Topic: IOTA - page 756. (Read 1471689 times)

It's not just about making life easier, it's about upping productivity substantially which will bring about a growth in wealth unseen in the history of mankind. The industrial revolution is nothing compared. In the end this technological progression will eventually free mankind from its 'slave' relationship with money and revolutionize virtually every field from medicine to entertainment.

I wish i could say that you were wrong but yeah...people will be on board with anything that makes their life "easier".

Well, we can argue on if IoT is good or bad for privacy, etc., but I think it's obvious that this future is inevitable.

It all sounds interesting, but I've been reading articles like that for years and the only significant applications seem to be very limited and within a specific company (eg tracking product, assembly lines etc). What few consumer applications there have been have been highly prone to security breaches and largely related to gimmicky products that people don't really want to use.  When I first started hearing about this one of the classic examples was the fridge which could order milk for itself when you're running low, but people don't want a fridge which thinks it knows better than them. Perhaps I decided to cut down on my coffee drinking or lose weight by switching to semi-skimmed, perhaps I fancy getting it from a different shop - I simply don't want my fridge to have already made the decision for me.

Also the costs of security, public distaste for sensors monitoring them all the time and then claiming ownership of data about them, the big organisational changes needed to make the most of this kind of thing - these are all big costs and barriers. Technologies don't just need to be possible, they also need to be desirable and cost-effective.

The whole term 'internet of things' is also something of a rhetorical device. Things can already use the internet. They have been able to for quite some time. But for the most part, they just don't need to.

The problem is that a lot of people seem to believe that all these 'next big things' just happen overnight. They don't.
 
Internet-of-Things is already here and we're all using it in one way or another. Every day there are new gadgets and use-cases being deployed and adopted.

We're already in the beginning of it and it's only going to grow, grow and grow, just like applications and the internet did and do still.

Were those big things as big as http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi/in_the_news/by_2025_internet_of_things_applications_could_have_11_trillion_impact ?

People have been saying the 'internet of things' is the next big thing since at least 5 big things ago.

Interesting and good luck. GadgetCoin has been working on IoT for a while, not an easy area.

Someone from outside should do this comparison, I may be biased.

reserved............... 

A similarity to Bitmessage, one should do some work to send message, here Iota sends token. On the other hand, what's the difference between Iota and Bitmessage?

I'll leave this question for the whitepaper author, his formulas scare me.

That isn't the only use case of fast confirming transactions, regardless whether microTX or normal values.


So off-chain mixing of TX inputs and outputs. But algorithms for that which work without any trust such as CoinShuffle are slow. And off chain mixing is not autonomous, violates the end-to-end principle, has a simultaneity requirement waiting for other users to join your mix.

(I have suggested a novel use of CoinShuffle for hiding IP addresses where it is a useful addition to on-chain mixing, but that is irrelevant to my point here)

Every design has some weakness, so don't fret. I am just trying to determine what the parameters are.


Comparable to a 6 confirmation probability against double-spend in Bitcoin?

https://bitcoil.co.il/Doublespend.pdf

Mandatory anonymity is bad for a coin that is supposed to be linked to smart contracts system. If someone wants to hide payments he can use off-tangle mixing.

What is "confirmation delay"? Time before a transaction is approved by another transaction?

Do you have other means to obtain equivalent untraceability or do you feel anonymity isn't important for these transactions?

Do you have any rough idea of the confirmation delay?

Anonymity ring signatures won't be used to preserve lightweightness of Iota. Ordering of transactions is not needed, nothing bad will happen if withdrawing transaction appears before depositing one as long as after processing all transactions approved by a tip we don't get negative balance.

Okay so placement into the DAG (consensus) graph can be assisted by a service provider. Payer signs the TX and that signature authorizes the service provider. Service provider signs the graph node. Or service provider sends the DAG node choice to payer who signs it, giving authority to place his signed TX at DAG node.

This has some nuances of difference versus the autonomous ability to directly formulate and send a transaction to the consensus block chain network (although in practice existing PoW systems devolve into essentially sending to pools in most scenarios, but this maybe could be fixed in other ways). But I don't as of yet see a problem with using a service provider.

---

Changing the topic, one of the issues which I doubt is on your radar and probably not a priority in your view, is that a DAG system apparently can't order transactions (or can you?) and I believe ordering will be important for implement anonymity ring signatures entirely correctly (something I had pointed out to Monero but still need to get back to Shen and his 2007 prior art and such to make sure if I was correct or not).

How long does it take for a transaction to become "confirmed" such that it is very, very unlikely it can't be double-spent into the DAG?

Signed part doesn't contain references to other transactions. A low-end device paying to a service provider can send him the payment and the provider will choose which transactions to reference.

Well that seems to make common sense that we entangle such that all transactions are included in the majority of the tips, then the consensus is those transactions are more likely final than the ones in the minority of the tips, since there doesn't appear to be an incentive to favor tangling with minority tips over majority tips. But that seems to imply that before I combine two tree branches into my signature, I must insure there is no double spend in the (combined) history otherwise my signature is invalid and no other node should include my branch tip as input to their node in the graph. Thus it seems each payer has to keep an entire history and table of conflicting branches (at least back to check points but aren't check points the antithesis of unmanaged, decentralized crypto-currency)? Are payer nodes supposed to entrust this verification to other nodes?

Okay I think I can see intuitively how participants have an incentive to maximally tangle (extend the depth of) the graph and not broaden it too much, but I will still need to go deeper to analyze attack vectors.

So far my main intuitive concern seems to stem around the apparently much more intensive (exponentially more?) resources that payers will need to have versus in a system where they can autonomously sign a transaction without context of other transactions in the network.

Also I can't see how anonymity technology such as ring signatures can be integrated into a system like this, nor Lightning Networks. My mistake. I realize the inputs and outputs of the transaction are orthogonal to the DAG. So yes transactions could still be signed with on-chain anonymity I presume. Afaics, Lightning Networks appears to not be compatible with the anonymity methods we've used for block chains.

It is very interesting the concept of a chain without the aliasing error of stepwise blocks. Somehow I think this stuff is important, but I haven't yet figured out the sweet spot for this technology. I need to understand more about the benefits and tradeoffs.

Yes but the design of Iota looks like more appropriate.