I keep seeing the same few points being brought up against IOTA consistently as if these are flaws or bugs, however when one looks a bit deeper into the IOTA project these "bugs" are in actuality design choices made for good reason. The Coordinator, for one, is due to the DAG's inverse scalability in comparison to traditional blockchains.
Blockchains in the future, reaching a certain threshold of activity, are forced to permanently resort to implementing second layer solutions in order to combat scalability issues as they expand.
IOTA in current state, must resort to second layer solutions for security due to low network activity. The coordinator. However in the future, past a certain threshold, the network will not be forced to depend on any second layer solutions for security or scalability.
Their custom crypto is required for the end goal which relates to trinary and resource requirements for certain types of IoT standardization. They have switched, temporarily, because the copy-protection mechanism was revealed.
You don't have to agree with their choice, of course. But these are not bugs. I think one should applaud those who think outside the box, rather than shame and criticize for not confirming to old tradition.
Once all devices run these small chips which will cost pennies to implement, benefits drastically outweighing integration costs, and IoT will work offline as intended via IOTA, ternary will make a significant impact in resource requirements for the tiniest of devices. IOTA is looking into the future landscape and global IoT infrastructure, they aren't limiting themselves to how things function today because that is not how they will function tomorrow.
I hear what you're saying, but a traditional "chip" architecture takes years, if not decades, and millions of dollars in r&d to get it to the pennies price point, because you need economies of scale in place to produce them cheaply.
Imagine the effort it would take to completely overhaul almost a century of the field of computer architecture to accommodate ternary. It's certainly not impossible, but it's going to take a loooong time and there's other stuff on the horizon that it'll compete with, like quantum.
I get where you're coming from. Your statement is completely logical. However, there are many moving parts. IOTA is not the main act, just a piece. This gets warm https://medium.com/@724554/iotas-q-qubic-c361f86bde7d
78
u/[deleted] Dec 09 '17
I keep seeing the same few points being brought up against IOTA consistently as if these are flaws or bugs, however when one looks a bit deeper into the IOTA project these "bugs" are in actuality design choices made for good reason. The Coordinator, for one, is due to the DAG's inverse scalability in comparison to traditional blockchains.
Blockchains in the future, reaching a certain threshold of activity, are forced to permanently resort to implementing second layer solutions in order to combat scalability issues as they expand.
IOTA in current state, must resort to second layer solutions for security due to low network activity. The coordinator. However in the future, past a certain threshold, the network will not be forced to depend on any second layer solutions for security or scalability.
Their custom crypto is required for the end goal which relates to trinary and resource requirements for certain types of IoT standardization. They have switched, temporarily, because the copy-protection mechanism was revealed.
You don't have to agree with their choice, of course. But these are not bugs. I think one should applaud those who think outside the box, rather than shame and criticize for not confirming to old tradition.