Topic: IOTA - page 761. (Read 1473405 times)
Here's a really stupid question. As a regular human being on the planet earth, why exactly do I want IoT to be invented in the first place? How do I benefit from this? There was what IoT seems like to me from another post. Basically me walking or driving around and having the government attacking me with surveillance and microtransactions:
Sounds great if IoT wasn't a code word for giant surveillance grid of doom. Yes, this is the type of structure things like unmanned cars will be built around. People will be required to carry devices to travel on public infrastructre, maybe a cell phone type device that acts as a transponder. In addition to their sensors simulating sight, unmanned cars will detect the RF from the device and act as a collision avoidance plus navigation system. Your wallet and identity will then be connected to the same transponder. Everyone will be tracked like cattle.
So yea, there is really no such thing as a "decentralized IoT". All it is, is a system to broadcast as much personal information as possible to be centrally administratively controlled.
So yea, there is really no such thing as a "decentralized IoT". All it is, is a system to broadcast as much personal information as possible to be centrally administratively controlled.
" As a regular human being on the planet earth, why exactly do I want IoT to be invented in the first place? " - It will make people life easier. So they will adopt it even if it's can be a great surveillance tool for government or company.
Though I was invited to review the whitepaper, it seems all my questions remains unanswered. And section "4.1 Resistance to quantum computations" (added after my review?) seems pretty controversial by its reasoning. Anyway, Popov's work is the deepest made on DAG cryptocurrencies(all I've seen before were just forum & blog posts), I'm not sure what's presented enough to make something production-ready though. Let's see what will happen here. Have luck guys! 
I'm not sure if I understand what exactly your question is. If it's about submitting two conflicting tx's, then there is no problem - one will survive, and the other will die (that is, at some moment it will stop gaining cumulative weight). Besides, if you're buying smth from a merchant and submit a conflicting transaction at the same time, the merchant would call a police The attacker can leave after he received the good and then issue the double spend as said in the Whitepaper. So the merchant will not see anything until the attack succeed ( if it succeed )
EDIT : I love IOTA. Good luck guys !
So I suppose if we want to start talking about this idea I can go ahead and talk about my concern. And I will fully admit that this may be my lack of understanding or imagination only and nothing wrong with the concept at all.
If the network is fracture tolerant, than there is a concern that you might be validating a doublespend transaction without realizing it when creating your own transaction. This wouldn't be much of a big deal assuming only a hand full of dinguses trying to doublespend for personal profit, but what if someone(s) tries to exploit this as an attack vector against the network its self with no intention of personally profiting from the actual double-spend.
Dev's tried to explain to me why this reservation was unfounded but either the answers were nonsense or I wasn't smart enough to understand (probably the second one). So this seems like a better place to continue that discussion than my private messages since someone else might benefit.
If the network is fracture tolerant, than there is a concern that you might be validating a doublespend transaction without realizing it when creating your own transaction. This wouldn't be much of a big deal assuming only a hand full of dinguses trying to doublespend for personal profit, but what if someone(s) tries to exploit this as an attack vector against the network its self with no intention of personally profiting from the actual double-spend.
Dev's tried to explain to me why this reservation was unfounded but either the answers were nonsense or I wasn't smart enough to understand (probably the second one). So this seems like a better place to continue that discussion than my private messages since someone else might benefit.
Though I was invited to review the whitepaper, it seems all my questions remains unanswered. And section "4.1 Resistance to quantum computations" (added after my review?) seems pretty controversial by its reasoning. Anyway, Popov's work is the deepest made on DAG cryptocurrencies(all I've seen before were just forum & blog posts), I'm not sure what's presented enough to make something production-ready though. Let's see what will happen here. Have luck guys!
I'm not sure if I understand what exactly your question is. If it's about submitting two conflicting tx's, then there is no problem - one will survive, and the other will die (that is, at some moment it will stop gaining cumulative weight). Besides, if you're buying smth from a merchant and submit a conflicting transaction at the same time, the merchant would call a police 
So,there will be another TOKEN except Jinn on NXT AE both for Tangle tech？
Could you expand on your question? Not entirely sure what you are asking. JINN tokens are unrelated to IOTAs
What's the difference between JINN token and IOTA token?
or what do these two tokens stand for respectively?
Could you simply explain?
Thanks.
Lol I don't know. I guess I mean on-tangle, those participating in your algorithm?
For on-tangle payments a device needs to see majority of the transactions. Good news is that it needs this only if it's about to make or check a payment, most of time it can store and broadcast transactions without their verification (only PoW needs to be verified to avoid spam attacks).
Can you explain to me why this doesn't require every connected IoT that wants to sign a transaction to not have to listen to every transaction on the network?
Doesn't the bandwidth requirements of that limit which sort of devices can participate?
Can a IoT device proxy its request a well powered server?
Doesn't the bandwidth requirements of that limit which sort of devices can participate?
Can a IoT device proxy its request a well powered server?
Are you talking about on- or off-tangle payments?
Lol I don't know. I guess I mean on-tangle, those participating in your algorithm?
So,there will be another TOKEN except Jinn on NXT AE both for Tangle tech？
Could you expand on your question? Not entirely sure what you are asking. JINN tokens are unrelated to IOTAs
Can you explain to me why this doesn't require every connected IoT that wants to sign a transaction to not have to listen to every transaction on the network?
Doesn't the bandwidth requirements of that limit which sort of devices can participate?
Can a IoT device proxy its request a well powered server?
Doesn't the bandwidth requirements of that limit which sort of devices can participate?
Can a IoT device proxy its request a well powered server?
Are you talking about on- or off-tangle payments?
How we can buy some?
Details will come in the coming days. Stay tuned in this thread and/or join our just created twitter account www.twitter.com/iotatoken to keep posted on the developments
Can you explain to me why this doesn't require every connected IoT that wants to sign a transaction to not have to listen to every transaction on the network?
Doesn't the bandwidth requirements of that limit which sort of devices can participate?
Can a IoT device proxy its request a well powered server?
Doesn't the bandwidth requirements of that limit which sort of devices can participate?
Can a IoT device proxy its request a well powered server?
Jump to: