Timeline for Which feature/s will avoids SPAM or massive invalid transactions in a IOTA network?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
S Dec 1, 2018 at 3:23 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
S Dec 1, 2018 at 3:23 | history | notice removed | user1543 | ||
Nov 29, 2018 at 16:01 | vote | accept | 3Chicken | ||
Nov 29, 2018 at 16:01 | answer | added | 3Chicken | timeline score: 1 | |
Nov 27, 2018 at 19:58 | comment | added | Come-from-Beyond | Look at wraits09.di.fc.ul.pt/wraits09paperDiogoMonica.pdf or create a separate question. | |
Nov 27, 2018 at 18:38 | comment | added | 3Chicken | Hi Come-from-Beyond, it is not "network-bound", at the end, some kind of PoW? My question also comes from IOTA FaQ which determines that the protection of the tangle is not only something about PoW algorithm ("network-bound PoW" if you prefer) but more important, number of "honest" hosts, in comparison with malicious hosts. This is what I do not understand: knowing that lot of devices that could use IOTA are not prepare to do such PoW (due to hardware not prepare to big amounts of calculations) not sure what would be the element that warranty "honest" hosts over malicious hosts. | |
Nov 26, 2018 at 19:38 | history | edited | Helmar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 10 characters in body
|
Nov 25, 2018 at 9:10 | comment | added | Come-from-Beyond | The question doesn't take existence of other forms of PoW (e.g. network-bound) into account. | |
S Nov 23, 2018 at 15:51 | history | bounty started | CommunityBot | ||
S Nov 23, 2018 at 15:51 | history | notice added | user1543 | Canonical answer required | |
Nov 12, 2018 at 13:10 | history | edited | Helmar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 22 characters in body
|
Nov 11, 2018 at 21:47 | history | edited | 3Chicken | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 445 characters in body
|
Nov 11, 2018 at 21:10 | review | First posts | |||
Nov 12, 2018 at 13:10 | |||||
Nov 11, 2018 at 21:06 | history | asked | 3Chicken | CC BY-SA 4.0 |