Author

Topic: IOTA - page 680. (Read 1473405 times)

sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
February 05, 2016, 08:09:24 AM
OK freshman777 - and your qualifications are?

My qualifications are patience and understanding that cutting edge tech requires time and testing, more testing and some more testing. You lack these qualifications, from your posts. Go buy insured government bonds and treat yourself to 1% yearly risk-free profits.
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000
February 05, 2016, 08:01:55 AM
after careful consideration, I'll let the experts decide  Roll Eyes
Sorry I'm a noob to this kind of response  Grin
@child_harold, he just litle convinced and sometime you are true  Smiley

Edit: if you need time, i have no problem for this  Wink Wink
legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
February 05, 2016, 08:01:49 AM
@cfb: concerning consensus of balance approach: In which case would full nodes not be able to agree on balances? Each of them stores the full tangle, so if one of them tries to validate transaction A, but sees that other nodes validated a conflicting transaction B with more PoW, then A will get rejected, similar to how it works with blockchains, no?
Just like an input cannot be spent twice, a balance cannot be spent twice either?

I can't say how all this will work without running a model. Guys like mthcl can analyze it in their mind, I need to observe the results of a running model.
member
Activity: 72
Merit: 10
February 05, 2016, 08:00:02 AM
I thought about the balance and in-out models a bit more.
I may have changed my mind about the balance model, but i may be completely wrong.

Assume we have multiple networks with relatively high bandwidth internal and very low bandwidth and unrealiabe transport between them,
as is to be expected in an IoT use case. and we have someone sending iota transactions to both networks

(net A )  -  X  - ( net B )

because net A and B both have low connectivity to the rest of the world, they run their own little DAG that gets merged into the global DAG once in a while, to make the
transactions that happen in their networks actually valid.

Now in the input output model, when X sends a transaction to B, that transaction will be saved in the graph of B and will get
valideted by all transactions within B, sensors (inside B) can relatively  savely accept that transactions because a lot of transactions
inside B add a lot of POW to it, until the network is able to connect to global DAG.

In the balance model same thing happens BUT balance model would require that a node recieves every transaction from that account
to make sure the account is not double spending its coins.

double spending is a problem in both cases, but it seems to me low network connectivity would be less of a problem
in the input output model as nodes would not be required to get all transactions of X beause POW is added to that specifif output of X.
In balance model X could send a transaction into net B that might be invalid from the start, If that happens in input/output recieving a double spend
would not be a problem if net B can manage to add enugh POW so that once it gets merged into global DAG it is valid.

Corret me if i am wrong but balance model would complicate how the network comes to consensus A LOT.
So input/output model would be safer for small ( very small, so small they cant save full tangle ) IOTA sensors to accept transactions,
because they only have to check if that input is valid, not if all of the transsactions that this sender made is valid.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
February 05, 2016, 07:48:59 AM
I vote for reusable addresses like in Nxt and balances approach, if and only if this design is secure. More days of testing is not a problem, f*ck the whiners.

Wow, all these noobs laying into me. And yet I'm the one accused of running sock puppets, lol
OK freshman777 - and your qualifications are? So what you're saying is:

I vote for making it better but if and only if it is actually better
 Tongue

Could we perhaps ask upon Sergio (who created DAGcoin) to bring some actual knowledge and expertise to this decision making process?
This peanut gallery consensus (PGC) is not inspiring me with confidence.
legendary
Activity: 1225
Merit: 1000
February 05, 2016, 07:47:27 AM
So since you presumably have no informed opinion on this matter it seems most unwise to comment.

An informed opinion is not given at birth, so let's form one.

Both input / output and balance approach work pretty well in current blockchains. It looks likely that both of them could work in combination with a tangle.

@cfb: concerning consensus of balance approach: In which case would full nodes not be able to agree on balances? Each of them stores the full tangle, so if one of them tries to validate transaction A, but sees that other nodes validated a conflicting transaction B with more PoW, then A will get rejected, similar to how it works with blockchains, no?
Just like an input cannot be spent twice, a balance cannot be spent twice either?

Proposal: Let's integrate balances, see in beta if it works well.
Worst case: If not, then cfb would have to rewrite the code to input/output, and we would start the tangle again from scratch.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
February 05, 2016, 07:34:48 AM
I vote for reusable addresses like in Nxt and balances approach, if and only if this design is secure. More days of testing is not a problem, f*ck the whiners.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
February 05, 2016, 07:26:34 AM
@child_harold you are the only one here how create problem were there aren't.

Im not making a problem, rather voicing my opinion.
+ tangleNinja seemed to agree with me somewhat.

I find it very unlikely that you and 99% of the other people in this forum have enough knowledge to comment on the ramifications of going i/o or account in a hitherto experimental field of applying DAGs to cryptotokens.

So since you presumably have no informed opinion on this matter it seems most unwise to comment.

Therefor, it is a folly.

My advice to consult with Sergio and perhaps Vitalik, on the other hand, does make sense.

My position is that such consultations should have already taken place and these architectural decisions already made by the experts.
copper member
Activity: 37
Merit: 23
February 05, 2016, 07:06:24 AM
@child_harold: It's not all about you. You only participate. Would you have been able to come up with this idea, and also implement it? I don't think so. Give the Iota team credit. You have invested in an experimantal project, delays and set backs are part of that.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 503
Free Julian Assange
February 05, 2016, 07:11:42 AM
@child_harold you are the only one here how create problem were there aren't.

IOTA is not a single man decision project, we have read your opinion so now please stop spamming over and over the same concept.

We all belive in CfB, he posted a question the community have answered.

You answer in NO, we understand that.

You want a vote ? we can organize a signed message votation.
legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
February 05, 2016, 07:10:26 AM
1. Not sure what to say. When it comes it comes I guess. So you mean to tell me that in the year youve been working on IOTA you never thought about the i/o/account thing before?
2. I'd guess I was more involved than 95% of your investors
3  ok
4. I have given both money and my time. I cannot comment on such technical issues. I suggest you consult Sergio and Vitalik

I feel a bit like Jerry in this clip:
Jerry And His New Cabinets
https://youtu.be/5vvWlZUYVOM




I have been constantly returning to account thing but every time few pieces of the puzzle were on wrong places. Your level of involvement is pretty good IMO.

I didn't get that clip, the actors accent is terrible.
copper member
Activity: 37
Merit: 23
February 05, 2016, 06:58:43 AM
Well I am in it because I believe in IOTA (and/or in combination with JINN) and what it is trying to achieve.
Making money is not a bad think but certainly not my prime motive.
I don't care if it is going to be released Cristmas 2017 if that's what it would take. (I prefer sooner Smiley)
newbie
Activity: 13
Merit: 0
February 05, 2016, 07:02:55 AM
@CfB, it should not be a mystery... the best solution will always be the best solution to IOTA longterm.
I say go with the technically sound solution. No need to do things out of hurry and scare. It does not hurt if it takes some more days of testing. Bring the best IOTA to life as possible. And if you can make it stable and secure, avoiding future needs of fixes or changes, even better.
I trust you will do your best!
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
February 05, 2016, 06:52:16 AM
Im just gonna +1 this tangleNinja post (No, I did not write it)

and reiterate:

1. In my estimation it is utter folly and nonsense to be asking the community, at short notice, to make fundamental architecture choices for a project CfB has been working on for a year and which was expected to have already launched. It makes me nervous.

2. CfB's comment that the "level of [community] involvement is pretty upsetting" shocked and angered me. I'm on ryver/twitter and here talking iota. To be perfectly honest given iota hasn't even launched yet I think I've done quite enough already to spread the word. I cannot f***ing believe that he said that.

3. What is this company CfB is talking about?

4. Sure I want the car to be better and faster but I dunno how to make it better and faster. That is precisely why I contributed towards a pool of $500,000.
Besides, I was expecting to be driving the car already!

1. Last moment change is not that rare, "right before the launch" is that period when most of insights come to mind.

2. I expected even more involvement. Maybe I should have spent less time on Iota, in this case I wouldn't expect from others to dedicate 16 hours every day too. Smiley

3. Jinn Labs.

4. I thought that money is not the only thing that was supposed to be put into Iota from every participant, but if it's not reflected in the terms of sale then it's my fault. I fall for this quite often judging about people as about myself.

1. Not sure what to say. When it comes it comes I guess. So you mean to tell me that in the year youve been working on IOTA you never thought about the i/o/account thing before?
2. I'd guess I was more involved than 95% of your investors
3  ok
4. I have given both money and my time. I cannot comment on such technical issues. I suggest you consult Sergio and Vitalik

I feel a bit like Jerry in this clip:
Jerry And His New Cabinets
https://youtu.be/5vvWlZUYVOM


legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
February 05, 2016, 06:40:45 AM
Im just gonna +1 this tangleNinja post (No, I did not write it)

and reiterate:

1. In my estimation it is utter folly and nonsense to be asking the community, at short notice, to make fundamental architecture choices for a project CfB has been working on for a year and which was expected to have already launched. It makes me nervous.

2. CfB's comment that the "level of [community] involvement is pretty upsetting" shocked and angered me. I'm on ryver/twitter and here talking iota. To be perfectly honest given iota hasn't even launched yet I think I've done quite enough already to spread the word. I cannot f***ing believe that he said that.

3. What is this company CfB is talking about?

4. Sure I want the car to be better and faster but I dunno how to make it better and faster. That is precisely why I contributed towards a pool of $500,000.
Besides, I was expecting to be driving the car already!

1. Last moment change is not that rare, "right before the launch" is that period when most of insights come to mind.

2. I expected even more involvement. Maybe I should have spent less time on Iota, in this case I wouldn't expect from others to dedicate 16 hours every day too. Smiley

3. Jinn Labs.

4. I thought that money is not the only thing that was supposed to be put into Iota from every participant, but if it's not reflected in the terms of sale then it's my fault. I fall for this quite often judging about people as about myself.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
February 05, 2016, 06:09:35 AM
Im just gonna +1 this tangleNinja post (No, I did not write it)

and reiterate:

1. In my estimation it is utter folly and nonsense to be asking the community, at short notice, to make fundamental architecture choices for a project CfB has been working on for a year and which was expected to have already launched. It makes me nervous.

2. CfB's comment that the "level of [community] involvement is pretty upsetting" shocked and angered me. I'm on ryver/twitter and here talking iota. To be perfectly honest given iota hasn't even launched yet I think I've done quite enough already to spread the word. I cannot f***ing believe that he said that.

3. What is this company CfB is talking about?

4. Sure I want the car to be better and faster but I dunno how to make it better and faster. That is precisely why I contributed towards a pool of $500,000.
Besides, I was expecting to be driving the car already!



This is a very valuable discussion.d h

I can understand both sides, but the general direction where this is heading worries me.

@IOTA Team, when you guys anounced the crowdsale, you made implications that IOTA was pretty fucking close to beeing ready to launch
and said that we can expect beta before christmas, now the release date for beta was postponed many times, today is febuary 5th and there
is no useable version of IOTA released ( no I dont consider 0.3.0 usable, unless you can figure out how to build a vaild transaction just by looking at the undocumented,
unannotated source code, you really cant expect that )

People not only gave you half a million USD but also gave you shitloads of trust.
Trust in you, your team, your company, your product.

Can you not understand that that trust becomes a bit fragile when you fail to meet expections set by yourself?
 - You said IOTA was close to being lauched, now you ask how basic things should be implemented.
 - repeatedly postponing release dates.

Can you not understand that that trust becomes a bit fragile considering that the general management of this project is unprofessional?
 - I signed up for the email newsletter, never got an email
 - http://collect.iotatoken.com/ TO THIS DAY shows outdated information, you said you were going to change that multiple times.
 - I said this before - no streamlined way of communication - where can i find updates and information? here? ryver? twitter? email? outdated collect.iotatoken website? not even once updated iotatoken website?
 - David once said this is because it is better to have people seek information themselfes, I agree, but if you continue running this project this way people will just stop giving a shit.

How can you look at how the IOTA community is loosing trust and faith In you and not think "Well, thats a little bit our fault"

And then you dare to say things like

right now the level of involvement is pretty upsetting.

Try to take a wild guess as to why.

You should be happy the community has been so patient with you.

But hey, whatever, its not like you actually care about the community and IOTA beeing a great product

I'm just a hired coder in a company that created Iota.

If thats truly all you are then what happens after IOTA is released?
Will your poisition change from "lead dev" to "senior i dont give a shit anymore developer" ?


Honestly I am rather dissapointed.
Dosnt mean i have lost all faith in IOTA, just means I want to point out things that could have been done better.
This all boils down to failure of communication, communicate in a more professional, clear, unambiguous way
this could become the best crypto currency and crypto currency community ever.



full member
Activity: 131
Merit: 100
February 05, 2016, 05:59:42 AM
@Come-from-Beyond

Why don't you organize voting inside NXT, it will be helpful. I know you can fairly easily distribute virtual IOTA token as asset or NXT currency Smiley.

For those of you who are afraid of installing another wallet good news is that you don't need to. You can create your NXT address trough any public node (wallet) with "open API": http://www.peerexplorer.com/nodes. After you choose your node next step is to click on "Action: Open Wallet GUI". You will end up on something like these: http://62.194.6.113:7876/index.html

You only need 1 NXT for voting. you can get 4 NXT on these faucet: http://www.nxtinfo.org/nxt-faucet/

Not sure if that whole exercise would be necessary seeing as the verdict seems to be pretty clear here.
sr. member
Activity: 249
Merit: 250
February 05, 2016, 05:15:32 AM
@Come-from-Beyond

Why don't you organize voting inside NXT, it will be helpful. I know you can fairly easily distribute virtual IOTA token as asset or NXT currency Smiley.

For those of you who are afraid of installing another wallet good news is that you don't need to. You can create your NXT address trough any public node (wallet) with "open API": http://www.peerexplorer.com/nodes. After you choose your node next step is to click on "Action: Open Wallet GUI". You will end up on something like these: http://62.194.6.113:7876/index.html

You only need 1 NXT for voting. you can get 4 NXT on these faucet: http://www.nxtinfo.org/nxt-faucet/
legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
February 05, 2016, 04:54:06 AM
If thats truly all you are then what happens after IOTA is released?
Will your poisition change from "lead dev" to "senior i dont give a shit anymore developer" ?

Once Iota is ready I'll return to Jinn development. Unlike Bitcoin, Iota wasn't planned to be a Swiss army knife, it won't get new features into the core.
legendary
Activity: 2124
Merit: 1013
K-ing®
February 05, 2016, 04:50:36 AM
i'm ready to buy from you all IOTA's you have (1:1),
if you can prove you have it (signed message from deposit address),
and if CfB want to change address (yours 2 mine) in genesis block.

I'm ready to offer you 10%more than you have paid

No sure I can participate in this. If IOTA is sold at least twice as that after the release then I'll feel myself like we robbed that guy.

i'm sure he wont participate Smiley
but if he feel that he is robbed right now....
Jump to: