See title -- JINN seems to be linked with IOTA, so to me the answer should be yes, but I thought I would pose it.

  • Please add site-scope. – Helmar Dec 1 '17 at 11:58
  • Some context about JINN and a way you're leaning would be nice. Otherwise what are we voting on? See meta.stackexchange.com/help/whats-meta – Helmar Dec 1 '17 at 12:00
  • I was thinking of posting a similar question on meta, but I couldn't come up with any example questions that someone might ask (or at least, all the ones I could come up with would be closed as speculative/opinion-based). But that just means I couldn't think of anything; do you have any ideas for possible on-topic JINN questions? – todofixthis Dec 9 '17 at 21:59

On the one hand, I'd say of course because it's been part of IOTA's vision from the outset. The tangle will thrive on this meshed ecosystem of Jinn-PoWin' mini-nodes running on meellions of devices.

OTOH, I have this feeling the founders would like to keep it under wraps for now? Linking the ternary processing hardware to the ledger may be undesirable at this point.

  • 4
    The founders wishes are irrelevant. SE is a separate platform. The relevance of JINN for this site is to be discussed. – Helmar Dec 1 '17 at 11:58
  • I second what Helmar said on SE being independent from the founders. If we wouldn't allow any questions on JINN in general this would be plain censorship. I think it is a good idea to see and decide from case to case. – derfium Dec 1 '17 at 20:50
  • Not pleading for censorship or submission. Trying to understand core team's apparent reluctance to discuss Jinn & link it to IOTA. Their wishes are irrelevant indeed -- their reasoning may have merit. Though I agree that, if there's no further info to be had, of course the topic should be free to dicuss. – jabman Dec 1 '17 at 21:13

I would say no for speculation and yes for facts. But as we know, everything is speculation now.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .