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

IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t

casey.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 111 posts

Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t

#71

Post by rileyphone »

rthomas6 wrote: post #36

What do smart people think about NANO (Formerly Raiblocks)? It also uses a DAG scheme and has fast transactions with no fees, and it's already decentralized.

Important to note is that Nano isn't really a DAG, but rather a block lattice - essentially every account has it's own chain of transactions that are verified by nodes. Additionally, each transaction is actually two, a 'send' and a 'receive', each mentioning the other address, amount, and preceding block to prevent double sends/receives. The only problem in this article shared with Nano is the ability to spam the network, but there is a small PoW associated with each transaction to slow this down.

Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t

#72

Post by UncleMeat »

nukeop wrote: post #12
scandox wrote: post #5

Earlier 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.

This line is ironic in the play, as it is spoken by someone who is absolutely not brief. It isn't a truism.

Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t

#73

Post by izelkay »

lambdas wrote: post #70
izelkay wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI: This is a fake webpage. The creators have nothing to do with it. You're an imbecile for believing such a thing.

Not even an iota of an idiot compared to those who bought into this scam of a coin :)

Yeah, those guys are such idiots for earning a +380606% return on their investment from ICO :)

Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t

#75

Post by Hurdy »

cdiddy2 wrote: post #74
aje403 wrote: post #14

There are a lot of letters in that article. Here is a lot less: It is a scam

damn so did Bosch get scammed too? http://www.businessinsider.com/robert-bosch-bets-on-iota-201...

Bosch just wants to have press releases that contain the word "blockchain". It doesn't make the technology any less broken.

Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t

#76

Post by dsacco »

solotronics wrote: post #63
dsacco wrote: post #45

I want to critique one particular point made in this article, becuase it’s incorrect: > IOTA uses cryptography that cannot be broken by quantum computers. The use of such cryptography, specifically Winternitz signatures, leaves IOTA users vulnerable to loss of funds if they ever reuse an address. This attack that has already been seen in practice, with one user reportedly losing $30,000 USD worth of IOTA. As quantum…

I am somewhat of a layman in regards to the math of cryptography but could you solve this by using Winternitz signatures first then something like chacha?

I’m a little unclear as to what you mean. Winternitz (W-OTS) is a hash-based digital signature scheme. ChaCha is a stream cipher for symmetric encryption. Do you mean a Winternitz signature digest encrypted with ChaCha, or are you proposing a ChaCha derivative hash function, like Blake?

In either case, I don’t see what it gets you to use the post-quantum signatures anyway, then add the overhead of ChaCha.

Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t

#77

Post by tim333 »

andrewla wrote: post #30
wyldfire wrote: post #23

Earlier 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.

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 gi…

"Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol" ?

(https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/889.pdf

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13134363

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/52qfwl/provably_s...)

Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t

#78

Post by aje403 »

cdiddy2 wrote: post #74
aje403 wrote: post #14

There are a lot of letters in that article. Here is a lot less: It is a scam

damn so did Bosch get scammed too? http://www.businessinsider.com/robert-bosch-bets-on-iota-201...

No, he did not get scammed, he became involved in a scam.

Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t

#79

Post by keketi »

dsacco wrote: post #55
JCharante wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

re: time travel. Check out their website and specifically the team page.

Their website (iota.org) does not appear to have any team page. Do you mind posting a specific link?

"Sergey Ivancheglo (Co-Founder, Engineer)"[1] "My name is Sergey Ivancheglo. I am the mastermind of computer science, in all domains, of literally all mind-numbing technology that you ever come across."[2]

The domain registration seems recent: 2017-09-26 [3]. Registrant data is obscured by Domains By Proxy.

I can't find any indication that the site is owned by Ivancheglo. A Reddit thread[4] suggests that it is a troll website.

[1] http://www.tangleblog.com/what-is-iota-what-is-the-tangle/ [2] http://archive.is/GebOA [3] https://who.is/whois/come-from-beyond.com [4] https://www.reddit.com/r/Iota/comments/7p1x1k/founding_partn...

Re: IOTA: The Brave Little Toaster That Couldn’t

#80

Post by throwawaylolx »

simias wrote: post #46

While it's probably not the main problem with IOTA I must say that the ternary logic is probably the most amusing and baffling thing about it. This kind of hubris is something I would expect from a very junior developer without much real world experience who already thinks he's got everything figured out. How can one rationalize starting a super ambitious cryptocurrency project and on top of that decide to reimplemen…

This is even more amusing when coupled with the thoughts of IOTA followers: https://www.reddit.com/r/Iota/comments/73w6i7/why_ternary_ar...

The two most voted comments are as follows:

>It's a little overwhelming seeing IOTA do all of these things so far beyond other crypto projects. Blockchain tech is already bleeding edge but then add in ternary, quantum resistance, DAG, infinite scaling, free transactions, and AI resistance... It can be a lot to soak in for the average blockchain investor. But that just means time is even more on IOTA's side as it slowly proves itself :). This coin is going to turn the crypto space upside down.

>IOTA is thinking ahead into the future but people seem to think their decision to go Ternary is "stupid" not realizing they are just that far ahead in their vision.

Post reply on HN