasm (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1216479.msg12792854#msg12792854), I am leaning towards this DAG concept can not work because it appears to attempt to defeat the CAP (Brewer's) Theorem. Before I was thinking the multiple (multifurcating) branches are orthogonal, but it becomes clearer from the game theory issues quoted above, that there are complex dependencies. Analogous issues as the following appear to apply to DAG:

The key failure in your design is the lack of incentive to have a consensus. What is the incentive for voting nodes to agree with the correct fork and for minority nodes to agree with the majority fork? Seems to me they can all disagree and no one can prove otherwise, because they can pretend to have never heard the votes of others (no way to prove receipt of a vote on the internet). This shows that without the objectivity of a PoW, then there is no objectivity and you end up in chaos.

Primarily this is mitigated by the fact that if a node doesn't create a fork, there is nothing to vote on, no consensus is needed.  If I have a signed block chain A0->B0->C0 and it's published, no one can vote between C0 and let's say C1 because there is no signed C1.  If you don't sign forks, no one can vote on your transactions.

I don't comprehend your notation and its applicability, but I was just thinking conceptually that you have a these N block chains operating orthogonally, thus one one can receive the transfer of value from the other. Then you can have double-spends and what not. So then you can have different block chains disagreeing about a plurality of different orthogonal block chain states. There is no global unified state, that is the entire point since missing the global PoW block period to force timely consensus to this single objective reality. If we don't want a global state, then we must use a probabilistic forking structure such as Iota's DAG (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1216479.msg12777035#msg12777035) to obtain Byzantine fault tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance). You've conflated the independence with the determinism required for global coherence. Global coherence with individual realities (relativism) can only be probabilistic. I believe this follows from Brewer's theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem) which says it is impossible to have all three of consistency, availability, and partion tolerance.

In PoW, miners have an incentive to reach consensus because otherwise their rewards won't be honored by the longest chain. In your system the majority of the vote is the winning fork, except there is no penalty for delaying for an indefinite period acknowledging receipt of such a vote. Thus complex game theories arise. Even more critically, the majority vote may be split among multiple forks, such that there is no consensus, because you have multiple chains thus a plurality of permutations of forks.

I do want readers to note which of the three posters in this thread was able to state directly the design error. That should be instructive to investors.

Well-behaved nodes are configured to flip their vote if they observe their fork variant as having fewer votes than another.  The only way to vote is to have a balance tied up in the network.  To vote to confuse the network is to destroy its value which destroys your investment.  The incentive is to retain value in the system rather than accumulate rewards through inflating everyone else.

Not necessarily. They could collude to steal value from another fork by double-spending to the other fork and then disagreeing about the objective time of spending. Perhaps other complex game theory as well. Also it may not be intentional. Per my point above, the objective reality may be indeterminate and the system may have a plurality of minority realities (votes). That is what I expect to be the normal mode due to chaos theory.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 29, 2015, 05:21:14 PM
Quote from: TPTB_need_war
Contrary to my initial upthread enthusiasm, I am leaning towards this DAG concept can not work because it appears to attempt to defeat the CAP (Brewer's) Theorem
Could you please elaborate? In particular, we don't claim this
Quote
Consistency (all nodes see the same data at the same time)
should be true in iota.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 29, 2015, 05:23:00 PM
Contrary to my initial upthread enthusiasm (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1216479.msg12792854#msg12792854), I am leaning towards this DAG concept can not work because it appears to attempt to defeat the CAP (Brewer's) Theorem. Before I was thinking the multiple branches are orthogonal, but it becomes clearer from the game theory issues quoted above, that there are complex dependencies. Analogous issues as the following appear to apply to DAG:

Hard to tell what you mean without knowing what you have sacrificed - C, A or P.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 29, 2015, 05:42:14 PM
Now you know why ... They were ... And ...

Insults are not welcome in this thread, without an evidence I treat your words as insulting.

Where there is smoke there is fire. No insults intended, just being realistic. Feel free to delete my posts if you want.

Edit: I admire your strict (and level-headed) adherence to sensing versus intuition. I am EN?P (nearly balanced between F and T). I am like 81% N. So I rely a lot on intuition and don't wait to have every fact sensed with full verification. I admire those who are ISTP (but not so much ISTJ). I have to learn to appreciate the virtues of that and yet maintain respect/balance where my intuitions helps me.

Let me help you with that, Myers-Briggs is absolute bullshit equivalent to astrology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator#Criticism

Every metric is a relative perspective. This one like all others in science have only relativistic truth. Given the very few degrees-of-freedom, one shouldn't expect it to hold sway over complex factors in personality. I think it was Einstein who said chose the question to fit the answer you desire.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 29, 2015, 05:46:08 PM
I have no problem with people being skeptical of ICOs and we're not selling securities

My interpretation (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1218399.msg12821432#msg12821432) of USA securities law, it is very likely you are.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 29, 2015, 05:49:13 PM
I have no problem with people being skeptical of ICOs and we're not selling securities

My interpretation (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1218399.msg12821432#msg12821432) of USA securities law, it is very likely you are.

No, same terms as Augur and Ethereum sale.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 29, 2015, 05:56:33 PM
I have no problem with people being skeptical of ICOs and we're not selling securities

My interpretation (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1218399.msg12821432#msg12821432) of USA securities law, it is very likely you are.

No, same terms as Augur and Ethereum sale.

If they did not register with the SEC, then I think their models are illegal, unregistered securities, but IANAL, so consult your own. You can read my complete analysis at the thread I linked to. The key point is marketing to investors.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 29, 2015, 06:04:17 PM
I have no problem with people being skeptical of ICOs and we're not selling securities

My interpretation (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1218399.msg12821432#msg12821432) of USA securities law, it is very likely you are.

No, same terms as Augur and Ethereum sale.

If they did not register with the SEC, then I think their models are illegal, unregistered securities, but IANAL, so consult your own. You can read my complete analysis at the thread I linked to. The key point is marketing to investors.

We're not marketing to investors. We're going to have a software sale. The tokens are software. Like I said: we make no promises to any investors of these software tokens increasing in value.

All of this will be made even more clear in the ICO announcement of course.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 29, 2015, 06:05:13 PM
Contrary to my initial upthread enthusiasm (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1216479.msg12792854#msg12792854), I am leaning towards this DAG concept can not work because it appears to attempt to defeat the CAP (Brewer's) Theorem. Before I was thinking the multiple branches are orthogonal, but it becomes clearer from the game theory issues quoted above, that there are complex dependencies. Analogous issues as the following appear to apply to DAG:

Hard to tell what you mean without knowing what you have sacrificed - C, A or P.

For example to deal with the double-spend attack stdset has been discussing, to maintain consistency and access you must do something to "fence off" partitions (branches) and give up P.

The block chain creates one partition which is the longest chain. Thus it can maintain C and A. You will have to give up one of C, A, or P. The promise of DAG was to not give up any of those.

I think you can make DAG work but you will end up with divergent partions that can't be remerged (thus losing global consistency of value), same as what will happens to Bitcoin if it is forked (even by network partitioning).

This is a serious fundamental theorem that all of us designing consensus algorithms face.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 29, 2015, 06:07:31 PM
The promise of DAG was to not give up any of those.

Where was that promise given?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 29, 2015, 06:09:42 PM
I have no problem with people being skeptical of ICOs and we're not selling securities

My interpretation (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1218399.msg12821432#msg12821432) of USA securities law, it is very likely you are.

No, same terms as Augur and Ethereum sale.

If they did not register with the SEC, then I think their models are illegal, unregistered securities, but IANAL, so consult your own. You can read my complete analysis at the thread I linked to. The key point is marketing to investors.

We're not marketing to investors. We're going to have a software sale. The tokens are software. Like I said: we make no promises to any investors of these software tokens increasing in value.

All of this will be made even more clear in the ICO announcement of course.

Okay good, you are doing what I had explained to do. Who was first to document this strategy in public myself or you or some other?

But unless you actually enforce the vestment amounts to a small amount per individual, then you might have a difficult time arguing in court that you were not marketing to investors, given where you've announced this coin and especially if you are allowing an individual pay $5000 for your software.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 29, 2015, 06:12:55 PM

I think you can make DAG work but you will end up with divergent partions that can't be remerged
Why? If there are no conflicting tx's, someone can issue a tx referencing 1 tx from partition 1 and 1 tx from partition 2, et voila.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 29, 2015, 06:14:16 PM
The promise of DAG was to not give up any of those.

Where was that promise given?

I have seen a statement up thread by one of you three about branches being able to remerge.

I think it is pretty clear from the white paper and general discussions that there was assumed to be some magic here without explaining that you must give up something when restoring the partition intolerance of a block chain.

So I just want you all to enumerate what you are giving up specifically. Seems like you are still working this out, so I am just giving you some food for your thought process.

Peer review. And I think readers need to read review and see your responses.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 29, 2015, 06:29:53 PM

I think you can make DAG work but you will end up with divergent partions that can't be remerged
Why? If there are no conflicting tx's, someone can issue a tx referencing 1 tx from partition 1 and 1 tx from partition 2, et voila.

Due the quoted Prisoner's Dilemma that I outlined (for which I believe your response was inadequate for the following reason) in that no one has an incentive to be first to lengthen the tips, the game theory is going to devolve to everyone agreeing to blacklist double-spends without actually abandoning branches containing conflicting transactions where they have transactions.The Prisoner's Dilemma is only solved in favor of lengthening if double-spends won't cause a branch to be illegitimate. Thus the branches will diverge while they lengthen. Your preferred algorithm will not hold over time. CAP's theorem is guidance, and now you just need to model it or put it into the wild and observe.

You might try to formulating some fencing or "longest-path" algorithm, but you are just going to end up back at a block chain (giving up Partition tolerance) once you have solved the Consistency and Access issues.

Any way if I am wrong, then kindly be the first to disprove the CAP theorem. Good luck with that.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 29, 2015, 06:33:37 PM
I have seen a statement up thread by one of you three about branches being able to remerge.

I think it is pretty clear from the white paper and general discussions that there was assumed to be some magic here without explaining that you must give up something when restoring the partition intolerance of a block chain.

So I just want you all to enumerate what you are giving up specifically. Seems like you are still working this out, so I am just giving you some food for your thought process.

Peer review. And I think readers need to read review and see your responses.

Sorry, but you are wrong. It's silly to build a distributed system violating CAP theorem, in no circumstances anyone of us would even attempt that, it's the same as trying to fly faster than speed of light.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 29, 2015, 06:44:21 PM

I think you can make DAG work but you will end up with divergent partions that can't be remerged
Why? If there are no conflicting tx's, someone can issue a tx referencing 1 tx from partition 1 and 1 tx from partition 2, et voila.

Due the quoted Prisoner's Dilemma that I outlined (for which I believe your response was inadequate for the following reason) in that no one has an incentive to be first to lengthen the tips, the game theory is going to devolve to everyone agreeing to blacklist double-spends without actually abandoning branches containing conflicting transactions where they have transactions.The Prisoner's Dilemma is only solved in favor of lengthening if double-spends won't cause a branch to be illegitimate. Thus the branches will diverge while they lengthen. Your preferred algorithm will not hold over time. CAP's theorem is guidance, and now you just need to model it or put it into the wild and observe.

You might try to formulating some fencing or "longest-path" algorithm, but you are just going to end up back at a block chain (giving up Partition tolerance) once you have solved the Consistency and Access issues.

Any way if I am wrong, then kindly be the first to disprove the CAP theorem. Good luck with that.
If, for example, I'm a merchant who accepted a payment in the "smaller" branch, then I have all the motivation to do some more PoW to make the branches re-merge and therefore increase my safety.  And please stop randomly citing Big Important Theorems that have only a vague connection to what we are discussing. In academic circles such behaviour is not welcome.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on October 29, 2015, 07:55:10 PM
CoinTelegraph did an interview with me ( David ) yesterday. It will be of interest and answer some questions that people who is following IOTA might have. http://cointelegraph.com/news/115508/iota-a-blockchain-less-gasp-token-for-the-internet-of-things

Nice article! Good use cases mentioned in the articles. Another use case can be the medical data collection. Like Iwatch and Fitbit can collect medical data from individuals to resell to doctors/health organizations and pharmaceutic companies by micro-paying the individuals for the data.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 29, 2015, 08:11:21 PM
It's silly to build a distributed system violating CAP theorem, in no circumstances anyone of us would even attempt that, it's the same as trying to fly faster than speed of light.

Okay what did you give up: C, A, or P? Remember you said I am wrong, so surely you can answer this very quickly right  ;)

CfB and mthcl, the onus is on you to prove and demonstrate what you have given up from the CAP theorem. You have not. Period.

The block chain creates one partition which is the longest chain. Thus it can maintain C and A [but gives up on P]. You will have to give up one of C, A, or P.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 29, 2015, 08:33:13 PM
Okay what did you give up: C, A, or P? Remember you said I am wrong, so surely you can answer this very quickly right  ;)

CfB and mthcl, the onus is on you to prove and demonstrate what you have given up from the CAP theorem. You have not. Period.

Consistency is weakened to eventual.

To make sure we are on the same page: what is partition tolerance and availability of Bitcoin?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 30, 2015, 09:34:43 AM
wow, I just love how I do not understand one single thing that has been written in the past 23 pages of this thread. Usually, that is a sign that something interesting is developing. So I'm getting my wallet out.

When is ICO ann expected?

Everyone will know in due time, don't worry:)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 30, 2015, 10:36:22 AM
Okay what did you give up: C, A, or P? Remember you said I am wrong, so surely you can answer this very quickly right  ;)

CfB and mthcl, the onus is on you to prove and demonstrate what you have given up from the CAP theorem. You have not. Period.

Consistency is weakened to eventual.

To make sure we are on the same page: what is partition tolerance and availability of Bitcoin?

If Consistency is weakened to eventual, then either you have no defined Consistency (i.e. no Consistency ever) or you have an equation for probability of Consistency. If there exists such an equation, then you have to explain how and the probability of either Availability or Partition tolerance is lost when the probability of Consistency is attained. The onus is on your to justify these claims analytically, including convincing arguments about the game theory. Else you can just put it into the wild and observe (and who knows what will happen).


Consistency in Bitcoin is the fact that the objectivity is the longest chain. There only state of inconsistency is the probability of an orphaned chain, which declines over time except if the adversary has greater than 50% of the sustained network proof-of-work hashrate.

Availability in Bitcoin is given by even if there are no other active nodes, then sender and/or recipient of the transaction can extend the longest chain and the Consistency remains valid (except for the caveats on Consistency).

Partition tolerance is lost in Bitcoin because if there is network partitioning then double-spends can occur on each chain without being detected until these chains are merged. Bitcoin can't tolerate multiple chains, and only allows the longest chain.  There is no way to merge these chains, because double-spends can infect other downstream transactions, combined with inputs from legitimate transaction graphs.

So what we can say is Bitcoin fulfills the CAP theorem, except it has theoretically unnecessary caveats in Consistency due to 51% attack and delay due to probability of orphaned chains, which are due to the ephemeral Partition tolerance that is introduced by chain reorganization. The Consistency delay also causes transaction confirmation to be significantly delayed. The goals of my Sync (or BlocSync) block chain overhauled design has been to eliminate those caveats, while relaxing the Consistency and/or Availability during partitioning of the network in order to provide some Partition tolerance.

And please stop randomly citing Big Important Theorems that have only a vague connection to what we are discussing. In academic circles such behaviour is not welcome.

If the CAP theorem is random to Byzantine fault tolerance for networks, then we might as well say the speed-of-light is an irrelevant fact when doing Physics.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 30, 2015, 11:07:09 AM
If Consistency is weakened to eventual, then either you have no defined Consistency (i.e. no Consistency ever) or you have an equation for probability of Consistency. If there exists such an equation, then you have to explain how and the probability of either Availability of Partition tolerance is lost when the probability of Consistency is attained. The onus is on your to justify these claims analytically, including convincing arguments about the game theory. Else you can just put it into the wild and observe (and who knows what will happen).

I don't agree with the red part, it's impossible to have an equation for probability (has anyone ever had it?) because it depends on network topology which is infeasible to measure (it even changes every minute).


Consistency in Bitcoin is the fact that the objectivity is the longest chain. There only state of inconsistency is the probability of an orphaned chain, which declines over time except if the adversary has greater than 50% of the sustained network proof-of-work hashrate.

Bitcoin has eventual consistency, probability of an orphaned chain has nothing to do with it unless you consider the case of spherical Bitcoin in vacuum.


Availability in Bitcoin is given by even if there are no other active nodes, then sender and/or recipient of the transaction can extended the longest chain and the Consistency remains valid (except for the caveat of the 51% attack).

Availability in Bitcoin is nine nines, ability to extend the longest chain is irrelevant there.


Partition tolerance is lost in Bitcoin because if there is network partitioning then double-spends can occur on each chain without being detected until these chains are merged. Bitcoin can't tolerate multiple chains, and only allows the longest chain.  There is no way to merge these chains, because double-spends can infect other downstream transactions, combined with inputs from legitimate transaction graphs.

Partition tolerance in Bitcoin is pretty high, this is achieved with the help of coinbase maturity parameter, if it was set to zero we would see more transactions not reincluded into the longest chain after a reorg.


So what we can say is Bitcoin fulfills the CAP theorem, except it has theoretically unnecessary caveats in Consistency due to 51% attack and delay due to probability of orphaned chains. The Consistency delay also causes transaction confirmation to be significantly delayed. The goals of my Sync (or BlocSync) block chain overhauled design has been to eliminate those caveats, while relaxing the Consistency and/or Availability during partitioning of the network in order to provide some Partition tolerance.

51% attack is an attack for another case of spherical Bitcoin in vacuum. Ittay Eyal and Emin Gun Sirer showed (http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~ie53/publications/btcProcFC.pdf) that Bitcoin can be successfully attacked even with 33%/25% of hashing power.


PS: Looks like we are NOT on the same page. I suggest to spend one day to come to a common denominator of our points of view and after that continue discussion about tangle and CAP.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 30, 2015, 01:58:47 PM
If Consistency is weakened to eventual, then either you have no defined Consistency (i.e. no Consistency ever) or you have an equation for probability of Consistency. If there exists such an equation, then you have to explain how and the probability of either Availability of Partition tolerance is lost when the probability of Consistency is attained. The onus is on your to justify these claims analytically, including convincing arguments about the game theory. Else you can just put it into the wild and observe (and who knows what will happen).

I don't agree with the red part, it's impossible to have an equation for probability (has anyone ever had it?) because it depends on network topology which is infeasible to measure (it even changes every minute).

Consistency in our case is the probability of a double-spend (and the inability to reverse a record of a completed transaction, which is involved in the same probability), since that is the only consistency that we need. Consistency of topology seems to be irrelevant as a direct metric of any consistency that concerns the goal of the consensus.

Your white paper provides an equation for that probability with examples on page 14.

But afaik, you have not yet characterized how A or P declines as the probability of a double-spend declines. Additionally it is not clear if the equation is proven and one potential path towards validating it is to be able to relate analytically how A and P are affected as that probability changes.

Consistency in Bitcoin is the fact that the objectivity is the longest chain. There only state of inconsistency is the probability of an orphaned chain, which declines over time except if the adversary has greater than 50% of the sustained network proof-of-work hashrate.

Bitcoin has eventual consistency, probability of an orphaned chain has nothing to do with it unless you consider the case of spherical Bitcoin in vacuum.

The probability of a double-spend is given by the probability of a chain being orphaned.

It seems the difference in our thinking is you have not yet formulated a metric of consistency relevant to our application of network consensus (a.k.a. Byzantine fault tolerance and coherence). It is all about the double-spending prevention, and <joke>not the bass (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PCkvCPvDXk)</joke>.

Availability in Bitcoin is given by even if there are no other active nodes, then sender and/or recipient of the transaction can extended the longest chain and the Consistency remains valid (except for the caveat of the 51% attack).

Availability in Bitcoin is nine nines, ability to extend the longest chain is irrelevant there.

Ah I am a conceptual (abstract) thinker. You are thinking as a low-level network engineer, thus you miss the generative essence of how CAP applies. The availability of the P2P network is really irrelevant conceptually to how CAP relates to the goal of the consensus network— to order transactions in time and prevent (or record and blacklist) double-spends. Thus availability in the relevant conceptual context is the ability to extend the chain AUTONOMOUSLY. If for example in any alternative design the chain could only be extended after tallying a quorum, then availability would require a quorum to be present. The reason that proof-of-work is such an elegant solution to the Byzantine Generals issue, is because the solution is generated by autonomous actors (and thus the entropy of the system is open and not closed).

Until you understand conceptually, you can't begin to understand block chain scaling holistically.

And now I am giving away too much of my expertise for free to a potential competitor to my work. So I will need to stop. I had suggested we work together, because I had been thinking about these issues for a long time and I thought your DAG might offer some unique aspects towards formulating a holistic design for various CAP tradeoff scenarios. But now I need to see more analytical justification of your design before applying any more of my effort. The ball is now in your court. Knowing how people react to my statements, apologies in advance if this seems egotistical to any one, then they need to read this (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1404) (meaning it would their ego and not mine, I am just stating objectively what I think...no ego involved).

Partition tolerance is lost in Bitcoin because if there is network partitioning then double-spends can occur on each chain without being detected until these chains are merged. Bitcoin can't tolerate multiple chains, and only allows the longest chain.  There is no way to merge these chains, because double-spends can infect other downstream transactions, combined with inputs from legitimate transaction graphs.

Partition tolerance in Bitcoin is pretty high, this is achieved with the help of coinbase maturity parameter, if it was set to zero we would see more transactions not reincluded into the longest chain after a reorg.

Agreed.

So what we can say is Bitcoin fulfills the CAP theorem, except it has theoretically unnecessary caveats in Consistency due to 51% attack and delay due to probability of orphaned chains. The Consistency delay also causes transaction confirmation to be significantly delayed. The goals of my Sync (or BlocSync) block chain overhauled design has been to eliminate those caveats, while relaxing the Consistency and/or Availability during partitioning of the network in order to provide some Partition tolerance.

51% attack is an attack for another case of spherical Bitcoin in vacuum. Ittay Eyal and Emin Gun Sirer showed (http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~ie53/publications/btcProcFC.pdf) that Bitcoin can be successfully attacked even with 33%/25% of hashing power.

I already showed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600436.msg9692846#msg9692846) mathematically how to defeat the selfish mining attack.

PS: Looks like we are NOT on the same page. I suggest to spend one day to come to a common denominator of our points of view and after that continue discussion about tangle and CAP.

My stance (unless something shatters my perspective) is that it is now up to you all to formulate more compelling holistic explanation/characterization of your DAG within the context of the CAP theorem, and also provide analytical models.

I don't think I am being paid nor am I a team member, so therefor I shouldn't be trying to dig into the details of that. I have provided what I believe to be the relevant conceptual framework (you may disagree). And I have work to do on my own block chain scaling technology.

Good luck. I'll check back sometimes on progress.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 30, 2015, 02:28:08 PM
Consistency in our case is the probability of a double-spend (and the inability to reverse a record of a completed transaction, which is involved in the same probability), since that is the only consistency that we need. Consistency of topology seems to be irrelevant as a direct metric of any consistency that concerns the goal of the consensus.

Let's start from this point.

I find your definition of "consistency" unsuitable for cryptocurrency analysis. I could create millions different instances of a ledger in such a way that they can be merged into a single instance without a single double-spending at all. Do we see consistency in such the case (before merging)? Obviously, not. Note that CAP theorem is used on a more abstract level than the level of account balances. I can imagine a perfectly consistent distributed system (by sacrificing A and P) which sees all double-spends that have ever happened. If we use your definition of "consistency" then we'll get an absurd result. I suggest to stay away of home-made definitions because they will lead to profanation of Brewer's theorem and won't let us to do a proper analysis.

Once you agree with me on the above we'll move to the next point.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TPTB_need_war on October 30, 2015, 08:20:00 PM
One more time I will help you, although the wisest action from a competitive standpoint would have been for me to not respond and let you continue with your perspective.

Consistency in our case is the probability of a double-spend (and the inability to reverse a record of a completed transaction, which is involved in the same probability), since that is the only consistency that we need. Consistency of topology seems to be irrelevant as a direct metric of any consistency that concerns the goal of the consensus.

Let's start from this point.

I find your definition of "consistency" unsuitable for cryptocurrency analysis. I could create millions different instances of a ledger in such a way that they can be merged into a single instance without a single double-spending at all. Do we see consistency in such the case (before merging)? Obviously, not.

Obviously yes, if we agree that consistency of disallowing double-spends into the ledger and not reversing the time ordering of transactions is our desired consistency.

Note that CAP theorem is used on a more abstract level than the level of account balances. I can imagine a perfectly consistent distributed system (by sacrificing A and P) which sees all double-spends that have ever happened. If we use your definition of "consistency" then we'll get an absurd result. I suggest to stay away of home-made definitions because they will lead to profanation of Brewer's theorem and won't let us to do a proper analysis.

That is quite an absurd proposition you have made to say that eliminating the prevention of double-spends and allowing reversal of time ordering of transactions amongst differing graphs seen globally as being some useful form of consistency. There are no decisions that can be made from such mayhem. No one can decide who owns what. That is consistency  ???  :'(

Once you agree with me on the above we'll move to the next point.

Obviously I don't agree with such absurd nonsense. Sorry but I find the hubris in the way you phrased your nonsense ("home-made", "profanation") to deserve an equal reaction.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 30, 2015, 09:00:56 PM
Obviously I don't agree with such absurd nonsense. Sorry but I find the hubris in the way you phrased your nonsense ("home-made", "profanation") to deserve an equal reaction.

"Home-made" and "profanation" wasn't intended to insult you, sorry if it looks so, English is not my native language and sometimes I have to look words in an online translator that returns several results.

On the matter, if you don't agree then we can't continue the discussion because we stick to different paradigms. I prefer one which is used in the most papers dedicated to CAP theorem.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: superresistant on October 30, 2015, 10:19:03 PM
 
Me now

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/f7/f71beaed2b2a0d18a081fe28448c68ec43cc052c8c1539addfdaeede78e59800.jpg


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 30, 2015, 11:03:36 PM
@CryptInvest, your post has been removed for obvious trolling, if you are genuinely interested in asking a question, please, paraphrase it.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: alicex on October 31, 2015, 09:24:38 AM
if necessary, post schedule is better.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: jfourthytwo on October 31, 2015, 11:06:17 AM
the article on cointlegraph it's a branding campaign? Whats the different between IOTA and NXT?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 31, 2015, 11:40:11 AM
the article on cointlegraph it's a branding campaign? Whats the different between IOTA and NXT?

Almost everything is different between Iota and Nxt.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on October 31, 2015, 12:09:50 PM
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19534.msg251719.html#msg251719

Quote from: Dan Larimer
I have just skimmed the paper and must say that it has some very innovative ideas that are very similar to some a white paper I am writing.  I reference your paper by mine.

I think there is potential for IOTA and CNX to work together on providing the best possible technology for micro-transactions.   As I mentioned on Mumble today, our internal project codenamed Plasma is aiming to make transactions free and instant and thus perfect for micro transactions.

There are just a few nuggets of inspiration missing from IOTA that when fused by Plasma will amplify your system.   

Once I complete the white paper I think you will be very excited to work with us on standardization.   


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on October 31, 2015, 02:02:26 PM
the article on cointlegraph it's a branding campaign? Whats the different between IOTA and NXT?

No, they wanted an interview about IOTA, micro-transactions and Internet-of-Things.

IOTA and Nxt is very different, but can collaborate. IOTA is in short a blockless cryptocurrency without fees that is designed to be as lightweight as possible, wheras Nxt is a full proof-of-stake blockchain platform with support for all kinds of features.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 31, 2015, 02:22:16 PM
An interesting words of Nick Szabo who is believed to be Satoshi Nakamoto (https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/nick-szabo-bit-gold-investors-conference/):

Quote
“Ethereum has a better smart contract language than bitcoin,” Szabo told the crowd during his address. “Satoshi was very conservative with smart contract language because he wanted Bitcoin to be used first and foremost as a currency.”
For these reasons, Szabo believes “Bitcoin the currency is a better currency than ether.”  Szabo is very optimistic for the future of Bitcoin for one simple reason:
“It’s still better than the competition,” he said.

If we recall that Bitcoin is incapable to become the money of IoT, we clearly see what it means for Iota.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: criptix on October 31, 2015, 07:25:11 PM
An interesting words of Nick Szabo who is believed to be Satoshi Nakamoto (https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/nick-szabo-bit-gold-investors-conference/):

Quote
“Ethereum has a better smart contract language than bitcoin,” Szabo told the crowd during his address. “Satoshi was very conservative with smart contract language because he wanted Bitcoin to be used first and foremost as a currency.”
For these reasons, Szabo believes “Bitcoin the currency is a better currency than ether.”  Szabo is very optimistic for the future of Bitcoin for one simple reason:
“It’s still better than the competition,” he said.

If we recall that Bitcoin is incapable to become the money of IoT, we clearly see what it means for Iota.

Shut-up-and-take-my-money-meme.gif

 ;D


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: MickGhee on October 31, 2015, 07:34:07 PM
waiting it takes so long


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Thenoticer on October 31, 2015, 08:22:58 PM
What is the difference between iota and qubic?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on October 31, 2015, 08:44:38 PM
What is the difference between iota and qubic?

The former stores state transitions but can operate on global scale. The latter stores final state only but can operate on local scale only and requires special mechanisms for interoperability of clusters.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: allwelder on November 01, 2015, 01:23:28 AM

I get an idea from Jinn's Dutch Auction for distribution: a maximum target is set for ICO, say 5,000 Bitcoins, and then the small depositions will be included if the total depositions are greater than the target. For example, the biggest one is 200 BTC, and now the total is 5050 BTC, so the biggest one 200 BTC is excluded, so right now the total funding is 4850 BTC and there is also 150 BTC can be put into the pool. Of course, it can be gamed with many small depositions, but a single Satoshi can also take party in and get some token.


Problem is how to determine the max IPO target.
I think they want to raise  as much as possible.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: allwelder on November 01, 2015, 01:27:06 AM
Some investors here trying to set a max cap for ICO (5000 BTC) or the maximum amount which other investors can send (500 USD). They think that this will affect their RoI.
They are wrong. Crypti set the maximum cap for itself as 750 BTC and is in deep shit now. Ethereum has gathered 30 000 BTC and it's investors made around x6 RoI.
So the key to good RoI is not low max cap for ICO.
This works well for NXT raised only 21BTC. :D


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 01, 2015, 02:37:20 PM
will a Jinn chip be small enough to be put inside of a iwatch or a fitbit bracelet?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rigel on November 01, 2015, 02:41:26 PM
Any ETA for first release?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 01, 2015, 02:52:54 PM
will a Jinn chip be small enough to be put inside of a iwatch or a fitbit bracelet?

Jinn's design is a bit different from regular processors in that we go for an extreme amount of cores for parallel concurrent computation, but yes.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 01, 2015, 03:26:49 PM
Any ETA for first release?

~Christmas


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: daxiake on November 01, 2015, 09:02:26 PM
seem this project copy the XTC,tilepay.
have a look at tilepay.org,or their bitcointalk thread:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=761852.0

http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA4NTQwMDg0Nw==&mid=400293346&idx=1&sn=53abcda6d5867c686f07b7c9a548d35b&scene=23&srcid=1030GEYds7oAVImz7wodyaS4#wechat_redirect


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 01, 2015, 09:11:27 PM
seem this project copy the XTC,tilepay.
have a look at tilepay.org,or their bitcointalk thread:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=761852.0

http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA4NTQwMDg0Nw==&mid=400293346&idx=1&sn=53abcda6d5867c686f07b7c9a548d35b&scene=23&srcid=1030GEYds7oAVImz7wodyaS4#wechat_redirect

No copy. How is this anything like Tilepay other than similar market?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: alicex on November 02, 2015, 12:34:44 AM
seem this project copy the XTC,tilepay.
have a look at tilepay.org,or their bitcointalk thread:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=761852.0

http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA4NTQwMDg0Nw==&mid=400293346&idx=1&sn=53abcda6d5867c686f07b7c9a548d35b&scene=23&srcid=1030GEYds7oAVImz7wodyaS4#wechat_redirect

No copy. How is this anything like Tilepay other than similar market?

but light blockchain is smart chiose


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 02, 2015, 01:33:13 AM
@CfB, @iotatoken-

A suggestion-

If you want to attract new and serious buyers and investors, you should create a Team page on you website to show the resumes and photos of your team member like Augur does - http://www.augur.net/

This is the way for you to tell people you are serious and determined about and confident on your project. Time has changed in the cryto world. Good resumes and real persons with photos and real names are the wise things to do.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: AltcoinScamfinder on November 02, 2015, 04:32:31 AM
Some investors here trying to set a max cap for ICO (5000 BTC) or the maximum amount which other investors can send (500 USD). They think that this will affect their RoI.
They are wrong. Crypti set the maximum cap for itself as 750 BTC and is in deep shit now. Ethereum has gathered 30 000 BTC and it's investors made around x6 RoI.
So the key to good RoI is not low max cap for ICO.
This works well for NXT raised only 21BTC. :D

Helps if you are only 5 people owning 99% of all coin so you can pump it at will when you need money..


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: alicex on November 02, 2015, 05:34:29 AM
Some investors here trying to set a max cap for ICO (5000 BTC) or the maximum amount which other investors can send (500 USD). They think that this will affect their RoI.
They are wrong. Crypti set the maximum cap for itself as 750 BTC and is in deep shit now. Ethereum has gathered 30 000 BTC and it's investors made around x6 RoI.
So the key to good RoI is not low max cap for ICO.
This works well for NXT raised only 21BTC. :D

Helps if you are only 5 people owning 99% of all coin so you can pump it at will when you need money..

so you should surprise why NXT sitll not die? lol


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 02, 2015, 12:11:26 PM
Some investors here trying to set a max cap for ICO (5000 BTC) or the maximum amount which other investors can send (500 USD). They think that this will affect their RoI.
They are wrong. Crypti set the maximum cap for itself as 750 BTC and is in deep shit now. Ethereum has gathered 30 000 BTC and it's investors made around x6 RoI.
So the key to good RoI is not low max cap for ICO.
This works well for NXT raised only 21BTC. :D
Helps if you are only 5 people owning 99% of all coin so you can pump it at will when you need money..
so you should surprise why NXT sitll not die? lol

The problem is what Iota team can achieve with 21 btc. Can they work on Iota and Jinn full time to make the projects big and successful with 21 btc as their resources for themselves and their families? To make the projects big, real, and successful they need 21 thousands of btc.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: alicex on November 02, 2015, 12:35:03 PM
Some investors here trying to set a max cap for ICO (5000 BTC) or the maximum amount which other investors can send (500 USD). They think that this will affect their RoI.
They are wrong. Crypti set the maximum cap for itself as 750 BTC and is in deep shit now. Ethereum has gathered 30 000 BTC and it's investors made around x6 RoI.
So the key to good RoI is not low max cap for ICO.
This works well for NXT raised only 21BTC. :D
Helps if you are only 5 people owning 99% of all coin so you can pump it at will when you need money..
so you should surprise why NXT sitll not die? lol

The problem is what Iota team can achieve with 21 btc. Can they work on Iota and Jinn full time to make the projects big and successful with 21 btc as their resources for themselves and their families? To make the projects big, real, and successful they need 21 thousands of btc.

show all investor why you need 21 thousands btc?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 02, 2015, 01:03:14 PM
show all investor why you need 21 thousands btc?

You don't need them to tell you why. You can figure it out yourself according to your own daily life.

Btw, 21K is just an analogy. The more the better for the projects.

Edit - the investors will decide how much they will get. They have to sell it very hard to get an ideal number. :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: DrBeer on November 02, 2015, 01:36:19 PM
IСO is expected? Or what options will be available to early-stage investment?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on November 02, 2015, 02:17:25 PM
Any ETA for first release?

~Christmas

So did mthcl and CfB already fix this vulnerability:

This is the scenario I'm talking about. Green filled, black edged are transactions of the honest network. Red edged - are transactions of the attacker. The doublespends are filled with yellow.
As far as I understand your algo, weight of the red tip is greater by 3 than weight of the green tip.

http://i.imgur.com/9SPYPNt.png
?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: patmast3r on November 02, 2015, 02:28:47 PM
Any ETA for first release?

~Christmas

So did mthcl and CfB already fix this vulnerability:

This is the scenario I'm talking about. Green filled, black edged are transactions of the honest network. Red edged - are transactions of the attacker. The doublespends are filled with yellow.
As far as I understand your algo, weight of the red tip is greater by 3 than weight of the green tip.

http://i.imgur.com/9SPYPNt.png
?


Why would the weight of the red tip be greater (not saying it can't be) ? Afaik tips only have their "own weight" since they are tips and therefore haven't "inherited" any weight yet. Which afair means that their weight depends on the POW of those tx (tips).


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on November 02, 2015, 02:40:10 PM
Any ETA for first release?

~Christmas

So did mthcl and CfB already fix this vulnerability:

This is the scenario I'm talking about. Green filled, black edged are transactions of the honest network. Red edged - are transactions of the attacker. The doublespends are filled with yellow.
As far as I understand your algo, weight of the red tip is greater by 3 than weight of the green tip.

http://i.imgur.com/9SPYPNt.png
?


Why would the weight of the red tip be greater (not saying it can't be) ? Afaik tips only have their "own weight" since they are tips and therefore haven't "inherited" any weight yet. Which afair means that their weight depends on the POW of those tx (tips).
It was already discussed several pages earlier.

But the cumulative weight of that tx is not so big, so why the merchant should accept it?
NP, the merchant waits of course for normal amount of confirmations.
On your picture it has 1 confirmation only?..
I can draw more pictures. But I don't think it's necessary. Imagine that the attacker started preparing for the attack a month ago. He spent the whole month to accumulate PoW on top of the second doublespend. He published no transactions during the month. Then he publishes the first doublespending transaction, provides the first confirmation, thus attaching it to recent part of the tangle, waits for the merchant to send him his puchase. Then publishes his secret subtangle and attaches in to the legit subtangle. The first doublespending transaction now is rejected by the network, the second doublespend has more weight.
He would have to attach it "below" the merchant's tx, but yes, you're right, it's a possible attack vector. Anyhow, the referencing algorithm is not yet finished, so we are discussing it with CfB right now.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Timeline on November 02, 2015, 02:42:05 PM
IСO is expected? Or what options will be available to early-stage investment?

I think ICO wil be held later this year before christmas.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 02, 2015, 02:43:53 PM
It was already discussed several pages earlier.

We agreed that my picture shows a successful attack vector. Your picture shows an improbable case when a merchant accepts a transaction with very low confirmation score (no matter how many squares you'll draw keeping the same topology).

PS: Yes, mthcl fixed that issue.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on November 02, 2015, 02:59:19 PM
It was already discussed several pages earlier.

We agreed that my picture shows a successful attack vector. Your picture shows an improbable case when a merchant accepts a transaction with very low confirmation score (no matter how many squares you'll draw keeping the same topology).

PS: Yes, mthcl fixed that issue.
OK, Here's a more elaborate picture:
http://i.imgur.com/yIDilXE.png


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 02, 2015, 03:22:34 PM
OK, Here's a more elaborate picture:
http://i.imgur.com/yIDilXE.png

More squares don't help here without an explanation why other green squares haven't been approving the legit transaction for long period of time.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: donnyespo on November 02, 2015, 03:32:38 PM
Will be keeping an eye on this one looks pretty interesting.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on November 02, 2015, 03:34:14 PM
OK, Here's a more elaborate picture:
http://i.imgur.com/yIDilXE.png

More squares don't help here without an explanation why other green squares haven't been approving the legit transaction for long period of time.
I already wrote it earlier. Because it was not published for a long time, until preparation for the attack is complete.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 02, 2015, 03:46:48 PM
I already wrote it earlier. Because it was not published for a long time, until preparation for the attack is complete.

So, the merchant sees a clear sign that his transaction hasn't been seen by the network for a long period of time and he still thinks that the service/goods should be provided without waiting for much longer?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on November 02, 2015, 04:57:14 PM
I already wrote it earlier. Because it was not published for a long time, until preparation for the attack is complete.

So, the merchant sees a clear sign that his transaction hasn't been seen by the network for a long period of time and he still thinks that the service/goods should be provided without waiting for much longer?
You claim that your design allows mergers of split subtangles. The merchant sees something like that. Your algo, described in the whitepaper, shows good confirmation score. Do you want merchants to analyze the DAG manually?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 02, 2015, 04:58:07 PM
You claim that your design allows mergers of split subtangles. The merchant sees something like that. Your algo, described in the whitepaper, shows good confirmation score. Do you want merchants to analyze the DAG manually?

No, of course. The software will do that.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on November 02, 2015, 05:00:06 PM
You claim that your design allows mergers of split subtangles. The merchant sees something like that. Your algo, described in the whitepaper, shows good confirmation score. Do you want merchants to analyze the DAG manually?

No, of course. The software will do that.
So that's what I asked. Is there a fix already?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 02, 2015, 05:02:22 PM
So that's what I asked. Is there a fix already?

Yes, the fix is done, we were just discussing another issue weren't we?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on November 02, 2015, 05:04:41 PM
So that's what I asked. Is there a fix already?

Yes, the fix is done, we were just discussing another issue weren't we?
That is the same issue, which I beleive, mthcl and you admitted to exist.
If it's fixed, may we see an updated whitepaer?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 02, 2015, 05:09:37 PM
That is the same issue, which I beleive, mthcl and you admitted to exist.
If it's fixed, may we see an updated whitepaer?

Well, the issue was improbability of your picture because it had a sign of successfully conducted eclipse attack (if the transaction was published), that case was not what we were talking about. The discrepancy between the words and the picture made me argue, otherwise someone digging deeper would be confused.

Updating whitepaper is not that simple as typing few words, it will take some time.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on November 02, 2015, 05:16:44 PM
Well, the issue was improbability of your picture because it had a sign of successfully conducted eclipse attack (if the transaction was published), that case was not what we were talking about. The discrepancy between the words and the picture made me argue, otherwise someone digging deeper would be confused.

Updating whitepaper is not that simple as typing few words, it will take some time.
Eclipse attack is irrelevant to this scenario. The attacker only needs to delay publishing some of his transactions.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 02, 2015, 05:22:15 PM
Eclipse attack is irrelevant to this scenario. The attacker only needs to delay publishing some of his transactions.

I thought we were talking about the standard case of a non-delayed transaction issued by an up-to-date node. If you do delay a transaction then the picture has the same profile as one with an eclipse attack.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on November 02, 2015, 05:42:47 PM
So that's what I asked. Is there a fix already?

Yes, the fix is done, we were just discussing another issue weren't we?
That is the same issue, which I beleive, mthcl and you admitted to exist.
If it's fixed, may we see an updated whitepaer?
I'll post the new tip selection algorithm later today.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on November 02, 2015, 06:51:40 PM
Here:  http://docdro.id/CXDq93a (http://docdro.id/CXDq93a)

Upd.: in (1), there should be exp in the sum as well (so that the transition probabilities sum to 1). Already uploaded the corrected version to docdroid.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 03, 2015, 09:22:24 AM
IСO is expected? Or what options will be available to early-stage investment?

Yes ICO.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: DrBeer on November 03, 2015, 10:02:13 AM
IСO is expected? Or what options will be available to early-stage investment?

Yes ICO.

When?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: vytasz7 on November 03, 2015, 10:12:27 AM
IСO is expected? Or what options will be available to early-stage investment?

Yes ICO.

When?

when?????


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: superresistant on November 03, 2015, 11:11:52 AM

OMG don't start with this.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 03, 2015, 01:14:15 PM
I can assure every interested party that anyone that follows IOTA either in this thread, the newsletter or www.twitter.com/iotatoken will be notified in due time and not miss out a single thing.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on November 03, 2015, 04:06:54 PM
Here:  http://docdro.id/CXDq93a (http://docdro.id/CXDq93a)

Upd.: in (1), there should be exp in the sum as well (so that the transition probabilities sum to 1). Already uploaded the corrected version to docdroid.
Thanks for the update. You described an interesting tip selection algorithm. Probably it makes a lot of sense. It makes lazy tips (nice term btw) less likely to be confirmed. However those lazy tips can still be connected to the recent part of the DAG by interested parties. I'm not sure though, that we are considering exactly the same scenario.
The first question. On fig. 1 you placed the second doublespending transaction not to the root of the parasitic subtangle but significantly higher. So the question is: is there a reason why the attacker would want to accumulate PoW not above but below the second doublespending transaction?
The second question. When the attacker reveals his parasitic subtangle, the resulting united tangle contains two contradicting transactions (the doublespends). And the second doublespend (included in the parasitic subtangle) has much more PoW confirming it. So is it just a matter of tip selection? Or should the first doublespend and all transactions depending on it be excluded from the DAG at this point?
P.S. "Excluded from the DAG" isn't the right phrase. I meant shouldn't they be excluded from candidates for confirmation, because they confirm the less confirmed doublespend?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on November 03, 2015, 04:51:20 PM
Here:  http://docdro.id/CXDq93a (http://docdro.id/CXDq93a)

Upd.: in (1), there should be exp in the sum as well (so that the transition probabilities sum to 1). Already uploaded the corrected version to docdroid.
Thanks for the update. You described an interesting tip selection algorithm. Probably it makes a lot of sense. It makes lazy tips (nice term btw) less likely to be confirmed. However those lazy tips can still be connected to the recent part of the DAG by interested parties. I'm not sure though, that we are considering exactly the same scenario.
The first question. On fig. 1 you placed the second doublespending transaction not to the root of the parasitic subtangle but significantly higher. So the question is: is there a reason why the attacker would want to accumulate PoW not above but below the second doublespending transaction?
The second question. When the attacker reveals his parasitic subtangle, the resulting united tangle contains two contradicting transactions (the doublespends). And the second doublespend (included in the parasitic subtangle) has much more PoW confirming it. So is it just a matter of tip selection? Or should the first doublespend and all transactions depending on it be excluded from the DAG at this point?
P.S. "Excluded from the DAG" isn't the right phrase. I meant shouldn't they be excluded from candidates for confirmation, because they confirm the less confirmed doublespend?

I think there is no way to prevent the attacker to publish a parasite chain that contains a double-spend that, at the moment, has more PoW in it than the legit tx. The idea is that the nodes won't select the attacker's tips, so his double-spend will eventually fall to limbo (and the legit tx will continue to gain weight), even if it had initially more cumulative weight. For that exact reason, the nodes won't use the rule "confirm the more confirmed double-spend", it's rather "the tip that I found first has the priority".

Hope that answers all questions  :)



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on November 03, 2015, 04:59:24 PM
P.S. Probably, that means that the cumulative weights shouldn't be used to decide which tx is legit (at least for "not very old" transactions).  Instead, just run the tip selection algorithm and see which of the two tx's it approves.

P.P.S. Sure, I should have moved the red tx to the beginning of the parasite chain, but, anyhow, that probably changes nothing due to the reasons exposed above.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on November 03, 2015, 06:07:46 PM
For reader's convenience: the updated version of the picture from the above link:

http://s020.radikal.ru/i703/1511/5f/660fb5e47df0.jpg (http://radikal.ru/big/952687c0cd5f4edc8650b0514b0d42c4)



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: stdset on November 03, 2015, 06:13:45 PM
P.S. Probably, that means that the cumulative weights shouldn't be used to decide which tx is legit (at least for "not very old" transactions).  Instead, just run the tip selection algorithm and see which of the two tx's it approves.
That's quite a significant change to the design, which should be carefully thought over.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 04, 2015, 10:06:14 AM
That's quite a significant change to the design, which should be carefully thought over.

Indeed. The algorithm works good, now I'm running simulations with slightly different formulas trying to find not so computationally intensive one (without exp and log).


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: klee on November 04, 2015, 10:44:07 AM
http://arstechnica.com/unite/2015/10/the-future-is-the-internet-of-things-deal-with-it/


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 04, 2015, 02:49:34 PM
http://arstechnica.com/unite/2015/10/the-future-is-the-internet-of-things-deal-with-it/

Good article.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 04, 2015, 04:03:08 PM
For those who are interested in what hashing function is planned to be used for PoW - https://github.com/JinnLabs/SaM/blob/master/src/SaM.java


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: xinyichao on November 05, 2015, 11:53:41 AM
new idea with new feature, very interest in this project. try to do sth for this .


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Jimmy2011 on November 05, 2015, 02:13:53 PM
For those who are interested in what hashing function is planned to be used for PoW - https://github.com/JinnLabs/SaM/blob/master/src/SaM.java

So is this SHA-4? Any detailed description or white paper available?

I will try to make a c version toy.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 05, 2015, 02:27:47 PM
So is this SHA-4? Any detailed description or white paper available?

I will try to make a c version toy.

The comments contain the description and all important info.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: WorldCoiner on November 05, 2015, 04:26:07 PM
count me in, looking forward to the ICO Sir!


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 06, 2015, 02:15:22 AM
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303640604579296580892973264


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: 50cent_rapper on November 06, 2015, 07:39:06 AM


Can someone give few examples about why average Joe will buy IoT-device ? I'm sick of "countless examples" words without actual examples. Don't say countless, give an actual list of 10 or more examples.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: klee on November 06, 2015, 08:12:32 AM
Sooner or later info and matter will merge.

Computronium.

If this is not already the case ('Were are they?' -  Everywhere...).



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: patmast3r on November 06, 2015, 08:19:00 AM


Can someone give few examples about why average Joe will buy IoT-device ? I'm sick of "countless examples" words without actual examples. Don't say countless, give an actual list of 10 or more examples.

You could have en entire factory with interconnected robots and devices that all interact to supervise processes and take action if something goes wrong.
Cars could be connected to each other to tell each other about traffic and what not.

Think of any instance where it would be beneficial for ordinary things to communicate with each other.

I'm sure as shit not listing 10. Just use your favorite search engine and you'll find plenty.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 06, 2015, 09:26:38 AM
Can someone give few examples about why average Joe will buy IoT-device ?

How about this: Average Joe will buy an IoT device simply because soon there will be no non-IoT devices for sale.  ;D


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 06, 2015, 09:56:47 AM


Can someone give few examples about why average Joe will buy IoT-device ? I'm sick of "countless examples" words without actual examples. Don't say countless, give an actual list of 10 or more examples.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/115508/iota-a-blockchain-less-gasp-token-for-the-internet-of-things

This gives you an idea of actual use-cases that will become standard within years.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 06, 2015, 09:59:01 AM
Sooner or later info and matter will merge.

Computronium.

If this is not already the case ('Were are they?' -  Everywhere...).



Indeed and ternary is more optimal than binary, hence why we market it as a step closer to computronium.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: zen2 on November 06, 2015, 10:16:10 AM
count me in. looks very promising. Coin of 2016 for sure...


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 06, 2015, 10:39:28 AM
Well, guys, Iota needs your help. Run http://188.138.57.93/sam.html and post how many kH/s you've got, please. Mine is 12.1.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Olegcho on November 06, 2015, 10:40:04 AM
Well, guys, Iota needs your help. Run http://188.138.57.93/sam.html and post how many kH/s you've got, please.

11.2kH/s
If it's CPU based I'm with AMD FX 8350 (8 core) @ 4GHz


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: onemorexmr on November 06, 2015, 10:47:09 AM
Well, guys, Iota needs your help. Run http://188.138.57.93/sam.html and post how many kH/s you've got, please. Mine is 12.1.

16.4kH/s


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 06, 2015, 10:49:05 AM
If it's CPU based I'm with AMD FX 8350 (8 core) @ 4GHz

It's more about JS engine used in your browser.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: CrayzHackeR on November 06, 2015, 10:51:02 AM
 IOTA looks nice


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: P-Funk on November 06, 2015, 02:03:06 PM
23.8 kH/s

Latest Firefox, i5-2500K at 4.5GHz


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: achimsmile on November 06, 2015, 05:43:02 PM
3.6 on my smartphones latest chrome browser


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: marcus1986 on November 06, 2015, 05:46:36 PM
Well, guys, Iota needs your help. Run http://188.138.57.93/sam.html and post how many kH/s you've got, please. Mine is 12.1.

15.6 kH/s

Firefox, Intel Core i5 2450M


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 06, 2015, 05:52:47 PM
11 KH/s on Chrome, corei5 - 2520M, 2.5GHz

0.9 kh/s on Safari of ipad2.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: glavos on November 06, 2015, 06:00:32 PM
4.7 kH/s on Chrome, on my DC Intel T2370 1.7Ghz, 3GB ram.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Xdragon on November 06, 2015, 06:05:21 PM
13.4khs Firefox, Opera 10khs on AMD FX8320


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on November 06, 2015, 06:07:43 PM
19.3 here, 23.9 on a better comp at work


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rlh on November 06, 2015, 06:09:59 PM
Well, guys, Iota needs your help. Run http://188.138.57.93/sam.html and post how many kH/s you've got, please. Mine is 12.1.

13.7 kH/s


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TRilon on November 06, 2015, 06:19:11 PM
Well, guys, Iota needs your help. Run http://188.138.57.93/sam.html and post how many kH/s you've got, please. Mine is 12.1.
I figure 11.4 kH/s


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: martismartis on November 06, 2015, 06:35:55 PM
0.7kH/s on Android TV stick  ;D


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 06, 2015, 06:38:10 PM
0.7kH/s on Android TV stick  ;D

Hm, it's a good idea, I'll hand over it to our marketing dept.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: martismartis on November 06, 2015, 06:41:18 PM
0.7kH/s on Android TV stick  ;D

Hm, it's a good idea, I'll hand over it to our marketing dept.

Is it good result or bad? Can't decide by myself :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: wizzardTim on November 06, 2015, 06:42:14 PM
12.9 with i7 2700K Chrome


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: coinyoo on November 06, 2015, 06:45:06 PM
A project announcement from come-from-beyond  :o Can't wait to get more information. Hope it will not be a ICO or IPO auction :/


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 06, 2015, 06:57:52 PM
A project announcement from come-from-beyond  :o Can't wait to get more information. Hope it will not be a ICO or IPO auction :/

It will be and there are several reasons for this:

1) Development isn't free.

2) Jinn Hardware development which will bootstrap the network isn't free

3) For every currency there NEEDS to be an economy that backs it, otherwise its purpose does not work. A token without value is by definition useless as a token. It's the exact same thing as putting in electricity and time to mine coins, it gives the coins a value over randomly issued tokens that people don't care about because they were free.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: kimosan on November 06, 2015, 07:03:27 PM
5820k running @ stock

Chrome: 13.6 kH/s
Firefox: 18.1 kH/s
IE: 14.8 kH/s

All latest stable


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: martismartis on November 06, 2015, 07:07:13 PM
0.3 kH/s on old Sony Xperia Arc with native browser :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 06, 2015, 07:28:48 PM
Is it good result or bad? Can't decide by myself :)

It's good.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 06, 2015, 07:30:16 PM
Win10 5820k running @ stock

Chrome: 13.6 kH/s
Firefox: 18.1 kH/s
IE: 14.8 kH/s

All latest stable

Hm, new IE works pretty good, my version of IE gives less than 5 kH/s.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: HmmMAA on November 06, 2015, 07:33:23 PM
windows 7 , intel pentium g3220 @ 3.00 Ghz
13.3 chrome
15.7 tor
6.9 ie 11


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: martismartis on November 06, 2015, 07:46:35 PM
Is it good result or bad? Can't decide by myself :)

It's good.

OK, fine. Why it is good and how it is good for IOATA? :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: WorldCoiner on November 06, 2015, 07:51:11 PM
0.9 kH/s with Chrome at a Wiko Rainbow 4G LTE Smartphone.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 06, 2015, 08:05:36 PM
OK, fine. Why it is good and how it is good for IOATA? :)

For Iota this result doesn't matter, it's just tokens, they don't care. For you it's good because you can use Iota on your TV stick.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: martismartis on November 06, 2015, 08:18:30 PM
OK, fine. Why it is good and how it is good for IOATA? :)

For Iota this result doesn't matter, it's just tokens, they don't care. For you it's good because you can use Iota on your TV stick.

Hope my stick will not explode using IOTA and NXT in it same time :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: AngelLox on November 06, 2015, 08:33:35 PM
Well, guys, Iota needs your help. Run http://188.138.57.93/sam.html and post how many kH/s you've got, please. Mine is 12.1.
14.6 kh/s
Macbook Pro 2012, Nvida GeForce GT 650M


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rlh on November 06, 2015, 08:39:34 PM
0.7kH/s on Android TV stick  ;D

Hm, it's a good idea, I'll hand over it to our marketing dept.

Lol, if I can find it and a power supply, I'll try to boot up my old Blackberry (from about 5 years ago) and see what it reports. :P  This may seem silly, but I imagine that an old Blackberry phone from 2000 could be on-par with a very-basic IoT device of 2016/17.

Also, if anyone else has old WiFi enabled hardware lying around, this could be a fun benchmark to play with.  Everyone wants to be fast, but I think it'd be kind of fun to find the smallest number using standard browser settings on old hardware. :P


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 06, 2015, 08:43:42 PM
0.7kH/s on Android TV stick  ;D

Hm, it's a good idea, I'll hand over it to our marketing dept.

Lol, if I can find it and a power supply, I'll try to boot up my old Blackberry (from about 5 years ago) and see what it reports. :P  This may seem silly, but I imagine that an old Blackberry phone from 2000 could be on-par with a very-basic IoT device of 2016/17.

Also, if anyone else has old WiFi enabled hardware lying around, this could be a fun benchmark to play with.  Everyone wants to be fast, but I think it'd be kind of fun to find the smallest number using standard browser settings on old hardware. :P

Great idea!


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 06, 2015, 08:45:54 PM
This may seem silly, but I imagine that an old Blackberry phone from 2000 could be on-par with a very-basic IoT device of 2016/17.

There is a difference in performance of JS and native versions on the same device. Try http://188.138.57.93/sam.exe to see that difference.

PS: https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/0190c0d55fa76ccf6f414a9cc98f7196f978cfc7a89142284acaf58b7d34f88a/analysis/1446842680/


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: martismartis on November 06, 2015, 10:15:58 PM
This may seem silly, but I imagine that an old Blackberry phone from 2000 could be on-par with a very-basic IoT device of 2016/17.

There is a difference in performance of JS and native versions on the same device. Try http://188.138.57.93/sam.exe to see that difference.

PS: https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/0190c0d55fa76ccf6f414a9cc98f7196f978cfc7a89142284acaf58b7d34f88a/analysis/1446842680/

Do you have any linux file for checking, try to check my satellite receiver   ;D


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 06, 2015, 10:17:45 PM
Do you have any linux file for checking, try to check my satellite receiver   ;D

Unfortunatelly, no.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Jimmy2011 on November 07, 2015, 01:29:28 AM
MacBook Air 2013

sam.js
9.5~10.5Kh/s  @Chrome 46.0.2490.80 m
14.0~15.1Kh/s @firefox 41.0.2

sam.exe  40Kh/s

I will boot on my Raspberry and CubieTruck again and test SaM if I have time.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: lovely89 on November 07, 2015, 04:49:09 AM
Well, guys, Iota needs your help. Run http://188.138.57.93/sam.html and post how many kH/s you've got, please. Mine is 12.1.

23.1 kH/s on Firefox
13 kH/s on Chromium


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: youyou_ on November 07, 2015, 07:30:17 AM
19.1 on latest Firefox, Linux Mint, Intel i7

13.3 with Chromium on the same machine.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: TRilon on November 07, 2015, 08:34:48 AM
What these figures will make the developers?                                                               .


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: 50cent_rapper on November 07, 2015, 09:20:02 AM
16.5 kH/s chrome
23.4 kH/s firefox

linux


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 07, 2015, 10:00:35 AM
What these figures will make the developers?                                                               .

They show that the client can be written in pure JavaScript, transactions can be generated pretty fast even in a browser.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tolstoy on November 07, 2015, 12:05:19 PM
Scale quantum computers do not exist yet maybe until 3000 year and who knows, While we need things to current devices to be used 2016-2999, So why hurry? What's the rush to “Obsolete” all convert?

https://www.nsa.gov/ia/programs/suiteb_cryptography/

Two security researchers have published a paper compiling the theories about the post-quantum cryptography advisory.

A Riddle Wrapped in an Enigma
Neal Koblitz and Alfred J. Menezes

http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1018.pdf
http://cacr.uwaterloo.ca/techreports/2015/cacr2015-14.pdf

http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2015/10/a-riddle-wrapped-in-curve.html


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 07, 2015, 12:37:03 PM
Two security researchers have published a paper compiling the theories about the post-quantum cryptography advisory.

A Riddle Wrapped in an Enigma
Neal Koblitz and Alfred J. Menezes

http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1018.pdf
http://cacr.uwaterloo.ca/techreports/2015/cacr2015-14.pdf

http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2015/10/a-riddle-wrapped-in-curve.html

Could you post here objective part, i.e. not based on politics nor hypotheses?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 07, 2015, 01:21:06 PM
Scale quantum computers do not exist yet maybe until 3000 year and who knows, While we need things to current devices to be used 2016-2999, So why hurry? What's the rush to “Obsolete” all convert?

https://www.nsa.gov/ia/programs/suiteb_cryptography/

Two security researchers have published a paper compiling the theories about the post-quantum cryptography advisory.

A Riddle Wrapped in an Enigma
Neal Koblitz and Alfred J. Menezes

http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1018.pdf
http://cacr.uwaterloo.ca/techreports/2015/cacr2015-14.pdf

http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2015/10/a-riddle-wrapped-in-curve.html

Very interesting reading. There are indeed breakthroughs in quantum computation almost weekly. Now of course 'breakthrough' is a laden word, but it's not really a controversial thing in academia. Big steps towards practical quantum computers are published wekly. Not too long ago there was still die-hard skeptics that claimed that decoherence made quantum computers IMPOSSIBLE, now of course we know that is bogus. Given that accelerating technology and research it should really be a no-brainer for anyone inventing the future to include protection against this.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: WorldCoiner on November 08, 2015, 07:47:52 AM
Hi iotatoken,

in which curreny will the ICO take place?
Bitcoin, Nxt oder even US Dollar?

Many thanks in advance!


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 08, 2015, 07:59:48 AM
Hi iotatoken,

in which curreny will the ICO take place?
Bitcoin, Nxt oder even US Dollar?

Many thanks in advance!


Bitcoin


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: WorldCoiner on November 08, 2015, 09:14:54 AM
Thanks. I hope there will be an investment cap to avoid big whales and ensure broad distribution.

Additional question: Is there any relation between Qubic, the old crypto project of CFB and IOTA? Many thanks.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: allwelder on November 08, 2015, 01:44:35 PM
Well, guys, Iota needs your help. Run http://188.138.57.93/sam.html and post how many kH/s you've got, please. Mine is 12.1.
12.9
i7CPU Chrome.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 08, 2015, 02:25:28 PM
Additional question: Is there any relation between Qubic, the old crypto project of CFB and IOTA? Many thanks.

Very little.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tolstoy on November 08, 2015, 07:55:13 PM
Well, guys, Iota needs your help. Run http://188.138.57.93/sam.html and post how many kH/s you've got, please. Mine is 12.1.

8.9 kH/s IE v11.0.9600.18053
14.1 kH/s Epic v40.0.2214.91
17.2 kH/s Chromodo v45.6.11.383 (Chromium 45.0.2454.93)
17.4 kH/s Chrome v46.0.2490.80 m
22.2 kH/s Tor v5.0.4 (Firefox 38.4.0)
23.1 kH/s Comodo IceDragon v40.1.1.18 (Firefox 40.0.2)
23.6 kH/s Firefox v42.0

(Win8.1 i7 @3.4Ghz)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 08, 2015, 08:57:04 PM
8.9 kH/s IE v11.0.9600.18053
14.1 kH/s Epic v40.0.2214.91
17.2 kH/s Chromodo v45.6.11.383 (Chromium 45.0.2454.93)
17.4 kH/s Chrome v46.0.2490.80 m
22.2 kH/s Tor v5.0.4 (Firefox 38.4.0)
23.1 kH/s Comodo IceDragon v40.1.1.18 (Firefox 40.0.2)
23.6 kH/s Firefox v42.0

(Win8.1 i7 @3.4Ghz)

Thank you. Looks like Firefox is the best.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: youyou_ on November 09, 2015, 07:09:03 AM
and looks like IE is a shit for everything


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 09, 2015, 11:44:49 AM
Now we are testing how keys are created and how JWrapper works.

Use any of the files below:

For Windows 32-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi32.exe or https://mega.nz/#!5BZQSbrJ!LL1twKvyVOphFgzfSikTcOMVwSEhmfeopsRpp4tN_04 (https://mega.nz/#!5BZQSbrJ!LL1twKvyVOphFgzfSikTcOMVwSEhmfeopsRpp4tN_04)
For Windows 64-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi64.exe or https://mega.nz/#!ccQVyLjC!4F_iGdmkvCIOSx6KSD607cY7Pv7881uNy0f2s54gecI (https://mega.nz/#!ccQVyLjC!4F_iGdmkvCIOSx6KSD607cY7Pv7881uNy0f2s54gecI)
For Linux 32-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi32.tar or https://mega.nz/#!1NgDQQBL!NA3TdqeDy1z3bHYcPMXne4b4lwCLyb5RpZzqFAyww9A (https://mega.nz/#!1NgDQQBL!NA3TdqeDy1z3bHYcPMXne4b4lwCLyb5RpZzqFAyww9A)
For Linux 64-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi64.tar or https://mega.nz/#!hZx2RJ5L!Pg2s6gQg4KCUF_v0I0i4_EWXMsraLATMDMf2wqFOZS8 (https://mega.nz/#!hZx2RJ5L!Pg2s6gQg4KCUF_v0I0i4_EWXMsraLATMDMf2wqFOZS8)
For Java 8 - http://188.138.57.93/atoi.jar (run via "java -jar atoi.jar")
The source code - http://188.138.57.93/atoi.java (compile via "javac atoi.java")

Run the app and open http://localhost:9999/9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz (it will take 5-10 seconds). You will see something like
Quote
GIETRWDKTJWJVAJDKZQHZAWGGKNCEONKJOUUCWCWLSSVTBUCATOIZTPLYVDDOISPZWBNHZMWRSDMQWE IN_IIBACWXHBCDIEJZSX9SUQAKI9XQNFJIQUASNMJLJZEHDZAOAQZJGMUQDHRRQYGOGSJRAJ99TKHGY DVPQE
The first part is your public key, the second part is your checkpointing key. These keys need to be published during the sale via https://blockchain.info/wallet.

"9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwx yz" is a seed that must be kept in secret, later it will be used to sign transactions. Don't use "9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwx yz", of course. Use another set of characters that noone could guess. It must be 81 chars long and can contain '9' and lowercase latin letters.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: ret on November 09, 2015, 12:40:55 PM
Now we are testing how keys are created and how JWrapper works.
 These keys need to be published during the sale via https://blockchain.info/wallet.


how do this?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 09, 2015, 12:42:33 PM
Another interview about IOTA: https://bitscan.com/articles/all-about-iota-microtransactions-and-the-iot


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smaragda on November 09, 2015, 12:49:05 PM
The first part is your public key, the second part is your checkpointing key. These keys need to be published during the sale via https://blockchain.info/wallet.

Not sure if using blockchain.info for this^ is a good idea; bad experiences trying to attach public messages with their service.

Then again, if there is a high % of successful attempts you can just have the rest send you a signed message, as long as folks make sure to not lose control of the BTC address keys.


...just thinking out loud...


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: achimsmile on November 09, 2015, 12:56:19 PM
...

Glad to see that this one requires min IQ of 90 again


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: ret on November 09, 2015, 01:23:33 PM
Now we are testing how keys are created and how JWrapper works.

Use any of the files below:

For Windows 32-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi32.exe
For Windows 64-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi64.exe
Download  30%...
only for  me?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 09, 2015, 01:44:01 PM
Now we are testing how keys are created and how JWrapper works.
 These keys need to be published during the sale via https://blockchain.info/wallet.


how do this?

Details how to publish keys will be posted later. For now you could become familiar with BlockChain.info Wallet.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 09, 2015, 01:45:57 PM
Not sure if using blockchain.info for this^ is a good idea; bad experiences trying to attach public messages with their service.

Then again, if there is a high % of successful attempts you can just have the rest send you a signed message, as long as folks make sure to not lose control of the BTC address keys.


...just thinking out loud...


It worked perfectly for Nxt, why won't it work for Iota? Sending something to us is a bad idea, we need the sale to go as transparent as possible.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: 50cent_rapper on November 09, 2015, 01:55:19 PM
Now we are testing how keys are created and how JWrapper works.

Use any of the files below:

For Windows 32-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi32.exe
For Windows 64-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi64.exe
Download  30%...
only for  me?


I can't download more then 40%.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smaragda on November 09, 2015, 01:56:18 PM
Sending something to us is a bad idea,...

Not at all.

I was trying to say (speaking only from personal bad experiences - thus biased) that if a high % of people have trouble attaching a public message, it will end up being a logistics nightmare for your team, especially if they lose access to the blockchain.info wallet in the meantime.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 09, 2015, 02:07:14 PM
I can't download more then 40%.

For Windows 32-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi32.exe or https://mega.nz/#!5BZQSbrJ!LL1twKvyVOphFgzfSikTcOMVwSEhmfeopsRpp4tN_04 (https://mega.nz/#!5BZQSbrJ!LL1twKvyVOphFgzfSikTcOMVwSEhmfeopsRpp4tN_04)
For Windows 64-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi64.exe or https://mega.nz/#!ccQVyLjC!4F_iGdmkvCIOSx6KSD607cY7Pv7881uNy0f2s54gecI (https://mega.nz/#!ccQVyLjC!4F_iGdmkvCIOSx6KSD607cY7Pv7881uNy0f2s54gecI)
For Linux 32-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi32.tar or https://mega.nz/#!1NgDQQBL!NA3TdqeDy1z3bHYcPMXne4b4lwCLyb5RpZzqFAyww9A (https://mega.nz/#!1NgDQQBL!NA3TdqeDy1z3bHYcPMXne4b4lwCLyb5RpZzqFAyww9A)
For Linux 64-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi64.tar or https://mega.nz/#!hZx2RJ5L!Pg2s6gQg4KCUF_v0I0i4_EWXMsraLATMDMf2wqFOZS8 (https://mega.nz/#!hZx2RJ5L!Pg2s6gQg4KCUF_v0I0i4_EWXMsraLATMDMf2wqFOZS8)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 09, 2015, 02:10:10 PM
Download  30%...
only for  me?
I can't download more then 40%.

Same here.

edit - mega worked.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: ret on November 09, 2015, 03:06:11 PM
Now we are testing how keys are created and how JWrapper works.
 These keys need to be published during the sale via https://blockchain.info/wallet.


how do this?

Details how to publish keys will be posted later. For now you could become familiar with BlockChain.info Wallet.
Ok.Mega worked?
yes!
I got keys from localhost:999.
Now I must create new wallet on blokchain.info?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 09, 2015, 03:15:22 PM
Now I must create new wallet on blokchain.info?

Not now, later.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Jimmy2011 on November 09, 2015, 03:51:26 PM
Now we are testing how keys are created and how JWrapper works.

Use any of the files below:

For Windows 32-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi32.exe
For Windows 64-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi64.exe
Download  30%...
only for  me?


I can't download more then 40%.

Download atoi.java works well, and it runs well.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rlh on November 09, 2015, 06:41:32 PM
...These keys need to be published during the sale via https://blockchain.info/wallet.

I don't have a BTC wallet because what BTC I do have I use for alt-trading.  Will I need to send my funds to a personal wallet and then send my ICO funds from my wallet to you guys ICO address, or will I be able to send funds from an exchange account?

I'm going to do what I have to do to pay up but I want to be sure so that I have my funds ready for the ICO.  Also, if I have to pay from my own wallet, I'm going to download a local BTC client and sync the blockchain.  When you say that a key needs to be posted to Blockchain.Info, I assume that you really mean that the pub-key needs to be published to the block-chain.  I can do this from a personal wallet, correct?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: LiQio on November 09, 2015, 06:49:55 PM
^ CfB probably wrote blockchain.info wallet because it's message functionality will be used.
See https://blockchain.info/de/wallet/features "Custom Send - Advanced Send form with coin control. With ability to embed messages in the blockchain."

I believe BCNext also used this.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 09, 2015, 06:57:23 PM
^ CfB probably wrote blockchain.info wallet because it's message functionality will be used.
See https://blockchain.info/de/wallet/features "Custom Send - Advanced Send form with coin control. With ability to embed messages in the blockchain."

I believe BCNext also used this.

Yes, it's so that we are 100% transparent and can't cheat the system.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 09, 2015, 07:43:05 PM
I don't have a BTC wallet because what BTC I do have I use for alt-trading.  Will I need to send my funds to a personal wallet and then send my ICO funds from my wallet to you guys ICO address, or will I be able to send funds from an exchange account?

I'm going to do what I have to do to pay up but I want to be sure so that I have my funds ready for the ICO.  Also, if I have to pay from my own wallet, I'm going to download a local BTC client and sync the blockchain.  When you say that a key needs to be posted to Blockchain.Info, I assume that you really mean that the pub-key needs to be published to the block-chain.  I can do this from a personal wallet, correct?

No need to download 50 GiB of Bitcoin blockchain. We'll use Custom Transaction of BlockChain.Info Wallet. This means you can't send BTC from an exchange or even the classical client.

http://s30.postimg.org/p35svqjy9/btc.png


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: DrBeer on November 09, 2015, 07:58:02 PM
I can't download more then 40%.

For Windows 32-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi32.exe or https://mega.nz/#!5BZQSbrJ!LL1twKvyVOphFgzfSikTcOMVwSEhmfeopsRpp4tN_04 (https://mega.nz/#!5BZQSbrJ!LL1twKvyVOphFgzfSikTcOMVwSEhmfeopsRpp4tN_04)
For Windows 64-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi64.exe or https://mega.nz/#!ccQVyLjC!4F_iGdmkvCIOSx6KSD607cY7Pv7881uNy0f2s54gecI (https://mega.nz/#!ccQVyLjC!4F_iGdmkvCIOSx6KSD607cY7Pv7881uNy0f2s54gecI)
For Linux 32-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi32.tar or https://mega.nz/#!1NgDQQBL!NA3TdqeDy1z3bHYcPMXne4b4lwCLyb5RpZzqFAyww9A (https://mega.nz/#!1NgDQQBL!NA3TdqeDy1z3bHYcPMXne4b4lwCLyb5RpZzqFAyww9A)
For Linux 64-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi64.tar or https://mega.nz/#!hZx2RJ5L!Pg2s6gQg4KCUF_v0I0i4_EWXMsraLATMDMf2wqFOZS8 (https://mega.nz/#!hZx2RJ5L!Pg2s6gQg4KCUF_v0I0i4_EWXMsraLATMDMf2wqFOZS8)


from the address http://188.138.57.93 download only 10 Mb, with mega - full size


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 09, 2015, 08:07:11 PM
from the address http://188.138.57.93 download only 10 Mb, with mega - full size

Interesting why so many people can't download from that server...


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smaragda on November 09, 2015, 08:37:08 PM
Interesting why so many people can't download from that server...

Tor users ?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 09, 2015, 08:51:47 PM
Tor users ?

No, something else...


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: onemorexmr on November 09, 2015, 08:56:33 PM

my download stopped after 5.4mb

i once had a similar problem with virtualbox bridging (which essentially used linux kernel network bridge). if you have some kind of container setup which uses a bridge this may be the reason (i solved it by switching to nat - so i dont know exactly the reason) - and my problem was the other way around: all downloads stopped after some mb.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tobeaj2mer01 on November 10, 2015, 10:20:14 AM
Now we are testing how keys are created and how JWrapper works.

Use any of the files below:

For Windows 32-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi32.exe or https://mega.nz/#!5BZQSbrJ!LL1twKvyVOphFgzfSikTcOMVwSEhmfeopsRpp4tN_04 (https://mega.nz/#!5BZQSbrJ!LL1twKvyVOphFgzfSikTcOMVwSEhmfeopsRpp4tN_04)
For Windows 64-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi64.exe or https://mega.nz/#!ccQVyLjC!4F_iGdmkvCIOSx6KSD607cY7Pv7881uNy0f2s54gecI (https://mega.nz/#!ccQVyLjC!4F_iGdmkvCIOSx6KSD607cY7Pv7881uNy0f2s54gecI)
For Linux 32-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi32.tar or https://mega.nz/#!1NgDQQBL!NA3TdqeDy1z3bHYcPMXne4b4lwCLyb5RpZzqFAyww9A (https://mega.nz/#!1NgDQQBL!NA3TdqeDy1z3bHYcPMXne4b4lwCLyb5RpZzqFAyww9A)
For Linux 64-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi64.tar or https://mega.nz/#!hZx2RJ5L!Pg2s6gQg4KCUF_v0I0i4_EWXMsraLATMDMf2wqFOZS8 (https://mega.nz/#!hZx2RJ5L!Pg2s6gQg4KCUF_v0I0i4_EWXMsraLATMDMf2wqFOZS8)
For Java 8 - http://188.138.57.93/atoi.jar (run via "java -jar atoi.jar")
The source code - http://188.138.57.93/atoi.java (compile via "javac atoi.java")

Run the app and open http://localhost:9999/9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz (it will take 5-10 seconds). You will see something like
Quote
GIETRWDKTJWJVAJDKZQHZAWGGKNCEONKJOUUCWCWLSSVTBUCATOIZTPLYVDDOISPZWBNHZMWRSDMQWE IN_IIBACWXHBCDIEJZSX9SUQAKI9XQNFJIQUASNMJLJZEHDZAOAQZJGMUQDHRRQYGOGSJRAJ99TKHGY DVPQE
The first part is your public key, the second part is your checkpointing key. These keys need to be published during the sale via https://blockchain.info/wallet.

"9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwx yz" is a seed that must be kept in secret, later it will be used to sign transactions. Don't use "9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwx yz", of course. Use another set of characters that noone could guess. It must be 81 chars long and can contain '9' and lowercase latin letters.

Can we use special chars like &*)(@#$ ect in the seed? I tested it, it doesn't work properly.

Test chars:

9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklm*op(rstu&#vwxyz9abcdefghijklmno&qrstuvwabba


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: loveyouforever on November 10, 2015, 10:24:02 AM
Who are you , iotatoken, can you identify yourself, iotatoken should be your sockpuppet.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 10, 2015, 10:51:10 AM
Can we use special chars like &*)(@#$ ect in the seed? I tested it, it doesn't work properly.

Test chars:

9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklm*op(rstu&#vwxyz9abcdefghijklmno&qrstuvwabba

No, not allowed chars are ignored.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: kunac on November 10, 2015, 11:04:18 AM
Obviously I can't use blockchain.info with Jinn. What about us?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 10, 2015, 11:07:53 AM
Obviously I can't use blockchain.info with Jinn. What about us?

Any Nxt client that allows to attach an unencrypted message.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 10, 2015, 12:33:39 PM
Who are you , iotatoken, can you identify yourself, iotatoken should be your sockpuppet.

His name is David Sonstebo - https://bitscan.com/articles/all-about-iota-microtransactions-and-the-iot

David is the project manager for this project if I am correct.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 10, 2015, 12:53:45 PM
Who are you , iotatoken, can you identify yourself, iotatoken should be your sockpuppet.

His name is David Sonstebo - https://bitscan.com/articles/all-about-iota-microtransactions-and-the-iot

David is the project manager for this project if I am correct.

True. I also don't see what CfB could possibly do with a sockaccount here haha


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Jimmy2011 on November 10, 2015, 02:10:18 PM

Will Iota adopt brain wallet similar to Nxt?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: cryptohunter on November 10, 2015, 02:29:57 PM
quantum computer proof does sound handy :) and I very much like the name.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 10, 2015, 02:42:32 PM

Will Iota adopt brain wallet similar to Nxt?


Yes. But the seed will be forced to 81 latin letters and '9'. Nothing stops other devs from using another approach, of course.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: youyou_ on November 10, 2015, 06:34:13 PM

Will Iota adopt brain wallet similar to Nxt?


Yes. But the seed will be forced to 81 latin letters and '9'. Nothing stops other devs from using another approach, of course.

why the fuck not 12345678 ?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 10, 2015, 07:13:59 PM
why the fuck not 12345678 ?

Iota is the 9th letter of Greek alphabet.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rlh on November 10, 2015, 08:36:16 PM

Will Iota adopt brain wallet similar to Nxt?


Yes. But the seed will be forced to 81 latin letters and '9'. Nothing stops other devs from using another approach, of course.

why the fuck not 12345678 ?

I'm going to read a bit between the lines here but IOTA is built to work efficiently with a ternary (as opposed to ye traditional binary) processor that CfB is working on.  I would assume that since there are 26 letters in the English alphabet, adding an additional character to the list would make a well rounded 27 (3^3) available characters.  So 3 trits (think base-3 bits) can easily represent one character in the pubkey.  By adding one more character to the usable alphabet you don't have to filter out or validate that one, unusable value. All possible 3-trit values can be used for an 81-character pubkey.

But why 9?  Since 0 and 1 tend to be thrown out of specialty character sets that may need to be read by humans, this would leave digits 2-9 as possible numeric candidates for the 27th letter of the alphabet. 

Being that this is for a ternary system, we could narrow down the numeric character subset to values "2", "3", "6" and "9" as best possibly choices for stylistic reasons.

Since 9 = 3^2 and as CfB mentioned is the position of the Iota in the Greek alphabet, it makes sense to use the character "9" as the final letter in the IOTA pubkey alphabet.

Again, I'm reading between the lines but this is likely the logic I would have followed if I needed to create a ternary-friendly alphabet consisting of a minimal subset of characters for pubkeys.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 10, 2015, 08:41:15 PM
I'm going to read a bit between the lines here but IOTA is built to work efficiently with a ternary (as opposed to ye traditional binary) processor that CfB is working on.  I would assume that since there are 26 letters in the English alphabet, adding an additional character to the list would make a well rounded 27 (3^3) available characters.  So 3 trits (think base-3 bits) can easily represent one character in the pubkey.  By adding one more character to the usable alphabet you don't have to filter out or validate that one, unusable value. All possible 3-trit values can be used for an 81-character pubkey.

But why 9?  Since 0 and 1 tend to be thrown out of specialty character sets that may need to be read by humans, this would leave digits 2-9 as possible numeric candidates for the 27th letter of the alphabet. 

Being that this is for a ternary system, we could narrow down the numeric character subset to values "2", "3", "6" and "9" as best possibly choices for stylistic reasons.

Since 9 = 3^2 and as CfB mentioned is the position of the Iota in the Greek alphabet, it makes sense to use the character "9" as the final letter in the IOTA pubkey alphabet.

Again, I'm reading between the lines but this is likely the logic I would have followed if I needed to create a ternary-friendly alphabet consisting of a minimal subset of characters for pubkeys.

You are an extrasense!


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: martismartis on November 10, 2015, 09:43:03 PM
Seed must be exactly 81 characters long or it can be shorter?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 10, 2015, 09:47:16 PM
Seed must be exactly 81 characters long or it can be shorter?

Exactly, to ensure 243-trit entropy.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Jimmy2011 on November 11, 2015, 04:01:00 AM

Will Iota adopt brain wallet similar to Nxt?


Yes. But the seed will be forced to 81 latin letters and '9'. Nothing stops other devs from using another approach, of course.

Exact 81 characters for a brain wallet seed, so it seems a little inconvenient for the user memory and input. I think there will be definitely some other wallets available with great random entropy and easy for use, say wallet file similar to Bitcoin.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smartwart on November 11, 2015, 09:09:42 AM

...

I think there will be definitely some other wallets available with great random entropy and easy for use, say wallet file similar to Bitcoin.


Hi,
could you explain what is "random entropy", please?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Jimmy2011 on November 11, 2015, 01:53:48 PM

...

I think there will be definitely some other wallets available with great random entropy and easy for use, say wallet file similar to Bitcoin.


Hi,
could you explain what is "random entropy", please?

It should be "randomness/entropy" :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Abraxas147 on November 11, 2015, 03:34:01 PM
Quote
Use any of the files below:

For Windows 32-bit - http[Suspicious link removed]


Run the app and open http://localhost:9999/9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz (it will take 5-10 seconds). You will see something like
Quote
GIETRWDKTJWJVAJDKZQHZAWGGKNCEONKJOUUCWCWLSSVTBUCATOIZTPLYVDDOISPZWBNHZMWRSDMQWE IN_IIBACWXHBCDIEJZSX9SUQAKI9XQNFJIQUASNMJLJZEHDZAOAQZJGMUQDHRRQYGOGSJRAJ99TKHGY DVPQE
The first part is your public key, the second part is your checkpointing key.

Hi,
when I run the above with FireFox Browser, I get one string without a break. Is it correct to split two characters before the "_" to get pub key and checkpoint key?

 





Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 11, 2015, 05:47:45 PM
Hi,
when I run the above with FireFox Browser, I get one string without a break. Is it correct to split two characters before the "_" to get pub key and checkpoint key?

There must be one string of 163 chars.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: martismartis on November 11, 2015, 11:07:42 PM
Hi,
when I run the above with FireFox Browser, I get one string without a break. Is it correct to split two characters before the "_" to get pub key and checkpoint key?

There must be one string of 163 chars.

Maybe it is possible to separate then somehow, indicating which is which? will be a lot of confusion and questions about it in future :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 11, 2015, 11:58:51 PM
Maybe it is possible to separate then somehow, indicating which is which? will be a lot of confusion and questions about it in future :)

No need, users will use only the secret seed. That string will be published only once during the sale.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: youyou_ on November 12, 2015, 06:40:51 AM
during the sale? I thought it was just for test. What is the purpose of this?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: achimsmile on November 12, 2015, 07:04:25 AM
during the sale? I thought it was just for test. What is the purpose of this?

They gotta know where to send your iota fortune:

These keys need to be published during the sale via https://blockchain.info/wallet.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Abraxas147 on November 12, 2015, 10:32:41 AM
Quote
Quote from: martismartis on November 11, 2015, 11:07:42 PM
Maybe it is possible to separate then somehow, indicating which is which? will be a lot of confusion and questions about it in future Smiley

No need, users will use only the secret seed. That string will be published only once during the sale.

But...

Quote
Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on November 09, 2015, 11:44:49 AM
These keys need to be published during the sale via https://blockchain.info/wallet.

Now I'm confused :-).

Which string do I have to put in during the ICO? I guess the 163 chars? Do I have to split them in two parts like in your example?



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Xeelee on November 12, 2015, 12:52:43 PM
Quote
Quote from: martismartis on November 11, 2015, 11:07:42 PM
Maybe it is possible to separate then somehow, indicating which is which? will be a lot of confusion and questions about it in future Smiley

No need, users will use only the secret seed. That string will be published only once during the sale.

But...

Quote
Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on November 09, 2015, 11:44:49 AM
These keys need to be published during the sale via https://blockchain.info/wallet.

Now I'm confused :-).

Which string do I have to put in during the ICO? I guess the 163 chars? Do I have to split them in two parts like in your example?



...I guess I will suck in this part as well ;-)
Probably the Devs will give some advice when the ICO starts. It's also in their interest that not half of the payments including wrong information.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 12, 2015, 12:54:09 PM
Now I'm confused :-).

Which string do I have to put in during the ICO? I guess the 163 chars? Do I have to split them in two parts like in your example?

163 chars without splitting. That string was split because of small screen width I think.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Blocktree on November 12, 2015, 02:56:19 PM
^ CfB probably wrote blockchain.info wallet because it's message functionality will be used.
See https://blockchain.info/de/wallet/features "Custom Send - Advanced Send form with coin control. With ability to embed messages in the blockchain."

I believe BCNext also used this.
CFB is BCNext,isn't it. ;D


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Blocktree on November 12, 2015, 02:59:39 PM
Now we are testing how keys are created and how JWrapper works.

Use any of the files below:

For Windows 32-bit - http[Suspicious link removed] or https://mega.nz/#!5BZQSbrJ!LL1twKvyVOphFgzfSikTcOMVwSEhmfeopsRpp4tN_04 (https://mega.nz/#!5BZQSbrJ!LL1twKvyVOphFgzfSikTcOMVwSEhmfeopsRpp4tN_04)
For Windows 64-bit - http[Suspicious link removed] or https://mega.nz/#!ccQVyLjC!4F_iGdmkvCIOSx6KSD607cY7Pv7881uNy0f2s54gecI (https://mega.nz/#!ccQVyLjC!4F_iGdmkvCIOSx6KSD607cY7Pv7881uNy0f2s54gecI)
For Linux 32-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi32.tar or https://mega.nz/#!1NgDQQBL!NA3TdqeDy1z3bHYcPMXne4b4lwCLyb5RpZzqFAyww9A (https://mega.nz/#!1NgDQQBL!NA3TdqeDy1z3bHYcPMXne4b4lwCLyb5RpZzqFAyww9A)
For Linux 64-bit - http://188.138.57.93/atoi64.tar or https://mega.nz/#!hZx2RJ5L!Pg2s6gQg4KCUF_v0I0i4_EWXMsraLATMDMf2wqFOZS8 (https://mega.nz/#!hZx2RJ5L!Pg2s6gQg4KCUF_v0I0i4_EWXMsraLATMDMf2wqFOZS8)
For Java 8 - http://188.138.57.93/atoi.jar (run via "java -jar atoi.jar")
The source code - http://188.138.57.93/atoi.java (compile via "javac atoi.java")

Run the app and open http://localhost:9999/9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz (it will take 5-10 seconds). You will see something like
Quote
GIETRWDKTJWJVAJDKZQHZAWGGKNCEONKJOUUCWCWLSSVTBUCATOIZTPLYVDDOISPZWBNHZMWRSDMQWE IN_IIBACWXHBCDIEJZSX9SUQAKI9XQNFJIQUASNMJLJZEHDZAOAQZJGMUQDHRRQYGOGSJRAJ99TKHGY DVPQE
The first part is your public key, the second part is your checkpointing key. These keys need to be published during the sale via https://blockchain.info/wallet.

"9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwx yz" is a seed that must be kept in secret, later it will be used to sign transactions. Don't use "9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwx yz", of course. Use another set of characters that noone could guess. It must be 81 chars long and can contain '9' and lowercase latin letters.
Downloaded it,works well.
Trying...


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Abraxas147 on November 12, 2015, 03:42:02 PM
Quote
163 chars without splitting. That string was split because of small screen width I think.

Thx for clarification!


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tolstoy on November 13, 2015, 12:09:48 AM
...

Very interesting reading. There are indeed breakthroughs in quantum computation almost weekly. Now of course 'breakthrough' is a laden word, but it's not really a controversial thing in academia. Big steps towards practical quantum computers are published wekly. Not too long ago there was still die-hard skeptics that claimed that decoherence made quantum computers IMPOSSIBLE, now of course we know that is bogus. Given that accelerating technology and research it should really be a no-brainer for anyone inventing the future to include protection against this.

The Turing paradox has been confirmed in an experiment.

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/10/zeno-effect-verified-atoms-wont-move-while-you-watch


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 13, 2015, 08:54:50 AM
The Turing paradox has been confirmed in an experiment.

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/10/zeno-effect-verified-atoms-wont-move-while-you-watch

We should speed up Iota development!


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: NextTroll on November 13, 2015, 09:33:53 AM
Maybe it is possible to separate then somehow, indicating which is which? will be a lot of confusion and questions about it in future :)

No need, users will use only the secret seed. That string will be published only once during the sale.

When will the sale?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: yassin54 on November 13, 2015, 09:51:01 AM
When will the sale?
Noël!  ;D


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tolstoy on November 13, 2015, 12:14:28 PM
The Turing paradox has been confirmed in an experiment.

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/10/zeno-effect-verified-atoms-wont-move-while-you-watch

We should speed up Iota development!

Sounds good - btw, yesterday was the anniversary of the Turing Machine paper.

http://plms.oxfordjournals.org/content/s2-42/1/230.full.pdf+html

http://www.computerhistory.org/tdih/November/12/


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 14, 2015, 07:28:21 PM
Updated - http://188.138.57.93/tangle.pdf


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smooth on November 14, 2015, 10:44:11 PM
Updated - http://188.138.57.93/tangle.pdf

A version history at least indication of what was changed would be nice.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on November 14, 2015, 11:18:38 PM
Updated - http://188.138.57.93/tangle.pdf

A version history at least indication of what was changed would be nice.

Basically, this is the previous version with the new tip selection algorithm (see here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1216479.msg12860801#msg12860801 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1216479.msg12860801#msg12860801)) included.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 15, 2015, 03:31:26 PM
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/google-planning-watershed-quantum.html likely highlighting the need for IOTA tech.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tolstoy on November 15, 2015, 03:57:50 PM
This would make a good hardware key for a brainwallet.

"The invention involves the creation of devices with unique identities on a nano-scale employing state-of-art quantum technology. Each device we've made is unique, 100% secure and impossible to copy or clone."
http://www.physics.lancs.ac.uk/news/002720/

Using Quantum Confinement to Uniquely Identify Devices
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep16456


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 16, 2015, 03:53:11 AM
Second part of the BitScan IOTA interview:

https://bitscan.com/articles/all-about-iota-ii-the-tangle-and-quantum-resistant-cryptography


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: WorldCoiner on November 16, 2015, 06:14:51 AM
Two years ago I was the first German blogger that took notice of Nxt. I hope for IOTA I can also play an important role to create attention in the German speaking communities (what includes Switzerland and Austria as well).

This first post includes a lot of information from this thread also some parts of the cointelegraph interview and other sources from the web.
In addition I brought attention to Jinn and how IOTA is related to this semiconductor start up:
https://altcoinspekulant.wordpress.com/2015/11/15/iota-kryptowaehrungsrevolution-zum-internet-of-things/

Have a good start in the week!


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 16, 2015, 11:54:41 AM
Two years ago I was the first German blogger that took notice of Nxt. I hope for IOTA I can also play an important role to create attention in the German speaking communities (what includes Switzerland and Austria as well).

This first post includes a lot of information from this thread also some parts of the cointelegraph interview and other sources from the web.
In addition I brought attention to Jinn and how IOTA is related to this semiconductor start up:
https://altcoinspekulant.wordpress.com/2015/11/15/iota-kryptowaehrungsrevolution-zum-internet-of-things/

Have a good start in the week!


Thanks a lot !


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 16, 2015, 12:40:31 PM
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/google-planning-watershed-quantum.html likely highlighting the need for IOTA tech.

If quantum computers become popular, what impact will it bring to Bitcoin and other existing cryptocoins?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: patmast3r on November 16, 2015, 12:48:08 PM
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/google-planning-watershed-quantum.html likely highlighting the need for IOTA tech.

If quantum computers become popular, what impact will it bring to Bitcoin and other existing cryptocoins?

Pretty much all current public-key cryptography is done for.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 16, 2015, 01:18:36 PM
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/google-planning-watershed-quantum.html likely highlighting the need for IOTA tech.

If quantum computers become popular, what impact will it bring to Bitcoin and other existing cryptocoins?


https://bitscan.com/articles/all-about-iota-ii-the-tangle-and-quantum-resistant-cryptography This explains some of it


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 16, 2015, 02:06:06 PM
Pretty much all current public-key cryptography is done for.

PoW blockchain mining too. PoS/PoI/DPoS blockchains unaffected.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 16, 2015, 02:25:14 PM
Pretty much all current public-key cryptography is done for.
PoW blockchain mining too. PoS/PoI/DPoS blockchains unaffected.

How difficult is it for Bitcoin and Ethereum to switch their current algorithms to quantum resistant cryptographic algorithms?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 16, 2015, 02:26:22 PM
How difficult is it for Bitcoin and Ethereum to switch their current algorithms to quantum resistant cryptographic algorithms?

Ethereum is migrating to PoS. Bitcoin will be dead.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: patmast3r on November 16, 2015, 02:30:19 PM
Pretty much all current public-key cryptography is done for.

PoW blockchain mining too. PoS/PoI/DPoS blockchains unaffected.

I guess those would be unaffected but those projects would still need to swtich from ecdsa to something else that is "quantum secure" for all their signing right ?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 16, 2015, 02:30:39 PM
How difficult is it for Bitcoin and Ethereum to switch their current algorithms to quantum resistant cryptographic algorithms?
Ethereum is migrating to PoS. Bitcoin will be dead.

But Ethereum still needs to take care their public key attack issues. Is it easy for Etheruem or POS to switch to a new algorithms to protect the public keys?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 16, 2015, 02:33:23 PM
I guess those would be unaffected but those projects would still need to swtich from ecdsa to something else that is "quantum secure" for all their signing right ?

Don't know about the others, but Nxt Account Control feature includes QC-resistance.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 16, 2015, 02:36:20 PM
Is it easy for Etheruem or POS to switch to a new algorithms to protect the public keys?

Existing schemes of QC-proof signing require pretty big signatures. In Iota, for example, ~433 bytes are occupied by the signature, it's exactly 50% of the transaction size.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tromp on November 16, 2015, 02:39:29 PM
Pretty much all current public-key cryptography is done for.

PoW blockchain mining too.

Hashcash PoW (like Bitcoin's and most altcoin's) is amenable to Grover search which can search a space of n nonces in time O(sqrt(n)).

But Hashcash with large memory requirements will likely not be affected as long as scaling quantum computers up to millions of bits remains elusive.

Non-hashcash PoWs like Cuckoo Cycle are even less affected, as they are immune to Grover search.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 16, 2015, 02:49:54 PM
Hashcash PoW (like Bitcoin's and most altcoin's) is amenable to Grover search which can search a space of n nonces in time O(sqrt(n)).

But Hashcash with large memory requirements will likely not be affected as long as scaling quantum computers up to millions of bits remains elusive.

Non-hashcash PoWs like Cuckoo Cycle are even less affected, as they are immune to Grover search.

"Improvements" like Scrypt make nodes more vulnerable to spam. Also, a quantum computer doesn't need to evaluate a whole hash value, it can verify first bits and throw away nonces that don't suit with high probability. BTW, why is Cuckoo Cycle less affected, birthday paradox problems are solved with N^(1/3) effort VS N^(1/2).


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tromp on November 16, 2015, 03:39:36 PM
Hashcash PoW (like Bitcoin's and most altcoin's) is amenable to Grover search which can search a space of n nonces in time O(sqrt(n)).

But Hashcash with large memory requirements will likely not be affected as long as scaling quantum computers up to millions of bits remains elusive.

Non-hashcash PoWs like Cuckoo Cycle are even less affected, as they are immune to Grover search.

 Also, a quantum computer doesn't need to evaluate a whole hash value, it can verify first bits and throw away nonces that don't suit with high probability.

Computing a single bit of a hash is almost as much effort as computing the whole hash; you might be saving a percent or two at most.

Quote
BTW, why is Cuckoo Cycle less affected, birthday paradox problems are solved with N^(1/3) effort VS N^(1/2).

Because, unlike Birthday collision problems, Cuckoo Cycle is a more structured search problem; you must find a 42 cycle in an arbitrary graph.
There are no known quantum speedups for such graph problems.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 16, 2015, 03:51:03 PM
Computing a single bit of a hash is almost as much effort as computing the whole hash; you might be saving a percent or two at most.

Could you provide a proof of this statement? http://jheusser.github.io/2013/02/03/satcoin.html claims the opposite.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 16, 2015, 04:28:53 PM
But Hashcash with large memory requirements will likely not be affected as long as scaling quantum computers up to millions of bits remains elusive.

I didn't find information on time-memory trade-off of quantum computers, but if we assume that the trade-off is not worse than the trade-off of classical computers then we get that memory increase of the hashing function can be counteracted by increasing time we run the computations. So Hashcash with large memory won't save us.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tromp on November 16, 2015, 04:33:59 PM
Computing a single bit of a hash is almost as much effort as computing the whole hash; you might be saving a percent or two at most.

Could you provide a proof of this statement?

Thus follows directly from how SHA256 is defined.
It is many rounds of confusion and dispersion;
so that each single bits in one round depends on pretty much all bits of previous rounds.

Quote
http://jheusser.github.io/2013/02/03/satcoin.html claims the opposite.

That is a long document to read. Where exactly does it claim that?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tromp on November 16, 2015, 04:37:39 PM
But Hashcash with large memory requirements will likely not be affected as long as scaling quantum computers up to millions of bits remains elusive.

I didn't find information on time-memory trade-off of quantum computers, but if we assume that the trade-off is not worse than the trade-off of classical computers then we get that memory increase of the hashing function can be counteracted by increasing time we run the computations. So Hashcash with large memory won't save us.

Of course I was talking about hash-functions that don't allow for time-memory trade-offs.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 16, 2015, 05:21:04 PM
Of course I was talking about hash-functions that don't allow for time-memory trade-offs.

Give me the name of one of such functions, please. The trade-off is a pretty universal thing, the best a function can do is to keep time*memory*advice constant, if I'm not mistaken.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 16, 2015, 05:27:47 PM
so that each single bits in one round depends on pretty much all bits of previous rounds.

This means that after some number of rounds SHA256 doesn't give a better mixing, hence it's possible to do a shortcut by finding a polynomial with fewer number of operators.


That is a long document to read. Where exactly does it claim that?

Quote
I introduced a novel algorithm to solve the bitcoin mining problem without using (explicit) brute force. Instead, the nonce search is encoded as a decision problem and solved by a SAT solver in such a way that a satisfiable instance contains a valid nonce. The key ingredients in the algorithm are a non-deterministic nonce and the ability to take advantage of the known structure of a valid hash using assume statements.

A couple of benchmarks demonstrated that already with simple parameter tuning dramatic speed ups can be achieved. Additionally, I explored the contentious claim that the algorithm might get more efficient with increasing bitcoin difficulty. Initial tests showed that block 218430 with considerably higher difficulty is solved more efficiently than the genesis block 0 for a given nonce range.

This means that in average computation of a single bit takes less time than computation of the whole hash.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tromp on November 16, 2015, 06:25:11 PM
Of course I was talking about hash-functions that don't allow for time-memory trade-offs.

Give me the name of one of such functions, please. The trade-off is a pretty universal thing, the best a function can do is to keep time*memory*advice constant, if I'm not mistaken.

You are quite mistaken. This is a recognized weakness in scypt's design.

Here's one: Argon2, winner of the Password Hashing Competition.

Most of the PHC candidates qualify, since time-memory-trade-off resistance was one of the design goals.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tromp on November 16, 2015, 06:41:47 PM
This means that in average computation of a single bit takes less time than computation of the whole hash.

Like I said it takes a about a percent less.

All that article does is propose an extremely inefficient way of evaluating SHA256,
as some of the comments there already point out.

You should find more reputable sources to support your questionable claims.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 16, 2015, 06:47:36 PM
Here's one: Argon2, winner of the Password Hashing Competition.

Argon2 whitepaper says that time-memory trade-off still can be used. At some point the trade-off stops working because computational units will occupy more space than the removed memory but this protection won't work for a quantum computer with its perfect parallelism of computations. Looks like Argon2 fails to deliver protection against quantum computers.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 16, 2015, 06:55:56 PM
You should find more reputable sources to support your questionable claims.

There are not that many papers that analyze algebraic attacks on double SHA256. Look at http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-21702-9_6#page-1 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265759.msg2851659#msg2851659 to get understanding how single bits can be computed faster than computation of the whole hash. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_normal_form may also help.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tromp on November 16, 2015, 07:07:40 PM
Here's one: Argon2, winner of the Password Hashing Competition.

Argon2 whitepaper says that time-memory trade-off still can be used. At some point the trade-off stops working because computational units will occupy more space than the removed memory but this protection won't work for a quantum computer with its perfect parallelism of computations. Looks like Argon2 fails to deliver protection against quantum computers.

The whitepaper (Table 1) says that reducing memory for Argon2d by a mere factor of 7 requires increasing the amount of computation by 2^18, and it only gets much worse beyond that.

Best of luck with your perfect quantum computer.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 16, 2015, 07:14:51 PM
The whitepaper (Table 1) says that reducing memory for Argon2d by a mere factor of 7 requires increasing the amount of computation by 2^18, and it only gets much worse beyond that.

Best of luck with your perfect quantum computer.

So it requires to add 18 qubits to that perfect quantum computer, it seems?

Have you seen this pic:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-75XxHgqAQQQ/VkbgbkQWGCI/AAAAAAABEMU/V-7OIUT0ISw/s640/futurequantum.png


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: WorldCoiner on November 16, 2015, 08:51:02 PM
Two years ago I was the first German blogger that took notice of Nxt. I hope for IOTA I can also play an important role to create attention in the German speaking communities (what includes Switzerland and Austria as well).

This first post includes a lot of information from this thread also some parts of the cointelegraph interview and other sources from the web.
In addition I brought attention to Jinn and how IOTA is related to this semiconductor start up:
https://altcoinspekulant.wordpress.com/2015/11/15/iota-kryptowaehrungsrevolution-zum-internet-of-things/

Have a good start in the week!


Thanks a lot !

Of course David. It would be great if I could contact you as well for an interview, not right now but begin of December, when we get closer to the ICO date. Just 4-5 questions.
Many thanks in advance!


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tromp on November 16, 2015, 09:01:57 PM
The whitepaper (Table 1) says that reducing memory for Argon2d by a mere factor of 7 requires increasing the amount of computation by 2^18, and it only gets much worse beyond that.

Best of luck with your perfect quantum computer.

So it requires to add 18 qubits to that perfect quantum computer, it seems?

You are rather confused about the abilities of quantum computers.
A 2^18 increase in sequential computation is also a 2^18 increase in quantum runtime.
Please read http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/The_Limits_of_Quantum_Computers.pdf
to understand what quantum computers can and cannot do.

Scott also writes regularly about DWave and their snake-oil version of quantum computer that your pictures alludes to. See http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2448


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 16, 2015, 09:11:47 PM
You are rather confused about the abilities of quantum computers.
A 2^18 increase in sequential computation is also a 2^18 increase in quantum runtime.
Please read http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/The_Limits_of_Quantum_Computers.pdf
to understand what quantum computers can and cannot do.

Scott also writes regularly about DWave and their snake-oil version of quantum computer that your pictures alludes to. See http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2448

DWave is not a quantum computer, that's true.

Regarding that 2^18 issue, your paper says:
Quote
A small number of particles in superposition
states can carry an enormous amount of information:
a mere 1,000 particles can be in a superposition
that represents every number from 1 to
2^1,000 (about 10^300), and a quantum computer
would manipulate all those numbers in
parallel, for instance, by hitting the particles
with laser pulses.
While it's obvious that 1 number is not enough for Argon2 computation, if we assume that 10 numbers is enough then 18*10 extra qubits should solve the problem. Right?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 16, 2015, 09:36:40 PM

Scott also writes regularly about DWave and their snake-oil version of quantum computer that your pictures alludes to. See http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2448


Scott Aaronson is a champion of scalable quantum computers: http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/hardware/why-im-wagering-100000-on-quantum-computing

No sure why you bring up D-Wave, everyone knows that they are doing quantum annealing, not proper quantum computations. None of this suggests we should not take a physical theory seriously. That's what this really boils down to, engineering challenges, the theory of quantum mechanics is crystal clear on this topic.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 16, 2015, 09:42:05 PM
An idea has come to my mind. We could use a quantum computer to check SHA256 digests for different patterns by using Kuperberg's quantum sieve algorithm, this would let us to assess how secure SHA256 is. No patterns = hash function is close to random oracle. We could do the same for any algorithm even if it requires petabytes of RAM, we need only digests.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tobeaj2mer01 on November 17, 2015, 04:20:16 AM
What algorithm will IOTA use, can I mine it?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 17, 2015, 08:29:52 AM
What algorithm will IOTA use, can I mine it?

Iota is not mineable.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 17, 2015, 01:38:46 PM
I wrote a comprehensive article about IOTA usage and how it fits into the IoT ecosystem:

https://medium.com/@DavidSonstebo/iota-97592581f985


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Hueristic on November 17, 2015, 02:02:28 PM
I've been wondering when this would be addressed. Applicable QC is alot closer than people realize.

Sergue, have you ever worked on engineering bio-weapons?

Also I don't quite see the rational for the need to create a completely different method as opposed to changing to a QC resistant algorithm such as polynomial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography
http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SMA/ispab/documents/minutes/2015-06/ispab_june-11_quantum_lchen.pdf
https://www.cs.elte.hu/blobs/diplomamunkak/msc_mat/2012/nemes_antal.pdf


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 17, 2015, 02:31:14 PM
I've been wondering when this would be addressed. Applicable QC is alot closer than people realize.

Sergue, have you ever worked on engineering bio-weapons?

Also I don't quite see the rational for the need to create a completely different method as opposed to changing to a QC resistant algorithm such as polynomial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography
http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SMA/ispab/documents/minutes/2015-06/ispab_june-11_quantum_lchen.pdf
https://www.cs.elte.hu/blobs/diplomamunkak/msc_mat/2012/nemes_antal.pdf

Could you rephrase the question?

Are you wondering why we did the Tangle instead of Blockchain?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on November 17, 2015, 02:38:12 PM

Sergue, have you ever worked on engineering bio-weapons?

No, that's another guy with the same name. If you continue searching, you'll find a famous violinist as well - that's not me.  :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: yassin54 on November 17, 2015, 02:52:16 PM
https://medium.com/@DavidSonstebo/iota-97592581f985
Tweeted!! https://twitter.com/MagicNxt/status/666629469138997248  8)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: WorldCoiner on November 17, 2015, 03:00:16 PM
I wrote a comprehensive article about IOTA usage and how it fits into the IoT ecosystem:

https://medium.com/@DavidSonstebo/iota-97592581f985

Nice work David, I like graphical work. Also the logo of IOTA is really great. It’s not just about tech in Cryptos, even things like a nice Logo can help to get attention.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Hueristic on November 17, 2015, 03:39:24 PM

Sergue, have you ever worked on engineering bio-weapons?

No, that's another guy with the same name. If you continue searching, you'll find a famous violinist as well - that's not me.  :)

Thx, Could you link your academic background please?

I've been wondering when this would be addressed. Applicable QC is alot closer than people realize.

Sergue, have you ever worked on engineering bio-weapons?

Also I don't quite see the rational for the need to create a completely different method as opposed to changing to a QC resistant algorithm such as polynomial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography
http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SMA/ispab/documents/minutes/2015-06/ispab_june-11_quantum_lchen.pdf
https://www.cs.elte.hu/blobs/diplomamunkak/msc_mat/2012/nemes_antal.pdf

Could you rephrase the question?

Are you wondering why we did the Tangle instead of Blockchain?

I am wondering why the need to replace the blockchain at this time. I am not sold on the idea that yet another coin (token ATM) needs to be created in order to solve the only serious issue I see with current solutions. I am also wondering if current solutions can be upgraded to this tangle with a fork? I understand that alot of work has obviously been put into this effort but I can see a few other methods to monetize this than the creation of yet another coin. Why not propose to the larger Alt projects they morph into this tangle for a fee and use them as a testbed to prove to bitcoin that this would be a hard fork worth pushing. If this were accomplished I see the funding flowing and the infrastructure will not have to be built from the ground up. I am still trying to digest the whitepaper (the math is beyond me) so could you list the bullet points for the advantage/disadvantages v/s blockchain tech.

Also
Quote
that  one  needs  to  check  in  order  to  nd  a  suitable  hash  for  issuing  a  transaction
is not so huge, it is only around 3
8
.  The gain of eciency for an \ideal" quantum
computer would be therefore of order 3
4
= 81, which is already quite acceptable (also,
remember that (
p
N
) could easily mean 10
p
N
or so).  Also, the algorithm is such
that the time to nd a nonce is not much larger than the time needed for other tasks
necessary to issue a transaction,  and the latter part is much more resistant agains
quantum computing.
Therefore, the above discussion suggests that the tangle provides a much better
protection against an adversary with a quantum computer compared to the (Bitcoin)
blockchain

Saying the time is not much larger is not quantitative. Bloat and TTC are subjective. I'm glad you added the qualifier "Suggests" as I do not see it proven but like I said I cannot follow the math, that is for smarter people than me. :)

Typo in red.

Goddamn I hate quoting from PDF's why do you people continue to use them? Stinking browser plugin failed and I lost all those tabs in the window with the PDF. PDF's are unsafe.

ANYTHING ADOBE IS UNSAFE!!!!


I finish redoing this later as I have to flush the cache and remove this browser from memory to recover stability and I have pages to backup before that.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on November 17, 2015, 03:49:42 PM

Thx, Could you link your academic background please?

https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=z62rjg0AAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 17, 2015, 04:20:27 PM
I am not sold on the idea that yet another coin (token ATM) needs to be created in order to solve the only serious issue I see with current solutions.

What is this issue? (We see more than one, btw.)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: WorldCoiner on November 17, 2015, 06:19:52 PM
Come-from-Beyond, I have a question regarding transactions per second. Dan Hughes brought up 2000 per second for eMunie (going live Q1 next year). You have had some discussions with him. Will IOTA be able to compete with this number?

Many thanks in advance Sir!


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 17, 2015, 06:31:00 PM
Come-from-Beyond, I have a question regarding transactions per second. Dan Hughes brought up 2000 per second for eMunie (going live Q1 next year). You have had some discussions with him. Will IOTA be able to compete with this number?

Many thanks in advance Sir!

It's hard to compare Iota and eMunie TPS because of different processing principle. Iota provides only payment, without other features of eMunie, it's like comparing apples to oranges.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 17, 2015, 08:13:39 PM
In Iota, if I am correct, most of the nodes will be light nodes and not store the full copies of the ledger. I wonder which nodes will store the full copies of the ledger.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 17, 2015, 08:58:02 PM
In Iota, if I am correct, most of the nodes will be light nodes and not store the full copies of the ledger. I wonder which nodes will store the full copies of the ledger.

Nodes will store the full copy at some moment in the past, depending on TPS that moment will move further from or closer to the present.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: achimsmile on November 17, 2015, 09:08:49 PM
Is tangle pruning planned, or is bloat not a concern?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 17, 2015, 09:12:45 PM
Is tangle pruning planned, or is bloat not a concern?

Pruning should be considered after we see how popular oracling function will be.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: achimsmile on November 17, 2015, 09:41:28 PM
Is tangle pruning planned, or is bloat not a concern?

Pruning should be considered after we see how popular oracling function will be.

What does oracling function do? I can't remember that you wrote about it.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Hueristic on November 18, 2015, 12:21:20 AM

Thx, Could you link your academic background please?

https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=z62rjg0AAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate

Thx for the link, good to see someone with credentials thats not hiding behind a anon wall and it got me watching Markov chains video's. Lol

I am not sold on the idea that yet another coin (token ATM) needs to be created in order to solve the only serious issue I see with current solutions.

What is this issue? (We see more than one, btw.)

That is what I asked the OP to provide in bullet points and why this solves those issues. I want to know why creating an entire infrastructure to solve these varied issues is preferable to correcting them in existing projects. Adding those points to the op would not be the worst idea I can think of either.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Daedelus on November 18, 2015, 01:07:35 AM

Thx, Could you link your academic background please?

https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=z62rjg0AAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate

It is nice to put a face to the name. I thought that you would be older  :D


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 18, 2015, 01:16:33 AM


That is what I asked the OP to provide in bullet points and why this solves those issues. I want to know why creating an entire infrastructure to solve these varied issues is preferable to correcting them in existing projects. Adding those points to the op would not be the worst idea I can think of either.

Good idea. This is what I tried to explore more in the 'summary' post over at Medium, though I kept it at a technical minimum to make it as layman friendly as possible.

Now some of the issues that the Tangle solves cannot be replicated by a blockchain, so I guess you are asking why we aren't instead trying to incorporate a Tangle in an existing project. The reason is quite simple: it's LITERALLY impossible. Just look at how infinitely slow Bitcoin progresses and how everyone gets a heartattack at the mere notion of making some changes to it. The rest of the technological world will not stop and wait for Bitcoin to catch up. IoT wont, Quantum Computers wont and the economy wont. So we started anew. Another motivation for this choice is simply that we don't believe in these omnisolutions. It's impossible to create the perfect key that opens all doors, there are ALWAYS flexibility trade-offs for adding features.

IOTA is meant to be purely a transactive token in real time, so it makes sense to create this 'pure token' that solves a problem, solves it really well and solves it NOW, not in a hypothetical ~5+ years down the line perspective.



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 18, 2015, 01:42:18 AM
Is tangle pruning planned, or is bloat not a concern?

Pruning should be considered after we see how popular oracling function will be.

What does oracling function do? I can't remember that you wrote about it.

In essence it means that IOTA can act as an oracle for other platforms, meaning it can provide data that smart contracts in Rootstock or Ethereum can act upon.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 18, 2015, 01:52:14 AM
Thx, Could you link your academic background please?
https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=z62rjg0AAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate

Great credentials! Does mthcl mean Math Call? ;D


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 18, 2015, 01:57:43 AM
In essence it means that IOTA can act as an oracle for other platforms, meaning it can provide data that smart contracts in Rootstock or Ethereum can act upon.

Why is that? I meant what makes Iota so reliable and special for other systems to treat its data as facts.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 18, 2015, 02:08:23 AM
In essence it means that IOTA can act as an oracle for other platforms, meaning it can provide data that smart contracts in Rootstock or Ethereum can act upon.

Why is that? I meant what makes Iota so reliable and special for other systems to treat its data as facts.

The weight of the Proof-of-Work behind it. If it was false, it would not be confirmed in Tangle.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 18, 2015, 02:23:53 AM
The weight of the Proof-of-Work behind it. If it was false, it would not be confirmed in Tangle.

For instance, in Rootstack and Ethereum, smart contracts may need interest rate and stock price from outside to trigger the contracts, will Iota be able to provide these kind data?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 18, 2015, 02:36:02 AM
The weight of the Proof-of-Work behind it. If it was false, it would not be confirmed in Tangle.

For instance, in Rootstack and Ethereum, smart contracts may need interest rate and stock price from outside to trigger the contracts, will Iota be able to provide these kind data?

Hmm, theoretically sure, but not necessarily. It all depends on how the use-cases evolves. IOTA doesn't discriminate, it can be used for all kinds of micro-transactions. But in my opinion, at least as I see it right now, it'll be based more on raw data from the IoT ecosystem.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 18, 2015, 02:49:54 AM
But in my opinion, at least as I see it right now, it'll be based more on raw data from the IoT ecosystem.

Make sense.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on November 18, 2015, 12:18:11 PM

Thx, Could you link your academic background please?

https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=z62rjg0AAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate

It is nice to put a face to the name. I thought that you would be older  :D
I'm old, 43 already...    :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mthcl on November 18, 2015, 12:18:48 PM
Does mthcl mean Math Call? ;D
no   :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: WorldCoiner on November 18, 2015, 01:18:45 PM
Come-from-Beyond, mthcl or David just one additional question: Is the amount of IOTA-Token/Coins really 999’999’999 and there are 9 figures after decimal point, so one more than Bitcoin have? So IOTA has even smaller units like a Bitcoin Satoshi? Thanks for clarification.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 18, 2015, 01:31:17 PM
Come-from-Beyond, mthcl or David just one additional question: Is the amount of IOTA-Token/Coins really 999’999’999 and there are 9 figures after decimal point, so one more than Bitcoin have? So IOTA has even smaller units like a Bitcoin Satoshi? Thanks for clarification.

No. There will be 999'999'999'.999999999.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: WorldCoiner on November 18, 2015, 01:58:28 PM
Thanks for clarification. Probably my English was not good enough but this is what I've assumed, so .999999999 and not 0.99999999


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 18, 2015, 02:38:00 PM
Come-from-Beyond, mthcl or David just one additional question: Is the amount of IOTA-Token/Coins really 999’999’999 and there are 9 figures after decimal point, so one more than Bitcoin have? So IOTA has even smaller units like a Bitcoin Satoshi? Thanks for clarification.
No. There will be 999'999'999'.999999999.

So they are all integer and total # is 1 quintillion minus 1, right? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 18, 2015, 03:56:22 PM
So they are all integer and total # is 1 quintillion minus 1, right? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers

Maybe. There is ambiguity in number names, e.g. sometimes a billion contains 9 zeros, sometimes 12. There are 18 decimal places in Iota amounts.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 18, 2015, 05:42:22 PM
So they are all integer and total # is 1 quintillion minus 1, right? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers
Maybe. There is ambiguity in number names, e.g. sometimes a billion contains 9 zeros, sometimes 12. There are 18 decimal places in Iota amounts.

What is the rationale to create such a huge amount of coins?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: msin on November 18, 2015, 05:59:30 PM
So they are all integer and total # is 1 quintillion minus 1, right? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers
Maybe. There is ambiguity in number names, e.g. sometimes a billion contains 9 zeros, sometimes 12. There are 18 decimal places in Iota amounts.

What is the rationale to create such a huge amount of coins?

Micro-Transactions.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 18, 2015, 06:08:36 PM
So they are all integer and total # is 1 quintillion minus 1, right? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers
Maybe. There is ambiguity in number names, e.g. sometimes a billion contains 9 zeros, sometimes 12. There are 18 decimal places in Iota amounts.

What is the rationale to create such a huge amount of coins?

Micro-Transactions.

Exactly, 10^18 units is not that much if we recall share size of IoT market.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: WorldCoiner on November 18, 2015, 06:21:27 PM
Now I have understood. Thanks. The first Investors will really be whales ;-)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 18, 2015, 06:24:56 PM
Exactly, 10^18 units is not that much if we recall share size of IoT market.

so the sellers can price the data by per byte, or something like that, correct?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tromp on November 18, 2015, 08:08:20 PM
Exactly, 10^18 units is not that much if we recall share size of IoT market.

so the sellers can price the data by per byte, or something like that, correct?

even per bit :-)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 18, 2015, 08:26:16 PM
so the sellers can price the data by per byte, or something like that, correct?

Depends. Bandwidth is too cheap for pricing per byte.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rlh on November 18, 2015, 08:51:55 PM
What will be the fee structure of IOTA?  Or will there even be one?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 18, 2015, 09:10:58 PM
What will be the fee structure of IOTA?  Or will there even be one?

There is no fees in Iota, you "pay" by securing the system.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 19, 2015, 06:46:25 PM
Can Itoa client be installed in most of today's sensors in term of the hardware requirement or do most of today's sensors meet the minimum hardware requirement to install Itota client?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 19, 2015, 07:45:37 PM
Can Itoa client be installed in most of today's sensors in term of the hardware requirement or do most of today's sensors meet the minimum hardware requirement to install Itota client?

Full client can't run on MCUs with 64 KiB RAM, but lightweight part can.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 19, 2015, 08:20:44 PM
Full client can't run on MCUs with 64 KiB RAM, but lightweight part can.

How many full clients does the network need to support all the operation of lightweigh clients (Is there an ideal ratio between the two)?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 19, 2015, 08:36:17 PM
How many full clients does the network need to support all the operation of lightweigh clients (Is there an ideal ratio between the two)?

There is no dependency.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smartwart on November 20, 2015, 07:06:53 PM
Hi, may I ask some question:
How do you handle the messaging stuff?
Do you use a proprietary protocol from you Jinn software part or is it something common?
What kind of message architecture is planned (peer2peer one way pub => sub, multiplexing, ..., with middle ware)?
If the performance == message load scales well with increasing network this could be an really interesting part.
Do you expect some bottlenecks or maybe have some measurements from current tests?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 20, 2015, 07:24:37 PM
Hi, may I ask some question:
How do you handle the messaging stuff?
Do you use a proprietary protocol from you Jinn software part or is it something common?
What kind of message architecture is planned (peer2peer one way pub => sub, multiplexing, ..., with middle ware)?
If the performance == message load scales well with increasing network this could be an really interesting part.
Do you expect some bottlenecks or maybe have some measurements from current tests?

We are planning to use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Datagram_Protocol running on top of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6. Because of the small size of the packets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_MTU_Discovery and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_fragmentation are not required which simplifies networking to the max possible degree. Messages will look like transactions, they will secure the network by "paying" with PoW for their delivery to the majority of the nodes. Messages won't be preserved, only their hash will be, so the recipient will get a message only if he is online or one of the nodes decided to archive and retransmit the message after a special request which itself can be such a message.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smartwart on November 20, 2015, 08:30:17 PM
OK,  UDP seems really proper with low latency for what you are doing.
The message encryption is done by the publisher which is the POW part, right?
Than the publisher fan-out the message to all known endpoints and they store the hash only?
Do the nodes who receiving the message send them further to all endpoints they know, or the hash only?
(I guess this would be the validation process)

How do you handle serialization of all this many small packages?
Do you use protocol buffer or another queuing library?

Sorry for the many ?. But distributed apps are very fascinating (problems).


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 20, 2015, 08:42:47 PM
OK,  UDP seems really proper with low latency for what you are doing.
The message encryption is done by the publisher which is the POW part, right?
Than the publisher fan-out the message to all known endpoints and they store the hash only?
Do the nodes who receiving the message send them further to all endpoints they know, or the hash only?
(I guess this would be the validation process)

How do you handle serialization of all this many small packages?
Do you use protocol buffer or another queuing library?

Sorry for the many ?. But distributed apps are very fascinating (problems).

Message can be encrypted or in plaintext.
All nodes send the message, not the hash.
I didn't get the serialization of a packet part - all packets are serialized objects.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smartwart on November 20, 2015, 09:02:08 PM
 
... 
 
I didn't get the serialization of a packet part - all packets are serialized objects.

OK, that implies you use bytestream <=> Object conversion by JVM.
 


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smartwart on November 20, 2015, 09:07:29 PM

Message can be encrypted or in plaintext.
All nodes send the message, not the hash.
...

Does it means, all encrypted messages become encrypted again by receiving nodes
and than sent further?
(I try to get the POW part)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 20, 2015, 09:14:40 PM
OK, that implies you use bytestream <=> Object conversion by JVM.

No, JVM is not involved, it's conversion of Iota objects.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 20, 2015, 09:15:12 PM
Does it means, all encrypted messages become encrypted again by receiving nodes
and than sent further?
(I try to get the POW part)

No. Messages are retransmitted as is.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smartwart on November 20, 2015, 09:47:57 PM
OK, that implies you use bytestream <=> Object conversion by JVM.

No, JVM is not involved, it's conversion of Iota objects.

My assumption was that IOTA is in Java and you use java object serialization.
Could you give me a hint ;-)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smartwart on November 20, 2015, 09:49:05 PM
Does it means, all encrypted messages become encrypted again by receiving nodes
and than sent further?
(I try to get the POW part)

No. Messages are retransmitted as is.

Is the POW concept explained in the paper?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 20, 2015, 09:56:58 PM
My assumption was that IOTA is in Java and you use java object serialization.
Could you give me a hint ;-)

We use our own serialization, Iota works with trinary-based numbers.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 20, 2015, 09:57:17 PM
Is the POW concept explained in the paper?

No.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smartwart on November 20, 2015, 10:02:20 PM
My assumption was that IOTA is in Java and you use java object serialization.
Could you give me a hint ;-)

We use our own serialization, Iota works with trinary-based numbers.

OK, seems I need to be patient until the "Katze is aus dem Sack"
Thanks.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smartwart on November 20, 2015, 10:05:10 PM
Is the POW concept explained in the paper?

No.

Phuu, seems I'm lucky not to go through all the math:)
Is the concept released anywhere or do I need to be patient?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 20, 2015, 10:07:27 PM
Is the concept released anywhere or do I need to be patient?

Details will be known later.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smartwart on November 20, 2015, 10:14:27 PM
OK, many thanks!


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tolstoy on November 21, 2015, 04:20:11 AM
Loophole-free Bell test TU Delft crowns 80-years-old debate on nature of reality: Einsteins “spooky action” is real.
http://www.tudelft.nl/en/current/latest-news/article/detail/einsteins-ongelijk-delfts-experiment-beeindigt-80-jaar-oude-discussie/


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: SecretsCoin on November 21, 2015, 04:35:31 AM
Is the concept released anywhere or do I need to be patient?

Details will be known later.
fine ,waiting for your official news


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 21, 2015, 09:23:29 PM
Loophole-free Bell test TU Delft crowns 80-years-old debate on nature of reality: Einsteins “spooky action” is real.
http://www.tudelft.nl/en/current/latest-news/article/detail/einsteins-ongelijk-delfts-experiment-beeindigt-80-jaar-oude-discussie/

Definitely a really interesting result. Last 'loophole free' test turned out to have been analysed wrong, so expect another 6 months until consensus.  It also leave retrocausal and free will loophole open


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 22, 2015, 01:18:07 PM
We can finally disclose the date for the IOTA crowdsale. It will begin on the 25th of November at 2 PM UTC.


All details surrounding the sale will be made available on Wednesday.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: youyou_ on November 22, 2015, 01:53:03 PM
We can finally disclose the date for the IOTA crowdsale. It will begin on the 25th of November at 2 PM UTC.


All details surrounding the sale will be made available on Wednesday.

what about jinn holders?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: yassin54 on November 22, 2015, 01:55:14 PM

what about jinn holders?
Look this https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/%28ann%29-jinn/msg201200/?topicseen#msg201200  ;)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Hueristic on November 22, 2015, 02:58:03 PM
Considering this but am divested in BTC atm. What other methods of payment will you accept on initial ICO?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 22, 2015, 03:20:29 PM
Considering this but am divested in BTC atm. What other methods of payment will you accept on initial ICO?

Only Bitcoin and JINN tokens


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: P-Funk on November 22, 2015, 03:23:26 PM
You're not going to release the details of the crowdsale fundraiser until the day it starts? ...Why?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 22, 2015, 03:29:41 PM
You're not going to release the details of the crowdsale fundraiser until the day it starts? ...Why?

It's mainly due to some documentation still being written and to prevent a flood of questions that always come with partial info. It's easier to ensure that everyone get the same information by releasing it all at once than in bits.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Hueristic on November 22, 2015, 03:30:29 PM
Considering this but am divested in BTC atm. What other methods of payment will you accept on initial ICO?

Only Bitcoin and JINN tokens

Link me to proof of trust for you guys.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: P-Funk on November 22, 2015, 03:35:03 PM
You're not going to release the details of the crowdsale fundraiser until the day it starts? ...Why?

It's mainly due to some documentation still being written and to prevent a flood of questions that always come with partial info. It's easier to ensure that everyone get the same information by releasing it all at once than in bits.

That makes sense, but why release the details of it the same day you'll start selling the tokens? Why not give your potential buyers some time to read and understand what they're buying into before you offer them for sale?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 22, 2015, 03:37:39 PM
Considering this but am divested in BTC atm. What other methods of payment will you accept on initial ICO?

Only Bitcoin and JINN tokens

Link me to proof of trust for you guys.

Proof of trust?
The cryptographic token software sale will happen via a Norwegian registered company that is established for our hardware start-up and IOTA sale. Not sure what kind of proof you talk about. Whether you trust our competence or not is entirely up to you.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Hueristic on November 22, 2015, 03:52:42 PM
Considering this but am divested in BTC atm. What other methods of payment will you accept on initial ICO?

Only Bitcoin and JINN tokens

Link me to proof of trust for you guys.

Proof of trust?
The cryptographic token software sale will happen via a Norwegian registered company that is established for our hardware start-up and IOTA sale. Not sure what kind of proof you talk about. Whether you trust our competence or not is entirely up to you.

Your not sure what I mean> Lol

You ask for ICO and Show no proof of trust??

Is this come-from-beyond?

https://twitter.com/theabhinavdas

https://about.me/abhinavdas

And why accept a colored NXT (that no-one's heard of or cares about) coin and not alts that have true value? <<Removed from discusion to as not distract from the more important questions.

Your ICO is starting to sound pretty fishy.

Link this "Norwegian registered company". And why isn't it linked in the OP???


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 22, 2015, 03:57:02 PM
Your ICO is starting to sound pretty fishy.

Interesting, why? I'm not sure I follow your logic, unless it's veiled trolling, in this case your words make perfect sense.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 22, 2015, 04:02:23 PM
and not alts that have true value?

What alts exactly? Altcoin shills are not welcome in this thread because they derail the convo. I hope you'll provide a good reasoning why that altcoin of your choice is good, if not, I'll delete that your post. Just enforcing the rules, nothing personal.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Hueristic on November 22, 2015, 04:08:42 PM
and not alts that have true value?

What alts exactly? Altcoin shills are not welcome in this thread because they derail the convo. I hope you'll provide a good reasoning why that altcoin of your choice is good, if not, I'll delete that your post. Just enforcing the rules, nothing personal.

Sorry, I'll delete that comment if it affects your sensitivities. Pretty fishy though only accepting some easily created colored coin and not established alts like LTC. Not trying to use this to pump it are you?

Deleting it so as not to distract from the real questions you seem to be evading.

Now answer the other questions.

Is that you I linked and Link this so called norwegen company and prove that you and your crew are trustworthy enough to send hard earned cash to.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 22, 2015, 04:12:01 PM
and not alts that have true value?

What alts exactly? Altcoin shills are not welcome in this thread because they derail the convo. I hope you'll provide a good reasoning why that altcoin of your choice is good, if not, I'll delete that your post. Just enforcing the rules, nothing personal.

Sorry, I'll delete that comment if it affects your sensitivities. Pretty fishy though only accepting some easily created colored coin and not established alts like LTC. Not trying to use this to pump it are you?

Deleting it so as not to distract from the real questions you seem to be evading.

Now answer the other questions.

Is that you I linked and Link this so called norwegen company and prove that you and your crew are trustworthy enough to send hard earned cash to.

I wont even engage in conspiracy theories. Don't buy if you don't want. Problem solved.
As to why we accept JINN tokens = their BTC value is equally valuable to our hardware company, it's not an altcoin.

Abhinav Das was a developer for our compiler (processor part of start-up) and no, it's not CfB. Now stop trolling this thread. I already told you that all information will be disclosed on wednesday, make your choice based on that info.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: WorldCoiner on November 22, 2015, 04:14:01 PM
and not alts that have true value?

What alts exactly? Altcoin shills are not welcome in this thread because they derail the convo. I hope you'll provide a good reasoning why that altcoin of your choice is good, if not, I'll delete that your post. Just enforcing the rules, nothing personal.

Sorry, I'll delete that comment if it affects your sensitivities. Pretty fishy though only accepting some easily created colored coin and not established alts like LTC. Not trying to use this to pump it are you?

Deleting it so as not to distract from the real questions you seem to be evading.

Now answer the other questions.

Is that you I linked and Link this so called norwegen company and prove that you and your crew are trustworthy enough to send hard earned cash to.

They accept Jinn, because they are Jinn, it's their Company. They trust themselves, you not yourself?
This guys are all known by their Real Name, not a lot of ICOs took place with such a transparency.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 22, 2015, 04:18:02 PM
Pretty fishy though only accepting some easily created colored coin and not established alts like LTC. Not trying to use this to pump it are you?

No, we don't try to pump them.


Now answer the other questions.

Is that you I linked and Link this so called norwegen company and prove that you and your crew are trustworthy enough to send hard earned cash to.

No that was not me, I don't use Twitter.

The company is selling software, if you don't want to buy it, then noone forces you to do this. If you buy your rights will be protected by consumer protection laws which significantly lowers threshold for trust (because you will be protected by the state).


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Hueristic on November 22, 2015, 04:20:45 PM
and not alts that have true value?

What alts exactly? Altcoin shills are not welcome in this thread because they derail the convo. I hope you'll provide a good reasoning why that altcoin of your choice is good, if not, I'll delete that your post. Just enforcing the rules, nothing personal.

Sorry, I'll delete that comment if it affects your sensitivities. Pretty fishy though only accepting some easily created colored coin and not established alts like LTC. Not trying to use this to pump it are you?

Deleting it so as not to distract from the real questions you seem to be evading.

Now answer the other questions.

Is that you I linked and Link this so called norwegen company and prove that you and your crew are trustworthy enough to send hard earned cash to.

They accept Jinn, because they are Jinn, it's their Company. They trust themselves, you not yourself?
This guys are all known by their Real Name, not a lot of ICOs took place with such a transparency.

OK so then link this company and all these "Known guys", problem solved. All that info should be in the OP. If you run a business you place the information about said business right out in front. So put it in the OP.

Do you think people are stupid enough to throw away their hard earned cash without vetting?

Everyone doesn't know or even care about Jinn, I think you guys give yourself to much credit.

So if they are "Known by their real names" then add that to the OP.

Simple.

Otherwise I am seeing nothing but red flags.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: WorldCoiner on November 22, 2015, 04:23:04 PM
This Infos are all here within the last 39 pages. Do your homework before trolling around.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Hueristic on November 22, 2015, 04:23:08 PM
Pretty fishy though only accepting some easily created colored coin and not established alts like LTC. Not trying to use this to pump it are you?

No, we don't try to pump them.


Now answer the other questions.

Is that you I linked and Link this so called norwegen company and prove that you and your crew are trustworthy enough to send hard earned cash to.

No that was not me, I don't use Twitter.

The company is selling software, if you don't want to buy it, then noone forces you to do this. If you buy your rights will be protected by consumer protection laws which significantly lowers threshold for trust (because you will be protected by the state).

Correct, as long as I know the real Identity of said Company, so really for the third time JUST link it so I can Vet it. Is that so hard to do???


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 22, 2015, 04:25:02 PM
So if they are "Known by their real names" then add that to the OP.

I would do it but it doesn't solve the issue. Say, I'll write in the OP that my name is Elvis Presley, will you be satisfied? :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 22, 2015, 04:26:57 PM
Is that so hard to do???

No. Just wait for the sale details.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Hueristic on November 22, 2015, 04:29:30 PM
This Infos are all here within the last 39 pages. Do your homework before trolling around.

I'm not reading another 39 pages. If it is in there then link it and AS I HAVE STATED numerous times, Link it in the OP and problem solved.

And I will also delete my posts. They are not trolling.

Asking legitimate questions about people asking for investment money is standard practice and not receiving that information is a HUGE RED FLAG.

BTW the Ad Hominems are not helping, I am one step away from stating a scam thread for you guys so I would recommend just giving me the info I'm asking for.

AND I would like to state that I really like the concept as well as the whiepaper and Do hope this is not another ICO scam. I had planned on buying btc or convert some alts for this until I started getting the run around here.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 22, 2015, 04:33:24 PM
BTW the Ad Hominems are not helping, I am one step away from stating a scam thread for you guys so I would recommend just giving me the info I'm asking for.

I recommend just wait for the details which will be disclosed later. Regarding the scam thread - I don't mind, it will bring more attention, once we reveal the info the people will see that it's not a scam.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Hueristic on November 22, 2015, 04:34:43 PM
So if they are "Known by their real names" then add that to the OP.

I would do it but it doesn't solve the issue. Say, I'll write in the OP that my name is Elvis Presley, will you be satisfied? :)

If you all wish to stay anonymous then state that. I am not the one who brought up that all your real identity's are known.

Is that so hard to do???

No. Just wait for the sale details.

Maybe you don't get the fact that not everyone holds there stack in BTC (the smart one sold at the top of the bubble DUH) and it takes time to convert Fiat to BTC. Hence the question What other forms of payment.

ADDED:

BTW the Ad Hominems are not helping, I am one step away from stating a scam thread for you guys so I would recommend just giving me the info I'm asking for.

I recommend just wait for the details which will be disclosed later. Regarding the scam thread - I don't mind, it will bring more attention, once we reveal the info the people will see that it's not a scam.

OK, fair enough. I would only start a scam thread if you started deleting my VERY sensible questions.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 22, 2015, 04:38:11 PM
If you all wish to stay anonymous then state that. I am not the one who brought up that all your real identity's are known.

I don't want to stay anonymous. On the other hand I can't post my name right away because it would mean that I have agreed that posting the name solves the issue, unfortunatelly, it doesn't solve the issue without a proof that I posted the real name. Such the proof is impossible to provide via Internet.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: P-Funk on November 22, 2015, 04:46:30 PM
You're not going to release the details of the crowdsale fundraiser until the day it starts? ...Why?

It's mainly due to some documentation still being written and to prevent a flood of questions that always come with partial info. It's easier to ensure that everyone get the same information by releasing it all at once than in bits.

That makes sense, but why release the details of it the same day you'll start selling the tokens? Why not give your potential buyers some time to read and understand what they're buying into before you offer them for sale?

Did you guys miss this or are you ignoring it?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: sluppy on November 22, 2015, 05:01:16 PM
and not alts that have true value?

What alts exactly? Altcoin shills are not welcome in this thread because they derail the convo. I hope you'll provide a good reasoning why that altcoin of your choice is good, if not, I'll delete that your post. Just enforcing the rules, nothing personal.

Sorry, I'll delete that comment if it affects your sensitivities. Pretty fishy though only accepting some easily created colored coin and not established alts like LTC. Not trying to use this to pump it are you?

Deleting it so as not to distract from the real questions you seem to be evading.

Now answer the other questions.

Is that you I linked and Link this so called norwegen company and prove that you and your crew are trustworthy enough to send hard earned cash to.

They accept Jinn, because they are Jinn, it's their Company. They trust themselves, you not yourself?
This guys are all known by their Real Name, not a lot of ICOs took place with such a transparency.

Jinn is not their Company  , their company name is Triangle wich Jinn is a part of.

https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/(ann)-jinn/



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 22, 2015, 05:02:31 PM
You're not going to release the details of the crowdsale fundraiser until the day it starts? ...Why?

It's mainly due to some documentation still being written and to prevent a flood of questions that always come with partial info. It's easier to ensure that everyone get the same information by releasing it all at once than in bits.

That makes sense, but why release the details of it the same day you'll start selling the tokens? Why not give your potential buyers some time to read and understand what they're buying into before you offer them for sale?

Did you guys miss this or are you ignoring it?

Hey, missed it:)

There will be plenty of time for thinking and reading over the information, the sale will last 27 days.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: criptix on November 22, 2015, 06:31:59 PM
You're not going to release the details of the crowdsale fundraiser until the day it starts? ...Why?

It's mainly due to some documentation still being written and to prevent a flood of questions that always come with partial info. It's easier to ensure that everyone get the same information by releasing it all at once than in bits.

That makes sense, but why release the details of it the same day you'll start selling the tokens? Why not give your potential buyers some time to read and understand what they're buying into before you offer them for sale?

Did you guys miss this or are you ignoring it?

Hey, missed it:)

There will be plenty of time for thinking and reading over the information, the sale will last 27 days.

Not sure if asked before, but will there be an early bird advantage?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Hueristic on November 22, 2015, 07:08:26 PM
and not alts that have true value?

What alts exactly? Altcoin shills are not welcome in this thread because they derail the convo. I hope you'll provide a good reasoning why that altcoin of your choice is good, if not, I'll delete that your post. Just enforcing the rules, nothing personal.

Sorry, I'll delete that comment if it affects your sensitivities. Pretty fishy though only accepting some easily created colored coin and not established alts like LTC. Not trying to use this to pump it are you?

Deleting it so as not to distract from the real questions you seem to be evading.

Now answer the other questions.

Is that you I linked and Link this so called norwegen company and prove that you and your crew are trustworthy enough to send hard earned cash to.

They accept Jinn, because they are Jinn, it's their Company. They trust themselves, you not yourself?
This guys are all known by their Real Name, not a lot of ICOs took place with such a transparency.

Jinn is not their Company  , their company name is Triangle wich Jinn is a part of.

https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/(ann)-jinn/



Yeah, I was looking at that earlier and no link to Triangle or jinn company. the only link they have there is http://www.jinnlabs.com/ and it doesn't work.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 22, 2015, 07:23:35 PM
Not sure if asked before, but will there be an early bird advantage?

Yes:) The schedule will be shown on Wednesday


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 22, 2015, 07:24:26 PM
Yeah, I was looking at that earlier and no link to Triangle or jinn company. the only link they have there is http://www.jinnlabs.com/ and it doesn't work.

Yes, it's a stealth start-up. It's hardware, not software, so the choice was made to keep it stealth.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: sluppy on November 22, 2015, 08:40:39 PM
Not sure if asked before, but will there be an early bird advantage?

Yes:) The schedule will be shown on Wednesday

Well that's not good imo , so you want people not to have time to read the related material just invest blind or miss out on the early bird.

You guys are on thin ice as it is with Jinn still in "stealth" after over a year.
(stealth being nothing but talk no pictures no website nothing.) you guys took in a lot of money over a year ago and havent really shown anything.

blabla takes time not software fine but pictures of the hardware you received months ago can not be that hard to post.



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 22, 2015, 08:53:10 PM
Not sure if asked before, but will there be an early bird advantage?

Yes:) The schedule will be shown on Wednesday

Well that's not good imo , so you want people not to have time to read the related material just invest blind or miss out on the early bird.

You guys are on thin ice as it is with Jinn still in "stealth" after over a year.
(stealth being nothing but talk no pictures no website nothing.) you guys took in a lot of money over a year ago and havent really shown anything.

blabla takes time not software fine but pictures of the hardware you received months ago can not be that hard to post.



Ok.

1. You'll have 9 days as an early bird. If you can't read a couple documents and reach a decision in that time: sorry the extra 3 days would not have helped  you.

2. We are not on thin ice at all. No idea where you got this random idea, we literally do not care if you buy or not, we want people who are interested in the technology to buy. As for Jinn, we have provided the relevant updates and have prepared a bigger announcement that will include pics of hardware, test results and future roadmap. However like I have stated ad nauseum JINN is hardware, not software. It takes months for manufacturing at foundry, then it has to be packaged, shipped and tested.



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: 50cent_rapper on November 22, 2015, 09:03:50 PM
The purpose of "early bird advantage" is to help people not to feel pain in uncapped ICO, when each next day of open ICO dilute their stake. 


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 22, 2015, 09:15:07 PM
The purpose of "early bird advantage" is to help people not to feel pain in uncapped ICO, when each next day of open ICO dilute their stake. 

Haha, of course in the best case only 1 person will buy all the tokens.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 22, 2015, 09:16:59 PM
Relax, guys. 9 days for the early bird are enough to think and make a decision.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: WorldCoiner on November 22, 2015, 10:00:43 PM
https://i.imgflip.com/ukgtc.jpg


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: P-Funk on November 23, 2015, 01:41:00 AM
Hey, missed it:)

There will be plenty of time for thinking and reading over the information, the sale will last 27 days.

Thanks, sounds good.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: yassin54 on November 23, 2015, 11:25:55 AM
Question for @Iotatoken or @Come-from-Beyond
it is possible i can send my SuperBTC via my account SuperNET for IPO?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 23, 2015, 11:29:32 AM
Question for @Iotatoken or @Come-from-Beyond
it is possible i can send my SuperBTC via my account SuperNET for IPO?

Unfortunately no, this is just to keep everything as simple as possible.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: yassin54 on November 23, 2015, 11:34:19 AM
Question for @Iotatoken or @Come-from-Beyond
it is possible i can send my SuperBTC via my account SuperNET for IPO?

Unfortunately no, this is just to keep everything as simple as possible.
Thanks for yur  reply.  :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: yassin54 on November 23, 2015, 04:14:12 PM
glad to see you on twitter @Come-from-beyond  ;D
I follow you now  ;)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 23, 2015, 04:36:08 PM
glad to see you on twitter @Come-from-beyond  ;D
I follow you now  ;)

I don't use Twitter.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: petko on November 23, 2015, 04:42:12 PM
This guys are all known by their Real Name, not a lot of ICOs took place with such a transparency.

What's the real name of CfB?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: yassin54 on November 23, 2015, 04:47:45 PM
glad to see you on twitter @Come-from-beyond  ;D
I follow you now  ;)

I don't use Twitter.
https://twitter.com/comefrombeyond  ;D
not your account?  ::)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 23, 2015, 04:49:54 PM
https://twitter.com/comefrombeyond  ;D
not your account?  ::)

No.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: yassin54 on November 23, 2015, 04:53:34 PM
https://twitter.com/comefrombeyond  ;D
not your account?  ::)

No.
http://img.imagesia.com/fichiers/13e/165962381_imagesia-com_13esp_small.jpg (http://imagesia.com/165962381_13esp)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 23, 2015, 05:10:14 PM
What's the real name of CfB?

https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/(ann)-jinn/msg107880/#msg107880


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rlh on November 23, 2015, 07:04:41 PM
I know that Wednesday will be here soon enough, but I can't help myself.  Will their be an ICO purchase limit, or can an investor invest as much BTC as they desire?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 23, 2015, 07:14:55 PM
I know that Wednesday will be here soon enough, but I can't help myself.  Will their be an ICO purchase limit, or can an investor invest as much BTC as they desire?

What limit would you propose?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rlh on November 23, 2015, 07:28:55 PM
I know that Wednesday will be here soon enough, but I can't help myself.  Will their be an ICO purchase limit, or can an investor invest as much BTC as they desire?

What limit would you propose?

I'm not suggesting there should or shouldn't be a cap.  It's my personal opinion that before you release the coin to the public and distribute funds, you guys (the developers) should have the freedom to do whatever you want to do.  It's your work and until invested stakeholders enter the picture, you can set any rules as you desire.  That's just my $.02 on such an issue.

But, with that said, I hope for an enforceable cap but with sock puppet tom-foolery being so simple with this technology, I'm not sure how you can enforce it.

Oh, one more question.  I've created an IOTA account/pubkey.  Do we need to publish this to the BTC blockchain (as you instructed earlier many pages ago) BEFORE Wednesday, or will those instructions also be included at that time.  I do not have a BTC address and I'll need to transfer funds and post the message. My money is on loan at POLO and I can't get it out until tomorrow.  I'll have to hustle if I need to post my address.




Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 23, 2015, 07:41:36 PM
Oh, one more question.  I've created an IOTA account/pubkey.  Do we need to publish this to the BTC blockchain (as you instructed earlier many pages ago) BEFORE Wednesday, or will those instructions also be included at that time.  I do not have a BTC address and I'll need to transfer funds and post the message. My money is on loan at POLO and I can't get it out until tomorrow.  I'll have to hustle if I need to post my address.

It's not urgent to publish the Iota keys.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 23, 2015, 07:49:18 PM
No limit. Any kind of limit is not realistically enforcable and so they are 100% vulnerable to sybil


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: dulinxu on November 24, 2015, 05:53:47 AM
Reserve


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: wizzardTim on November 24, 2015, 07:29:47 AM
For some reason the .exe file never stops loading, so the only thing I see is the JWrapper splash screen..
I use win7 64x.

Any ideas/workarounds?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 24, 2015, 07:42:18 AM
For some reason the .exe file never stops loading, so the only thing I see is the JWrapper splash screen..
I use win7 64x.

Any ideas/workarounds?

In this case you can download Java Runtime Environment from http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/jre8-downloads-2133155.html and use .jar file by running it via Windows console (java -jar atoi.jar).


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: yassin54 on November 24, 2015, 09:25:15 AM
WARNING: https://twitter.com/comefrombeyond is an imposter who will likely try to conduct a scam.
Thanks for the info.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Bitcoininspace on November 24, 2015, 12:12:46 PM

WARNING: https://twitter.com/comefrombeyond is an imposter who will likely try to conduct a scam.

I noticed the twitter account had changed his description to: Not real account: NXT and IOTA supporter

Have you contacted him if he maybe wants to give you the twitter account or do you have another twitter account that will be usable for the coin?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 24, 2015, 12:18:02 PM
I noticed the twitter account had changed his description to: Not real account: NXT and IOTA supporter

Have you contacted him if he maybe wants to give you the twitter account or do you have another twitter account that will be usable for the coin?

He contacted me but I'm not interested in usage of Twitter. Use https://twitter.com/iotatoken for Iota related tweets.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Bitcoininspace on November 24, 2015, 12:22:06 PM
I noticed the twitter account had changed his description to: Not real account: NXT and IOTA supporter

Have you contacted him if he maybe wants to give you the twitter account or do you have another twitter account that will be usable for the coin?

He contacted me but I'm not interested in usage of Twitter. Use https://twitter.com/iotatoken for Iota related tweets.
Will you be using reddit for the coin at all? A subreddit community.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: coldmoldy on November 24, 2015, 01:05:31 PM
How do you guys plan to market iota in such a way that will attract use by people outside of the crypto community?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 24, 2015, 01:22:23 PM
I noticed the twitter account had changed his description to: Not real account: NXT and IOTA supporter

Have you contacted him if he maybe wants to give you the twitter account or do you have another twitter account that will be usable for the coin?

He contacted me but I'm not interested in usage of Twitter. Use https://twitter.com/iotatoken for Iota related tweets.
Will you be using reddit for the coin at all? A subreddit community.

For sure, I registered /u/iotatoken in preparation for this a month ago, I just registered the subreddit /r/iotatoken. Feel free to start posting and if you want to be mod let me know.

We'll definitely spend a lot of time and resources on building a community, but ultimately the decision for what platform to use for communication has to arise naturally from the community itself.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 24, 2015, 01:24:36 PM
How do you guys plan to market iota in such a way that will attract use by people outside of the crypto community?

We will target tech companies and developers primarily in the beginning. This (IOTA) is a technology that has a lot of potential for a lot of different products, as described in interviews and articles already. So it will be mostly about forming alliances with these creators and developers.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Xeelee on November 24, 2015, 01:45:58 PM
Dear Iota-Team,

I’m very interested but not such a sophisticated Blockchain.info user. The process Come-from-Beyond has explained to get out a long code I didn’t fully get. Especially the part where to insert the 81 letters Brain Wallet code. I hope tomorrow in the announcement it will be written in more detail, what I have insert as Public Note in Blockchain.info to participate here. If I don’t understand the process I won’t be able to send the BTC.

Many thanks in advance.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 24, 2015, 02:00:14 PM
Especially the part where to insert the 81 letters Brain Wallet code.

Brainwallet code must be kept secret. Only publishing of the corresponding 163 char string is allowed.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Xeelee on November 24, 2015, 02:13:43 PM
Especially the part where to insert the 81 letters Brain Wallet code.

Brainwallet code must be kept secret. Only publishing of the corresponding 163 char string is allowed.

Thanks for the fast answer Come-from-Beyond – much appreciated.
So if I understand it right: Just run the app you have provided at Slide 30.
Than I would open http://localhost:9999/mybrainwalletpassword81lettersetc
Output will be a long data string like:
GIETRWDKTJWJVAJDKZQHZAWGGKNCEONKJOUUCWCWLSSVTBUCATOIZTPLYVDDOISPZWBNHZMWRSDMQWE IN_IIBACWXHBCDIEJZSX9SUQAKI9XQNFJIQUASNMJLJZEHDZAOAQZJGMUQDHRRQYGOGSJRAJ99TKHGY DVPQE

This I would need to send as Public Note when I send the Bitcoin by Blockchain.info to your Bitcoin-account.
That’s it.
Correct?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 24, 2015, 02:23:43 PM
Thanks for the fast answer Come-from-Beyond – much appreciated.
So if I understand it right: Just run the app you have provided at Slide 30.
Than I would open http://localhost:9999/mybrainwalletpassword81lettersetc
Output will be a long data string like:
GIETRWDKTJWJVAJDKZQHZAWGGKNCEONKJOUUCWCWLSSVTBUCATOIZTPLYVDDOISPZWBNHZMWRSDMQWE IN_IIBACWXHBCDIEJZSX9SUQAKI9XQNFJIQUASNMJLJZEHDZAOAQZJGMUQDHRRQYGOGSJRAJ99TKHGY DVPQE

This I would need to send as Public Note when I send the Bitcoin by Blockchain.info to your Bitcoin-account.
That’s it.
Correct?


Yes.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 24, 2015, 02:36:00 PM
For sure, I registered /u/iotatoken in preparation for this a month ago, I just registered the subreddit /r/iotatoken. Feel free to start posting and if you want to be mod let me know.

We'll definitely spend a lot of time and resources on building a community, but ultimately the decision for what platform to use for communication has to arise naturally from the community itself.

Slack is also pretty good for communication.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: 50cent_rapper on November 24, 2015, 02:39:28 PM
Thanks for the fast answer Come-from-Beyond – much appreciated.
So if I understand it right: Just run the app you have provided at Slide 30.
Than I would open http://localhost:9999/mybrainwalletpassword81lettersetc
Output will be a long data string like:
GIETRWDKTJWJVAJDKZQHZAWGGKNCEONKJOUUCWCWLSSVTBUCATOIZTPLYVDDOISPZWBNHZMWRSDMQWE IN_IIBACWXHBCDIEJZSX9SUQAKI9XQNFJIQUASNMJLJZEHDZAOAQZJGMUQDHRRQYGOGSJRAJ99TKHGY DVPQE

This I would need to send as Public Note when I send the Bitcoin by Blockchain.info to your Bitcoin-account.
That’s it.
Correct?


Yes.

Every user must generate for him his own unique 81 chars length seed code ? 


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 24, 2015, 02:43:05 PM
For sure, I registered /u/iotatoken in preparation for this a month ago, I just registered the subreddit /r/iotatoken. Feel free to start posting and if you want to be mod let me know.

We'll definitely spend a lot of time and resources on building a community, but ultimately the decision for what platform to use for communication has to arise naturally from the community itself.

Slack is also pretty good for communication.

Yea for sure. Will definitely setup a Slack or Ryver


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 24, 2015, 02:43:41 PM
Every user must generate for him his own unique 81 chars length seed code ? 

Yes.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: barbierir on November 24, 2015, 05:54:44 PM

Any suggestion about how to generate a random seed code 81 chars long?

It seems to me the longest but also best option is rolling dice using the first table here: http://world.std.com/~reinhold/dicewarefaq.html#tables

Or for something faster create 9 strings 9 chars long with this truly random strings generator: https://www.random.org/strings/   but is it enough secure even with https?



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 24, 2015, 06:32:24 PM
Any suggestion about how to generate a random seed code 81 chars long?
It seems to me the longest but also best option is rolling dice using the first table here: http://world.std.com/~reinhold/dicewarefaq.html#tables
Or for something faster create 9 strings 9 chars long with this truly random strings generator: https://www.random.org/strings/   but is it enough secure even with https?

If I am correct, you only can use lowercase letters and 9 to create the pass phase.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 24, 2015, 06:50:44 PM
Any suggestion about how to generate a random seed code 81 chars long?

Use https://lh3.ggpht.com/kOal-qldAR-YwTvStekh0NbGnwUz-kB5idDv97ZOODRZnxKCs-52YNHLkZX3Ttbjv890=w300 to generate chars one by one.

To generate a single char throw the die 3 times, each time write down 0 (for 1 point and 2 points), 1 (3 points, 4 points) or 2 (5 points, 6 points). Then take the number which is FIRST_VALUE + SECOND_VALUE * 3 + THIRD_VALUE * 9. If the result is 0 then take "9", otherwise take the corresponding letter of the Latin/English alphabet.

PS: Make sure it's a fair die, not one from the set of magic tricks.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 25, 2015, 02:13:59 PM
Iota sale thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1262688.0


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 25, 2015, 04:02:16 PM
Come-from-Beyond, mthcl or David just one additional question: Is the amount of IOTA-Token/Coins really 999’999’999 and there are 9 figures after decimal point, so one more than Bitcoin have? So IOTA has even smaller units like a Bitcoin Satoshi? Thanks for clarification.
No. There will be 999'999'999'.999999999.

It seems that the final coin amount is settled down to 999,999,999. I wonder how many decimal points there will be after the change.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 25, 2015, 04:03:38 PM
It seems that the final coin amount is settled down to 999,999,999. I wonder how many decimal points there will be after the change.

That amount was rounded. Technically there will be 1 billion without 10^-9.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: pandher on November 25, 2015, 05:06:57 PM
I am still not sure about the applications of this token, IOT is itself in a very primitive state, more like a concept. What is the long term vision on this project?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 25, 2015, 05:24:36 PM
I am still not sure about the applications of this token, IOT is itself in a very primitive state, more like a concept. What is the long term vision on this project?

Define "very primitive state", please.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: GingerAle on November 25, 2015, 05:28:49 PM
I am still not sure about the applications of this token, IOT is itself in a very primitive state, more like a concept. What is the long term vision on this project?

I don't know what the core team's long term vision is, but I was attracted to it for the primary reason of mining decentralization. IOTA finds a way to recouple POW with network participation, which has been decoupled in bitcoin and most crypto, my favorite included. As I mentioned in their crowdsale thread, I'm disappointed with their approach to primary distribution, and I fear it will cripple the prospects of this network. 


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 25, 2015, 05:31:19 PM
I am still not sure about the applications of this token, IOT is itself in a very primitive state, more like a concept. What is the long term vision on this project?

IoT is not in a primitive state, there are already over 10 billion connected devices. Yes it's still early days, but far from just a concept. It's already a multi-multi-billion dollar industry. But precisely because we are at the cusp of this huge revolution the standards needs to be set now, hence the need for IOTA. This ecosystem needs an efficient, scalable and secure payment system.

I write more about this here: http://medium.com/@DavidSonstebo/iota-97592581f985


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: GingerAle on November 25, 2015, 05:37:44 PM
i'll move the discussion here to keep your crowdsale thread on topic

i don't know why you went this route. Why not have a conventional POW / blockchain phase for distribution, then shift to the DAG? In this case, the blockchain would really be used as simply a record of distribution.

And give all coins to a single botnet master? Hm, not sure it's a good alternative...

true, good point. I'm not saying its an easy problem. I'm just not a fan of the chosen approach. Its centralized. And granted, I haven't kept up with these threads, but 1 month distribution phase? I guess your hoping it takes to the markets after this. And how does the infrastructure get built? I know the topology of a DAG-based currency network is different than a blockchain-based network....

sorry, just rambling.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: pandher on November 25, 2015, 06:09:57 PM
I write more about this here: http://medium.com/@DavidSonstebo/iota-97592581f985

Thanks, ill have a look


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 25, 2015, 06:32:15 PM
And how does the infrastructure get built?

Partially Iota will ride on the success of the hardware which design will be funded by Iota sale. The hardware already takes into account such things as distributed computing and cryptography, it will provide hardware acceleration for the both.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tolstoy on November 26, 2015, 04:51:56 AM
Loophole-free Bell test TU Delft crowns 80-years-old debate on nature of reality: Einsteins “spooky action” is real.
http://www.tudelft.nl/en/current/latest-news/article/detail/einsteins-ongelijk-delfts-experiment-beeindigt-80-jaar-oude-discussie/

Definitely a really interesting result. Last 'loophole free' test turned out to have been analysed wrong, so expect another 6 months until consensus.  It also leave retrocausal and free will loophole open

A couple more links on the Bell test.

Quantum entanglement, loophole free  19 November 2015
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.7221

Experiment records extreme quantum weirdness  9 November 2015
http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/151109_tsirelson_bound.php


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tolstoy on November 26, 2015, 04:52:52 AM
This is neat, a derivation of the Wallis product for pi (circa 1655) via quantum mechanics.

A quantum derivation of a classic math formula
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.7220

Journal of Mathematical Physics Volume 56, Issue 11
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4930800


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 26, 2015, 03:28:24 PM
While the sale is progressing let's do a little brainstorming.

Iota network can be used as a carrier for any kind of data. Personally, I need a decentralized email service that won't read my letters for its product placement tricks (side-effect: NSA won't spy me). This service will be something average between classical email and classical chat, the messages will be received by me only if I keep Iota node software running. If I can't run such software I can pay to retrieve (encrypted) letters from nodes that provide storage service in exchange for iotas. I need your ideas about what types of services you need, so I could merge some of these services with mine.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: superresistant on November 26, 2015, 03:48:47 PM
Personally, I need a decentralized email service that won't read my letters for its product placement tricks (side-effect: NSA won't spy me). This service will be something average between classical email and classical chat, the messages will be received by me only if I keep Iota node software running. If I can't run such software I can pay to retrieve (encrypted) letters from nodes that provide storage service in exchange for iotas.

I need this too but don't we have already a lot of encrypted mail or chat providers on the market ?
The only problem of all these software solutions is that you need the receiver to use the same software.

Today, almost no one use encryption. Kids use text messages, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp and Snapchat.
It just means that people don't give a damn about their privacy so what about going the other way around and create more spywares and personal data extraction methods ?

Should we think about better ways of making money or ways of making a better world ?

While the sale is progressing let's do a little brainstorming.
Iota network can be used as a carrier for any kind of data.

Well the killer app would be to merge existing services AND offer a better price.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 26, 2015, 04:01:47 PM
I need this too but don't we have already a lot of encrypted mail or chat providers on the market ?

Which one satisfies the both requirements - decentralized and lightweight?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: nexern on November 26, 2015, 04:03:53 PM
from my POV it's all about nano payments, IOTA is perfect for this.
merge a client with a communication component (e.g. tox) to enable people to 'earn' money e.g.
for advices, supports, facts, translations and so on. a free android hybrid like this, including
a global micro service directory with nice categories would be great. payment could be calculated
per word, if chat advise is used or per minute/seconds for calls. every micro service entry in
the directory contains the type of service (categorized) a rating from users already used this
resource, weighted by total service usage and the word/second/minute pricing.

people like to communicate and the more if they can earn something with this. big potential to
reach the external market with high usage numbers if done right.

without my current workload i would built an app like this immediatly, success guaranteed.

Added:
i also predict that the money earning wouldn't be the main motivation to use
such a service. the fun factor, sharing knowledge and conneting to people
around the world, enveloped with a monetary symbol of appreciation (IOTAs) is it.



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: superresistant on November 26, 2015, 04:10:03 PM
I need this too but don't we have already a lot of encrypted mail or chat providers on the market ?
Which one satisfies the both requirements - decentralized and lightweight?

Absolutely none because, until now, real decentralization lead to fucking slow and buggy services.
Decentralized became the antonym of lightweight.
That's why I have high hope for IOTA's technology to succeed.

from my POV it's all about nano payments, IOTA is perfect for this.
merge a client with a communication component (e.g. tox) to enable people to 'earn' money e.g.
for advices, supports, facts, translations and so on. a free android hybrid like this, including
a global micro service directory with nice categories would be great. payment could be calculated
per word, if chat advise is used or per minute/seconds for calls. every micro service entry in
the directory contains the type of service (categorized) a rating from users already used this
resource, weighted by total service usage and the word/second/minute pricing.
people like to communicate and the more if they can earn something with this. big potential to
reach the external market with high usage numbers if done right.
without my current workload i would built an app like this immediatly, success guaranteed.
i also predict that the money earning wouldn't be the main motivation to use
such a service. the fun factor, sharing knowledge and conneting to people
around the world, enveloped with a monetary symbol of appreciation (IOTAs) is it.

Interesting.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 26, 2015, 04:19:19 PM
Unfortunatelly, messengers like Telegram use algorithms vulnerable to quantum computers. It means that if 3-letter agencies can't decrypt data yet, they still can store them and read later. Interfacing with existing chat programs will be impossible, it seems.

Any ideas how popular a lightweight decentralized secure chatting may be?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: nexern on November 26, 2015, 04:25:48 PM
Unfortunatelly, messengers like Telegram use algorithms vulnerable to quantum computers. It means that if 3-letter agencies can't decrypt data yet, they still can store them and read later. Interfacing with existing chat programs will be impossible, it seems.

Any ideas how popular a lightweight decentralized secure chatting may be?

quantum resistance isn't needed for a service like this. the goal here is a different one.



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 26, 2015, 04:26:57 PM
While the sale is progressing let's do a little brainstorming.
Iota network can be used as a carrier for any kind of data. Personally, I need a decentralized email service that won't read my letters for its product placement tricks (side-effect: NSA won't spy me). This service will be something average between classical email and classical chat, the messages will be received by me only if I keep Iota node software running. If I can't run such software I can pay to retrieve (encrypted) letters from nodes that provide storage service in exchange for iotas. I need your ideas about what types of services you need, so I could merge some of these services with mine.

Vitalik mentioned a very interesting concept of the voting/predicting contents with micro-payment on the internet in this paper - https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/11/24/applications-of-security-deposits-and-prediction-markets-you-might-not-have-thought-about/

Micro-payment might enable people and business to adopt this kind prediction market business model in the real life and business world. It will be interesting to see Iota apps provide service in this kind prediction market.  


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 26, 2015, 04:38:12 PM
quantum resistance isn't needed for a service like this. the goal here is a different one.

I disagree, if messages will be decrypted in 10 years then you can't use such service for some confidential communications.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Seccour on November 26, 2015, 04:41:25 PM
quantum resistance isn't needed for a service like this. the goal here is a different one.

I disagree, if messages will be decrypted in 10 years then you can't use such service for some confidential communications.

Same here, if you don't want a message to be decrypted by someone else now, why would you take the risk that someone decrypt it in 1, 2, 5 or 10 years ?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: nexern on November 26, 2015, 04:46:58 PM
quantum resistance isn't needed for a service like this. the goal here is a different one.

I disagree, if messages will be decrypted in 10 years then you can't use such service for some confidential communications.

so it's better to skip very usefull things due to 0.1% uncertainty?
nonsens, this argument is very crypto centric and economical also unwise.

ethereum for instance is great and i have to admit that these guys are very good in reaching the external
market but for real nano payments ethereum fees are to expensive. iota could shine here but for this it is
necessary to throw the 100% claim on everything over board.

it's much more simple. things has to work for it's usage scenario. they don't have to be perfect.
this 100% claim is a weak point within the whole cryptosphere and prevents mass market adaption.



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: nexern on November 26, 2015, 04:50:13 PM
quantum resistance isn't needed for a service like this. the goal here is a different one.

I disagree, if messages will be decrypted in 10 years then you can't use such service for some confidential communications.

Same here, if you don't want a message to be decrypted by someone else now, why would you take the risk that someone decrypt it in 1, 2, 5 or 10 years ?

a service like this isn't designed for confidential communication, same as e.g whatsapp. it just need todo the job for what it is designed for.
if you need quantum resistant communication create a tool, doing exactly this. different pairs of shoes.

Added:
just some mental gym, would IOTA benefit if e.g. whatsapp would decide tomorrow to include an IOTA payment gateway for microservices?
would this spread the usage of IOTA and increase outside awareness? what would be the disadvantage?



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on November 26, 2015, 05:22:48 PM
so it's better to skip very usefull things due to 0.1% uncertainty?
nonsens, this argument is very crypto centric and economical also unwise.

I think nexern brought out a very important issue for all cryptos here. That is how a crypto reach out the business and industry instead of waiting for the business and industry to reach to the crypto. There are many hurdles between these two worlds. Egos and business expertise are among them.

Crypto devs/experts have lots of egos among themselves. They tend to think the business and industry have to come to us because we are better. It could be true eventually. But when they eventually come to cyrptos, they may not come to your cryptos. They will do whatever can maximize their profit because it is their ultimate goal and motivation. What is driving them is not the ideology

I think business expertise is the second biggest hurdle. Business is another area of study and it needs equal talents to be good at this area. Usually the experts in the crypto world lack this kind business expertise. Whoever master both or a team with both skills will create great business and enterprise as we can see in the history.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 26, 2015, 05:27:31 PM
so it's better to skip very usefull things due to 0.1% uncertainty?
nonsens, this argument is very crypto centric and economical also unwise.

ethereum for instance is great and i have to admit that these guys are very good in reaching the external
market but for real nano payments ethereum fees are to expensive. iota could shine here but for this it is
necessary to throw the 100% claim on everything over board.

it's much more simple. things has to work for it's usage scenario. they don't have to be perfect.
this 100% claim is a weak point within the whole cryptosphere and prevents mass market adaption.

I think it all depends on what market is targetted. I'll create a 100% QC-proof solution, someone could adapt it for "casual" markets.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: nexern on November 26, 2015, 06:11:39 PM

100% is an illusion, nothing is 100% if your resolution is high enough.
an asymptotically nearing, granted but mother nature shows us every day,
that 'good enough to work' is sufficient and probably also the optimum
to run everything.

however, would be nice to see something like the com-wallet hybrid
i mentioned before.



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 26, 2015, 06:28:50 PM
100% is an illusion

I disagree. One-time pad seeded with message digest gives 100% unbreakable encryption.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: nexern on November 26, 2015, 06:56:15 PM
100% is an illusion

I disagree. One-time pad seeded with message digest gives 100% unbreakable encryption.

disagree, you can't exclude an alien/meta-math come in existence anytime, able to break even your 'current here and now knowledge level'.
even with close to zero probability you can't give a serious 100% this happen never guarantee. here you have your 100% again.



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: superresistant on November 26, 2015, 07:15:49 PM
 
Alright, let's get back to brainstorming.
So far we have :
 - encrypted email
 - encrypted message
 - storage
 - nano payment

What about decentralized social networking ? Decentralized identity ?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 26, 2015, 07:17:41 PM

Alright, let's get back to brainstorming.
So far we have :
 - encrypted email
 - encrypted message
 - storage
 - nano payment

What about decentralized social networking ? Decentralized identity ?


No need to just focus on the decentral and encrypted nature, pay per second streaming is another really good potential


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: BitcoinForumator on November 26, 2015, 07:23:34 PM

Alright, let's get back to brainstorming.
So far we have :
 - encrypted email
 - encrypted message
 - storage
 - nano payment

What about decentralized social networking ? Decentralized identity ?


Synereo?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 26, 2015, 07:41:15 PM
disagree, you can't exclude an alien/meta-math come in existence anytime, able to break even your 'current here and now knowledge level'.
even with close to zero probability you can't give a serious 100% this happen never guarantee. here you have your 100% again.

I doubt aliens can hack anything that is mathematically proven to be 100% secure. Math is universal.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: superresistant on November 26, 2015, 07:43:37 PM
disagree, you can't exclude an alien/meta-math come in existence anytime, able to break even your 'current here and now knowledge level'.
even with close to zero probability you can't give a serious 100% this happen never guarantee. here you have your 100% again.
I doubt aliens can hack anything that is mathematically proven to be 100% secure. Math is universal.

The universe is not ruled (only) by Maths.
We would know everything otherwise.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 26, 2015, 07:49:12 PM
The universe is not ruled (only) by Maths.
We would know everything otherwise.

I'm not going to start a religious dispute now. :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Hueristic on November 26, 2015, 07:55:33 PM
The universe is not ruled (only) by Maths.
We would know everything otherwise.

I'm not going to start a religious dispute now. :)

Math may be universal but without a unified theory we do not have the correct math. ;)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 26, 2015, 08:01:35 PM
This will quickly descend into a debate of Platonism vs its alternatives. If you are a strong platonist supporter I recommend 'Our Mathematical Universe' (2014) by Max Tegmark. Gets really trippy really fast.

But let's stay on topic of IOTA in here :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: nexern on November 26, 2015, 08:01:58 PM
disagree, you can't exclude an alien/meta-math come in existence anytime, able to break even your 'current here and now knowledge level'.
even with close to zero probability you can't give a serious 100% this happen never guarantee. here you have your 100% again.

I doubt aliens can hack anything that is mathematically proven to be 100% secure. Math is universal.

no aliens needed here. but it is always good we have at least 'something' we can rely on even if it's just a snapshot i guess.
meanwhile quantum eraser experiments tells us we shouldn't rely to much on this so i will put this phrase into the 'hope dies last' box.



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 26, 2015, 08:03:01 PM
Math may be universal but without a unified theory we do not have the correct math. ;)

We were talking about 100% in some variant of math. In that math it's exactly 100%. If you use another math then "100%" claim doesn't make sense in it.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: nexern on November 26, 2015, 08:14:14 PM
This will quickly descend into a debate of Platonism vs its alternatives. If you are a strong platonist supporter I recommend 'Our Mathematical Universe' (2014) by Max Tegmark. Gets really trippy really fast.

But let's stay on topic of IOTA in here :)

harhar, i guess your hackles lining up atm if you read all this crypto/meta nonsense and you are right.
IOTA has promising capabilities, i recommend to shift your app/usage ideas a little into the commercial,
mass market direction, ofc only if you intend to reach out for this segment.

i think also that storage related apps and e-governing/prediction market as tobo mentioned are great areas
but this needs more informations about IOTAs storage handling/strategies.



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 26, 2015, 09:35:30 PM
Those who use Android, post your screen resolution, please.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: martismartis on November 26, 2015, 10:31:16 PM
Those who use Android, post your screen resolution, please.

480x854 :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Hueristic on November 26, 2015, 11:32:08 PM
Math may be universal but without a unified theory we do not have the correct math. ;)

We were talking about 100% in some variant of math. In that math it's exactly 100%. If you use another math then "100%" claim doesn't make sense in it.

Ahh, there you go bringing "Context" into the equation. :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: WorldCoiner on November 27, 2015, 06:43:37 AM
This will quickly descend into a debate of Platonism vs its alternatives. If you are a strong platonist supporter I recommend 'Our Mathematical Universe' (2014) by Max Tegmark. Gets really trippy really fast.

But let's stay on topic of IOTA in here :)
http://img.memecdn.com/shut-up-and-take-my-money_o_202409.jpg


...back to topic. Screen resolution Wiko Rainbow (Chinese No Name android phone): 720 x 1280


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Jimmy2011 on November 27, 2015, 06:57:30 AM
disagree, you can't exclude an alien/meta-math come in existence anytime, able to break even your 'current here and now knowledge level'.
even with close to zero probability you can't give a serious 100% this happen never guarantee. here you have your 100% again.

I doubt aliens can hack anything that is mathematically proven to be 100% secure. Math is universal.

Math is universal, that is science related, but the reality is physical engineering, which will be improved a lot by Physics. Say something beyond Quantum, that will break the present Math. It is not 100%, but  greater than 0% for sure. So I doubt 100% in the end. We can just say 100% at present and not 100% universal.



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Jimmy2011 on November 27, 2015, 06:59:56 AM
Those who use Android, post your screen resolution, please.

I have two phones.
1920*1080
1280*720


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 27, 2015, 10:47:45 PM
Thanks, keep em coming!


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tolstoy on November 27, 2015, 11:31:26 PM
1280×800


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: mirador17 on November 28, 2015, 10:16:56 AM
1280x720


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: achimsmile on November 28, 2015, 09:44:16 PM
2560x1440


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rigel on November 28, 2015, 09:50:15 PM
1280x720


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: marcus1986 on November 29, 2015, 03:30:52 PM
1280x720 pixels


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: canth on November 29, 2015, 11:51:42 PM
Those who use Android, post your screen resolution, please.

LG G3 - 2,560 x 1,440


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tromp on November 29, 2015, 11:57:16 PM
1920x1200


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 30, 2015, 12:01:55 AM
Are you walking with pocket TVsets, guys? My phone has 84x48 resolution.  ;D


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: AhmedAshraf on November 30, 2015, 02:48:34 AM
1280x720  ;D


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: msin on November 30, 2015, 04:24:19 AM
Are you walking with pocket TVsets, guys? My phone has 84x48 resolution.  ;D

I guess it's time to get a new phone.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: l8orre on November 30, 2015, 05:28:48 AM

I don't have Android or iOS phone. Can I still invest in IOTA?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 30, 2015, 05:33:13 AM

I don't have Android or iOS phone. Can I still invest in IOTA?

Yes.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: HmmMAA on November 30, 2015, 06:35:05 AM
I would like to ask something . If someone has only wallet in poloniex can take part in the crowdsale ? If not what online wallet can he use ?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 30, 2015, 06:45:50 AM
I would like to ask something . If someone has only wallet in poloniex can take part in the crowdsale ? If not what online wallet can he use ?

Blockchain.info


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: megges on November 30, 2015, 09:18:16 AM
1920x1080

(http://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_mobiresxtime.htm - some stats about screen resolution on mobile phones)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 30, 2015, 09:36:37 AM
I guess it's time to get a new phone.

Aye, going to buy one with Jinn processor, ARM is vulnerable to viruses and contains NSA backdoor.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: BitcoinForumator on November 30, 2015, 11:59:16 AM
Come-from-Beyond, I think you said that you and the team will be buying IOTA tokens from your personal funds. And I believe you also said that you will buy as much as you can, because IOTA is that good.

So far 220 Bitcoins have been invested. I don't know if you can consider this "selling like hotcakes", but it seems on the low side to me.

So I would ask, why aren't you buying more?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Xeelee on November 30, 2015, 12:10:20 PM
For me it would a little bit a conflict of interest if the founders will invest a lot. Example, imagine the founders are just CfB and iotatoken. So the Bitcoin-Pott at the very end will get halved. 50% for CfB 50% for iototoken. Imagine now the average joe will invest overall 500 Bitcoin during the sale. And CfB and iototoken just decide to invest 2000 Bitcoin each. So Overall Investment 4’500 Bitcoin. CfB and iotatoken will controll 88% of all iota and the Bitcoin they invested the would get anyway back. Possible. So I think it would help if both are quite open about their own investments, because it’s somehow left pocket – right pocket, they don’t have really costs, if they throw something in the Bitcoinbasket – it’s anyway theirs.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rlh on November 30, 2015, 12:56:30 PM
Are you walking with pocket TVsets, guys? My phone has 84x48 resolution.  ;D


http://i-cdn.phonearena.com/images/articles/160755-gallery/Another-vintage-Qualcomm-phone---the-QCP-2760-for-Sprint.jpg

Well, I'll give it to you.  No one will be hacking that thing!


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: bitcatch on November 30, 2015, 12:57:35 PM
For me it would a little bit a conflict of interest if the founders will invest a lot. Example, imagine the founders are just CfB and iotatoken. So the Bitcoin-Pott at the very end will get halved. 50% for CfB 50% for iototoken. Imagine now the average joe will invest overall 500 Bitcoin during the sale. And CfB and iototoken just decide to invest 2000 Bitcoin each. So Overall Investment 4’500 Bitcoin. CfB and iotatoken will controll 88% of all iota and the Bitcoin they invested the would get anyway back. Possible. So I think it would help if both are quite open about their own investments, because it’s somehow left pocket – right pocket, they don’t have really costs, if they throw something in the Bitcoinbasket – it’s anyway theirs.
Moreover, probaly many crypto IPOs were already abused this way.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 30, 2015, 01:56:23 PM
So I would ask, why aren't you buying more?

You don't know if I already bought or waiting for the 3rd of Dec.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: BitcoinForumator on November 30, 2015, 02:00:56 PM
Ofcourse I don't know. Will see how low or high the number will be by then.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rlh on November 30, 2015, 02:01:14 PM
So I would ask, why aren't you buying more?

You don't know if I already bought or waiting for the 3rd of Dec.

Yes, I suspect that many will wait closer to the end of the sale so they can make an educated guess as to how much they will need to spend to get the 1, 5 or 10% (!!!) they may desire.

Also, this isn't an accusation, but with any bitcoin/crypto related ICO (or token sale,) you never know if the makers have made stealth purchases since transactions can be anonymous.  Who knows if CfB, iotatoken, or any other unknown insider has already deposited 100BTC, from 10 different accounts.

Again, this isn't an accusation but since this is anonymous, you pretty much can only vouch for the shares you've purchased yourself, or shares purchased with fund coming from from known, public BTC/Nxt accounts.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 30, 2015, 02:02:07 PM
For me it would a little bit a conflict of interest if the founders will invest a lot. Example, imagine the founders are just CfB and iotatoken. So the Bitcoin-Pott at the very end will get halved. 50% for CfB 50% for iototoken. Imagine now the average joe will invest overall 500 Bitcoin during the sale. And CfB and iototoken just decide to invest 2000 Bitcoin each. So Overall Investment 4’500 Bitcoin. CfB and iotatoken will controll 88% of all iota and the Bitcoin they invested the would get anyway back. Possible. So I think it would help if both are quite open about their own investments, because it’s somehow left pocket – right pocket, they don’t have really costs, if they throw something in the Bitcoinbasket – it’s anyway theirs.

Valid point. All that you can do is to ask others to reveal their transactions and you will get upper bound for amount put by me and iotatoken.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rlh on November 30, 2015, 02:02:32 PM
CfB, can you post the Java code to github for address creation?  Some of us would like to go ahead and get our vanity addresses locked and loaded before the coin release. ;)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 30, 2015, 02:05:13 PM
CfB, can you post the Java code to github for address creation?  Some of us would like to go ahead and get our vanity addresses locked and loaded before the coin release. ;)

The code is too small to bother with Github - http://188.138.57.93/atoi.java

Code:
import com.sun.net.httpserver.HttpServer;

import java.io.OutputStream;
import java.net.InetSocketAddress;
import java.util.Arrays;

public class atoi {

    private static final int[] INDICES = new int[729];
    private static final int[] F = {0, -1, 1, 0, 1, -1, -1, 1, 0};
    private static final String tryteLetters = "9abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";
    private static final int[][] tryteTrits = {

            {0, 0, 0},
            {1, 0, 0},
            {-1, 1, 0},
            {0, 1, 0},
            {1, 1, 0},
            {-1, -1, 1},
            {0, -1, 1},
            {1, -1, 1},
            {-1, 0, 1},
            {0, 0, 1},
            {1, 0, 1},
            {-1, 1, 1},
            {0, 1, 1},
            {1, 1, 1},
            {-1, -1, -1},
            {0, -1, -1},
            {1, -1, -1},
            {-1, 0, -1},
            {0, 0, -1},
            {1, 0, -1},
            {-1, 1, -1},
            {0, 1, -1},
            {1, 1, -1},
            {-1, -1, 0},
            {0, -1, 0},
            {1, -1, 0},
            {-1, 0, 0}
    };

    static {

        int index = 0;
        for (int i = 0; i < 729; i++) {

            INDICES[i] = index += index <= 364 ? 364 : -365;
        }
    }

    private static int[] digest(final int[] message) {

        final int[] state = new int[729];
        System.arraycopy(message, 0, state, 0, message.length);
        transform(state);

        return Arrays.copyOf(state, 243);
    }

    private static void transform(final int[] state) {

        final int[] leftPart = new int[729], rightPart = new int[729];
        int index = 0;
        for (int round = 9; round-- > 0; ) {

            for (int i = 0; i < 729; i++) {

                final int a, b;
                leftPart[i] = f(a = state[index], b = state[index = INDICES[i]]);
                rightPart[i] = f(b, a);
            }

            for (int i = 0; i < 729; i++) {

                state[i] = f(leftPart[index], rightPart[index = INDICES[i]]);
            }
        }
    }

    private static int f(final int a, final int b) {

        return F[a + a + a + b + 4];
    }

    public static void main(final String[] args) throws Exception {

        final HttpServer server = HttpServer.create(new InetSocketAddress(9999), 0);
        server.createContext("/", (exchange) -> {

            // Fetch lowercase latin letters and '9' from the request into a seed
            final StringBuilder seed = new StringBuilder();
            for (final char tryteLetter : exchange.getRequestURI().getPath().toCharArray()) {

                if (tryteLetters.indexOf(tryteLetter) >= 0) {

                    seed.append(tryteLetter);
                }
            }

            // Check if there are exactly 81 chars in the seed
            final String response;
            if (seed.length() != 81) {

                // Inform the user that something is wrong with their seed
                response = "Seed length is " + seed.length() + ", must be 81!";

            } else {

                // Translate the seed chars into trits
                int[] seedTrits = new int[243];
                int offset = 0;
                for (final char tryteLetter : seed.toString().toCharArray()) {

                    System.arraycopy(tryteTrits[tryteLetters.indexOf(tryteLetter)], 0, seedTrits, offset, 3);
                    offset += 3;
                }

                // Derive private key fragments from the seed
                final int[][] key = new int[27][];
                final int[] scratchpad = new int[seedTrits.length];
                for (int i = 0; i < key.length; i++) {

                    System.arraycopy(i == 0 ? seedTrits : key[i - 1], 0, scratchpad, 0, scratchpad.length);
                    key[i] = digest(scratchpad);
                }

                // Truncate the private key fragments to 81 trits each
                for (int i = 0; i < key.length; i++) {

                    key[i] = Arrays.copyOf(key[i], 81);
                }

                // Derive public key fragments from the private key fragments, keep them truncated to 81 trits each
                for (int i = 0; i < key.length; i++) {

                    for (int j = 0; j < 27; j++) {

                        key[i] = Arrays.copyOf(digest(key[i]), 81);
                    }
                }

                // Derive a public key from the public key fragments
                final int[] state = new int[729];
                for (int i = 0; i < key.length; ) {

                    System.arraycopy(key[i++], 0, state, 0, 81);
                    System.arraycopy(key[i++], 0, state, 81, 81);
                    System.arraycopy(key[i++], 0, state, 162, 81);
                    transform(state);
                }

                // Negate the trits of the seed
                for (int i = 0; i < seedTrits.length; i++) {

                    seedTrits[i] = -seedTrits[i];
                }

                // Derive a checkpointing key from the seed
                for (int i = 0; i < 12 * 24 * 366; i++) {

                    seedTrits = digest(seedTrits);
                }

                // Translate the keys into text
                final StringBuilder publicKey = new StringBuilder(), checkpointingKey = new StringBuilder();
                for (int i = 0; i < 243; i += 3) {

                    int tryteValue = state[i] + state[i + 1] * 3 + state[i + 2] * 9;
                    if (tryteValue < 0) {

                        tryteValue += 27;
                    }
                    publicKey.append(tryteLetters.charAt(tryteValue));

                    tryteValue = seedTrits[i] + seedTrits[i + 1] * 3 + seedTrits[i + 2] * 9;
                    if (tryteValue < 0) {

                        tryteValue += 27;
                    }
                    checkpointingKey.append(tryteLetters.charAt(tryteValue));
                }

                // Output the keys in a format suitable for copy-pasting
                response = (publicKey.toString() + "_" + checkpointingKey.toString()).toUpperCase();
            }

            // Send the response
            exchange.sendResponseHeaders(200, response.length());
            final OutputStream outputStream = exchange.getResponseBody();
            outputStream.write(response.getBytes("UTF-8"));
            outputStream.close();
        });
        server.start();
    }
}


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rlh on November 30, 2015, 02:06:40 PM
Thank you!

EDIT

I'll play around with this today and see what I can do.  Also, if I write a Vanitygen, I'll see about translating this code to C#.  Why?  For two reasons, it's been my experience that (well written) C# tends to run faster than Java.  Hey, not trying to start a trolling bear fight, it's just my experience.

And, second, I have over 10 years experience in C# since it's the language of most businesses.  I'm way more familiar with it than anything else, which even I find unfortunate.

If I come up with anything useful, I'll post the project to Github.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 30, 2015, 02:14:59 PM
Thank you!

EDIT

I'll play around with this today and see what I can do.  Also, if I write a Vanitygen, I'll see about translating this code to C#.  Why?  For two reasons, it's been my experience that (well written) C# tends to run faster than Java.  Hey, not trying to start a trolling bear fight, it's just my experience.

And, second, I have over 10 years experience in C# since it's the language of most businesses.  I'm way more familiar with it than anything else, which even I find unfortunate.

If I come up with anything useful, I'll post the project to Github.

Interesting. C# being faster likely means that its JIT compiler is better...

Vanitygen should take into account that a single account should be used as fewer times as possible, preferably only once. It's a side-effect of lazy users penalty.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 30, 2015, 02:24:13 PM
I have just recalled, in the release version 81 char address will be appended with 9 chars of the checksum (to detect mistyped addresses).


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rlh on November 30, 2015, 02:24:50 PM
Vanitygen should take into account that a single account should be used as fewer times as possible, preferably only once. It's a side-effect of lazy users penalty.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this last statement.  Are you saying that accounts shouldn't be used more than a few times?  In other words, putting an IOTA address in my sig would be a bad idea?  I'd like a bit of clarification so that I understand.

Regarding that C# comment, let me clarify.  It's been my experience than when writing these types of functions in C# vs. Java, C# tends to do  better on Windows machine or even running in a solid Windows VM.  I've not tested .Net apps running in Mono.  I know mono is slower by a considerable factor and in such a case, Java may do MUCH better.

However, concerning the vanitygens I've written, vs. those written in Java, where special dlls (i.e. referencing GPUs or low-level C libraries) are not used, C# has done much better.

I assume this is because Microsoft has greater control of the eco-system and can optimize their jitter to work primarily with their os/kernal, where Oracle is a 3rd party, having to optimize their jitter to work for all environments.

Just a hunch.

Anyway, I've been rolling around in my head, finishing what the old Microcash (lol, I know right!) dreamt up but never saw finished because the head of that ship was... well, I try not to speak ill of anyone, but everyone remembers how CoinHunter/RealSolid was.

Anyway, if I write a coin, it will be in C#.  I like it and no one else (to my knowledge) has done it, so it would be an interesting experience.  Alas, if I'm ever going to do that, I first need to invent a way to add about 4 hours to the average day. :P


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rlh on November 30, 2015, 02:26:29 PM
I have just recalled, in the release version 81 char address will be appended with 9 chars of the checksum (to detect mistyped addresses).

Ok, that makes sense.  So your old, address/pubkey creator is broken/not completely correct?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 30, 2015, 02:50:25 PM
Ok, that makes sense.  So your old, address/pubkey creator is broken/not completely correct?

It's correct, we don't need checksum for the sale.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 30, 2015, 02:59:41 PM
Are you saying that accounts shouldn't be used more than a few times?  In other words, putting an IOTA address in my sig would be a bad idea?

There are no accounts in Iota, it uses Bitcoin's system of inputs/outputs. You can put Iota address into the sig but it will take some time to spend every input. More inputs - more time, this grows exponentially. Iota was designed for IoT, not humans, so some methods used by humans are not very compatible.

Bitcoin would have the same problem if it used the same security enhancement. While Bitcoin doesn't recommend to reuse addresses, Iota goes further and makes it unprofitable by requiring to burn extra electricity.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on November 30, 2015, 09:42:23 PM
For me it would a little bit a conflict of interest if the founders will invest a lot. Example, imagine the founders are just CfB and iotatoken. So the Bitcoin-Pott at the very end will get halved. 50% for CfB 50% for iototoken. Imagine now the average joe will invest overall 500 Bitcoin during the sale. And CfB and iototoken just decide to invest 2000 Bitcoin each. So Overall Investment 4’500 Bitcoin. CfB and iotatoken will controll 88% of all iota and the Bitcoin they invested the would get anyway back. Possible. So I think it would help if both are quite open about their own investments, because it’s somehow left pocket – right pocket, they don’t have really costs, if they throw something in the Bitcoinbasket – it’s anyway theirs.

This will not happen, for several reasons

#1
We are running a hardware start-up that is developing a new kind of processor for Internet-of-Things, this is what inspired IOTA more than anything. A good portion of the funds raised for IOTA will go to this processor, which will also act as a bootstrapping mechanism for the IOTA network as it scales.

#2
It would be a really stupid strategy. We'll all make infinitely more if IOTA succeeds and gets adopted as a IoT standard even with just a sliver of the tokens than we'd do if we ran a typical pump and dump scheme

#3
We're not just the two of us, we also got another team member and math professor on board (Mtchl). I know he bought some because he told me in a casual comment, none of us has made any effort to inquire amongst each other how much the others will buy, it's a personal decision that does not affect the project in any way.

#4
I was undoubtedly the biggest and most vocal critic of the initial distribution of Nxt, so I would never allow our project to be stifled by bad distribution.


As for how much I will personally buy: not sure yet, still waiting for the last day of pioneer to make the choice. I treat this choice as completley seperate from the project it self.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: windjc on December 01, 2015, 08:13:24 AM
Are you saying that accounts shouldn't be used more than a few times?  In other words, putting an IOTA address in my sig would be a bad idea?

There are no accounts in Iota, it uses Bitcoin's system of inputs/outputs. You can put Iota address into the sig but it will take some time to spend every input. More inputs - more time, this grows exponentially. Iota was designed for IoT, not humans, so some methods used by humans are not very compatible.

Bitcoin would have the same problem if it used the same security enhancement. While Bitcoin doesn't recommend to reuse addresses, Iota goes further and makes it unprofitable by requiring to burn extra electricity.

CFB. I am curious about what your personal end game is. You were once a pioneer in NXT yet choose to leave it when some might argue it needed you most.

Then you started Jinn, raised a market cap of over $10 million at one point and I am not sure whether you left that project or not. I just know there have been a lot of promises made with Jinn but I am not sure about the progress.

Now its Iota.  What is your commitment to this project?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on December 01, 2015, 09:39:51 AM
@DecentralizeEconomics, your posts have been deleted for violation of the rules of this thread.

@superresistant, I deleted your post because it quoted DecentralizeEconomics' one. There was no EDIT option, sorry.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on December 01, 2015, 09:46:04 AM
CFB. I am curious about what your personal end game is. You were once a pioneer in NXT yet choose to leave it when some might argue it needed you most.

Then you started Jinn, raised a market cap of over $10 million at one point and I am not sure whether you left that project or not. I just know there have been a lot of promises made with Jinn but I am not sure about the progress.

Now its Iota.  What is your commitment to this project?

I'm still working on Jinn. Iota is needed for efficient functioning of Jinn-powered devices (as backbone of IoT economy).


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: bitcatch on December 01, 2015, 10:28:01 AM
For me it would a little bit a conflict of interest if the founders will invest a lot. Example, imagine the founders are just CfB and iotatoken. So the Bitcoin-Pott at the very end will get halved. 50% for CfB 50% for iototoken. Imagine now the average joe will invest overall 500 Bitcoin during the sale. And CfB and iototoken just decide to invest 2000 Bitcoin each. So Overall Investment 4’500 Bitcoin. CfB and iotatoken will controll 88% of all iota and the Bitcoin they invested the would get anyway back. Possible. So I think it would help if both are quite open about their own investments, because it’s somehow left pocket – right pocket, they don’t have really costs, if they throw something in the Bitcoinbasket – it’s anyway theirs.

As for how much I will personally buy: not sure yet, still waiting for the last day of pioneer to make the choice. I treat this choice as completley seperate from the project it self.
Doesn't matter how much of their own token founders buy at an IPO, it is cheating anyway. The more the founders cheat, the greater the impact will be. NXT IPO btw probably was free of that, otherwise their IPO would collect more funds.
It's perfectly OK however if the founders buy their token after the IPO.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Espo on December 01, 2015, 10:56:09 AM
will it be possible that other manufacturer than JINN can use IOTA ?
Or will IOTA only success if JINN success?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on December 01, 2015, 11:16:13 AM
will it be possible that other manufacturer than JINN can use IOTA ?
Or will IOTA only success if JINN success?

They are independent of each other. IOTA can be used on all hardware, JINN is simply optimised.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on December 01, 2015, 11:17:25 AM
For me it would a little bit a conflict of interest if the founders will invest a lot. Example, imagine the founders are just CfB and iotatoken. So the Bitcoin-Pott at the very end will get halved. 50% for CfB 50% for iototoken. Imagine now the average joe will invest overall 500 Bitcoin during the sale. And CfB and iototoken just decide to invest 2000 Bitcoin each. So Overall Investment 4’500 Bitcoin. CfB and iotatoken will controll 88% of all iota and the Bitcoin they invested the would get anyway back. Possible. So I think it would help if both are quite open about their own investments, because it’s somehow left pocket – right pocket, they don’t have really costs, if they throw something in the Bitcoinbasket – it’s anyway theirs.

As for how much I will personally buy: not sure yet, still waiting for the last day of pioneer to make the choice. I treat this choice as completley seperate from the project it self.
Doesn't matter how much of their own token founders buy at an IPO, it is cheating anyway. The more the founders cheat, the greater the impact will be. NXT IPO btw probably was free of that, otherwise their IPO would collect more funds.
It's perfectly OK however if the founders buy their token after the IPO.

It's not cheating at all, get real.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: bitcatch on December 01, 2015, 11:36:01 AM
For me it would a little bit a conflict of interest if the founders will invest a lot. Example, imagine the founders are just CfB and iotatoken. So the Bitcoin-Pott at the very end will get halved. 50% for CfB 50% for iototoken. Imagine now the average joe will invest overall 500 Bitcoin during the sale. And CfB and iototoken just decide to invest 2000 Bitcoin each. So Overall Investment 4’500 Bitcoin. CfB and iotatoken will controll 88% of all iota and the Bitcoin they invested the would get anyway back. Possible. So I think it would help if both are quite open about their own investments, because it’s somehow left pocket – right pocket, they don’t have really costs, if they throw something in the Bitcoinbasket – it’s anyway theirs.

As for how much I will personally buy: not sure yet, still waiting for the last day of pioneer to make the choice. I treat this choice as completley seperate from the project it self.
Doesn't matter how much of their own token founders buy at an IPO, it is cheating anyway. The more the founders cheat, the greater the impact will be. NXT IPO btw probably was free of that, otherwise their IPO would collect more funds.
It's perfectly OK however if the founders buy their token after the IPO.

It's not cheating at all, get real.
Let's quote this for posterity.
IOTA founders are going to buy their own token at their own IPO, paying unknown amount of BTC to themselfs. They explicitly state it. They don't perceive it as cheating.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on December 01, 2015, 11:40:19 AM
For me it would a little bit a conflict of interest if the founders will invest a lot. Example, imagine the founders are just CfB and iotatoken. So the Bitcoin-Pott at the very end will get halved. 50% for CfB 50% for iototoken. Imagine now the average joe will invest overall 500 Bitcoin during the sale. And CfB and iototoken just decide to invest 2000 Bitcoin each. So Overall Investment 4’500 Bitcoin. CfB and iotatoken will controll 88% of all iota and the Bitcoin they invested the would get anyway back. Possible. So I think it would help if both are quite open about their own investments, because it’s somehow left pocket – right pocket, they don’t have really costs, if they throw something in the Bitcoinbasket – it’s anyway theirs.

As for how much I will personally buy: not sure yet, still waiting for the last day of pioneer to make the choice. I treat this choice as completley seperate from the project it self.
Doesn't matter how much of their own token founders buy at an IPO, it is cheating anyway. The more the founders cheat, the greater the impact will be. NXT IPO btw probably was free of that, otherwise their IPO would collect more funds.
It's perfectly OK however if the founders buy their token after the IPO.

It's not cheating at all, get real.
Let's quote this for posterity.
IOTA founders are going to buy their own token at their own IPO, paying unknown amount of BTC to themselfs. They explicitly state it. They don't perceive it as cheating.

Troll on somewhere else.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on December 01, 2015, 01:16:36 PM
Doesn't matter how much of their own token founders buy at an IPO, it is cheating anyway. The more the founders cheat, the greater the impact will be. NXT IPO btw probably was free of that, otherwise their IPO would collect more funds.
It's perfectly OK however if the founders buy their token after the IPO.

In this crypto world, so far, there are two ways for devs to own the coins from the crowd sale. One is the devs set aside a big chunk of the coins for themselves for the future development and awards. Another is to participate the crowd sale by themselves.

Ethereum did both. They set aside a chunk of ethers for themselves and allow devs to buy in the crowd sale. But they set a kind of limit for their devs. However on one can monitor it. The Augur team did the same in their crowd sale.

Iota team decideed to not set aside a chunk of coins for themselves and their devs have to buy if they want to own some coins. What else can you ask?





Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: lordoliver on December 01, 2015, 01:28:29 PM
Guys, guys... try to understand.
If the programmer does not hold a serious amount of tokens, why the hell should he care about the coin after release? It will just die sooner or later then..

The previous scheme was, that the programmer keeps a few as a "premine" (what was completely fine for me). But then you guys complain about not fair and so on.
Thats why iota even chose to give ALL for sell and buy some themselves. They want to show, that they believe in their coin.

Of course we have a little problem now because of the following calculation:
founderBTCout = x BTC + founderBTCin
founderBTCsum = founderBTCout - founderBTCin = (x BTC + founderBTCin) - founderBTCin = x BTC (as xeelee said left pocket - right pocket)

and
foundertokens = founderBTCin * allTokens / (x BTC + founderBTCin)
wich becomes more, if more founderBTCin are spent, what doesn't matter, because they will get it back. So - theoretically - if they borrow and put 1 million BTC there, noone gets a shit any more and after they can give them back without a problem.

Maybe it looks like, they want to "cheat", but I am pretty sure iota did not think about that conflict in the first place.
Internal the BTC will probably not flow flow one pocket to the other but from one guy to another, so it looks only that simple outside...

@iota: imho the only way to get out of that dilemma is tell us exactly, what you are planning to spend.
We have to face, that it's an indirect "premine".


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: bitcatch on December 01, 2015, 01:40:42 PM
Doesn't matter how much of their own token founders buy at an IPO, it is cheating anyway. The more the founders cheat, the greater the impact will be. NXT IPO btw probably was free of that, otherwise their IPO would collect more funds.
It's perfectly OK however if the founders buy their token after the IPO.

In this crypto world, so far, there are two ways for devs to own the coins from the crowd sale. One is the devs set aside a big chunk of the coins for themselves for the future development and awards. Another is to participate the crowd sale by themselves.

Ethereum did both. They set aside a chunk of ethers for themselves and allow devs to buy in the crowd sale. But they set a kind of limit for their devs. However on one can monitor it. The Augur team did the same in their crowd sale.

Iota team decideed to not set aside a chunk of coins for themselves and their devs have to buy if they want to own some coins. What else can you ask?

Crypto IPOs are opaque. We can't be sure how much of their tokens respective founders bought from theirselfs.

Let's call a 'founder' a person who has a share in funds collected in an IPO, and a 'developer' - a waged person who has no share in those funds, who will be payed for working on the project by e.g. founders.
It's perfectly OK if a developer participates in an IPO of a project which he will be working on.

So what do you claim as regards Ethereum? That their developers participated in their IPO, or founders? In any case a link would be appreciated.

And again:
It's perfectly OK however if the founders buy their token after the IPO.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on December 01, 2015, 01:47:06 PM
This is the official stance:

1. IOTA devs have to buy their own iotas in order to get any.

2. They are not required internally or externally to disclose the amount, this will be 100% up to each person. This is simply because it has no bearing whatsoever on how the funds will be spent post-sale and privacy. I will not force any of my devs to disclose how much they purchased either to me or to the world, it's their choice as it's a personal decision.

3. Anyone that thinks this is some sort of premine scheme, there is a very simple solution to your concerns: don't buy the software.

We honestly do not care what some random coin speculators think, IOTA is a serious project that aims to become the official payment protocol for machine-2-machine in Internet-of-Things, we do not have time to worry about coin speculators, which is why we have a long list of risks disclosed in the risk document. If you don't feel comfortable buying the cryptographical software tokens that are IOTA, then don't.

This project needs serious people who want to see the technology succeed above all else.


As for myself I will decide how much to buy on the last day and will disclose it to an approximate amount, but not the exact amount to avoid having people stalk my address. The IOTA project will not be focused around speculators and I will not play any part in making that the focal point of the community that will arise around IOTA.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on December 01, 2015, 03:28:15 PM
Let's quote this for posterity.
IOTA founders are going to buy their own token at their own IPO, paying unknown amount of BTC to themselfs. They explicitly state it. They don't perceive it as cheating.

I marked with red an incorrect part, should be replaced with "to company".


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: bitcatch on December 01, 2015, 03:40:26 PM
should be replaced with "to company".
Which consists of themselfs.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on December 01, 2015, 03:41:31 PM
should be replaced with "to company".
Which consists of themselfs.

Troll on somewhere else.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on December 01, 2015, 03:43:01 PM
should be replaced with "to company".
Which consists of themselfs.

I won't argue on this, this goes down to questions like "Does Bill Gates get money back for purchased Windows and Office products?" and I don't have enough info on such cases.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: lordoliver on December 01, 2015, 04:05:19 PM
founderBTCout = x BTC + founderBTCin
founderBTCsum = founderBTCout - founderBTCin = (x BTC + founderBTCin) - founderBTCin = x BTC (as xeelee said left pocket - right pocket)

and
foundertokens = founderBTCin * allTokens / (x BTC + founderBTCin)
wich becomes more, if more founderBTCin are spent, what doesn't matter, because they will get it back. So - theoretically - if they borrow and put 1 million BTC there, noone gets a shit any more and after they can give them back without a problem.

Iota, I am not against your purpose, but any argument against this? You have to admit, that this is a valid point of criticism.
You demand trust in this case. We all know that this is not that easy and not the crypto way.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: achimsmile on December 01, 2015, 04:06:18 PM
IOTA founders are going to buy their own token at their own IPO, paying unknown amount of BTC to themselfs. They explicitly state it. They don't perceive it as cheating.


I cannot understand why this should be an issue, or even cheating.
In your world, the public should have the right to invest an unknown amount, but developers should not be allowed to purchase any shares.
Even if the developers publicly state that they will invest some with their own money, it's still cheating.

Imagine you invent something that could change the world. Would you sell it all to the public without investing yourself?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on December 01, 2015, 04:14:05 PM
should be replaced with "to company".
Which consists of themselfs.

company=all employees + all shareholders + all its assets + all its debts as every company does.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: bitcatch on December 01, 2015, 04:21:57 PM
IOTA founders are going to buy their own token at their own IPO, paying unknown amount of BTC to themselfs. They explicitly state it. They don't perceive it as cheating.
In your world, the public should have the right to invest an unknown amount, but developers should not be allowed to purchase any shares.
It's perfectly OK if a developer participates in an IPO of a project which he will be working on.

And again:
It's perfectly OK however if the founders buy their token after the IPO.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: bitcatch on December 01, 2015, 04:30:24 PM
IOTA founders are going to buy their own token at their own IPO, paying unknown amount of BTC to themselfs. They explicitly state it. They don't perceive it as cheating.


I cannot understand why this should be an issue, or even cheating.
Too bad.

founderBTCout = x BTC + founderBTCin
founderBTCsum = founderBTCout - founderBTCin = (x BTC + founderBTCin) - founderBTCin = x BTC (as xeelee said left pocket - right pocket)

and
foundertokens = founderBTCin * allTokens / (x BTC + founderBTCin)
wich becomes more, if more founderBTCin are spent, what doesn't matter, because they will get it back. So - theoretically - if they borrow and put 1 million BTC there, noone gets a shit any more and after they can give them back without a problem.

Iota, I am not against your purpose, but any argument against this? You have to admit, that this is a valid point of criticism.
You demand trust in this case. We all know that this is not that easy and not the crypto way.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: achimsmile on December 01, 2015, 04:32:21 PM
It's perfectly OK however if the founders buy their token after the IPO.

How to enforce this? Every developer could promise to do so and use a middle man to buy during IPO without you knowing.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on December 01, 2015, 04:44:03 PM
founderBTCout = x BTC + founderBTCin
founderBTCsum = founderBTCout - founderBTCin = (x BTC + founderBTCin) - founderBTCin = x BTC (as xeelee said left pocket - right pocket)

and
foundertokens = founderBTCin * allTokens / (x BTC + founderBTCin)
wich becomes more, if more founderBTCin are spent, what doesn't matter, because they will get it back. So - theoretically - if they borrow and put 1 million BTC there, noone gets a shit any more and after they can give them back without a problem.

Iota, I am not against your purpose, but any argument against this? You have to admit, that this is a valid point of criticism.
You demand trust in this case. We all know that this is not that easy and not the crypto way.

I think we already addressed this very complaint on the first few pages of this thread over a month ago. Yes there are ways to cheat, but it would defeat the purpose of the software.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on December 01, 2015, 04:44:28 PM
Iota, I am not against your purpose, but any argument against this? You have to admit, that this is a valid point of criticism.
You demand trust in this case. We all know that this is not that easy and not the crypto way.

Correct, it's possible to borrow 1 million BTC. Why anyone would give that much money without collateral for even higher amount is another question, act assuming that I do have 1'000'000 BTC.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: bitcatch on December 01, 2015, 04:47:53 PM
It's perfectly OK however if the founders buy their token after the IPO.

How to enforce this? Every developer could promise to do so and use a middle man to buy during IPO without you knowing.
Let's distinguish developers and founders:
Let's call a 'founder' a person who has a share in funds collected in an IPO, and a 'developer' - a waged person who has no share in those funds, who will be payed for working on the project by e.g. founders.

You are right.
Crypto IPOs are opaque. We can't be sure how much of their tokens respective founders bought from theirselfs.
But some of them at least don't openly state that they will buy their own coins at the last moment, when there is enough info for them to calculate how much BTC they need to transfer from their left pocket to their right pocket, to get desirable share of their tokens.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on December 01, 2015, 04:52:27 PM

But some of them at least don't openly state that they will buy their own coins at the last moment, when there is enough info for them to calculate how much BTC they need to transfer from their left pocket to their right pocket, to get desirable share of their tokens.

One more of these false accusations stated only to make yourself feel useful and you will be perma-banned from this thread. This thread is not even the sale thread of IOTA, but the general IOTA thread which should be focused around the software and community.

As for your false claim: I will decide how much to buy based on a completely different factor. I don't want to become a big IOTA 'whale'. Marc De Mesel can actually back up this, he asked me a month ago how much I would purchase and I told him that I did not want to buy a big amount for myself as I wanted the distribution to be widespread, so the amount I would put in would be largely determined by how much was already bought. To me the distribution of IOTA and long term success is a lot more important than my own holding.

And this bullshit about 'transfer from left to right pocket' is just that, bullshit. All our holdings are personal, not company ones. The funds will go to pay for development of hardware, software and community growth.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: bitcatch on December 01, 2015, 04:59:01 PM

But some of them at least don't openly state that they will buy their own coins at the last moment, when there is enough info for them to calculate how much BTC they need to transfer from their left pocket to their right pocket, to get desirable share of their tokens.

One more of these false accusations stated only to make yourself feel useful and you will be perma-banned from this thread. This thread is not even the sale thread of IOTA, but the general IOTA thread which should be focused around the software and community.

As for your false claim: I will decide how much to buy based on a completely different factor. I don't want to become a big IOTA 'whale'. Marc De Mesel can actually back up this, he asked me a month ago how much I would purchase and I told him that I did not want to buy a big amount for myself as I wanted the distribution to be widespread, so the amount I would put in would be largely determined by how much was already bought. To me the distribution of IOTA and long term success is a lot more important than my own holding.

And this bullshit about 'transfer from left to right pocket' is just that, bullshit. All our holdings are personal, not company ones. The funds will go to pay for development of hardware, software and community growth.
There is an easy way to achieve those honorable goals without being accused in cheating, scamming, etc.: use burning instead of classical IPO. Like XCP did.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on December 01, 2015, 05:00:33 PM
There is an easy way to achieve those honorable goals without being accused in cheating, scamming, etc.: use burning instead of classical IPO. Like XCP did.


How would that fund development?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on December 01, 2015, 05:04:20 PM
Guys, move to a special thread, please.

Bitcatch has a legit concern, unfortunatelly, there is no a way to solve the issue so if he thinks if he should buy iotas or not then it's better to spend money on something else (spending money on a gf is the best choice, IMO). If he asks questions to warn the others - I get such behavior, usually it's caused by the wish to make this world better. In this case I suggest to create a separate thread and post the link here. This thread has already been derailed, let's branch out long convos to dedicated threads.

PS: From now only the link to the dedicated thread is allowed. All other posts will be deleted.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: BTCDDev on December 01, 2015, 05:28:02 PM
The trolling here is pitiful, but I expected no less from BitcoinTalk.

I figured that if Iota is successful, people would then complain about the crowdsale how they complain about missing the Nxt initial buyin period.

However, it seems the complaining is even starting during the initial 'Pioneer' phase.  ::)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: LiQio on December 01, 2015, 07:05:45 PM
[...]spending money on a gf is the best choice, IMO[...]

I guess the "a" is used instead of "the" on purpose  :D

(and yes, you may delete this post - no hard feelings)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tolstoy on December 02, 2015, 02:06:00 AM
Physicists achieve quantum entanglement at room temperature.

Quantum entanglement at ambient conditions in a macroscopic solid-state spin ensemble.  Science Advances, 20 Nov 2015
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/10/e1501015.full

On-chip zero-index metamaterials.  Nature Photonics, 19 October 2015
http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v9/n11/full/nphoton.2015.198.html
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/hardware/zeroindex-metamaterials-open-new-possibilities-in-optical-chips

With progress being made daily, it's only a matter of time before some major breakthrough is made in quantum computing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_quantum_computing


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: 1btcdream on December 02, 2015, 10:25:20 AM
This is a simple question for Come-from-Beyond, from a grade scale of 1 (doubtful) to 10 (confident) how sure are you that IOTA would be successful? Choose a number from 1 to 10, any other answer not required. 


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: megges on December 02, 2015, 10:27:46 AM
This is a simple question for Come-from-Beyond, from a grade scale of 1 (doubtful) to 10 (confident) how sure are you that IOTA would be successful? Choose a number from 1 to 10, any other answer not required.  

how could someone answer this question? Crystalball?

And the term "success" can be anything from, working "coin", to price rise, to adoption, to .... i guess you have to define what you mean by successful.

For me this seems not to be a simple question!


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on December 02, 2015, 10:34:33 AM
This is a simple question for Come-from-Beyond, from a grade scale of 1 (doubtful) to 10 (confident) how sure are you that IOTA would be successful? Choose a number from 1 to 10, any other answer not required.  

This question cannot really be answered without legal implications. The only thing we can say is that we would not be wasting our time with it if we ourselves did not see the potential in the software that is IOTA. Whether you think it'll fail or succeed (whatever parameters you use to measure this) is 100% up to you.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on December 02, 2015, 11:36:25 AM
This is a simple question for Come-from-Beyond, from a grade scale of 1 (doubtful) to 10 (confident) how sure are you that IOTA would be successful? Choose a number from 1 to 10, any other answer not required. 

7.62


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: 1btcdream on December 02, 2015, 11:47:57 AM
This is a simple question for Come-from-Beyond, from a grade scale of 1 (doubtful) to 10 (confident) how sure are you that IOTA would be successful? Choose a number from 1 to 10, any other answer not required. 

7.62

After seeing your answer I would definitely invest in IOTA. Thanks!  :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on December 02, 2015, 11:52:49 AM
After seeing your answer I would definitely invest in IOTA. Thanks!  :)

Hm, it looks like you invest into me. If it's so I insist that you think again, too much burden for me if anyone buys iotas because of my involvement.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: 1btcdream on December 02, 2015, 12:00:43 PM
After seeing your answer I would definitely invest in IOTA. Thanks!  :)

Hm, it looks like you invest into me. If it's so I insist that you think again, too much burden for me if anyone buys iotas because of my involvement.

Need not to worry I only invest in IOTA. But I have trust in IOTA dev team.  ;)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on December 02, 2015, 12:01:42 PM
After seeing your answer I would definitely invest in IOTA. Thanks!  :)

Hm, it looks like you invest into me. If it's so I insist that you think again, too much burden for me if anyone buys iotas because of my involvement.

Need not to worry I only invest in IOTA. But I have trust in IOTA dev team.  ;)

IOTA is software, not investment. If you are saying that you are BUYING the software, fine. Just making sure that you don't think IOTA is a security or investment, as explained in the risk document, it's not.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: azwccc on December 03, 2015, 05:43:15 AM
How many devs do you have? How many other staffs do you have?

How long have IOTA been developed, by how many devs?

Thanks,


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on December 03, 2015, 06:28:15 AM
How many devs do you have? How many other staffs do you have?

In our start-up or on IOTA specifically, excluding the hardware side? If the latter: 3.

Quote

How long have IOTA been developed, by how many devs?

We officially began work on IOTA as a dedicated project this summer.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Komputor on December 03, 2015, 11:29:51 AM
http://www.iot-a.eu/public (http://www.iot-a.eu/public)

Something interesting.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: lordoliver on December 03, 2015, 11:57:01 AM
http://www.iot-a.eu/public (http://www.iot-a.eu/public)

Something interesting.

wtf. seems like a name change is advisable...


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on December 03, 2015, 12:04:18 PM
http://www.iot-a.eu/public (http://www.iot-a.eu/public)

Something interesting.

wtf. seems like a name change is advisable...

Haha, no. While interesting, this is not an issue at all IMO. They don't even seem active.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: lordoliver on December 03, 2015, 12:06:05 PM
http://www.iot-a.eu/public (http://www.iot-a.eu/public)

Something interesting.

wtf. seems like a name change is advisable...

Haha, no. While interesting, this is not an issue at all IMO. They don't even seem active.

its dangerous, if you share the same name within the same field. you can run easily into law issues...
Would be something else if they sell cola...


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on December 03, 2015, 12:07:31 PM
http://www.iot-a.eu/public (http://www.iot-a.eu/public)

Something interesting.

wtf. seems like a name change is advisable...

Haha, no. While interesting, this is not an issue at all IMO. They don't even seem active.

its dangerous, if you share the same name within the same field. you can run easily into right issues...
Would be something else if they sell cola...

Given that IoT is the universal abbreviation for Internet-of-Things, this is kind of inevitable, but does not matter at all. IOTA is not IoT-A. And IOTA is a token and payment protocol for IoT, this IoT-A project is a lot more vague.
More importantly I can't find any info that they are still active, not to mention their insanely outdated website look. The IOTA brand is ours.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: lordoliver on December 03, 2015, 12:12:39 PM
The IOTA brand is ours.

The world is not that easy...


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Komputor on December 03, 2015, 12:55:41 PM
Question for CFB -

I've been trying to visualize the way the DAG would evolve in real world usage and how the transaction confirmation times would behave.
So if i understand correctly, the tips with the highest weights are encouraged to be approved first by incoming fresh transactions. In such a case, if there are is a sudden surge of new transactions followed immediately by a period of very low transactions, then many of the transactions in the first wave would end up waiting longer than usual for approval/confirmation, correct?

I then understand that the confirmation times may actually be very unpredictable in the initial stages of the network when there is a sporadic rate of new incoming transactions.
If true, then do you expect these uneven transaction confirmation times to even out as the volume of transactions eventually increases?

I'm no tech expert, but would like to understand this a little.

 **Still reading the whitepaper**

Edit: Another question - So a strategy for devices stuck with unconfirmed transactions would be to send another blank transaction referencing the original unapproved transaction. Since this network will be used primarily by non-humans, such a behavior would need to be coded into the IOT device itself right? For example: If transaction does not confirm withing x time, then resend a blank transaction with reference to first one.
How would this work out in a larger simulation where many devices would use such a strategy? Could this cause a spam of blank transactions in the network where many devices are trying to promote their own transactions for faster confirmation times? Or is this a non-issue?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on December 03, 2015, 01:06:44 PM
Question for CFB -

I've been trying to visualize the way the DAG would evolve in real world usage and how the transaction confirmation times would behave.
So if i understand correctly, the tips with the highest weights are encouraged to be approved first by incoming fresh transactions. In such a case, if there are is a sudden surge of new transactions followed immediately by a period of very low transactions, then many of the transactions in the first wave would end up waiting longer than usual for approval/confirmation, correct?

I then understand that the confirmation times may actually be very unpredictable in the initial stages of the network when there is a sporadic rate of new incoming transactions.
If true, then do you expect these uneven transaction confirmation times to even out as the volume of transactions eventually increases?

I'm no tech expert, but would like to understand this a little.

 **Still reading the whitepaper**


It's a question to mthcl, I think. Simulation shows that Tangle pulses: its width, tx confirmation time and other parameters have clear cosine pattern.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Komputor on December 03, 2015, 01:11:09 PM
Question for CFB -

I've been trying to visualize the way the DAG would evolve in real world usage and how the transaction confirmation times would behave.
So if i understand correctly, the tips with the highest weights are encouraged to be approved first by incoming fresh transactions. In such a case, if there are is a sudden surge of new transactions followed immediately by a period of very low transactions, then many of the transactions in the first wave would end up waiting longer than usual for approval/confirmation, correct?

I then understand that the confirmation times may actually be very unpredictable in the initial stages of the network when there is a sporadic rate of new incoming transactions.
If true, then do you expect these uneven transaction confirmation times to even out as the volume of transactions eventually increases?

I'm no tech expert, but would like to understand this a little.

 **Still reading the whitepaper**


It's a question to mthcl, I think. Simulation shows that Tangle pulses: its width, tx confirmation time and other parameters have clear cosine pattern.

Interesting, maybe mthcl can comment more on this. Thanks.

Also if you could clarify my second set of questions: So a strategy for devices stuck with unconfirmed transactions would be to send another blank transaction referencing the original unapproved transaction. Since this network will be used primarily by non-humans, such a behavior would need to be coded into the IOT device itself right? For example: If transaction does not confirm withing x time, then resend a blank transaction with reference to first one.
How would this work out in a larger simulation where many devices would use such a strategy? Could this cause a spam of blank transactions in the network where many devices are trying to promote their own transactions for faster confirmation times? Or is this a non-issue?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on December 03, 2015, 01:19:25 PM
So a strategy for devices stuck with unconfirmed transactions would be to send another blank transaction referencing the original unapproved transaction. Since this network will be used primarily by non-humans, such a behavior would need to be coded into the IOT device itself right? For example: If transaction does not confirm withing x time, then resend a blank transaction with reference to first one.
How would this work out in a larger simulation where many devices would use such a strategy? Could this cause a spam of blank transactions in the network where many devices are trying to promote their own transactions for faster confirmation times? Or is this a non-issue?


If a device paid to a merchant then the marchant himself can confirm all pending transactions sent to him by organizing these transactions into few subtrees and confirming the roots.

"Dumb" reconfirmation increases amplitude of cosine pulses making some devices to generate 2-3 extra blank transactions which increases security of the system.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Komputor on December 03, 2015, 01:29:15 PM
So a strategy for devices stuck with unconfirmed transactions would be to send another blank transaction referencing the original unapproved transaction. Since this network will be used primarily by non-humans, such a behavior would need to be coded into the IOT device itself right? For example: If transaction does not confirm withing x time, then resend a blank transaction with reference to first one.
How would this work out in a larger simulation where many devices would use such a strategy? Could this cause a spam of blank transactions in the network where many devices are trying to promote their own transactions for faster confirmation times? Or is this a non-issue?


If a device paid to a merchant then the marchant himself can confirm all pending transactions sent to him by organizing these transactions into few subtrees and confirming the roots.

"Dumb" reconfirmation increases amplitude of cosine pulses making some devices to generate 2-3 extra blank transactions which increases security of the system.

Ah yes, so in the merchant example, he can improve his transaction confirmation rate by running his own "off-tangle" train of transactions, which eventually will get merged onto the main net tangle if he is being an honest merchant lol.

As for dumb reconfirmations, you mean to say that this is really a non-issue and would in-fact just lead to greater security and higher cumulative transaction weights. Makes sense.. the spam is not exactly coming at free cost from a node since there is POW invested in each transaction (electricity costs i guess). However, i guess I'll probably understand this better in time.

Very fascinating tech i must say, looking forward to the launch. Good luck to you and team.



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rlh on December 03, 2015, 05:11:42 PM
I read the white paper on the first day this IOTA post was made.  Has it been significantly updated since 10/21?

In other words, should I re-read the white paper?  I want to stay abreast of this tech. B-)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on December 03, 2015, 05:36:42 PM
I read the white paper on the first day this IOTA post was made.  Has it been significantly updated since 10/21?

In other words, should I re-read the white paper?  I want to stay abreast of this tech. B-)

No.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: azwccc on December 03, 2015, 10:40:16 PM
I saw you are approaching some other projects, looking for collaboration. Would you mind to provide a list and also the progress?

Also, do you have any detailed plan in hardware side? It will require more capital investment, right? Any partnership yet?

Thank you


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on December 04, 2015, 04:51:16 AM

Also, do you have any detailed plan in hardware side? It will require more capital investment, right? Any partnership yet?

Thank you

Yes, we're 13 months into the hardware development. As for requiring more capital investment, do you mean to get prototype or production run? If latter, yes certainly. We'll eventually have to take the 'traditional VC route', but so far we're doing quite good. Re: partnerships on the hardware side, can't disclose anything due to NDA and the fact that it's still preliminary stages.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: tolstoy on December 05, 2015, 12:22:31 AM
Call for papers IoT DevCon 2016
Deadline for submission of titles and abstracts - January 29, 2016
Notification of acceptance - February 19, 2016

http://www.iot-devcon.com/callforpaper.php

IoT Developers Conference 2016
May 25-26, 2016
Santa Clara, CA

http://www.iot-devcon.com/


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on December 05, 2015, 12:03:20 PM
Regarding the client software:
We are planning to release reference software with as little non-essential code as possible to make it easier to do the security audit. After that I'll start working on a project powered by Iota.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: P-Funk on December 05, 2015, 09:35:22 PM
In regards to the software, what stage of development is it in? Is it ready for a basic no-frills release soon? I took this quote from the sale thread to mean that:
Quote
Step 2: After the sale ends you can collect your iotas from collect.iotatoken.com (goes live on 22nd of December)
but please correct me if I'm wrong.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on December 05, 2015, 09:44:32 PM
In regards to the software, what stage of development is it in? Is it ready for a basic no-frills release soon? I took this quote from the sale thread to mean that:
Quote
Step 2: After the sale ends you can collect your iotas from collect.iotatoken.com (goes live on 22nd of December)
but please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm optimizing already written code and run simulations testing changes in the consensus algorithm that were introduced after a flaw was found in the old one. This is related only to the core part, client part (HTML5) is not ready yet, I'm still thinking what layout to choose.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: achimsmile on December 06, 2015, 09:01:13 PM
I'll start working on a project powered by Iota.
Any hints on what that project will be about?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on December 06, 2015, 09:15:21 PM
Any hints on what that project will be about?

Chat/forum/email hybrid.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: WorldCoiner on December 07, 2015, 09:46:04 AM
In regards to the software, what stage of development is it in? Is it ready for a basic no-frills release soon? I took this quote from the sale thread to mean that:
Quote
Step 2: After the sale ends you can collect your iotas from collect.iotatoken.com (goes live on 22nd of December)
but please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm optimizing already written code and run simulations testing changes in the consensus algorithm that were introduced after a flaw was found in the old one. This is related only to the core part, client part (HTML5) is not ready yet, I'm still thinking what layout to choose.

So Tuesday the 22nd as delivery date is in jeopardy? Thanks for clarification.



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on December 07, 2015, 11:39:42 AM
So Tuesday the 22nd as delivery date is in jeopardy? Thanks for clarification.

For now the plan is to have beta version of the client ready by that date.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: WorldCoiner on December 07, 2015, 11:58:12 AM
Excellent, thank you Sir.

Tomorrow I will provide a interview in my Blog with David about JINN/IOTA.
Will make two version: 1x English / 1xGerman.
Will keep you informed here - many thanks David for the detailed answers - much appreciated!  :)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: WorldCoiner on December 08, 2015, 06:52:28 AM
For my German Altcoinblog I have interviewed IOTA-CEO David Sønstebø aka iotatoken. I think this interview could be also very interesting for the English-Speaking Community so I created two versions:
English: https://altcoinspekulant.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/iota-interview-with-ceo-david-sonstebo-english-version/
German: https://altcoinspekulant.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/iota-interview-mit-ceo-david-sonstebo/

Yes, my English could be better, I know  ;)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: joschua011 on December 08, 2015, 11:12:57 AM
For my German Altcoinblog I have interviewed IOTA-CEO David Sønstebø aka iotatoken. I think this interview could be also very interesting for the English-Speaking Community so I created two versions:
English: https://altcoinspekulant.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/iota-interview-with-ceo-david-sonstebo-english-version/
German: https://altcoinspekulant.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/iota-interview-mit-ceo-david-sonstebo/

Yes, my English could be better, I know  ;)

Your german could be better too.

Quote: "Wird der Klient für IOTA"..

Klient in german and Client in english do not have equal meaning,
This word makes no sense whatsoever in this context.
This is so wired to read, please just use the normal english words, no need to "verdeutsch" everything.
same with "Bärenmarkt" and other things, I like reading your blog but this bugs me.
</rant>

good to see some publicity for IOTA tough!


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: patmast3r on December 08, 2015, 11:29:32 AM
For my German Altcoinblog I have interviewed IOTA-CEO David Sønstebø aka iotatoken. I think this interview could be also very interesting for the English-Speaking Community so I created two versions:
English: https://altcoinspekulant.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/iota-interview-with-ceo-david-sonstebo-english-version/
German: https://altcoinspekulant.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/iota-interview-mit-ceo-david-sonstebo/

Yes, my English could be better, I know  ;)

Your german could be better too.

Quote: "Wird der Klient für IOTA"..

Klient in german and Client in english do not have equal meaning,
This word makes no sense whatsoever in this context.
This is so wired to read, please just use the normal english words, no need to "verdeutsch" everything.
same with "Bärenmarkt" and other things, I like reading your blog but this bugs me.
</rant>

good to see some publicity for IOTA tough!

I haven't read it yet but Bärenmarkt is totally normal. So is Klient actually but I agree that there would be better words to use in this context.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: WorldCoiner on December 08, 2015, 12:29:31 PM
For my German Altcoinblog I have interviewed IOTA-CEO David Sønstebø aka iotatoken. I think this interview could be also very interesting for the English-Speaking Community so I created two versions:
English: https://altcoinspekulant.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/iota-interview-with-ceo-david-sonstebo-english-version/
German: https://altcoinspekulant.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/iota-interview-mit-ceo-david-sonstebo/

Yes, my English could be better, I know  ;)

Your german could be better too.

Quote: "Wird der Klient für IOTA"..

Klient in german and Client in english do not have equal meaning,
This word makes no sense whatsoever in this context.
This is so wired to read, please just use the normal english words, no need to "verdeutsch" everything.
same with "Bärenmarkt" and other things, I like reading your blog but this bugs me.
</rant>

good to see some publicity for IOTA tough!

Thanks for your feedback (also at patmast3r). Klient I have used also for Nxt 2 years ago. Yes, I like to use this word instead of the English one and I think it’s not completely wrong to use it in German in this way. If you have a better German word just let me know and I will use this in the future. I’m one of the few Altcoinbloggers that are not coming from the technical side, in fact I was working at the stock market for some time.

Bärenmarkt: Even Wikipedia calls it this way -> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullen-_und_B%C3%A4renmarkt


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: BlackFor3st on December 08, 2015, 06:24:03 PM
same with "Bärenmarkt" and other things, I like reading your blog but this bugs me.

What? or "Wie bitte?"

Bärenmarkt: http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Baerenmarkt  / https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullen-_und_B%C3%A4renmarkt


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: titan20 on December 08, 2015, 10:34:11 PM

Also, do you have any detailed plan in hardware side? It will require more capital investment, right? Any partnership yet?

Thank you

Yes, we're 13 months into the hardware development. As for requiring more capital investment, do you mean to get prototype or production run? If latter, yes certainly. We'll eventually have to take the 'traditional VC route', but so far we're doing quite good. Re: partnerships on the hardware side, can't disclose anything due to NDA and the fact that it's still preliminary stages.

What are the consequences if you take the 'traditional VC route' for existing Jinn asset holders?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on December 09, 2015, 03:30:22 AM

Also, do you have any detailed plan in hardware side? It will require more capital investment, right? Any partnership yet?

Thank you

Yes, we're 13 months into the hardware development. As for requiring more capital investment, do you mean to get prototype or production run? If latter, yes certainly. We'll eventually have to take the 'traditional VC route', but so far we're doing quite good. Re: partnerships on the hardware side, can't disclose anything due to NDA and the fact that it's still preliminary stages.

What are the consequences if you take the 'traditional VC route' for existing Jinn asset holders?

Traditional VC route simply means getting cash infusion, nothing changes.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: l8orre on December 09, 2015, 06:57:34 AM

there is a corporate Nemesis called BURN RATE


Etherium allegedly had a burn rate of 300,000 SFR per month and the Bitcoin foundation burned $150,000 per month.

Looks like all that money did not do them any good. What did they burn it on?

Probably they themselves are still  trying to understand  how all those neat looking 4-figure amounts could wreck them that badly...


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on December 09, 2015, 07:34:57 AM
l8orre, I definitely agree, this is why I am against scaling up too fast, it leads to uncontrollable spending. This IMO is what caused Ethereum a ton of grief, they had too high salaries, too many employees, too many development hubs arond the world etc. Simply too expensive. Brilliant developers with no business and management experience/interest. I recommend the 'Founders Dilemma' book to every future entrepreneur.


And for all those who don't understand how quantum computers work and why IOTA takes them seriously, this is the greatest down to earth summary you can find:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhHMJCUmq28


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: illodin on December 09, 2015, 08:04:28 AM
This IMO is what caused Ethereum a ton of grief, they had too high salaries, too many employees, too many development hubs arond the world etc. Simply too expensive.

Or perhaps they bought too much their own coins in the ICO so they didn't actually get as much funds as they appeared to get.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on December 09, 2015, 08:25:17 AM
This IMO is what caused Ethereum a ton of grief, they had too high salaries, too many employees, too many development hubs arond the world etc. Simply too expensive.

Or perhaps they bought too much their own coins in the ICO so they didn't actually get as much funds as they appeared to get.

It's of course a possibility, but I tend to reject such conspiracies as they rarely stand up to any kind of scruitny. Ethereum was no small project in mid-2014, pulling this off without anyone inside leaking info would be really, really hard, borderline impossible given the history of drama inside Ethereum. It would leak. Personally all my chats with core members of Ethereum leave me very confident that they would never pull off some shady shit like that.

However their salaries have been posted public, the amount of team members, how much was lost in the bitcoin crash etc. So to me it's not at all a complex issue, it was just some mismanagement.


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: martismartis on December 09, 2015, 11:24:14 AM
Is this 9 in the seed because of https://www.facebook.com/TeslaConcursos/videos/758647274225419/ ?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: smartwart on December 09, 2015, 01:33:11 PM
from the google / d-wave group:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02206 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02206)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Tobo on December 09, 2015, 03:13:51 PM
l8orre, I definitely agree, this is why I am against scaling up too fast, it leads to uncontrollable spending. This IMO is what caused Ethereum a ton of grief, they had too high salaries, too many employees, too many development hubs arond the world etc. Simply too expensive. Brilliant developers with no business and management experience/interest. I recommend the 'Founders Dilemma' book to every future entrepreneur.

This is only a budget issue. It is not about how much you spend. It is about if your income or revenue (which can be the capital injection from the investors) can cover your spend and if the company's debt stricture is in a healthy level. More spending does not automatically mean a bad thing when today's spending will bring future values and revenue for the company.  

It is important to have a valid business model when building a business. Where will the stream of cash and revenue come from to support the operation of the business? Who are the customers and clients? How do you sell your products? How much should you spend today to yield a goal in 5 years, 10 years, maybe 20 years? How much risk do you want to take?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Komputor on December 09, 2015, 03:58:07 PM
For those that havent seen this one, Andreas Antonopoulos on IOT and Bitcoin's role in it. IOT talks starts from 9:03 -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PFDCQz5Xi0


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on December 09, 2015, 05:42:35 PM
l8orre, I definitely agree, this is why I am against scaling up too fast, it leads to uncontrollable spending. This IMO is what caused Ethereum a ton of grief, they had too high salaries, too many employees, too many development hubs arond the world etc. Simply too expensive. Brilliant developers with no business and management experience/interest. I recommend the 'Founders Dilemma' book to every future entrepreneur.

This is only a budget issue. It is not about how much you spend. It is about if your income or revenue (which can be the capital injection from the investors) can cover your spend and if the company's debt stricture is in a healthy level. More spending does not automatically mean a bad thing when today's spending will bring future values and revenue for the company.  


Of course, but this is not a regular business. They run a non-profit organization with no clear future revenue stream beside consulting. Spending that much money upfront without a functioning product and keeping the vast majority of the funds in a volatile currency, was imo a very risky and inexperienced decision.



Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rtrtcrypto on December 09, 2015, 07:41:21 PM
What are your plans for the BTC?

Will you unload 85% (or some other high%) and keep the rest as an arbitrage play? Or, will you unload it all? BTC seems to be establishing a new floor, maybe the upside is not so bad.

 


l8orre, I definitely agree, this is why I am against scaling up too fast, it leads to uncontrollable spending. This IMO is what caused Ethereum a ton of grief, they had too high salaries, too many employees, too many development hubs arond the world etc. Simply too expensive. Brilliant developers with no business and management experience/interest. I recommend the 'Founders Dilemma' book to every future entrepreneur.

This is only a budget issue. It is not about how much you spend. It is about if your income or revenue (which can be the capital injection from the investors) can cover your spend and if the company's debt stricture is in a healthy level. More spending does not automatically mean a bad thing when today's spending will bring future values and revenue for the company.  


Of course, but this is not a regular business. They run a non-profit organization with no clear future revenue stream beside consulting. Spending that much money upfront without a functioning product and keeping the vast majority of the funds in a volatile currency, was imo a very risky and inexperienced decision.




Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: Come-from-Beyond on December 09, 2015, 08:00:17 PM
What are your plans for the BTC?

Will you unload 85% (or some other high%) and keep the rest as an arbitrage play? Or, will you unload it all? BTC seems to be establishing a new floor, maybe the upside is not so bad.

If we sell - BTC will rise. If we keep - BTC will plummet. Which scenario do you prefer?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rtrtcrypto on December 09, 2015, 08:10:16 PM
ALIVE CAT-DEAD CAT, I hope you sell and the price both raises and falls simultaneously.

Actually, I just want you guys to get the needed money to push this thing forward. If the money raised is enough to keep a comfortable burn rate until the project is successful, then SELL IT ALL.

What are your plans for the BTC?

Will you unload 85% (or some other high%) and keep the rest as an arbitrage play? Or, will you unload it all? BTC seems to be establishing a new floor, maybe the upside is not so bad.

If we sell - BTC will rise. If we keep - BTC will plummet. Which scenario do you prefer?


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: iotatoken on December 09, 2015, 08:35:58 PM
ALIVE CAT-DEAD CAT, I hope you sell and the price both raises and falls simultaneously.

Actually, I just want you guys to get the needed money to push this thing forward. If the money raised is enough to keep a comfortable burn rate until the project is successful, then SELL IT ALL.

What are your plans for the BTC?

Will you unload 85% (or some other high%) and keep the rest as an arbitrage play? Or, will you unload it all? BTC seems to be establishing a new floor, maybe the upside is not so bad.

If we sell - BTC will rise. If we keep - BTC will plummet. Which scenario do you prefer?

We will unload the vast majority of it. (over 80%)


Title: Re: IOTA
Post by: rtrtcrypto on December 09, 2015, 08:38:46 PM
Good, between that and having JINN tokens to offer potential employees, you guys should have some breathing room.

ALIVE CAT-DEAD CAT, I hope you sell and the price both raises and falls simultaneously.

Actually, I just want you guys to get the needed money to push this thing forward. If the money raised is enough to keep a comfortable burn rate until the project is successful, then SELL IT ALL.