Topic: IOTA - page 718. (Read 1473233 times)

I read the white paper on the first day this IOTA post was made.  Has it been significantly updated since 10/21?

In other words, should I re-read the white paper?  I want to stay abreast of this tech. B-)

Ah yes, so in the merchant example, he can improve his transaction confirmation rate by running his own "off-tangle" train of transactions, which eventually will get merged onto the main net tangle if he is being an honest merchant lol.

As for dumb reconfirmations, you mean to say that this is really a non-issue and would in-fact just lead to greater security and higher cumulative transaction weights. Makes sense.. the spam is not exactly coming at free cost from a node since there is POW invested in each transaction (electricity costs i guess). However, i guess I'll probably understand this better in time.

Very fascinating tech i must say, looking forward to the launch. Good luck to you and team.

If a device paid to a merchant then the marchant himself can confirm all pending transactions sent to him by organizing these transactions into few subtrees and confirming the roots.

"Dumb" reconfirmation increases amplitude of cosine pulses making some devices to generate 2-3 extra blank transactions which increases security of the system.

Interesting, maybe mthcl can comment more on this. Thanks.

Also if you could clarify my second set of questions: So a strategy for devices stuck with unconfirmed transactions would be to send another blank transaction referencing the original unapproved transaction. Since this network will be used primarily by non-humans, such a behavior would need to be coded into the IOT device itself right? For example: If transaction does not confirm withing x time, then resend a blank transaction with reference to first one.
How would this work out in a larger simulation where many devices would use such a strategy? Could this cause a spam of blank transactions in the network where many devices are trying to promote their own transactions for faster confirmation times? Or is this a non-issue?

It's a question to mthcl, I think. Simulation shows that Tangle pulses: its width, tx confirmation time and other parameters have clear cosine pattern.

Question for CFB -

I've been trying to visualize the way the DAG would evolve in real world usage and how the transaction confirmation times would behave.
So if i understand correctly, the tips with the highest weights are encouraged to be approved first by incoming fresh transactions. In such a case, if there are is a sudden surge of new transactions followed immediately by a period of very low transactions, then many of the transactions in the first wave would end up waiting longer than usual for approval/confirmation, correct?

I then understand that the confirmation times may actually be very unpredictable in the initial stages of the network when there is a sporadic rate of new incoming transactions.
If true, then do you expect these uneven transaction confirmation times to even out as the volume of transactions eventually increases?

I'm no tech expert, but would like to understand this a little.

 **Still reading the whitepaper**

Edit: Another question - So a strategy for devices stuck with unconfirmed transactions would be to send another blank transaction referencing the original unapproved transaction. Since this network will be used primarily by non-humans, such a behavior would need to be coded into the IOT device itself right? For example: If transaction does not confirm withing x time, then resend a blank transaction with reference to first one.
How would this work out in a larger simulation where many devices would use such a strategy? Could this cause a spam of blank transactions in the network where many devices are trying to promote their own transactions for faster confirmation times? Or is this a non-issue?

The world is not that easy...

Given that IoT is the universal abbreviation for Internet-of-Things, this is kind of inevitable, but does not matter at all. IOTA is not IoT-A. And IOTA is a token and payment protocol for IoT, this IoT-A project is a lot more vague.
More importantly I can't find any info that they are still active, not to mention their insanely outdated website look. The IOTA brand is ours.

its dangerous, if you share the same name within the same field. you can run easily into law issues...
Would be something else if they sell cola...

Haha, no. While interesting, this is not an issue at all IMO. They don't even seem active.

wtf. seems like a name change is advisable...

http://www.iot-a.eu/public

Something interesting.

In our start-up or on IOTA specifically, excluding the hardware side? If the latter: 3.


We officially began work on IOTA as a dedicated project this summer.

How many devs do you have? How many other staffs do you have?

How long have IOTA been developed, by how many devs?

Thanks,

IOTA is software, not investment. If you are saying that you are BUYING the software, fine. Just making sure that you don't think IOTA is a security or investment, as explained in the risk document, it's not.

Need not to worry I only invest in IOTA. But I have trust in IOTA dev team. 

Hm, it looks like you invest into me. If it's so I insist that you think again, too much burden for me if anyone buys iotas because of my involvement.

After seeing your answer I would definitely invest in IOTA. Thanks! 

7.62

This question cannot really be answered without legal implications. The only thing we can say is that we would not be wasting our time with it if we ourselves did not see the potential in the software that is IOTA. Whether you think it'll fail or succeed (whatever parameters you use to measure this) is 100% up to you.