Bitcoin Forum
September 21, 2017, 07:20:05 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 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 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 [83] 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 ... 560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: IOTA  (Read 971821 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.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708

Newbie


View Profile
February 04, 2016, 08:46:20 PM
 #1641

If you were to set a rule that only one of the txs is allowed at a time, how long till no ambiguity/consensus on the new balance?  Such rule might not be practical, but I'm still curious.  Smiley

Hard to say without modelling.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1505978405
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505978405

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1505978405
Reply with quote  #2

1505978405
Report to moderator
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708

Newbie


View Profile
February 04, 2016, 08:51:34 PM
 #1642

How will transactions be resolved/confirmed.  Alice sends two payments to two separate regions of the network.  Which transaction will be eliminated, assuming they are both the same, except for some nonce value?  This is likely a problem with the other approach, but at least if a sender engages with any funny business, creating multiple transactions referencing the same, earlier payment receipt transactions, the account can be flagged/black listed more readily.

Using the balance method, detecting this type of monkey business wouldn't be as fast.

If we prohibit address reuse then balance method becomes indistinguishable from input method...

Only one of the transactions will be legit, the one with more PoW tied to it. Just like in Bitcoin.
rlh
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 775


View Profile
February 04, 2016, 09:05:30 PM
 #1643

I get it.  An address can accumulate multiple payment receipts, but as soon as it "spends" any funds, a new recipient address will get the remaining balance.  This means there is no long ledger of +/- balances that will need to be resolved.

In such a case, point #1 and 3 which you outlined above are no longer true.  You must always send your remaining balance (even if not calculated*) back to a new address.

This could also mean that the following payment system could be used.

Alice receives 5 transactions into account X.

T1 = 100
T2 = 100
T3 = 100
T4 = 100
T5 = 100

She want's to send 250 IOTA to Bobs address (Y), so she makes a transaction that sends 250 IOTA from X to Y and all remaining balance goes to account X' (Alices new account.)

Any node that receives this transaction only needs to see at least 3 of the above transactions in Alices X account transaction chain.  If that's the case, even though the total balance on a node could be incorrect, the transaction can still be verified.  The node will only assume that X.Total-250 will be forwarded to Alices new account (X').  

Later, if Alice attempts to send the remaining 250 IOTAs from X', these nodes will only then have to look for former, missing transactions.

I like this.  This feels solid and allows for a users balance to never be fully known.  You can know at least how much they have, but you can never guarantee the total value of their wallet.

A Personal Quote on BTT from 2011:
"I'd be willing to make a moderate "investment" if the value of the BTC went below $2.00.  Otherwise I'll just have to live with my 5 BTC and be happy. :/"  ...sigh.  If only I knew.
rlh
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 775


View Profile
February 04, 2016, 09:06:17 PM
 #1644

To be clear, if my above analysis is correct, I agree with using balance method instead of signing every tangle transaction associated with an account.

A Personal Quote on BTT from 2011:
"I'd be willing to make a moderate "investment" if the value of the BTC went below $2.00.  Otherwise I'll just have to live with my 5 BTC and be happy. :/"  ...sigh.  If only I knew.
smaragda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414



View Profile
February 04, 2016, 09:13:17 PM
 #1645

Hard to say without modelling.

Yup.

So are we looking at dropping both txs from your example then?


Edit:  Just saw the post about prohibiting address reuse.

Simcoin (SIM) & CryptoPlay (CPS) DEV NxtChg IS A FUCKIN' LOW-LIFE PIECE OF SHIT EMBEZZLING PSYCHOPATH   Angry
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=929688.msg10205597#msg10205597                    "A world with the money can not be perfect." - BCNext
Richard1972x
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice


View Profile
February 04, 2016, 09:15:35 PM
 #1646

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...

Redesign is fine. Take your time, thanks for all your work here! Smiley

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708

Newbie


View Profile
February 04, 2016, 09:18:58 PM
 #1647

So are we looking at dropping both txs from your example then?

What do you mean?
smaragda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414



View Profile
February 04, 2016, 09:20:49 PM
 #1648

So are we looking at dropping both txs from your example then?

What do you mean?

Scratch...   I just saw your post about prohibiting address reuse.

Simcoin (SIM) & CryptoPlay (CPS) DEV NxtChg IS A FUCKIN' LOW-LIFE PIECE OF SHIT EMBEZZLING PSYCHOPATH   Angry
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=929688.msg10205597#msg10205597                    "A world with the money can not be perfect." - BCNext
runall
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 175


View Profile
February 04, 2016, 10:04:31 PM
 #1649

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...

+1

Great Idea! I think redesign worth it. Good thing there is you noticed. I am in favor, also if it takes more than a few days work.
I think it must be not only so as with Bitcoin, it has to be better than in Ethereum, Nxt and other Bitcoin 2.0.
child_harold
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812



View Profile
February 04, 2016, 10:30:29 PM
 #1650

@CFB

Speaking selfishly as an individual who admittedly hoped to turn some of his IOTA investment into Ethereum (remember "some"), sometime before Ethereum went to $5 a piece, I will speak thusly:

A) Your reputation precedes you

B) You are now introducing an idea that has existed since NXT, and ETH? I dont get this… given A (see above)

C) You have been working on this for the last 12 months and you ask this of your community now?

D)  Am I tripping? Shouldn't we have launched already? No joke.

RESULT: a weird feeling for me, and not good weird

I just wanna get this show on the road…
Can we launch yet?

LETS DO THIS.




Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708

Newbie


View Profile
February 04, 2016, 10:39:59 PM
 #1651

@CFB

Speaking selfishly as an individual who admittedly hoped to turn some of his IOTA investment into Ethereum (remember "some"), sometime before Ethereum went to $5 a piece, I will speak thusly:

A) Your reputation precedes you

B) You are now introducing an idea that has existed since NXT, and ETH? I dont get this… given A (see above)

C) You have been working on this for the last 12 months and you ask this of your community now?

D)  Am I tripping? Shouldn't we have launched already? No joke.

RESULT: a weird feeling for me, and not good weird

I just wanna get this show on the road…
Can we launch yet?

LETS DO THIS.

Interesting, if there will be people buying during beta testing. Anything can happen during that period, even a rollback.
child_harold
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812



View Profile
February 04, 2016, 10:51:01 PM
 #1652

@CFB

Speaking selfishly as an individual who admittedly hoped to turn some of his IOTA investment into Ethereum (remember "some"), sometime before Ethereum went to $5 a piece, I will speak thusly:

A) Your reputation precedes you

B) You are now introducing an idea that has existed since NXT, and ETH? I dont get this… given A (see above)

C) You have been working on this for the last 12 months and you ask this of your community now?

D)  Am I tripping? Shouldn't we have launched already? No joke.

RESULT: a weird feeling for me, and not good weird

I just wanna get this show on the road…
Can we launch yet?

LETS DO THIS.

Interesting, if there will be people buying during beta testing. Anything can happen during that period, even a rollback.


Please.

Enough of the enigmatic monosyllabic replies

I propose that we launch immediately and push improvements into future forks. Can we rock the genesis or not?

I believe the ICO literature proposed a launch post xmas (2015)? Or am I once more mistaken?

No more delays. You have had plenty of time to prepare and you raised nearly $500,000 so can finish your masterpiece as we go. savvy?

FUCK IT. IM RIGHT.

allwelder
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218



View Profile
February 04, 2016, 10:55:40 PM
 #1653

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...
Just Do it!

Another,How long about the extra work it will take? Smiley
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708

Newbie


View Profile
February 04, 2016, 10:57:30 PM
 #1654

Please.

Enough of the enigmatic monosyllabic replies

I propose that we launch immediately and push improvements into future forks. Can we rock the genesis or not?

I believe the ICO literature proposed a launch post xmas (2015)? Or am I once more mistaken?

No more delays. You have had plenty of time to prepare and you raised nearly $500,000 so can finish your masterpiece as we go. savvy?

FUCK IT. IM RIGHT.

I thought we couldn't do the release without beta testing but if you and the others insist... I don't mind.
child_harold
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812



View Profile
February 04, 2016, 10:57:53 PM
 #1655

I edited my above post.
As far as Im concerned we do genesis now - that was the deal

we r already late and CfB has had enuff time - improvements come later

otherwise Im out

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708

Newbie


View Profile
February 04, 2016, 10:59:22 PM
 #1656

Just Do it!

How long about the extra work it will take? Smiley

Several days, but they fit into beta testing period and won't delay the release. The question is about doing that last moment change or not.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708

Newbie


View Profile
February 04, 2016, 11:02:07 PM
 #1657

we r already late and CfB has had enuff time - improvements come later

Such kind of improvements can't be added later unless someone just launches Iota 2.
Videodrome
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602


Free Julian Assange


View Profile
February 04, 2016, 11:02:33 PM
 #1658


I thought we couldn't do the release without beta testing but if you and the others insist... I don't mind.

My vote is to wait and implement. No matters the times it takes. This is not a race.

Thanks Cfb for your hard work.
child_harold
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812



View Profile
February 04, 2016, 11:05:31 PM
 #1659

Just Do it!

How long about the extra work it will take? Smiley

Several days, but they fit into beta testing period and won't delay the release. The question is about doing that last moment change or not.

how can a last moment change ever be good?

as I said i really thought (and can evidence why) we'd be rocking and rolling by now so to be having these convos at this time leaves me infuriated beyond words (at least english ones)

asking the community to make technical decisions at short notice is fucking idiotic IMO and makes me very worried

I stand by that.

DO some testing and launch ASAP please.

allwelder
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218



View Profile
February 04, 2016, 11:05:58 PM
 #1660

Just Do it!

How long about the extra work it will take? Smiley

Several days, but they fit into beta testing period and won't delay the release. The question is about doing that last moment change or not.
If it's good for IOTA long term secure running,I did not see the reason why not do it.
 Smiley
Pages: « 1 ... 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 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 [83] 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 ... 560 »
  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!