New update make azure look like the joke. Everything and kitchen sink.
You must not understand Microsoft's strategy. There'll be a big update about real life application for the IOTA-Azure program soon.
Topic: IOTA - page 617. (Read 1473405 times)
It is mentioned in the previous update #5 https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/azure-blockchain-update-5/
Ah thanks buddy, good to see you here
Good to see you here too!!!
New update make azure look like the joke. Everything and kitchen sink.
IOTA was mentioned in update #5
KitchenSinkCoin (another 2.0 project) coming soon to Azure.
New update make azure look like the joke. Everything and kitchen sink.
It is mentioned in the previous update #5 https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/azure-blockchain-update-5/
Ah thanks buddy, good to see you here
It is mentioned in the previous update #5 https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/azure-blockchain-update-5/
@CfB: Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die
Looks like a good conspiracy theory!
Why did you say that "for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain".
If the Tangle ultimately achieves consensus, why not use it for money?
I wrote this because at that time the current IOTA solution was unknown to me. Well, I'm just a simple mathematician, don't expect too much from me
So you no longer agree with that statement?
Correct. My opinions are not set in stone
Why did you say that "for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain".
If the Tangle ultimately achieves consensus, why not use it for money?
I wrote this because at that time the current IOTA solution was unknown to me. Well, I'm just a simple mathematician, don't expect too much from me
So you no longer agree with that statement?
@CfB: Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die
Why did you say that "for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain".
While mthcl is answering, my thoughts:
1. He was under influence of Lord of the Rings, more exactly this verse:
Quote
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
2. He was thinking about financial transactions that require global ordering. Pure money transfers don't require global ordering because they have A + B = B + A quality.
Why did you say that "for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain".
If the Tangle ultimately achieves consensus, why not use it for money?
I wrote this because at that time the current IOTA solution was unknown to me. Well, I'm just a simple mathematician, don't expect too much from me
Why did you say that "for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain".
While mthcl is answering, my thoughts:
1. He was under influence of Lord of the Rings, more exactly this verse:
Quote
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
2. He was thinking about financial transactions that require global ordering. Pure money transfers don't require global ordering because they have A + B = B + A quality.
For the record: I've learned about a possibility of using DAGs (in crypto) from ChuckOne, in a private conversation. In fact, I think it's one of these ideas that were "flying around": many people should have been thinking about that independently.
Could somebody provide an example of "other information for which there is no possibility of conflicts"?
I can publish "I love Mary" in one block and "I love Alice" in the other. There is no contradiction, since maybe I love both of them. But, of course, there are some possible conflicts that may arise from such a situation...
Speaking more seriously, one may use a DAG e.g. for time-stamping purposes (since there is a well-defined partial order).
Quote
Of course, for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain. But if we want to store some other information for which there is no possibility of conflicts similar to double-spending, we may well use another chain for that, or even a DAG.
Could somebody provide an example of "other information for which there is no possibility of conflicts"?
Speaking more seriously, one may use a DAG e.g. for time-stamping purposes (since there is a well-defined partial order).
Hi mthcl,
Thanks for the unexpected reply.
Why did you say that "for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain".
If the Tangle ultimately achieves consensus, why not use it for money?
The "I love X" metaphor is amusing: would a double spend go "I love Bob" in one block and "I also love Bob" in another?
p.s. ChuckOne?
For the record: I've learned about a possibility of using DAGs (in crypto) from ChuckOne, in a private conversation. In fact, I think it's one of these ideas that were "flying around": many people should have been thinking about that independently.
Could somebody provide an example of "other information for which there is no possibility of conflicts"?
I can publish "I love Mary" in one block and "I love Alice" in the other. There is no contradiction, since maybe I love both of them. But, of course, there are some possible conflicts that may arise from such a situation...
Speaking more seriously, one may use a DAG e.g. for time-stamping purposes (since there is a well-defined partial order).
Quote
Of course, for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain. But if we want to store some other information for which there is no possibility of conflicts similar to double-spending, we may well use another chain for that, or even a DAG.
Could somebody provide an example of "other information for which there is no possibility of conflicts"?
Speaking more seriously, one may use a DAG e.g. for time-stamping purposes (since there is a well-defined partial order).
Could a member of that forum pls re-post it here or stick it up on pastebin? thanks
Quote
June 26, 2014, 11:38:05 pm
Let me bring back an idea that we briefly discussed in our private conversations with Chuck and Matt, but then kind of left behind. So, why do we need a chain of blocks, and not a DAG? I mean a "one-ended" DAG, of course, so that there are sometimes parallel branches, but they eventually merge:
That's an easy question: it is because if the "parallel" branches are allowed, they may contain "conflicting" information, leading e.g. to double-spends. OK, for now.
But let me ask another question: why are we obliged to have only one blockchain, which is used for virtually everything?
Suppose that we need a place for storing some sort of information, such that no conflict between "parallel" chains may arise. For example, the accounts may "declare" or "register" something (e.g., "I've just forged a block", "I've just made an instant transaction"), wanting to later have a proof they did it (i.e., this can be particularly useful for timestamping). Then there is no problem if different "declarations" are made on different branches: this just proves that the account has declared two different things (those declarations are signed, of course). So, why not use a DAG? It can be probably built faster (the network latency is not so much a problem), and, if a restricted set of nodes is allowed to build this DAG, it can be really fast, IMHO.
So, what do you think? In my opinion, if this is viable, it can be quite useful for TF.
EDIT1: It seems I didn't express myself in a sufficiently clear way. Of course, for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain. But if we want to store some other information for which there is no possibility of conflicts similar to double-spending, we may well use another chain for that, or even a DAG.
EDIT2: I think there is a very important advantage of DAGs over chains: it is much easier to attack a chain than to attack a DAG! As you know, there are many attack scenarios that go like this: a bad guy is doing something to create an alternative subchain, and then feeds this subchain to good guys. If the alternative subchain is "better", then the Dark Side wins. However, this kind of attack would be useless if a DAG is used instead of chain: the nodes would just store the two subchains, and that's all.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2014, 03:25:41 pm by mthcl »
Let me bring back an idea that we briefly discussed in our private conversations with Chuck and Matt, but then kind of left behind. So, why do we need a chain of blocks, and not a DAG? I mean a "one-ended" DAG, of course, so that there are sometimes parallel branches, but they eventually merge:
That's an easy question: it is because if the "parallel" branches are allowed, they may contain "conflicting" information, leading e.g. to double-spends. OK, for now.
But let me ask another question: why are we obliged to have only one blockchain, which is used for virtually everything?
Suppose that we need a place for storing some sort of information, such that no conflict between "parallel" chains may arise. For example, the accounts may "declare" or "register" something (e.g., "I've just forged a block", "I've just made an instant transaction"), wanting to later have a proof they did it (i.e., this can be particularly useful for timestamping). Then there is no problem if different "declarations" are made on different branches: this just proves that the account has declared two different things (those declarations are signed, of course). So, why not use a DAG? It can be probably built faster (the network latency is not so much a problem), and, if a restricted set of nodes is allowed to build this DAG, it can be really fast, IMHO.
So, what do you think? In my opinion, if this is viable, it can be quite useful for TF.
EDIT1: It seems I didn't express myself in a sufficiently clear way. Of course, for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain. But if we want to store some other information for which there is no possibility of conflicts similar to double-spending, we may well use another chain for that, or even a DAG.
EDIT2: I think there is a very important advantage of DAGs over chains: it is much easier to attack a chain than to attack a DAG! As you know, there are many attack scenarios that go like this: a bad guy is doing something to create an alternative subchain, and then feeds this subchain to good guys. If the alternative subchain is "better", then the Dark Side wins. However, this kind of attack would be useless if a DAG is used instead of chain: the nodes would just store the two subchains, and that's all.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2014, 03:25:41 pm by mthcl »
Thanks! This is fascinating.
So it is possible Satoshi considered a DAG model btu favored a chain for the following reason:
Quote
Of course, for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain. But if we want to store some other information for which there is no possibility of conflicts similar to double-spending, we may well use another chain for that, or even a DAG.
Could somebody provide an example of "other information for which there is no possibility of conflicts"?
And what does this mean for people that want to send IOTA as a monetary token? A long confirmation time or a double-spend?
In Bitcoin a double-spend is an attack and yet:
Quote
…it is much easier to attack a chain than to attack a DAG!
so on this point im fuzzy. define attack i guess.
Could a member of that forum pls re-post it here or stick it up on pastebin? thanks
Quote
June 26, 2014, 11:38:05 pm
Let me bring back an idea that we briefly discussed in our private conversations with Chuck and Matt, but then kind of left behind. So, why do we need a chain of blocks, and not a DAG? I mean a "one-ended" DAG, of course, so that there are sometimes parallel branches, but they eventually merge:
That's an easy question: it is because if the "parallel" branches are allowed, they may contain "conflicting" information, leading e.g. to double-spends. OK, for now.
But let me ask another question: why are we obliged to have only one blockchain, which is used for virtually everything?
Suppose that we need a place for storing some sort of information, such that no conflict between "parallel" chains may arise. For example, the accounts may "declare" or "register" something (e.g., "I've just forged a block", "I've just made an instant transaction"), wanting to later have a proof they did it (i.e., this can be particularly useful for timestamping). Then there is no problem if different "declarations" are made on different branches: this just proves that the account has declared two different things (those declarations are signed, of course). So, why not use a DAG? It can be probably built faster (the network latency is not so much a problem), and, if a restricted set of nodes is allowed to build this DAG, it can be really fast, IMHO.
So, what do you think? In my opinion, if this is viable, it can be quite useful for TF.
EDIT1: It seems I didn't express myself in a sufficiently clear way. Of course, for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain. But if we want to store some other information for which there is no possibility of conflicts similar to double-spending, we may well use another chain for that, or even a DAG.
EDIT2: I think there is a very important advantage of DAGs over chains: it is much easier to attack a chain than to attack a DAG! As you know, there are many attack scenarios that go like this: a bad guy is doing something to create an alternative subchain, and then feeds this subchain to good guys. If the alternative subchain is "better", then the Dark Side wins. However, this kind of attack would be useless if a DAG is used instead of chain: the nodes would just store the two subchains, and that's all.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2014, 03:25:41 pm by mthcl »
Let me bring back an idea that we briefly discussed in our private conversations with Chuck and Matt, but then kind of left behind. So, why do we need a chain of blocks, and not a DAG? I mean a "one-ended" DAG, of course, so that there are sometimes parallel branches, but they eventually merge:
That's an easy question: it is because if the "parallel" branches are allowed, they may contain "conflicting" information, leading e.g. to double-spends. OK, for now.
But let me ask another question: why are we obliged to have only one blockchain, which is used for virtually everything?
Suppose that we need a place for storing some sort of information, such that no conflict between "parallel" chains may arise. For example, the accounts may "declare" or "register" something (e.g., "I've just forged a block", "I've just made an instant transaction"), wanting to later have a proof they did it (i.e., this can be particularly useful for timestamping). Then there is no problem if different "declarations" are made on different branches: this just proves that the account has declared two different things (those declarations are signed, of course). So, why not use a DAG? It can be probably built faster (the network latency is not so much a problem), and, if a restricted set of nodes is allowed to build this DAG, it can be really fast, IMHO.
So, what do you think? In my opinion, if this is viable, it can be quite useful for TF.
EDIT1: It seems I didn't express myself in a sufficiently clear way. Of course, for money transactions, there should be one and only one chain. But if we want to store some other information for which there is no possibility of conflicts similar to double-spending, we may well use another chain for that, or even a DAG.
EDIT2: I think there is a very important advantage of DAGs over chains: it is much easier to attack a chain than to attack a DAG! As you know, there are many attack scenarios that go like this: a bad guy is doing something to create an alternative subchain, and then feeds this subchain to good guys. If the alternative subchain is "better", then the Dark Side wins. However, this kind of attack would be useless if a DAG is used instead of chain: the nodes would just store the two subchains, and that's all.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2014, 03:25:41 pm by mthcl »
A bit difficult to follow without proper delineation but here's the pastebin from the 3 pages of comments:
http://pastebin.com/fz7GMs4a
Jump to: