You might be more knowledgeable than I am, or you're making it up.
>It's impossible to identify the owner of past transactions - it's just an address. What's keeping them from storing the owner in the DAG as well? >It's impossible to base decisions on external data, as doing that would mean that a node that was online eg. an hour ago would consider a different graph valid than the one that joined just now. Why would using past transaction data be feasible to maintain consensus, but using past transaction ownership data wouldn't? >The graph consensus algorithm can only decide based on data in the past graph, just as the blockchain consensus algorithm can only decide based on past blocks. Yeah obviously.
Alexander Torres
The Curl/ Kurl thing was a hardfork. The did notifiy the users several time to move the funds. Ultimately the took it because every hacker could just take them when the update is done. It is FUD you spreading
Juan Cook
It's not even a blockchain user.
Liam Moore
Also it's not like the ownership is important. You can just look at the local state of the DAG - if there's unverified transactions, you could be forced to verify them instead of something else to get your own transaction verified.
Jaxson Parker
>What's keeping them from storing the owner in the DAG as well?
What does that even mean? You want every iota user to register and verify their identity? That's called paypal
>You can just look at the local state of the DAG - if there's unverified transactions, you could be forced to verify them
What does 'forced to verify them' means. All you can do is reject them on your node. But then a new node comes and it has to choose one graph as the valid one. It doesn't know the past state of the network outside of competing graphs.
Colton Howard
They still didn't give it back.
> archive.is/0wpYY > December 6: > "Your balance will remain 0 until the IOTA Foundation begins processing reclaims. Follow their progress via the pinned Reclaim Status thread in the General forum "
>The Curl/ Kurl thing was a hardfork.
Yes, due to an INTENTIONAL bug.
>Ultimately the took it because every hacker could just take them when the update is done.
No shit. What a great bug to intentionally leave in.
Easton Morris
You can be forced to verify by other nodes that are doing transactions later. They notice you haven't verified the transactions you were supposed to, and thus all of them reject you.
Nicholas Nelson
>They notice you haven't verified the transactions you were supposed to, and thus all of them reject you.
>But then a new node comes and it has to choose one graph as the valid one. It doesn't know the past state of the network outside of competing graphs.
Jace Morales
So you are saying you can just not verify anything at all, and the new nodes wouldn't be able to tell the invalid graph from the valid graph? That goes so blatantly against the whole concept of DAGs as ledgers that somebody would have pointed this out months ago if it was a possibility.
Charles Myers
Both graphs are correct, the one just has more transactions which makes it the valid one - which means the one with spam transactions.
The differences between graphs and blockchains are trivial really, it's 99% hype.
