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

91–100 of 109 posts

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

#91

Post by generalizethis »

nemetroid wrote: post #90
generalizethis wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most recent is exe is opensource--it's right there on the top of the git. In fact, he probably had to scroll past it to download v2.5.6 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…

The exe is likely built from open source code. Maybe someone modified the code to insert a back door before building? If you use precompiled binaries, you have to trust * 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…

No, you can peruse the code for yourself if you need to look for backdoors. He was obviously choosing the path of most resistance so he could prove his own conclusion--not that small devices need to run a wallet or the process won't be automated in the future or it won't be competent IOT developers performing these task--still not sure how P2P usability equates to M2M usability, but let's skip over those details and rationalize why he spent more time finding ways to screw up than to honestly perform the task of using a wallet--in any case, his bungling hardly seems genuine.

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

#93

Post by nemetroid »

generalizethis wrote: post #91
nemetroid wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The exe is likely built from open source code. Maybe someone modified the code to insert a back door before building? If you use precompiled binaries, you have to trust * 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…

No, you can peruse the code for yourself if you need to look for backdoors. He was obviously choosing the path of most resistance so he could prove his own conclusion--not that small devices need to run a wallet or the process won't be automated in the future or it won't be competent IOT developers performing these task--still not sure how P2P usability equates to M2M usability, but let's skip over those details and…

> No, you can peruse the code for yourself if you need to look for backdoors.

...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.

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

#94

Post by [deleted] »

nemetroid wrote: post #93
generalizethis wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you can peruse the code for yourself if you need to look for backdoors. He was obviously choosing the path of most resistance so he could prove his own conclusion--not that small devices need to run a wallet or the process won't be automated in the future or it won't be competent IOT developers performing these task--still not sure how P2P usability equates to M2M usability, but let's skip over those details and…

> No, you can peruse the code for yourself if you need to look for backdoors. ...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.

[deleted]

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

#95

Post by generalizethis »

nemetroid wrote: post #93
generalizethis wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you can peruse the code for yourself if you need to look for backdoors. He was obviously choosing the path of most resistance so he could prove his own conclusion--not that small devices need to run a wallet or the process won't be automated in the future or it won't be competent IOT developers performing these task--still not sure how P2P usability equates to M2M usability, but let's skip over those details and…

> No, you can peruse the code for yourself if you need to look for backdoors. ...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.

Gotcha, assumed he would be trying to create a review pertinent to the normal user (given the memeness) as most will use an exe--still doesn't excuse his bungling (read Paul's response on why) or the strange conclusion that his P2P experience is pertinent to an argument as to IOTA's suitability as an IOT network. This is the major criticism that's been glossed over by most here. Can anyone try to rationalize why that assumption isn't absurd?

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

#96

Post by davidgerard »

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, given they put a link to it in their subreddit's sidebar.

The key problem is that IOTA's incompetence is pervasive. e.g. https://hackernoon.com/why-i-find-iota-deeply-alarming-934f1...

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

#97

Post by davidgerard »

nuttycoin wrote: post #88
_b8r0 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How do you allow machine to machine payments in a trustless manner without some sort of value transfer protocol? How do you make these transactions with periodic internet connection? Are you saying IoT devices will not need to pay each other?

In the finest blockchain tradition, this posits a convoluted solution that doesn't work, to a problem that nobody actually has.

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

#98

Post by nuttycoin »

davidgerard wrote: post #97
nuttycoin wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you allow machine to machine payments in a trustless manner without some sort of value transfer protocol? How do you make these transactions with periodic internet connection? Are you saying IoT devices will not need to pay each other?

In the finest blockchain tradition, this posits a convoluted solution that doesn't work, to a problem that nobody actually has.

So, IoT devices will not need to pay each other? No need to repeat a point without actually adding anything new to discussion. Companies are reaching out to IOTA, perhaps you should tell them their desire for this technology is irrational?

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.

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

#99

Post by ac29 »

koonsolo wrote: post #81
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…

> I, for one, am excited for the moment a cryptocurrency arrives that is actually usable for its supposed use. 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…

>I noticed sometimes these posts get downvoted

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).

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

#100

Post by shepardrtc »

xmly wrote: post #63
shepardrtc wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ripple is totally centralized. There is no better to use Ripple than a centralized any database. Ripple is just a old fashion money-wiring business, but uses the XRP as internal booking Symbol.

> Ripple is totally centralized

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.

Post reply on HN