Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IOTA: A tangled mess

codesuppository.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 253 posts

Re: IOTA: A tangled mess

#81

Post by xg15 »

Pardon for off-topic, but the arguments he makes about double-spending (the third "rule" from that linked forum post) made me realize I have some gaps in my understanding how Bitcoin handles overlapping transactions.

Suppose I have an address with 0BTC balance. (i.e. I have the private key of it on my PC. There isn't yet anything about that address in the blockchain.)

Some other person sends 100mBTC to that address. I can see that the transaction has spread through the network but it hasn't been added to a block yet.

Because I'm overly trusting and/or in a hurry, I don't wait until it's confirmed but I immediately send another transaction that sends the 100mBTC to some other account.

If a miner first picked transaction #1, added it to a block, then added transaction #2 to the following block, both transactions would be valid. However if a miner tried to process transaction #2 first, it would be invalid.

So what would happen? Would miners bring the transactions into correct order and validate both, only validate #1 and reject #2 or reject both?

Re: IOTA: A tangled mess

#82

Post by Amezarak »

Zarath wrote: post #75
cryptodogemoon wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's forever part of Bitcoins orgin story that it begin as hyperinflationary and has since slowed the minting of more BTC. The irony is the mythos of bitcoin being "deflationary" is not historically accurate and the supply is inflating every 10 minutes. What Bitcoiners conveniently omit from explanation in Satoshis protocol is the initial "dump" of the supply to the first few users who ran the software. This is a mal…

"This is a malicious design decision intended to control the supply early." Cmon dude, really?

Some estimates have Satoshi owning around one million BTC.

That's 5% of all the Bitcoins that will ever exist.

Re: IOTA: A tangled mess

#83

Post by seanwilson »

asddddd wrote: post #68
seanwilson wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's unclear to me why the choice of programming language -- unless it was a very obscure and rarely used one, or one that's specifically used in one (unrelated) domain -- should be of any significance. I'd rather use a language where e.g. a buffer overflow couldn't be turned into a remote exploit that would let you steal coins from every client on the network. Mistakes in cryptocurrency code has the potential to b…

Most likely it's that the majority of experienced crypto devs (aka people who have been around since it was "fork bitcoin and change PoW algo + logo") will be familiar with C++, so a Java implementation is an odd choice that strongly hints that it was written by a lowest-cost contractor - or at least someone unfamiliar with cryptos. Since there is an awful lot of trust in devs to provide future support/improvement, b…

> Most likely it's that the majority of experienced crypto devs (aka people who have been around since it was "fork bitcoin and change PoW algo + logo") will be familiar with C++, so a Java implementation is an odd choice that strongly hints that it was written by a lowest-cost contractor

If you're an experienced developer writing a new cryptocurrency that's radically different from Bitcoin, why would you want to fork from Bitcoin and why would you find Java code harder to make safer than C++ code?

Re: IOTA: A tangled mess

#84

Post by izzle49 »

xg15 wrote: post #81

Pardon for off-topic, but the arguments he makes about double-spending (the third "rule" from that linked forum post) made me realize I have some gaps in my understanding how Bitcoin handles overlapping transactions. Suppose I have an address with 0BTC balance. (i.e. I have the private key of it on my PC. There isn't yet anything about that address in the blockchain.) Some other person sends 100mBTC to that address.…

I could be wrong but I thought miners were always in sync, miners are effectively writers to the ledger and single threaded. They all mine the same transactions in the same order. The first to find the hash with correct difficulty gets the block, which triggers the other miners to stop and verify. Once verified the new block becomes the seed for the next block. So the first transaction will always be processed before the second transaction. The second transaction would be committed as long as you had enough balance remaining after the first transaction.

Re: IOTA: A tangled mess

#85

Post by ricardobeat »

TFortunato wrote: post #72
ricardobeat wrote: post #54

> as if this was a JavaScript some 12 year old was writing for his homebrew website. Who can tell the difference? > Look, let's be very clear. IOTA is a live cryptocurrency with a market cap in the billions of dollars. Real people have large amounts of value tied up on that network. It is hosted on several exchanges. This is a naive misconception, and one of the most dangerous aspects of cryptocurrencies right now -…

I'm missing what the misconception is in this quote? I don't see him saying they are regulated / guarenteed or anything like that, only that people have poured a stupid amount of money into this thing.

He implies that being “live” with “real money” and a billion dollar market cap means something. It doesn’t. He says:

“You do not release financial software to the general public in such a buggy state. You do not blame the victims for your software failing to function.”

When in fact, you do _whatever the hell you want_. This is not “financial software” in the original sense. The fact that people put significant amounts of cash in these altcoins is astounding. You only have [some] guarantees where the system itself enforces them, like BitCoin, and even then no one entity is liable for your losses because of de-centralization.

I own bits of four cryptocurrencies, and take the risk of 100% loss as a real possibility.

Re: IOTA: A tangled mess

#86

Post by d35007 »

shak77 wrote: post #74
tasubotadas wrote: post #15

>The IOTA source code is written in JAVA instead of C++ like most professional cryptocurrencies are. That did not instill me with confidence. This made me lose any confidence in a person's capabilities in evaluating the coin. If anything, Java is way more (or any language with modern memory management) robust choice than C++ where security is concerned. In any case, I am highly skeptical of the IOTA as well.

Not saying this is the case but to me Java looks like the choice of someone who's fresh out of school. Nobody would start a new project in Java if he had the choice.

Really? Plenty of experienced people start new projects in Java by choice.

Re: IOTA: A tangled mess

#87

Post by seanwilson »

Zarath wrote: post #77
seanwilson wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could an attacker not create lots of transactions between wallets they own so the attacker is given more transactions to verify as well?

Yes, but I think what parent was pointing out was that an honest network user has no reason to do so.

Yes, but attackers being able to create transactions that they themselves can verify would make the situation even worse. What defence does IOTA have against this? It seems an obvious exploit.

Re: IOTA: A tangled mess

#88

Post by DennisP »

cromwellian wrote: post #22

Why do people persist in the idea that a deliberately deflationary currency is a good idea. It might be a good investment, but as a currency, it doesn't promote commerce and trade, it just promotes hoarding. Much of crypto-currency holders today either seem to be people seeking to get in at the top of the ponzi pyramid and sell before collapse, or people who need to avoid some legal issue, be it capital controls, dru…

If it weren't for the fact that the U.S. charges capital gains tax on every little purchase, I'd happily spend my cryptocurrency and just replenish it as I go. Trading between currencies makes this a non-issue.

Also, if you're really convinced a cryptocurrency will go up, your same argument suggests you should buy the cryptocurrency rather than spending dollars on anything else. If you're not doing that, it indicates you're not totally certain of the future after all, so you can just as well spend your cryptocurrency.

There's also the macroeconomic effect of deflation to consider, but that's only an issue if there's only one currency. What we're actually getting is the competing private currencies advocated by Hayek. It doesn't matter so much if one currency deflates as long as the total money supply is sufficient.

Re: IOTA: A tangled mess

#89

Post by islanderfun »

afpx wrote: post #69
cromwellian wrote: post #22

Why do people persist in the idea that a deliberately deflationary currency is a good idea. It might be a good investment, but as a currency, it doesn't promote commerce and trade, it just promotes hoarding. Much of crypto-currency holders today either seem to be people seeking to get in at the top of the ponzi pyramid and sell before collapse, or people who need to avoid some legal issue, be it capital controls, dru…

The deflationary aspect is the number one reason I’ve never bought into a crypto currency. I have serious ethical and moral issues that prevent me. In addition to hoarding, deflationary currencies (like gold) cause people to spend lots of money and effort trying to get other people to buy into them too. For me, it’s a very sad thing to watch unfold. It’s like when the ‘buy gold’ commercials started appearing on Fox N…

I'm very curious on your stance. Would be able to elaborate further?

Re: IOTA: A tangled mess

#90

Post by kochthesecond »

xg15 wrote: post #81

Pardon for off-topic, but the arguments he makes about double-spending (the third "rule" from that linked forum post) made me realize I have some gaps in my understanding how Bitcoin handles overlapping transactions. Suppose I have an address with 0BTC balance. (i.e. I have the private key of it on my PC. There isn't yet anything about that address in the blockchain.) Some other person sends 100mBTC to that address.…

This is not an issue in bitcoin. #2 is never valid until #1 has commited, so #2 would not be included in any block.
Post reply on HN