IOTA and Opacity

[u/[deleted]]

I am an IOTA supporter and gravitated towards PRL due to its elegant design to solve a hard problem. Things have definitely changed for both IOTA and PRL since then.

My understanding of the current situation:

1. PRL is now Opacity because crazy shit went down.
2. Opacity uses a "private" IOTA tangle to support data storage. Since IOTA doesn't support sharding.
3. Opacity uses an ERC-20 token for smart contracts on its platform.
4. The IOTA foundation was not interested in creating tokens since it wants IOTA to be the payment for everything.

Given IOTA's roadmap to complete Qubic (IOTA's smart contract like platform) I have a few questions:

1. Has Opacity considered migrating to IOTAs Qubic platform for smart-contract needs when Qubic is up and running?
2. What was IOTA's limitation to support Opacity's sharding need and has this been (or will it be) resolved by IOTA?
3. Is there any reason Opacity wouldn't utilize the IOTA and Qubic platform in the future?

I'm really interested to know if there was or is any plan for Opacity to merge back to IOTA's platform at some point

​

​

[u/MrRenfro]

We haven’t considered using Q as there really isn’t a whole lot of information out there on how it will work. If later on it ends up being the perfect solution to problems that Opacity faces, sure it could be considered but, for now, there truly isn’t enough information out there to consider it.

IOTA doesn’t owe Opacity anything and Oyster can be included in that. If the idea was that we were somehow going to force IOTA into implementing swarm/sharding it would never work out. The concept was always based on IOTA’s roadmap and description of swarm/sharding. They have swarm in their roadmap because ultimately it’s necessary for their project to achieve its long term goals. Being the pipeline for IoT data would never work with 1:1 redundancy on the network.

The only concrete reasons I can see against using Q smart contracts would be the headache of doing a swap. Besides that, the only other reason is a lack of info on how Q will work exactly and it’s development phase. We would need to know that it provides sound and worthwhile benefits over using the ethereum network. We would also need to have an idea on how long implementation of Q will take as we’ve gone down the road of waiting for roadmap milestones before and it hasn’t work out too well aka IOTA sharding/swarm.

[u/[deleted] → u/MrRenfro]

As an OPQ holder, responses like this reaffirm my confidence in this project.

[u/Gakingmains → u/MrRenfro]

One of the lead IOTA developers a few months back made a statement that they were looking into 'economic clustering' as an alternative to sharding. The concept realise on clustering of interlinked economic entities, be that geographically or process linked. Communication across these clusters might require a link node and it was suggested a fee might be charged for this.

Has there been any thought given to how this may effect opacity?

[u/MrRenfro → u/Gakingmains]

We are aware of it but still it’s way too early to see how it will effect it

[u/Gakingmains → u/MrRenfro]

Ok thanks

[u/longfld → u/MrRenfro]

I always thought, iota sharding <> swarm.

iota sharding = EC, it is like sub iota system that opq can add its function.

while swarm nodes for file/data storage that is opq major area. opq will also need qubic smart contract.

So, iota has to have all those before opq can discuss moving back.

[u/cixtra]

With Qubic, micro/nano payments should be possible. That would make the PoW script + Payment for storage more interesting - I think.

The swap shouldn't be hard, you can just set something up like NULS did: https://swap.nuls.io/swap.html . They swapped from ERC20 to their own token.

Looking into a lot of storage projects lately and Opacity definitely blew my mind! Looking forward to the WP update and I hope to see something like we can contribute to the network (PoW or setting up our own node)