Is this the same coin that has both incredibly rude developers and one that claims to have invented time travel?
Wow, really? Do you happen to have any sources? I'd be curious to see. Thanks!
IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t
21–30 of 111 posts
Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t
#22This quote applies especially to IOTA:
"Cryptocurrencies are nothing except the marketing power of inventors, financiers and others who love the idea of buying a black box (which is obviously empty) for the price of a Kia and dreaming that it will turn into a Mercedes. There have been times recently when this dream has materialized within hours. This is not just a bubble. It is not just a fraud. It is perhaps the outer limit, the ultimate expression, of the ability of humans to seize upon ether and hope to ride it to the stars." - Paul Singer, Elliott Management
IOTA's tech is shitty but they've convinced enough people that it's worth something that it's now worth something. Maybe that's all a crypto needs? I was honestly expecting all of this to crash and burn back in December- but it hasn't yet. Maybe these cryptocoins really are the future.
Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t
#23Not 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…
> You cannot have a trustless consensus without a mining incentive
This is not true, Proof-of-stake creates a suitable incentive to verify transactions and maintain the network. It's a legitimate alternative to proof-of-work.
Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t
#24Not 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…
> You cannot have a trustless consensus without a mining incentive This is not true, Proof-of-stake creates a suitable incentive to verify transactions and maintain the network. It's a legitimate alternative to proof-of-work.
Is proof-of-stake actually deployed anywhere yet?
Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t
#25Nice writeup. Though you might want to proof read it a few (more) times.
"since The Coordinator is the current the arbiter of truth in the IOTA system"
"Similarly, transaction outputs that appear in a snapshot [6] are more valuable than those that have."
And a couple more like these.
Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a…
FWIW the TNW article title should have been "IOTA is vulnerable to replay attacks if you use a malicious wallet that could also steal your private keys"
Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You cannot have a trustless consensus without a mining incentive This is not true, Proof-of-stake creates a suitable incentive to verify transactions and maintain the network. It's a legitimate alternative to proof-of-work.
Is proof-of-stake actually deployed anywhere yet?
Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work (2015)
Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t
#28keep on hating
Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t
#29I think the biggest issue here is that even though this post is well researched, most people don't care, because they haven't invested in IOTA (or any other cryptocurrency for that matter) with the intention of using the features.
The large majority is in it for the trading. Unless there are huge issues such as the network crashing, they don't care. It's just a line chart on an exchange to them. That's also why there are no repercussions for people never delivering on ICO promises.
It kinda scares me.
Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t
#30Not 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…
> You cannot have a trustless consensus without a mining incentive This is not true, Proof-of-stake creates a suitable incentive to verify transactions and maintain the network. It's a legitimate alternative to proof-of-work.
I have yet to see a convincing argument that proof-of-stake can be made trustless. The only designs that I've seen that seem realistic rely on some notion of checkpointing to prevent large scale chain rewrites.
While it may be possible to make that checkpointing distributed, the only way that I'm aware of is to use proof of work. The easier path is to just checkpoint in the client, so that the trust comes from the github repository that pushes the client, or gets trusted updates from some trusted authority.
That's not to say that trustless consensus is necessary for a currency. I used to be a very strong believer that that was a necessary component, but I've begun to question that belief. The notion of censorship-resistance is an important part of why I liked Bitcoin in the first place, but may turn out not to be sufficiently valuable to people to impact coins that don't have that property.