I don't like the use of a centralized validator, and would not trust any coin that uses one. It appears they are rolling back the IOTA blockchain to reverse the transactions involving the stolen coin. Etherum did something very similar in it's early days when a hacker exploited a flaw and drained coin out of the DAO, although it has something resembling consensus before doing this. Thanks for the link. I did not know this. Step 3 is a snapshot will be taken of the IOTA network from before the hack, and any transactions involving compromised wallets will be rewound. A 3rd party service will then perform a know your customer (KYC) identification process to return stolen funds.
Wow.. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't this sort of shenanigans be a problem with Ripple as well? And I have to profess ignorance about how Ripple works, but I'm pretty sure it's just as centralized as IOTA is.
It is a very different case that needs to be handled on its own. Evidently, Ripple does not claim to be a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin AFAIK (they are something else entirely) - despite their frequent attacks and public lies by their CEO (public as in in interviews and similar). They will get their chance in the spotlight as soon as there is more time. |
|
|
|
I'm really sorry for everyone who lost money in this very sophisticated scam, and hope that we can prevent additional people from becoming victims of IOTA.
I see correlation rather than causation. There just is no real connection between how / if a product works and its market share. Fact is, though, that IOTA has always overpromised and underdelivered. It was (like most cryptocurrencies) hyped like there's no tomorrow. At the end of the day, people who lost money on it lost it because of their greed, not because IOTA is a "scam", or, as I prefer, vaporware. This space (today) consists of probably >99% people who are unable to research these things sufficiently for themselves due to lack of technical knowledge et. al. They are easy targets for fraudsters and scammers, and I do not blame them. We are here to educate and protect as many as we can. 
If you say you are developing X, and it does not get released within 3-5-10 ETA's, then it is very probably vaporware. If you say that the thing that you have released today is X, and it is actually not even close to that, but Y, then that is fraudulent advertising i.e. scamming. Keep this important distinction in mind. |
|
|
|
From iota.com blog https://blog.iota.org/instant-feeless-flash-channels-88572d9a4385?gi=9eb5072573c4Instant & Feeless— Flash Channels
Lewis Freiberg
Lewis Freiberg
Sep 24, 2017 · 10 min read
The goal of the IOTA Foundation is it to build a flourishing Machine Economy, where machines seamlessly interact and transact with each other. With IOTA, we have introduced the first scalable distributed ledger architecture that has no transaction fees and is able to run in the Internet of Things environment. The power of IOTA is in its network, as it scales horizontally with the number of network participants transacting with each other. Free and instant transaction. Fully scalable. But everything has a price. Looks like iota price is very expensive This scalability drama is just ridiculous. An stupid idea which became a marketing z to make fools by shitcoins and stay away from bitcoin because it is "old slow and expensive " Response Three:
Orcutt’s claim that IOTA is free of fees is misleading. Though perhaps not immediately obvious, IOTA transactions are "zero fee" in exactly the same way that Bitcoin transactions are. An important difference is that Bitcoin has miners who can perform the proof of work for you, while IOTA users do the proof of work on their own devices, per transaction. However, a Bitcoin user can also mine their own block to get their transactions accepted into the blockchain without paying fees. To put it another way, most people wouldn’t be interested in buying a refrigerator operated by a hand crank, even if the advertisement said “No electricity required!”
It’s true that transactions with Bitcoin and other digital currencies, even when amortized over a block with thousands of other transactions, require much more work than transactions in IOTA. However, the claim is not that IOTA transactions are easier—the claim appears to be that IOTA transactions are free.
Semantics aside, this claim, which appears in IOTA marketing materials, is deceptive; the work required is a fee, whether or not it requires a monetary payment. Restricting the ways in which the fee can be paid—requiring that the work be done on a user’s own device—doesn’t make it go away.
Source: |
|
|
|
I have always been advocating against IOTA, but the situation is much more worse than I have previously believed! I wish that this was handled much sooner.. See also: https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/967073310604488707Matthew Green @matthew_d_green 4:26 PM · Feb 23, 2018 If you want a postcard summary of why you should avoid the Iota project — with your brains and your money — this conversation is it. Matthew Green is a professor of cryptography at Johns Hopkins University. His blog can be found here: https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/. That was part of a tweetstorm. As reported by IEEE Spectrum, a professional publication from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/cryptographers-urge-users-and-researchers-to-abandon-iota-after-leaked-emailsCryptographers Urge People to Abandon IOTA After Leaked EmailsA dump of private emails pits developers of the cryptocurrency against external security researchers By Morgen Peck 27 Feb 2018 | 17:00 GMT This past weekend, multiple prominent security researchers and academic cryptographers took to Twitter to paint a big black mark on the cryptocurrency project, IOTA. The posts implore investors not to hold the currency and researchers not to collaborate on enhancing the security of the system. An outcry was triggered shortly after a chain of private emails sent among the IOTA team and a group of external security researchers was made public, exposing the developers’ response to the disclosure of a critical flaw in one of their cryptographic building blocks. The correspondence, which ended with vague threats of legal action by IOTA founder, Sergey Ivancheglo, against a member of the Boston University security group, has prompted many academic researchers to denounce the entire project. ... However, there are many in the community who argue that the system, which today relies on the activities of a central operator called a “coordinator,” is not as decentralized as advertised. Those who adhere to this line of thinking—people like Rick Dudley, a blockchain architecture advisor and consultant in New York City—note that the team behind IOTA has made it especially difficult for outside researchers to evaluate the technology. Also very important read: https://www.media.mit.edu/posts/iota-response/
I'm really sorry for everyone who lost money in this very sophisticated scam, and hope that we can prevent additional people from becoming victims of IOTA.
My flag is here (negative rating also left): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1388 |
|
|
|
Somehow this: So Gavin believes there's an equal chance that Craig is a "master scammer." The narrative that he completely believes Wright is Satoshi has been bogus since before BSV was even an idea. Either way, he clearly says Wright should be ignored. You never see BSVers talk about this blog entry when they talk about Gavin, its always a YouTube clip of an interview he gave _before_ he wrote this post.
got misconstrued into meaning this: You are defending him because he says there’s an “equal chance” that Craig Wright is either a scammer or Satoshi!?
I suppose I should have just answered the question by saying "no." See, I keep asking people to de-escalate when you end up clashing in some argument especially when you are on the same side. The stuff between you two quickly spiraled downhill, and no it does not matter "who started it first" or whatever (I didn't even read the beginning only the ending). Try finding common ground, or at the very least not making loaded questions and attacking each other! |
|
|
|
Nobody's "godifying" anybody. What I did was use Gavin's final words on the subject to demonstrate that there exists some doubt in his mind that Craig is Satoshi, whereas BSV supporters believe there is none and go around misrepresenting his actual beliefs. Then nullius construed my post to be a defense of Gavin which needed to be attacked, which was both insulting and stupid because it was nothing of the sort. I 100% believe that Gavin got duped, and even he admitted that was a possibility, and knowing what you already know about my post history here its ludicrous to entertain the idea for 1 second I am defending his 50% belief that Wright is Satoshi. I hope that's not what you were actually thinking. I see where you're coming from. The problem is that Faketoshi has become such a sore point for many that even the perception of a partial endorsement needs to be challenged. Have to be really careful about how we word things now. Your clarification makes sense to me, so I hope that's as far as it goes. I'm going to keep my fingers crossed that this is not something users will start falling out over on a regular basis. This is another side-effect of what Wright, and people with 'partial endorsement' like Gavin did. We want the same thing more or less, but the methodology is the differentiating factor and this causes yet more fighting that is wasting time of people that should be building things. This is actually one of the major goals of these social attacks, and I'm quite glad that people like sipa didn't fall into this trap! Make peace everyday and as a community fight back against the BSV scam. |
|
|
|
How am I wrong? You're saying nullius had more involvement with the fundamental development of bitcoin than Gavin?
I purposely left out these parts for obvious reasons! Or you mean I'm wrong that he shouldn't be able to have an opinion that Craig might be Satoshi (with the caveat that he also might just be some random scammer, and in either instance he should be ignored)?
Based on what I said in my previous post, and based on who Gavin was, he should not have had any opinion that isn't based on science and peer-review. He chose not to trust his former colleagues at the time, for whatever reason this may be. I 100% believe that Gavin got duped, and even he admitted that was a possibility, and knowing what you already know about my post history here its ludicrous to entertain the idea for 1 second I am defending his 50% belief that Wright is Satoshi. I hope that's not what you were actually thinking. I'd like to think this as well, but based on his previous attempt at forking Bitcoin with Hearn and continual support for these schemes I can't reasonably conclude this. Duped multiple times? Duped to this day? When will this fork-duping stop then? Shitting on Gavin now isn't going to change anything for the better. Shitting on him for not yet completely taking back his words on Wright isn't going to change anything either.
Oh, but I am just starting with Gavin and Craig. It's quote a different perspective if you weren't heavily involved in things like this: Back before these things actually were happening, I was spamming on the forum and people privately left and right to save as many individuals from being burned by the orchestrated scam as I could..
Not that this makes me any better than anyone at anything. It just made me personally involved with countless victims. We are talking about all kinds of losses - from very small to very detrimental (almost going bankrupt) because of Gavin (and others). I can't say "it's okay, what has happened has happened" after witnessing this. I am not asking you to hate him or to vilify him, but I ask you to also consider why people like me have the perspective on him that we do - and why we must act on it, as not acting on it would represent a fundamental self-betrayal (and that of the victims we had a chance to interact with). Thanks uncle! |
|
|
|
Truth be told, Gavin did far more for bitcoin than you and I ever have and ever will so if the man wants to have an opinion, let him have it.
Sorry, but you are wrong on this one. He never apologized for the things he did, and somewhat still supports them or never retracted his support properly. By letting stuff like this happen we are strengthening, and actually encourging attacks and loss of funds that happened to to common Joe believing people like him - Yes, Gavin is both directly and indirectly responsible for uncountable financial damage. Back before these things actually were happening, I was spamming on the forum and people privately left and right to save as many individuals from being burned by the orchestrated scam as I could..
There is a very good difference between the past Gavin (pre-attacks) and the current one. The former deserves much credit and trust, the latter neither. Don't "godify" somebody and/or their contributions just because they were a decent software engineer at the right place and the right time, by chance.. Note: The scaling and all the "fork" stuff thereafter is not "opinion", that's a lie perpetuated by the less intelligent and knowledgeable (Ver et. al.). It is pure science, objective, mathematical science. No room for a "Software Engineer" such as Gavin to have a "opinion". Something is either a 1 or a 0, not an opinion based on who looks at the particular bit. |
|
|
|
~Timelord2067
The Cult of Lauda. OP did not deserve this in any way or form, and people should not be doing stuff like this.. |
|
|
|
Old key is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159946.msg46696549#msg46696549. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
This key expires tomorrow. New key generated.
Fingerprint:
1F2E 62A4 553E DA69 3A11 C923 44E3 4D3B 633C F4EA
- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----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=V0Bx
- -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Date: 17/02/2020
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=DjjO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hello, World!
2020-02-17: I am Lauda.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iHUEARYIAB0WIQQfLmKkVT7aaToRySNE4007Yzz06gUCXkpXbgAKCRBE4007Yzz0
6kNHAP0ZdN0OrzGSHTlMZeckeB5cBVzpwFCLlF1Bz0xP/qLQ+QD8Cti8A5CFnbWZ
3fRsTOLsa4qPkFSZDeWVprhrk+9Rsg8=
=otu8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
|
|
I have nothing against TMAN and I am not attacking him, I am just saying what's my opinion with regards to this issue.
Sorry, I was more pertaining that nobody should attack him (not planned to claim that you were) or anyone else for these matters. And I am just saying what's trust system should be to Theymo's point of view. I understand your point with regards to different way to perceive the trust system, and I respect that. Maybe TMAN's way is right considering that, lot of DT's are trusting his judgement.
It's a thin line: On one hand he wants to have less authority, on the other hand, we could theoretically evolve consensus (i.e. almost all DT1 members) that we can and should tag people for something very stupid e.g. claiming the Earth is flat. There are no fixed rules in this system, unless he wants to return to his role of the Emperor - this is what makes action require great consideration and caution! |
|
|
|
Red tagging is for scammers only, or if you see a valid a evidence if that person is going to scam anyone.
Whilst I am not going to comment on this ordeal included in the OP (people fighting is very tiring), I ask you to stop repeating this false statement. Red trust is not only for scammers, never has been and never will be. I don't believe that TECSHARE is likely to scam anyone, or trading with him is high-risk since we have a trade at the past. This kind of tag is not acceptable since it's more like a personal thing. Tagging people just because you didn't like him is not acceptable at all.
See the bolded part. While you may not think so, someone else may think so. We should not attack people for fundamental differences in how they perceieve trust. If you really disagree with it, talk to them. If you can't come to a common ground, exclude from your trust view if it is worth that much to you. But the stark attacking of each other needs to stop. What was the point of turning the trust system into a democracy-style system otherwise? |
|
|
|
There is still the problem of mob justice and the lack of accountability in the trust system. The excuse of many has frequently been that xx is a net benefit to the trust system and this is why a controversial rating can be overlooked. I don’t think this should be an acceptable answer, especially if the controversial rating in question is actually many ratings regarding many distinct situations.
This. I have grown to agree with this excuse being improper for overlooking something. An occasions or two perhaps, but over many distinct situations no. OP's suggestion doesn't do much, red trust has barely any effect nowadays. I'm also sorry that you're being attacked over this, but as some others have pointed out: Wage war - you get attacked for it, make peace - you get attacked for it. Nothing one does is correct.  |
|
|
|
Unlike what many too-sensitive people like to believe, there are good and intelligent people that like to swear a lot at least for the sake of fun (and no, lots of swearing =/= low schooling or other issues; correlation is not causation). Albeit it isn't my preference either, but you should either accept and have fun or ignore it. Be nice to each other, even despite insults. |
|
|
|
I hereby kindly ask you to stop responding to this thread. Thanks. The thread must remain on-topic otherwise it's pointless and can be archived/removed. |
|
|
|
But... I mean... Isn't that about exactly the same thing you tagged TECSHARE for?
So it's ok when you do it, but not when someone else does it to you?
My rating on TECSHARE has nothing to do with the rating the user in question left me. Can people please stop trying to divert my threads into off-topic discussions? I purposely left out self-mod and local thread rules for fairness, and this is what one gets.. sigh. |
|
|
|
in the hope everyone forgets it is still ongoing I don't think anyone here expects anyone to ever forget anything  Indeed it is so! Success! Don't forget, we've all made many mistakes and said things we shouldn't have; but forgive and let's move on together. |
|
|
|
...
Perhaps if you didn't keep posting bile such as this on random users trust feedback walls then you wouldn't get your knickers in a knot.   Those ratings are appropriate and unrelated. If you have any complaints, you can PM theymos. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
