Bitcoin Forum
September 26, 2017, 09:20:07 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [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 74 75 76 ... 565 »
  Print  
Author Topic: IOTA  (Read 989257 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.
DrBeer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 03, 2015, 10:02:13 AM
 #501

IСO is expected? Or what options will be available to early-stage investment?

Yes ICO.

When?


████████████
██████████
█████████████
██████████████
██████████████████
███████████████████
███████████████████
███████████████████
███████████████
██████████████████
█████████████████████
██████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
█████████████████
█████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
███████████████
███████████████
██████████████
██████████████
███████████
███████████
███████████
████████████

.
|
.
ANN
BOUNTY
WEBSITE
]
[/cen
1506460808
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506460808

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506460808
Reply with quote  #2

1506460808
Report to moderator
1506460808
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506460808

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506460808
Reply with quote  #2

1506460808
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
vytasz7
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 524


View Profile
November 03, 2015, 10:12:27 AM
 #502

IСO is expected? Or what options will be available to early-stage investment?

Yes ICO.

When?

when?Huh?
superresistant
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
November 03, 2015, 11:11:52 AM
 #503


OMG don't start with this.

Here's my bag so you don't ask : Bitcoin, tenX, iexec, byteball and pepecash
iotatoken
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


View Profile
November 03, 2015, 01:14:15 PM
 #504

I can assure every interested party that anyone that follows IOTA either in this thread, the newsletter or www.twitter.com/iotatoken will be notified in due time and not miss out a single thing.

stdset
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 573



View Profile
November 03, 2015, 04:06:54 PM
 #505

Here:  http://docdro.id/CXDq93a

Upd.: in (1), there should be exp in the sum as well (so that the transition probabilities sum to 1). Already uploaded the corrected version to docdroid.
Thanks for the update. You described an interesting tip selection algorithm. Probably it makes a lot of sense. It makes lazy tips (nice term btw) less likely to be confirmed. However those lazy tips can still be connected to the recent part of the DAG by interested parties. I'm not sure though, that we are considering exactly the same scenario.
The first question. On fig. 1 you placed the second doublespending transaction not to the root of the parasitic subtangle but significantly higher. So the question is: is there a reason why the attacker would want to accumulate PoW not above but below the second doublespending transaction?
The second question. When the attacker reveals his parasitic subtangle, the resulting united tangle contains two contradicting transactions (the doublespends). And the second doublespend (included in the parasitic subtangle) has much more PoW confirming it. So is it just a matter of tip selection? Or should the first doublespend and all transactions depending on it be excluded from the DAG at this point?
P.S. "Excluded from the DAG" isn't the right phrase. I meant shouldn't they be excluded from candidates for confirmation, because they confirm the less confirmed doublespend?

1327SP2iBPGK8AJDhwGoSyL6PTc1WEfXKm
mthcl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 374


View Profile
November 03, 2015, 04:51:20 PM
 #506

Here:  http://docdro.id/CXDq93a

Upd.: in (1), there should be exp in the sum as well (so that the transition probabilities sum to 1). Already uploaded the corrected version to docdroid.
Thanks for the update. You described an interesting tip selection algorithm. Probably it makes a lot of sense. It makes lazy tips (nice term btw) less likely to be confirmed. However those lazy tips can still be connected to the recent part of the DAG by interested parties. I'm not sure though, that we are considering exactly the same scenario.
The first question. On fig. 1 you placed the second doublespending transaction not to the root of the parasitic subtangle but significantly higher. So the question is: is there a reason why the attacker would want to accumulate PoW not above but below the second doublespending transaction?
The second question. When the attacker reveals his parasitic subtangle, the resulting united tangle contains two contradicting transactions (the doublespends). And the second doublespend (included in the parasitic subtangle) has much more PoW confirming it. So is it just a matter of tip selection? Or should the first doublespend and all transactions depending on it be excluded from the DAG at this point?
P.S. "Excluded from the DAG" isn't the right phrase. I meant shouldn't they be excluded from candidates for confirmation, because they confirm the less confirmed doublespend?

I think there is no way to prevent the attacker to publish a parasite chain that contains a double-spend that, at the moment, has more PoW in it than the legit tx. The idea is that the nodes won't select the attacker's tips, so his double-spend will eventually fall to limbo (and the legit tx will continue to gain weight), even if it had initially more cumulative weight. For that exact reason, the nodes won't use the rule "confirm the more confirmed double-spend", it's rather "the tip that I found first has the priority".

Hope that answers all questions  Smiley

mthcl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 374


View Profile
November 03, 2015, 04:59:24 PM
 #507

P.S. Probably, that means that the cumulative weights shouldn't be used to decide which tx is legit (at least for "not very old" transactions).  Instead, just run the tip selection algorithm and see which of the two tx's it approves.

P.P.S. Sure, I should have moved the red tx to the beginning of the parasite chain, but, anyhow, that probably changes nothing due to the reasons exposed above.
mthcl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 374


View Profile
November 03, 2015, 06:07:46 PM
 #508

For reader's convenience: the updated version of the picture from the above link:



stdset
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 573



View Profile
November 03, 2015, 06:13:45 PM
 #509

P.S. Probably, that means that the cumulative weights shouldn't be used to decide which tx is legit (at least for "not very old" transactions).  Instead, just run the tip selection algorithm and see which of the two tx's it approves.
That's quite a significant change to the design, which should be carefully thought over.

1327SP2iBPGK8AJDhwGoSyL6PTc1WEfXKm
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Newbie


View Profile
November 04, 2015, 10:06:14 AM
 #510

That's quite a significant change to the design, which should be carefully thought over.

Indeed. The algorithm works good, now I'm running simulations with slightly different formulas trying to find not so computationally intensive one (without exp and log).
klee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
November 04, 2015, 10:44:07 AM
 #511

http://arstechnica.com/unite/2015/10/the-future-is-the-internet-of-things-deal-with-it/

BTC: 1K9atu5zgz7izCMAynk5adBJ8Qn2YgS6nT
iotatoken
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


View Profile
November 04, 2015, 02:49:34 PM
 #512


Good article.

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Newbie


View Profile
November 04, 2015, 04:03:08 PM
 #513

For those who are interested in what hashing function is planned to be used for PoW - https://github.com/JinnLabs/SaM/blob/master/src/SaM.java
xinyichao
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 251


View Profile
November 05, 2015, 11:53:41 AM
 #514

new idea with new feature, very interest in this project. try to do sth for this .
Jimmy2011
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 583



View Profile
November 05, 2015, 02:13:53 PM
 #515

For those who are interested in what hashing function is planned to be used for PoW - https://github.com/JinnLabs/SaM/blob/master/src/SaM.java

So is this SHA-4? Any detailed description or white paper available?

I will try to make a c version toy.

IOTAChina.COM
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Newbie


View Profile
November 05, 2015, 02:27:47 PM
 #516

So is this SHA-4? Any detailed description or white paper available?

I will try to make a c version toy.

The comments contain the description and all important info.
WorldCoiner
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560


Altcoinspekulant


View Profile WWW
November 05, 2015, 04:26:07 PM
 #517

count me in, looking forward to the ICO Sir!

Altcoinspekulant: Deutscher Altcoinblog.
Tobo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 760


View Profile
November 06, 2015, 02:15:22 AM
 #518

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303640604579296580892973264
50cent_rapper
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
November 06, 2015, 07:39:06 AM
 #519



Can someone give few examples about why average Joe will buy IoT-device ? I'm sick of "countless examples" words without actual examples. Don't say countless, give an actual list of 10 or more examples.
klee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
November 06, 2015, 08:12:32 AM
 #520

Sooner or later info and matter will merge.

Computronium.

If this is not already the case ('Were are they?' -  Everywhere...).


BTC: 1K9atu5zgz7izCMAynk5adBJ8Qn2YgS6nT
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 74 75 76 ... 565 »
  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!