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

101–110 of 111 posts

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

#101

Post by nosuchthing »

MatekCopatek wrote: post #29

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…

  Whether or not IOTA’s ledger is “tamper-proof,” the entire 
  IOTA network went down in November, and was completely 
  inoperable for about three days. That this has never 
  happened in Bitcoin or Ethereum suggests the extent to 
  which the IOTA network relies on the “coordinator”—a   
  single point of failure—and is not truly decentralized.
The network did crash when IOTA pulled its centeral authoritative 'coordinator' server offline causing all other nodes and clients to go offline.

This was during a patch from an exploit discovered by MIT researchers. IOTA later denied the flaw existed, even though they took the network offline to patch it.

https://www.media.mit.edu/posts/iota-response/

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

#102

Post by tim333 »

aje403 wrote: post #61
tim333 wrote: post #47

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.

Well those two are unusual in they were the original ones for the first cryptocurrency. Everything else is derivative. It's interesting the intent was

>While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs...

And then it argues trustless electronic money could reduce transaction costs. I think it was never intended to be a huge casino.

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

#103

Post by tim333 »

izelkay wrote: post #62
verroq wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the part where he admitted it was bullshit?

https://twitter.com/ShitcoinDotCom/status/965370339999014913 Are you honestly going to try and tell me that this guy is not full of shit?

Apparently he paid up https://www.reddit.com/r/Iota/comments/7yl90w/25_for_proof_o...

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

#104

Post by ShorsHammer »

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #89
ShorsHammer wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Szabo is not another cryptocurrency talking head. He proposed smart contracts a decade before they became a reality.

Who hasn't proposed smart contracts decades ago? We used to talk about formalizing the legal system so it could be processed by computer while sitting around the undergrad common room. You can't read, e.g. Asimov, without being exposed to such ideas. Not to mention the numerous times such an idea came up on usenet, slashdot, or here whenever some corrupt human-in-authority abused some legal system. Every one of those…

I'd love to see some formalised non sci-fi works on smart contracts that existed before the mid 90's if you can point me in the direction?

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

#105

Post by ShorsHammer »

aje403 wrote: post #91
ShorsHammer wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not sure you are responding to the right comment?

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

#107

Post by fathomit »

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…

IOTA was started after their ternary chip JINN project. IOTA was made for JINN.

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

#108

Post by fathomit »

andrewla wrote: post #69
veeti wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://iota.org/ > Scalable, Decentralized, Modular, No Fees

Hmm... I did not mean for my reply to be an apology for IOTA, though reading it now I can easily see how it looks like it. I'm not trying to rewrite history and say that "IOTA was never intended to be decentralized". I'm saying, as the article points out, that IOTA is effectively centralized, and the plan for moving to being decentralized is fatally and irretrievably flawed. I also think the rhetoric about being a cu…

IOTA is centralized

IOTA is more decentralized than any blockchain crypto that relies on 5 pools of miners, all largely based overseas. Furthermore, coordinator isn’t a central server all transactions pass through, contrary to popular misconception. It is just normal actor who adds transactions to the tangle, which other nodes can use as milestones, if they wish. It’s a shepherd, you could say, which the herd can follow so they don’t go astray (following some malicious nodes or whatnot). The Monte Carlo Random Walk algorithm is what will create consensus in the herd when there is no shepherd any more. It will be comparable to every sheep calling out while also following the sound of the call of the rest of the herd. That way they can all tangle up together.

Referencing the coordinator is also optional.

Also, if you research and understand how IOTA intends to work without the coordinator, it’s easier to accept it for now as training wheels. I suggest reading pg 15 and on of the white paper analyzing in great depth how the network will defend different attack scenarios without a coordinator. For the past several months, IOTA foundation has been using St Petersburg college’s super computer to stress test IOTA and learn when they can turn the coordinator off. There will likely be a blog about the results soon.

This is another great read covering double spends on IOTA without a coordinator: www.tangleblog.com/2017/07/10/is-double-spending-possible-with-iota/

This too: http://www.reddit.com/r/Iota/comments/7eix4a/any_iota_guru_t...

Also this correspondence with Vitalik and Come_from_Beyond https://twitter.com/DavidSonstebo/status/932510087301779456

At the end of the day, outstanding claims require outstanding evidence and folks approaching IOTA with a “I’ll believe it when I see it” attitude is completely understandable. It’s all about your risk tolerance.

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

#109

Post by progresss »

I don't see anything wrong in creating something new even if it is not working right now at at best, at least people progressing, you would never have any crypto if somebody would not create something new like "Bitcoin" those who just follow blockchain tech they are just followers (easy life just add something extra and scream MY COIN IS THE BEST) Iota is something totally new and only idiots can demand from iota to be perfect from the very begining! Its not perfect but everyday it gets stronger and stronger, if you think iota is terrible why you even care about it, it will die soon maybe tomorow?, after tomorew? next week? why you even bother ? You care about everything what is terrible from your point of view? okay just go outside find some "dog shit" on the street sit down and talk about it for hours, should be same satisfaction ?! I don't think that is the case... Most probably you don't think that iota so terrible and you see some very good percentage that it could possibly succeed in the future in that case i understand why suporters of other altcoins puts so much effort to scam about it...

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

#110

Post by davidgerard »

MatekCopatek wrote: post #29

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…

> Unless there are huge issues such as the network crashing, they don't care.

When the network literally didn't work, the price went up.

(Because the "price" is a thing that happens inside individual exchanges, not on the public blockchain/tangle/whatever.)

Post reply on HN