101–110 of 171 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> just because it’s premined doesn’t mean it’s a scam Not a scam, but there is a problem with premining. Consider the first 1 million Satoshi's bitcoins, which, albeit unintentional, still qualifies as pre-mining IMO - we don't know who owns them and whether they are spendable, their value is mind-boggling and if any one of them is spent, it can cause a panic.
It's not premining because it was publicly announced so you at least had a chance of getting it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ripples sounds more legit to me. I mean look at this thread about IOTA: https://www.reddit.com/r/Iota/comments/70ya29/time_for_a_par... Anyone putting their money in IOTA is an absolute idiot.
> Anyone putting their money in IOTA is an absolute idiot. I bought in when it was trading well under $1. I'm holding long term so I don't much care about today's price, but it _is_ nice to be up >700% so far. I don't consider myself an absolute idiot on this one.
IOTA is kind of a joke IMHO: * They have this thing called the "coordinator" which is a master-node run by them, which is a single point of failure. The codebase that this node runs is proprietary software. They claim there will be no need for this masternode in the long run but they never say any ETA about when to remove it (which hints that removing it may always expose the security flaws of their network). This me…
You seem to be a pretty big bitcoin fan (all your other comments), so I would say it is fair that you may be slightly biased against IOTA. IOTA does not proclaim to be finished, it is still in beta. Hence the need for the coordinator. The coordinator will be turned off once there are enough transactions to secure the network.
I already said this in my comment, no need to reiterate it. You didn't repeat, though, that there's no ETA or rough threshold of when it would be safe to turn it off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why does everyone repeat that Byzantine consensus requires maximum 33% of participants to be dishonest? Not 33% of participants, 33% of the hash power, could just be one participant with a pile of GPUs or ASICS or "JINN" chips lol. That's the claim made by the IOTA author, anyway. Right now it wouldn't surprise me if someone could amass 90+% of IOTA hash power anyway. >If messages cannot be forged Tbh this is not ev…
Okay but it was more of a general question. I see Hashgraph and others always saying that they need 33% of participants to be honest. But with unforgeable message signatures that limitation doesn't apply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If two devices create valid transactions on two independent subtangles and the system tries to reconcile these tangles into the main tangle afterwards, how do they determine which transaction is valid? The subtangle with the highest weight. when you start thinking about possible applications it's actually quite hard to come up with something that seems both interesting and doable. I can think of a number of niche exa…
> The subtangle with the highest weight. Which is not an acceptable answer, at least from the perspective of an offline node accepting payment. People will exploit it by paying an offline vendor, taking the goods then rushing online to create a doublespend which reverts the transaction. So offline vendors will never accept it as payment, and the entire feature is useless.
You can't do it with credit cards, people will generate fake numbers.
You can't do it with bitcoin, someone can double spend with a higher fee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay but it was more of a general question. I see Hashgraph and others always saying that they need 33% of participants to be honest. But with unforgeable message signatures that limitation doesn't apply.
Virtual Voting in hashgraph requires a 2/3 agreement. Of course PoW provides some protection against sybil attacks, but the reality is that with enough hashpower the network can be overtaken. (Hence why HashGraph is a closed network.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay but it was more of a general question. I see Hashgraph and others always saying that they need 33% of participants to be honest. But with unforgeable message signatures that limitation doesn't apply.
Proof of work isn't about forging transactions, it is about ordering them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Proof of work isn't about forging transactions, it is about ordering them.
If all you needed was a way to order transactions you would not need proof of work at all. Here for example is the PTN: https://intercoin.org/technical.pdf
Second, I didn't say it was necessary to order transactions, I said that is what it is used for, which is correct. You are replying to a point that I didn't make.
Are there any transactions on their blockchain?