It goes to show that anyone with good marketing can make a killing in the cryptocurrency world.
I'm not happy they seem to be spending more on PR than development, but that does seem to be the case for most startups these days.
So in engineering terms, "zero benefits, non-zero costs", it's no contest; use binary, or, more generally, use the native integer system on the hardware you are running on. That is, the same argument would apply in reverse on an already-existing ternary-native system. There is still a non-zero chance we'll see such a thing in our lifetime, once we run out of other ways of squeezing performance out of things (although if ternary logic is possible, if we can also get to quaternary logic that has a very trivial mapping to the binary world, so that might win instead).
"Curl-P was created by following the idea of simplicity. While de-jure I can say that it was me who created Curl-P, de-facto it was created by a primitive AI created by me. That wasn’t AI of general purpose; an improved version of the AI is working on the final version of Curl now while I’m writing this post. This situation is quite funny because it look unusual, interesting if in the future we’ll see cases similar to https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/06/monkey-selfie-... but with an AI instead of an animal. By the way, there are a lot of attempts to create a lightweight hashing function, I’d be grateful if someone confirmed or refuted my observation that Curl-P is winning this competition.
IOTA was created to be immune to quantum computer attacks, today I have revealed that it was also created to be immune to attacks from an AI. IOTA was the very first distributed ledger technology to consider imminent threat from technologies which look exotic now. NSA already validated our prediction regarding quantum computers. I think that the both threats (QC and AI) have equal chances to become real in the near future and I’m confident that in few years we’ll see confirmations that the prediction about AI was prophetic too. If someone hasn’t got it yet – IOTA is about the future and it relies only on those paradigms which pass the test of critical thinking."
I'm sure he's a very capable developer, but this just doesn't sound... sane.
Edit: Okay, after reading his "About me" page, I honestly am not sure if he is joking or ill: http://come-from-beyond.com/about-me/
"Things started by in the 1980s. I developed a time-machine which was engaged through a complex series of early ternary devices (very early prototypes of Jinn). Things have evolved since then, as the latest iteration of this function is now built into something else (undisclosed).
I went back in time in the mid-eighties to Ancient human times, and constructed a complex of pyramids using some technology I put together in my early teens. When I returned, all history of humans with regards to human development had changed drastically, with this
so called ‘mystery creation’ in Egypt."
But I also think that it's much more likely that they are just rolled their own crypto which might be BOTH novel/groundbreaking and critically flawed.
Stay away from IOTA, it's off the charts risky.
The thing about the AI that wrote the algorithm is already pretty crazy, but you really need to take a look at the shop's contents. “Tangelized Viagra“, yeah, sure. I had a good laugh while exploring the entire thing!
I've tried asking in other places but I've just had people regurgitating buzzwords at me... It's quite worrying how easily convinced non-technical people find jargon when there's so many red flags here. I can't believe some people are really buying the story that the broken hash function was a deliberate form of copy-protection to prevent open source copy cats.
Apparently ternary makes math easier in terms of signs etc. as well. The below article explains it better.
Given the wealth of experience with binary though I don't think its prudent to jump to ternary...
There's a lot of people thinking in ternary already, and not realizing it. bool? is ternary: true, false, or null. Think about the implications on error handling of such a primitive at the logic level. I'm positive that's true, I'm positive that's false, I'm not sure. It's a pretty powerful way of computing, and has a lot of implications up the stack.
If you step back and look at the gymnastics we do around boolean logic and arithmetic in typical, day-to-day programming, being able to express a third state at the logic level is something you never knew you wanted. New logic based on unknown values could be expressed -- think about a tritmask, for example, and what you could express with a number of "don't care" trits. I certainly see the value in ternary, with the caveat that I know nothing about IOTA nor how it uses it.
I've seen discussion about "why don't we build 128-bit computers?" and I think it's a similar thought exercise to "why don't we build 63-trit computers?" with the added complexity of three-level logic compared to plain word extension. I gather that a lot of benefits of ternary overlap with what's going to happen in quantum computing, too, though approaching ternary from a traditional computing mindset makes it a lot easier to understand for me.
Maybe some of those can be multiplexed to create Ternary chips with todays tools?
Does this guy even know how to code?
Edit: Here’s another gem!
> IOTA was created to be immune to quantum computer attacks, today I have revealed that it was also created to be immune to attacks from an AI.
Wow dude, it’s not only immune to Shor’s Algorithm, but an AGI too!
Is this a common practice in the cryptocurrency community? Seems sort of pointless to put flaws and bugs in an open source project as copy protection instead of just keeping it closed source.
This is clearly someone trying to save face over a practically trivial break in their hashing function.
Not common practice in software, but something that other industries have been doing for a while.
Even if this is a joke, and I consider it 99.9% likely to be a joke, if any startup had a founder that was publishing some like this, venture capital wouldn't touch them.
I can only conclude that IOTA is a long-term social experiment in 'doing as much wrong as possible' and yet still being able to turn a profit based on heavy PR spend and humanity's tendency for "wanting in on the latest craze".
On the topic of their 'partnerships' with leading technology brands, they're still listed on the Wikipedia page, so it's obviously a convenient misunderstanding.
Excerpts from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOTA_(technology%29:
"With the participation of Deutsche Telekom, Microsoft, and Fujitsu, the Foundation opened up a data marketplace using IOTA technology. The IOTA Foundation is also a founding member of the Trusted IOT Alliance, which includes the companies Bosch, Consensys, and USbank"
"The project gathered participation of over twenty global organizations, including Deutsche Telekom, Bosch, Microsoft, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Airbus, Samsung, Orange S.A., Fujitsu, and China's Huawei Group."
I don't have a dog in any cryptocurrency fight, but don't take my word for anything. Do your own research and determine how they all 'smell'. For me, IOTA smells pretty bad.
Arguably, it's still Alpha.
Or, it is all a part of an elaborate MIT prank!
1. about crypto
Every time there is some news about iota here the usual 'don't roll your own crypto' comes up.
Yes, I think everyone agrees that doing that, if you don't know what you are doing, is dangerous. This is especially the case for you app and web developers. You guys have no business rolling your own crypto.
But think about it, if nobody rolls their own crypto then how will crypto progress?
Their use case is valid, they need something lightweight for IoT. They are trying to push the current state of the art.
They hired a company to help them improve their algorithms.
2. about 'fake' corporate partnerships
There is already so much clarification to be found via google but let me repeat.
We had this blog post announcing the data marketplace:
where some quotes from companies can be found. The mass media took this and interpreted it the way they wanted to. I mean just check headlines in newspapers etc. They are 90% bullshit.
And because of that you give the iota people so much flack? You denounce them as liars and whatnot. Very unprofessional. They never themselves said 'we have a formal partnership with Microsoft'. It's the people writing news articles, writing reddit comments, doing YouTube videos that interpret things, and other people just accept that as the truth.
Go to the source for information, don't take third party info for the truth.
I know the crypto space has a lot of people manipulating markets and ripping people off. But having followed the iota people for some time they, to me, don't seem like ill-natured people.
3. about ternary
Similar to point 1, keep an open mind. They have a hardware startup working on ternary hardware for IoT. So arguing that emulating ternary on binary is shit makes no sense. That's not the purpose for iota. Iota is for IoT. The project is kept under wraps so we don't know much about it and now you might say, why believe them?
Well, no proof but, if you think about Bosch investing a large sum in iota and knowing they tried their tech for the last your, don't you think they vetted it and thought it could have potential? Bosch is a huge company with LOTS of experience in hardware. I am pretty sure they got a look at the ternary hardware, too.
Instead you guys think you are better than Bosch in making decisions, even you have none of the info Bosch has. Ridiculous.
There is not much to say here. If I say 'in the future there won't be a coordinator' you guys will just say that won't happend. Anyway, think about how decentralized Bitcoin is.. got it? Not much. Pretty much centralized. 2-3 companies having most of the mining power. So why cry about the coordinator? No idea.
I wish for this community to be a bit more open and forward thinking and not just regurgitate things like 'don't roll your own crypto'.
I have no stake in iota at all, but this response makes one wonder
people have an abundance of computational power and can process IOTA transactions
there is no lowered balance of IOTA for performing this or sending more IOTA to a destination
the article goes on about how the computational power is a fee for no other reason except to discredit the IOTA devs
would be stronger if that point was removed, it isn't a point of contention and can be explained elsewhere
Well someone has to buy hardware and pay for electricity to run the computers.
Computational power is not free, unless you're running a botnet or something.
> people have an abundance of computational power and can process IOTA transactions
And they get in return... ?
A warm fuzzy feeling for having paid money for hardware and electricity so someone else can put something on a blockch-- whoops, I mean a "Tangle."
On IoT devices?
Plus they state that having to participate in the network as a full node (fridge using 99% of your bandwidth) is also a "fee" in this context.
> ...for no other reason except to discredit the IOTA devs
They seem to be doing a fine job of that on their own -- reading the linked page where people can't recover their coins (plus having to jump through a bunch of hoops) because they were focused on unrelated projects seems bad.
Not a big deal to me.
> IOTA network relies on the “coordinator”
And it's planned to be removed in the future.
> while IOTA users do the proof of work on their own devices, per transaction
Because of that proof of work can be rethought and built into cheap hardware for IOT.
4. Security vulnerabilities
I'm pretty accepting of software having bugs at the beginning, even stupid obvious ones.
Even cryptographic security bugs intentionally placed by the lead developer? https://gist.github.com/Come-from-Beyond/a84ab8615aac13a4543...
Not to mention they don't even learn from their past mistakes...
Though I find it perfectly reasonable to protect ~2 billion dollars through hidden backdoors published on github.
> And it's planned to be removed in the future.
It's very clear from reading the specs that there is no way for IOTA in its current form to exist without a coordinator.
The heuristics for tip selection depend on things that are inherently vulnerable to Sybil attacks. Proponents consistently argue that network topology will prevent double-spend attacks, but there's no question that it is easy to create incompatible sub-tangles that are not mutually reconcilable, which will result in the same situation anyway.
I love most of the design of IOTA, including the admittedly somewhat ridiculous use of balanced ternary, and especially the use of one-time signatures, but under the current scheme there is no path to transitioning to a decentralized censorship-resistant scheme.
If someone told you they were going to create their own currency by releasing a completely decentralized 100% electronic brand new form of money based on cryptography, would you have believed them before bitcoin was released? Even when it was already up and working for 5 years, people were STILL saying it wouldn't work!
Now for some reason instead of being skeptical, people buy into wild claims with nothing backing them up.
Common response. Everything is promised to be fixed and shiny in the future in the cryptoworld these days.