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

81–90 of 109 posts

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

#81

Post by koonsolo »

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 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

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

#82

Post by nuttycoin »

UncleMeat wrote: post #78
nuttycoin wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really that insane? There is already a plethora of companies working with IOTA. No one knows much about the status of JINN due to prospective NDAs that would prevent any sort of chip production deals from becoming public. Companies are actively seeking out the foundation to see how they can become involved, not vice versa. An IOTA efficient IoT device would simply have a tiny JINN ASIC to perform the PoW necess…

Yes. If you expect commercial iot products to use unusual custom hardware you are out of your mind.

Commercial IoT products will be built to work in the world of IoT. If IOTA becomes the standard method of data and value transfer among IoT devices, manufacturers will implement them. Remember, device manufacturers will only include tiny JINN chips in their devices, nothing more.

You would have probably said the same about bluetooth chips when they first came out.

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

#83

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

elevaet wrote: post #71
pavlov wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IOTA will require hardware that is customized to operate in trinary and perform IOTA PoW in a fast, energy-efficient manner This must be the most insane "Internet of Things" project ever. How did they come up with this nonsense?

Trinary logic hardware will perform better for the PoW in low energy environments, which is extremely important for IoT. It's either ambitious and visionary, or else insane. Personally I think it's the former, cutting edge technology always seems insane until it doesn't. Time will be the judge.

They've never actually shown that trinary logic hardware will work better in low energy environments. CMOS transistors can be very efficient at switching, but waste power like hell if used at intermediate voltages. You REALLY don't want to be running your MOSFETs in the triode region. Which leaves the option of making trinary logic out of bi-state FETs, which requires extra die area and wastes power, or inventing an entirely new process/transistor type that is more efficient than modern CMOS and happens to be trinary... Good luck with that.

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

#84

Post by jabronij »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #83
elevaet wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trinary logic hardware will perform better for the PoW in low energy environments, which is extremely important for IoT. It's either ambitious and visionary, or else insane. Personally I think it's the former, cutting edge technology always seems insane until it doesn't. Time will be the judge.

They've never actually shown that trinary logic hardware will work better in low energy environments. CMOS transistors can be very efficient at switching, but waste power like hell if used at intermediate voltages. You REALLY don't want to be running your MOSFETs in the triode region. Which leaves the option of making trinary logic out of bi-state FETs, which requires extra die area and wastes power, or inventing an…

Look into radix economies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix_economy

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

#85

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

jabronij wrote: post #84
SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've never actually shown that trinary logic hardware will work better in low energy environments. CMOS transistors can be very efficient at switching, but waste power like hell if used at intermediate voltages. You REALLY don't want to be running your MOSFETs in the triode region. Which leaves the option of making trinary logic out of bi-state FETs, which requires extra die area and wastes power, or inventing an…

Look into radix economies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix_economy

I'm aware of that. I don't really see the relevance to modern semiconductor engineering for cryptographic applications though. Differences in radix economy are typically only significant for very small numbers, far smaller than those used in cryptography. The decrease in number of required transistors is rapidly overwhelmed by the increased voltages required to discriminate between states and the resistive (heat) losses incurred by having a mid-valued state. If IOTA were a cryptocurrency for vacuum tubes where the power use is dominated by the cathode heater it might make sense to use trinary. But the last time I checked pretty much every processor around used CMOS FETs...

Edit: Idea! Hipstercoin - Trinary cryptocurrency for tube amplifiers! Play your vinyl and mine for hipstercoins at the same time!

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

#87

Post by generalizethis »

nemetroid wrote: post #79
generalizethis wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why didn't you use a lightnode? Or the most recent exe? I did it the other day and it took a few minutes--your article made me feel like a genius.

> Why didn't you use a lightnode? Or the most recent exe? It says why right in the article: "A blockchain client has to be open-source for the users to predict its behavior."

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 and rewrite the code.

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

#88

Post by nuttycoin »

_b8r0 wrote: post #42
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…

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?

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

#89

Post by nuttycoin »

abrkn wrote: post #26
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…

Why would something that is "pre alpha" be worth billions of dollars? Just doesn't make sense. IOTA has no utility today.

IOTA has no utility today. Neither does any crypto. Neither does the Boring Company. Yet they all have value.

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.

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

#90

Post by nemetroid »

generalizethis wrote: post #87
nemetroid wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why didn't you use a lightnode? Or the most recent exe? It says why right in the article: "A blockchain client has to be open-source for the users to predict its behavior."

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 argument being made is that it should be easy to build things from scratch.

Post reply on HN