Well, it does prevent conflicts to everybody else who play by the rules. The local conflict only affects the one address/index of the evil user.
In a conflict on DAGs, if you have the bad luck to be on the wrong sub-tangle, you will need to re-attach.
Looking forward to that new algo! 👍 Good luck!
It is not true for any DLT if you take the asynchronous nature into account. Especially for DAGs it is a major task to check that the referenced transactions do not contradict each other, leading to a conflict.
In lattice, it is far easier to check: If a parent transaction on the chain is referenced by more than two child…
The fact that the realms can exist completely isolated becomes very handy, if one wants to maximise obfuscation.
Imagine that you hold most of your value in one token and you want to rent a bike, which is paid with bike-tokens. You could exchange a tiny amount of your tokens through an exchanger, who has nodes in both realms.
I was referring to the database. Surely, all nodes would still need to process transactions. Since there is a solid snapshotting concept, this is not a priority at this moment, but something we are considering at a later stage.
Yup, the difficulty is always the proof of snapshot, as you said in the other comment, isn’t it?
If they do it and it works, more power to them! It doesn’t make this feature less valid or less important for us.
If you want to stay anonymous, create as many new addresses as you like. Hell, you could even automate that. You can obfuscate as much as you like. But, 100% anonymity will only come from ZKPs (something we are looking into as well). Even in IOTA you can track who paid what simply by following the remainder addresses.
All good and valid questions, Hans. Just wait for the next articles on this one, where it will become more obvious. This is the “conviction” part I was writing about. It will make sense, bear with me. ^^