For visibiility, a discussion on IOTA and IoT, from the Iota unmoderated thread
PoW is a prevention against sybil attacks. The PoW, which is necessary is not very much and will then be of minor significance, once the IRI will be changed for industrial appliances.
why PoW at all? well, you have a synchronized, soon to be decentralized system, where data-integrity needs to be established through the "confirm 2 tx before you conduct a new one" thingy. pretty solid architecture. what would you take?
for the computational power: you ever heard about JINN?
the ternary processors will conduct the necessary PoW in fractions of a second. Right now, I need just a few seconds with my CPU so that's completely fine for users. the IoT will be handled differently, but everyone was told that like a hundred times.
the consensus furthermore will be established in a decentralized manner, once the monte carlo random walk is enabled, because right now, like you know, the coordinator is centralizing it, for security and topology-reason. (the wittnesses in BB btw too)
So what is your point? that the PoW is to heavy? well it isn't very long.
That we have no decentralization? well we will have it in approx. july 2017
That it's not suitable? why not, what is still missing?
That is funny, since last time I checked Iota, the PoW didnt help against Sybils, and instead people were asked for social proof to join the network, that ist he Sybil prevention.  No, that is not my point that "pow is heavy", read my post again and try really try hard to see the big picture. No offense, just open your eyes. Hardware, Jinn, if you place one of these on a chip, someone will place 100 000 of them together in one big chip, call it a Specialized Processing Unit, and it would then be able to outpace and outrun at least 100 000 of other smaller chips. What I mean is, at IoT power levels, can not ever compete with a normal PC, lulz that should be obvious and clear as blue day, no matter if you place "specialized non-existent magic hardware" on it or not. Hence, PoW and IoT are oxymorons. Pick one. You cant protect your IoT devices with PoW scheme. But you can, with a signature based scheme such as Byteball, and other cryptocurrency, even DPoS works better. See IOTA developers and fans, say, "Oh but IoT will not be a full node, it will only send/sing transactions", Well duh, obviously, any fucking cryptocurrency can delegate a chip to be dumb and trust another full node. What good cryptocurrencies do is, allow the IoT chip to send/receive transactions with its own keys - by signing shit just as other full wallets, and get the protection from scammers and attackers as the rest of the network. Spicy isnt it. Of course, IOTA, bragging about IoT so much, and now we hear from its supporter "IoT will be handed differently." WHAT. OK. |
|
|
|
PoW is a prevention against sybil attacks. The PoW, which is necessary is not very much and will then be of minor significance, once the IRI will be changed for industrial appliances.
why PoW at all? well, you have a synchronized, soon to be decentralized system, where data-integrity needs to be established through the "confirm 2 tx before you conduct a new one" thingy. pretty solid architecture. what would you take?
for the computational power: you ever heard about JINN?
the ternary processors will conduct the necessary PoW in fractions of a second. Right now, I need just a few seconds with my CPU so that's completely fine for users. the IoT will be handled differently, but everyone was told that like a hundred times.
the consensus furthermore will be established in a decentralized manner, once the monte carlo random walk is enabled, because right now, like you know, the coordinator is centralizing it, for security and topology-reason. (the wittnesses in BB btw too)
So what is your point? that the PoW is to heavy? well it isn't very long.
That we have no decentralization? well we will have it in approx. july 2017
That it's not suitable? why not, what is still missing?
That is funny, since last time I checked Iota, the PoW didnt help against Sybils, and instead people were asked for social proof to join the network, that ist he Sybil prevention. No, that is not my point that "pow is heavy", read my post again and try really try hard to see the big picture. No offense, just open your eyes. Hardware, Jinn, if you place one of these on a chip, someone will place 100 000 of them together in one big chip, call it a Specialized Processing Unit, and it would then be able to outpace and outrun at least 100 000 of other smaller chips. What I mean is, at IoT power levels, can not ever compete with a normal PC, lulz that should be obvious and clear as blue day, no matter if you place "specialized non-existent magic hardware" on it or not. Hence, PoW and IoT are oxymorons. Pick one. You cant protect your IoT devices with PoW scheme. But you can, with a signature based scheme such as Byteball, and other cryptocurrency, even DPoS works better. See IOTA developers and fans, say, "Oh but IoT will not be a full node, it will only send/sing transactions", Well duh, obviously, any fucking cryptocurrency can delegate a chip to be dumb and trust another full node. What good cryptocurrencies do is, allow the IoT chip to send/receive transactions with its own keys - by signing shit just as other full wallets, and get the protection from scammers and attackers as the rest of the network. Spicy isnt it. Of course, IOTA, bragging about IoT so much, and now we hear from its supporter "IoT will be handed differently." WHAT. OK. |
|
|
|
Be wary of IOTA, they don't like constructive criticism. Red flags are raised:
They dont take kindly on even asking how Iota is supposed to work. However, they do spread bullshit about Byteball on here, and in their slack forum, they are originater of "Byteball is a blockchain and DAG hybrid" lie. Iota action smell bad, like something is rotten. The whole "we'll beat quantum computing" even is a bunch of bs. How can they beat something that can compute several states at the same time almost instantaneously with regular tech that still computes things one at a time? Sounds like they are spreading a bunch of hype to uninformed individuals. I'm sure someone in their team is working under Ubuntu and somehow convinced their boss about this new fancy shmancy state of the art technology and the many moneys they will make. The guy I bought some IOTA from said he was selling all of their coins because of internal conflicts with Come-from-Beyond and hinted that the initial investors have a hard time dealing with someone who doesn't want to discuss how the project even works. To the point that they were not allowed to question iota. Like you said, smells of another BTC scam. What's new in the alt-world, same thing over and over again. you guys don't wanna get a better image of IOTA. you just stick to your opinion. This looks to me like a conditioned opinion because this isn't about IOTA. this is about byteball or whatever you invested in instead. everyone INCLUDING dom and david tried their best and talked to you guys to clear uncertain questions but you still come here to trigger everyone. and I'm asking myself why. is this just bottom-feeding or is this an honest scientific opinion based on facts? because all I can see is an ever repeating trump-argumentation with phrases and neural diarrhea. for the facts I'm willing to start an AmA. You may ask anything and I don't even give a shit about ad hominem. you insult, you ask, I answer anyway. the first question I saw is "Is quantum-proof bullshit!?" no. Winternitz one time signature scheme enables the quantum resistance. here: this for example doesn't say quantum proof or immune, but resistance. and furthermore, that "Current research suggests, that the security of hash-based signatures will not be significantly harmed by quantum computer supported attacks [12]." Side 1, bottom. https://eprint.iacr.org/2011/191.pdfIt is about "pseudo randomization" and "key one-wayness" explained on side 4. Source: "We begin by reviewing the standard definition of digital signature schemes and the security notion existential unforgeability under adaptive chosen message attacks (EU-CMA) [11]. We then define two security notions for function families required for our reduction. The first is the well known pseudo-randomness property. The second is key one-wayness which states that it is hard to find a key k such that the function fk maps a given input x to a given output y. We also state two lemmas about these notions which will be useful for the reduction of W-OTS. " This is proven. If you come up with further bullshit, Ill proof you wrong. gogo. next question! OK I will bite. What use does a scheme requiring a Proof-of-Work - which is designed to be computationally and energy-intensive process, provide for computation and energy-starved Internet-of-Things devices? Let me rephrase that, a digital currency for Internet-of-Things, it even claims to have IoT in its very name, is building its (still not actually functional but ok, can pass) consensus algorithm on Proof-of-Work. If you still fail to actually see the god damn problem, you must be blinded by marketing of Iota, as better currencies exist which are more suitable for IoT, those which dont require PoW, nor just waste compute power for no real consensus anyway. EDIT: As for the quantum marketing. At least something done somewhat OK by Iota. Even a broken clock is right 2 times per day. |
|
|
|
Why large exchanges not add this coin. The situation is similar with Iota, it is somehow associated with license for DAG?
There is no license for DAG. Exchanges dont want to add Byteball, ask them only they know, but Iota doesnt want to be added since it is not yet functional software. |
|
|
|
Is there any reward for running a relay or a hub?
Only dignity and honor. I would run a node, but I stuck at the point where I have to install nginx and a valid (not self signed) Zertificate. Which functions will not work without these two points? Ask portabella on byteball slack he wrote the guide and can help imorove it probably. |
|
|
|
Is there any reward for running a relay or a hub?
Only dignity and honor. |
|
|
|
Be wary of IOTA, they don't like constructive criticism. Red flags are raised:
They dont take kindly on even asking how Iota is supposed to work. However, they do spread bullshit about Byteball on here, and in their slack forum, they are originater of "Byteball is a blockchain and DAG hybrid" lie. Iota action smell bad, like something is rotten. |
|
|
|
Are Iota and Byteball the only cryptocurrencies using DAG algorithm? Is there any thread to discuss this tech and cryptos using it?
It would be interesting to see, since this thread is more focused on Iota.
Make the thread yourself. Third dagcoin is SPECTRE. Can you post link to SPECTRE thread, I can't find it. Coin named 'spectre' i found isn't based on a DAG This one? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1704473.0No, SPECTRE coin there is something entirely different. SPECTRE in the sense of DAG/Tangle is just a paper, an idea, a concept, it's not an actual implementation, for that only IOTA exist and hybrid-Byteball. Byteball is not a hybrid you dumbass. But, Iota is not for IoT. That is certain. |
|
|
|
it is you who should defend your dumb statements and not require handholding like a baby.
Besides most readers dont need explanation for basics in cryptocurrency.
You probably forgot how it was: 1. I stated that consensus and attacks are different things 2. You used pics to imply it was wrong 3. I showed that it's right If you still don't believe me then google difference between Paxos and Byzantine Paxos. As you said it yourself, the most of others don't need explanation for basics in cryptocurrencies. So, what statement do you want me to defend? Upthread I already gave a link to a counter-example of your claim (which proved my statement) and there are zillions of other links on the Internet. PS: I don't mind continuing this convo, I like watching you digging a deeper and deeper hole for your "reputation"... You stated 1 which by itself is hilarious statement to make if you want to design publicly accesible and usable cryptocurrencies. Then you made another statement from a diffrent contexr, proving something not related to statement 1.. PS. I have no reputation and dont wish to aquire it, in fact I shit on both mine and your reputation. |
|
|
|
The laughing image is not enough to describe how hilarious you are.
Thank you man, you provide me with enough hilarity so I can continue to chuckle for weeks.
I cant even focus to make a short explanation to other readers. Just hilarious chuckle worthy material.
Nothing concrete, as always when you can't defend your position. 90% of your post are from this category. it is you who should defend your dumb statements and not require handholding like a baby. Besides most readers dont need explanation for basics in cryptocurrency. |
|
|
|
We shouldn't confuse countermeasures against an attacker and achievement of consensus. These are different things.
  This is worth to be added into my collection of your fuckups. PS: If anyone thinks that those are NOT different things then read http://work.tinou.com/2009/05/faulttolerant-distributed-systems-made-simple.html (you can jump straight to these words: The Paxos algorithms can help us. The specific Paxos algorithm discussed below is the "basic" one (there's a bunch of Paxos algorithms). The model is asynchronous and non-Byzantine. This means that a process may crash and recover, but doesn't do anything weird like sending random, deceitful messages to other processes. ) The laughing image is not enough to describe how hilarious you are. Thank you man, you provide me with enough hilarity so I can continue to chuckle for weeks. I cant even focus to make a short explanation to other readers. Just hilarious chuckle worthy material. |
|
|
|
Random picking is not modeling an attacker who is using a strategic algorithm.
We shouldn't confuse countermeasures against an attacker and achievement of consensus. These are different things. |
|
|
|
You dont take kindly to any questions anywhere, it is not surprising due to the big ego you carry. A common trait of sociopaths. In any case, the quoted was not for you, but for many other readers.  When other people repeat your questions I answer them. What does this mean? Don't answer, that's a rhetorical question. It means you are butthurt and stubborn. |
|
|
|
Is this a joke?
You think people will allow machines to spend/receive money and rely on only a probability that their transactions will succeed? And rely on another probability that they have the "global" tip and are not sitting in a cluster? Why not make this simpler and just roll a dice and pretend you have money if you get 4 sixes in a row.
Maybe it will work if the "money" you are transacting is worthless. Like worth almost one iota.
The claim "it doesnt work without centralized servers" hasnt been refuted, you have just lowered the bar significantly.
You were banned from IOTA thread for trolling, why do you think I'll take your words seriously here? You dont take kindly to any questions anywhere, it is not surprising due to the big ego you carry. A common trait of sociopaths. In any case, the quoted was not for you, but for many other readers. |
|
|
|
Iota has an entire different consensus than Byteball, and it doesn't work without centralized servers.
Do you know Java? Can you demonstrate how consensus of IOTA without centralized servers breaks once https://github.com/Come-from-Beyond/Tangle simulator is ready? I've updated the repo. With Completely Random Walker without attackers global consensus on 84.5% of all transactions was achieved. So the claim "it doesn't work without centralized servers" has already been refuted. The next step is to add Random-Walk Monte Carlo algorithm to show that even under attacks the consensus on significant portion of transactions (subject to connectivity between clusters) is still achieved. Is this a joke? You think people will allow machines to spend/receive money and rely on only a probability that their transactions will succeed? And rely on another probability that they have the "global" tip and are not sitting in a cluster? Why not make this simpler and just roll a dice and pretend you have money if you get 4 sixes in a row. Maybe it will work if the "money" you are transacting is worthless. Like worth almost one iota. The claim "it doesnt work without centralized servers" hasnt been refuted, you have just lowered the bar significantly. |
|
|
|
Playing Devil's Advocate here:
Why should 1gb of Byteball storage cost 220,000% more than 1gb of storage on Amazon's cloud?
$55 on Byteball vs. $0.025 on Amazon ?
What does it cost with storj? Do the alternatives, amazon and storj, store immutable data, with access forever, you just pay to "push it up" once, but dont pay for "keep it available and accessible" with Byteball. |
|
|
|
meh trolls have failed
Just like iota on exchanges. Up for a 10 000 dollar bet on that? Yes accepted. Now please pay up 10BTC to me. Iota was not on exchanges at the time of this bet and this acceptance but was promised to be many months ago. No. We have said we got the exchanges lined up and we are perfecting the tech before allowing listing, thus if I can prove that this statement is valid you now owe me $10 000 You know my opinion already, the the idea you are trying to implement, is wrong and iota should never be taken to exchanges. Iota is like Windows 98 Active Desktop, the idea sounds nice, all the words fit together, hey internet integrated with your motherfucking desktop man! But we know how that turned out. |
|
|
|
meh trolls have failed
Just like iota on exchanges. Up for a 10 000 dollar bet on that? Yes accepted. Now please pay up 10BTC to me. Iota was not on exchanges at the time of this bet and this acceptance but was promised to be many months ago. |
|
|
|
meh trolls have failed
Just like iota on exchanges. |
|
|
|
Hm, that style of drawing looks familiar
SatoNatomato, was one of your earlier usernames "emule"?
lol no, this is my first and only bitcointalk account. Yeah people, take note, new users join forums even in 2017, is good for bitcoin and altcoin prices, some new fresh minds up in here. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
