This is very interesting.
I'm wondering though how this could ever be rolled out as it literally needs the network to be active (or not ?). If I wanna transact I need someone else to transact as well and confirm my tx with his tx. I guess I could also send some more tx myself but that's not really going to fly.
Topic: DagCoin: a cryptocurrency without blocks - page 10. (Read 70869 times)
No, as described in this threads paper, ethereum has nothing to do with a DAGcoin, while Byteball is the First functional DAG coin.
What do you mean by "in this threads paper"? Give us the direct link, please.
^
Still unsure if you picked the right library?
Boss already nagging?
Fear of losing your internship?
Still unsure if you picked the right library?
Boss already nagging?
Fear of losing your internship?
The best image of Byteball is this, an actual DAG.
Ethereum blockchain looks as a DAG too. Does this mean that Ethereum is actually the first DAG coin?
Your argumentation by pictures, brings you to wrong conclusions.
I see in the IOTA thread your scam has born fruit to you, people are saying the "iota tokens" they bought from you are not actually "valid" anymore because they didnt "claim" them.
You do not have the first DAG coin, but you are running one of many scam coins.
The best image of Byteball is this, an actual DAG.
Ethereum blockchain looks as a DAG too. Does this mean that Ethereum is actually the first DAG coin?
^ Still unsure whether you "picked the right library" or not? 
Have you looked at https://byteball.org what is your opinion on that?
Yes, would be interesting to get an opinion because...
...I'm still not convinced that Byteball is a pure DAG coin, to prove my position I would need to generate a lot of transactions on Byteball network to show that in certain conditions (related to DAG topology) TPS growth is negatively impacted by necessity to pick the main chain. If you compared Ethereum (which calls itself blockchain) and Byteball you would see that they don't differ much:
The best image of Byteball is this, an actual DAG.
Byteball is the first DAG-coin, the first! The first IoT coin, and the first on exchanges and actual use in livenet.
Have you looked at https://byteball.org what is your opinion on that?
Yes, would be interesting to get an opinion because...
...I'm still not convinced that Byteball is a pure DAG coin, to prove my position I would need to generate a lot of transactions on Byteball network to show that in certain conditions (related to DAG topology) TPS growth is negatively impacted by necessity to pick the main chain. If you compared Ethereum (which calls itself blockchain) and Byteball you would see that they don't differ much:
If you looked at IOTA you would see this:
If you looked at IOTA you would see this:
http://forum.iota.org/t/discussion-removing-peer-discovery/939/2
IOTA requires that you manually assign peers because running on it's own it implodes from the bandwidth, because of course it does. It removed Bitcoin's throttling mechanism and now they want to figure out how to prevent these out-of-control blocks in this "blockless" blockchain. Sometimes the real world really is stranger than fiction.
IOTA requires that you manually assign peers because running on it's own it implodes from the bandwidth, because of course it does. It removed Bitcoin's throttling mechanism and now they want to figure out how to prevent these out-of-control blocks in this "blockless" blockchain. Sometimes the real world really is stranger than fiction.
I wasn't sure if you are troll or not, but then I looked at your nickname and decided to explain an obvious thing:
IOTA is for Internet-of-Things. Real Internet-of-Things which looks as described here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking... Um, probably too complex for you, I'll try ELI3 instead of ELI5...
IOTA is for Internet-of-Things. Real Internet-of-Things where a device broadcasts packets to the neighbors in vicinity only. We deployed IOTA to classical Internet with routers and other nasty things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone... Arghh, still too complex...
Imagine that we want to check how IOTA would work on Internet-of-Things. We deployed IOTA to classical Internet. Luckily ISPs already block global multicasting, but if we enable automatic peer-discovery then anyone can interfere with our battle-testing. This is why we use manual tethering. In the past we tested automatic peer discovery and it worked bad (which didn't surprise me at all).
Quote
IOTA requires that you manually assign peers because running on it's own it implodes from the bandwidth, because of course it does.
These words reminded me of http://rickandmorty.wikia.com/wiki/Get_Schwifty, you are like that dude who interpreted inapprehensible events to his own benefit and became the main priest of the new cult. You are very very wrong, my friend. I hope in few years you'll get it... I wish they'd stop referring to DAG as "decentralized", especially when years later there is no cryptocurrency in sight that relies on DAG that is also significantly decentralized, for exactly the reasons I explained... More than a year and a half ago.
http://forum.iota.org/t/discussion-removing-peer-discovery/939/2
IOTA requires that you manually assign peers because running on it's own it implodes from the bandwidth, because of course it does. It removed Bitcoin's throttling mechanism and now they want to figure out how to prevent these out-of-control blocks in this "blockless" blockchain. Sometimes the real world really is stranger than fiction.
Have you looked at https://byteball.org what is your opinion on that?I'd like to point out that in DagCoin, it is still only miners that vote. If you're a user that applies work on a transaction and broadcasts it, then you're a miner.
Work is a waste from the perspective of the miners. There is no incentive, or even a method to incentivize miners to do work on transactions in DagCoin. Competition would atrophy hashpower on the network in order to drive up transaction speeds, which is the product that the miner provides, users enjoy, and the only method of remuneration. Mining is just a cost that the miner wants to minimize.
This is just like if we removed the block size limit from Bitcoin and removed the subsidy.
That problem, the lack of funding for difficulty increases in order to slow down transaction speeds, isn't referenced in the white paper unless I missed it. So ultimately to get back to answering your original question "Why 1 sec, not 1 min?" the answer is I don't see any decentralized throttling mechanism that could actually work in DagCoin.
Work is a waste from the perspective of the miners. There is no incentive, or even a method to incentivize miners to do work on transactions in DagCoin. Competition would atrophy hashpower on the network in order to drive up transaction speeds, which is the product that the miner provides, users enjoy, and the only method of remuneration. Mining is just a cost that the miner wants to minimize.
This is just like if we removed the block size limit from Bitcoin and removed the subsidy.
That problem, the lack of funding for difficulty increases in order to slow down transaction speeds, isn't referenced in the white paper unless I missed it. So ultimately to get back to answering your original question "Why 1 sec, not 1 min?" the answer is I don't see any decentralized throttling mechanism that could actually work in DagCoin.
http://forum.iota.org/t/discussion-removing-peer-discovery/939/2
IOTA requires that you manually assign peers because running on it's own it implodes from the bandwidth, because of course it does. It removed Bitcoin's throttling mechanism and now they want to figure out how to prevent these out-of-control blocks in this "blockless" blockchain. Sometimes the real world really is stranger than fiction.
It chose to be decentralized but not trust-less, and let the witnesses take the fees.
By the way, IOTA as claimed is for "Internet of Things", and they use Proof-of-Work.
Let me remind you, as someone who actually works on micro controllers at a big enterprise on IoT producst:
Most IoT chips are supposed to be run on batteries, on 3.3V down to 6mAh. Yes, that is right, the latest BLE chips actually use a full 6mAh when radio is on full power and CPU on hard work mode.
Can you imagine how much "Proof-of-Work" such a device can accomplish? Yes, NONE, nada, zilch. It struggles to maintain an TLS connection. DTLS is what people use as https is too heavy. And why? Because you cant ask your customers go around replacing your batteries every year.
And these guys come in here with their IOTAcoin and claim, the stupid devices will somehow magically perform a Proof-of-Working / wasting electricity, in order to transact?! What the fuck.
So in short, iotacoin is not for IoT. Proof-of-Work does not mix with devices which try to do no work!
The only good coin for IoT is Byteball - the cost of sending a transaction/receiving/subscribing to an address - is similar to cost of doing TLS.
Are those observations and simulations documented somewhere?
Testnet can be observed by anyone helping to test. Feel free to use http://slack.iota.org to join and see. Simulations cover much more than just making sure that it all works as whitepaper says, the results will be published when the simulations are finished.
No it's not "or 100 weak ones". The answer is that DAG works better the more centralized it is. That's the way it's designed.
Interesting claim, we observed the opposite on the testnet and in simulations... No need to continue the discussion, I think.
No it's not "or 100 weak ones". The answer is that DAG works better the more centralized it is. That's the way it's designed.
Interesting claim, we observed the opposite on the testnet and in simulations... No need to continue the discussion, I think.
I am not a "Bitcoin Maximalist"...
Let's continue then?
This is how consensus works - https://forum.iotatoken.com/t/iota-consensus-masterclass/1193. Any flaws?
What do you mean by "flaws"? I'm sure it works as written, but the design drives the network topology towards highly centralized nodes.
In other words; The "Green Squares" are on centralized servers and not on a broad distributed system, which is why I object to people that refer to DAG as some kind of alternative to the blockchain when it simply doesn't work in that use-case (A highly distributed trustless consensus).
For example when you answer questions like this;
Quote
Pascal L:
Lets say there are 100k TPS...won't that require a really strong server?
Come-from-Beyond:
Yes, or 100 weak ones.
Lets say there are 100k TPS...won't that require a really strong server?
Come-from-Beyond:
Yes, or 100 weak ones.
No it's not "or 100 weak ones". The answer is that DAG works better the more centralized it is. That's the way it's designed. It doesn't work equivalently well between 1 "really strong [node]" or "100 weak ones".
On the flipside, Bitcoin's blocks, through POW and the block size limit, allow all transactions to be transferred to literally anyone that wants to run a full node. It's this rate limitation over time (made possible by POW on discrete limited capacity blocks) which allows this synchronization to happen, which is explicitly destroyed in the DAG protocol.
That doesn't mean DAG is "flawed", it just means that it doesn't work as a method to come to decentralized trustless consensus. That's why DAG/IOTA should be separated from the words "Distributed" and "Decentralized" with several paragraphs of clarification.
I am not a "Bitcoin Maximalist"...
Let's continue then?
This is how consensus works - https://forum.iotatoken.com/t/iota-consensus-masterclass/1193. Any flaws?
is it about random function ?
because somehow I'm often stuck on it ...
diceware;
I remember reading Nicolas Dorier book years ago ...
Quote
When you call new Key(), under the hood, you are using a PRNG (Pseudo-Random-NumberGenerator) to generate your private key. On windows, it uses the RNGCryptoServiceProvider of
Windows.
On Android, I use the SecureRandom, and in fact, you can use your own implementation with
RandomUtils.Random.
Windows.
On Android, I use the SecureRandom, and in fact, you can use your own implementation with
RandomUtils.Random.
I am not a "Bitcoin Maximalist"...
Let's continue then?
This is how consensus works - https://forum.iotatoken.com/t/iota-consensus-masterclass/1193. Any flaws?
You could have just saved yourself the effort and said, "Ya you're right, DAG doesn't work as a distributed consensus mechanism.", but whatever floats your boat.
I would save the effort if I saw "Bitcoin Maximalist" stamp on your head earlier...
I am not a "Bitcoin Maximalist". Bitcoin has many flaws, but Bitcoin achieves decentralized trustless consensus which IOTA/DAG can not achieve because the DAG architecture fundamentally breaks the mechanism that allows consensus to form in a decentralized manner.
It's all well and good to use this wherever it's useful, but don't go around pretending that DAG is a magical drop-in replacement for the Bitcoin blockchain which allows "massive scalability" while maintaining anywhere near the same security guarantees and network topology.
DagCoin: a cryptocurrency without blocks
Back in 2012 I thought a lot on a new cryptocurrency that could merge the concepts of transaction and block. Each transaction would carry a proof-of-work and reference one or more previous transactions.
Back in 2012 I thought a lot on a new cryptocurrency that could merge the concepts of transaction and block. Each transaction would carry a proof-of-work and reference one or more previous transactions.
I'm reading the paper ... I maybe get it wrong... but the first analogy that came on the top of my head was ... "dissemination networking"and ICN - Information-centric networking. On these type of communication protocol the data package itself already have all information needed regards source/destination, cryptographic signatures, etc, data is named, so you don't need to armor the pipes ...
Just to clarify .. I do an analogy of each 'tx' acting as an 'ICN data package'.
An interesting project. Thanks for sharing .
You could have just saved yourself the effort and said, "Ya you're right, DAG doesn't work as a distributed consensus mechanism.", but whatever floats your boat.
I would save the effort if I saw "Bitcoin Maximalist" stamp on your head earlier...
You could have just saved yourself the effort and said, "Ya you're right, DAG doesn't work as a distributed consensus mechanism.", but whatever floats your boat.
Jump to: