3 ms·
While I agree with the majority of the criticisms of this post (I also posted a criticism here[1]), one has to recognise that it's perfectly possible that a cry
by knocte 9y ago
While I agree with the majority of the criticisms of this post (I also posted a criticism here[1]), one has to recognise that it's perfectly possible that a cryptocurrency requires no-address-reuse. This may not be a bug but a limitation which is a consequence of its design. I know other cryptocurrency that suffers this problem: Mimblewimble. But I sincerely hope the wallet developers of mimblewimble are smarter enough to never expose addresses, in order to prevent the user to make this mistake (yes, it can be done requiring QR-code-pairing everytime you want to both send and receive funds).
To finish, let me state that I'm not defending IOTA, which I still think is a joke. Maybe I'm wrong but I cannot tell if I'm wrong or not until they shut down the coordinators (the very thing that makes IOTA centralised).
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15860046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15860046
- tromp 9y agoMimblewimble doesn't have addresses [1] [1] https://github.com/ignopeverell/grin/blob/master/doc/grin4bitcoiners.md https://github.com/ignopeverell/grin/blob/master/doc/grin4bi...
- knocte 9y agoWell, see? mimblewimble developers hid this characteristic in a "no addresses" fashion, because they are smarter than IOTA devs. When they say "transactions have to be built interactively, with 2 (or more) wallets exchanging data with one another" this is what I meant when I mentioned QR codes for every amount reception/sending.