Do you guys realize that the first coin WITHOUT A BLOCKCHAIN is about to launch?

[50cent_rapper]

Weren't Ripple and Stellar the first scams sans blockchains? So wouldn't this scam be at least the third?

Ripple have had been analyzed few years back by CfB:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=203877.0

Well, I spent a few days reading about Ripple consensus. Also, I talked to some guys regarding the issue. The resume is - Ripple consensus is bullshit. It's vulnerable to Sybil attack and there is no way to counteract it without centralization.

So, Ripple is a premined centralized coin. I won't waste my time trying to "fix" it. Period.

The main question: is blockchain less coin is trully decentralized ?

[misakama]

Interesting.  What does this mean, can someone explain how this differs from having a blockchain?

You don't need to know about the details, just remember this formula:

SUPER FAST TRANSACTIONS + FREE TRANSACTIONS (0 FEES) + SUPER LIGHT WALLETS + 0% INFLATION + TALENTED TEAM BEHIND + 1ST MOVER ADVANTAGE = BUY = IOTA = KABOOOOOOM ROI  

Do we need to buy the coins or will it distributed for free?

[Copenman]

Interesting.  What does this mean, can someone explain how this differs from having a blockchain?

You don't need to know about the details, just remember this formula:

SUPER FAST TRANSACTIONS + FREE TRANSACTIONS (0 FEES) + SUPER LIGHT WALLETS + 0% INFLATION + TALENTED TEAM BEHIND + 1ST MOVER ADVANTAGE = BUY = IOTA = KABOOOOOOM ROI  

LMFAO oh please can i send you my account info and my ssn if I find a big enough box I'll send my children also to be slave labor for the cause

[Fuserleer]

The main question: is blockchain less coin is trully decentralized ?

It can be if you do it right.  We were working on blockless ideas similar to Tangles a couple years back, and they are what CfB says they are.  Ultimately we went a different route with a channeled ledger (which records history too so don't confuse it with Ripple type stuff).

Its the year of the blockless, Iota first followed by us soon after, finally

[VultureFund]

Interesting.  What does this mean, can someone explain how this differs from having a blockchain?

You don't need to know about the details, just remember this formula:

SUPER FAST TRANSACTIONS + FREE TRANSACTIONS (0 FEES) + SUPER LIGHT WALLETS + 0% INFLATION + TALENTED TEAM BEHIND + 1ST MOVER ADVANTAGE = BUY = IOTA = KABOOOOOOM ROI  

LMFAO oh please can i send you my account info and my ssn if I find a big enough box I'll send my children also to be slave labor for the cause

Of course man, donations for the info are always welcome: BTC: 1P9gGtngioFH7BirNXvjNPVfMPyRtCUezV      (I give all the donations to the poor children)

Thanks! 

[TPTB_need_war]

The main question: is blockchain less coin is trully decentralized ?

Absolutely no!

[andulolika]

Interesting.  What does this mean, can someone explain how this differs from having a blockchain?

You don't need to know about the details, just remember this formula:

SUPER FAST TRANSACTIONS + FREE TRANSACTIONS (0 FEES) + SUPER LIGHT WALLETS + 0% INFLATION + TALENTED TEAM BEHIND + 1ST MOVER ADVANTAGE = BUY = IOTA = KABOOOOOOM ROI  

So you fud clam and promote a coin thats made for insta profit and dump after? Lol.

[TPTB_need_war]

Interesting.  What does this mean, can someone explain how this differs from having a blockchain?

You don't need to know about the details, just remember this formula:

SUPER FAST TRANSACTIONS + FREE TRANSACTIONS (0 FEES) + SUPER LIGHT WALLETS + 0% INFLATION + TALENTED TEAM BEHIND + 1ST MOVER ADVANTAGE = BUY = IOTA = KABOOOOOOM ROI  

And I conjecture it can fork into a double-spending chaos (have fun):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13488328#msg13488328

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13488833#msg13488833

I don't have time to write a white paper analysing Iota's DAG. Sorry. I also have no desire to criticize it further. It adds some interesting ideas. I applaud the technical attempt, but I think it has flaws. Perhaps I have missed some magical way it converges to consensus but I can't see it (as documented in the above linked posts). FWIW, as for the IPO side of it, I will not comment because I been threatened with a lawsuit by David if I comment.

I am not involved in Iota in any direct or derivative relationship or form.

[monsterer]

I think IOTA can have guaranteed convergence, but it needs centralised control to achieve this in the short term. The reason convergence is a problem in the early stages of the coin is that the stream of POW is very sparse, thus it would be very easy for an attacker to create double spends with his superior hashing power.

In order to combat this, the IOTA team will need to employ honest miners with their IPO funds (in a kind of reverse block reward) to perpetuate the honest POW stream and force convergence until the nominal POW from regular users picks up enough to take over.

[Febo]

There are lots of coins without blockchain. They use other blockchain and are distributed by some other criteria and not mining.

[maokoto]

Sounds innovative, but no blockchain does not necessarily mean better. For a coin to be suscessful, it needs to be used. That is what really makes a coin succeed. Innovation (I think) should be more focused in the easiness of adoption. Come to think of it, a light wallet will be good for that as newcomers would not need to download the blockchain and all, but is it enough?

[VultureFund]

Interesting.  What does this mean, can someone explain how this differs from having a blockchain?

You don't need to know about the details, just remember this formula:

SUPER FAST TRANSACTIONS + FREE TRANSACTIONS (0 FEES) + SUPER LIGHT WALLETS + 0% INFLATION + TALENTED TEAM BEHIND + 1ST MOVER ADVANTAGE = BUY = IOTA = KABOOOOOOM ROI  

And I conjecture it can fork into a double-spending chaos (have fun):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13488328#msg13488328

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13488833#msg13488833

I don't have time to write a white paper analysing Iota's DAG. Sorry. I also have no desire to criticize it further. It adds some interesting ideas. I applaud the technical attempt, but I think it has flaws. Perhaps I have missed some magical way it converges to consensus but I can't see it (as documented in the above linked posts). FWIW, as for the IPO side of it, I will not comment because I been threatened with a lawsuit by David if I comment.

I am not involved in Iota in any direct or derivative relationship or form.

Of course there's still something left that they haven't told. These guys are not so idiot to share the full info to everyone. It would be a big dishonestity to their work and their investors.

Don't worry about it man, these guys are good, they are not going to sell shit just to raise funds.

The main problem is the communication, definitely social marketing is not their speciality, but I'm sure they also know so.

[BtcMagazin]

Sounds innovative, but no blockchain does not necessarily mean better. For a coin to be suscessful, it needs to be used. That is what really makes a coin succeed. Innovation (I think) should be more focused in the easiness of adoption. Come to think of it, a light wallet will be good for that as newcomers would not need to download the blockchain and all, but is it enough?

I don't think so. First i will watch whether they will deliver what has been promised. What I am concern about is their security and convenience.

[RaginglikeaBoss]

I'm sure even non IPO investors will make crazy RoI, 10x at least. May be more.

Wireless IoT Jinn-powered brushhead-auto-replacing cancer-detecting saliva-analyzing drone-delivered crypto-wallet toothbrushes!

I thought you said "salvia" at first I'm disappointed.

[TPTB_need_war]

There are lots of coins without blockchain. They use other blockchain and are distributed by some other criteria and not mining.

I am not concerned about the distribution but rather whether the coin will converge on one chain and thus not be insecure. You are addressing distribution, not security.

[TPTB_need_war]

I think IOTA can have guaranteed convergence, but it needs centralised control to achieve this in the short term. The reason convergence is a problem in the early stages of the coin is that the stream of POW is very sparse, thus it would be very easy for an attacker to create double spends with his superior hashing power.

In order to combat this, the IOTA team will need to employ honest miners with their IPO funds (in a kind of reverse block reward) to perpetuate the honest POW stream and force convergence until the nominal POW from regular users picks up enough to take over.

1. Aren't you assuming the honest participants will always reference in their transactions the longest chain of the DAG? But why must they?

2. What happens when there is ambiguity because two or more DAG chains have nearly the same cumulative PoW and then there is a conflicting double-spend on both, so then some honest transactions have to be reversed but who decides which set must capitulate?

[monsterer]

1. Aren't you assuming the honest participants will always reference in their transactions the longest chain of the DAG? But why must they?

2. What happens when there is ambiguity because two or more DAG chains have nearly the same cumulative PoW and then there is a conflicting double-spend on both, so then some honest transactions have to be reversed but who decides which set must capitulate?

1. Honest participants want to favour the longest stream of POW because their transaction will be confirmed most quickly under this scheme.

2. Would it not be optimal for the new transaction to reference both DAG chains in this case?

[TPTB_need_war]

1. Aren't you assuming the honest participants will always reference in their transactions the longest chain of the DAG? But why must they?

2. What happens when there is ambiguity because two or more DAG chains have nearly the same cumulative PoW and then there is a conflicting double-spend on both, so then some honest transactions have to be reversed but who decides which set must capitulate?

1. Honest participants want to favour the longest stream of POW because their transaction will be confirmed most quickly under this scheme.

2. Would it not be optimal for the new transaction to reference both DAG chains in this case?

1. I didn't ask what their incentive is. I asked why MUST they? In block chain design, they MUST reference the longest chain. The distinction may be important in scenarios, e.g. #2 below or others.

2. It can't reference two chains with double-spends in the history. That is invalid.

[monsterer]

1. I didn't ask what their incentive is. I asked why MUST they? In block chain design, they MUST reference the longest chain. The distinction may be important in scenarios, e.g. #2 below or others.

2. It can't reference two chains with double-spends in the history. That is invalid.

1. No one forces them to do anything, but if they chose the shortest stream of work, they won't get confirmed in a timely manor.

2. Is the entire branch with the double-spend discarded in Iota? I would have thought not, because that would mean clients would need to resubmit all their transactions, since there are no miners to place them in the longer chain for them. It ought to be possible to keep the double spend branch, but just not apply the double spend transaction, since it spends an already spent output?

[TPTB_need_war]

1. I didn't ask what their incentive is. I asked why MUST they? In block chain design, they MUST reference the longest chain. The distinction may be important in scenarios, e.g. #2 below or others.

2. It can't reference two chains with double-spends in the history. That is invalid.

1. No one forces them to do anything, but if they chose the shortest stream of work, they won't get confirmed in a timely manor.

2. Is the entire branch with the double-spend discarded in Iota? I would have thought not, because that would mean clients would need to resubmit all their transactions, since there are no miners to place them in the longer chain for them. It ought to be possible to keep the double spend branch, but just not apply the double spend transaction, since it spends an already spent output?

1. But it may not always be unambiguous or other reasons that they can't do what you think they are incentivized to do. MUST is not the same as incentive. Be very careful in analyzing the details of consensus designs.

2. The transactions that follow the double-spend must be because they include the double-spend by referencing it. You need to study more closely the concept of the DAG. The transactions reference prior transactions. I thought you know that. So if there is a double-spend, but isn't known to be a double-spend until later, then all the transactions that referenced it will be potentially reversed. But again which set? It is ambiguous. Thus chaos of forks.