Bitcoin Forum
May 26, 2017, 09:44:17 AM *
News: If the forum does not load normally for you, please send me a traceroute.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 ... 424 »
  Print  
Author Topic: IOTA  (Read 645515 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
Fuserleer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile WWW
October 23, 2015, 02:53:03 PM
 #161

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 Smiley

eMunie, the next step in cryptographic currency.

Web - http://emunie.com  Forums - http://forum.emunie.com Twitter - @eMunie_Currency
1495791857
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495791857

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495791857
Reply with quote  #2

1495791857
Report to moderator
1495791857
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495791857

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495791857
Reply with quote  #2

1495791857
Report to moderator
POLONIEX TRADING SIGNALS
+50% Profit and more via TELEGRAM
ALTCOINTRADER.CO
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 23, 2015, 03:07:39 PM
 #162

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 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.

maokoto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588


View Profile WWW
October 23, 2015, 03:08:32 PM
 #163

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 Cheesy

patmast3r
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 952


View Profile
October 23, 2015, 03:14:41 PM
 #164

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.

Ludom
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


View Profile
October 23, 2015, 04:45:03 PM
 #165

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.
tromp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 494


View Profile
October 23, 2015, 04:50:38 PM
 #166

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...
Ludom
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


View Profile
October 23, 2015, 04:58:19 PM
 #167

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
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 23, 2015, 05:02:06 PM
 #168

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.

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596

Newbie


View Profile
October 23, 2015, 05:06:36 PM
 #169

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.
Ludom
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


View Profile
October 23, 2015, 05:13:28 PM
 #170

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.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 23, 2015, 06:35:44 PM
 #171

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.

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596

Newbie


View Profile
October 23, 2015, 06:43:19 PM
 #172

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.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 23, 2015, 07:14:51 PM
 #173

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?

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596

Newbie


View Profile
October 23, 2015, 07:50:25 PM
 #174

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.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 23, 2015, 08:02:41 PM
 #175

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?

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596

Newbie


View Profile
October 23, 2015, 08:14:08 PM
 #176

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?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 23, 2015, 08:26:03 PM
 #177

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?

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596

Newbie


View Profile
October 23, 2015, 08:34:57 PM
 #178

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. Smiley
Jimmy2011
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 575



View Profile
October 24, 2015, 02:54:18 AM
 #179


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?



Bitcoin:1EBxhCQp2bUdQDZoQsix6vnivtr3EodCdP       Peercoin:PEjCk5P7FDTFbt3ZwtLPqsGpnQSRSTYRJX
stellargratis
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
October 24, 2015, 03:25:46 AM
 #180

reserved...............  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 ... 424 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!