Topic: IOTA - page 757. (Read 1473405 times)

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.

This is a case where common sense loses against math, I thought like you but mthcl proved that I was wrong. Surprisingly, if a transaction got included into the majority of the tips (i.e. adaptation period is over) then we get near the same assurance against a double-spending as in a blockchain-based coin.

FWIW, we thought of this name to use as the smallest units of the coin we were thinking of using the name Dots in 2014. But that effort did not come to fruition. We purchased Dots.com for $500 and then the registrar went bankrupt and stole the registration from us. I didn't feel like hassling to try to get it back because we had registered it anonymously.

Interesting flip of perspective to name the coin that. I think we didn't like it for coin name because it is literally defined "nearly nothing", and we felt Dots were more social networking friendly.

I like the tech appeal of IoT and the sound of Iota. But I am not sure it sounds right, "I don't care one iota". "The price is 5 iota".


Isn't that what Bitcoin was supposed to do, before ASICs and pool mining denuded it.

Interesting. Very interesting. It's a "user motivation" to give hash rate to secure the system. Very very interesting.

You don't pay fee with tokens but with computation... every user should give computation power. Very very very interesting

All transaction must come with a PoW, so spamming has a computational cost.
If you fake the PoW, then the tx won't be relayed and thus does little damage...

If I understand correctly, there is no fees for the Iota transactions.
No reward for the miners and Tangle security.

Is it possible to spam the system with fake transactions? If no fees, you can spam the Tangle for free.

Gotcha! Thanks for clarifying.

Do not really understand how all this of the tangle works, but I am all in for a currency that allows for better microtransactions.

I really think microtransactions are very important in order to change the internet and reward content creators by small tips done to them by readers, watchers, etc. and getting rid of ad monetization.

So I will stay alert for this coin

I haven't dug into the core issues of the breadth of tree and its implication on convergence versus divergence and as pertains to double-spends and other metrics. So I am limited in terms of making insights at this time until I do.

I thought you replied to me up thread that the payer needs to accumulate a significant portion of the breadth of the tree (even historically) in order to evaluate where strategically to optimally insert his/her node in the DAG. Thus it seems to me that each payer has to see some N other payers, so this bandwidth and computation load on the payer is scaling as N x N for payers versus to a normal PoW system where the payer's signature is autonomous from the network. The latter is the end-to-end principle because the intermediaries—between the originator and the construction of a transaction to the destination—are incapable of harm, substitutable, and fungible. Put more abstractly, the intermediaries are idempotent, referentially transparent, transitive, and commutative.

I understand conceptually the global consistency requirement is lower than a more deterministic traditional PoW or even PoS system (although these diverge on reorganizations and total divergence at 51% attack), but doesn't that come with the tradeoff of a risk of divergence of the tree's *final* conclusion about a double-spend (two reasonably balanced leaves each with a double-spend)?

I guess what I am after in terms of characterizing the tradeoffs is some quantification or conceptualization of the frequency/probably (or characteristic principles) of divergence as we have succinctly with PoW (selfish mining, 51% attack, orphaned chains, etc). Something expressed in the English language and not requiring differential equations models to comprehend.

Fair enough.  In that case I wont waste any time until you've divulged what that is

We have an ace up our sleeve, but it's too early to reveal it.

^ this

Its one of the strengths of a tangle/DAG/whatever you want to call it as I explained further up.

I too though am a little unsure about the use of POW as you describe it, I have the anticipation that this "race" if the network loses could have some serious consequences.  I plan to dig into the theory -> practice of it more over the weekend as a break from regular eMunie stuff before I make any judgements.

It's not needed to see all the transactions before sending a payment, one could have a few days old snapshot and still get their transaction included into the tangle. This is an advantage of the tangle over the blockchain - consistency requirement is much lower than in Bitcoin. Lightning Networks approach (more precisely its improvement made by Christian Decker and Roger Wattenhofer in "A Fast and Scalable Payment Network with Bitcoin Duplex Micropayment Channels") is already utilized in Iota.

That cap is only for the own weight of a tx (in fact, as far as I know, the plan is to set it to constant). The cumulative weight may (and will) grow.

I picked it in a search for a maximum possible hash rate owned by an attacker.

In fact here I assume the biggest ASICs farm is like a billion times faster than a computer. You are correct that ASICs farms wouldn't exist without the Bitcoin economic model. I.e. the ratio E/J wouldn't have grown to billions. But even if it was smaller, you still need a minimal number of transactions per second with the magnitude of E/J.

Anyways, good luck!

PS: Iota is like a russian car: if it stop, it cannot start, but once it start, it cannot be stopped

Come-from-Beyond has been very cordial to me, so I don't want to defecate on his effort. I have my doubts about viability for the following reason. The ramifications of this probably needs to be discussed more. But it seems to me that having users who send transactions viewing all the transactions before they can send is the antithesis of instant microtransactions and also places a burden on who can send a transaction. You need certain minimum level of connectivity and bandwidth on your connection just to send a transaction. It is an interesting concept and maybe DAG can be integrated in other ways into cryptocurrency. Maybe he needs to figure out how to eliminate this apparent weakness with some paradigm shift. Note it appears to me that Lightning Networks is in some facets (not all) similar to a DAG concept. Perhaps thinking about those two different paradigms will lead to some epiphany.

Hey cool name Iota (IoT)! Good one!

At about what time? Will it hold before or after testing IOTA release?

It's in development.

Is there any code/prototype now or only a whitepaper?