See title -- JINN seems to be linked with IOTA, so to me the answer should be yes, but I thought I would pose it.
3
-
Please add site-scope.– HelmarCommented Dec 1, 2017 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– HelmarCommented Dec 1, 2017 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?– todofixthisCommented Dec 9, 2017 at 21:59
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
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.
-
4The founders wishes are irrelevant. SE is a separate platform. The relevance of JINN for this site is to be discussed.– HelmarCommented Dec 1, 2017 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.– derfiumCommented Dec 1, 2017 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.– jabmanCommented Dec 1, 2017 at 21:13
I would say no for speculation and yes for facts. But as we know, everything is speculation now.
