Topic: IOTA - page 762. (Read 1471689 times)
CFB, actually our "tree" resembled more of a DAG, but I didn't have a better name for it at the time, trees seemed to be a good enough explanation.
Anyway we don't use either anymore as we moved on to channels at the end of 2014, which is more of a hybrid between a chain and a DAG. It can leverage the properties of a DAG structure when required, yet apply the fundamentals of a chain for other requirements. Channels then live in partitions, and partitions float about the network and use various meta data which resides in a special global channel we call the LAC (Live Action Channel) to ensure alignment and consistency among partitions (so that one partition isn't doing something that violates another) .
There are some differences between the 2 innovations though, pure DAG can do some stuff that channels cant, and vice versa, for example:
One thing I love about DAGs (and miss from our channel stuff) is handling network splitting, where a sub-portion of the network can operate independently from the main net, then rejoin later at a later time. DAGs can do this very well, channels not so much.
On the flip side, a DAG is fast but only to a point (one of the main reasons we dropped it) as its a vertical scale, channels and partitions can scale horizontal to many 100,000s tps with sufficient network size.
Similarities, DAGs and channels both lend themselves to more efficient consensus methods, high performance verification, lighter resource use and a bunch of other things.
IMO choosing between the 2 depends entirely on what it is you want to achieve, both are however, better technologies than pure chains.
Looking forward to more info, please keep us well fed
Anyway we don't use either anymore as we moved on to channels at the end of 2014, which is more of a hybrid between a chain and a DAG. It can leverage the properties of a DAG structure when required, yet apply the fundamentals of a chain for other requirements. Channels then live in partitions, and partitions float about the network and use various meta data which resides in a special global channel we call the LAC (Live Action Channel) to ensure alignment and consistency among partitions (so that one partition isn't doing something that violates another) .
There are some differences between the 2 innovations though, pure DAG can do some stuff that channels cant, and vice versa, for example:
One thing I love about DAGs (and miss from our channel stuff) is handling network splitting, where a sub-portion of the network can operate independently from the main net, then rejoin later at a later time. DAGs can do this very well, channels not so much.
On the flip side, a DAG is fast but only to a point (one of the main reasons we dropped it) as its a vertical scale, channels and partitions can scale horizontal to many 100,000s tps with sufficient network size.
Similarities, DAGs and channels both lend themselves to more efficient consensus methods, high performance verification, lighter resource use and a bunch of other things.
IMO choosing between the 2 depends entirely on what it is you want to achieve, both are however, better technologies than pure chains.
Looking forward to more info, please keep us well fed
Did you mean these channels - http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/716b955c130e6c703fac336ea17b1670/duplex-micropayment-channels.pdf? If yes, then iota will have the both.
No nothing like those, the concept is completely different. All transactions are committed to the ledger, and don't live in "limbo" at any point off-ledger like that solution.
I'm happy to get more into it now, but its your party
If there is no block reward, why people will care about the mining and secure the network?
They won't, there must be a constant flow of new transactions for iota to be secure. Or IOTA owners have to "hire" miners. The market will find the best solution, till that there will be decentralized checkpoints made by the initial holders.
Like everything in this world: there are two sides. Any technological breakthrough can be used positively and negatively from nuclear energy and nuclear bombs to anonymity and complete surveillance in ledger technology. Usually the benefits outweigh the potential nefarious use-cases. IoT will bring about a revolution in virtually every field from medicine to comfort. IoT will happen no matter what you do, you can try to Ted Kaczynski it away, but it wont happen. The benefits are simply too great. IOTA want to enable a decentral payment method between these devices and give power back to users.
I don't think nuclear power is a valid comparison because I see IoT lending itself far more towards a surveillance state than anything else. It's not like choosing between energy and bombs. IoT is inherently kind of an anti-privacy function because it's purpose is to broadcast, communicate, and interact with other devices. Once you talk about bringing payments into the equation, that brings human on and off ramps to correlate all data with.
One of it's main functions will be to try and force internet users to subsidize websites with micro transactions for content instead of advertising. Those micro payments will be correlated with unique human identifiers in the end and probably parlayed into some kind of internet ID card.
This is blatantly false. IoT is brought about because humans want more efficient systems, better health, more comfort, more security, more atonomy, better life quality, more immersive experiences, more productivity etc. etc. Are there ways to use this for surveillance? Yes. Is that the main goal? No and if you think so: please go to the doctor.
And there are plenty of decentral anonym ID projects going on that is 100% compatible with IOTA.
So, POW with no block reward? Is this a side chain?
PoW with no block reward [to avoid centralization]. No, it's not a sidechain, it's a tangle.
CFB, actually our "tree" resembled more of a DAG, but I didn't have a better name for it at the time, trees seemed to be a good enough explanation.
Anyway we don't use either anymore as we moved on to channels at the end of 2014, which is more of a hybrid between a chain and a DAG. It can leverage the properties of a DAG structure when required, yet apply the fundamentals of a chain for other requirements. Channels then live in partitions, and partitions float about the network and use various meta data which resides in a special global channel we call the LAC (Live Action Channel) to ensure alignment and consistency among partitions (so that one partition isn't doing something that violates another) .
There are some differences between the 2 innovations though, pure DAG can do some stuff that channels cant, and vice versa, for example:
One thing I love about DAGs (and miss from our channel stuff) is handling network splitting, where a sub-portion of the network can operate independently from the main net, then rejoin later at a later time. DAGs can do this very well, channels not so much.
On the flip side, a DAG is fast but only to a point (one of the main reasons we dropped it) as its a vertical scale, channels and partitions can scale horizontal to many 100,000s tps with sufficient network size.
Similarities, DAGs and channels both lend themselves to more efficient consensus methods, high performance verification, lighter resource use and a bunch of other things.
IMO choosing between the 2 depends entirely on what it is you want to achieve, both are however, better technologies than pure chains.
Looking forward to more info, please keep us well fed
Anyway we don't use either anymore as we moved on to channels at the end of 2014, which is more of a hybrid between a chain and a DAG. It can leverage the properties of a DAG structure when required, yet apply the fundamentals of a chain for other requirements. Channels then live in partitions, and partitions float about the network and use various meta data which resides in a special global channel we call the LAC (Live Action Channel) to ensure alignment and consistency among partitions (so that one partition isn't doing something that violates another) .
There are some differences between the 2 innovations though, pure DAG can do some stuff that channels cant, and vice versa, for example:
One thing I love about DAGs (and miss from our channel stuff) is handling network splitting, where a sub-portion of the network can operate independently from the main net, then rejoin later at a later time. DAGs can do this very well, channels not so much.
On the flip side, a DAG is fast but only to a point (one of the main reasons we dropped it) as its a vertical scale, channels and partitions can scale horizontal to many 100,000s tps with sufficient network size.
Similarities, DAGs and channels both lend themselves to more efficient consensus methods, high performance verification, lighter resource use and a bunch of other things.
IMO choosing between the 2 depends entirely on what it is you want to achieve, both are however, better technologies than pure chains.
Looking forward to more info, please keep us well fed
Did you mean these channels - http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/716b955c130e6c703fac336ea17b1670/duplex-micropayment-channels.pdf? If yes, then iota will have the both.
Yes, you can see the draft here - http://188.138.57.93/tangle.pdf.
Excellent, thank you very much - reading
Are you going to produce a whitepaper?
Yes, you can see the draft here - http://188.138.57.93/tangle.pdf.
Like everything in this world: there are two sides. Any technological breakthrough can be used positively and negatively from nuclear energy and nuclear bombs to anonymity and complete surveillance in ledger technology. Usually the benefits outweigh the potential nefarious use-cases. IoT will bring about a revolution in virtually every field from medicine to comfort. IoT will happen no matter what you do, you can try to Ted Kaczynski it away, but it wont happen. The benefits are simply too great. IOTA want to enable a decentral payment method between these devices and give power back to users.
I don't think nuclear power is a valid comparison because I see IoT lending itself far more towards a surveillance state than anything else. It's not like choosing between energy and bombs. IoT is inherently kind of an anti-privacy function because it's purpose is to broadcast, communicate, and interact with other devices. Once you talk about bringing payments into the equation, that brings human on and off ramps to correlate all data with.
One of it's main functions will be to try and force internet users to subsidize websites with micro transactions for content instead of advertising. Those micro payments will be correlated with unique human identifiers in the end and probably parlayed into some kind of internet ID card.
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:
This is the future and it's inevitable because of these numbers - http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi/in_the_news/by_2025_internet_of_things_applications_could_have_11_trillion_impact
I confirm the transcript is complete(and my Skype nickname is 'sandylabs').
Ah, looks like it was mthcl who didn't answer, I'll invite him here but I don't know if he is available now.
Unfortunatelly for you (if you imply generation of tokens), mining would weaken the security of iota leading to miners invalidating each other's work.
So, POW with no block reward? Is this a side chain?
Fuserleer and the emonkeys were doing the same design then scrapped it for something else. I don't really understand the pros and cons between the two yet.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12642425
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12642425
The designs are different. Trees VS DAG.
Heh eMonkeys, has it resorted to name calling?
CFB, actually our "tree" resembled more of a DAG, but I didn't have a better name for it at the time, trees seemed to be a good enough explanation.
Anyway we don't use either anymore as we moved on to channels at the end of 2014, which is more of a hybrid between a chain and a DAG. It can leverage the properties of a DAG structure when required, yet apply the fundamentals of a chain for other requirements. Channels then live in partitions, and partitions float about the network and use various meta data which resides in a special global channel we call the LAC (Live Action Channel) to ensure alignment and consistency among partitions (so that one partition isn't doing something that violates another) .
There are some differences between the 2 innovations though, pure DAG can do some stuff that channels cant, and vice versa, for example:
One thing I love about DAGs (and miss from our channel stuff) is handling network splitting, where a sub-portion of the network can operate independently from the main net, then rejoin later at a later time. DAGs can do this very well, channels not so much.
On the flip side, a DAG is fast but only to a point (one of the main reasons we dropped it) as its a vertical scale, channels and partitions can scale horizontal to many 100,000s tps with sufficient network size.
Similarities, DAGs and channels both lend themselves to more efficient consensus methods, high performance verification, lighter resource use and a bunch of other things.
IMO choosing between the 2 depends entirely on what it is you want to achieve, both are however, better technologies than pure chains.
Looking forward to more info, please keep us well fed
What no mining 
Unfortunatelly for you (if you imply generation of tokens), mining would weaken the security of iota leading to miners invalidating each other's work.
Like everything in this world: there are two sides. Any technological breakthrough can be used positively and negatively from nuclear energy and nuclear bombs to anonymity and complete surveillance in ledger technology. Usually the benefits outweigh the potential nefarious use-cases. IoT will bring about a revolution in virtually every field from medicine to comfort. IoT will happen no matter what you do, you can try to Ted Kaczynski it away, but it wont happen. The benefits are simply too great. IOTA want to enable a decentral payment method between these devices and give power back to users.
Well said.
Don't bother trying to convince Debbie Downer. She's too busy building her tinfoil hat. Besides, you can't reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.
And section "4.1 Resistance to quantum computations" (added after my review?) seems pretty controversial by its reasoning.
This is worth an extensive discussion, because this is one of the USPs of iota, could you provide more details?
Jump to: