IOTA

[DrPaid]

Very interesting, Will keep an eye on this one, very ambitious. Crowd sale options will be interesting to see too

[1714226855]

1714226855

[1714226855]

1714226855

[1714226855]

1714226855

[tromp]

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.

This needs elaborating. Why would the coinbase txs be treated any different from other tx?

[MickGhee]

man this thing is gonna be bigger than techno music

[Come-from-Beyond]

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).

What is this blockchain supposed to checkpoint? DAG topology? Then this blockchain must possess fragmentation flexibility of DAG which is impossible in high-load, unless DAG waits for the blockchain to catchup. You can wait for 1 month before getting ability to spend coinbase coin, but once a corresponding checkpoint is recorded into the blockchain a greedy miner will generate another (better) tip containing a double-spending transaction invalidating tip which has been recorded.

[Come-from-Beyond]

This needs elaborating. Why would the coinbase txs be treated any different from other tx?

If by invalidating a tangle fragment a miner can increase his profit then he will do that. It's easy to invalidate a branch if you split your tokens and include small transactions into all branches, you can use any to doublespend. A countermeasure will be to not include someone's else transactions leading to a lot of tips with each tip mined only by a single miner.

[iotatoken]

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.

Let me help you with that, Myers-Briggs is absolute bullshit equivalent to astrology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator#Criticism

[iotatoken]

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.

This is certainly not a bad idea, but it presumes that we can reasonably predict what kind of numbers we'll get, which we really can't. It's borderline impossible to estimate how much will be raised, and if we set a hardcap we essentially decide for the market what the value of these token are, which is not good either. Plus like you mention it could easily be gamed by writing a little script that would send a ton of small deposits.

I have no problem with people being skeptical of ICOs and we're not selling securities so it's not in our place to give anyone advice on whether or not they want to buy IOTA tokens. It's essentially a software sale, the iotas being the software, either you want some or you don't. If you don't, that is 100% fine by us. If you do want some, you are free to purchase them. It's really that simple and so we are immune to this kind of criticism because we are completely open and honest here. We are not selling anyone a dream or promising an investment that we guarantee will grow 10x. All of this will be settled by the market which we have no control over.

What we do promise is that we will launch IOTA which has been in development for quite some time already and all the technical aspects are available for people to review and we are here to answer those questions. Anyone that does not find this fair should just exit the discussion.

[50cent_rapper]

Some investors here trying to set a max cap for ICO (5000 BTC) or the maximum amount which other investors can send (500 USD). They think that this will affect their RoI.
They are wrong. Crypti set the maximum cap for itself as 750 BTC and is in deep shit now. Ethereum has gathered 30 000 BTC and it's investors made around x6 RoI.
So the key to good RoI is not low max cap for ICO.

[iotatoken]

Some investors here trying to set a max cap for ICO (5000 BTC) or the maximum amount which other investors can send (500 USD). They think that this will affect their RoI.
They are wrong. Crypti set the maximum cap for itself as 750 BTC and is in deep shit now. Ethereum has gathered 30 000 BTC and it's investors made around x6 RoI.
So the key to good RoI is not low max cap for ICO.

Good point. It's best to let these things evolve organically rather than artificially and quite arbitrarily setting a cap.

[myagui]

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.  

Granted, my statements fall into the very subjective matter of what one considers to be a high or low price per share, and in effect, the initial valuation of Iota. Arguing the arithmetic posted is utterly pointless, as we have fundamentally distinct views on the potential realizations of demand and price. Funny enough, going by your own example, I draw quite different investment indicators and conclusions. I will not debate this further as I wish for my particular valuation to remain my own.

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.

Reread my post. I did not say this was an invalid concept, nor anything even remotely close.
In fact, I generally agree with your statement over the relevance of micro transactions in the coming years. However, I place no certainties on one technology or product succeeding over another, and I take no future achievements for granted (wide scale adoption being a key one), in this, or any other complex system still in development. So, you know, ... high risk.

[Tobo]

Some investors here trying to set a max cap for ICO (5000 BTC) or the maximum amount which other investors can send (500 USD). They think that this will affect their RoI.
They are wrong. Crypti set the maximum cap for itself as 750 BTC and is in deep shit now. Ethereum has gathered 30 000 BTC and it's investors made around x6 RoI.
So the key to good RoI is not low max cap for ICO.

So far, I think Ethereum and Augur had the best crowd-sale models.

[EmilioMann]

Interesting...

[tromp]

This needs elaborating. Why would the coinbase txs be treated any different from other tx?

If by invalidating a tangle fragment a miner can increase his profit

Do you mean that invalidating tangle fragments increases the chance of
a coinbase tx getting confirmations? Why would that be the case?
And wouldn't that apply to any tx that someone wants to see confirmed badly?

then he will do that. It's easy to invalidate a branch if you split your tokens and include small transactions into all branches, you can use any to doublespend.

This argument is not convincing, since you can just replace "miner" by "attacker",
and face the same problem?!

[Anon136]

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.

Isn't this way over thinking it? Just let everyone invest as much as they want to, and devide the total currency supply proportionately to each persons contribution.

[EdgarTheEdge]

Such interesting tech, want to dig more

[DuckYeah!]

Internet of Things, How about Things for The Internet Powered by IOTA

[myagui]

Isn't this way over thinking it? Just let everyone invest as much as they want to, and devide the total currency supply proportionately to each persons contribution.

If you are prepared to fully trust the developers to not be buying their own tokens, sure, it's as good a solution as any.
This approach does not rock my boat I should add. One might even say I have trust issues. 

[aleix]

I'll follow this thread closely.  

[iotatoken]

CoinTelegraph did an interview with me ( David ) yesterday. It will be of interest and answer some questions that people who is following IOTA might have. http://cointelegraph.com/news/115508/iota-a-blockchain-less-gasp-token-for-the-internet-of-things

[Come-from-Beyond]

Do you mean that invalidating tangle fragments increases the chance of
a coinbase tx getting confirmations? Why would that be the case?
And wouldn't that apply to any tx that someone wants to see confirmed badly?

By invalidating a fragment you earn more coins.

This argument is not convincing, since you can just replace "miner" by "attacker",
and face the same problem?!

You can't just replace miner by attacker. The payoff matrix is different for the cases of with and without coin generation, in the former case participants are not interested in approval of each other's transactions.