IOTA

[eragmus]

If I'm wrong about all this, then I look forward to a comprehensive refutation

If I criticize projects mentioned by you it won't look good.

Check what these projects say about themselves. Start from the project 1 - http://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper-DRAFT-0.5.pdf. For example, read section 5.5 and tell me how nanopayments are possible.

5.5. Fees
Lightning Network Fees, which differ from blockchain fees, are paid directly between
participants within the channel. The fees pay for the time-value of money for consuming the
channel for a determined maximum period of time, and for counterparty risk of noncommunication.

No, feel free to criticize away. Please don't avoid the questions + reasoning I've provided?

Refute it all, if able.

re: Lightning

It's better to source up-to-date documents. The paper you cited is 10 months old and was the first version released:

• http://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
• https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/blob/master/doc/deployable-lightning.pdf
• http://lightning.network/lightning-network-summary.pdf
• http://lightning.network/lightning-network-technical-summary.pdf

From the summary document:

Lightning enables one to send funds down to 0.00000001 bitcoin without custodial risk

The coming increase in internet-connected devices needs a platform for machine-to-machine payments and automated micropayment services. Lightning Network transactions are conducted off the blockchain without delegation of trust and ownership, allowing users to conduct nearly unlimited transactions between other devices.

[1714311909]

1714311909

[1714311909]

1714311909

[1714311909]

1714311909

[iotatoken]

I'm having an impossible time understanding how the IOTA project is viable. It aims to service the IoT niche. However, Bitcoin already is tackling this niche in a variety of ways. Let's remember that BTC has first mover advantage & network effect (should not be underestimated), as well as hundreds of millions of $ in funding distributed among projects aiming to directly/indirectly make BTC & IoT a reality.

Skepticism is always good. I have no problem understanding why you are skeptical or why you reason as you do, but I'll answer each point to explain our motivation:

1.   Lightning (IoT vision with nano-payments, unlimited transactions after opening channel, infinitesimally low fees) -- ETA: 3 months for testnet version / Pre-reqs: CLTV (already active), CSV (active within 2 months), malleability fix via SW (active within 3 months).

Like CfB already mentioned, this is not doable, the fee structure and sheer amount of ad hoc work needed is not feasible for true microtransactions in m2m.

2.   21, Inc. (explicit vision of IoT, $120+ million funding, relationships with top computer networking companies like Qualcomm, Broadcom, Cisco, Intel, etc.) -- already out with a very hype-ey, successful 21 bitcoin computer MVP that is attracting a lot of attention from Silicon Valley types / Vision of mass market, low-cost/free chip as final product integrated at the scale of millions into consumer electronics devices (and, like I said, the crucial *relationships* with vendors to realistically make this happen).

Yeah, except their math does not add up, nor does their purported business model. They will undoubtedly have to pivot within a year IMO. Their current burn rate is extremely high. I know 120 million sounds extremely impressive, and it is, they clearly got great sales skills, but give some thought to what they are really doing. They want to put an expensive ASIC into IoT devices, this is insane, you'd be infinitely better off by just filling up the device with BTC beforehand. There is no way this ASIC will ever be able to mine even a fraction of what you could easily put in at production. It's madness. Not to mention the idea of having an ASIC in tiny IoT devices that are by default all about consuming as little energy as possible. It's just straight up incomprehensible that someone thought this was a good business idea. I understand that they and their investors got almost blind faith in the idea that Bitcoin will become a trillion dollar economy, but to me and actually most others, even bitcoin evangalists, this is just not going to work. That being said, I do have a lot of respect for the team behind 21 Inc and do think they will recognize this themselves. So we'll see them pivot.

3.   Sidechains that are 2-way-pegged (Blockstream is working directly on this problem, Paul Sztorc of Bitcoin Hivemind is also working on it with Drivechain) -- Once available, this means essentially any blockchain tech can be custom created and pegged to BTC. If we need a custom designed IoT-specific blockchain, then no problem, sidechain functionality will exist to facilitate it (just like Sergio Lerner's RootStock is taking advantage of right now, with their recently released white paper, but *by building on top of BTC via a sidechain* -- not as a separate block chain)

Sidechains is a great thing that will enable a lot of interesting things to happen via the Bitcoin network, but it still got the heavy infrastructure as well as the fees, so it's a moot point here. It's also worth noting that Sergio Lerner independently came up with a similar concept to IOTA called DagCoin and that he volunteered to security check IOTA. Is this because he sees Directed Acyclic Graph as just interesting or does he understand that Bitcoin is not fit for IoT? I wont answer for him, only he can say, but you can read about his motivation here. It's also important to emphasize again that IOTA is compatible with Bitcoin's sidechains and Rootstock smart contracts. Same goes for the Ethereum platform. IOTA should not be seen as a competitor to these networks, it's a technology that solves a problem that neither of these do, which opens up a symbiotic relationship with these platforms. It's all about collaboration and recognizing that Bitcoin is not a panacea that solves every single problem in the world. The laws of engineering ensures that there cannot be such a 'universal solution'. Instead we should focus on making the best solutions to solve the problems that exist, IOTA does this for micro/nano-transactions in IoT.

As for this marketing about quantum-resistance, this is a far-off/futuristic problem. If we have learned anything from history, it is that technological problems are always resolved, one way or another. There is currently $6 billion USD of incentive to solve the quantum problem (plus whatever other problems exist), and that incentive will only be increasing in coming years. It's difficult to see how the argument can be made that such problems spell doom for BTC & so somehow justify IOTA?

It's a future problem, yes, but how far into the future? 10 years? 20 years? Most agree that it's less than 30 years. Our main point is that by then IoT will proliferate our entire existence and this infrastructure will be built in the coming 5-10 years, not 20 years or 30 years from now, so it's important to get it right NOW. We have countless examples of infrastructure only being built for the present and then having to continously try to patch it as the future arrives, it's a nightmare and not optimal at all. So instead we decided to solve this from go so that this is not a worry in the future.

What is the plan for IOTA to actually gain traction? So far, what I see is: "we hope the community will work hard to bring success". Really? This is the plan, and people are throwing 1,000 BTC at this 'castle in the sky'? Presumably, only because of the name recognition of 'come from beyond' backing it, just like Ethereum attracted attention mainly because of Vitalik's backing.

This is bordering on trolling, but I'll give you an answer. OF COURSE we'll be dependent on the community working hard to make IOTA a success, just like even after Ethereum raised 18.4 million USD + countless investors being in their space, it's still 100% dependent on the community actually making dApps, spreading the word, growing the network, getting more capital in etc. etc. This is why I reiterate over and over that those who only bought IOTA as a speculative asset did so 100% by their own responsibility and we won't cater to it at all. It's a waste of our time and that of the community that want to see the technology actually succeed. Way too many otherwise great crypto-projects end up as nothing due to the entire community only being fixated on what the numbers say on coinmarketcap.

What we (the IOTA community that the IOTA founders will partake actively in) will focus on is communicating to the parties that will be responsible for setting the standards in IoT, have people at conferences to present and meet with the industry leaders, develop applications and devices that utilize IOTA, develop branding and marketing material to spread the word of IOTA and do our best to create a thriving community. Will it be easy? No. But we know that we got the best technology for IoT payments, so the job will be to get the rest of the world to realize that.

As for why people have bought IOTA, well everyone has their own reasons. Is CfB's name a driving factor? Of course, but why is that? Because he's a great developer. Is that the main driving force? Not at all. I got the analytics data and know where most users and presumably purchasers come from: outside of BTT. Why? I believe that people are excited by new technology that is actually engineered for real use cases rather than just a thinly veiled political statement or pump and dump get rich quick scheme. The crypto community is maturing and coming of age, what matters now is implementing the technology, not just sitting around mentally masturbating of how this or that technology will upend the status quo and save us all.

[Come-from-Beyond]

It's better to source up-to-date documents. The paper you cited is 10 months old and was the first version released.

If there were radical changes in Lightning Network design (that removed all those cons) then I need time to analyze the new design details.

Edit: I have skimmed over the new paper, all those risks are still there. Risks are always covered by fees. So, tell me how you plan to do nanopayments again, please.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Those who plan to host Iota node software PM me with your server domains/IPs, please. They will be included into the default node list.

[LiQio]

Those who plan to host Iota node software PM me with your server domains/IPs, please. They will be included into the default node list.

Is it correct to assume:
- java based
- low hardware requirements
?

[Come-from-Beyond]

Is it correct to assume:
- java based
- low hardware requirements
?

Java, Windows binary and Linux binary. Requirement depends on TPS rate and the mode. In babysitting mode (used to prevent attacks from guys like Luke-Jr) CPU load will be very low.

[titan20]

David, the question was posed to you specifically as to the fate of the JINN TOKENS that have been bought back (traded in for IOTA)...

This exchange implied the following:

-What happens if you go VC route?

A: Traditional VC route simply means getting cash infusion, nothing changes.

-So I guess this will happen BY SELLING JINN SHARES IN YOUR POSSESSION?

A: Of course this is all hypothetical at the moment, but most VCs demand equity, so that's the most LIKELY route.

--------

Is english not your first language? Because I'm always confused by the things you write which then seem, to you, to always have meant something else.

I take it you are saying that your answer was in fact DISCONNECTED from the previous question that was put to you? It doesn't read that way in the exchange you just had that I quoted.

Last comment on this, this thread is not about JINN, but IOTA BTC sale. Go to NXTForum for that discussion.

1. English is not my first language, I am Norwegian, but I have never heard any complaints about my usage of English.

2. I was asked what would happen to JINN holders in the event of VC funding, I answered clearly that it would not change anything, VC funding is just that; capital infusion. I was then asked if that would take place through JINN tokens, to which I replied NO, VCs want equity, so that's the route we'll most likely take when the time comes.

Thank you for the clear answer. I do own some JINN tokens. But i am confused. If they are not equity, then what are they good for? I invested in them in presumption that if you would make profit with your business model (selling hardware) the JINN token holders would receive dividends.

Is that the case (able to receive dividends with JINN tokens) or are the Tokens for something else?

According to your answer i might want to change them to IOTA tokens.

(I know that the crypto currencies are all about eliminating trust and that crypto projects are all about trust (there is no legal basis, so everything said fluid, the only reason i bought IOTA tokens is the fact that i trust you guys, but as i said sometimes have difficulty in understanding the business models)

[Hueristic]

I'm having an impossible time understanding how the IOTA project is viable. It aims to service the IoT niche. However, Bitcoin already is tackling this niche in a variety of ways. Let's remember that BTC has first mover advantage & network effect (should not be underestimated), as well as hundreds of millions of $ in funding distributed among projects aiming to directly/indirectly make BTC & IoT a reality.

1.   Lightning (IoT vision with nano-payments, unlimited transactions after opening channel, infinitesimally low fees) -- ETA: 3 months for testnet version / Pre-reqs: CLTV (already active), CSV (active within 2 months), malleability fix via SW (active within 3 months).

2.   21, Inc. (explicit vision of IoT, $120+ million funding, relationships with top computer networking companies like Qualcomm, Broadcom, Cisco, Intel, etc.) -- already out with a very hype-ey, successful 21 bitcoin computer MVP that is attracting a lot of attention from Silicon Valley types / Vision of mass market, low-cost/free chip as final product integrated at the scale of millions into consumer electronics devices (and, like I said, the crucial *relationships* with vendors to realistically make this happen).

3.   Sidechains that are 2-way-pegged (Blockstream is working directly on this problem, Paul Sztorc of Bitcoin Hivemind is also working on it with Drivechain) -- Once available, this means essentially any blockchain tech can be custom created and pegged to BTC. If we need a custom designed IoT-specific blockchain, then no problem, sidechain functionality will exist to facilitate it (just like Sergio Lerner's RootStock is taking advantage of right now, with their recently released white paper, but *by building on top of BTC via a sidechain* -- not as a separate block chain)

As for this marketing about quantum-resistance, this is a far-off/futuristic problem. If we have learned anything from history, it is that technological problems are always resolved, one way or another. There is currently $6 billion USD of incentive to solve the quantum problem (plus whatever other problems exist), and that incentive will only be increasing in coming years. It's difficult to see how the argument can be made that such problems spell doom for BTC & so somehow justify IOTA?

Let's assume that magically what I've said so far is addressed sufficiently.

What is the plan for IOTA to actually gain traction? So far, what I see is: "we hope the community will work hard to bring success". Really? This is the plan, and people are throwing 1,000 BTC at this 'castle in the sky'? Presumably, only because of the name recognition of 'come from beyond' backing it, just like Ethereum attracted attention mainly because of Vitalik's backing.

If I'm wrong about all this, then I look forward to a comprehensive refutation

-eragmus

HI CFB, I haven't had the time to read the white paper but can you help answer a couple questions?

1. Is 999,999,999. the total supply of IOTA in existence?
2. There is no inflationary model or mining, correct?
3. Can you explain Iota's ability to communicate with other Blockchains?

Thank you

1. 999'999'999.999999999
2. Correct
3. Every transaction can have extra data attached, this can be used to host data interpreted by other blockchains/platforms

Although I agree with most of your post, the bolded is patently false. Any crypto without suite 2 or equivalent will not be safe in the foreseeable future.

[Come-from-Beyond]

To the guy who tries to send the transaction below - you'd better stop these attempts, it will likely not be confirmed before the end of the sale and if it passes through after that you'll just waste your quarter.

Code:

{
    "addresses": [
        "1A56DcLH3ckKueHUMgfPpAbr713jmuh98g", 
        "183GoE6NxQJcSXjp9f2baWsoU44eTbVCrh", 
        "1G8hh3bHMMhZSATwisBVbGFSYBKK3Suib8"
    ], 
    "block_height": -1, 
    "block_index": -1, 
    "confidence": 0, 
    "confirmations": 0, 
    "double_spend": false, 
    "fees": 605, 
    "hash": "d20402ed8854fc80f75c41c0f7766c531211915036e3953d6a72d40adccd2fd5", 
    "inputs": [
        {
            "addresses": [
                "1A56DcLH3ckKueHUMgfPpAbr713jmuh98g"
            ], 
            "age": 0, 
            "output_index": 0, 
            "output_value": 25030000, 
            "prev_hash": "fccaa62af4d98c610cbc1e6fc01bc429708bb2bccd93f6bc72b948fc27d203a8", 
            "script": "483045022100bb5d25d60d77d75d18a1af690e83bf80f8107bb3821eb6acfd8248e15b797ac30220260e04b25798ac1a1809606056bd58b366b7506fa3ff7783671acea76b4f5b660121033bd54282d1af1915c3ee857ff1e23eab4f6fed6ff326edd6a4fb6f0160775ae1", 
            "script_type": "pay-to-pubkey-hash", 
            "sequence": 4294967294
        }
    ], 
    "lock_time": 387863, 
    "outputs": [
        {
            "addresses": [
                "183GoE6NxQJcSXjp9f2baWsoU44eTbVCrh"
            ], 
            "script": "76a9144d36e629f5bcbc7c98fbc12734c5e5ff644115c888ac", 
            "script_type": "pay-to-pubkey-hash", 
            "value": 29395
        }, 
        {
            "addresses": [
                "1G8hh3bHMMhZSATwisBVbGFSYBKK3Suib8"
            ], 
            "script": "76a914a5fec3e097d97fe8e8bee2bbea8fe1e5f41e0c8988ac", 
            "script_type": "pay-to-pubkey-hash", 
            "value": 25000000
        }
    ], 
    "preference": "low", 
    "size": 226, 
    "total": 25029395, 
    "ver": 1, 
    "vin_sz": 1, 
    "vout_sz": 2
}

[Come-from-Beyond]

Is anyone going to create another Iota implementation? If not, think of it. Iota protocol is very simple - there is only one transaction type and only one packet type for UDP transport. A lightweight node doesn't even need to validate payment graph, it can fetch all required data from full nodes with the help of that single UDP packet type.

[durerus]

@CfB: Can you ELI5 how consensus works in IOTA without blockchain? I mean, how do nodes know who owns which tokens?

[Come-from-Beyond]

@CfB: Can you ELI5 how consensus works in IOTA without blockchain? I mean, how do nodes know who owns which tokens?

It's similar to blockchain.

[zaph3t]

This look like a solid Concept and a new kind of Blockchain. Maybe Tangle should be called Tanglechain!  

[rlh]

@CfB: Can you ELI5 how consensus works in IOTA without blockchain? I mean, how do nodes know who owns which tokens?

It's similar to blockchain.

For myself, and others, can you verify if these assumption is true.

For a person to post a payment, they must verify (sign?) two previous transactions.  For the signer to approve the transaction, they simply need to download/check the full transaction chain of these two transactions, back to the genesis block.

For efficiency, once any edge-node transactions have been verified, simpler nodes can "throw out" all earlier transactions that have been verified.  If a former transaction is needed for verification of a newly incoming tx (e.g. if it is linked by a new transaction, referencing a much older transaction) then all the node has to do is re-download the chain of the old transaction, back to the genesis transaction from other nodes, and can then accept the new transaction (assuming the tx chain is valid.)

This means that the transaction database can be somewhat light-weight for simple nodes and only the BIG servers that may want quick-reference to all transactions may want to keep all transactions and never trim their databases.

Are these assumptions correct?

[Come-from-Beyond]

For myself, and others, can you verify if this assumption is true.

For a person to post a payment, they must verify (sign?) two previous transactions.  For the signer to approve the transaction, they simply need to download/check the full transaction chain of these two transactions, back to the genesis block.

For efficiency, once any edge-node transactions have been verified, simpler nodes can "throw out" all earlier transactions that have been verified.  If an former transaction is needed for verification (e.g. if it is linked by a new transaction, referencing a much older transaction) then all the node has to do is re-download the chain of the old transaction, back to the genesis transaction from other other nodes, and can then accept the new transaction.

This means that the transaction database can be somewhat light-weight for simple nodes and only the BIG servers that may want quick-reference to all transactions may want to keep all transactions and never trim their databases.

Are these assumptions correct?

Well, you could rely on PoW weight to throw out old transactions but storage is much cheaper than bandwidth in unicast mode (not true for broadcast and for multicast to some degree), so I don't see a benefit in pruning.

Also note, that nodes accept and share all transactions that pass PoW verification, even if they conflict with each other. Payment graph is analyzed only when a node sends or receives iotas.

[rlh]

Well, the idea is that storage isn't cheap if the device is an IoT device.  Imagine a low-end chip that only has less than 1GB of on board memory cause this functionality is only secondary to the device.  1GB won't go far in a couple years, especially if that 1GB is used to manage other systems on the simplistic device.


Bandwidth, however, could be "cheap" if all the machine needs is a wifi connection to a local connection.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Well, the idea is that storage isn't cheap if the device is an IoT device.  Imagine a low-end chip that only has less than 1GB of on board memory cause this functionality is only secondary to the device.  1GB won't go far in a couple years, especially if that 1GB is used to manage other systems on the simplistic device.


Bandwidth, however, could be "cheap" if all the machine needs is a wifi connection to a local connection.

If you are an IoT device you'd better load tangle from young transactions to old.

[iotatoken]

Calling all IOTA users:

Every IOTA enthusiast that want to be part of the Ryver for IOTA, where we will discuss future steps and work on getting adoption, development, branding, marketing etc, send me a PM with your e-mail as well as a brief description of what your talents are.

[Come-from-Beyond]

PM me if you are willing to help with code review of the reference Iota implementation, please.

[rlh]

Just curious, but will there be a "Find the 3 logical bugs" type of reward for IOTA like Nxt?  I know this isn't Nxt, but IMHO that was a great way to have everyone knit-pick the code AND market the coin.