Topic: IOTA - the scheme is being pumped hard now don't fall for the trap - page 18. (Read 41133 times)

Which is a false assumption. It is very much possible (and used to be possible before on chain fees) with payment channels.

It is not necessarily the case.

There is absolutely no need for that so far.

Pretty much every scam project ever.

Yes.

A lot of people in here have no fundamentals, and they would sell their own parents for a little bit of profit. They also often have near zero knowledge of cryptography, maths, cryptocurrency or any other related field. No wonder the hype up these scam coins.

The post by "pumpmydump" does not have mistakes (at least not within the first few points).

A thread made by byteballers to FUD iota basically. Even with your long posts full of mistakes and missed assumptions. You're overestimating yourselves a bit.

Good call. I overheard rumors of Byteball launching on IoT soon. 

Thats where you are wrong kiddo.

CfB claimed iota will run on a computing device which has 20% power of normal PC. That does not include micro-processors, they are orders of magnitude less powerful

Besides, the coin being from the same dev of an abandoned coin, Nxt, with the same marketing "Next beyond blockchain" should have warned you.

Do you understand what's being talked about in the "whitepaper", or does it just sound nice to you so you're buying it?

The gist of the IOTA whitepaper (my comments in parentheses):

1. Blockchains make micro-payments impossible (is that even true? it's not practical in the case of bitcoin but couldn't a blockchain-based solution exist?)

2. Blockchains give rise to conflicts between transaction issuers and approvers (is that necessarily the case?)

3. So there is a need for a solution not based on blockchain (so the guy makes the assumptions that the two above issues cannot be resolved in a blockchain-based framework)

4. We are developing iota, a solution not based on blockchain, we don't know whether it will work in practice but let's hope

5. In iota there is a "directed acyclic graph" instead of a blockchain

6. The nodes of the graph issue transactions, approved transactions are directed links (he also calls them "sites" and "edges") between the nodes of the graph

7. "When a new transaction arrives, it must approve two previous transactions" (what the hell does it mean for a transaction to approve transactions?)

8. "If there is no directed edge between transaction A and transaction B but there is a directed path of length at least two from A to B, we say that A indirectly approves B." (A and B are nodes so why the hell does he call them transactions now? he can't even keep a consistent terminology which makes his descriptions so foggy)

9. "There is also the "genesis" transaction, which is approved (directly or indirectly) by all other transactions. The genesis is described in the following way. In the beginning there was an address with balance containing all the tokens. Then the genesis transaction sent these tokens to several other "founder" addresses." (again "transactions approving transactions", didn't he mean to say that the genesis is a node, and that the tokens it issued to other "addresses" (other nodes) were approved transactions by these other nodes?)

10. "To issue a transaction, users must work to approve other transactions, therefore contributing to the network's security." (so now he calls nodes "users", and he says users work to approve transactions, so it's not "transactions approving transactions" right? why was this shit valued at 1 billion+ again?)

11. "It is assumed that the nodes check if the approved transactions are not conflicting and do not approve (directly or indirectly) conflicting transactions. If a node issues a new transaction that approves conflicting transactions, then it risks that others will not approve this new transaction, and so it will fall into oblivion" (transactions approving transactions again... what approved transactions is he talking about now? the two that the node approves when it issues a new transaction? then how would the other nodes know that this one has approved conflicting transactions? i mean what the hell are we talking about here this is so imprecise)

12. "We do not impose any rule for choosing the transactions to approve; rather, we argue that if a large number of other nodes follow some "reference" rule, then for any fixed node it is better to stick to a rule of the same kind." (so he assumes that all nodes will tend to choose a similar rule for choosing the transactions to approve, his nodes being "specialized chips with pre-installed firmware", but where the hell are all these transactions stored for a node to be able to choose some of them? aren't transactions supposed to become part of the graph (the "tangle", the "ledger") only after a node approves them?)

13. "In general, we have an asynchronous network, so that nodes do not necessarily see the same set of transactions." (so what transactions does each node see? there are so many things missing from the explanation, it's like he had a vague idea during a dream and put it on paper without reading what he wrote)

14. "The main rule that the nodes use for deciding between two conflicting transactions is the following: a node runs the tip selection algorithm (cf. Section 4.1) many times, and see which transaction of the two is more likely to be (indirectly) approved by the selected tip. For example, if, after 100 runs of the tip selection algorithm, a transaction was selected 97 times, we say that it is confirmed with 97% confidence." (the tip selection algorithm, what the hell is this new shit now, let's go see section 4.1 ... well it talks about tips, what the hell is a tip anyway? oh yea we had to go to section 2 to find a definition, a tip is an "unapproved transaction" ... so to decide between two conflicting transactions, a node runs an algorithm many times and see which of the two is selected more times by the selected unapproved transaction ... what the flying fuck does that mean? ... it doesn't mean shit but let's see, there is an algorithm detailed in section 4.1, it is "an algorithm to select the two tips to reference" ... what "two tips"? who the fuck knows ... the algorithm selects two tips which are "candidates for approval" ... but there is no "selected tip" in the initiation of the algorithm so the first sentence in this paragraph makes no fucking sense ... what might make sense is if the guy had said instead that "to decide between two conflicting transactions, a node runs the tip selection algorithm many times, and the transaction selected more times by the algorithm is the one that is chosen", and we have to hope that there aren't so many unapproved transactions that the algorithm will take too much time to end up on one of the two conflicting transactions, which the guy doesn't address ...)

I don't have the courage to go through the whole thing like this, it just gets worse and worse

What kind of sense can you make out of all that shit? Do you even understand what you read? Or it's so hard to understand because the guy can't even explain things properly so you think it must be so profoundly deep and genius?

I mean what the hell guys has this world gone crazy?

Yeah no losses. I'm still up big time, about 56k right now (just IOTA)... If that makes me a bagholder than hell yeah I'm all for that. Goes along nicely with the returns I made from Waves lol. Two scam coins making me over 100k in a year.... crazy. Even after a huge dip I'm still up that much, but a bag holder? Alright then. Enjoy your shitty bot sales and escrow service 

If PoW in Iota really is anti Sybil - why do they not have auto-node discovery? Hm? Ill tell you why, PoW is useless shit in a DAG-coin.

Besides, PoW and IoT - any coin which does not have PoW will be better suitable, such as Byteball, will be able to run on smaller microcontrollers - and use less energy than Iota.  

A secure m2m communication can be done and has been done since 20 years ago - its called SSL/TLS.

Poor empty bag-holder, the Nxt (Next, beyond block-chain sounds familiar?) scammer Come-from-Beyond laughs with your money again.

Please read through my post history, a good start is https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17693697

Byteball is a good project, I bought a bunch after the 6th airdrop. The built in wallet bots are a nice addition as well.

Are you brain dead? Unlike IOTA, Gunbot does what it claims to be doing and is made by non scammers (and did not need an ICO).

Market cap went from a near $2 billion to a near $0.5 billion. No losses at all. 

Spamming for Waves, and shilling for IOTA. Classic idiot.

IOTA is just a hyped up scam by those who bought during the ICO. No such thing is present with byteball, thus valuation will take time. Technology wise, it easily beats IOTA.

No point in quoting any of your last shit, because you're just wrong and stupid. Maybe too old? I don't know.


Look in your signature hypocrite LOL!



A bagholder infers losses. I have none of those in IOTA.

This just proves you can't trust Legandary members of this board. Just because some basement dweller with a cat avatar posts nonstop across the board (20k posts my god wtf) doesn't mean he/she understands WTF is going on in the world he seems to cling to incessantly.

I don't assume; certain things make it obvious.

Relevance? I don't really care about any returns that you've made.

IOTA does not make anything easier nor simplistic.

False generalization fallacy.

I do and I shall, as they are usually inferior creatures.

Absolute nonsense claim backed up by vapor, just like the whole project.

IOTA is not trust-less, thus you are a lying hypocrite hyping up this scam.

This is in no way any FUD and you are in no position to make qualified evaluations of anything, especially not considering that you're cognitively biased as a IOTA bagholder. Try again next time special snowflake.

Why do you assume someone holding crypto of any currency you don't like is a bagholder? Lol, you have no clue the kind of returns I've made on coins I've heard called scams... Ones you've missed out on and I've profited heavily. Do I care about IOTA as a tech? If it makes my day to day easier and simplistic, yes. If it doesn't help my day to day life but brings me profit, that's awesome too. You're argument is like asking someone: Do you even want to put money on your 401k? Do you even want to invest money now that will net you returns in the future? Well no fucking shit Sherlock, yes. Everyone here wants to profit on coins, we're here to generate wealth through new technology. Crypto can open up business/gov't to more transparency thus power to individuals and I'm all for that especially if I can have 6000% gains too.

Don't look down on people here looking to make profit, 95% are here for that and like crypto as a hobby. I want IOTA to succeed just like other coins I have because profiting from them makes my life better through wealth generation. How the fuck are you even allowed legendary status for talking down to people looking to profit from coins....it's what drives this entire show. The project has serious potential to be in the top 3 coins. BTC/IOTA/ETH. A metric shit-tonne of people know this, that is why slack channel is at 10k members, with 1000+ every month. Obviously people aren't looking at this as a scam, but as an answer to the old, tired, overwhelmed, network that is bitcoin (Eth as well). I don't want $6 transaction fees every time I move money. I don't want blocks that take 30 min to process. I don't want to hear about how big or small we should keep those shitty blocks. I want near-instant, free transfer of currency, not touched by gov't or bank. IOTA has delivered that, with a scale-able network on top.

At this point I wonder if you're the one who's more financially involved because you're afraid of what this tech can bring, and what kind of bagholder you'll be when IOTA overtakes the other top 10 coins. FUD doesn't work as well as you think bud.

Go ahead and lose more money idiot.

Stating nonsense like "Zero fees alone makes IOTA superior. " is intelligent discussion for you?

Enough has been provided within this very thread and others.

PoW on IOT devices is a fundamental mistake. It absolutely makes no sense to do it this way, besides making a ton of money and ditching it for the next project.

Why would someone use something new, unreviewed and untested and not something that has already been established?

In other words: It is not trustless.

I've heard the former about 1000 times now, and the latter a few dozen times.

In other words: You are a bagholder who does not give a single damn about anything other than profiting.

---

I can't even find a single third party (credible) review of this project.

I like how he defends himself "as smart enough" with yet another straw-man argument. Again deflecting the actual question he is indeed not intelligent enough to answer.

So please Lauda, what is the tech problem with IOTA?

Its a distributed ledger, with no fees, the POW is done on basically any device with a microprocessor. Its been programmed in Java and Python with C almost completed. Has a strong foundation group constantly pushing use cases in the automobile, medical, and energy field. Smart contracts are already announced, so no need for Eth anymore. The ICO was announced here on Bitcointalk ages ago, and the dev team would not allow it listed on exchanges until they had decent working product. I fail to see why you missing the boat on the ICO means it is a scam.

It basically does everything BTC and Eth do for free without any worries of miners, scalability, and transaction fees. How the fuck do you not want it to succeed? Because you weren't included, and you can't see big returns like those who risked earlier on who saw what the tech could become with adoption.

The only thing I can agree on is being done here. I was a bit worried when I saw the thread title, but reading through this salt mine only solidifies my future investment in IOTA. Nobody in here has anything to say about the technology. I asked you to refrain from ad hominem attacks, and that is exactly what you resorted to. You lack the capacity for intellectual discussion, so I will leave you to your own devises...

"Smart enough"? Are you brain dead? Throw in a couple hundred $ or a couple thousand $ and you get your innovative whitepaper bullshit. Heck, there are even whitepaper generators nowadays.

Statements like these make absolute no sense.

Nothing further need be said (read the damn thread before posting) This is a clear scam coin full of smokes and mirrors. There is as much as an use case for IOTA as there is for Potcoin. It's clear that you are a bagholder.

---

Anything that labels itself "next gen" or "next winner" is a scam.

You still haven't made a case against IOTAs technology. If you were smart enough to write a paper that outlines in detail a novel and innovative idea then you wouldn't be here complaining about IOTA. You are clearly deflecting...

Do you mean this comparison on the Byteball wiki? Because that is clearly slanted (I wonder why). Zero fees alone makes IOTA superior. In fact, that is the whole point of a DAG
https://byteroll.com/comparison-iota

Again, I'm asking you to make your case against IOTA without any ad hominem demagoguery...

Why didn't I do this?  Get in bed with one of the icos with a PR role.   Take a 5% stake in the profits, make a killing, and disappear. Nice scam.

Can't go wrong passing on a scam!