IOTA

[mthcl]

He would have to attach it "below" the merchant's tx, but yes, you're right, it's a possible attack vector. Anyhow, the referencing algorithm is not yet finished, so we are discussing it with CfB right now.

Possible? I don't see how it's possible to draw a picture to have longest-path-as-the-score rule to be broken by an adversary.

Remember that the "longest path algo" is not what's written in the whitepaper      Anyhow, let's finish our private discussion in slack and only then make the results public.

[1714297634]

1714297634

[1714297634]

1714297634

[1714297634]

1714297634

[stdset]

Possible? I don't see how it's possible to draw a picture to have longest-path-as-the-score rule to be broken by an adversary.

"Longest-path-as-the-score" differs from what is proposed in the whitepaper. We were talking about another algo.

[TPTB_need_war]

Re: Premine vs PoW vs ICO vs User ID vs 'a life of crime':

Why not simply make a fixed number of tokens available, at a fixed price per token?
(If not sold out, any unsold tokens would then be provably burned)

This way, developers can still buy their own tokens, but in doing so, they are competing with the other users/buyers. Any tokens bought up by the developers, are tokens that become unavailable for someone else to buy. This is much better than the usual premine, in the sense that the developers are trading a portion of potential outside funding, in exchange for whatever tokens they buy for themselves (aka, putting their money where their mouths are, because they then become a truly interested party, after funding).

Tying up to an existing coin (or coins) seems interesting as well. That would likely attract the widest user foundation, though possibly at the expense of most (all?) of the funding potential...

Sorry there is no difference from a premine. They can buy up most of the coins thus limiting the supply and thus they can set an artificially higher price per share for the ICO (some fewer investors are willing to pay a higher price than other investors, i.e. not all investors are equally astute). Review the math of my post again. Remember all ICO from other investors money ends up in their pocket, no matter how many coins they buy.

Now you know why Ethereum's sale was so large yet they ran out of money so fast. They were buying their own coins recycling the same money over and over. And suckering investors into thinking they needed to rush before the priced moved higher on the next pre-timed price increment.

[mthcl]

Possible? I don't see how it's possible to draw a picture to have longest-path-as-the-score rule to be broken by an adversary.

"Longest-path-as-the-score" differs from what is proposed in the whitepaper. We were talking about another algo.

Exactly      Just wait a bit until we finish our internal discussion...

[Come-from-Beyond]

Remember that the "longest path algo" is not what's written in the whitepaper      Anyhow, let's finish our private discussion in slack and only then make the results public.

It's still worth discussing my algo publicly even if we don't adopt it.

[tromp]

If you have an idea how to add 2% inflation, share it, please.

Simple. Just allow special coinbase txs that additionally need to reference the previous coinbase tx and need so much PoW that they can only happen on average every 10 mins:)

[Come-from-Beyond]

Now you know why ... They were ... And ...

Insults are not welcome in this thread, without an evidence I treat your words as insulting.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Simple. Just allow special coinbase txs that additionally need to reference the previous coinbase tx and need so much PoW that they can only happen on average every 10 mins:)

This magically moves Nash equilibrium towards superwide DAG.

[TPTB_need_war]

Can someone link me to that and/or the relevant page of the white paper? Seems to be mining could be used to generate check points. That was one of tweaks I had in mind.

There is no about that in the whitepaper. There is no a formal proof that coin generation is impossible, intensive search for a coin generation technique was done to have 2% annual inflation (because it's a near-optimal number) and none of the ideas let to keep the security of the system at an acceptable level. This is a well-known problem of proof asymmetry, it's hard to prove that unicorns don't exist while it's trivial to prove the opposite if you have such a unicorn. If you have an idea how to add 2% inflation, share it, please.

You can have an orthogonal block chain which records a consensus on the state of the tree (hash). Voila checkpoints and debasement. Since the trees are the objective reality, then the block chain can't lie with a 51% attack. The block chain could be PoW or PoS.

I shouldn't be giving away ideas for free, but any way you all have shared a lot for free and you'd eventually figure this out.

[Come-from-Beyond]

You can have an orthogonal block chain which records a consensus on the state of the tree (hash). Voila checkpoints and debasement. Since the trees are the objective reality, then the block chain can't lie with a 51% attack. The block chain could be PoW or PoS.

Then why not use blockchain? It won't scale anyway because orthogonal blockchain will be a bottleneck here.

[TPTB_need_war]

Now you know why ... They were ... And ...

Insults are not welcome in this thread, without an evidence I treat your words as insulting.

Where there is smoke there is fire. No insults intended, just being realistic. Feel free to delete my posts if you want.

Edit: I admire your strict (and level-headed) adherence to sensing versus intuition. I am EN?P (nearly balanced between F and T). I am like 81% N. So I rely a lot on intuition and don't wait to have every fact sensed with full verification. I admire those who are ISTP (but not so much ISTJ). I have to learn to appreciate the virtues of that and yet maintain respect/balance where my intuitions helps me.

[TPTB_need_war]

You can have an orthogonal block chain which records a consensus on the state of the tree (hash). Voila checkpoints and debasement. Since the trees are the objective reality, then the block chain can't lie with a 51% attack. The block chain could be PoW or PoS.

Then why not use blockchain? It won't scale anyway because orthogonal blockchain will be a bottleneck here.

Bottleneck to what? It is only recording checkpoints. It is not slowing down the forward advance of the DAG. It is orthogonal, except for the coinbases which can be spent into the DAG (after sufficient # of blocks to be probabilistically sure of coinbases not being reverted by an orphaned chain).

The downside is a 51% attack could revert the coinbases, but again the DAG is the objective truth, so I assume the minority block chain can ignore the 51% attack. Would need to think this out a bit. DAGs are voting on which chain of the block chain is valid. Any way if the attacker has 51% PoW, he can attack the DAG also.

[Tobo]

I understand you can fool to some extent the verification process, but requiring a limit buy-in per user complicated the fooling process a lot.

No need for the buy limit. Sales like Ether and Augur worked very well without any limit to buy. It is important to raise as much as you can in the fundraising becasue the success and sustainable development of this project will largely depends on the funds. It will be lose-lose if the project can not succeed becasue of lack of funds. So the more the better. It does not matter who and how much one person will own the coins. The exchanges will take care that eventually. It is about how much a person will believe in this project.

[Sebastien256]

I understand you can fool to some extent the verification process, but requiring a limit buy-in per user complicated the fooling process a lot.

No need for the buy limit. Sales like Ether and Augur worked very well without any limit to buy. It is important to raise as much as you can in the fundraising becasue the success and sustainable development of this project will largely depends on the funds. It will be lose-lose if the project can not succeed becasue of lack of funds. So the more the better. It does not matter who and how much one person will own the coins. The exchanges will take care that eventually. It is about how much a person will believe in this project.

Aye, I do not share your opinion, sorry. The question is to garanty (almost) the avoidvance of the dilution of the initial investors fund. Otherwise, it only stand on promise. Imo, thing need to be clear from the start of the project.

[myagui]

Re: Premine vs PoW vs ICO vs User ID vs 'a life of crime':

Why not simply make a fixed number of tokens available, at a fixed price per token?
(If not sold out, any unsold tokens would then be provably burned)

This way, developers can still buy their own tokens, but in doing so, they are competing with the other users/buyers. Any tokens bought up by the developers, are tokens that become unavailable for someone else to buy. This is much better than the usual premine, in the sense that the developers are trading a portion of potential outside funding, in exchange for whatever tokens they buy for themselves (aka, putting their money where their mouths are, because they then become a truly interested party, after funding).

Tying up to an existing coin (or coins) seems interesting as well. That would likely attract the widest user foundation, though possibly at the expense of most (all?) of the funding potential...

Sorry there is no difference from a premine. They can buy up most of the coins thus limiting the supply and thus they can set an artificially higher price per share for the ICO (some fewer investors are willing to pay a higher price than other investors, i.e. not all investors are equally astute). Review the math of my post again. Remember all ICO from other investors money ends up in their pocket, no matter how many coins they buy.
[...]

I disagree.
A higher price per share (artificial or not), naturally balances the forces of (developer) greed vs (investor) demand. The higher the price, the more investor interest is dissipated on account of the lesser upside potential, and in the extreme case, one ends up left with a minority of investors/users, as well as has severely handicapped the adoption potential. Then again, as you said, maybe not all investors are equally astute...
With a low enough price per share, the ICO naturally sells out. In such instance, would the developer trade a bit of external funding for some pie of their own token? Maybe. Would they do this for a significant portion of the total tokens for sale? Doubtful.

Personally, I see unproven technology for emerging markets as being an extremely high risk investment, and I will value it accordingly. Talents and accomplishments might become extremely valuable (if functional success is delivered), but comparatively speaking, the product itself, is of little value, especially when it can be replicated/cloned/forked to exhaustion.

[hashtag101]

IT and Cfb.

Do you really see anyone here trying to be malicious?

Don't get frustrated to the point that you miss the important examples of what people in general could have as concerns.

This is good feedback you're getting.

"Insults" and "don't buy then" arent constructive. Right?

[hashtag101]

Im impressed by the way.

Kinda hard to keep up at times as this is deep!

But I'm learning A LOT from everyone.

So many of you are as sharp as a razor. Damn

[hashtag101]

Personally, I see unproven technology for emerging markets as being an extremely high risk investment, and I will value it accordingly. Talents and accomplishments might become extremely valuable (if functional success is delivered), but comparatively speaking, the product itself, is of little value, especially when it can be replicated/cloned/forked to exhaustion.

I don't agree. This is a valid concept. Micro transactions will become increasingly relevant in the coming years.

And I don't see copycats as a major threat, or necessarily diminishing a projects value in such a meaningful way as you do.

[TPTB_need_war]

Re: Premine vs PoW vs ICO vs User ID vs 'a life of crime':

Why not simply make a fixed number of tokens available, at a fixed price per token?
(If not sold out, any unsold tokens would then be provably burned)

This way, developers can still buy their own tokens, but in doing so, they are competing with the other users/buyers. Any tokens bought up by the developers, are tokens that become unavailable for someone else to buy. This is much better than the usual premine, in the sense that the developers are trading a portion of potential outside funding, in exchange for whatever tokens they buy for themselves (aka, putting their money where their mouths are, because they then become a truly interested party, after funding).

Tying up to an existing coin (or coins) seems interesting as well. That would likely attract the widest user foundation, though possibly at the expense of most (all?) of the funding potential...

Sorry there is no difference from a premine. They can buy up most of the coins thus limiting the supply and thus they can set an artificially higher price per share for the ICO (some fewer investors are willing to pay a higher price than other investors, i.e. not all investors are equally astute). Review the math of my post again. Remember all ICO from other investors money ends up in their pocket, no matter how many coins they buy.
[...]

I disagree.
A higher price per share (artificial or not), naturally balances the forces of (developer) greed vs (investor) demand. The higher the price, the more investor interest is dissipated on account of the lesser upside potential, and in the extreme case, one ends up left with a minority of investors/users, as well as has severely handicapped the adoption potential.

Let's see. They can sell out all 250 million shares at say a fair value of $250,000 initial market cap, $250,000 cash, and 0% for themselves. Or they can set prices at $0.1 per share, sell only 0.1% of the shares so they get the $25,000 cash, $2.5 million market cap and 99.9% for themselves. Then as the price drops to a tenth to $0.01 those investors who didn't buy in the ICO come rushing in to buy the dip, and they still get their $250,000 cash and retain 90% for themselves.

Hopefully you understand now why the market cap of Dash is entirely meaningless.

*Note I am not asserting what I think the initial valuation of Iota should be. I have no idea. $1 million? Will depend on many things that are learned between now and launch, etc.. And I have no interest in expressing any opinion on the valuation.

Then again, as you said, maybe not all investors are equally astute...

That would include those who can't do arithmetic.  

[Jimmy2011]

I get an idea from Jinn's Dutch Auction for distribution: a maximum target is set for ICO, say 5,000 Bitcoins, and then the small depositions will be included if the total depositions are greater than the target. For example, the biggest one is 200 BTC, and now the total is 5050 BTC, so the biggest one 200 BTC is excluded, so right now the total funding is 4850 BTC and there is also 150 BTC can be put into the pool. Of course, it can be gamed with many small depositions, but a single Satoshi can also take party in and get some token.