IOTA

[anewafresh]

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...

I have no issues with delays at all as long as it is for the betterment if IOTA.

[1714033341]

1714033341

[1714033341]

1714033341

[1714033341]

1714033341

[1714033341]

1714033341

[1714033341]

1714033341

[1714033341]

1714033341

[achimsmile]

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...

Sure sounds good

+1 I always liked the account approach a lot more than input/output

[Wanderlust]

48 hrs before genesis and this?
I'm not saying its a bad idea but it is frustrating that this comes up now.
You've been working this for a year... this should have already been done in prep
Im gonna have to say NO, assuming the suggested improvement can come in a fork.

Genesis this weekend as planned imo.

[Come-from-Beyond]

CFB, why do you ask people to allow you to do better things than they are already? 

To make people be more involved, right now the level of involvement is pretty upsetting.

[Come-from-Beyond]

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.

[Wanderlust]

CFB, why do you ask people to allow you to do better things than they are already? 

To make people be more involved, right now the level of involvement is pretty upsetting.

Genesis IOTA and you will see how this community performs

You shall not be disappointed as child_harold is my witness

[Come-from-Beyond]

48 hrs before genesis and this?
I'm not saying its a bad idea but it is frustrating that this comes up now.
You've been working this for a year... this should have already been done in prep
Im gonna have to say NO, assuming the suggested improvement can come in a fork.

Genesis this weekend as planned imo.

Genesis is ready. What do you mean by "48 hrs"?

[wizzardTim]

It's a Yes from me!

This coin has a huge potential - it can be for IOT what BTC is now for the pre-iot era - so any improvement is more than welcome.

[yassin54]

I vote yes because everyone says yes!!! 

[50cent_rapper]

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.

[rlh]

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.

[Wanderlust]

48 hrs before genesis and this?
I'm not saying its a bad idea but it is frustrating that this comes up now.
You've been working this for a year... this should have already been done in prep
Im gonna have to say NO, assuming the suggested improvement can come in a fork.

Genesis this weekend as planned imo.

Genesis is ready. What do you mean by "48 hrs"?

David said genesis would be this weekend, so 48hrs

[50cent_rapper]

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.

[Come-from-Beyond]

David said genesis would be this weekend, so 48hrs

Perhaps there is a confusion somewhere. The genesis was ready last week, only frontend beta testing is scheduled/ETAed for this weekend, which is basically just playing with all dialog windows because actual transaction sending requires back-end to be on beta stage too.

[Come-from-Beyond]

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.

Maybe we could go the both routes...

[rlh]

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.

Maybe we could go the both routes...

Explain.

[Wanderlust]

David said genesis would be this weekend, so 48hrs

Perhaps there is a confusion somewhere. The genesis was ready last week, only frontend beta testing is scheduled/ETAed for this weekend, which is basically just playing with all dialog windows because actual transaction sending requires back-end to be on beta stage too.

In which case this message has propagated through the network and many were expecting genesis this weekend.

Since you weren't gonna launch this weekend then I suggest u make your improvements

I also suggest we launch this badboy ASAP

You want community buzz? You will get a truckload after genesis brother

[Come-from-Beyond]

Explain.

2 branches of the backend. One with inputs and another with accounts.

[50cent_rapper]

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.

[greentea]

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...

I'd prefer balances, but dont think most people are qualified myself included to make that judgement call without fully understanding the security/technical impact it could have.