Does Iota (DAG tangles) need to be only for IoT applications?
What advantage does it have over a normal block chain? Only the faster confirmation time (yet to be quantified) and not needing large blocks (yet all "full" nodes still pretty much need to see all transactions so that aspect of scaling isn't changed from Bitcoin)?
Iota can be used outside of IoT too.
Some advantages are listed here (that thread may be interesting) -
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12492916...
So overall I think this DAG stuff is an improvement over traditional PoW block chains in general, not just for IoT. But I do think I may have a superior design, but I am still analyzing to see what attributes the DAG might have that are superior. The elimination of the blocks and the aliasing error of chain reorganizations perhaps, but seems there are analogous issues in the DAG.
Please do not take my post as desiring to rain on your thread. I won't belabor my points. I am just trying to see where for example we might even collaborate if at all. Looking with an open mind. Cheers.
...
They key advantage I see for DAG tangle form of consensus versus a block chain, my
ClickzSync design, and Lightning Networks, is that appending your transaction into the DAG tangle is autonomous and permission-less (notwithstanding you probably want to see as much of the breadth of the tree as possible thus need a reasonably powerful server and internet connection, or delegate to one)! That is a very profound distinction!
This means that any user can append their transaction to the consensus network and can't be censored per se. Now their transaction might not get included in any other branches of the tree if there is 100% censorship of that transaction, but this isn't very likely. It isn't a 51% all-or-nothing control as in Bitcoin and the conceptual reason is because a DAG tangle has multiple branches of consensus! And even if the probability of double-spend is high on a transaction that has been censored by a large % of the network (not included in their branches), the transaction still has a record in the DAG tangle and so the recipient can still accept the funds if they so choose to take that risk. In other words, the consensus network can multifurcate to route around censorship.
Having said this, the most optimum design for block scaling is not DAG tangles alone, but integrated with my
ClickzSync design. And then also supporting the necessary opcodes so LN can also run on the system (because
LN has the least overhead but has some drawbacks that an Iota+
ClickzSync design would offer alternatives to). In other words, these 3 designs all address a slightly different aspect of the consensus scaling network optimization. The Iota design is going to need some tweaking any way, because I see some issues.
Thus I will open private discussions with the Iota team (apparently mthcl and Come-from-Beyond only?) now to see if they are interested in collaborating.
We are at a momentous point where (if I am not mistaken on the myriad of technical details) Iota+
ClickzSync could radically overhaul crypto consensus network scaling, security, and TX/s. I hope they are interested to attempt it along with me if the parameters work for both of us.
I have some optimism because Come-from-Beyond is apparently programming to the Java Virtual Machine as I am as well. We seemed to have (very limited) amicable and agreeable forum discussion in the recent month or so.
