IOTA: Cannot be used for IoT, loss of funds may occur • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by shepardrtc » Sat, Feb 10, 2018, 2:54 PM UTC

andr wrote: post #62

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.

The Bank of England is not a customer of Ripple. Their fintech accelerator used Ripple for a proof of concept, which "was a useful exercise to develop the Bank’s understanding of synchronisation and possible technical solutions.". 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 c…

How many other cryptos did they do a Poc with?

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.

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

#102

Post by _b8r0 » Sat, Feb 10, 2018, 3:02 PM UTC

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?

> How do you allow machine to machine payments in a trustless manner without some sort of value transfer protocol?

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.

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

#103

Post by koonsolo » Sat, Feb 10, 2018, 7:50 PM UTC

ac29 wrote: post #99

koonsolo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Yes, I also own those coins.

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.

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

#104

Post by davidgerard » Sat, Feb 10, 2018, 11:04 PM UTC

nuttycoin wrote: post #98

davidgerard wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Companies are reaching out to IOTA

In all the cases so far that IOTA put forward of this happening, the company came back denying it.

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

#105

Post by izelkay » Sun, Feb 11, 2018, 4:58 PM UTC

davidgerard wrote: post #96

gsich wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That is a blatant lie. No malicious online seed generator has EVER been in the sidebar on /r/IOTA. In fact, the lead moderator warned months ago not to use the iotaseed generator.

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

#106

Post by izelkay » Sun, Feb 11, 2018, 5:02 PM UTC

_b8r0 wrote: post #44

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.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Iota/comments/7sxgx0/bosch_ama_janu...

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

#107

Post by nuttycoin » Sun, Feb 11, 2018, 6:47 PM UTC

_b8r0 wrote: post #102

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?

> How do you allow machine to machine payments in a trustless manner without some sort of value transfer protocol? 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 withi…

Are you familiar with the term "fog computing?"

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 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.

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

#108

Post by nuttycoin » Sun, Feb 11, 2018, 6:49 PM UTC

davidgerard wrote: post #104

nuttycoin wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Companies are reaching out to IOTA In all the cases so far that IOTA put forward of this happening, the company came back denying it.

That is false. Either you are not doing your own research, or you are intentionally spreading misinformation.

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

#109

Post by _b8r0 » Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 12:11 AM UTC

izelkay wrote: post #106

_b8r0 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Iota/comments/7sxgx0/bosch_ama_janu...

Ok, I'll split the question into 3 and make it clear that you didn't answer it.

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.