Since we discussed the potential of using L1 for defi - here is a fun fact:
To fully support L1 DeFi you need atomic composability. To achieve atomic composability you need "blocks" of transactions where either all succeed or all fail.
So instead of sending just a single ...
... transaction in every message we have to allow blocks of them to be sent.
The larger these blocks get, the more likely it is that they contain conflicting information and the more "chainy" the tangle would become.
If you would set the block size to be really large and ...
... let the blocks be filled by i.e. miners then you would have a consensus mechanism that is equivalent to ETH's GHOST consensus.
IOTA's datastructure therefore represents a complete generalization of Nakamoto Consensus and you can go from a Tangle to a BlockDAG to a ...
... BlockChain by just changing a single parameter in the code.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@lightdefi@c4chaos IOTA's unique ledger state is extremely powerful and you can indeed build smart contracts on L1 that are completely immune to MEV and also feeless.
To not jeopardize the performance of the base layer, we are currently not planning to support "scriptable" smart contracts on L1.
@lightdefi@c4chaos Scriptable smart contracts live on L2 as the execution of these smart contracts is usually not in the "common interest" of every network participant.
DeFi however can be considered to be in the "common interest" of everybody and these smart contracts are also usually very cheap.
@lightdefi@c4chaos So it is very likely that we will see feeless non-MEV'able DeFi on L1 at some point.
I have implemented an AMM style liquidity pool already as an experiment but I think it might make sense to wait a little bit to see what kind of Liquidity Pools are superior before you add ...
@JorgeStolfi@iotafi@pobserver2@WealthSeeker28@Mat_Yarger IOTA is not your typical crypto project where you take some well established principles (i.e. blockchain), extend them with a unique selling point and then do an ICO collecting hundreds of millions of dollars that you use to deliver your ideas which by that point are ...
IOTA started as a research project that tried to go a completely different route than everybody else trying to fix the only remaining issues of Nakamoto Consensus. When it did its ICO it collected 500k USD which were used to pay for the ...
There was no premine for the founders or the project. The community decided to donate 5% of all the tokens that they bought (25k USD), to establish the IOTA Foundation to further advance and research the technology. Completely ...
- assuming that resource constrained IoT devices would provide enough PoW security (hash power)
- using a slow and gameable random walk to "find" the heaviest branch
- using ternary logic and alot of other things
but I strongly disagree ...
@JorgeStolfi@pobserver2@WealthSeeker28@Mat_Yarger ... with the statement that it started with a totally broken idea. The idea to translate the longest chain wins consensus of Nakamoto into a heaviest branch wins consensus in a DAG is absolutely brilliant - and imho even necessary if you want to deliver on the original vision ...
Nakamoto consensus is the most secure and robust consensus mechanism that we know and it would in theory work well with millions of nodes and millions of ...
@lKuzon It is true that IOTA nodes can be configured to prune old data that is no longer needed but this doesn't make the system less secure.
In fact Bitcoin has exactly the same option which is called "pruning mode" and which was introduced as part of Bitcoin Core 0.11 in 2014.
@lKuzon The reason why Bitcoin, Ethereum, IOTA and pretty much any major cryptocurrency that exists has such a feature in their node software, is due to the fact that it does not impact the security and nodes do not even access this old data anymore as part of their consensus mechanism.
@lKuzon It is true that IOTA will produce more data than a Bitcoin node so there will most probably be more people having this pruning mode enabled and less people that will maintain a full history of everything that ever happened.
Roman argues that this will make it harder to find ...
@ThroneOfCrypto@__Javs_@TheADAApe That's totally fine. I think Cardano serves its purpose very well but it wouldn't perform very well in the scenario I just described.
The BFT-style aspect of Ouroboros would already prevent a lot the required properties to hold (i.e. dynamic availability).
You didn't mean to simply remove fees from the game all together but to allow merchants to i.e. cover the cost for their clients.
Of course this can be done with delegated fees and it is a powerful concept to lower ...
@ThroneOfCrypto@__Javs_@TheADAApe ... the entry barrier for new users and boost adoption (especially if your gains have enough margin to cover these costs).
Well ... In that case just read my comment as a nice summary of IOTAs vision 😅
The fees are not only rewards for staking (nobody would stake if there would be no fees, so you need a completely different anti-sybil mechanism) but they are also a vital part of the spam-protection ...
@ThroneOfCrypto@__Javs_@TheADAApe ... mechanism. Going feeless is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more complex than just "not paying the validators".
Regarding you other points, I can however understand where you are coming from and your concerns would be completely justified if IOTA would be like any other DLT. It is ...
@ThroneOfCrypto@__Javs_@TheADAApe ... however very important to understand the vision and purpose of IOTA. IOTA is not just trying to build a "better DLT" but a protocol that can serve as a foundation for the upcoming "Internet of Things".
The vision of this "4th industrial revolution" is that machines will ...