IOTA: Cannot be used for IoT, loss of funds may occur
shitcoin.com
shitcoin.com
I, for one, am excited for the moment a cryptocurrency arrives that is actually usable for its supposed use. Every time someone claims to be a cryptocurrency for X (be it file sharing, IoT, attention, etc.), X is really just speculation.
[1] https://www.ccn.com/a-number-of-iota-wallets-emptied-by-hack...
The key problem is that IOTA's incompetence is pervasive. e.g. https://hackernoon.com/why-i-find-iota-deeply-alarming-934f1...
No bank would use such a volatile currency for payments, for obvious reasons. If someone ends up using a technology based on the Ripple codebase, that's another story, but it is more like company X hiring the people behind Ripple for a consulting gig, then company X betting their fortunes on XRP.
IOTA also claimed to have a partnership Microsoft, when in fact it turned out they used Azure for hosting. The lack of any journalistic standards in cryptocurrencies is a huge issue.
Ignoring BoE, Ripple's customers that are using XRP in production are:
Moneygram, Cuallix, Mercury FX, and IDT.
There are also 100 customers using xCurrent (the pre-XRP product that's used to transfer fiat). Upgrading to xRapid would increase the speed and decrease the costs of such transfer, so I imagine there will a conversion of some of those 100 customers to using xRapid, and thus, XRP.
Ripple is just a old fashion money-wiring business, but uses the XRP as internal booking Symbol.
You are completely wrong. Ripple is decentralized by way of validation of transactions done through their distributed consensus protocol, which is done through validator nodes sitting across the world at places like MIT and Microsoft.
Well, I have this feeling with Nano. Intstant, free and scalable transactions. The first 2 are definitely there. The last one looks promising, and some load tests for that are scheduled.
That the entire network should be able to handle 7000 tps with the power of a single windmill is also cool.
To me, this is potentially the internet money that was promised with bitcoin.
I noticed sometimes these posts get downvoted, so here is an interview with the main developer. Decide for yourself: https://youtu.be/hAy4GDV7tvQ
If you wonder why people are downvoting you, its because at least this post reads like you are promoting some random cryptocurrency here and you haven't even bothered to say whether you have a vested interest in it succeeding (because you hold coins or otherwise).
I guess if someone is interested incrypto and talks positive about a certain coin, there is a 99.99% chance they own it.
I never saw this requirement with companies though. "My macbook is great because of x and y". Let's downvote him because he probably owns Apple stocks without telling.
There's a few I follow (VeChain, Monero, Nano, GET) but like you I find it quite hard to imagine more than a handful that could realistically achieve the aim(s) they've set out to do.
I then tried to build from source. I'm doing some Node development so I have Node v8.x installed (the current LTS version). Turns out the wallet requires Node v6.
At that point I gave up. I also read that Cardano has some great concepts but right now it's still in its first, centralized phase.
I built both components back in November and could run it, I just did the same now.
Official Linux packaging would be great but until they get there you can build and run everything yourself.
Yikes.
Someone posted this 'rebuff' to your blog post on reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/7we3x0/rebu...
Direct link: https://medium.com/@ralf/andreas-brekken-proves-he-has-no-cl...
I read the "rebuff". He looked up the wrong company named "Helix"... I'm not affiliated with the entity he mentions.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say your statement about shitcoins using social media to attract bag holders sounds about right.
I've noticed the mods on r/ripple are even worse. They ruthlessly delete any post that raises legitimate concerns about XRP and it's so called touted use of providing liquidity for cross border payment, that not a single bank appears to be using in a production environment.
And yes, statements like "IOTA an insane cult driven by fear of losing money" are FUD, regardless of how much sense your argument may or may not make.
The company claims that 100s of banks and financial institutes are using their technology, but ALL 100+ institutions are only evaluating / doing pilots.
Company has been around since 2011, I am very curious why there isn't a single big name that has put it's weight behind this for real production use.
Cryptocurrencies are pretty mainstream nowadays, everybody and their grandfather want to be a crypto-millionaire. Very few have the skills to decide whether experimental technologies like Ripple or IOTA have a future[1], it's just speculation for speculation's sake. Ask the average Ripple owner what they think of the "trustlines" and the risks associated with it. Actually, just ask them what a Ripple trustline is. I doubt you'll get many answers.
[1] Honestly I feel pretty knowledgeable about how cryptocurrencies work and yet it's not rare for one of these whitepapers to lose me. For many of them you need a pretty good technical background on cryptography, game theory and economy (with maybe a hint of sociology) to really be able to gauge whether an idea has merit or not.
Except for the validation of transactions done through their distributed consensus protocol, which is done through validator nodes sitting across the world at places like MIT and Microsoft.
No... That's just not true. Cuallix isn't. Moneygram finished their initial pilot and is beginning its deployment to internal transfers, which could be folowed by deployment to everywhere else.
> I am very curious why there isn't a single big name that has put it's weight behind this for real production use.
Banco Santander: https://www.finextra.com/newsarticle/31617/banco-santander-p...
It says why right in the article: "A blockchain client has to be open-source for the users to predict its behavior."
I looked: https://github.com/iotaledger/wallet/releases
Also, a few user-friendly wallets are going to be released soon, but he chose to not wait? The whole thing smacks of deliberate attempt to fail. He couldn't have made worse choices--unless he had decided to wear a blindfold and rewrite the code.
* the maintainers of the project, who built the executable, and
* that the build process itself hasn't been compromised.
Since a selling point for cryptocurrencies in general is that it's a system that works without having to trust third parties, the argument being made is that it should be easy to build things from scratch.
...and the conclusion that the source is back door free is only relevant if you then actually build the software yourself. You can only assume that the exe was built from the unmodified source code if you trust those who built it.
>IOTA: Cannot be used for IoT
The author has this caption under the screenshot of the official documentation:
>They also write that you can’t use IOTA for IoT
...but they clearly don't write that, I can read it in the screenshot. They say it doesn't work on smaller IoT devices, and that this will change when you can compile from source. So that's out as a source of this claim.
The other source:
>I upgraded to this machine after reading on the Discord chat that people were unable to stay in sync with less powerful hardware [citation needed]
That's the requirements for running the Wallet GUI on Linux, not IOTA core (which as the author mentions, has been implemented in python and JS).
Nuance matters, concluding "IOTA cannot be used on Internet-of-Things devices" at the end seems like an oversimplification; especially for an article that seems overly-specific when it's trying to make IOTA seem complicated (Is setting up an AWS instance of Ubuntu for your Windows host a concern for EVERY user of IOTA? Is it really important that you set up your firewall incorrectly?).
Another strange omission is not mentioning IOTA as being in beta, which is the reason it can't run on smaller devices:
>This means that the current Java implementation is a reference implementation
I even tried setting up the mobile wallet but kept getting errors, like in this post.
I’m over it. But I think you need to see this from a layperson’s point of view. It’s difficult to use and overly complex. Until that changes, I won’t be back.
I mean, the simple fact that IOTA currently de-facto centralized, doesn't plan on using PoW to secure the chain and promises almost-free transactions should make investors very cautious. They're promising what nobody has managed to achieve yet and the only thing they have to show for it is a whitepaper and the promise that very clever people are working on it.
There is no IoT use case for IOTA.
Let me repeat that.
There. Is. No. IoT. Use. Case. For. IOTA.
I'm not having a pop at the parent here, I just want to make it clear that there is no reason for IOTA to exist.
IOTA not only fails to solve a problem, it's failing at solving a problem that IoT doesn't have.
I'd be interested to see an actual application of IOTA for any IoT device that can only be, or is optimally solved by IOTA.
But there isn't one.
Because there's no freaking use case that can't be done more optimally using already production-level alternatives.
Can you explain to me why this is needed? I genuinely can't think of instances where machines need to pay each other, let alone in a trustless manner vs a centralized solution. People, sure. Machines, no. I'm not trying to be difficult, I've spent weeks trying to think of a situation I've worked on within the IoT space where the machines need to pay each other and haven't been able to come up with one.
> How do you make these transactions with periodic internet connection?
Again, why would you make such transactions with periodic internet connections? What is the size of the market for semi-connected IoT devices to bill each other, as opposed to the organisations or people using them?
> Are you saying IoT devices will not need to pay each other?
I'm not saying that. I genuinely haven't been able to think of a situation where a decentralized payment mechanism is necessary. I'll give you a quick rundown of some of the things we can consider IoT that I've done security work on over the past 15 years, and perhaps you can give me some use cases where decentralized machine to machine payment is needed.
1. Process control system for natural resource management - so there's pipes, stuff going through the pipes and PLCs managing the flow.
2. Home routers connected to the Internet with Wifi networks (Think Linksys etc)
3. The Sphero Spiderman kids toy (This was for a third-party, I didn't work for Sphero on this).
4. An Internet-capable TV running different apps like YouTube, Vimeo etc.
5. An in-car location tracking device used to reduce car insurance payments based on speed, areas driven in and types of road driven on.
I can kind of see some sort of situation where some of the above might have payment integration useful, but none where it needs to happen on the device itself. If you have any use cases for IOTA where a centralized alternative won't beat it or doesn't already exist, I'd genuinely love to know. It's my biggest stumbling block.
This is one of the main reasons for which IOTA was created. The term was invented by Cisco and since then there has been a lot of effort to come up with a solution.
How do you achieve fog computing with no means of transaction of value? Devices will need to pay each other for resource sharing, be it computing power, storage, data, or electricity. Your neighbors will not provide resources to you if you cannot pay them.
The problem with centralized payment systems is that they are not permissionless. If you hook your IoT device to your VISA card, your device needs to establish a connection with VISA every time it needs to make a payment, and you need your counterparty to accept payments from VISA. In addition, a large percentage of IoT transactions will be microtransactions. A centralized payment system will have to process insane amounts of transactions whose value are << $.01. IOTA flash channels allow for the streaming of data and payments in real time.
A unique property of IOTA is that it is partition-tolerant. Offline nodes can form local subtangles and attach them to the main tangle once internet connection is restored. This is impossible with a centralized payment system.
Finally, IOTA is just as much a data transmission protocol as it is a payment protocol. Data transmission on the tangle helps data become more tamper-proof, another important issue in the world of IoT.
Additionally, while IOTA is designed for IoT, it will obviously work with non-IoT devices. If IOTA works, there is no need for many other cryptos to exist.
In all the cases so far that IOTA put forward of this happening, the company came back denying it.
"the only thing they have to show for it is a whitepaper" - say whaaat? IOTA is a functioning digital currency with feeless transactions. You can watch the transactions on the network here: https://thetangle.org/live
It's foolish to think IOTA is worth nothing even though it is not production ready, because when it is, it will be worth much more than it is today.
It is what Bitcoin said it would be fast and fee-less cryptocurrency.
Furthermore, free transactions with minimal POW don't create proper incentives and will not scale because there is an extremely low cost to spam the network. This means you can essentially use full historical nodes as a data storage for anything you want.
The marketing is strictly speaking false. A transaction is not instant, as you must wait for sufficient time to ensure that a conflicting transaction has not been published (and hope that you are not network partitioned). Otherwise, you might as well settle for "instant" BTC 0-conf transactions. Free, is debatable, considering the difficulty of POW that would be required to effectively deter spam.
The IOTA team deserves every bit of backlash coming their way...
What is the utility that IOTA provides, that Bosch are deploying at production, and where is this used?
You won't get a decent answer because as far as I can tell there isn't one.
What is the utility that IOTA provides?
There's nothing in your link that talks about the utility that IOTA provides. There's machine to machine payments, but that's not really utility because currently machines don't pay each other, users do. There's no actual demand for machines to pay each other. This isn't unsurprising because it's a new technology and sometimes technology has to develop the demand.
What are Bosch are deploying at production?
The link you supplied has nothing being deployed at production. There's talk of the XDK, but that's a developer kit, not a final product. If you go to the XDK site and search for IOTA, iota or tangle you get no results. This is not contingent with the importance that IOTA supporters place on the Bosch relationship.
Where is this used?
According to the link you've posted, there are a number of Proof of Concepts, but no actual deployments at production scale. It's not being used outside of PoC at this stage.
The thing is, you could've just tried answering the question but posting an AMA that doesn't answer it is frankly, shitty. If you believe it does answer the above 3 questions, at least do the decent thread and link to the comments with the answers.
>On the Internet of Things, edge nodes are mostly low-powered, occasionally connected devices, sometimes with just a few kilobytes of on-device memory. Nobody expects those devices to be in sync with anything. That is, why IOTA has a concept of nodes. Fullnodes and permanodes. These nodes stay in sync with the Tangle. Or, if you consider use cases which require offline-capabilities, even just with subparts of the Tangle, which can be attached back to the main Tangle at a later point...
Andreas seemed to be suggesting that no IoT device would be able to take part in the IOTA network, because his attempt to run a full-node required lots of data.
All the arguments about "how can something that's pre-alpha be worth billions of dollars" are perfectly valid, but the original article seemed to address IOTA's worth for IoT devices, and seems to have missed the plot on that.
It is clear to me that the author has an inclination to portray IOTA in a negative light, and that he does not understand how IOTA works. It will take time for the tangle to grow to the level that the IOTA foundation envisions, and it does not take a genius to realize that fact.
People in this thread are mocking those who call articles like this one FUD, but that's simply what it is. Nothing about this article supports the argument that IOTA will not be able to be used for IoT in the future.