It provably isn’t faster (might be faster than raw JS or a JVM interpreter doing the same thing, but that’s a really low bar.) I never said it wasn’t quantum safe, I said using base 3 was a meaningless marketing move, and probably an affinity play for people with a limited understanding of post quantum cryptography.
It can’t be temporary by design. If it goes down the entire network ceases to function. This has already happened once for about 48 hours. The only alternative is to never snapshot the tangle which would (suprise suprise) make it unsustainably large in a few months, and even then, the API is closed, so we have no idea if they ever intend on getting rid of it. in the meantime, they can do whatever they want to the ledger.
Verified and curated by a single trusted 3rd party. You keep citing IOTA marketing material. Has it occured to you that if someone’s selling something that’s hard to audit for average people they might have incentive to be less than honest? If they built a sustainable ledger architecture to begin with, snapshotting would not be necessary. What you’ve bought is a centrally managed and issued medium of exchange with a much less efficient transfer system than fiat.
It’s not that it isn’t arbitrarily “not secure enough” it’s that their trust model is identical to paypal or visa without the regulation or accountability. The value of cryptocurrencies is trustless value storage and transfer. IOTA, by design, is a centrally managed cryptosystem, and therefore does not hold that utility. Buying it, logic follows, isn’t an investment, but a speculative play based on its marketing, which is a very different risk profile.
The devs could exit and dump at any time, or censor transacting activity whenever they want to. Even if they are honest actors, a state actor could compel them to shut down the coordinator and the network would not be functional, ever again.
Not only is this an extrordinary claim, I’d go farther and say this is provably untrue.
In any trustless model, you have to have an autonomous securing mechanism.
PoW derives 100% of it’s security from conversion of energy into coins on each verification
PoS and other schemes use n% energy and n% obfuscated offloading, which is necessarily less efficient because it either involves trust in a field without legal recourse, or allows for other attacks. This is why Ethereum keeps kicking the “difficulty bomb” down the road. they know attacks will skyrocket when they move to PoS, and they know disenfranchised miners will just pump something else.
Here’s a brief explanation of the math and thermodynamics involved here: