Give me one good reason why you havent invested in IOTA user

Give me one good reason why you havent invested in IOTA user.

>Protip, you cant

Other urls found in this thread:

media.mit.edu/posts/iota-response/
hackernoon.com/why-i-find-iota-deeply-alarming-934f1908194b
medium.com/@thedrbits/why-i-also-find-iota-deeply-alarming-99d4f2da3282
medium.com/@ercwl/iota-is-centralized-6289246e7b4d
github.com/clemahieu/raiblocks/wiki/Attacks)
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

i dont like the name

Because it's a piece of trash ScamCoin

It's a centrally controlled overhyped shitcoin with no smart contracting capabilities.

“Our response to "A Cryptocurrency Without a Blockchain Has Been Built to Outperform Bitcoin"” by Joi Ito, Director of the MIT Media Lab .
media.mit.edu/posts/iota-response/

“Why I find IOTA deeply alarming” by Nick Johnson, Ethereum developer.

hackernoon.com/why-i-find-iota-deeply-alarming-934f1908194b

“Why I also find IOTA deeply alarming” by Daniel Rice, Cryptocurrency and Blockchain developer

medium.com/@thedrbits/why-i-also-find-iota-deeply-alarming-99d4f2da3282

“IOTA is centralized” by Eric Wall,

medium.com/@ercwl/iota-is-centralized-6289246e7b4d

...

...

I applaud the effort, but I guarantee OP or any other IOTA bagholders aren't going to bother reading this or doing their research. They already proved that by having bought into the hype.

plz nuclear confido

Isn't this a vulnerability with all DAG's? So XRB will end up with this problem too?

Because there is better DAG

because I have QTUM

I dont want to support a faggot

>nuclear confido

genius

If you are talking about spam.

Spam Attacks

(1/3)

From the RaiBlocks Whitepaper:

Transaction Flooding.
A malicious entity could send many unnecessary but valid transactions between accounts under its control in an attempt to saturate the network. With no transaction fees they are able to continue this attack indefinitely. However, the PoW required for each transaction limits the transaction rate the malicious entity could generate without significantly investing in computational resources. Even under such an attack in an attempt to inflate the ledger, nodes that are not full historical nodes are able to prune old transactions from their chain; this clamps the storage usage from this type of attack for almost all users.

////////////

user:

What if a spammer start sending multiple transactions between two wallets back and forth, since it has no fee cost; is he going to be able to make that ‘forever’? Wouldnt that make the blockchain size motherf*cking big?

RaiBlocks Dev:

This is addressed in "Transaction Flooding" under the section "Attack Vectors" of the whitepaper. The PoW required by these transactions is the limiting factor. Once pruning is implemented, this attack would only affect full historical nodes. Even with full historical nodes, storage is cheap. The current blockchain is only about 1.7GB and contains over 4 million transactions.

////////////

(2/3)

Github – Possible Attacks to RaiBlocks (github.com/clemahieu/raiblocks/wiki/Attacks)

“RaiBlocks has a number of mechanisms built in to protect from a range of possible attacks on the system. Here we go over all attacks there could be on the system and what safeguards are in place. “
Transaction flooding - Moderate risk, high I/O
Description: Transaction flooding is simply sending as many valid transactions as possible in order to saturate the network. Usually an attacker will send transactions to other accounts they control so it can be continued indefinitely.
Defense: Each block has a small amount of work associated with it, around 5 seconds to generate and 1 microsecond to validate. This work difference causes an attacker to dedicate a large amount to sustain an attack while wasting a small amount of resources by everyone else. Nodes that are not full historical nodes are able to prune old transactions from their chain, this clamps the storage usage from this type of attack for almost all users.

(3/3)

user:
Cost of spamming the RaiBlocks network

RaiBlocks requires that users complete a short PoW before submitting a transaction. Per the official GitHub, this takes around 5 seconds. The purpose of this is to prevent spam.
The stated capacity of RaiBlocks is 7k TPS. Let's accept this figure for sake of argument. That means a typical CPU can perform 0.2 TPS. At this rate, it would require approximately 35,000 cores to reach the 7k TPS figure and overwhelm the network.
Per ec2insances.info, a c5.18xlarge instance provides 72 cores for a cost of $3.06 per hour. Therefore, approximately 500 instances would be required to reach the 7k TPS figure at a cost of just $1500 per hour.
Based on my math, this seems incredibly cheap to spam the network. $1500 is nothing compared to a market cap now measured well over $500M. This gives me some pause about holding RaiBlocks; seems it's only a matter of time before it faces a DDOS. Did I mistake a mistake in my analysis here? Even if I'm off by 10x, $15k an hour is not much money in crypto.

Colin Lemahieu:

Thanks for taking time to crunch some numbers! We'd definitely like to have a larger security margin on transaction creation for the reasons you wrote. The immediate possibilities are either increasing the difficulty factor or replacing the PoW algorithm with something less parallelizable.
There are some suggestions for more advanced throttling; we need to make sure these will still work while bootstrapping after being offline and also we need to make sure bootstrapping doesn't expose an unthrottled path.
For what it's worth the benchmarks I did for ~5 seconds is on a 6core hyperthreaded 3.5Ghz Xeon.
I think your cost estimates are 5-10x lower than what they would actually be because the assumption is 1core=5sec of PoW though it's more like 6-12cores of a high end processor.
We're looking at it though because 5,000-10,000$/hour to spam isn't enough headroom long term.

Because the price tanked a bit then started trading sideways and i dont have time for shitcoins

IOTA BTFO
You really ought to screencap all your posts and compile them. You might save someone the trouble of hoarding wojaks.

there are a million reasons (some detailed above) but the biggest reason is that dag cannot do real smart contracts. normie tards like yourself don't understand this which is expected since you fell for "the tangle" in the first place have fun with your flavor of the month shitcoin kiddo

Thanks for this. I bought in pretty early; think I'll take profits soon. Lot of big promises met with valid criticisms so far

Why don't we buy IOTA? Um probably because it's a piece of shit. The founder is a legit retard.

Block Chain is tried and tested and here to stay like it or not.
It will only get better and it is where the money is NOW

...

The idea is cool, but the implementation seems flawed.

made shitloads off of it but Sotobro is a fucking nutcase.

Ive lost money listening to anything biz says ever. Except salt..

This shill stack thread inspires an experiment.

Will report gains tomorro/ following day depending on dump/pump height.