Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 24 results by Komputor
For those that havent seen this one, Andreas Antonopoulos on IOT and Bitcoin's role in it. IOT talks starts from 9:03 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PFDCQz5Xi0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PFDCQz5Xi0
So a strategy for devices stuck with unconfirmed transactions would be to send another blank transaction referencing the original unapproved transaction. Since this network will be used primarily by non-humans, such a behavior would need to be coded into the IOT device itself right? For example: If transaction does not confirm withing x time, then resend a blank transaction with reference to first one.
How would this work out in a larger simulation where many devices would use such a strategy? Could this cause a spam of blank transactions in the network where many devices are trying to promote their own transactions for faster confirmation times? Or is this a non-issue?
How would this work out in a larger simulation where many devices would use such a strategy? Could this cause a spam of blank transactions in the network where many devices are trying to promote their own transactions for faster confirmation times? Or is this a non-issue?
If a device paid to a merchant then the marchant himself can confirm all pending transactions sent to him by organizing these transactions into few subtrees and confirming the roots.
"Dumb" reconfirmation increases amplitude of cosine pulses making some devices to generate 2-3 extra blank transactions which increases security of the system.
Ah yes, so in the merchant example, he can improve his transaction confirmation rate by running his own "off-tangle" train of transactions, which eventually will get merged onto the main net tangle if he is being an honest merchant lol.
As for dumb reconfirmations, you mean to say that this is really a non-issue and would in-fact just lead to greater security and higher cumulative transaction weights. Makes sense.. the spam is not exactly coming at free cost from a node since there is POW invested in each transaction (electricity costs i guess). However, i guess I'll probably understand this better in time.
Very fascinating tech i must say, looking forward to the launch. Good luck to you and team.
Question for CFB -
I've been trying to visualize the way the DAG would evolve in real world usage and how the transaction confirmation times would behave.
So if i understand correctly, the tips with the highest weights are encouraged to be approved first by incoming fresh transactions. In such a case, if there are is a sudden surge of new transactions followed immediately by a period of very low transactions, then many of the transactions in the first wave would end up waiting longer than usual for approval/confirmation, correct?
I then understand that the confirmation times may actually be very unpredictable in the initial stages of the network when there is a sporadic rate of new incoming transactions.
If true, then do you expect these uneven transaction confirmation times to even out as the volume of transactions eventually increases?
I'm no tech expert, but would like to understand this a little.
**Still reading the whitepaper**
I've been trying to visualize the way the DAG would evolve in real world usage and how the transaction confirmation times would behave.
So if i understand correctly, the tips with the highest weights are encouraged to be approved first by incoming fresh transactions. In such a case, if there are is a sudden surge of new transactions followed immediately by a period of very low transactions, then many of the transactions in the first wave would end up waiting longer than usual for approval/confirmation, correct?
I then understand that the confirmation times may actually be very unpredictable in the initial stages of the network when there is a sporadic rate of new incoming transactions.
If true, then do you expect these uneven transaction confirmation times to even out as the volume of transactions eventually increases?
I'm no tech expert, but would like to understand this a little.
**Still reading the whitepaper**
It's a question to mthcl, I think. Simulation shows that Tangle pulses: its width, tx confirmation time and other parameters have clear cosine pattern.
Interesting, maybe mthcl can comment more on this. Thanks.
Also if you could clarify my second set of questions: So a strategy for devices stuck with unconfirmed transactions would be to send another blank transaction referencing the original unapproved transaction. Since this network will be used primarily by non-humans, such a behavior would need to be coded into the IOT device itself right? For example: If transaction does not confirm withing x time, then resend a blank transaction with reference to first one.
How would this work out in a larger simulation where many devices would use such a strategy? Could this cause a spam of blank transactions in the network where many devices are trying to promote their own transactions for faster confirmation times? Or is this a non-issue?
Question for CFB -
I've been trying to visualize the way the DAG would evolve in real world usage and how the transaction confirmation times would behave.
So if i understand correctly, the tips with the highest weights are encouraged to be approved first by incoming fresh transactions. In such a case, if there are is a sudden surge of new transactions followed immediately by a period of very low transactions, then many of the transactions in the first wave would end up waiting longer than usual for approval/confirmation, correct?
I then understand that the confirmation times may actually be very unpredictable in the initial stages of the network when there is a sporadic rate of new incoming transactions.
If true, then do you expect these uneven transaction confirmation times to even out as the volume of transactions eventually increases?
I'm no tech expert, but would like to understand this a little.
**Still reading the whitepaper**
Edit: Another question - So a strategy for devices stuck with unconfirmed transactions would be to send another blank transaction referencing the original unapproved transaction. Since this network will be used primarily by non-humans, such a behavior would need to be coded into the IOT device itself right? For example: If transaction does not confirm withing x time, then resend a blank transaction with reference to first one.
How would this work out in a larger simulation where many devices would use such a strategy? Could this cause a spam of blank transactions in the network where many devices are trying to promote their own transactions for faster confirmation times? Or is this a non-issue?
I've been trying to visualize the way the DAG would evolve in real world usage and how the transaction confirmation times would behave.
So if i understand correctly, the tips with the highest weights are encouraged to be approved first by incoming fresh transactions. In such a case, if there are is a sudden surge of new transactions followed immediately by a period of very low transactions, then many of the transactions in the first wave would end up waiting longer than usual for approval/confirmation, correct?
I then understand that the confirmation times may actually be very unpredictable in the initial stages of the network when there is a sporadic rate of new incoming transactions.
If true, then do you expect these uneven transaction confirmation times to even out as the volume of transactions eventually increases?
I'm no tech expert, but would like to understand this a little.
**Still reading the whitepaper**
Edit: Another question - So a strategy for devices stuck with unconfirmed transactions would be to send another blank transaction referencing the original unapproved transaction. Since this network will be used primarily by non-humans, such a behavior would need to be coded into the IOT device itself right? For example: If transaction does not confirm withing x time, then resend a blank transaction with reference to first one.
How would this work out in a larger simulation where many devices would use such a strategy? Could this cause a spam of blank transactions in the network where many devices are trying to promote their own transactions for faster confirmation times? Or is this a non-issue?
don't put that here. People will think, its the same and spend more btc because of that. And after they will say the were scammed, because its not the same...
If people can't see that the video was posted two years ago and is nowhere related to the creation of a DAG cryptocurrency, then perhaps they shouldn't be throwing their money on things they don't really understand.
Google search "resistant meaning" Or click this link: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=resistant+meaning
This is what it says:
resistant
rɪˈzɪstənt/Submit
adjective
1. offering resistance to something or someone.
"some of the old Churches are resistant to change"
synonyms: impervious to, proof against, unaffected by, repellent of; unsusceptible to, immune to, invulnerable to; water-resistant, waterproof, impenetrable; rareimperviable to
"a reinforced PVC membrane which is resistant to water"
opposed to, averse to, hostile to, inimical to, against, anti, unwilling to accept, disinclined to accept, reluctant to accept, unenthusiastic about
"she is very resistant to change"
antonyms: susceptible to, receptive to
2. denoting starch that is not easily broken down by enzymes within the body and is therefore minimally absorbed during digestion.
"cooked rice, like bread, contains a useful amount of resistant starch, which acts like fibre in the digestive system"
This is what it says:
resistant
rɪˈzɪstənt/Submit
adjective
1. offering resistance to something or someone.
"some of the old Churches are resistant to change"
synonyms: impervious to, proof against, unaffected by, repellent of; unsusceptible to, immune to, invulnerable to; water-resistant, waterproof, impenetrable; rareimperviable to
"a reinforced PVC membrane which is resistant to water"
opposed to, averse to, hostile to, inimical to, against, anti, unwilling to accept, disinclined to accept, reluctant to accept, unenthusiastic about
"she is very resistant to change"
antonyms: susceptible to, receptive to
2. denoting starch that is not easily broken down by enzymes within the body and is therefore minimally absorbed during digestion.
"cooked rice, like bread, contains a useful amount of resistant starch, which acts like fibre in the digestive system"
Hmm seems to be.. i guess i relate to the term resistant like how a watch or smartphone company states that their device is water "resistant", which does not mean that it is fully capable of avoiding water damage if one just drops it into a lake or the sea. However, i now understand what CFB meant. THanks.
The are not the same thing 
Let me put it this way - If i say that maybe in the future, the IOTA network could be under threat from quantum computing attacks. That risk exists and IOTA is merely quantum resistant not 100% guaranteed to be able to fend off such attacks. Would this be a fair statement?
Let me put it this way - If i say that maybe in the future, the IOTA network could be under threat from quantum computing attacks. That risk exists and IOTA is merely quantum resistant not 100% guaranteed to be able to fend off such attacks. Would this be a fair statement?
Algorithms used by Iota core fall into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography category.
Good read. Thanks.
Another question, so what is the main benefit of holding IOTA tokens? Is it like NXT where you get privileges to use the network? In other words, these tokens must be owned by an entity if they want to use the service provided by the IOTA network. Correct?
I find this technology interesting. However, from what i have read so far, the documentation always stated that the algorithms used in the IOTA network will be quantum resistant not immune. Care to elaborate? Are you suggesting that the network security is going to be 100% clear from any attack vectors that quantum computing could come up with? I am no expert on this, just trying to stay informed as much as possible. THanks.
I use "resistant" and "immune" interchangeably.
The are not the same thing
Let me put it this way - If i say that maybe in the future, the IOTA network could be under threat from quantum computing attacks. That risk exists and IOTA is merely quantum resistant not 100% guaranteed to be able to fend off such attacks. Would this be a fair statement?
Is this technology compatible with ring signatures in Monero?
No, Iota uses quantum-immune cryptography.
I find this technology interesting. However, from what i have read so far, the documentation always stated that the algorithms used in the IOTA network will be quantum resistant not immune. Care to elaborate? Are you suggesting that the network security is going to be 100% clear from any attack vectors that quantum computing could come up with? I am no expert on this, just trying to stay informed as much as possible. THanks.
Hi Nxters,
I noticed a cosmetic bug in nexern's blockchain explorer. When you search for an account that doesnt exist, it says "noting found"
Anyone know who should this be addressed this too?
http://s18.postimg.org/6108dnq49/Screenshot_from_2014_02_17_09_34_25.png
I noticed a cosmetic bug in nexern's blockchain explorer. When you search for an account that doesnt exist, it says "noting found"
Anyone know who should this be addressed this too?
http://s18.postimg.org/6108dnq49/Screenshot_from_2014_02_17_09_34_25.png
Oh man..somehow that never occurred to me. Sent him a pm.
Hi Nxters,
I noticed a cosmetic bug in nexern's blockchain explorer. When you search for an account that doesnt exist, it says "noting found"
Anyone know who should this be addressed this too?
http://s18.postimg.org/6108dnq49/Screenshot_from_2014_02_17_09_34_25.png
I noticed a cosmetic bug in nexern's blockchain explorer. When you search for an account that doesnt exist, it says "noting found"
Anyone know who should this be addressed this too?
http://s18.postimg.org/6108dnq49/Screenshot_from_2014_02_17_09_34_25.png
Anyone seen this? Its eerily creepy how we could draw parallels between this .nxt and nxt the crypto -
http://dot-nxt.com/about
http://dot-nxt.com/about
This won't work. The large holder only has to do this once. What's to stop a large holder from making 10000 accounts now, and then having 10000 votes forever while everyone else who doesn't cheat only has 1? This is also the reason why time-locks won't work. They can just create the accounts now, and use them X months later.
IMO, any methods with fees won't work, because guess who has more money to afford fees? Right, large stakeholders. Introducing anything above minimum fee into VS is actually punishing small stakeholders.
POS Voting System (1 NXT = 1 Vote) is the only way to ensure everyone, based proportionally on their stake, has an equal say.
Fair points. I see how 1nxt = 1 vote is a better approach that way.
After some thought, it also seems highly unlikely that the largest stakeholders will intentionally vote against the majority of all stakeholders. Suppose this does happen, then if the distribution of NXT remains healthy, they should still not have an unfair voting advantage.
The more NXT someone has, the more right he has to decide. It's natural. Someone with 50% ownership on a company has a 50% right to decide something..
It's so easy. So why do you fighting over this so much?
I agree too, but this is only under the assumption that large stakeholders will always do things in the best interest of the currency's growth and health. However, I am sure at some point there could be large NXT stakeholders that would vote for something just not acceptable by a majority of the community and it would be interesting to see how that would play out in the actual decision making process.It's so easy. So why do you fighting over this so much?