When potential problems arise, they appear to be be evasive about fully acknowledging the issues and describing exactly why something is or isn't a problem. As evident from the Curl-p fiasco, I don't think they even described what properties they expect from the crypto primitives they use. As far I know, they've haven't provided security proofs or defined a security model. There's very little documentation of design rationale. There's little documentation of what they're doing, other than code. ![]() They've used (and continue to use, in some places) non-standard crypto in non-standard ways. From my perspective, the IOTA team has been oddly secretive (or perhaps evasive would be a better term) about their choices and use of cryptography. I would imagine that you're defending them in some way, but it seems odd to do so while referencing Kerckhoff's principle. It's not clear if you're defending IOTA here or criticizing it. But, I don't know what point you're trying to make here. Publishing and revising is part of the process of research.Ĭertainly. Look here at the number of revised papers. The key to research is replicability, it is normal that a researcher publishes their results expecting them to be challenged by the community. That's kind of why the academic community has been surprised by the IOTA management of the DCI fiasco, in general a published paper starts a debate among the community. Which is why it is normal and healthy to have security researchers and other experts looking at your code and publish their findings, even after the findings have already been mitigated. (thank you Wikipedia for the phrasing : ). It states that a cryptosystem should be secure even if everything about the system, except the key, is public knowledge. Kherkhoffs principle is a fundamental principle in Cryptography/Cryptology. ![]() True innovation takes time and it disrupts the status quo, bitcoin set out and achieved it by providing an alternate payment solution, look at the flack it waded through along its journey, now IOTA is doing the same. IOTA's partner - Sopre Steria is europes largest protocol security company whos clients are the likes of Microsoft Azure/SAP, think these guys might know a trick or two, not to mention CFB is on another level to be honest. From recent 'fud' activities a highlight worth noting is there is an acknowledged academic process for highlighting flaws and vulnerabilities, one in which we all can see that IOTA has followed. No wonder there is so many copy and paste projects out there. It highlights the flaws on the current system where too many 'professionals' have clearly been operating within the confines of a pre-approved book for too long. I love this constant fudding to be honest, especially when it comes from 'academic profeesionals'. In order to achieve true distributed computing, you need actual zero-fees and scalability on a DLT protocol, of which no blockchain can actually fulfill, but is exactly the architecture the tangle was designed to realize. Īnd lets not forget Q, which im speculating will enable distributed horizontal computing of micro quantum processors to interact and operate in unity to realize the full potential of quantum computing on a magnitude no single corporate hopes to achieve on their own this early in quantum development. And with all the partnerships and participants in the data marketplace, its not a matter of if, but when. They need this level of adoption first before they the coordinator can safely be considered for removal. ![]() the sufficient amount of network activity by IoT devices to continually spam the network by transacting countless amounts of microdata. once a more accessible wallet is released, the IXI Hub implementation to easily integrate more exchanges, and last but not least. makes sure things are running smoothly until out of beta. In fact i prefer them to have the coordinator. However, its clear as to the necessity of it at this stage in avoiding a 34% attack. People act like the coordinator is some damned curse and there is some hidden agenda. True, but at this point in development that would be detrimental to the integrity moving forward.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |