IOTA

[rlh]

@CfB

That's what I thought.  I assume this means that if Alice sends a payment transaction to Bob's node and if Bob sees that Alice doesn't have the balance, Bob will request form his neighbor's all transactions for Alice that she's sent and received.

Correct?

[Come-from-Beyond]

@CfB

That's what I thought.  I assume this means that if Alice sends a payment transaction to Bob's node and if Bob sees that Alice doesn't have the balance, Bob will request form his neighbor's all transactions for Alice that she's sent and received.

Correct?

Yes.

[rlh]

@CfB

That's what I thought.  I assume this means that if Alice sends a payment transaction to Bob's node and if Bob sees that Alice doesn't have the balance, Bob will request form his neighbor's all transactions for Alice that she's sent and received.

Correct?

Yes.

How will transactions be resolved/confirmed.  Alice sends two payments to two separate regions of the network.  Which transaction will be eliminated, assuming they are both the same, except for some nonce value?  This is likely a problem with the other approach, but at least if a sender engages with any funny business, creating multiple transactions referencing the same, earlier payment receipt transactions, the account can be flagged/black listed more readily.

Using the balance method, detecting this type of monkey business wouldn't be as fast.

[Come-from-Beyond]

If you were to set a rule that only one of the txs is allowed at a time, how long till no ambiguity/consensus on the new balance?  Such rule might not be practical, but I'm still curious. 

Hard to say without modelling.

[Come-from-Beyond]

How will transactions be resolved/confirmed.  Alice sends two payments to two separate regions of the network.  Which transaction will be eliminated, assuming they are both the same, except for some nonce value?  This is likely a problem with the other approach, but at least if a sender engages with any funny business, creating multiple transactions referencing the same, earlier payment receipt transactions, the account can be flagged/black listed more readily.

Using the balance method, detecting this type of monkey business wouldn't be as fast.

If we prohibit address reuse then balance method becomes indistinguishable from input method...

Only one of the transactions will be legit, the one with more PoW tied to it. Just like in Bitcoin.

[rlh]

I get it.  An address can accumulate multiple payment receipts, but as soon as it "spends" any funds, a new recipient address will get the remaining balance.  This means there is no long ledger of +/- balances that will need to be resolved.

In such a case, point #1 and 3 which you outlined above are no longer true.  You must always send your remaining balance (even if not calculated*) back to a new address.

This could also mean that the following payment system could be used.

Alice receives 5 transactions into account X.

T1 = 100
T2 = 100
T3 = 100
T4 = 100
T5 = 100

She want's to send 250 IOTA to Bobs address (Y), so she makes a transaction that sends 250 IOTA from X to Y and all remaining balance goes to account X' (Alices new account.)

Any node that receives this transaction only needs to see at least 3 of the above transactions in Alices X account transaction chain.  If that's the case, even though the total balance on a node could be incorrect, the transaction can still be verified.  The node will only assume that X.Total-250 will be forwarded to Alices new account (X').  

Later, if Alice attempts to send the remaining 250 IOTAs from X', these nodes will only then have to look for former, missing transactions.

I like this.  This feels solid and allows for a users balance to never be fully known.  You can know at least how much they have, but you can never guarantee the total value of their wallet.

[rlh]

To be clear, if my above analysis is correct, I agree with using balance method instead of signing every tangle transaction associated with an account.

[Richard1972x]

Hey, guys and gals. I'd like to get your feedback on the following:

In it's current implementation Iota's ledger is based on inputs and outputs like Bitcoin. There is another way - balances of accounts like in Nxt and Ethereum.

Now I see that if Iota used the latter it would be more efficient because:
1. No need to send the change back to myself which makes the tangle smaller
2. A lot of dust inputs could be spent with a single payment and this would be more secure because every address reuse leaks the private key
3. A new address wouldn't be needed for every incoming payment (this would make acceptance of Iota donations simple, in the current design it's PITA for humans)
4. Off-tangle payments would become simpler
5. RAM requirement for full nodes would be relaxed

The only problem that might arise in balance-based Iota is worse consensus convergence, but after analyzing the issue I don't see what could break.

I'm thinking if it's worth to do a little redesign that could take few days of extra work...

Redesign is fine. Take your time, thanks for all your work here!

[Come-from-Beyond]

So are we looking at dropping both txs from your example then?

What do you mean?

[runall]

Hey, guys and gals. I'd like to get your feedback on the following:

In it's current implementation Iota's ledger is based on inputs and outputs like Bitcoin. There is another way - balances of accounts like in Nxt and Ethereum.

Now I see that if Iota used the latter it would be more efficient because:
1. No need to send the change back to myself which makes the tangle smaller
2. A lot of dust inputs could be spent with a single payment and this would be more secure because every address reuse leaks the private key
3. A new address wouldn't be needed for every incoming payment (this would make acceptance of Iota donations simple, in the current design it's PITA for humans)
4. Off-tangle payments would become simpler
5. RAM requirement for full nodes would be relaxed

The only problem that might arise in balance-based Iota is worse consensus convergence, but after analyzing the issue I don't see what could break.

I'm thinking if it's worth to do a little redesign that could take few days of extra work...

+1

Great Idea! I think redesign worth it. Good thing there is you noticed. I am in favor, also if it takes more than a few days work.
I think it must be not only so as with Bitcoin, it has to be better than in Ethereum, Nxt and other Bitcoin 2.0.

[child_harold]

@CFB

Speaking selfishly as an individual who admittedly hoped to turn some of his IOTA investment into Ethereum (remember "some"), sometime before Ethereum went to $5 a piece, I will speak thusly:

A) Your reputation precedes you

B) You are now introducing an idea that has existed since NXT, and ETH? I dont get this… given A (see above)

C) You have been working on this for the last 12 months and you ask this of your community now?

D)  Am I tripping? Shouldn't we have launched already? No joke.

RESULT: a weird feeling for me, and not good weird

I just wanna get this show on the road…
Can we launch yet?

LETS DO THIS.

[Come-from-Beyond]

@CFB

Speaking selfishly as an individual who admittedly hoped to turn some of his IOTA investment into Ethereum (remember "some"), sometime before Ethereum went to $5 a piece, I will speak thusly:

A) Your reputation precedes you

B) You are now introducing an idea that has existed since NXT, and ETH? I dont get this… given A (see above)

C) You have been working on this for the last 12 months and you ask this of your community now?

D)  Am I tripping? Shouldn't we have launched already? No joke.

RESULT: a weird feeling for me, and not good weird

I just wanna get this show on the road…
Can we launch yet?

LETS DO THIS.

Interesting, if there will be people buying during beta testing. Anything can happen during that period, even a rollback.

[child_harold]

@CFB

Speaking selfishly as an individual who admittedly hoped to turn some of his IOTA investment into Ethereum (remember "some"), sometime before Ethereum went to $5 a piece, I will speak thusly:

A) Your reputation precedes you

B) You are now introducing an idea that has existed since NXT, and ETH? I dont get this… given A (see above)

C) You have been working on this for the last 12 months and you ask this of your community now?

D)  Am I tripping? Shouldn't we have launched already? No joke.

RESULT: a weird feeling for me, and not good weird

I just wanna get this show on the road…
Can we launch yet?

LETS DO THIS.

Interesting, if there will be people buying during beta testing. Anything can happen during that period, even a rollback.

Please.

Enough of the enigmatic monosyllabic replies

I propose that we launch immediately and push improvements into future forks. Can we rock the genesis or not?

I believe the ICO literature proposed a launch post xmas (2015)? Or am I once more mistaken?

No more delays. You have had plenty of time to prepare and you raised nearly $500,000 so can finish your masterpiece as we go. savvy?

FUCK IT. IM RIGHT.

[allwelder]

Hey, guys and gals. I'd like to get your feedback on the following:

In it's current implementation Iota's ledger is based on inputs and outputs like Bitcoin. There is another way - balances of accounts like in Nxt and Ethereum.

Now I see that if Iota used the latter it would be more efficient because:
1. No need to send the change back to myself which makes the tangle smaller
2. A lot of dust inputs could be spent with a single payment and this would be more secure because every address reuse leaks the private key
3. A new address wouldn't be needed for every incoming payment (this would make acceptance of Iota donations simple, in the current design it's PITA for humans)
4. Off-tangle payments would become simpler
5. RAM requirement for full nodes would be relaxed

The only problem that might arise in balance-based Iota is worse consensus convergence, but after analyzing the issue I don't see what could break.

I'm thinking if it's worth to do a little redesign that could take few days of extra work...

Just Do it!

Another,How long about the extra work it will take?

[Come-from-Beyond]

Please.

Enough of the enigmatic monosyllabic replies

I propose that we launch immediately and push improvements into future forks. Can we rock the genesis or not?

I believe the ICO literature proposed a launch post xmas (2015)? Or am I once more mistaken?

No more delays. You have had plenty of time to prepare and you raised nearly $500,000 so can finish your masterpiece as we go. savvy?

FUCK IT. IM RIGHT.

I thought we couldn't do the release without beta testing but if you and the others insist... I don't mind.

[child_harold]

I edited my above post.
As far as Im concerned we do genesis now - that was the deal

we r already late and CfB has had enuff time - improvements come later

otherwise Im out

[Come-from-Beyond]

Just Do it!

How long about the extra work it will take?

Several days, but they fit into beta testing period and won't delay the release. The question is about doing that last moment change or not.

[Come-from-Beyond]

we r already late and CfB has had enuff time - improvements come later

Such kind of improvements can't be added later unless someone just launches Iota 2.

[Videodrome]

I thought we couldn't do the release without beta testing but if you and the others insist... I don't mind.

My vote is to wait and implement. No matters the times it takes. This is not a race.

Thanks Cfb for your hard work.

[child_harold]

Just Do it!

How long about the extra work it will take?

Several days, but they fit into beta testing period and won't delay the release. The question is about doing that last moment change or not.

how can a last moment change ever be good?

as I said i really thought (and can evidence why) we'd be rocking and rolling by now so to be having these convos at this time leaves me infuriated beyond words (at least english ones)

asking the community to make technical decisions at short notice is fucking idiotic IMO and makes me very worried

I stand by that.

DO some testing and launch ASAP please.