IOTA - Unmoderated thread

[altcoinUK]

Heavily supporting Byteball? I would read that again I am fully against Byteballs distributional model and have called for a clone and for it to be distributed more fairly.

Ok, sorry, I can see right now you are not impressed from Byteball. I am not up to date here lately. I clicked on your posts and it seemed you were complimentary about Byteball, but now I see you posted opinions like this: "I guarantee this project will be a pariah". That is not a compliment  Shelby (the III) just said I have reading issues. Must be true then 

I am reading the Byteball white paper, it seems some way a good project.

What is the problem with the distribution of Byteball if it was a free distribution model?

[1714237685]

1714237685

[1714237685]

1714237685

[1714237685]

1714237685

[1714237685]

1714237685

[altcoinUK]

I can see you wrote this:

the rich get ALL of the Byteball practically and the poor get basically nothing even though they put in the same effort.

What the distribution of Byteball was? How the rich could get more coins?

[cryptohunter]

I can see you wrote this:

the rich get ALL of the Byteball practically and the poor get basically nothing even though they put in the same effort.

What the distribution of Byteball was? How the rich could get more coins?

To me yes. It is worse than a " fair ICO " 

the rich take the bulk of the coins as usual but this time there is no need to pay like with an ICO. You just magically take all the coins just because you are BTC rich with no risk at all to your BTC stash.

Imagine all new alts distributed like this. Utterly unfair.

Having said that I do not at all consider IOTA a fair ICO so both need to be cloned and distributed in a more appropriate manner.

[altcoinUK]

I can see you wrote this:

the rich get ALL of the Byteball practically and the poor get basically nothing even though they put in the same effort.

What the distribution of Byteball was? How the rich could get more coins?

To me yes. It is worse than a " fair ICO " 

the rich take the bulk of the coins as usual but this time there is no need to pay like with an ICO. You just magically take all the coins just because you are BTC rich with no risk at all to your BTC stash.

Imagine all new alts distributed like this. Utterly unfair.

Having said that I do not at all consider IOTA a fair ICO so both need to be cloned and distributed in a more appropriate manner.

I see. I didn't know that Byteball was distributed based on BTC balance. Yes that is bollocks, I agree.

[santaclaws]

I was hesitant to buy into this one. I just didn't believe they could pull it off, and I still don't. The coin will get released but IoT integration will never happen. That is just a pipe dream. Another speculators coin and nothing more...

[altcoinUK]

The coin will get released but IoT integration will never happen. That is just a pipe dream.

I agree. That is the real concern with this type of software. See my above quoted rather emotional post which explains why IoT is a pipe dream as you said.

[iotatoken]

Any of you trolls up for a 10 000 dollar bet on this? If not, meh boring /ignore

[drays]

Because you like to clone your posts, and so force people to reply on different threads  

because they always delete my posts  

The nodes outside of the lan don't have to connect to you, if you want run a local node/wallet. They only have to know your public ip in order to "allow" your access.
But the nodes you are connecting to have to be public, of course...

Edit: if you want to make your computer public available you have to configure your routers routing tables.

Thanks a lot for the answer! So the two nodes behind different NAT servers have no chance to connect. If I have my PC behind a NAT, and have no access to router to configure it, I have to search for peers running on public machines only...
It looks like people should specify whether whey run public IP or not, when they ask for nodes in nodesharing channel... so there will be less issues.

One more question: lets say I have access to router, so can forward traffic to my PC, but I do not want to forward all the traffic. Which port should I forward, so IOTA wallet can be connected from outside? In other words, which ports IOTA uses? Is it one port or many? TCP or UDP?

Thanks for help. I know if this goes to technical, I'll have to go to Slack...

I did not try IOTA, but with byteball there's no problem to run within a subnet, behind the NAT. The nodes communicate well and have no issue. Maybe I should try IOTA for that too.

I also have Byteball wallet successfully running in a LAN behind a NAT... Actually with Byteball its easy, as it just works. With IOTA it would be tricky, as you have to manually find nodes, which are nowhere publicly available. You have to go to Slack, ask for nodes and somehow make sure you find only peers who run node on machines directly connected to Internet and running public IP address... As you need to find 5-9 nodes of that kind (involving a chat with every other node owner, just to find out whether he runs public IP or not and whether he agrees to connect to node like yours, expect about a week of setup time

I am not complaining, as I understand it is the way it is, and there are good reasons for removal of auto peer discovery and introducing this notorious manual node search instead. For me the tech part is easy, chat part is tiresome. Hopefully light wallet comes soon.

Do you realize what you are banging on about is plain stupid?

I am a pernsioner old man and not a developer anymore, but even I can see the Byteball project uses this library https://github.com/bitpay/bitcore-p2p/blob/master/lib/peer.js. As you can see the bitcore peer module connects to the Bitcoin network via a websocket server. Websocket is a centralized solution. Meanwhile if I understood correctly the IOTA peers connect to each other directly without a central service provider. You compare apples with oranges. Do you realize at all that there is no NAT traversal needed as the websocket uses the HTTP protocol? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455

I am a long time critics of IOTA, but what you are banging on about is a complete nonsense. You are asking why a peer cannot be as convenient as a centralized, websocket based solution. Normally there is a tradeoff between usability and security.

Please, before commenting, try to understand what people are writing about. You obviously didn't care to read my previous posts, to understand the context.
Just for your information, I was not comparing Byteball to IOTA at all. In the quoted post I was merely replying to a person who told Byteball was easy to setup, thats the only reason I mentioned Byteball at all. I know Websocket and HTTP have no problems with NAT. But discussing Byteball connection method was out of my interest, and my posts were made barely about Iota, as I was interested in setting up a IOTA node behind NAT, and needed some info.

I am glad you were able to look into the Github of BB and understand some things, regardless of your old age. That is great, but looks like your temper became worse with those years, and your manners are far from being the finest too.

EDIT: well, a wild guess... your Russian roots could explain a lot
 "complete nonsense", "plain stupid" - those sentenses remind me of the style of V I.Lenin's "philosophical" discussions. Did you read them a lot back then?   If not, then probably your teachers (in university or elsewhere) were poisoned with that style.

[drays]

there are good reasons for removal of auto peer discovery

Except in Byteball there is no "auto peer discovery" exists at all as there are no peers but websocket clients.

Except I was talking about IOTA removing auto peer discovery earlier this year, nothing there referred to Byteball.
Do you have self-affirmation issues? Why attack people without reason, while misinterpreting their posts?

[synthgauge]

because they always delete my posts  

The nodes outside of the lan don't have to connect to you, if you want run a local node/wallet. They only have to know your public ip in order to "allow" your access.
But the nodes you are connecting to have to be public, of course...

Edit: if you want to make your computer public available you have to configure your routers routing tables.

Thanks a lot for the answer! So the two nodes behind different NAT servers have no chance to connect. If I have my PC behind a NAT, and have no access to router to configure it, I have to search for peers running on public machines only...
It looks like people should specify whether whey run public IP or not, when they ask for nodes in nodesharing channel... so there will be less issues.

One more question: lets say I have access to router, so can forward traffic to my PC, but I do not want to forward all the traffic. Which port should I forward, so IOTA wallet can be connected from outside? In other words, which ports IOTA uses? Is it one port or many? TCP or UDP?

Thanks for help. I know if this goes to technical, I'll have to go to Slack...

I did not try IOTA, but with byteball there's no problem to run within a subnet, behind the NAT. The nodes communicate well and have no issue. Maybe I should try IOTA for that too.

I also have Byteball wallet successfully running in a LAN behind a NAT... Actually with Byteball its easy, as it just works. With IOTA it would be tricky, as you have to manually find nodes, which are nowhere publicly available. You have to go to Slack, ask for nodes and somehow make sure you find only peers who run node on machines directly connected to Internet and running public IP address... As you need to find 5-9 nodes of that kind (involving a chat with every other node owner, just to find out whether he runs public IP or not and whether he agrees to connect to node like yours, expect about a week of setup time

I am not complaining, as I understand it is the way it is, and there are good reasons for removal of auto peer discovery and introducing this notorious manual node search instead. For me the tech part is easy, chat part is tiresome. Hopefully light wallet comes soon.

Do you realize what you are banging on about is plain stupid?

I am a pernsioner old man and not a developer anymore, but even I can see the Byteball project uses this library https://github.com/bitpay/bitcore-p2p/blob/master/lib/peer.js. As you can see the bitcore peer module connects to the Bitcoin network via a websocket server. Websocket is a centralized solution. Meanwhile if I understood correctly the IOTA peers connect to each other directly without a central service provider. You compare apples with oranges. Do you realize at all that there is no NAT traversal needed as the websocket uses the HTTP protocol? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455

I am a long time critics of IOTA, but what you are banging on about is a complete nonsense. You are asking why a peer cannot be as convenient as a centralized, websocket based solution. Normally there is a tradeoff between usability and security.

This is 100% NOT altcoinUK. This persons first language is certainly not English.

Notify mods this is a hacked or stolen account and should be flagged.

Wow you guys sink lower and lower.

That bum has been an addicted ccex trollboxer for two years now. Who would wanna jack his account? Though there still exists a possibility that someone ousted him or nailed his weeb ass when he was riding westminster student-only bus ----> and possibly took his account.

Meanwhile if I understood correctly   ✗

realize at all that   weird

sometimes organisation and other time organization   ✗

to a peer to peer solution what normally a cryptocurrency project aims to be   ✗

Byteball is not that.   weird

Except in Byteball there is no "auto peer discovery" exists at all   ✗

[altcoinUK]

Please, before commenting, try to understand what people are writing about. You obviously didn't care to read my previous posts, to understand the context.
Just for your information, I was not comparing Byteball to IOTA at all. In the quoted post I was merely replying to a person who told Byteball was easy to setup, thats the only reason I mentioned Byteball at all. I know Websocket and HTTP have no problems with NAT. But discussing Byteball connection method was out of my interest, and my posts were made barely about Iota, as I was interested in setting up a IOTA node behind NAT, and needed some info.

I am glad you were able to look into the Github of BB and understand some things, regardless of your old age. That is great, but looks like your temper became worse with those years, and your manners are far from being the finest too.

EDIT: well, a wild guess... your Russian roots could explain a lot
 "complete nonsense", "plain stupid" - those sentenses remind me of the style of V I.Lenin's "philosophical" discussions. Did you read them a lot back then?   If not, then probably your teachers (in university or elsewhere) were poisoned with that style.

You're absolutely correct. I didn't read your post fully, I read the first 1-2 sentences and jumped into conclusion without caring too much and understanding what you are saying. I was wrong too about the Byteball networking code. I checked it further and it doesn't use websockets. Doesn't matter a lot in this swamp of average 20 years old pathetic trolls who says what, but for the record I am just admitting, I was wrong about the Byteball code too.

About the reading of Lenin, I can certainly claim a great experience in the subject In Marx & Engles too. Thus I am a big opponent of totalitarian systems what Lenin and his comrades promoted. Thus I had high hopes for cryptocurrencies and blockchain. I couldn't foresee that charlatans, ICO bandits, fraudsters and criminals like Ryan Kennedy from Mintpal will take over blockchain.

[drays]

Please, before commenting, try to understand what people are writing about. You obviously didn't care to read my previous posts, to understand the context.
Just for your information, I was not comparing Byteball to IOTA at all. In the quoted post I was merely replying to a person who told Byteball was easy to setup, thats the only reason I mentioned Byteball at all. I know Websocket and HTTP have no problems with NAT. But discussing Byteball connection method was out of my interest, and my posts were made barely about Iota, as I was interested in setting up a IOTA node behind NAT, and needed some info.

I am glad you were able to look into the Github of BB and understand some things, regardless of your old age. That is great, but looks like your temper became worse with those years, and your manners are far from being the finest too.

EDIT: well, a wild guess... your Russian roots could explain a lot
 "complete nonsense", "plain stupid" - those sentenses remind me of the style of V I.Lenin's "philosophical" discussions. Did you read them a lot back then?   If not, then probably your teachers (in university or elsewhere) were poisoned with that style.

You're absolutely correct. I didn't read your post fully, I read the first 1-2 sentences and jumped into conclusion without caring too much and understanding what you are saying. I was wrong too about the Byteball networking code. I checked it further and it doesn't use websockets. Doesn't matter a lot in this swamp of average 20 years old pathetic trolls who says what, but for the record I am just admitting, I was wrong about the Byteball code too.

About the reading of Lenin, I can certainly claim a great experience in the subject In Marx & Engles too. Thus I am a big opponent of totalitarian systems what Lenin and his comrades promoted. Thus I had high hopes for cryptocurrencies and blockchain. I couldn't foresee that charlatans, ICO bandits, fraudsters and criminals like Ryan Kennedy from Mintpal will take over blockchain.

Ok, I will take this as apologies then
I know some people are not sensitive to offensive expressions and consider them a normal part of speech, but then there are the ones like me, who are somewhat sensitive to wording. In fact, I just am not used to people talking to me that way. And I don't want to get used to it, even being on Bitcointalk, where people are being bareknuckle and brusque.

Even if I were talking bullshit (all of us to that sometimes ), there are better way to tell me about that.

On another topic, I would be really interested on your findings on Byteball. I didn't spend yet my time to get deeper into details in whitepaper... so judging mostly on indirect observations. Whatever it is, as per my estimations, the developer is brilliant and highly competent person, at the same time open, calm and positive, unlike some of IOTA devs. What bothers me a bit is where did he come from, as its surprising to see this amount of work silently done by a single person prior to release...

As to btc blockchain, in fact, it is taken over by Chinese now . Charlatans, ICO bandits, fraudsters and criminals are mostly entertaining public and making money on greedy people, but I don't think they are important to the overall progress of this technology. The smell of money attracted so many greedy sheep, its not surprising that all kinds of predators came down

Sorry for my English, btw. After folks caught so many issues with your English, I am really hesitant to post anything using mine

[SatoNatomato]

 

IOTA requires Proof-of-Work to make and send transactions.

IoT devices are really very low-cpu power, low-energy devices. Most of the time they are in deep sleep, wake up take sensors, send them somewhere. And IOTA people think wasting 90minutes off CPU time and battery to generate a transaction is sane?

90 minutes is how long it takes for a really powerful IoT device which almost borders Raspberry-Pi level, to make and send a transaction.

For a desktop PC, it can do it in 5-10 minutes. For really powerful computers, less than a minute.

IoT devices are not protected in any way from spamming and other attacks, they are just uselessly wasting their battery and wasting CPU cycles on a "proof-of-work".

Thats what IOTA is. Its beyond dumb.

Apart from the above, Iota doesnt even have a trustless network - all nodes are required to peer by talking to humans since IOTA network fails because it doesnt have a consensus algorithm, if anybody is allowed to join. The developers decide what is a valid transaction and what isnt, with their milestone.

IOTA is a classic "pump-and-dump" scam altcoin, from the same people who previously did that and have experience fooling others.

[SatoNatomato]

LOL, they finally answered the questions I have above, for weeks they tried to avoid it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1216479.msg17694242#msg17694242

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1216479.msg17694256#msg17694256

Which just confirms, IOTA is not for IoT devices.

1. CfB lies. PoW in IoT is not 20% less than normal CPU, an IoT device for example has 80Mhz 32bit CPU. Desktop 2400Mhz 64bit, It is not even close to 1% of same power. If you have 20% computing power of a normal CPU, thats not an IoT device, thats a raspberry-pi a singleboard computer suitable for showing 4K videos, the power they draws is not economical to have thousands of them scattered as sensors or controllers.

The other guys solution, let the IoT device "sign" transaction and send it to full node. This can be done with bitcoin and any other coin even today. The IoT device is not using IOTA anymore than an IoT device is a web-browser like Firefox just because someone programs it to make a HTTPS request and parse the response - which can be done on 80Mhz 32bit IoT devices, Ive done it. Any coin can do this.

The other solution is almost good, to make ASICS/special-hardware to do PoW for IOTA. Its just the problem, that hardware has a cost, and integrating it with any IoT chips. So, the "zero fee" transactions of IOTA, is not actually zero-fee, it just moves the cost to running and powering the ASIC, developing and integrating it with a myriad of other chips. That cost is too high, when alternatives which dont require modifying or using new hardware exist.

Point 2, No Sybil-defense. Not addressed, its inherit in its nature that IoT device cannot compete with computing power of a bigger CPU. Hence its beyond useless to even develop ASICs for it, if you have a small form-factor low energy ASIC, they can still be attacked by more making more of them, more powerful ones.

IOTA doesnt have any mechanism to resolve these kind of simple attacks, it doesnt have a consensus mechanism to avoid the gap in power between IoT and desktop PC being exploited.

Similary, IOTA is always vulnerable to "DoS because the network is small", even if used only on PCs, anyone can invest in a few powerful ASICS, and double-spend on IOTA network. This wont require 50% more power than others, since its a DAG, its enough if you are more powerful than your neighbors, to censor their transactions or just double-spend.

IOTA has a design/idea flaw - Proof-of-Work. Cannot be applied in IoT space.

Byteball doesnt have Proof-of-Work. Even todays IoT chip without imaginary extra iota-ASIC, just talk to your own bitcoin node, is more suitable and cheaper, faster, elegant simpler solution than IOTA.

[achimsmile]

The other guys solution, let the IoT device "sign" transaction and send it to full node. This can be done with bitcoin and any other coin even today. The IoT device is not using IOTA anymore than an IoT device is a web-browser like Firefox just because someone programs it to make a HTTPS request and parse the response - which can be done on 80Mhz 32bit IoT devices, Ive done it. Any coin can do this.

Sure, so let's take bitcoin as an example. How many tps are possible again on the bitcoin network? 7tps, which is far too low for the IoT.
And how about tx fees? Average is around 20 cents in bitcoin, which is far too high for IoT.

So yes, you can sign a bitcoin transaction on an IoT device, then you pay 20 cents, then you wait several hours until it's cofirmed.

[SatoNatomato]

The other guys solution, let the IoT device "sign" transaction and send it to full node. This can be done with bitcoin and any other coin even today. The IoT device is not using IOTA anymore than an IoT device is a web-browser like Firefox just because someone programs it to make a HTTPS request and parse the response - which can be done on 80Mhz 32bit IoT devices, Ive done it. Any coin can do this.

Sure, so let's take bitcoin as an example. How many tps are possible again on the bitcoin network? 7tps, which is far too low for the IoT.
And how about tx fees? Average is around 20 cents in bitcoin, which is far too high for IoT.

So yes, you can sign a bitcoin transaction on an IoT device, then you pay 20 cents, then you wait several hours until it's cofirmed.

No, you dont want to understand my argument. Try again. Ill explain more.

Your IoT device is not per se using IOTA/Bitcoin or relying on any of its features. So talking about confirmations is irrelevant. You can send thousands of bitcoin tx to your full node from your thousands of IoT devices, queue them up, save them in your own temporary database, settle them between each other to reduce their amount, or bag them in a huge transaction, using your full node wallet. This is in bitcoin parlance called "off-chain" bullshit. The devices dont need to wait for confirmations. They're dumb. Your full node pays the fee and waits for confirmation.

Your proposed solution is not a better solution than anything which already exists. In fact its worse if you include the ASIC on chip, just uselessly increasing IoT-device cost.

In general. My critique of IOTA goes further.

Id say, You cannot have a cryptocurrency which is using both a DAG and tries to rely on Proof-of-Work to prevent spammers/Sybils. The disparity in computing power, PoW, allows the DAG to grow wider and allows powerful nodes to scam/double-spend less powerful nodes. Unless you combine your DAG with a blockchain, and "settle"/anchor it in a blockchain every set amount of time. Or you disallow anyone joining your network and try to enforce "consensus" by peering and "trust" between neighbors in real life.

Or you invent a Mainline, a Main Chain, within the myriad branches in a DAG, select one which is "official", to do that you need a set of trusted nodes to stamp/witness transactions seen. Then you have Byteball.

Cheers, Ill pour one out for you next time Im out and about.

[olloman]

(...) Unless you combine your DAG with a blockchain, and "settle"/anchor it in a blockchain every set amount of time (...)

I'm not a super-techie so I might be wrong, but isn't that exactly what IOTA does with its tangle snapshots?

[ComponY]

Why IOTA is still no any exchange? I remember theu said they were ready to list it on exchanges half year ago, but now still nothing, is it a joke?

[SatoNatomato]

(...) Unless you combine your DAG with a blockchain, and "settle"/anchor it in a blockchain every set amount of time (...)

I'm not a super-techie so I might be wrong, but isn't that exactly what IOTA does with its tangle snapshots?

Not quite, but the idea is the same. except the tangle milestones are centralized and supposed to be temporary.

The third DAG coin which does the anchor-to-blockchain is SPECTRE.

[SatoNatomato]

ROFL look at the censorship in IOTA thread 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1216479.msg17695985#msg17695985

These answers of mine to them, are not allowed even to be linked from the thread.

Can someone else please go there and paste the link to this thread?

Let it be known. IOTA is a failed project from the start. Sell your iotatokens before its too late, before Dominik and CfB take your money!