Bitcoin Forum
May 29, 2017, 09:44:07 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 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 ... 426 »
  Print  
Author Topic: IOTA  (Read 648594 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.
mthcl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 372


View Profile
October 29, 2015, 06:44:21 PM
 #441


I think you can make DAG work but you will end up with divergent partions that can't be remerged
Why? If there are no conflicting tx's, someone can issue a tx referencing 1 tx from partition 1 and 1 tx from partition 2, et voila.

Due the quoted Prisoner's Dilemma that I outlined (for which I believe your response was inadequate for the following reason) in that no one has an incentive to be first to lengthen the tips, the game theory is going to devolve to everyone agreeing to blacklist double-spends without actually abandoning branches containing conflicting transactions where they have transactions.The Prisoner's Dilemma is only solved in favor of lengthening if double-spends won't cause a branch to be illegitimate. Thus the branches will diverge while they lengthen. Your preferred algorithm will not hold over time. CAP's theorem is guidance, and now you just need to model it or put it into the wild and observe.

You might try to formulating some fencing or "longest-path" algorithm, but you are just going to end up back at a block chain (giving up Partition tolerance) once you have solved the Consistency and Access issues.

Any way if I am wrong, then kindly be the first to disprove the CAP theorem. Good luck with that.
If, for example, I'm a merchant who accepted a payment in the "smaller" branch, then I have all the motivation to do some more PoW to make the branches re-merge and therefore increase my safety.  And please stop randomly citing Big Important Theorems that have only a vague connection to what we are discussing. In academic circles such behaviour is not welcome.
1496051047
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1496051047

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1496051047
Reply with quote  #2

1496051047
Report to moderator
1496051047
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1496051047

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1496051047
Reply with quote  #2

1496051047
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1496051047
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1496051047

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1496051047
Reply with quote  #2

1496051047
Report to moderator
Tobo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 706


View Profile
October 29, 2015, 07:55:10 PM
 #442

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

Nice article! Good use cases mentioned in the articles. Another use case can be the medical data collection. Like Iwatch and Fitbit can collect medical data from individuals to resell to doctors/health organizations and pharmaceutic companies by micro-paying the individuals for the data.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 29, 2015, 08:11:21 PM
 #443

It's silly to build a distributed system violating CAP theorem, in no circumstances anyone of us would even attempt that, it's the same as trying to fly faster than speed of light.

Okay what did you give up: C, A, or P? Remember you said I am wrong, so surely you can answer this very quickly right  Wink

CfB and mthcl, the onus is on you to prove and demonstrate what you have given up from the CAP theorem. You have not. Period.

The block chain creates one partition which is the longest chain. Thus it can maintain C and A [but gives up on P]. You will have to give up one of C, A, or P.

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1596

Newbie


View Profile
October 29, 2015, 08:33:13 PM
 #444

Okay what did you give up: C, A, or P? Remember you said I am wrong, so surely you can answer this very quickly right  Wink

CfB and mthcl, the onus is on you to prove and demonstrate what you have given up from the CAP theorem. You have not. Period.

Consistency is weakened to eventual.

To make sure we are on the same page: what is partition tolerance and availability of Bitcoin?
iotatoken
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602


View Profile
October 30, 2015, 09:34:43 AM
 #445

wow, I just love how I do not understand one single thing that has been written in the past 23 pages of this thread. Usually, that is a sign that something interesting is developing. So I'm getting my wallet out.

When is ICO ann expected?

Everyone will know in due time, don't worry:)

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 30, 2015, 10:36:22 AM
 #446

Okay what did you give up: C, A, or P? Remember you said I am wrong, so surely you can answer this very quickly right  Wink

CfB and mthcl, the onus is on you to prove and demonstrate what you have given up from the CAP theorem. You have not. Period.

Consistency is weakened to eventual.

To make sure we are on the same page: what is partition tolerance and availability of Bitcoin?

If Consistency is weakened to eventual, then either you have no defined Consistency (i.e. no Consistency ever) or you have an equation for probability of Consistency. If there exists such an equation, then you have to explain how and the probability of either Availability or Partition tolerance is lost when the probability of Consistency is attained. The onus is on your to justify these claims analytically, including convincing arguments about the game theory. Else you can just put it into the wild and observe (and who knows what will happen).


Consistency in Bitcoin is the fact that the objectivity is the longest chain. There only state of inconsistency is the probability of an orphaned chain, which declines over time except if the adversary has greater than 50% of the sustained network proof-of-work hashrate.

Availability in Bitcoin is given by even if there are no other active nodes, then sender and/or recipient of the transaction can extend the longest chain and the Consistency remains valid (except for the caveats on Consistency).

Partition tolerance is lost in Bitcoin because if there is network partitioning then double-spends can occur on each chain without being detected until these chains are merged. Bitcoin can't tolerate multiple chains, and only allows the longest chain.  There is no way to merge these chains, because double-spends can infect other downstream transactions, combined with inputs from legitimate transaction graphs.

So what we can say is Bitcoin fulfills the CAP theorem, except it has theoretically unnecessary caveats in Consistency due to 51% attack and delay due to probability of orphaned chains, which are due to the ephemeral Partition tolerance that is introduced by chain reorganization. The Consistency delay also causes transaction confirmation to be significantly delayed. The goals of my Sync (or BlocSync) block chain overhauled design has been to eliminate those caveats, while relaxing the Consistency and/or Availability during partitioning of the network in order to provide some Partition tolerance.

And please stop randomly citing Big Important Theorems that have only a vague connection to what we are discussing. In academic circles such behaviour is not welcome.

If the CAP theorem is random to Byzantine fault tolerance for networks, then we might as well say the speed-of-light is an irrelevant fact when doing Physics.

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1596

Newbie


View Profile
October 30, 2015, 11:07:09 AM
 #447

If Consistency is weakened to eventual, then either you have no defined Consistency (i.e. no Consistency ever) or you have an equation for probability of Consistency. If there exists such an equation, then you have to explain how and the probability of either Availability of Partition tolerance is lost when the probability of Consistency is attained. The onus is on your to justify these claims analytically, including convincing arguments about the game theory. Else you can just put it into the wild and observe (and who knows what will happen).

I don't agree with the red part, it's impossible to have an equation for probability (has anyone ever had it?) because it depends on network topology which is infeasible to measure (it even changes every minute).


Consistency in Bitcoin is the fact that the objectivity is the longest chain. There only state of inconsistency is the probability of an orphaned chain, which declines over time except if the adversary has greater than 50% of the sustained network proof-of-work hashrate.

Bitcoin has eventual consistency, probability of an orphaned chain has nothing to do with it unless you consider the case of spherical Bitcoin in vacuum.


Availability in Bitcoin is given by even if there are no other active nodes, then sender and/or recipient of the transaction can extended the longest chain and the Consistency remains valid (except for the caveat of the 51% attack).

Availability in Bitcoin is nine nines, ability to extend the longest chain is irrelevant there.


Partition tolerance is lost in Bitcoin because if there is network partitioning then double-spends can occur on each chain without being detected until these chains are merged. Bitcoin can't tolerate multiple chains, and only allows the longest chain.  There is no way to merge these chains, because double-spends can infect other downstream transactions, combined with inputs from legitimate transaction graphs.

Partition tolerance in Bitcoin is pretty high, this is achieved with the help of coinbase maturity parameter, if it was set to zero we would see more transactions not reincluded into the longest chain after a reorg.


So what we can say is Bitcoin fulfills the CAP theorem, except it has theoretically unnecessary caveats in Consistency due to 51% attack and delay due to probability of orphaned chains. The Consistency delay also causes transaction confirmation to be significantly delayed. The goals of my Sync (or BlocSync) block chain overhauled design has been to eliminate those caveats, while relaxing the Consistency and/or Availability during partitioning of the network in order to provide some Partition tolerance.

51% attack is an attack for another case of spherical Bitcoin in vacuum. Ittay Eyal and Emin Gun Sirer showed that Bitcoin can be successfully attacked even with 33%/25% of hashing power.


PS: Looks like we are NOT on the same page. I suggest to spend one day to come to a common denominator of our points of view and after that continue discussion about tangle and CAP.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 30, 2015, 01:58:47 PM
 #448

If Consistency is weakened to eventual, then either you have no defined Consistency (i.e. no Consistency ever) or you have an equation for probability of Consistency. If there exists such an equation, then you have to explain how and the probability of either Availability of Partition tolerance is lost when the probability of Consistency is attained. The onus is on your to justify these claims analytically, including convincing arguments about the game theory. Else you can just put it into the wild and observe (and who knows what will happen).

I don't agree with the red part, it's impossible to have an equation for probability (has anyone ever had it?) because it depends on network topology which is infeasible to measure (it even changes every minute).

Consistency in our case is the probability of a double-spend (and the inability to reverse a record of a completed transaction, which is involved in the same probability), since that is the only consistency that we need. Consistency of topology seems to be irrelevant as a direct metric of any consistency that concerns the goal of the consensus.

Your white paper provides an equation for that probability with examples on page 14.

But afaik, you have not yet characterized how A or P declines as the probability of a double-spend declines. Additionally it is not clear if the equation is proven and one potential path towards validating it is to be able to relate analytically how A and P are affected as that probability changes.

Consistency in Bitcoin is the fact that the objectivity is the longest chain. There only state of inconsistency is the probability of an orphaned chain, which declines over time except if the adversary has greater than 50% of the sustained network proof-of-work hashrate.

Bitcoin has eventual consistency, probability of an orphaned chain has nothing to do with it unless you consider the case of spherical Bitcoin in vacuum.

The probability of a double-spend is given by the probability of a chain being orphaned.

It seems the difference in our thinking is you have not yet formulated a metric of consistency relevant to our application of network consensus (a.k.a. Byzantine fault tolerance and coherence). It is all about the double-spending prevention, and <joke>not the bass</joke>.

Availability in Bitcoin is given by even if there are no other active nodes, then sender and/or recipient of the transaction can extended the longest chain and the Consistency remains valid (except for the caveat of the 51% attack).

Availability in Bitcoin is nine nines, ability to extend the longest chain is irrelevant there.

Ah I am a conceptual (abstract) thinker. You are thinking as a low-level network engineer, thus you miss the generative essence of how CAP applies. The availability of the P2P network is really irrelevant conceptually to how CAP relates to the goal of the consensus network— to order transactions in time and prevent (or record and blacklist) double-spends. Thus availability in the relevant conceptual context is the ability to extend the chain AUTONOMOUSLY. If for example in any alternative design the chain could only be extended after tallying a quorum, then availability would require a quorum to be present. The reason that proof-of-work is such an elegant solution to the Byzantine Generals issue, is because the solution is generated by autonomous actors (and thus the entropy of the system is open and not closed).

Until you understand conceptually, you can't begin to understand block chain scaling holistically.

And now I am giving away too much of my expertise for free to a potential competitor to my work. So I will need to stop. I had suggested we work together, because I had been thinking about these issues for a long time and I thought your DAG might offer some unique aspects towards formulating a holistic design for various CAP tradeoff scenarios. But now I need to see more analytical justification of your design before applying any more of my effort. The ball is now in your court. Knowing how people react to my statements, apologies in advance if this seems egotistical to any one, then they need to read this (meaning it would their ego and not mine, I am just stating objectively what I think...no ego involved).

Partition tolerance is lost in Bitcoin because if there is network partitioning then double-spends can occur on each chain without being detected until these chains are merged. Bitcoin can't tolerate multiple chains, and only allows the longest chain.  There is no way to merge these chains, because double-spends can infect other downstream transactions, combined with inputs from legitimate transaction graphs.

Partition tolerance in Bitcoin is pretty high, this is achieved with the help of coinbase maturity parameter, if it was set to zero we would see more transactions not reincluded into the longest chain after a reorg.

Agreed.

So what we can say is Bitcoin fulfills the CAP theorem, except it has theoretically unnecessary caveats in Consistency due to 51% attack and delay due to probability of orphaned chains. The Consistency delay also causes transaction confirmation to be significantly delayed. The goals of my Sync (or BlocSync) block chain overhauled design has been to eliminate those caveats, while relaxing the Consistency and/or Availability during partitioning of the network in order to provide some Partition tolerance.

51% attack is an attack for another case of spherical Bitcoin in vacuum. Ittay Eyal and Emin Gun Sirer showed that Bitcoin can be successfully attacked even with 33%/25% of hashing power.

I already showed mathematically how to defeat the selfish mining attack.

PS: Looks like we are NOT on the same page. I suggest to spend one day to come to a common denominator of our points of view and after that continue discussion about tangle and CAP.

My stance (unless something shatters my perspective) is that it is now up to you all to formulate more compelling holistic explanation/characterization of your DAG within the context of the CAP theorem, and also provide analytical models.

I don't think I am being paid nor am I a team member, so therefor I shouldn't be trying to dig into the details of that. I have provided what I believe to be the relevant conceptual framework (you may disagree). And I have work to do on my own block chain scaling technology.

Good luck. I'll check back sometimes on progress.

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1596

Newbie


View Profile
October 30, 2015, 02:28:08 PM
 #449

Consistency in our case is the probability of a double-spend (and the inability to reverse a record of a completed transaction, which is involved in the same probability), since that is the only consistency that we need. Consistency of topology seems to be irrelevant as a direct metric of any consistency that concerns the goal of the consensus.

Let's start from this point.

I find your definition of "consistency" unsuitable for cryptocurrency analysis. I could create millions different instances of a ledger in such a way that they can be merged into a single instance without a single double-spending at all. Do we see consistency in such the case (before merging)? Obviously, not. Note that CAP theorem is used on a more abstract level than the level of account balances. I can imagine a perfectly consistent distributed system (by sacrificing A and P) which sees all double-spends that have ever happened. If we use your definition of "consistency" then we'll get an absurd result. I suggest to stay away of home-made definitions because they will lead to profanation of Brewer's theorem and won't let us to do a proper analysis.

Once you agree with me on the above we'll move to the next point.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 30, 2015, 08:20:00 PM
 #450

One more time I will help you, although the wisest action from a competitive standpoint would have been for me to not respond and let you continue with your perspective.

Consistency in our case is the probability of a double-spend (and the inability to reverse a record of a completed transaction, which is involved in the same probability), since that is the only consistency that we need. Consistency of topology seems to be irrelevant as a direct metric of any consistency that concerns the goal of the consensus.

Let's start from this point.

I find your definition of "consistency" unsuitable for cryptocurrency analysis. I could create millions different instances of a ledger in such a way that they can be merged into a single instance without a single double-spending at all. Do we see consistency in such the case (before merging)? Obviously, not.

Obviously yes, if we agree that consistency of disallowing double-spends into the ledger and not reversing the time ordering of transactions is our desired consistency.

Note that CAP theorem is used on a more abstract level than the level of account balances. I can imagine a perfectly consistent distributed system (by sacrificing A and P) which sees all double-spends that have ever happened. If we use your definition of "consistency" then we'll get an absurd result. I suggest to stay away of home-made definitions because they will lead to profanation of Brewer's theorem and won't let us to do a proper analysis.

That is quite an absurd proposition you have made to say that eliminating the prevention of double-spends and allowing reversal of time ordering of transactions amongst differing graphs seen globally as being some useful form of consistency. There are no decisions that can be made from such mayhem. No one can decide who owns what. That is consistency  Huh  Cry

Once you agree with me on the above we'll move to the next point.

Obviously I don't agree with such absurd nonsense. Sorry but I find the hubris in the way you phrased your nonsense ("home-made", "profanation") to deserve an equal reaction.

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1596

Newbie


View Profile
October 30, 2015, 09:00:56 PM
 #451

Obviously I don't agree with such absurd nonsense. Sorry but I find the hubris in the way you phrased your nonsense ("home-made", "profanation") to deserve an equal reaction.

"Home-made" and "profanation" wasn't intended to insult you, sorry if it looks so, English is not my native language and sometimes I have to look words in an online translator that returns several results.

On the matter, if you don't agree then we can't continue the discussion because we stick to different paradigms. I prefer one which is used in the most papers dedicated to CAP theorem.
superresistant
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498



View Profile
October 30, 2015, 10:19:03 PM
 #452

 
Me now



Here's my bag so you don't ask : BTC, iexec, byteball and pepecash
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1596

Newbie


View Profile
October 30, 2015, 11:03:36 PM
 #453

@CryptInvest, your post has been removed for obvious trolling, if you are genuinely interested in asking a question, please, paraphrase it.
alicex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 362


View Profile
October 31, 2015, 09:24:38 AM
 #454

if necessary, post schedule is better.
jfourthytwo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 10


View Profile
October 31, 2015, 11:06:17 AM
 #455

the article on cointlegraph it's a branding campaign? Whats the different between IOTA and NXT?
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1596

Newbie


View Profile
October 31, 2015, 11:40:11 AM
 #456

the article on cointlegraph it's a branding campaign? Whats the different between IOTA and NXT?

Almost everything is different between Iota and Nxt.
mthcl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 372


View Profile
October 31, 2015, 12:09:50 PM
 #457

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19534.msg251719.html#msg251719

Quote from: Dan Larimer
I have just skimmed the paper and must say that it has some very innovative ideas that are very similar to some a white paper I am writing.  I reference your paper by mine.

I think there is potential for IOTA and CNX to work together on providing the best possible technology for micro-transactions.   As I mentioned on Mumble today, our internal project codenamed Plasma is aiming to make transactions free and instant and thus perfect for micro transactions.

There are just a few nuggets of inspiration missing from IOTA that when fused by Plasma will amplify your system.   

Once I complete the white paper I think you will be very excited to work with us on standardization.   
iotatoken
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602


View Profile
October 31, 2015, 02:02:26 PM
 #458

the article on cointlegraph it's a branding campaign? Whats the different between IOTA and NXT?

No, they wanted an interview about IOTA, micro-transactions and Internet-of-Things.

IOTA and Nxt is very different, but can collaborate. IOTA is in short a blockless cryptocurrency without fees that is designed to be as lightweight as possible, wheras Nxt is a full proof-of-stake blockchain platform with support for all kinds of features.

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1596

Newbie


View Profile
October 31, 2015, 02:22:16 PM
 #459

An interesting words of Nick Szabo who is believed to be Satoshi Nakamoto (https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/nick-szabo-bit-gold-investors-conference/):

Quote
“Ethereum has a better smart contract language than bitcoin,” Szabo told the crowd during his address. “Satoshi was very conservative with smart contract language because he wanted Bitcoin to be used first and foremost as a currency.”
For these reasons, Szabo believes “Bitcoin the currency is a better currency than ether.”  Szabo is very optimistic for the future of Bitcoin for one simple reason:
“It’s still better than the competition,” he said.

If we recall that Bitcoin is incapable to become the money of IoT, we clearly see what it means for Iota.
criptix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


View Profile
October 31, 2015, 07:25:11 PM
 #460

An interesting words of Nick Szabo who is believed to be Satoshi Nakamoto (https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/nick-szabo-bit-gold-investors-conference/):

Quote
“Ethereum has a better smart contract language than bitcoin,” Szabo told the crowd during his address. “Satoshi was very conservative with smart contract language because he wanted Bitcoin to be used first and foremost as a currency.”
For these reasons, Szabo believes “Bitcoin the currency is a better currency than ether.”  Szabo is very optimistic for the future of Bitcoin for one simple reason:
“It’s still better than the competition,” he said.

If we recall that Bitcoin is incapable to become the money of IoT, we clearly see what it means for Iota.

Shut-up-and-take-my-money-meme.gif

 Grin
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 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 ... 426 »
  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!