Just to remember to this post. Check my signature...
I see a similarity between Tangle and the human race (or mostly animal or living species): every child has a father and a mother. In the Tangle every transaction checks two earlier transaction. Or?
I think, later we need Darwin really to analyze the Tangle - how was "new species" born.
"new species" = many many new economical communities, they don't wish to mix with others, because i.e.
they has already conflict of interest with other economies on the Tangle......
Are you wish a such economical environment later for our human race?
Do you really compare Darwin with the a DAG. Sounds like a little bit awkward.
In the current IOTA implementation, nodes only trust (value) transactions referenced and approved by milestones issued by the coordinator.
Similar to Bitcoin, where checkpoints were used until 16.06.2014, the use of this centralized "finality device" is currently still necessary to ensure the security of the network, which is in its infancy.
Maybe you should aware of the fact, that until end this year the concept "In the Tangle every transaction checks two earlier transaction" will be gone. So, no more Darwin...
At this Point, consensus, will be defined by, (FPC) "Fast Probalistic Consensus".
What is FPC?In fancy terms, the FPC is a leaderless probabilistic binary consensus protocol of low communicative complexity that is robust in a Byzantine infrastructure.
Let us see what all these terms really mean, and first introduce a lighter version of FPC that is easy to implement and contains most of the important features.
We assume that there are n nodes indexed 1,2,..., n in the network . Each node i has an opinion or state. We denote s_i (t) for the opinion of node i at time t. Opinions take value in {0,1} ; for this reason we speak of a binary consensus.
The basic idea is majority voting. In each round, each node queries k random nodes and sets its opinion to the majority of the queried nodes. It's that simple! However, this simple majority voting proves vulnerable to faulty nodes and malicious attackers. It needs an additional ingredient, in fact an additional randomness, to make it robust.
More precisely, at each step, each node selects k random nodes C_i , queries their opinions, and computes the median opinion:
I compare IOTA to Darwin - the
LIFE working since some years on our globe... >;DO=
I think in my post, the TANGLE will be forked later, and it will have always a leader (!!!!!) in this leaderless consensus protocol ... as in the LIFE we taste it.
Just some question.
1.) Are this algo' solved already an attack with small transactions? i.e. if some hundred, thousand nodes producing only 1 IOTA (!!!) for random addresses, and later try it to use again?
It was a question of me targeted CfB (sorry BCNext on reddit, but he / she dleted that acc after the conversation ... ... ...) on early 2017 ... in IOTA AMA ... I asked some "anything", sure.
One "anything" of me was solved - MAYBE - with FPC (( but with maybe a leader specie later through a kind of an EVOLUTION of the LIFE of all FORKs of TANGLE's >:DO= )) but I asked this possible and simple attack also.
And:
2.) How long will run this testnet of IOTA, and from which time can we ((the original investors of the IOTA project)) calculate
with a start of the well tested REALNET with our original stake? Just to KNOW >;DO=
