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

51–60 of 109 posts

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

#51

Post by blacksmith_tb »

Tepix wrote: post #13

Great article. I chuckled quite a bit. This reminds me of my attempts to check out Cardano. There was no working Linux client. (I checked again today: Still no Linux client. The latest release of the software appears to be from September 2017). 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 poin…

There's a lot of beating the dead horse for laughs, though. I had a friend who wanted to send me some Iota, and I installed everything on Ubuntu without any trouble. If you screenshot every step of any process, it becomes absurd (and maybe it really is, but we've gotten used to jumping through a lot of hoops).

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

#52

Post by nuttycoin »

abrkn wrote: post #21
justboxing wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate how all the coin subs on reddit call anything that's not postive about their coin as F.U.D. 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...

IOTA an insane cult driven by fear of losing money. No one uses the software. They use social media to attract more bag holders. I read the "rebuff". He looked up the wrong company named "Helix"... I'm not affiliated with the entity he mentions.

If this was IOTA in its final form the value of IOTA should be 0. It's great that this is not the case!

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.

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

#53

Post by hisabness »

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.

review. NEO...Not a shitcoin.

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

#54

Post by oflannabhra »

empath75 wrote: post #20
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...

so basically an ad hominem attack that doesn't really respond to anything.

I have no dog in the IOTA fight (or in cryptocurrencies at all), but FTA:

>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.

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

#55

Post by Tepix »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #51
Tepix wrote: post #13

Great article. I chuckled quite a bit. This reminds me of my attempts to check out Cardano. There was no working Linux client. (I checked again today: Still no Linux client. The latest release of the software appears to be from September 2017). 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 poin…

There's a lot of beating the dead horse for laughs, though. I had a friend who wanted to send me some Iota, and I installed everything on Ubuntu without any trouble. If you screenshot every step of any process, it becomes absurd (and maybe it really is, but we've gotten used to jumping through a lot of hoops).

I guess you installed from binary then?

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

#56

Post by bond »

abrkn wrote: post #7
muthdra wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love learning about cryptocurrencies through shitcoins. It helps keeping perspective in check. Keep up the great work.

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

A review on siacoin would be great..

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

#57

Post by moomin »

nuttycoin wrote: post #50
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 c…

To borrow a phrase from reddit: name checks out.

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

#58

Post by nuttycoin »

moomin wrote: post #57
nuttycoin wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

To borrow a phrase from reddit: name checks out.

Fantastic reply

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

#59

Post by TeMPOraL »

dsgriffin wrote: post #14
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…

Any in particular you think might pull that off? 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.

Filecoin is the only one I looked into that seems like it could pan out. Its goal is to be an incentive layer on top of IPFS, that would make mirroring data ("pinning") over that protocol profitable.

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

#60

Post by andr »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #29
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…

Have you looked into Stellar Lumens? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it and if it fits your requirement of being usable for its supposed use. It seems so on the surface to me, but I don't know what the look under the hood reveals.

If I was to fork a cryptocurrency codebase, I would start with Stellar. Their architecture and code quality are probably the best out there.
Post reply on HN