Any revolutionary consensus idea such as IOTA?

[tintinthong]

A lot have been sceptical around the hype that is placed around IOTA, although it brings to mind so many new ways to think about the blockchain (or the Tangle).

No transaction fees, no miners(miners being the participants), the use of a regulator at the initiation of the network to make system 30% honest, the Tangle itself which improves security and efficiency as the network gets larger, the use of ternary encoding which (may be) quantum-resistant.

All these thoughts are so good to someone who does not understand the implications of the technology. For example, their attempt to make their own hash function, the curl, had security flaws. And everyone knows to never try to make your own cryptography. Several technologist have suggested that what IOTA does is unnecessary complicated, but sometimes I like the freshness that breaks the mould of how to do consensus protocols.

Perhaps, there are other coins out there which put creativity above practicality in their consensus. Do you know some innovative yet legitimate coins?

[1713485581]

1713485581

[1713485581]

1713485581

[1713485581]

1713485581

[1713485581]

1713485581

[1713485581]

1713485581

[surfinonmyownwavebaby]

Yes I think I do know some coins like this and ones that function similar to IOTA in what they are trying to accomplish with DAGs are two coins called Byteball (GBYTE) and RaiBlocks (XRB). I would suggest looking into both especially XRB it has similar ideas to IOTA and if executed could mean good things.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

A lot have been sceptical around the hype that is placed around IOTA, although it brings to mind so many new ways to think about the blockchain (or the Tangle).

No transaction fees, no miners(miners being the participants), the use of a regulator at the initiation of the network to make system 30% honest, the Tangle itself which improves security and efficiency as the network gets larger, the use of ternary encoding which (may be) quantum-resistant.

All these thoughts are so good to someone who does not understand the implications of the technology. For example, their attempt to make their own hash function, the curl, had security flaws. And everyone knows to never try to make your own cryptography. Several technologist have suggested that what IOTA does is unnecessary complicated, but sometimes I like the freshness that breaks the mould of how to do consensus protocols.

Perhaps, there are other coins out there which put creativity above practicality in their consensus. Do you know some innovative yet legitimate coins?

Everytime someone claims "I've got this new coin, it's better than bitcoin and as secure as bitcoin or even more, and it uses no miners and no fees" my scam alarms got all time highs.

IOTA has been criticized heavily already, and I think it's demonstrated how it is not a better system than PoW. It has it's pros and cons, but you cannot trust a 100 billion dollar economy on that system at all.

Dagcoin and Byteball use the so called DAG (Direct Acyclic Graph) rather than classical Bitcoin-like blockchain. This may seem like a good idea, but again, has pros and cons. And it's obvious the token distribution problem is an huge one, but look into these.

I've also heard something about Hashgraph but im not sure what this done does yet.

[Hydrogen]

In a world without transfer fees, what motive would incentivize miners to produce the high quantities of hash power necessary to secure a blockchain? Transfer fees undoubtedly exude a malus in terms of producing electronic payments which are less efficient. However there is an upside to transfer fees in that they incentivize miners to fulfill their role in producing hashpower to keep things secure.

Removing transfer fees from the equation has the potential to produce a chink in the security of crypto. It could be compared to removing a key jenga block from the tower, producing instability which could eventually bring everything crashing down. Earlier this year we saw a number of miners leave bitcoin to mine bitcoin cash. This created a brief period of time when bitcoin was more vulnerable than usual to cryptographic attacks.

The key to alts which claim to have solved transfer fees is how they propose to incentivize miners to devote hashpower to the network. Removing transfer fees creates a vacuum which must be filled for a fully functional alt to work. Of course, I'm only covering the basics. It is possible people have invented methods to compensate. When will we see real world superior alternatives to transfer fees deployed, I wonder?

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

In a world without transfer fees, what motive would incentivize miners to produce the high quantities of hash power necessary to secure a blockchain? Transfer fees undoubtedly exude a malus in terms of producing electronic payments which are less efficient. However there is an upside to transfer fees in that they incentivize miners to fulfill their role in producing hashpower to keep things secure.

Removing transfer fees from the equation has the potential to produce a chink in the security of crypto. It could be compared to removing a key jenga block from the tower, producing instability which could eventually bring everything crashing down. Earlier this year we saw a number of miners leave bitcoin to mine bitcoin cash. This created a brief period of time when bitcoin was more vulnerable than usual to cryptographic attacks.

The key to alts which claim to have solved transfer fees is how they propose to incentivize miners to devote hashpower to the network. Removing transfer fees creates a vacuum which must be filled for a fully functional alt to work. Of course, I'm only covering the basics. It is possible people have invented methods to compensate. When will we see real world superior alternatives to transfer fees deployed, I wonder?

But what these "bitcoin 2.0" or "bitcoin 3.0" (if we assume that Ethereum was sold as "bitcoin 2.0" to newbies) claims is that their security model doesn't need miners, because the validation is done by the people transacting, so fees are effectively out of the question.

Of course such an huge claim needs to be backed up. Thus far not a single of these models are better than what Proof of Work can deliver so far, rendering all these "this is the next bitcoin" altcoins as nothing but smoke and mirrors.

[tintinthong]

Yes I think I do know some coins like this and ones that function similar to IOTA in what they are trying to accomplish with DAGs are two coins called Byteball (GBYTE) and RaiBlocks (XRB). I would suggest looking into both especially XRB it has similar ideas to IOTA and if executed could mean good things.

Thank you for the reply. Indeed. I have been following IOTA and Byteball. And, although their setup is slightly different(ie purpose of the token, transaction fees), but they are both structured on the DAG. I wonder what other innovations the DAG can bring in. After all, there exist tons of statistical real-time learning algorithms on the DAG, such as bayesian nets, which have been proven useful. In an application like IOT, this could mean quite a revolution as these learning algorithms are generally good for sensors and signal processing. I am however skeptical about the ternary part of IOTa-- that is the most concerning for me.

[tintinthong]

A lot have been sceptical around the hype that is placed around IOTA, although it brings to mind so many new ways to think about the blockchain (or the Tangle).

No transaction fees, no miners(miners being the participants), the use of a regulator at the initiation of the network to make system 30% honest, the Tangle itself which improves security and efficiency as the network gets larger, the use of ternary encoding which (may be) quantum-resistant.

All these thoughts are so good to someone who does not understand the implications of the technology. For example, their attempt to make their own hash function, the curl, had security flaws. And everyone knows to never try to make your own cryptography. Several technologist have suggested that what IOTA does is unnecessary complicated, but sometimes I like the freshness that breaks the mould of how to do consensus protocols.

Perhaps, there are other coins out there which put creativity above practicality in their consensus. Do you know some innovative yet legitimate coins?

Everytime someone claims "I've got this new coin, it's better than bitcoin and as secure as bitcoin or even more, and it uses no miners and no fees" my scam alarms got all time highs.

IOTA has been criticized heavily already, and I think it's demonstrated how it is not a better system than PoW. It has it's pros and cons, but you cannot trust a 100 billion dollar economy on that system at all.

Dagcoin and Byteball use the so called DAG (Direct Acyclic Graph) rather than classical Bitcoin-like blockchain. This may seem like a good idea, but again, has pros and cons. And it's obvious the token distribution problem is an huge one, but look into these.

I've also heard something about Hashgraph but im not sure what this done does yet.

Agreed. I just think it is too good to be true.

Until we see the main net up and running without regulator. And wallets synchronised and applied to market users. We can only speculate. Bitcoin was the first, so people are already familiar to using it. I think Bitcoin will just become a secure store of value....

Hashgraph looks so interesting. How did I not hear about this?

[tintinthong]

In a world without transfer fees, what motive would incentivize miners to produce the high quantities of hash power necessary to secure a blockchain? Transfer fees undoubtedly exude a malus in terms of producing electronic payments which are less efficient. However there is an upside to transfer fees in that they incentivize miners to fulfill their role in producing hashpower to keep things secure.

Removing transfer fees from the equation has the potential to produce a chink in the security of crypto. It could be compared to removing a key jenga block from the tower, producing instability which could eventually bring everything crashing down. Earlier this year we saw a number of miners leave bitcoin to mine bitcoin cash. This created a brief period of time when bitcoin was more vulnerable than usual to cryptographic attacks.

The key to alts which claim to have solved transfer fees is how they propose to incentivize miners to devote hashpower to the network. Removing transfer fees creates a vacuum which must be filled for a fully functional alt to work. Of course, I'm only covering the basics. It is possible people have invented methods to compensate. When will we see real world superior alternatives to transfer fees deployed, I wonder?

I agree with AtheistAKASaneBrain.  The transactors are the miners and they are somewhat compulsory.

But what these "bitcoin 2.0" or "bitcoin 3.0" (if we assume that Ethereum was sold as "bitcoin 2.0" to newbies) claims is that their security model doesn't need miners, because the validation is done by the people transacting, so fees are effectively out of the question.

Of course such an huge claim needs to be backed up. Thus far not a single of these models are better than what Proof of Work can deliver so far, rendering all these "this is the next bitcoin" altcoins as nothing but smoke and mirrors.

But, keep in mind that bitcoin also has double-layer security, as the miners secure the transactions and the validators filter the blocks broadcasted

[AngelOnCrypto]

Hashgraph and Swirlds project. Coming next year.

[tintinthong]

Hashgraph and Swirlds project. Coming next year.

I am a fan!

[Hydrogen]

But what these "bitcoin 2.0" or "bitcoin 3.0" (if we assume that Ethereum was sold as "bitcoin 2.0" to newbies) claims is that their security model doesn't need miners, because the validation is done by the people transacting, so fees are effectively out of the question.

Of course such an huge claim needs to be backed up. Thus far not a single of these models are better than what Proof of Work can deliver so far, rendering all these "this is the next bitcoin" altcoins as nothing but smoke and mirrors.

I'm not 100% current on this. My impression is, the "bitcoin 2.0" or "bitcoin 3.0" transfer fee less implementations are like SETI's distributed computing model. They're similar to the old internet movement where server side functionality was gradually shifted client side via javascript, ajax, flash, html5 and similar frameworks which shift calculations from servers to an end users browser.

Bitcoin uses specialized and dedicated miners to generate hashrate. The inverse opposite to this model may be distributing hashrate across a large number of non-dedicated and non-specialized users in an attempt to compensate for quality with quantity. If that's the approach "bitcoin 2.0" projects are taking then perhaps its accurate to describe them as being similar to SETI where volunteers download software which runs in the background to compile a decent amount of computational power across a large number of end users.

There could also be some key algorithmic differences, like I said I'm not 100% current on it but the differences might be inferred or deduced on a fundamental level without knowing specifics.