Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IOTA: Cannot be used for IoT, loss of funds may occur

shitcoin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 109 posts

Re: IOTA: Cannot be used for IoT, loss of funds may occur

#41

Post by stri8ed »

dangero wrote: post #31
testdeep wrote: post #23

Nano is a great alternative and was thought out before IOTA. It was one of the first paper to be published about Block Lattice. It is what Bitcoin said it would be fast and fee-less cryptocurrency. https://github.com/clemahieu/raiblocks

Bitshares did low cost transactions at high volume years ago, so I'm never quite sure why Nano gets so much attention because those features aren't novel. 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.

Adding to this, representative nodes (DPOS) do not get any rewards for being online and behaving correctly. Which is a recipe for tragedy of the commons. Worse yet, a voter can issue two conflicting votes, and the system has no mechanism let alone penalty for handling this. The defense against these attacks seems to be, reps have stake, therefor they wont take actions detrimental to coin value..

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.

Re: IOTA: Cannot be used for IoT, loss of funds may occur

#42

Post by _b8r0 »

simias wrote: post #22

His experience is what I would expect from anybody trying pre-alpha software which is probably what IOTA is right now (at least, that seems to be the common defense from it's proponents, "it's temporary, it's going to change"). The absurd part is that it's pre-alpha software that has a market cap in billions of dollars thanks to the wild speculation around cryptocurrency/blockchain stuff. I mean, the simple fact that…

Before we get to the fact that it's effectively poorly written pre-alpha garbage, let me make something abundantly clear:

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.

Re: IOTA: Cannot be used for IoT, loss of funds may occur

#43

Post by nuttycoin »

While IOTA is not anywhere near production ready, it is important to realize that the value of IOTA is based on the expected value of utility that the tangle provides. This form of valuation is not unique to IOTA; it applies to all cryptocurrencies (and assets like growth stocks, for that matter). For this reason, IOTA's current user experience is not of the utmost importance. The author seems to think otherwise.

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.

Re: IOTA: Cannot be used for IoT, loss of funds may occur

#44

Post by _b8r0 »

dsgriffin wrote: post #17

For anyone interested, there's been a response to this article by Ralf Rottmann: https://medium.com/@ralf/andreas-brekken-proves-he-has-no-cl...

When you see someone mention Bosch, ask them what Bosch are actually using it for. Not in, but for.

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.

Re: IOTA: Cannot be used for IoT, loss of funds may occur

#45

Post by bjl »

gsich wrote: post #40
abrkn wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've had some other scandals too! "Emptied IOTA Wallets: Hackers Steal Millions Using Malicious Seed Generators"[1] [1] https://www.ccn.com/a-number-of-iota-wallets-emptied-by-hack...

That's not IOTAs fault.

It kind of is, since this functionality should've shipped with the wallet, like it does with every other crypto.

Re: IOTA: Cannot be used for IoT, loss of funds may occur

#46

Post by shepardrtc »

andr wrote: post #9

Of course it's not meant for IoT. It's written in Java, has the whole ternary nonsense going, and uses custom crypto, which would be really slow to implement, compared to hardware-accelerated RSA or AES most cheap embedded chips have nowadays. 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…

Ripple, for cross-border payments. Already in use by several banks, Moneygram, LianLian, Western Union is rumored as well. Bank of England is a customer, a few other central banks are rumored to be getting into it. They have several pieces of software, all of which lead to using their cryptocurrency XRP.

Re: IOTA: Cannot be used for IoT, loss of funds may occur

#47

Post by shepardrtc »

abrkn wrote: post #18
justboxing wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't know if it's a shitcoin, but can you review XRP / Ripple? 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.

I interviewed to work at Ripple in 2013! I don't know how interesting the review would be. Ripple is completely centralized. I'll think about it.

> Ripple is completely centralized

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.

Re: IOTA: Cannot be used for IoT, loss of funds may occur

#48

Post by Rhapso »

andr wrote: post #9

Of course it's not meant for IoT. It's written in Java, has the whole ternary nonsense going, and uses custom crypto, which would be really slow to implement, compared to hardware-accelerated RSA or AES most cheap embedded chips have nowadays. 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…

It is actually really frustrating. The Tangle idea is pretty good, but the rest of it is crap. The product is getting such a bad reputation that using the good ideas for a better product later will be hard.

Re: IOTA: Cannot be used for IoT, loss of funds may occur

#49

Post by shepardrtc »

justboxing wrote: post #12
abrkn wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks! If you have a shitcoin you want me to review, I'm open to suggestions.

Don't know if it's a shitcoin, but can you review XRP / Ripple? 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.

> but ALL 100+ institutions are only evaluating / doing pilots

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...

Re: IOTA: Cannot be used for IoT, loss of funds may occur

#50

Post by nuttycoin »

andr wrote: post #9

Of course it's not meant for IoT. It's written in Java, has the whole ternary nonsense going, and uses custom crypto, which would be really slow to implement, compared to hardware-accelerated RSA or AES most cheap embedded chips have nowadays. 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…

You clearly don't know much about IOTA. IOTA will require hardware that is customized to operate in trinary and perform IOTA PoW in a fast, energy-efficient manner. This hardware component is being tackled by JINN.

No blockchain will work with IoT. Any decentralized ledger whose throughput cannot rise with transaction volume will not be scalable.

I advise you read up on IOTA before saying outlandish things like "Of course it's not meant for IoT." The FUD is strong with IOTA because it threatens the success of so many other projects.

Post reply on HN