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

91–100 of 111 posts

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

#91

Post by aje403 »

ShorsHammer wrote: post #87
aje403 wrote: post #61

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.

Why you believe that validates any of the ideas is beyond me

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

#92

Post by wmf »

siruncledrew wrote: post #86
throwawaylolx wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In other words, people are trying to pump up the price of IOTA.

Less cynically, the reason we have to warn people about crackpots is that it's human nature to believe them.

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

#93

Post by wildbunny »

tim333 wrote: post #77
andrewla wrote: post #30

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 requires a majority of trustworthy nodes to be online - it cannot deal with a force majeure, such as a massive power cut.

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

#94

Post by kybernetikos »

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…

> The easier path is to just checkpoint in the client, so that the trust comes from the github repository that pushes the client

Are you not trusting the client you're running anyway? It seems like this is not a very big increase in trust.

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

#95

Post by duskwuff »

coinerone wrote: post #20

Isnt it correct that IOTA is not meant to be tradet by humans?

The vast majority of entities currently trading IOTA are humans. The designers have claimed that it is somehow designed for IoT devices, but no such application currently exists, and it is unclear how their design is supposed to enable such a usage.

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

#96

Post by sannee »

fru2013 wrote: post #59
lambdas wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it was on his domain at http://come-from-beyond.com , unfortunately since last month he's not renewed it and wayback just loads a blank page. Shame, I'm going to see if it's available anywhere as it was a riot. Technology NASA is making him keep secret until this countdown he had going.

There are some snapshots on archive.is. One is of the about page and another is of a blog post. 1. http://archive.is/GebOA 2. http://archive.is/KoPRm

That's surely some attempt at humour, I mean, noone can be _this_ insane right?

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

#97

Post by seanwilson »

wildbunny wrote: post #93
tim333 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 requires a majority of trustworthy nodes to be online - it cannot deal with a force majeure, such as a massive power cut.

What can though? If a large fraction of Bitcoin miners went down you'd need less hash rate to double spend.

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

#98

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

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…

It also ignores the fundamental realities of CMOS: binary is more energy efficient than trinary. You can save a few transistors (and thus die area) by using trinary, but you vastly increase your power use & heat dissipation to do so. It's not even optimization!

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

#100

Post by whataretensors »

momentmaker wrote: post #42

What about NANO then if they share the same kind of tech as IOTA? Any thoughts on that?

Completely different project. Nano seems closer.

Despite the negativity here I think iota will likely become production ready too, but the timeline will be longer.

Post reply on HN