Blockchain vs DAG (Byteball's concencus algorithm).

[thejaytiesto]

Can bitcoin somehow adapt DAG?

No. Bitcoiners are scared of changes.

It is not that we are scared of changes. I am eager to diversify some of my BTC portfolio, to make gains faster by getting into a project that is not smoke and mirrors/not a plain meme, the problem is, I can't find it. There is always something that makes me thing im investing into a short lived pump and dump, or medium term pump and dump at best if the project is something ambitious but ultimately has flaws that make it nonviable long term.

I don't feel like getting my hard earned BTC scammed by investing in altcoins that don't end up delivering anything relevant enough beyond what BTC can currently (or in the future) offer. And I work my ass off for a low paying job with bad health in order to invest in my BTC portfolio and continue growing it so that makes me extra cautious when investing a single satoshi.

[SatoNatomato]

Random picking is not modeling an attacker who is using a strategic algorithm.

We shouldn't confuse countermeasures against an attacker and achievement of consensus. These are different things.

[thejaytiesto]

sorry for getting offtopic.

but did you realise that is an almost sig-add free topic.

now back to the topic i tried to understand.

Who the fuck are you?

If you are talking about me, how is it off-topic, and nonetheless, im not even making money from posting since I already surpassed the amount of maximum paid posts for this month on the campaign im at so you fucked up by accusing me of spamming.

Now indeed let's get back on topic.

[Come-from-Beyond]

We shouldn't confuse countermeasures against an attacker and achievement of consensus. These are different things.

This is worth to be added into my collection of your fuckups.

PS: If anyone thinks that those are NOT different things then read http://work.tinou.com/2009/05/faulttolerant-distributed-systems-made-simple.html (you can jump straight to these words:

The Paxos algorithms can help us. The specific Paxos algorithm discussed below is the "basic" one (there's a bunch of Paxos algorithms).  The model is asynchronous and non-Byzantine.  This means that a process may crash and recover, but doesn't do anything weird like sending random, deceitful messages to other processes.

)

[SatoNatomato]

We shouldn't confuse countermeasures against an attacker and achievement of consensus. These are different things.

This is worth to be added into my collection of your fuckups.

PS: If anyone thinks that those are NOT different things then read http://work.tinou.com/2009/05/faulttolerant-distributed-systems-made-simple.html (you can jump straight to these words:

The Paxos algorithms can help us. The specific Paxos algorithm discussed below is the "basic" one (there's a bunch of Paxos algorithms).  The model is asynchronous and non-Byzantine.  This means that a process may crash and recover, but doesn't do anything weird like sending random, deceitful messages to other processes.

)

The laughing image is not enough to describe how hilarious you are.

Thank you man, you provide me with enough hilarity so I can continue to chuckle for weeks.

I cant even focus to make a short explanation to other readers. Just hilarious chuckle worthy material.

[Come-from-Beyond]

The laughing image is not enough to describe how hilarious you are.

Thank you man, you provide me with enough hilarity so I can continue to chuckle for weeks.

I cant even focus to make a short explanation to other readers. Just hilarious chuckle worthy material.

Nothing concrete, as always when you can't defend your position. 90% of your post are from this category.

[SatoNatomato]

The laughing image is not enough to describe how hilarious you are.

Thank you man, you provide me with enough hilarity so I can continue to chuckle for weeks.

I cant even focus to make a short explanation to other readers. Just hilarious chuckle worthy material.

Nothing concrete, as always when you can't defend your position. 90% of your post are from this category.

it is you who should defend your dumb statements and not require handholding like a baby.

Besides most readers dont need explanation for basics in cryptocurrency.

[Come-from-Beyond]

it is you who should defend your dumb statements and not require handholding like a baby.

Besides most readers dont need explanation for basics in cryptocurrency.

You probably forgot how it was:
1. I stated that consensus and attacks are different things
2. You used pics to imply it was wrong
3. I showed that it's right

If you still don't believe me then google difference between Paxos and Byzantine Paxos. As you said it yourself, the most of others don't need explanation for basics in cryptocurrencies.

So, what statement do you want me to defend? Upthread I already gave a link to a counter-example of your claim (which proved my statement) and there are zillions of other links on the Internet.

PS: I don't mind continuing this convo, I like watching you digging a deeper and deeper hole for your "reputation"...

[SatoNatomato]

it is you who should defend your dumb statements and not require handholding like a baby.

Besides most readers dont need explanation for basics in cryptocurrency.

You probably forgot how it was:
1. I stated that consensus and attacks are different things
2. You used pics to imply it was wrong
3. I showed that it's right

If you still don't believe me then google difference between Paxos and Byzantine Paxos. As you said it yourself, the most of others don't need explanation for basics in cryptocurrencies.

So, what statement do you want me to defend? Upthread I already gave a link to a counter-example of your claim (which proved my statement) and there are zillions of other links on the Internet.

PS: I don't mind continuing this convo, I like watching you digging a deeper and deeper hole for your "reputation"...

You stated 1 which by itself is hilarious statement to make if you want to design publicly accesible and usable cryptocurrencies.
Then you made another statement from a diffrent contexr, proving something not related to statement 1..

PS. I have no reputation and dont wish to aquire it, in fact I shit on both mine and your reputation.

[CyanFox]

Yeah, we know BB's DAG is superior and the most innovative technology in last year, no doubt that it will get more customers on board, don't worry, keep patient.

[Come-from-Beyond]

You stated 1 which by itself is hilarious statement to make if you want to design publicly accesible and usable cryptocurrencies.
Then you made another statement from a diffrent contexr, proving something not related to statement 1..

PS. I have no reputation and dont wish to aquire it, in fact I shit on both mine and your reputation.

You simply just quit the convo? Trolls are so weak these days...

[nillohit]

Byteball is an excellent DAG coin. I'm not very familiar to IOTA

[SatoNatomato]

For visibiility, a discussion on IOTA and IoT, from the Iota unmoderated thread

PoW is a prevention against sybil attacks. The PoW, which is necessary is not very much and will then be of minor significance, once the IRI will be changed for industrial appliances.
why PoW at all? well, you have a synchronized, soon to be decentralized system, where data-integrity needs to be established through the "confirm 2 tx before you conduct a new one" thingy. pretty solid architecture. what would you take?
for the computational power: you ever heard about JINN?
the ternary processors will conduct the necessary PoW in fractions of a second. Right now, I need just a few seconds with my CPU so that's completely fine for users. the IoT will be handled differently, but everyone was told that like a hundred times.
the consensus furthermore will be established in a decentralized manner, once the monte carlo random walk is enabled, because right now, like you know, the coordinator is centralizing it, for security and topology-reason. (the wittnesses in BB btw too)
So what is your point? that the PoW is to heavy? well it isn't very long.
That we have no decentralization? well we will have it in approx. july 2017
That it's not suitable? why not, what is still missing?

That is funny, since last time I checked Iota, the PoW didnt help against Sybils, and instead people were asked for social proof to join the network, that ist he Sybil prevention. 

No, that is not my point that "pow is heavy", read my post again and try really try hard to see the big picture. No offense, just open your eyes.

Hardware, Jinn, if you place one of these on a chip, someone will place 100 000 of them together in one big chip, call it a Specialized Processing Unit, and it would then be able to outpace and outrun at least 100 000 of other smaller chips. What I mean is, at IoT power levels, can not ever compete with a normal PC, lulz that should be obvious and clear as blue day, no matter if you place "specialized non-existent magic hardware" on it or not.

Hence, PoW and IoT are oxymorons. Pick one. You cant protect your IoT devices with PoW scheme.

But you can, with a signature based scheme such as Byteball, and other cryptocurrency, even DPoS works better. See IOTA developers and fans, say, "Oh but IoT will not be a full node, it will only send/sing transactions", Well duh, obviously, any fucking cryptocurrency can delegate a chip to be dumb and trust another full node. What good cryptocurrencies do is, allow the IoT chip to send/receive transactions with its own keys - by signing shit just as other full wallets, and get the protection from scammers and attackers as the rest of the network. Spicy isnt it.


Of course, IOTA, bragging about IoT so much, and now we hear from its supporter "IoT will be handed differently." WHAT. OK.

[Arvydas77]

Can bitcoin somehow adapt DAG?

No. Bitcoiners are scared of changes.

It is not that we are scared of changes. I am eager to diversify some of my BTC portfolio, to make gains faster by getting into a project that is not smoke and mirrors/not a plain meme, the problem is, I can't find it. There is always something that makes me thing im investing into a short lived pump and dump, or medium term pump and dump at best if the project is something ambitious but ultimately has flaws that make it nonviable long term.

I don't feel like getting my hard earned BTC scammed by investing in altcoins that don't end up delivering anything relevant enough beyond what BTC can currently (or in the future) offer. And I work my ass off for a low paying job with bad health in order to invest in my BTC portfolio and continue growing it so that makes me extra cautious when investing a single satoshi.

You're experienced member and eberything you said is reasonable. I, personally, think that in long term Bitcoin will lose its crown and other cryptocurrency will take a lead. But this question is not about a value but about a mass adoption. Bitcoin can sustain its value as a concept of store of value but it is not suitable for everyday transactions. Byteball is revolutionary. I have bytes in my portforlio and doing very well. I also invested in RaiBlocks. It is a perfect micropayment system that, IMO, could overtake BTC in the so-called Third World.

[Come-from-Beyond]

For visibiility, a discussion on IOTA and IoT, from the Iota unmoderated thread

Do you still think anyone believes that you are an expert in anything IT related? I already have two your fuckups which clearly show that your level of expertise approaches zero from negative infinity. You are hanging out here only because you are cheerleading Byteball.

[iamnotback]

I also invested in RaiBlocks.

If you only understood how horrendously flawed that design is.

[iamnotback]

The Byteball algorithm is about a set of witnesses forming a consensus opinion about the total order selected out of a plurality of partial orders in the DAG. By partial orders, we mean conflicting paths through the DAG which yield different ordering of which double-spend was first.

8.1 Byteball’s “Stability Point” Rule

...

Witness units which do not transitively reference their prior unit in their ancestor path^* are provably misbehaving and ignored thus can’t do any harm other than if the majority does. If the threshold of the count for the stability point is only the majority, a single witness could make finality ambiguous by signing two conflicting observations which (transitively) reference their same prior unit without one of the the observations (transitively) referencing the other. The faulty witness could publish one of the conflicting observation units after delay, possibly enabling the reversal of finality for some conflicting transactions. But this requires the minority of witnesses which didn’t reference the first to then reference the delayed observation unit― which seems to require a majority (aka “50+%” or “¹/₂+”) attack even if the delay was within ambiguity due to propagation delay because all (which is not random) of those minority have to join the attack. To increase the safety of finality, the said threshold could be increased to +²/₃ of the witnesses so that reversing finality would require +¹/₃ to sign conflicting observation units and in all likelihood +²/₃ to be malevolent. Thus would reduce the liveness threshold from ¹/₂+ to +¹/₃.

...

The stability point algorithm is able to achieve non-asymptotic BFT with only ¹/₂+ quorums because the ordering of the published observation units (analogous to validator votes) for each witness is orthogonal to those of the other witnesses. Whereas, Byzantine agreement requires +²/₃ quorums because validators much coordinate in quorums such that each validator can claim the unresponsiveness of the others because for a vote to published, all must combine their votes in a quorum.

[Spratan]

I also invested in RaiBlocks.

If you only understood how horrendously flawed that design is.

I am interested to invest in raiblocks. How flawed is it ?
The dev is very active, so is there any chance of upgrade ?

[iamnotback]

I also invested in RaiBlocks.

If you only understood how horrendously flawed that design is.

I am interested to invest in raiblocks. How flawed is it ?
The dev is very active, so is there any chance of upgrade ?

I don't have access to my unpublished whitepaper at the moment wherein I summarized Raiblocks, and I am not sure I want to release that summary (yet) as I contrasted it against my design.

Suffice it to say that Raiblocks is insecure nonsense. You can locate TPTB_need_war's old debates with the creator (it used to be named block lattice). @monsterer also pointed out the flaws (note @monsterer seems to be gone now)

[iamnotback]

I also invested in RaiBlocks.

If you only understood how horrendously flawed that design is.

I am interested to invest in raiblocks. How flawed is it ?
The dev is very active, so is there any chance of upgrade ?

I don't have access to my unpublished whitepaper at the moment wherein I summarized Raiblocks, and I am not sure I want to release that summary (yet) as I contrasted it against my design.

Suffice it to say that Raiblocks is insecure nonsense. You can locate TPTB_need_war's old debates with the creator (it used to be named block lattice). @monsterer also pointed out the flaws (note @monsterer seems to be gone now)

Here is the part I am willing to publish now (some of it is redacted):

RaiBlocks had a separate partition (“blockchain”) for each user balance. Each user balance partition was an eligible witness voter for each transaction event. Consensus voting was required for transfers between partitions to prevent double-spends. The consensus ordering delegate set was the quorum on each epoch of voting, which was claimed to be final. There were alleged security flaws in this design^{[^RaiBlocks-divergence]}, which is obvious given its consensus ordering set is unbounded and has nothing-at-stake, which can’t be secure per the generalized theory...

^{[^RaiBlocks-divergence]} Shelby Moore III. RaiBlocks divergence. Bitcointalk.org, “Block lattice” thread, post #4, Oct 24, 2015.