IOTA

[achimsmile]

So since you presumably have no informed opinion on this matter it seems most unwise to comment.

An informed opinion is not given at birth, so let's form one.

Both input / output and balance approach work pretty well in current blockchains. It looks likely that both of them could work in combination with a tangle.

@cfb: concerning consensus of balance approach: In which case would full nodes not be able to agree on balances? Each of them stores the full tangle, so if one of them tries to validate transaction A, but sees that other nodes validated a conflicting transaction B with more PoW, then A will get rejected, similar to how it works with blockchains, no?
Just like an input cannot be spent twice, a balance cannot be spent twice either?

Proposal: Let's integrate balances, see in beta if it works well.
Worst case: If not, then cfb would have to rewrite the code to input/output, and we would start the tangle again from scratch.

[1713418311]

1713418311

[1713418311]

1713418311

[1713418311]

1713418311

[1713418311]

1713418311

[child_harold]

I vote for reusable addresses like in Nxt and balances approach, if and only if this design is secure. More days of testing is not a problem, f*ck the whiners.

Wow, all these noobs laying into me. And yet I'm the one accused of running sock puppets, lol
OK freshman777 - and your qualifications are? So what you're saying is:

I vote for making it better but if and only if it is actually better  

Could we perhaps ask upon Sergio (who created DAGcoin) to bring some actual knowledge and expertise to this decision making process?
This peanut gallery consensus (PGC) is not inspiring me with confidence.

[tangleNinja]

I thought about the balance and in-out models a bit more.
I may have changed my mind about the balance model, but i may be completely wrong.

Assume we have multiple networks with relatively high bandwidth internal and very low bandwidth and unrealiabe transport between them,
as is to be expected in an IoT use case. and we have someone sending iota transactions to both networks

(net A )  -  X  - ( net B )

because net A and B both have low connectivity to the rest of the world, they run their own little DAG that gets merged into the global DAG once in a while, to make the
transactions that happen in their networks actually valid.

Now in the input output model, when X sends a transaction to B, that transaction will be saved in the graph of B and will get
valideted by all transactions within B, sensors (inside B) can relatively  savely accept that transactions because a lot of transactions
inside B add a lot of POW to it, until the network is able to connect to global DAG.

In the balance model same thing happens BUT balance model would require that a node recieves every transaction from that account
to make sure the account is not double spending its coins.

double spending is a problem in both cases, but it seems to me low network connectivity would be less of a problem
in the input output model as nodes would not be required to get all transactions of X beause POW is added to that specifif output of X.
In balance model X could send a transaction into net B that might be invalid from the start, If that happens in input/output recieving a double spend
would not be a problem if net B can manage to add enugh POW so that once it gets merged into global DAG it is valid.

Corret me if i am wrong but balance model would complicate how the network comes to consensus A LOT.
So input/output model would be safer for small ( very small, so small they cant save full tangle ) IOTA sensors to accept transactions,
because they only have to check if that input is valid, not if all of the transsactions that this sender made is valid.

[Come-from-Beyond]

@cfb: concerning consensus of balance approach: In which case would full nodes not be able to agree on balances? Each of them stores the full tangle, so if one of them tries to validate transaction A, but sees that other nodes validated a conflicting transaction B with more PoW, then A will get rejected, similar to how it works with blockchains, no?
Just like an input cannot be spent twice, a balance cannot be spent twice either?

I can't say how all this will work without running a model. Guys like mthcl can analyze it in their mind, I need to observe the results of a running model.

[yassin54]

after careful consideration, I'll let the experts decide  
Sorry I'm a noob to this kind of response  
@child_harold, he just litle convinced and sometime you are true  

Edit: if you need time, i have no problem for this  

[freshman777]

OK freshman777 - and your qualifications are?

My qualifications are patience and understanding that cutting edge tech requires time and testing, more testing and some more testing. You lack these qualifications, from your posts. Go buy insured government bonds and treat yourself to 1% yearly risk-free profits.

[AltcoinScamfinder]

OK freshman777 - and your qualifications are?

My qualifications are patience and understanding that cutting edge tech requires time and testing, more testing and some more testing. You lack these qualifications, from your posts. Go buy insured government bonds and treat yourself to 1% yearly risk-free profits.

While I agree there is a finite amount of 'time' in a project before a beta should be released. I would prefer a functioning beta asap over waiting further, especially if we are talking GUI improvements over core functionality/viability. The brightest minds out there echo that minimum viable product wins over polished final when it comes to release cycles.

[achimsmile]

While I agree there is a finite amount of 'time' in a project before a beta should be released. I would prefer a functioning beta asap over waiting further, especially if we are talking GUI improvements over core functionality/viability. The brightest minds out there echo that minimum viable product wins over polished final when it comes to release cycles.

As it looks beta should still be released this weekend

[charvesp]

OK freshman777 - and your qualifications are?

My qualifications are patience and understanding that cutting edge tech requires time and testing, more testing and some more testing. You lack these qualifications, from your posts. Go buy insured government bonds and treat yourself to 1% yearly risk-free profits.

While I agree there is a finite amount of 'time' in a project before a beta should be released. I would prefer a functioning beta asap over waiting further, especially if we are talking GUI improvements over core functionality/viability. The brightest minds out there echo that minimum viable product wins over polished final when it comes to release cycles.

And where did you see that this issue is trivial as GUI. This dilemma is absolutely core functionality related and irreversible.
The few voting no for technical reasons are welcomed. But the few that vote no because they want it out now to.... you know.. sell it?
Are foolish beyond words.

[Come-from-Beyond]

harold, honestly you have no business posting your opinions here. You have every right to participate in the crowd sale but you clearly don't
know what you've "invested" in.

You ask what company? Really? This is the level of intelligence and sophistication you have.
You send bitcoins to a project's crowd sale that accepts two forms of payments, bitcoins and NXT's JINN asset.

And you never bothered to ask yourself, what the hell is a JINN asset? Thats where most of the crowd sale is going towards.
Further development of the JINN processor. Yet you still put your tiny decimal bitcoins in.

And now you have the nerve to tell people it should be launched now because Xmas eta was given. Given, not promised.

And now you are pretending all along you wanted experts to weigh in not the community, which are full of programmers too.
From the beginning you stated that IOTA is ready now, launch it cuz I say so. Cuz in your world, when you work on something
for a year its always ready and never needs reconsideration.

[CENSORED] Thats why I can't stand it here. If we are
blessed and IOTA really catches on. In a few years I can retire to anywhere I want. But you can't because one, your stake is insignificant,
and two you would have already sold it by then guaranteed.

[superresistant]

 
Why are people in such a hurry ?
The more testing the better.
Why would you get angry that the software is released tomorrow or after tomorrow ?

Advice for everyone :
Go out, take some fresh air, walk and ask yourself if it's worth it to release a software that is not enough tested.

[Come-from-Beyond]

And you never bothered to ask yourself, what the hell is a JINN asset? Thats where most of the crowd sale is going towards.
Further development of the JINN processor. Yet you still put your tiny decimal bitcoins in.

And now you have the nerve to tell people it should be launched now because Xmas eta was given. Given, not promised.

And now you are pretending all along you wanted experts to weigh in not the community, which are full of programmers too.
From the beginning you stated that IOTA is ready now, launch it cuz I say so. Cuz in your world, when you work on something
for a year its always ready and never needs reconsideration.

Yes, these are the same people that up to today can't do a Jinn launch which was supposed to be months ago.  I'm having hard time not to laugh at this situation because IOTA may as well be  "JINN 2.0" in this regard.

[CENSORED QUOTE]

I wish people could retire from this. Unfortunately things do not work like that in crypto world. Like someone here mentioned before, ~5x ROI is the target IF IOTA  launches soon(in days).

[Come-from-Beyond]

@charvesp, MickGhee, vlight: Some censorship has been done to keep the thread civilized.

[rlh]

Use case for IOTA: Independent BOINC Projects

Someone could write a library, or fork the BOINC server.  Usage with IOTA is as such.

1. Create a BOINC project.
2. Whenever an IOTA client downloads work, create an IOTA address and send from this empty account the given rewards for finishing the workload.  This will give the account a negative balance.
3. The worker can then see that the project node has sent the data and is expecting work.
4. Once the worker finishes her workload, returns the data and it is verified, the BOINC project owner can send money to original payer address.

This is a scenario that can make use of the negative-balance transactions.  

[achimsmile]

Sounds great, have to think about your idea rlh!
For all users not on ryver

Cfb:

If Alice sends yet-not-existent money to Bob and Bob trusts Alice, he can accept her money. If someone trusts that Bob will cover the difference even if Alice fails to pay the credit then he can accept money from Bob. After a while Alice will pay the "credit" and the global tangle will adopt that subtangle built on trust between its participants.

[rtrtcrypto]

You are 100% right.

I want the best and most sound release possible. If it takes more time, so be it. To rush this thing out the door because some guy wants to make .1 btc on his .01 btc investment - please, stop wasting our time. Many in here are in for the long haul - we support and want a great and SOUND protocol.

OK freshman777 - and your qualifications are?

My qualifications are patience and understanding that cutting edge tech requires time and testing, more testing and some more testing. You lack these qualifications, from your posts. Go buy insured government bonds and treat yourself to 1% yearly risk-free profits.

While I agree there is a finite amount of 'time' in a project before a beta should be released. I would prefer a functioning beta asap over waiting further, especially if we are talking GUI improvements over core functionality/viability. The brightest minds out there echo that minimum viable product wins over polished final when it comes to release cycles.

And where did you see that this issue is trivial as GUI. This dilemma is absolutely core functionality related and irreversible.
The few voting no for technical reasons are welcomed. But the few that vote no because they want it out now to.... you know.. sell it?
Are foolish beyond words.

[yassin54]

Just relayed information check this   

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1354220.0;topicseen

[rtrtcrypto]

Don't even sweat this stuff... the ICO/IPO is over and the tech will either come or it won't. A thread by some random person with some random, almost non-coherent, rant(s) is not worth the time.

Everyone said the same stuff about NXT, how it was "going to be attacked right away", how it was "impossible to secure PoS" and that the "N@S" attack was trivial to execute and blablabla... and the protocol is still there.

Iota might fail, who knows, but it won't be because "CFB is 24" or because "intel has 3 billion a year on R&D", etc... and it won't fail or succeed based on some random thread on this forum.

Just relayed information check this   

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1354220.0;topicseen

[Come-from-Beyond]

Don't even sweat this stuff... the ICO/IPO is over and the tech will either come or it won't. A thread by some random person with some random, almost non-coherent, rant(s) is not worth the time.

It's still good for me. I do focus switch while coding (this improves productivity) and these trolls help me because I don't need to put much effort into replies to them.

[rtrtcrypto]

Not to mention that CFB is not actually 24, lol