Bitcoin Forum
September 15, 2019, 05:32:02 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 [148] 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 ... 748 »
  Print  
Author Topic: IOTA  (Read 1359159 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.
Tobo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 763
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 22, 2016, 03:50:46 PM
 #2941

Could a member of that forum pls re-post it here or stick it up on pastebin? thanks

There are also long discussion following mthcl's OP.
1568568722
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568568722

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568568722
Reply with quote  #2

1568568722
Report to moderator
1568568722
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568568722

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568568722
Reply with quote  #2

1568568722
Report to moderator
1568568722
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568568722

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568568722
Reply with quote  #2

1568568722
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1568568722
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568568722

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568568722
Reply with quote  #2

1568568722
Report to moderator
1568568722
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568568722

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568568722
Reply with quote  #2

1568568722
Report to moderator
Breasal
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 586
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 22, 2016, 04:01:45 PM
 #2942

Could a member of that forum pls re-post it here or stick it up on pastebin? thanks

Quote
June 26, 2014, 11:38:05 pm
Let me bring back an idea that we briefly discussed in our private conversations with Chuck and Matt, but then kind of left behind. So, why do we need a chain of blocks, and not a DAG? I mean a "one-ended" DAG, of course, so that there are sometimes parallel branches, but they eventually merge:



That's an easy question: it is because if the "parallel" branches are allowed, they may contain "conflicting" information, leading e.g. to double-spends. OK, for now.

But let me ask another question: why are we obliged to have only one blockchain, which is used for virtually everything?

Suppose that we need a place for storing some sort of information, such that no conflict between "parallel" chains may arise. For example, the accounts may "declare" or "register" something (e.g., "I've just forged a block", "I've just made an instant transaction"), wanting to later have a proof they did it (i.e., this can be particularly useful for timestamping). Then there is no problem if different "declarations" are made on different branches: this just proves that the account has declared two different things (those declarations are signed, of course). So, why not use a DAG? It can be probably built faster (the network latency is not so much a problem), and, if a restricted set of nodes is allowed to build this DAG, it can be really fast, IMHO.

So, what do you think? In my opinion, if this is viable, it can be quite useful for TF.

EDIT1: It seems I didn't express myself in a sufficiently clear way. Of course, for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain. But if we want to store some other information for which there is no possibility of conflicts similar to double-spending, we may well use another chain for that, or even a DAG.

EDIT2: I think there is a very important advantage of DAGs over chains: it is much easier to attack a chain than to attack a DAG!    As you know, there are many attack scenarios that go like this: a bad guy is doing something to create an alternative subchain, and then feeds this subchain to good guys. If the alternative subchain is "better", then the Dark Side wins. However, this kind of attack would be useless if a DAG is used instead of chain: the nodes would just store the two subchains, and that's all.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2014, 03:25:41 pm by mthcl »


A bit difficult to follow without proper delineation but here's the pastebin from the 3 pages of comments:

http://pastebin.com/fz7GMs4a

child_harold
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 22, 2016, 04:08:40 PM
 #2943

Could a member of that forum pls re-post it here or stick it up on pastebin? thanks

Quote
June 26, 2014, 11:38:05 pm
Let me bring back an idea that we briefly discussed in our private conversations with Chuck and Matt, but then kind of left behind. So, why do we need a chain of blocks, and not a DAG? I mean a "one-ended" DAG, of course, so that there are sometimes parallel branches, but they eventually merge:



That's an easy question: it is because if the "parallel" branches are allowed, they may contain "conflicting" information, leading e.g. to double-spends. OK, for now.

But let me ask another question: why are we obliged to have only one blockchain, which is used for virtually everything?

Suppose that we need a place for storing some sort of information, such that no conflict between "parallel" chains may arise. For example, the accounts may "declare" or "register" something (e.g., "I've just forged a block", "I've just made an instant transaction"), wanting to later have a proof they did it (i.e., this can be particularly useful for timestamping). Then there is no problem if different "declarations" are made on different branches: this just proves that the account has declared two different things (those declarations are signed, of course). So, why not use a DAG? It can be probably built faster (the network latency is not so much a problem), and, if a restricted set of nodes is allowed to build this DAG, it can be really fast, IMHO.

So, what do you think? In my opinion, if this is viable, it can be quite useful for TF.

EDIT1: It seems I didn't express myself in a sufficiently clear way. Of course, for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain. But if we want to store some other information for which there is no possibility of conflicts similar to double-spending, we may well use another chain for that, or even a DAG.

EDIT2: I think there is a very important advantage of DAGs over chains: it is much easier to attack a chain than to attack a DAG!    As you know, there are many attack scenarios that go like this: a bad guy is doing something to create an alternative subchain, and then feeds this subchain to good guys. If the alternative subchain is "better", then the Dark Side wins. However, this kind of attack would be useless if a DAG is used instead of chain: the nodes would just store the two subchains, and that's all.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2014, 03:25:41 pm by mthcl »


Thanks! This is fascinating.

So it is possible Satoshi considered a DAG model btu favored a chain for the following reason:

Quote
Of course, for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain. But if we want to store some other information for which there is no possibility of conflicts similar to double-spending, we may well use another chain for that, or even a DAG.

Could somebody provide an example of "other information for which there is no possibility of conflicts"?
And what does this mean for people that want to send IOTA as a monetary token? A long confirmation time or a double-spend?

In Bitcoin a double-spend is an attack and yet:

Quote
…it is much easier to attack a chain than to attack a DAG!

so on this point im fuzzy. define attack i guess.





mthcl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 376
Merit: 300


View Profile
March 22, 2016, 04:19:58 PM
 #2944

For the record: I've learned about a possibility of using DAGs (in crypto) from ChuckOne, in a private conversation.  In fact, I think it's one of these ideas that were "flying around": many people should have been thinking about that independently.


Quote
Of course, for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain. But if we want to store some other information for which there is no possibility of conflicts similar to double-spending, we may well use another chain for that, or even a DAG.

Could somebody provide an example of "other information for which there is no possibility of conflicts"?

I can publish "I love Mary" in one block and "I love Alice" in the other. There is no contradiction, since maybe I love both of them. But, of course, there are some possible conflicts that may arise from such a situation... Smiley

Speaking more seriously, one may use a DAG e.g. for time-stamping purposes (since there is a well-defined partial order).
child_harold
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 22, 2016, 06:07:19 PM
 #2945

For the record: I've learned about a possibility of using DAGs (in crypto) from ChuckOne, in a private conversation.  In fact, I think it's one of these ideas that were "flying around": many people should have been thinking about that independently.


Quote
Of course, for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain. But if we want to store some other information for which there is no possibility of conflicts similar to double-spending, we may well use another chain for that, or even a DAG.

Could somebody provide an example of "other information for which there is no possibility of conflicts"?

I can publish "I love Mary" in one block and "I love Alice" in the other. There is no contradiction, since maybe I love both of them. But, of course, there are some possible conflicts that may arise from such a situation... Smiley

Speaking more seriously, one may use a DAG e.g. for time-stamping purposes (since there is a well-defined partial order).

Hi mthcl,

Thanks for the unexpected reply.

Why did you say that "for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain".
If the Tangle ultimately achieves consensus, why not use it for money?

The "I love X" metaphor is amusing: would a double spend go "I love Bob" in one block and "I also love Bob" in another? Smiley

p.s. ChuckOne?

50cent_rapper
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 22, 2016, 06:11:20 PM
 #2946

I guess unclaimed iotas must go to Foundation ?
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
March 22, 2016, 06:12:32 PM
 #2947

Why did you say that "for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain".

While mthcl is answering, my thoughts:

1. He was under influence of Lord of the Rings, more exactly this verse:
Quote
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

2. He was thinking about financial transactions that require global ordering. Pure money transfers don't require global ordering because they have A + B = B + A quality.
mthcl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 376
Merit: 300


View Profile
March 22, 2016, 06:14:44 PM
 #2948



Why did you say that "for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain".
If the Tangle ultimately achieves consensus, why not use it for money?


I wrote this because at that time the current IOTA solution was unknown to me.  Well, I'm just a simple mathematician, don't expect too much from me  Smiley
mthcl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 376
Merit: 300


View Profile
March 22, 2016, 06:16:05 PM
 #2949


p.s. ChuckOne?


https://nxtforum.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140
mthcl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 376
Merit: 300


View Profile
March 22, 2016, 06:17:54 PM
 #2950

Why did you say that "for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain".

While mthcl is answering, my thoughts:

1. He was under influence of Lord of the Rings, more exactly this verse:
Quote
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

2. He was thinking about financial transactions that require global ordering. Pure money transfers don't require global ordering because they have A + B = B + A quality.
Nope. At that time I was probably thinking about log-correlated two-dimensional random fields.
child_harold
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 22, 2016, 06:41:53 PM
 #2951



Why did you say that "for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain".
If the Tangle ultimately achieves consensus, why not use it for money?


I wrote this because at that time the current IOTA solution was unknown to me.  Well, I'm just a simple mathematician, don't expect too much from me  Smiley

So you no longer agree with that statement?

@CfB: Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die

mthcl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 376
Merit: 300


View Profile
March 22, 2016, 07:01:05 PM
 #2952



Why did you say that "for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain".
If the Tangle ultimately achieves consensus, why not use it for money?


I wrote this because at that time the current IOTA solution was unknown to me.  Well, I'm just a simple mathematician, don't expect too much from me  Smiley

So you no longer agree with that statement?


Correct. My opinions are not set in stone  Smiley
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
March 22, 2016, 07:12:58 PM
 #2953

@CfB: Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die

Looks like a good conspiracy theory!
twistelaar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 22, 2016, 10:40:35 PM
 #2954

https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/azure-blockchain-update-6/

Why is IOTA not mentioned yet?
wizzardTim
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000


Reality is stranger than fiction


View Profile
March 22, 2016, 10:41:49 PM
 #2955


It is mentioned in the previous update #5 https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/azure-blockchain-update-5/

Behold the Tangle Mysteries! Dare to know It's truth.

- Excerpt from the IOTA Sacred Texts Vol. I
twistelaar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 23, 2016, 01:00:28 AM
 #2956


Ah thanks buddy, good to see you here Smiley
bighodler
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 23, 2016, 01:52:52 AM
 #2957


New update make azure look like the joke. Everything and kitchen sink.
loveyouforever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 273
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 23, 2016, 03:18:14 AM
 #2958

When will IOTA with GUI release?
child_harold
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 23, 2016, 07:01:24 AM
 #2959


New update make azure look like the joke. Everything and kitchen sink.

IOTA was mentioned in update #5

KitchenSinkCoin (another 2.0 project) coming soon to Azure.

wizzardTim
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000


Reality is stranger than fiction


View Profile
March 23, 2016, 07:31:33 AM
 #2960


Good to see you here too!!!  Cool Cool Cool

Behold the Tangle Mysteries! Dare to know It's truth.

- Excerpt from the IOTA Sacred Texts Vol. I
Pages: « 1 ... 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 [148] 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 ... 748 »
  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!