It's a Yes from me!
This coin has a huge potential - it can be for IOT what BTC is now for the pre-iot era - so any improvement is more than welcome.
Topic: IOTA - page 685. (Read 1473233 times)
48 hrs before genesis and this?
I'm not saying its a bad idea but it is frustrating that this comes up now.
You've been working this for a year... this should have already been done in prep
Im gonna have to say NO, assuming the suggested improvement can come in a fork.
Genesis this weekend as planned imo.
I'm not saying its a bad idea but it is frustrating that this comes up now.
You've been working this for a year... this should have already been done in prep
Im gonna have to say NO, assuming the suggested improvement can come in a fork.
Genesis this weekend as planned imo.
Genesis is ready. What do you mean by "48 hrs"?
CFB, why do you ask people to allow you to do better things than they are already? 
To make people be more involved, right now the level of involvement is pretty upsetting.
Genesis IOTA and you will see how this community performs
You shall not be disappointed as child_harold is my witness
Can you explain the potential problem. What do you mean by worse consensus convergence, in this case?
If a balance is 100 IOTA and there are two payments - for 70 and 80, then which one to accept as legit? With input/output system ambiguity is impossible.
CFB, why do you ask people to allow you to do better things than they are already?
To make people be more involved, right now the level of involvement is pretty upsetting.
48 hrs before genesis and this?
I'm not saying its a bad idea but it is frustrating that this comes up now.
You've been working this for a year... this should have already been done in prep
Im gonna have to say NO, assuming the suggested improvement can come in a fork.
Genesis this weekend as planned imo.
I'm not saying its a bad idea but it is frustrating that this comes up now.
You've been working this for a year... this should have already been done in prep
Im gonna have to say NO, assuming the suggested improvement can come in a fork.
Genesis this weekend as planned imo.
Hey, guys and gals. I'd like to get your feedback on the following:
In it's current implementation Iota's ledger is based on inputs and outputs like Bitcoin. There is another way - balances of accounts like in Nxt and Ethereum.
Now I see that if Iota used the latter it would be more efficient because:
1. No need to send the change back to myself which makes the tangle smaller
2. A lot of dust inputs could be spent with a single payment and this would be more secure because every address reuse leaks the private key
3. A new address wouldn't be needed for every incoming payment (this would make acceptance of Iota donations simple, in the current design it's PITA for humans)
4. Off-tangle payments would become simpler
5. RAM requirement for full nodes would be relaxed
The only problem that might arise in balance-based Iota is worse consensus convergence, but after analyzing the issue I don't see what could break.
I'm thinking if it's worth to do a little redesign that could take few days of extra work...
In it's current implementation Iota's ledger is based on inputs and outputs like Bitcoin. There is another way - balances of accounts like in Nxt and Ethereum.
Now I see that if Iota used the latter it would be more efficient because:
1. No need to send the change back to myself which makes the tangle smaller
2. A lot of dust inputs could be spent with a single payment and this would be more secure because every address reuse leaks the private key
3. A new address wouldn't be needed for every incoming payment (this would make acceptance of Iota donations simple, in the current design it's PITA for humans)
4. Off-tangle payments would become simpler
5. RAM requirement for full nodes would be relaxed
The only problem that might arise in balance-based Iota is worse consensus convergence, but after analyzing the issue I don't see what could break.
I'm thinking if it's worth to do a little redesign that could take few days of extra work...
Sure sounds good
+1 I always liked the account approach a lot more than input/output
Hey, guys and gals. I'd like to get your feedback on the following:
In it's current implementation Iota's ledger is based on inputs and outputs like Bitcoin. There is another way - balances of accounts like in Nxt and Ethereum.
Now I see that if Iota used the latter it would be more efficient because:
1. No need to send the change back to myself which makes the tangle smaller
2. A lot of dust inputs could be spent with a single payment and this would be more secure because every address reuse leaks the private key
3. A new address wouldn't be needed for every incoming payment (this would make acceptance of Iota donations simple, in the current design it's PITA for humans)
4. Off-tangle payments would become simpler
5. RAM requirement for full nodes would be relaxed
The only problem that might arise in balance-based Iota is worse consensus convergence, but after analyzing the issue I don't see what could break.
I'm thinking if it's worth to do a little redesign that could take few days of extra work...
In it's current implementation Iota's ledger is based on inputs and outputs like Bitcoin. There is another way - balances of accounts like in Nxt and Ethereum.
Now I see that if Iota used the latter it would be more efficient because:
1. No need to send the change back to myself which makes the tangle smaller
2. A lot of dust inputs could be spent with a single payment and this would be more secure because every address reuse leaks the private key
3. A new address wouldn't be needed for every incoming payment (this would make acceptance of Iota donations simple, in the current design it's PITA for humans)
4. Off-tangle payments would become simpler
5. RAM requirement for full nodes would be relaxed
The only problem that might arise in balance-based Iota is worse consensus convergence, but after analyzing the issue I don't see what could break.
I'm thinking if it's worth to do a little redesign that could take few days of extra work...
I have no issues with delays at all as long as it is for the betterment if IOTA.
Hey, guys and gals. I'd like to get your feedback on the following:
In it's current implementation Iota's ledger is based on inputs and outputs like Bitcoin. There is another way - balances of accounts like in Nxt and Ethereum.
Now I see that if Iota used the latter it would be more efficient because:
1. No need to send the change back to myself which makes the tangle smaller
2. A lot of dust inputs could be spent with a single payment and this would be more secure because every address reuse leaks the private key
3. A new address wouldn't be needed for every incoming payment (this would make acceptance of Iota donations simple, in the current design it's PITA for humans)
4. Off-tangle payments would become simpler
5. RAM requirement for full nodes would be relaxed
The only problem that might arise in balance-based Iota is worse consensus convergence, but after analyzing the issue I don't see what could break.
I'm thinking if it's worth to do a little redesign that could take few days of extra work...
In it's current implementation Iota's ledger is based on inputs and outputs like Bitcoin. There is another way - balances of accounts like in Nxt and Ethereum.
Now I see that if Iota used the latter it would be more efficient because:
1. No need to send the change back to myself which makes the tangle smaller
2. A lot of dust inputs could be spent with a single payment and this would be more secure because every address reuse leaks the private key
3. A new address wouldn't be needed for every incoming payment (this would make acceptance of Iota donations simple, in the current design it's PITA for humans)
4. Off-tangle payments would become simpler
5. RAM requirement for full nodes would be relaxed
The only problem that might arise in balance-based Iota is worse consensus convergence, but after analyzing the issue I don't see what could break.
I'm thinking if it's worth to do a little redesign that could take few days of extra work...
Sure sounds good
Hey, guys and gals. I'd like to get your feedback on the following:
In it's current implementation Iota's ledger is based on inputs and outputs like Bitcoin. There is another way - balances of accounts like in Nxt and Ethereum.
Now I see that if Iota used the latter it would be more efficient because:
1. No need to send the change back to myself which makes the tangle smaller
2. A lot of dust inputs could be spent with a single payment and this would be more secure because every address reuse leaks the private key
3. A new address wouldn't be needed for every incoming payment (this would make acceptance of Iota donations simple, in the current design it's PITA for humans)
4. Off-tangle payments would become simpler
5. RAM requirement for full nodes would be relaxed
The only problem that might arise in balance-based Iota is worse consensus convergence, but after analyzing the issue I don't see what could break.
I'm thinking if it's worth to do a little redesign that could take few days of extra work...
In it's current implementation Iota's ledger is based on inputs and outputs like Bitcoin. There is another way - balances of accounts like in Nxt and Ethereum.
Now I see that if Iota used the latter it would be more efficient because:
1. No need to send the change back to myself which makes the tangle smaller
2. A lot of dust inputs could be spent with a single payment and this would be more secure because every address reuse leaks the private key
3. A new address wouldn't be needed for every incoming payment (this would make acceptance of Iota donations simple, in the current design it's PITA for humans)
4. Off-tangle payments would become simpler
5. RAM requirement for full nodes would be relaxed
The only problem that might arise in balance-based Iota is worse consensus convergence, but after analyzing the issue I don't see what could break.
I'm thinking if it's worth to do a little redesign that could take few days of extra work...
Balances of accounts like in Nxt and Ethereum
CFB, why do you ask people to allow you to do better things than they are already?
I suppose CfB is asking because this will make dates shift a little bit...
In general, I believe the benefits of proposed redesign considerably outweigh the impact of few days delay, so its definitely is worth to do (of course if this is really turn out to take just several days, not weeks)
Can you explain the potential problem. What do you mean by worse consensus convergence, in this case?
+1, otherwise sounds okay to me.
I'm thinking if it's worth to do a little redesign that could take few days of extra work...
No problem for me!!
Hey, guys and gals. I'd like to get your feedback on the following:
In it's current implementation Iota's ledger is based on inputs and outputs like Bitcoin. There is another way - balances of accounts like in Nxt and Ethereum.
Now I see that if Iota used the latter it would be more efficient because:
1. No need to send the change back to myself which makes the tangle smaller
2. A lot of dust inputs could be spent with a single payment and this would be more secure because every address reuse leaks the private key
3. A new address wouldn't be needed for every incoming payment (this would make acceptance of Iota donations simple, in the current design it's PITA for humans)
4. Off-tangle payments would become simpler
5. RAM requirement for full nodes would be relaxed
The only problem that might arise in balance-based Iota is worse consensus convergence, but after analyzing the issue I don't see what could break.
I'm thinking if it's worth to do a little redesign that could take few days of extra work...
In it's current implementation Iota's ledger is based on inputs and outputs like Bitcoin. There is another way - balances of accounts like in Nxt and Ethereum.
Now I see that if Iota used the latter it would be more efficient because:
1. No need to send the change back to myself which makes the tangle smaller
2. A lot of dust inputs could be spent with a single payment and this would be more secure because every address reuse leaks the private key
3. A new address wouldn't be needed for every incoming payment (this would make acceptance of Iota donations simple, in the current design it's PITA for humans)
4. Off-tangle payments would become simpler
5. RAM requirement for full nodes would be relaxed
The only problem that might arise in balance-based Iota is worse consensus convergence, but after analyzing the issue I don't see what could break.
I'm thinking if it's worth to do a little redesign that could take few days of extra work...
Take me to the Ryver
News from IOTA's Ryver channel. PM users iotatoken or yassin54 for an invite.
Quote:
IOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTA
msinMon 11:04pm
@David will he Beta include a rough client UI or will it be similar to the current console? Thanks.
Tuesday, February 2nd 2016
David SonsteboTue 1:05am
@msin it'll be a beautiful UI
@msin this is actually the reason for the postponements. We decided to hire a professional team whose expertise is UI to make a beautiful UX. I have given them my vision and their responsibility is to implement it
I feel that UI will be really important due to the 'first impression' factor
IOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTA
End Quote
Screenshot
News from IOTA's Ryver channel. PM users iotatoken or yassin54 for an invite.
Quote:
IOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTA
msinMon 11:04pm
@David will he Beta include a rough client UI or will it be similar to the current console? Thanks.
Tuesday, February 2nd 2016
David SonsteboTue 1:05am
@msin it'll be a beautiful UI
@msin this is actually the reason for the postponements. We decided to hire a professional team whose expertise is UI to make a beautiful UX. I have given them my vision and their responsibility is to implement it
I feel that UI will be really important due to the 'first impression' factor
IOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTAIOTA
End Quote
Screenshot
Thanks! Please keep us updated here. It's less time consuming to get updates through forums than chat.
Ryver is both though, you can easily pin any chat message as a forum post within Ryver
Ryver is a great platform/tool.
Making sure progress is conveyed here is also great, too.
Thanks again to the devs for such an innovative and powerful project.
last price for KIOTA was 350 NXT for 1000 IOTA, that would evaluate IOTA at a marketcap of 349999999 NXT or 7756 BTC or 2,792,159 USD
can you please give me the asset ID ?
found the post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1262688.680
I advise you this, if you need iota https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13639083
more detail here https://nxtforum.org/asset-exchange-general/(ann)-iota-asset/msg206652/#msg206652
last price for KIOTA was 350 NXT for 1000 IOTA, that would evaluate IOTA at a marketcap of 349999999 NXT or 7756 BTC or 2,792,159 USD
can you please give me the asset ID ?
found the post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1262688.680
last price for KIOTA was 350 NXT for 1000 IOTA, that would evaluate IOTA at a marketcap of 349999999 NXT or 7756 BTC or 2,792,159 USD
can you please give me the asset ID ?
Jump to: