IOTA

[joschua011]

Will this testnet work exactly like the IOTA original? If so would it make sense to just give the IOTA buyers access to the testnet with the amount they have purchased? So there would not be any issue if the testnet would be more succesfull as the core.

I think we should give everyone access to testnet, just send x amount of test-iota to everyone who asks for it, that way we have more people to test iota, find flaws or security holes and
thereby making iota more secure.

This would also give people who missed out on the crowdsale, or people who are scared of investing in a completely new crypto the
ability to testrun iota without any worries or finincial investment, and if they are conviced of potential of iota, they will invest.

This could be a feature - not sure about iota? here, have some test-iota.

I dont see the concerns cfb has raised, no one will ever want to use testnet as real currency, investors invested (combined) about 1000btc - thats about half a million dollar to get
tokens on mainnet, a lot of poeple are very interrested in making mainnet work. mainnet has value, people invested in it. If we give out test-iota for free test-iota will be worthless,
why would anyone use them if the initial distribution-schema is no based on anything?

just hold 95% of test-iota, and when it gets used as real currency, dump the price to 0

[1714044153]

1714044153

[WorldCoiner]

Will this testnet work exactly like the IOTA original? If so would it make sense to just give the IOTA buyers access to the testnet with the amount they have purchased? So there would not be any issue if the testnet would be more succesfull as the core.

I think we should give everyone access to testnet, just send x amount of test-iota to everyone who asks for it, that way we have more people to test iota, find flaws or security holes and
thereby making iota more secure.

This would also give people who missed out on the crowdsale, or people who are scared of investing in a completely new crypto the
ability to testrun iota without any worries or finincial investment, and if they are conviced of potential of iota, they will invest.

This could be a feature - not sure about iota? here, have some test-iota.

I dont see the concerns cfb has raised, no one will ever want to use testnet as real currency, investors invested (combined) about 1000btc - thats about half a million dollar to get
tokens on mainnet, a lot of poeple are very interrested in making mainnet work. mainnet has value, people invested in it. If we give out test-iota for free test-iota will be worthless,
why would anyone use them if the initial distribution-schema is no based on anything?

just hold 95% of test-iota, and when it gets used as real currency, dump the price to 0

Good Idea. If in the testnet only 5% or less will be distributed, there will be never an issue that this will be more powerful than the "real IOTA".

[_mr_e]

I didn't say Bitcoin will be safe without upgrading. I'm just saying it's not sensible to imagine that Bitcoin will not be upgraded well ahead of time, in order to deal with quantum. The topic of quantum keeps coming up repeatedly in the Bitcoin community, and everyone is well aware of its status and progress and potential threat. It will be addressed, if & when needed, according to the market's demand. I have faith in making that assumption.

In the whitepaper mthcl showed that PoW blockchains are inherently vulnerable to QCs because they do hashing at quadratic speed. So you think that miners will agree to throw away their ASICs? I predict a lot of drama, much more than all dramas that have happened before...

Wouldn't miners just all be competing with quantum miners? I don't see how that would be any different then them competing with asics...

[tromp]

In the whitepaper mthcl showed that PoW blockchains are inherently vulnerable to QCs because they do hashing at quadratic speed.

PoWs requiring billions of bits are pretty safe from QC quadratic speedup,
which is still struggling to work for mere dozens of qubits.

PS: this is my 19*19th post, an important milestone for any Go player:-)

[Come-from-Beyond]

switch off and restart the testnet in regular intervals?

We can't, lol, participants decide themselves on this matter.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Will this testnet work exactly like the IOTA original? If so would it make sense to just give the IOTA buyers access to the testnet with the amount they have purchased? So there would not be any issue if the testnet would be more succesfull as the core.

Testnet is the same as the mainnet. But I like your idea...

[Come-from-Beyond]

Have you not run a private testnet on a LAN?

To your point are you really concerned by some dev(s) new to this paradigm stealing your thunder? I find this most unlikely. I partially based my investment on  this being a unique product/protocol run by a team with a unique set of skills not easily replicable.  I trust I was not mistaken.

Iota protocol is so simple that even amateur programmers can decipher and change it.

[Come-from-Beyond]

I dont see the concerns cfb has raised...

You haven't seen testnet bitcoins being bought for real money.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Wouldn't miners just all be competing with quantum miners? I don't see how that would be any different then them competing with asics...

Have you watched Neo single-handedly fighting against agent Smith in Matrix 1? Quantum vs classical miners fight will look even more hilarious.

[Come-from-Beyond]

PoWs requiring billions of bits are pretty safe from QC quadratic speedup,
which is still struggling to work for mere dozens of qubits.

We have stopped on time-memory trade-off...

[tromp]

PoWs requiring billions of bits are pretty safe from QC quadratic speedup,
which is still struggling to work for mere dozens of qubits.

We have stopped on time-memory trade-off...

Not all TMTOs are linear...

Some PoWs need q^2 more time to use q times less memory,
which you cannot overcome with a quadratic quantum speedup.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Not all TMTOs are linear...

Some PoWs need q^2 more time to use q times less memory,
which you cannot overcome with a quadratic quantum speedup.

I agree that it's possible to create an algorithm that will be too hard for available quantum computers, it can even be modified each month to keep new QCs out of business all the time. The question is: Will ordinary users be able to run such algorithm? If not, then we'll get Animal Farm scenario becoming the reality - We'll trade one master for another.

[50cent_rapper]

After thinking about how the test should be conducted an idea came to my mind. What if the testnet becomes more popular than the mainnet? And those who didn't purchase the iotas will run their own competing version. Due to the first mover advantage they will increase their odds of world-wide adoption. Any suggestions how to solve this issue?

About the test net: just send the participiants no more then 10 nanoiotas, thus you will be able to test transactions, but iotas will be not usable in real cases cause it will be not divisible to the proper extent.

The problem is a forks: I already image UtopianFuture suckpoppet creating thread about "Iota fork but with fair destribution", as he done for NXT with NEM and for Qora with Kora.

Launch without testnet.

[tromp]

PoWs requiring billions of bits are pretty safe from QC quadratic speedup,
which is still struggling to work for mere dozens of qubits.

We have stopped on time-memory trade-off...

Not all TMTOs are linear...

You don't even need a PoW with superlinear TMTO.
A simple and practical PoW like Cuckoo Cycle suffices.

They key insight is that the longer a single proof attempt takes,
relative to the block interval, the smaller the advantage of the QC.

Let's say the block interval only allows for a 100 proof attempts (nonces) by a single miner.
(e.g. 10 second block interval, and 0.1 second proof attempt).

A QC can use quadratic speedup to search those 100 nonces in 1/10 the time,
but this will small 10x advantage will be completely wiped out by

1) the TMTO slowdown and penalty (already a factor 10^3 for a million qubit QC running cuckoo on 2^27 nodes)

2) cycle time of QC being way longer than that of classical computers

3) constant factor overhead in running Grover algorithm.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Let's say the block interval only allows for a 100 proof attempts (nonces) by a single miner.

How will you protect nodes against DoS attacks sending junk bytes pretending that they contain a valid nonce?

[tromp]

Let's say the block interval only allows for a 100 proof attempts (nonces) by a single miner.

How will you protect nodes against DoS attacks sending junk bytes pretending that they contain a valid nonce?

Cuckoo Cycle proofs are instantly verifiable, just like Bitcoin nonces.

[eragmus]

FYI: I would still appreciate a reply to my argument about Bitcoin Lightning (payment channels) solving IoT problem, and how the fees are by design going to be less than 1 satoshi & Lightning's infinite transaction capacity...
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1216479.msg13311118#msg13311118

[Come-from-Beyond]

Cuckoo Cycle proofs are instantly verifiable, just like Bitcoin nonces.

Bitcoin nonces are not verifiable instantly, but they require only very little memory. How much memory is required to verify Cuckoo Cycle nonce?

[tromp]

Cuckoo Cycle proofs are instantly verifiable, just like Bitcoin nonces.

Bitcoin nonces are not verifiable instantly, but they require only very little memory. How much memory is required to verify Cuckoo Cycle nonce?

336 bytes.

Quoting from https://github.com/tromp/cuckoo:

"Proofs take the form of a length 42 cycle in a bipartite graph with N nodes and N/2 edges, with N scalable from millions to billions and beyond.

This makes verification trivial: compute the 42x2 edge endpoints with one initialising sha256 and 84 very cheap siphash-2-4 hashes, check that each endpoint occurs twice, and that you come back to the starting point only after traversing 42 edges.
A final sha256 hash on the sorted 42 nonces can check whether the 42-cycle meets a difficulty target.

This is implemented in just 157 lines of C code (files src/cuckoo.h and src/cuckoo.c).

From this point of view, Cuckoo Cycle is a very simple PoW, requiring hardly any code, time, or memory to verify."

The verify() function uses 2*42 ints of memory.
For graph sizes up to 2^32, those can be 32-bit ints, so that's 336 bytes.

[Come-from-Beyond]

FYI: I would still appreciate a reply to my argument about Bitcoin Lightning (payment channels) solving IoT problem, and how the fees are by design going to be less than 1 satoshi & Lightning's infinite transaction capacity...
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1216479.msg13311118#msg13311118

For LN to work in IoT industry we need an efficient routing algorithm for one billion nodes forming a quasi-homogeneous network. Do you have one that doesn't require expensive bandwidth? How does LN incentivize to share routing metadata that could be used for detours? What is the most efficient leverage of available funds (too little will require to update routing metadata very often, too much is too expensive because locked coins don't "earn" profit)? How routing metadata are verified for non-neighbors and how dishonest nodes are punished? Can't a payment route be used to deanonimize payment recipients? What if a payment hub doesn't support payment network neutrality? What possibilities does a successful MITM attack give (it's an extra level, hence it's extra possibilities)?