Must-watch: 500 Billion Reasons why IOTA

Category: Background

Time is running. The IOTA coordicide is on its way and it will change crypto

Time is running. The IOTA coordicide is on its way and it will change crypto

A lot has happened since the IOTA coordicide was announced.
The coordicide is the complete decentralization of the IOTA ledger, which through its innovative solution “shimmer” presents a final solution of the scalability trilemma that can be the starting shot for a global transformation, without mining, without regrets, but in return, with real scalability.
A realistic wild-guess of the Mainnet implementation is mid-2020.

Crypto has been moving the masses since about 2010. Satoshi Nakamoto’s innovation has attracted hundreds of thousands of developers, innovators, companies, and investors and yet the question remains: “Is it all worth it?”

Bitcoin, as the industry leader, has enormously high market dominance and yet the criticism about mining is increasing, because the creation of the cryptographic currency consumes more electricity than entire countries.

However, Bitcoin has proven one thing to the world. Decentralized technologies have a lot to offer. “Banking the unbanked” by the “digital cash” was the mantra of the time when Bitcoin was able to show its investment strength for the first time in 2013 when billions entered the market and brought the public into a state that has remained to this day: “Bitcoin makes everyone rich“.
An even higher value was reached in 2017 when the peak at that time was multiplied to around $20,000 from approx. $1300 and many people became very rich, but in return even more new investors, or the dumb money, how insiders call them, lost their funds.

Another thing also became clearly visible. Bitcoin is not made for the masses. The maximum number of transactions per second for Bitcoin is about 7.
This circumstance and the technical architecture resulted in the fact that to the 2017 bubble, transactions were delayed over many hours and transaction cost in some cases over $30 or more.
No wonder, that Bitcoin was rhetorically transformed from Digital Cash to Digital Gold, as a public response to the need for explanation that it created.

So it’s pretty safe to say that Bitcoin will never again support “unbanked” in its current form if even people in the western world are reluctant to send values with it, and even the highly praised Lightning Network will not represent any added value in its current form, because hub centralization is already reaching questionable proportions that eclipse today’s centralization of the few mining pools, while transaction fees still exist here as well, and therefore, render most of the data markets useless.

Bitcoin as a pioneering technology has successfully demonstrated how a secure DLT can impress the world, but the technical hurdles are so deeply baked into the protocol that one has to wonder if not another innovation can and will take Bitcoin’s pool position without the baked-in limitations and without the harmful mining.

This is where IOTA comes in. The Coordicide solution comes about at a time when Bitcoin will halve his next mining-reward, when a third bubble may surprise and shock the public, because every bubble without a solid technical foundation will sooner or later collapse and leave many tears behind, as in 2017 and early 2018, when suicide hotlines dominated the forums and social media channels.

Bitcoin is a technology, not a sacred relic.
Technology can always be improved, assuming it has the necessary DNA.
In times of climate change, we are better advised not to waste energy, especially not the rather scarce renewable energy we need for more important things.

IOTA can completely replace Bitcoin, and it should not seek a currency substitute that attacks central banks but exists as a regulated currency that can add value to the Internet of Things through micropayments, data transactions, and data integrity.

IOTA’s prototype implementation “shimmer”, written in go, today already runs on hundreds of nodes, which will get dozens of new features over the next few months and will eventually be morphed into the new main-net.



Until then, investors should consider which horse they are betting on.

The next Industrial revolution is shaping the industry with giant leaps and Bitcoin has neither a solution nor a way to go other than the irresponsible mining in times of man-made climate change.

Bitcoin was a wonderful innovation, and the return on investment is a nice side effect, but not at every price and not under all conditions.

We need a solution, but no mining or a sloppy workaround that introduces new problems. IOTA’s coordicide is coming.

Time is running ⌛

The reason IOTA remains even if Crypto is heavily regulated.

The reason IOTA remains even if Crypto is heavily regulated.

Against the background that the CEO of Facebook’s wallet company “Calibra” David Marcus appeared before the US Congress and had to answer critical remarks, the question of the Raison d’être of cryptocurrencies arises once again.

Cryptocurrencies have recently reached another peak in terms of valuation and the associated media presence, yet neither the regulatory hurdle in western financially strong countries and anywhere else has been overcome, nor is it clear to what extent these countries allow a future for cryptocurrencies at all.

The discussion between congressman Mr. San Nicolas and David Marcus made it clear why governments have made few compromises so far.

Facebook assumes a number of users in the billions. A not insignificant circumstance in this debate.
Assuming that each user deposits an average of $100 in his Calibra wallet, a total of at least 100 billion US Dollars is drawn from the US economy, which now competes with the Dollar as a payment medium.

The situation could be even more dramatic if the 90 million companies that offer their services on Facebook were to deposit parts of their assets in Calibra in order to remain liquid in day-to-day business.
That would mean that potential monetary value in the trillions would counter the Dollar and greatly affect the economy.
This problem affects every country.
A possible consequence can be that Facebook achieves an insanely high market power so that even the state is no longer a regulatory counterweight to what it was created for.

This is also true for the concerns expressed in the discussion against cryptocurrencies outside of Facebook.

From the point of view of the state, a currency substitute or a counterweight to the recognized and regulated currency of a state is the Achilles heel of financial and moral sovereignty.

Central banks, in the USA the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank in Frankfurt have the official mandate to guarantee currency stability.
Of course, during a Facebook Libra hearing, Bitcoin is also in the dock, because as a borderless electronic currency without any regulation, you have to ask what happens to government currencies when Bitcoin et al achieve a mainstream growth that is still considered possible at the moment, and whether or not cryptocurrencies survive the regulatory grid of governments.
The answer to this question is still unknown, but what we know is that it won’t be a clear yes, or a clear no.

So what would happen if the majority of the highest evaluated projects in the Kryptorealm were to be banned from citizen participation by regulations?

The fear of regulation

Cryptoland is not a homogeneous mass of people with the same intentions. Some use crypto for web-based services, many use the technology for research and development of their products, most simply want to invest, and a hard core of early adopters link Bitcoin to their ideology and a free world without the permanent intervention of the state in every human affair.
This ideological part, the crypto-anarcho-liberals, would certainly say that the decentralized nature of a network would prevent state intervention anyway, but it should be clear that the use by the average consumer would thus be largely excluded and also a high valuation of the corresponding currency.

This eternal Damocles sword sits deep in the minds of investors because the fate of regulation can hardly be prevented.
The question that needs to be asked is to what extent this inevitable regulation will change things for Bitcoin and other projects.

The crypto-anarchy liberals are quite right that the Bitcoin network cannot be shut down so easily, but they also know that the ecosystem no longer offers incentives should financial access to the mainstream be prevented.

This topic is no reason for Bitcoin enthusiasts to throw the towel, especially because a handful of congressmen were recognizing Bitcoin as an innovation they’re fond of, the majority of all other crypto-projects, however, still hang on the navel of unregulatedness, because many services or tokens have uncontrolled and disruptive characteristics, which in the medium term do not get any state approval and therefore no secure financing or future.

The network effect and the connected success Bitcoin undoubtedly inherits, is not what 99% of all other projects could ever offer.

So, at this point, it makes sense to find out which characteristics a crypto-project should have in order not to fall into the same category of regulatory anxiety.

And the answer is refreshingly simple: Where no values have yet been sent, and consequently no regulation had to be set up to protect the national currency.

A currency replacement like Bitcoin originally aimed for (which changed to digital gold), and as other projects like e.g. Nano still aim for, are logically a red flag for governments.

The exception

IOTA, the non-profit organization from Berlin, on the other hand, does not aim to be a currency substitute and its application concept goes much beyond than that of any other project.

One can criticize this statement, but it becomes clear when one considers that IOTA is developed with the goal of functioning in the IoT and securing the connected devices, monetizing them and enabling a global data market, not just human to human transactions on the Internet (which it will be, additionally).

This is not remotely a danger to the fiscal sovereign, but a helpful innovation that offers various possibilities that every state tries to strive for anyway.

-Data integrity in a dystopia of the transparent customer established by corporations (such as Facebook)
-Monetarization of unused data that can be very valuable for research and development.
-Interoperability
-A network that, despite many billions of devices, cannot be taken over and hacked by third parties, as it’s relying on the fundamentals of DLT
-No transaction costs
-No Mining
-Microtransactions, with any value.
-An indispensable network for the ongoing industrial revolution.

These unique properties of IOTA’s Tangle vision are diametral to most other projects, and thus, not in a competition but desired by governments.

It’s a technology that is urgently needed at a time when autonomous technologies are making their way into society and hold potential risks for humans and the environment.

So it is no big deal to understand that IOTA will survive a wave of regulation in one piece, with its quest for a safe and functional Internet of Things.

Industry adoption already started

Of course, this will be in the interest of the governments, who will thereby find a secure ground for data protection, innovation, and the future economy, without losing their sovereignty.

Austin, Texas, for example, signed a partnership with IOTA, same as Taipei.
In terms of standardization, the Object Management Group is already in the process to create a standard for the IoT, based on IOTA’s Tangle.
One of the biggest semiconductor producers on the planet, STMicroelectronics, recently made public, that they will integrate an IOTA library in their STM32Cube.
Hundreds of other entities are researching and evaluating the possibilities of the IOTA Tangle. On the list is also Bosch, VW, Fujitsu and dozens of universities.

So in the midst of the recently discussed regulatory hurdles for crypto, IOTA is already at the doorstep to innovate the space, because it’s not even seen as a problem, but as the solution.


The coming update: “coordicide” is on its way to fully decentralize and scale the IOTA tangle. The IoT revolution can start for everyone.

More information on coordicide.IOTA.org

The Universe of Iteration

The Universe of Iteration

Stanley Miller isn’t necessarily a well-known name if you’re not a chemist.
The scientist from the 1950s has proven how amino acid building blocks can emerge from nothing, so to speak.
All it takes is methane, ammonia, water, hydrogen, and electricity, in a certain mixture, at certain temperatures, time and iterations.

What was it like 4 billion years ago, when the first amino acids decided to join together to form living cells? The first unicellular organisms formed 100% of the known life in the Precambrian age and for what it’s worth, all the following life as well.
Stromatolites can still be found today, in shelf areas, always formed by so-called cyanobacteria, which are able to produce oxygen. As supposedly the first living organisms on earth, they are responsible for the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere. Life on earth was thus formed by chance, after various elements and chemical substances interacted with each other over billions of years. A product of repetition.
Over an almost infinitely long period of time, different events have been combined again and again in different ways. Until, by coincidence, life came into existence. An unstoppable chain-reaction that tried everything to use energy for its purposes. The apparent waste product of cyanobacteria, oxygen, enabled other, already adapted cells to enlarge and form nuclei. Eukaryotes were born. Here, too, a cascade of endless interactions with the environment was the reason.
Substances were processed, every molecule used, digested, absorbed. Sometimes the result was death, sometimes an advantage over other life formed and remained. Cells that only occurred in strange niches in need for more or less sun, with a specific temperature preference, or calcareous water.
The infinity of iterations began to unfold. The goal was to move on. Energy, transformation, survival.
As the first invertebrates emerged, the first explosion of species, the Cambrian Explosion appeared, which is still seen as the moment where life manifested itself in the oceans.
But the only constant that remained was that everything kept evolving. As the byproduct of this evolutionary cycle, a huge number of life-forms had already died which occurred much more often than survival. This mechanism is still active today.

Human Ideas


If you skip several eras of the earth’s history, the dinosaurs, several great extinctions, and quadrillion steps in between, then we arrive at Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
The number of iterations which the human organism has carried out evolutionarily until then is certainly higher than any nomenclature known to us could express. And this number will be exponentially higher in the future.
How exactly does mankind “iterate through evolution”?
Try to imagine something that’s never happened before. The other things are caused by trial and error.
Everything we know happened because people tried it before.
Aspects of culture in the form of music, film and creative art, technological achievements from mastering fire, other elements, invention of the wheel, steam engine, domestication of the horse, invention of combustion engines, fidget spinner, french fries with chocolate sauce, cage fighting, homeopathy, pipe cleaner, hoverboards, 4k cameras or distributed ledger technologies. It makes no difference whether these things are meaningful, sustainable, popular or affordable. They were discovered, used, and someone thought it was a good idea to focus their lives on it and monetarize, innovate every facet of this discovery.
This characteristic of infinite further development, of trying out, failing and shining, are characteristics that we find in other places.
In our simulations of artificial intelligence.
Sergei Ivancheglo (NXT, IOTA, Paracosm, Inventor first full proof of stake) has recently published a short article about Aigarth.
The visionary known as Come-from-beyond knows the potential impact of artificial intelligence and its possibilities on society which he explains as something that should be made available for everyone.
It can be assumed that the same unstoppable evolutionary force that has created and enhanced life itself also has an impact on the software progression.
Why should we leave a potential existential boost, a multiplier of the knowledge, possibilities, and solutions of our own lives only to special companies or rich individuals, when it can solve so many problems and simplify life for everyone, in every direction?

Ai & Aigarth

A vivid example was provided by a competition played on a Go board in 2016. Go is probably the oldest game of mankind, which is still played all around the globe.
The strange thing about Go is that moves and combinations can’t be brute-forced, because the number of possible game combinations in Go is about 10 to the power of 170 while the number of atoms in the universe is only about 10 to the power of 82.
Google’s AI project AlphaGo defeated the then reigning world champion Lee Sedol 4-1.
The training method of the AI, in this case, was to include all available human moves and tactics, video material, and so forth.
With the usual proceedings of machine learning, the algorithm was iterated millions of times to make it a true end boss.
This event called many interested people to the scene, but the event was outshined by a way bigger event a year later.
Namely, the extended project called “AlphaGo Zero” -a new approach. It did not train with human tactics, but instead started at zero (hence the name) and only learned to win along the known Go-rules. AlphaGo Zero destroyed AlphaGo in 100 games with 100-0. It created unknown moves, exotic tactics, and undeniable progress for the entire scene.

These insights are highly valuable because they prove that AI’s can create new knowledge that is superior to the limited human knowledge. If they receive basic information, rules and time and a specific task in a specific field.

Since human knowledge is very diverse, as described in the first part of the article, it can be concluded that it’s beneficial to build an AI in a decentralized AI service, like Aigarth, that collects and generates more knowledge in many different categories without many interferences and that provides more insights than a centralized service of a few entities. If it’s built on a decentralized ledger like IOTA and on a module for renting computational power like Qubic on IOTA, the conditions for secure usage of AI’s are provided. A possible tool for a responsible society that benefits everyone and that is easily applicable for specific tasks by everyone.

In 15 years we will know how such an impact can change our society. And whether iterations will bring changes that may shift the balance of power or not.
15 years sound like a long time, at first, but if you look at innovation timeframes, it’s really just a blink of an eye. World of Warcraft has been released 15 years ago, also Facebook, Skype, Firefox and Bluetooth. Time flies fast, but not as fast as innovation! These innovations changed society, and for the most part: the companies won. Time to set the course for a progressive future for the rest of us and to keep the number of iterations for ourselves as small as possible.

No, IOTA didn’t plagiarize anyone. Its approach is a novelty.

No, IOTA didn’t plagiarize anyone. Its approach is a novelty.

Since IOTA published its long-awaited information-update about the planned #coordicide, the usual suspects voiced allegations that IOTA didn’t really innovate anything.
If we’d listen to Eric Wall, Vitalik Buterin or to countless trolls on Twitter, IOTA really did nothing. Let’s look at why this couldn’t be further from the truth.
And take a closer look at the real innovation, almost everyone missed.

Here is a small overview of the most simple-minded assessments.
IOTA is, allegedly, a clone of or stealing from:

a) Ripple
b) Nano
c) Avalanche
d) Plain DpoS
e) NKN

Of course, it’s neither of those. At this point, it would be a good start to read the commentary of Marius Kramer, who is the #1 Cryptocurrency writer on Quora worldwide.

But first my own stance on those mentioned projects.
I believe the DLT’s above had their fair share of innovating the space, they deserve recognition and they are for sure one of the ambitioned approaches in the space, although I don’t agree with the permissioned approach of Ripple. There are use-cases for permissioned DLT’s which are run by enterprises, but they eliminate the thought of an open and free world, what Bitcoin was initially aiming for.

Anyway, let’s start with the non-content -> Nontent of the critics.


Nontent a) IOTA stole from Ripple.

I read these random comments on Twitter.
Those are the easiest ones to debunk.
The XRP consensus is a byzantine fault-tolerant agreement protocol which relies on a UNL, a unique node list. Which makes the whole system permissioned. Consensus is only found with trusted nodes in a list. This centralization is diametral to solving the scalability-trilemma that includes decentralization. All nodes know each other in the Ripple ledger (same as Stellar), unlike in IOTA where they only see the surrounding nodes.
IOTA will use Cellular Automaton in a decentralized matter, and a gossip protocol to delegate mana (an un-transferable reputation currency) to good actors while it punishes bad actors. A clear difference.
I explain the second approach by the IOTA Foundation in the next section.

Nontent b) IOTA stole from Nano.

Also on Reddit, people were postulating that IOTA would copy Nano, but in a worse way.
Nano uses delegated proof of stake voting variant called ORV (open representative voting). A BFT protocol. That doesn’t make it a clone, because having an engine in your car doesn’t make you steal ideas from other manufacturers. It’s only the basic approach. IOTA’s Cellular Automaton is an asynchronous voting process. Which differs from Nano’s ORV.
Since Nano uses a block-lattice structure, while IOTA relies on a DAG, the underlying structure is completely different and thus, the consensus.
As mentioned above, IOTA uses Mana and the Cellular Automaton.
Nodes in the Tangle won’t need to know every other node, while nodes in Nano have to rely on representatives. Representatives (ie 20 nodes in the ledger) lead to further centralization, while the shimmer solution only relies on the surrounding, local nodes around a node. A huge difference.
Another point is that IOTA has 2 different approaches in the pipeline.
The other one is the Fast Probabilistic Consensus, described here.
It splits the voting process into different rounds. A difference to Nano is that it doesn’t need to take care of a 51% threshold against majority attacks. With this second approach, even the worst possible strategy leads to healthy voting and guaranteed consensus.
To cite the IOTA foundation: “This voting process has the crucial property of converging very quickly, even in scenarios where malicious nodes are voting according to the worst possible strategy.

Nontent c) IOTA cloned the Avalanche consensus

I could compare the approaches, but I would miss the precise remarks by the IOTA developers on this topic.
Please click on the provided links and read the thread as to why Avalanche was not cloned by IOTA. The similarities are there, but that’s mostly because Avalanche used a DAG structure, which leads to similar solutions. It’s interesting that Avalanche didn’t mention IOTA in their whitepaper, but complained about IOTA recently.

Please click on the date and read Hans Moog’s answers.

To summarize: IOTA cited a publication from 2001: Paper. and there are still distinct differences.

Update: Prof. Sergui Popov reacts to the allegations.


Nontent d) IOTA uses Plain DPos (delegated proof of stake)

Again, it would be pointless to describe what was already explained in a very detailed manner. In this case by Mat Yarger of the IOTA foundation.

Please click on the date and read Mat Yarger’s remarks.

To summarize: IOTA’s mana gossip module works differently than plain DpoS, as it’s rather an additional header-value giving evolutional advantages. Saying Mana is DpoS is like saying Porsche is like an Opel, just because both use engines.

Nontent e) IOTA plagiarized NKN

This interpretation is factually wrong because IOTA didn’t even know about NKN.
Hans Moog replied respectfully.

Hans Moogs response to NKN

In addition, he promised to add it to the whitepaper and explained differences.

To summarize and to cite /u/theartofsaul on Reddit:
“Shimmer is based around very old research papers, just like NKN is.”

“The voter model originates in these two papers: “
1) P. Clifford, A. Sudbury, A model for spatial conflict. Biometrika 60 (1973), 581–588.
2) R.A. Holley, T.M. Liggett (1975) Ergodic theorems for weakly interacting infinite systems and the voter model. Ann. Probab.3(4),643–663.

Conclusion

IOTA evolutionized existing techniques and created a beautiful solution for the Scalability Trilemma.
Of course, some parts of the solution are based on similar approaches, but in Cryptoland it’s all about taking old approaches and improve them, to find the end-goal of scalability, security, and decentralization.
That’s exactly what IOTA did.
And just as a reminder: When Satoshi wrote his whitepaper, he cited scientists that created solutions for him, such as Adam Becks Hashcash – Proof of work approach.

IOTA’s is a novelty which combines all that is needed right now, or to say it in Marius Kramer’s words:

[…]very impressive. This is what DLT should look like, this is the essence of the blockchain. Elegant, swift, scalable, secure. It’s so simple and kind of overdue that we finally have a simple and fast consensus algorithm.


Of course, the implementation is not here, yet, and attack-vectors need to be tested thoroughly, but it’s more than a misconception that IOTA tried to plagiarize another project.

The real innovation is that IOTA improved existing methods and embedded them in a modular system that supposedly works way better than anything before it.


Interesting time ahead, don’t believe everything you read.

The indisputable truth about IOTA: It’s centralized.

The indisputable truth about IOTA: It’s centralized.

I’m Limo from Tangleblog.com, and for this event, I use a clickbaity title once. The following article clears up a few things, also a misunderstanding. I’m supposed to be an unstoppable supporter of IOTA. It’s true that I invested at an early stage, and people know that I produce IOTA centered podcasts and articles.
So why the unexpected paradigm shift? Bear with me, especially if you don’t like IOTA -You will dislike it even more!
The innovative sector of cryptocurrencies is on the ground.
Hundreds of billions of dollars have disappeared, hundreds of thousands of investors have been deceived. But I am not talking about IOTA in particular, but about the hype machinery that has ousted everyone.
The world needs innovations, not snake oil.
This world needs supporters, but not more businessmen.

So let’s get to the gist of all of this. Consensus was never centralized, but there was and is a practical single point of failure because the coordinator(COO) is a mechanism that, under these conditions, can actively stop the confirmation-rate on the tangle. Part of that is that no one ever developed a random walk implementation that could circumvent the COO, although they could have.

IOTA is centralized. Until it’s not.
IOTA doesn’t scale as advertised. Until it does.

I have never been a blinded supporter without any relation to reality. I’m an unstoppable supporter of progress and innovation, not of names or personalities.
This sector takes the money from the uninformed and gives it to the patient and those who are really aware of what’s going on here.
At this point, you should realize that I have not broken with IOTA, nor with the innovation tangle.
Exactly the opposite is the case.

A new era is approaching

Since I talked to two members of the IF, a completely new inner fire has been kindled, which gave me the incentive to write this article.
And here’s where you heard it first. This comes at a time when hype is without effect, to avoid a financial conflict of interest, although I don’t trade anyway.

The IOTA foundation has solutions for the coordicide. They are neither approved nor tested, but they are promising concepts that can withstand the first and second logical hurdle.
Now, if in a few days the local snapshots with the new, much more economical IRI version are presented and then later, the coordicide is carried out, under these circumstances, I guarantee that the wheat will be separated from the chaff around mid/late 2019.
To that day, IOTA will have accomplished its mission. The largest, most uncertain milestone: Coo-less decentralization will be reached. 

This news will harm in particular those who postulated in advance that this would never be possible, but then again they were only investors in competing projects or scallywags who wanted nothing but attention.
The project has reached a point where the network effect will multiply the coordicides’ impact many times. IOTA will be taken seriously, feared and implemented. If you want to spread FUD, this is the time, in mid-2019 it will be too late.
IOTA has hundreds of interested companies and developers ready with dozens of application concepts waiting just for the coordicide and removal of the bottleneck effect.

The tangle-concept has big supporters with Fujitsu, VW, Bosch, DXC Dach. It has connections to the ESA, to governments and to the top-notch security experts out there.
IOTA, the protocol invented by the German non-profit organization is on its way to a new standard, initiated by those who define standards.

2019 will be the year of IOTA, the year of kept promises, the “breakout year for IOTA” according to Dr. Richard Soley, Executive Director of the OMG.
We should keep in mind, though, that the IOTA Foundation has to take several regulatory hurdles and rounds until such a change on the protocol level is completed, but I’m absolutely positive that they will concentrate all necessary resources to solve this as fast and easy as possible.

If you ask yourself why this info is not written down officially, the answer is pretty simple: Answers will be given when they are approved (like those in the 4 part coordicide posts), and when they have been able to review everything, but ideas of this kind are here for quite some time. And besides a way too big workload, there is nothing to stop them.