7 ms·
It appears their own crypto was already vulnerable. A friend pointed me to this article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/amycastor/2017/09/07/mit-and-bu-researche
by jp_rider 9y ago
It appears their own crypto was already vulnerable. A friend pointed me to this article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/amycastor/2017/09/07/mit-and-bu-researchers-uncover-critical-security-flaw-in-2b-cryptocurrency-iota/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/amycastor/2017/09/07/mit-and-bu...
He was also concerned that there's no security proof in the whitepaper. To me, it seems like you could feasibly launch an attack with less than a majority of the computing resources.
- albertgoeswoof 9y agoSo, how come no one has done that?
- Buttes 9y agoThe closed-source coordinator, presumably.
- Buttes 9y agoMy understanding is you only need 33% of the hash power at any given time. Since PoW is only done as part of sending transactions, it probably takes less hash power than you'd think to cause problems.
- EGreg 9y agoWhy does everyone repeat that Byzantine consensus requires maximum 33% of participants to be dishonest? If messages cannot be forged, then a consensus could make positive progress with even 99% of participants being dishonest.
- Buttes 9y ago>Why does everyone repeat that Byzantine consensus requires maximum 33% of participants to be dishonest? Not 33% of participants, 33% of the hash power, could just be one participant with a pile of GPUs or ASICS or "JINN" chips lol. That's the claim made by the IOTA author, anyway. Right now it wouldn't surprise me if someone could amass 90+% of IOTA hash power anyway. >If messages cannot be forged Tbh this is not even a given with IOTA.
- EGreg 9y agoOkay but it was more of a general question. I see Hashgraph and others always saying that they need 33% of participants to be honest. But with unforgeable message signatures that limitation doesn't apply.
- pas 9y agoVirtual Voting in hashgraph requires a 2/3 agreement. Of course PoW provides some protection against sybil attacks, but the reality is that with enough hashpower the network can be overtaken. (Hence why HashGraph is a closed network.)
- CyberDildonics 9y agoProof of work isn't about forging transactions, it is about ordering them.
- EGreg 9y agoIf all you needed was a way to order transactions you would not need proof of work at all. Here for example is the PTN: https://intercoin.org/technical.pdf https://intercoin.org/technical.pdf
- CyberDildonics 9y agoFirst, a paper written three weeks ago of an unproven currency is a bit of stretch. Second, I didn't say it was necessary to order transactions, I said that is what it is used for, which is correct. You are replying to a point that I didn't make.
- Aledgerly 9y agoSo much misinformation, where to begin. IOTA is using Keccak/SHA-3, then they are developing a new kind of LIGHTWEIGHT cryptographic primitive together with the world leaders of this field https://blog.iota.org/iota-foundation-hires-cybercrypt-615d2df79001 https://blog.iota.org/iota-foundation-hires-cybercrypt-615d2...
- baby 9y agonice try IOTA
- sepherothika 9y agoThis was a complete joke fud article. Was debunked 1000s of times. Also: The 'vulnerability' they mention there. Oh yea: The IOTA team actually TOLD MIT about it, and it was already fixed in August. These FUD articles were posted in September. (Was fixed over a month before they even released this FUD). Conflicts of interest galore, complete FUD, total nonsense, was already fixed a month before, and iota actually was the ones to go to mit and tell them about this.