Quote from: SatoNatomato on February 26, 2017, 10:26:35 PM

Quote from: SteveoMB on February 24, 2017, 10:28:44 PM

Quote from: LemonAndFriesOne on February 24, 2017, 10:04:24 PM

Quote from: SatoNatomato on February 24, 2017, 12:35:58 PM

Quote from: LemonAndFriesOne on February 24, 2017, 04:01:56 AM

Be wary of IOTA, they don't like constructive criticism. Red flags are raised:

They dont take kindly on even asking how Iota is supposed to work.

However, they do spread bullshit about Byteball on here, and in their slack forum, they are originater of "Byteball is a blockchain and DAG hybrid" lie.

Iota action smell bad, like something is rotten.

The whole "we'll beat quantum computing" even is a bunch of bs. How can they beat something that can compute several states at the same time almost instantaneously with regular tech that still computes things one at a time? Sounds like they are spreading a bunch of hype to uninformed individuals.

I'm sure someone in their team is working under Ubuntu and somehow convinced their boss about this new fancy shmancy state of the art technology and the many moneys they will make.

The guy I bought some IOTA from said he was selling all of their coins because of internal conflicts with Come-from-Beyond and hinted that the initial investors have a hard time dealing with someone who doesn't want to discuss how the project even works. To the point that they were not allowed to question iota.

Like you said, smells of another BTC scam. What's new in the alt-world, same thing over and over again.

you guys don't wanna get a better image of IOTA. you just stick to your opinion. This looks to me like a conditioned opinion because this isn't about IOTA. this is about byteball or whatever you invested in instead.
everyone INCLUDING dom and david tried their best and talked to you guys to clear uncertain questions but you still come here to trigger everyone.
and I'm asking myself why.
is this just bottom-feeding or is this an honest scientific opinion based on facts?
because all I can see is an ever repeating trump-argumentation with phrases and neural diarrhea.
for the facts I'm willing to start an AmA. You may ask anything and I don't even give a shit about ad hominem. you insult, you ask, I answer anyway.
the first question I saw is "Is quantum-proof bullshit!?"
no.
Winternitz one time signature scheme enables the quantum resistance. here: this for example doesn't say quantum proof or immune, but resistance. and furthermore, that "Current research suggests, that the
security of hash-based signatures will not be significantly harmed by quantum computer supported
attacks [12]." Side 1, bottom. https://eprint.iacr.org/2011/191.pdf
It is about "pseudo randomization" and "key one-wayness" explained on side 4.
Source: "We begin by reviewing the standard definition of digital signature schemes and the security notion
existential unforgeability under adaptive chosen message attacks (EU-CMA) [11]. We then define
two security notions for function families required for our reduction. The first is the well known
pseudo-randomness property. The second is key one-wayness which states that it is hard to find
a key k such that the function fk maps a given input x to a given output y. We also state two
lemmas about these notions which will be useful for the reduction of W-OTS.
"
This is proven.
If you come up with further bullshit, Ill proof you wrong. gogo.
next question!

OK I will bite.

What use does a scheme requiring a Proof-of-Work - which is designed to be computationally and energy-intensive process, provide for computation and energy-starved Internet-of-Things devices?

Let me rephrase that, a digital currency for Internet-of-Things, it even claims to have IoT in its very name, is building its (still not actually functional but ok, can pass) consensus algorithm on Proof-of-Work.

If you still fail to actually see the god damn problem, you must be blinded by marketing of Iota, as better currencies exist which are more suitable for IoT, those which dont require PoW, nor just waste compute power for no real consensus anyway.

EDIT: As for the quantum marketing. At least something done somewhat OK by Iota. Even a broken clock is right 2 times per day.

you haven't been part of the conversation because last time, we failed to find a shared pov ourselves, but I will answer anyway.

PoW is a prevention against sybil attacks. The PoW, which is necessary is not very much and will then be of minor significance, once the IRI will be changed for industrial appliances.
why PoW at all? well, you have a synchronized, soon to be decentralized system, where data-integrity needs to be established through the "confirm 2 tx before you conduct a new one" thingy. pretty solid architecture. what would you take?
for the computational power: you ever heard about JINN?
the ternary processors will conduct the necessary PoW in fractions of a second. Right now, I need just a few seconds with my CPU so that's completely fine for users. the IoT will be handled differently, but everyone was told that like a hundred times.
the consensus furthermore will be established in a decentralized manner, once the monte carlo random walk is enabled, because right now, like you know, the coordinator is centralizing it, for security and topology-reason. (the wittnesses in BB btw too)
So what is your point? that the PoW is to heavy? well it isn't very long.
That we have no decentralization? well we will have it in approx. july 2017
That it's not suitable? why not, what is still missing?

SteveoMB

Posts

Merits