Is this the same coin that has both incredibly rude developers and one that claims to have invented time travel?
IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t
11–20 of 111 posts
Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t
#12Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t
#13as interesting iota is so they claim, my bet is on lightning network for high scalability transaction and machine to machine payment
Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t
#14There are a lot of letters in that article. Here is a lot less:
It is a scam
Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
So he has a page of contents and 30 footnotes. He writes in an articulate manner and his presentation is credible. It might all be bollocks - but why on earth would I rate your 8 word opinion higher?
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Perhaps, but that hardly makes everything brief witty.
Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
So he has a page of contents and 30 footnotes. He writes in an articulate manner and his presentation is credible. It might all be bollocks - but why on earth would I rate your 8 word opinion higher?
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Yet the comment in question was entirely lacking in wit.
Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t
#17Why would anyone spend Time to write this Article?
Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t
#18Not to mention that the central consensus mechanism is completely broken. You cannot have a trustless consensus without a mining incentive: Quoted from my post linked below: o) Network hashrate is the overall power of the network - in bitcoin, this is the computing power needed to generate a block. o) Bitcoin employs a mining reward which creates a competition between miners to produce a block and claim their reward…
> both byteball and iota use trusted third parties to secure the network
and Byteball looks more secure than IOTA you can have several witnesses that can bee different entities and you have to conclude more than half to change consensus state.
Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
So he has a page of contents and 30 footnotes. He writes in an articulate manner and his presentation is credible. It might all be bollocks - but why on earth would I rate your 8 word opinion higher?
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Whenever I read this, I think of Bradbury's counterpoint to the Shakespeare quip that "Digression is the soul of wit." It's about having something to say, not just being of few words.
More apropos here, concision can be a powerful dramatic device, but I don't feel that there's any wit in the post you're commenting on above.
If you want a clickbait/digest-in-an-instant headline, why not "IOTA is vulnerable to replay attacks but has no intention of fixing the flaw"? [0]
Personally, I like having a more detailed, precise, technical assessment. It may not be concise, but you can't put a pretty bow on cryptography without dumbing it down.
[0]: https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/02/21/iota-replay-attac...
Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t
#20Isnt it correct that IOTA is not meant to be tradet by humans?