81–90 of 111 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
From the AMA Bosch did[1] it certainly seems like its more than just a blockchain PR and that they are actually putting resources towards this, but its hard to tell from the outside
[1]https://www.reddit.com/r/Iota/comments/7sxgx0/bosch_ama_janu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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... )
It would take the endorsement of someone that I consider extremely trustworthy to even go to the trouble of trying to deconstruct whether this approach is valid.
It stands, I think, in stark contrast to the simplicity of the proof-of-work based Sybil resistance, and the "central authority will sign the block" based Sybil resistance.
That said, given this discussion about the nature of trust, this scheme may work in effect, even if in the end it devolves into a centralized or social proof to find the correct chain. I'm not sure it adds a lot on top of that except instilling some potentially false sense of security in naively written nodes.
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...
I 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…
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 r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is perhaps a bit more to cryptocurrencies that Singer gives them credit for. I've recently been reading some of the original stuff from Szabo / Satoshi eg http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/12/bit-gold.html and https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf that partly explain why they have worked and not collapsed 9 years later. A lot of it is much clearer than the hype which has followed.
There are several thousand of those articles with the same points scrambled, filled with millions of comments with the same points scrambled. It's bait for people to jump in a pool with sharks. People like Singer and Buffett are driving by in a boat and looking in with binoculars. Hopefully enough people do not jump in that there ends up being a tidal wave.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is the part where he admitted it was bullshit?
Indeed "Our short of #IOTA on @bitfinex has closed at a profit of over 30%. Who said writing doesn't pay?" could open him to criminal prosecution if it was bullshit. It's legal to short something and make legitimate criticisms but spreading lies to drop the price is not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are several thousand of those articles with the same points scrambled, filled with millions of comments with the same points scrambled. It's bait for people to jump in a pool with sharks. People like Singer and Buffett are driving by in a boat and looking in with binoculars. Hopefully enough people do not jump in that there ends up being a tidal wave.
Szabo is not another cryptocurrency talking head. He proposed smart contracts a decade before they became a reality.
Here we go again. Iota has never been one of the coins to answer any concerns without either saying "this is planned for the future" or creating sock puppets to try and drown the thread in low quality comments.