41–50 of 72 posts
Yeah, I'm done with this "scientific" tone, this PDF thing and so on. What is in this paper that couldn't be posted as HTML in a web page? How is PDF better compared to that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Be warned about IOTA though, it still is not decentralized, see https://medium.com/@ercwl/iota-is-centralized-6289246e7b4d and the reaction of devs/foundation-members to that article, does resemble the reaction when somebody has something to hide. And https://www.reddit.com/r/Iota/comments/6jzfak/whats_wrong_wi... and some others, but also the official channels are moderated/censored. Seems to be more promise, hype a…
Even disregarding any flaws, I'd still consider it a blockchain - just one where each block only holds a single transaction.
Check out the live DAG (aka the tangle) at https://tangle.blox.pm
Reminds me of a cryptocurrency for the gift economy that I'm working on. Each coin is unique and valued subjectively by each person. https://github.com/jchris/document-coin
Are there any blockchain-free cryptocurrencies currently on any exchange?
IOTA: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/iota/ Here's the related white paper: https://iota.org/IOTA_Whitepaper.pdf Website is here: https://iota.org
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not getting any results for it on DDG, might be a troll
Seems to be about someone creating massive amounts of privkeys and messing with verification (the fact that 51% attacks no longer exist in this approach make that irrelevant, however.) I'm not an expert on cryptocurrencies, but I don't see how that issue could be any more prevalent here than in "standard" (Bitcoin-style) blockchains.
So this is basically a blockchain, but with transactions instead of blocks, and diverging-then-converging graph instead of a linear sequence of blocks (like a real family graph instead of just one-parent-one-child families common in blockchains). Looks nice, what are the problems with the approach? (the paper only lists the benefits).
There is no mechanism to link cost of proof of work generated to the value being transacted. With a blockchain, scarcity of space per block leads to a fee market forming, and fees paid increasing as the value contained per transaction increases. This leads to security (proof of work) increasing in proportion to value that needs to be protected.
So this is basically a blockchain, but with transactions instead of blocks, and diverging-then-converging graph instead of a linear sequence of blocks (like a real family graph instead of just one-parent-one-child families common in blockchains). Looks nice, what are the problems with the approach? (the paper only lists the benefits).
There is no way to have a controlled release of new coins into the system. For that you need a blockchain that establishes a consensus on time transpired and on the total economic resources being contributed (which allows the share of the newly generated coins that each participant will receive in a unit of time to be proportional to the share of the total economic resources they are responsible for contributing). Th…
My understanding of proof of work is that it's used to limit the number of new blocks which will get propagated through the network. Bitcoin automatically adjusts difficulty such that it approximately takes 10 minutes for a new block. If block creation intervals were lower it would compromise the security of the system and enable attacks with much less than 50% of the hash power.
www.iota.org
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems to be about someone creating massive amounts of privkeys and messing with verification (the fact that 51% attacks no longer exist in this approach make that irrelevant, however.) I'm not an expert on cryptocurrencies, but I don't see how that issue could be any more prevalent here than in "standard" (Bitcoin-style) blockchains.
I think the question was about "ledger scientist".