TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Tangle data-structure – The lesser known blockchain alternative

40 点作者 cvs268将近 4 年前

5 条评论

pavlov将近 4 年前
Iota is a prime example of how blockchain projects like to cosplay as computer science by putting together a mishmash of random concepts and pretending to be solving everything while not actually solving anything meaningful.<p>There was a time in 2017 when all you needed for a successful ICO was a flashy landing page with countdown timers and a 5-page &quot;whitepaper&quot; of gibberish set in Computer Modern. Maybe those days are back, with altcoins riding the hype wave again.
评论 #27359159 未加载
评论 #27358142 未加载
评论 #27358261 未加载
评论 #27358169 未加载
s_tec将近 4 年前
The tangle fails to to the one thing a blockchain needs to do - prevent double-spends. Rather than give up their failed experiment once they realized it didn&#x27;t work, the IOTA project instead set up centralized &quot;coordinator&quot; nodes to prevent double-spends, since their tangle data structure was useless.<p>Now, there are ways to build graph-like data structures that <i>do</i> prevent double-spends correctly. I believe both Hedera and Nano (formerly called RaiBlocks) have working solutions, for example.<p>The key is that not just anybody can create a block (or a graph node), as IOTA does. If anybody can create a node at any time, what prevents them from sending out contradicting messages? Instead, working solutions always involve putting some sort of asset at risk (such as currency or energy), so that if the block producer decides to make a contradicting statement, they pay a steep price. This ensures that there is a financial incentive to always work towards consensus.
epF8fY将近 4 年前
There are a lot of negative comments on this thread. I think a lot of the criticism is valid, but also somewhat out of date. I&#x27;ve followed this project for quite some time and it&#x27;s true that the original version of IOTA in 2017 was deeply flawed, used some questionable (to say the least) design decisions like winternitz one time signatures and trinary. Some of the founders acted in really ugly ways online when people identified the many real problems with the protocol.<p>But in the last year or so the project has made a lot of interesting developments, redesigned the protocol to remove the &#x27;exotic&#x27; design decisions, parted ways with some of the controversial founders and developed into a more mature research project. To solve the issue of double spends, they developed a consensus protocol called Fast Probabilistic Consensus, a leaderless voting protocol, that draws on the &quot;voter models&quot; introduced in the 70s by Holley and Liggett and Clifford and Sudbury. The research has been published and peer reviewed, and is implemented in a test-net which is open source and currently running without a central coordinator.<p>The paper is here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;1905.10895" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;1905.10895</a><p>and the testnet codebase is here <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;iotaledger&#x2F;goshimmer" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;iotaledger&#x2F;goshimmer</a><p>And without going too far down the rabbit hole, it seems in the more recent versions of the decentralized test net, the FPC works alongside a kind of consensus which might be described as &quot;Nakamoto Consensus on the DAG&quot; where writing ledger updates is the same as voting on conflicting transactions, so that the behavior of updating the ledger also communicates node opinions on a given conflict set without additional message overhead.<p>I can understand why there is a lot of distrust of this project - there were many bad decisions in the past, and bad communication on top. But, in my personal opinion, if you dig a bit deeper into the research they are doing there is some very interesting stuff going on.
jamal-kumar将近 4 年前
Programming for this made me feel like I wanted to die inside. This was some years ago, maybe the client libraries got better somehow, no idea.<p>I think being friendly to programmers is a pretty good way to actually get things flowing with blockchains. You mess that up from the get go and it&#x27;s just no fun for anyone
评论 #27357374 未加载
mgerullis将近 4 年前
Isn’t that the blockchain that just stopped working for a few days a while back?