Satoshi, you mean Nick Szabo. The guy who contributed to the ethereum white paper and owns 500,000ETH
Yes that's right Satoshi Nakamoto is Nick Szabo. The guy who coined the term "smart contracts". The inventor of bitcoin and the major early contributor to the ethereum project.
Just more confirmation that everyone should be getting in to ethereum right now.
Yeap. And the price of Eth is rising cause Satoshi is exchaning his premined 1 mil bitcoins to ethereum at poloniex. |
|
|
|
What the ask orders are  |
|
|
|
|
He is much wiser then Satoshi and his project Etherium is the bitcoin killer.
|
|
|
|
You are Welcome!!  Aren't the marketplace section suited better for this |
|
|
|
Hey, guys and gals. I'd like to get your feedback on the following:In it's current implementation Iota's ledger is based on inputs and outputs like Bitcoin. There is another way - balances of accounts like in Nxt and Ethereum. Now I see that if Iota used the latter it would be more efficient because: 1. No need to send the change back to myself which makes the tangle smaller 2. A lot of dust inputs could be spent with a single payment and this would be more secure because every address reuse leaks the private key 3. A new address wouldn't be needed for every incoming payment (this would make acceptance of Iota donations simple, in the current design it's PITA for humans) 4. Off-tangle payments would become simpler 5. RAM requirement for full nodes would be relaxed The only problem that might arise in balance-based Iota is worse consensus convergence, but after analyzing the issue I don't see what could break. I'm thinking if it's worth to do a little redesign that could take few days of extra work... As stake holder I vote for waiting and implementing the best from beginning. From my experience its mostly not a good idea to start quick and dirty and try to fix it after release. And in distributed systems where each confirmed transaction matters, its even more critical not to break the past! Anyone who need a working client now can try to play with alpha release. We talk about days or maybe a week!? IOTA, please don't satisfy the folks who want to see iota on the exchanges as soon as possible for quick profits. Please develop with respect to sustainability. And what is the best from beginning balances or input/output ? |
|
|
|
|
The results of voting seems:
~ 75% yes, take your time and go with balances
~ 20% go the most secure way - input/output
~ 5% no, release ASAP cause Christmas has passed
|
|
|
|
|
In case of either ... or and if you sure only 98% percent I will join rlh club - it just does not feal right for probability model via deterministic blockchain.
|
|
|
|
Can you explain the potential problem. What do you mean by worse consensus convergence, in this case?
If a balance is 100 IOTA and there are two payments - for 70 and 80, then which one to accept as legit? With input/output system ambiguity is impossible. Sorry to decent, but I'm going to have to go with my gut and vote no. I may have to re-read over the Tangle whitepaper and think about this a few times but my gut is quite well at spotting causes of bugs, loopholes, errors and exploits... I love the idea of a balance based system and I've obviously seen it at work (with Nxt and Qora.) But in regards to a Tangle, it just doesn't feel right... I just think this can be exploited on a well orchestrated, well thought out double-spend attack. Yeap. You must be 100% sure about security/correctness of new design to risk the whole consensus/project. |
|
|
|
Hey, guys and gals. I'd like to get your feedback on the following:In it's current implementation Iota's ledger is based on inputs and outputs like Bitcoin. There is another way - balances of accounts like in Nxt and Ethereum. Now I see that if Iota used the latter it would be more efficient because: 1. No need to send the change back to myself which makes the tangle smaller 2. A lot of dust inputs could be spent with a single payment and this would be more secure because every address reuse leaks the private key 3. A new address wouldn't be needed for every incoming payment (this would make acceptance of Iota donations simple, in the current design it's PITA for humans) 4. Off-tangle payments would become simpler 5. RAM requirement for full nodes would be relaxed The only problem that might arise in balance-based Iota is worse consensus convergence, but after analyzing the issue I don't see what could break. I'm thinking if it's worth to do a little redesign that could take few days of extra work... From the point of view of humans #3 (address reuse) is a very good cause to spend few day to redesign and code system. On the other hand the "consensus convergence" is a single point of failur for the whole system. So the answer I think is this: if you sure 100% that consensus convergence is not affected - go for addresses. If you do not 100% sure - stay with current input-output system. |
|
|
|
When final
These coin will be out???.
Public beta with GUI planned this weekend. |
|
|
|
Take me to the RyverNews from IOTA's Ryver channel. PM users iotatoken or yassin54 for an invite.Quote: IOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAmsinMon 11:04pm @David will he Beta include a rough client UI or will it be similar to the current console? Thanks. Tuesday, February 2nd 2016 David SonsteboTue 1:05am @msin it'll be a beautiful UI @msin this is actually the reason for the postponements. We decided to hire a professional team whose expertise is UI to make a beautiful UX. I have given them my vision and their responsibility is to implement it I feel that UI will be really important due to the 'first impression' factor IOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAEnd Quote Screenshot Thanks for posting updates. Not everyone sitting on ryver |
|
|
|
well ill give u guys a heads-up then!
currently testing v0.3.0
genesis scheduled for this coming weekend (beta).
Cool. I hope beta will include gui. |
|
|
|
Let me get this straight...
It is a cryptocurrency (like Bitcoin) but is a centralised currency (all mining is done on their own servers).
This means, that initially, the developer owns all of the coins, and sets their prices accordingly on markets. Then sends the blockchain to clients but the clients don't have to mine the currency in the way te Bitcoin clients do?
Well, it's not like Bitcoin (cause it has no blockchain and mining). In case of IOTA and EMUNIE it is decentralized. Ripple/Stellar is questionable about decentralization. Coins created all at once, and, in general case, to be sold. At first glance it may look unfair, but if you try to mine bitcoin you'll find that you need to buy equipment/ASIC-s to mine something. So there is just no ASIC proxy for your $$$ --> coin exchange. eMunie has currency emission, and it happens in 1 of 2 ways, but its not done by expensive mining, nor is it a fixed emission rate. It's elastic, and reacts to supply/demand mechanics. First is "interest" on balances, simply if you hold some EMU, then you'll get periodic payments to that account. Secondly if you provide some resource to the system (through one of a number of services such as the ledger or messaging), then you also receive these periodic payments to an account. The work that a node does in the system is tracked quite accurately, and is rewarded accordingly. Furthermore there is no requirement for special hardware, a Rasp Pi can earn almost as much as a powerful 12 core desktop, its much more efficient than mining. This explanation is overly simplified for a forum post, but essentially it means that currency distribution is more broad, and rewards for work are a lot more fair. Sounds like the bitcoin killer. I'll buy some when it comes. |
|
|
|
Let me get this straight...
It is a cryptocurrency (like Bitcoin) but is a centralised currency (all mining is done on their own servers).
This means, that initially, the developer owns all of the coins, and sets their prices accordingly on markets. Then sends the blockchain to clients but the clients don't have to mine the currency in the way te Bitcoin clients do?
Well, it's not like Bitcoin (cause it has no blockchain and mining). In case of IOTA and EMUNIE it is decentralized. Ripple/Stellar is questionable about decentralization. Coins created all at once, and, in general case, to be sold. At first glance it may look unfair, but if you try to mine bitcoin you'll find that you need to buy equipment/ASIC-s to mine something. So there is just no ASIC proxy for your $$$ --> coin exchange. |
|
|
|
Look to the future, not the past.
Where do you go from here?
You mean where do we go from current 699 satoshi ? I don't know. |
|
|
|
But isn't competition is a good thing ? Let's see, may be both versions, under Foundation and Max/Olivier execution will make better software and faster |
|
|
|
Foundation's main problems: SLOW, CLOSED and CENTRALIZED.
I can even say now the qualaties of successfull crypto project: FAST, OPEN SOURCE AND DECENTRALIZED.
If you don't like Crypti there are hundreds of other coins out there for you. Including Lisk. This is unhelpful and short-sighted Saying that someone fucked up is unhelpful and short-sighted. Nobody have promised anything to you personally, so to be mad at developers is a plain stupidity. You can be mad on rain, for instance, but it only shows lack of mind. Either glorify or go away, right dzarmush ?   Cause critiques leeds to decline in price of your stake, isn't it It was promised to participiants of IPO in 2014, I'm participiant of that IPO. I remember even when you come and bought at bter 15 BTC worth of crypti. |
|
|
|
Tips are what remain to be validated, and they are transactions. Might as well call it a Transaction Chain explorer or of we stick to the established rhetoric, a Tangle Explorer.
Tangle Navigator  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
