I invested in BitBay today and I am looking forward to investing in GadgetCoin  to keep my Internet of Things eggs in two baskets I have a feeling that both will be fine  It's a smart move to diversify your investment but you will have not the same type of eggs, as BitBay and GadgetCoin seems to me are two very different eggs. I just had a very long chat with David Zimbeck the BitBay lead developer, he is a very nice guy and obviously a very knowledgeable software engineer, and he confirmed that BitBay will not work on IoT software, but they will try implementing a Mesh Network. So based on what the lead developer said your BitBay egg is not an IoT egg. Though it doesn't really matter, in my opinion both BitBay and GadgetCoin are exciting technologies. |
|
|
|
Big dumps in all markets.
In the meantime Pnosker is doing work for an exchange, this time to evaluate IE's coin. It seems this work out for the devs, they are getting more and more work, first ARCH and now IE's coin. In the meantime the bag holders left with a stagnating coin and no development whatsoever.
Yup their using vericoin as a mean to get other projects to make money. They don't care about this coin this coin is as good as dead. Scam developers just did it differently. Promise after promise with no dates and very little updates just a shitty roadmap with a color bar and a bunch of paid of cheerleader like Scott Allen and very veri. I don't want to hear anymore that we're working I want to see results which we will NOT see with this coin! I couldn't agree with you more and there must be a reason more and more investors feel the way you feel and see VeriCoin as a scam. Transparency is clearly not the recipe for honest operation - see the transparent VRC developers who promised, but never delivered. |
|
|
|
Big dumps in all markets.
In the meantime Pnosker is doing work for an exchange, this time to evaluate IE's coin. It seems this work out for the devs, they are getting more and more work, first ARCH and now IE's coin. In the meantime the bag holders left with a stagnating coin and no development whatsoever.
Brian Kelly, of NAUT, also wants to use their dynamic interest feature, so they will surely be "helping" him as we speak... And don't forget the (regular) job and quarterly evaluations. Ah, you are so demanding... the kids also need to have their fun, you know? At this point (fresh multi-months low at 4200 this past 24 hours), only pants-boy, Scott, silver-coin boy and the eyes-transformed-in-$$$, Kevondo (radio:asset...hum), still believe in this shit. Oh and that lootz idiot, of course. Cheerleaders are dwindling fast and the rats are about to start jumping ship nen masses, I believe. All the dumps in the Alt-markets could mean there is a rally on bitcoin coming. The rally is ongoing and quite significant already. It seems to have taken a profit-taking breather at the moment, but it gained $100+ (over 30%) in a few days... It seems from VeriCoin viewpoint the price of Bitcoin is irrelevant as whatever happens with Bitcoin the price of vericoin is keep dropping. In the meantime the cheerleaders at the other thread believe that vericoin drops because Bitcoin drops, and then a week later they believe vericoin drops because Bitcoin rise. On a different topic, Barabbas and altcoinUK are now officially banned from the newest Vericoin BCT thread, apparently we are not trustworthy or something like that. It seems Lootz is taking the stupidity to the next level in that thread. |
|
|
|
I think, I also decided not to invest - except if the DEV answer my questions about real time hardware control and outlines how that will be possible at all with the Blackhalo solution?
I am mainly interested in the IoT offering, but it seems to me the IoT concept does not even exists on conceptual level. If there is not even conceptual solution, I can't see how this project will release a working, blockchain enabled, peer to peer Internet of Things software that controls hardware in real time.
I believe I already answered this, im not able to monitor this thread constantly because I'm usually working. But yeah you can do zero confirmations with multisig because your device or you hold the raw transaction. It depends on the application/hardware. Best that you give me some example or use case and I can explain to you how I would approach it. This isnt dissimilar from NightTrader multisig engine which I have made. I just dont have any front end for it. Controlling hardware in real time is fairly easy when you know multiple signatures are involved. Add this to checklocktimeverify and you can have outputs convert to different things based on blocks. Handling raw transactions where you hold the other signature can leave you secure with the fact that you can do zero confirmations. Thanks for your reply. I am familiar with the green address concept of Bitcoin that requires a third party and allows instant transactions and I believe you are not referring to that. So if your solution conceptually is not that, let see a concrete use case: open a gate in a sport venue where users use their wallet to enter the venue and the gate controller device charges 10 BitBay coin for opening the gate. My understanding is, prior to opening the door the device must know if the 10 BitBay Coin is available for the buyer. The device must ensure the balance is available, it's not a double spending and it's a legitimate transaction, otherwise the door cannot be opened. Once the gate controller device is satisfied the balance is available, and only in that case it opens the gate. How long it takes for the device to verify if there is a sufficient balance on the address, because prior verifying the balance the gate cannot be opened? In other words, how long the user must stand for waiting the device to perform the service? If you say so you have worked this out and willing to explain this, I am sure that's the case, and you will have a working solution :-)) One working solution is to have your funds locked before you get to the gate ... Thus your primary account would have locked funds set aside for public events and interaction with IOT ... So they cant hold your money hostage because the funds are set to convert back to a regular account on the expiration of the lock ... The gate only signs with parties that were confirmed in advance to be honest. Those parties would hold a double deposit contract with the manufacturer too. All due respect David, this solution isn't practical and such implementation would make the use case completely uncompetitive to existing FIAT or even digital currency payment solutions. Currently payment systems, even the Bitcoin network with green addresses works in ad-hoc manner: you pay at the time of the purchase. In order to buy a pizza, hotel room, concert ticket there is no requirement to lock the fund to the seller prior to the transaction, not even with Bitcoin. I think such system that you have suggested wont be adopted at all. I understand your solution would be still anonymous and decentralized, but having so much complication to make a payment to IoT devices would make the solution impractical in my opinion.
This starts boiling down more to logistics.
I disagree. This is not a logistical but a conceptual issue. What you have described is a workaround by asking users to comply with your work around in order to have the luxury of involving with a very-very complicated process. Anyway, thanks for answering, apart from the IoT part, your solution will be great and I have no doubt you will roll out an excellent smart contract system. I suggest don't involve the IoT it at all. Firstly people have no idea what is it so it doesn't mean anything :-)) and no one is investing in this because the IoT feature, but once someone take a closer look at it, the reaction will be that it is not acceptable for businesses and that reaction could cause more harm than good for the project. Your decentralized market solution is flawless, it is obviously a viable use case, but the hardware industry and hardware integrators will be taking apart the IoT concept and such publicity will hurt your and the project's reputation. Well this was just an example. Also I should mention that your client would be locking the funds. And its not dissimilar from "Parking" funds in Nubits, we can offer incentive for parking with manufacturers. One method is to use only one manufacturer at first to simplify the distribution. I'm mostly interested in mesh networks to be honest. That is exactly what I discussed with the other players. My solution works, its not "green addresses" per se but I agree even though it works it may not get adopted. That solution works around bitcoins weakness of trustless doublespend problems. What you are describing is a problem inherent in Bitcoin itself so the only other way is to make the device are party to the transaction in some way so it can trust the RAW transaction is valid. This way it doesnt have to wait for confirmations since it knows its holding a signature, hash or something that would prevent you from spending otherwise. Time locks are not permanent, they are only needed to create a connection with the hardware manufacturers server to prove you arent double spending on one of their devices. So, no offense taken. I have yet to see a better solution. Perhaps I can come up with an additional one later and PM you when I do. After all knowledge should be free. So we are taking baby steps. Just start with what works and let the industry evolve. That solution works for your particular use case. Users can also do a double deposit contract with device manufacturers in advance. Then they would not need to use my above proposed method. Bitcoin itself is highly flawed anyways, it doesnt have a very advanced scripting system, there is malleability which always needs to be worked around by protocols, there is major problems with botnets and sybil attacks, there is a scalabiity issue that is very complex to confront (im speaking of bandwidth issues in securing the blockchain) and so on. With that said, they liked my ideas with mesh networks and added it as IoT which is a misnomer. The mesh netowork idea I had was working with hardware but not necessarily in real time. A good example is Blackcoins COLD Staking. This is something rat4 added some RPC calls for. Now I can do multisignature staking in Halo. We could then, use a device with the staker to sign the second sig. So this is a case where you dont need instant confirmations. To me, mesh networks are a dream goal if we even get close to that point this project will be a smash hit. So really my impression in starting this project was to start in mesh. If they really want to do this with me, we can change the world so its of great interest to me to see this follow through. Lets be clear about this roadmap again: *DEMO Smart contracting client(from BlackHalo) --- Within a week. Trying to get it before ICO ends but not 100% sure. *Markets(beta without advanced whitelists but with a kill switch/mod key) --- Within a month or two max. I've been working on this for Blackcoin, they coincide The last two get worked on simultaneously with Hedging taking precedence: *Hedging transition with the checklocktimeverify --- this is about a month... we can pull from NuBits, but we are dealing with a larger supply so that math has to work out to manage all of everyones funds properly. If they pay my dev team I can have them work on this fork BEFORE I finish my markets which would greatly increase the speed in the fork. *Markets with whitelists/double back on server --- one month after the main markets release. Its not a difficult implementation, its very elegant but there would also be some user interface feedback and bugs we want to respond to. This could delay one additional month so we will have to ask users to behave in our decentralized markets so we don't have to shut it down. So give the above a total of 3 months. Realize I'm trying to underpromise and overdeliver. And you know I deliver if you read blackcoins subreddit ONCE we are hedged, we can go for the mesh networks. We will now be capped at a billion dollars(thats my target price anyways) and be able to afford and utilize our connections to the hardware markets and we will indeed create an incentive system for setting up these networks. Right now I can see what you are trying to achieve and thanks for the clarification. So far a few of us, potential users and investors posted that the IoT concept seems a bit vogue and it's very questionable how that such hardware integration would work with the Balckhalo system, and generally with decentralized blockchain solutions. You have described a workaround, but also said yourself that your original suggestion to the BitBay team was a mesh network idea, and then it was called IoT. So why don't call it "mesh network" if the focus will be in fact ... on mesh network :-)) I had involved with several crypto projects at investment level that went very wrong for the same reason, the objectives were identified incorrectly, the team delivered different solution what was promised. It's your project and you do as you wish, but why to disappoint (perhaps mislead people) by promising IoT when your goal - very understandably - related to a bigger picture and you will work on mesh network? I have been involved with IoT related design and implementation projects for years, this area is close to me, but for the given technology, the peer to peer network and the decentralized blockchain the mesh network sounds a more sensible goal. I fully agree with you that it could be game changer. (the very-very smart people of Skycoin work on the same thing) I would change the IoT in the project description to Mesh Network. Right now no one really cares, people who knows you will still believe in the project, but you could avoid lot of problems by defining the goals and deliverables accurately. Later, when the price inevitable drop (see Viacoin) investors start to complain, FUD, etc., and then it will be a huge issue why you work on mesh network if you promised IoT. Anyway, good luck, I will throw in a few BTCs and look forward to see the mesh network implementation some times next year. |
|
|
|
I think, I also decided not to invest - except if the DEV answer my questions about real time hardware control and outlines how that will be possible at all with the Blackhalo solution?
I am mainly interested in the IoT offering, but it seems to me the IoT concept does not even exists on conceptual level. If there is not even conceptual solution, I can't see how this project will release a working, blockchain enabled, peer to peer Internet of Things software that controls hardware in real time.
I believe I already answered this, im not able to monitor this thread constantly because I'm usually working. But yeah you can do zero confirmations with multisig because your device or you hold the raw transaction. It depends on the application/hardware. Best that you give me some example or use case and I can explain to you how I would approach it. This isnt dissimilar from NightTrader multisig engine which I have made. I just dont have any front end for it. Controlling hardware in real time is fairly easy when you know multiple signatures are involved. Add this to checklocktimeverify and you can have outputs convert to different things based on blocks. Handling raw transactions where you hold the other signature can leave you secure with the fact that you can do zero confirmations. Thanks for your reply. I am familiar with the green address concept of Bitcoin that requires a third party and allows instant transactions and I believe you are not referring to that. So if your solution conceptually is not that, let see a concrete use case: open a gate in a sport venue where users use their wallet to enter the venue and the gate controller device charges 10 BitBay coin for opening the gate. My understanding is, prior to opening the door the device must know if the 10 BitBay Coin is available for the buyer. The device must ensure the balance is available, it's not a double spending and it's a legitimate transaction, otherwise the door cannot be opened. Once the gate controller device is satisfied the balance is available, and only in that case it opens the gate. How long it takes for the device to verify if there is a sufficient balance on the address, because prior verifying the balance the gate cannot be opened? In other words, how long the user must stand for waiting the device to perform the service? If you say so you have worked this out and willing to explain this, I am sure that's the case, and you will have a working solution :-)) One working solution is to have your funds locked before you get to the gate ... Thus your primary account would have locked funds set aside for public events and interaction with IOT ... So they cant hold your money hostage because the funds are set to convert back to a regular account on the expiration of the lock ... The gate only signs with parties that were confirmed in advance to be honest. Those parties would hold a double deposit contract with the manufacturer too. All due respect David, this solution isn't practical and such implementation would make the use case completely uncompetitive to existing FIAT or even digital currency payment solutions. Currently payment systems, even the Bitcoin network with green addresses works in ad-hoc manner: you pay at the time of the purchase. In order to buy a pizza, hotel room, concert ticket there is no requirement to lock the fund to the seller prior to the transaction, not even with Bitcoin. I think such system that you have suggested wont be adopted at all. I understand your solution would be still anonymous and decentralized, but having so much complication to make a payment to IoT devices would make the solution impractical in my opinion.
This starts boiling down more to logistics.
I disagree. This is not a logistical but a conceptual issue. What you have described is a workaround by asking users to comply with your work around in order to have the luxury of involving with a very-very complicated process. Anyway, thanks for answering, apart from the IoT part, your solution will be great and I have no doubt you will roll out an excellent smart contract system. I suggest don't involve the IoT it at all. Firstly people have no idea what is it so it doesn't mean anything :-)) and no one is investing in this because the IoT feature, but once someone take a closer look at it, the reaction will be that it is not acceptable for businesses and that reaction could cause more harm than good for the project. Your decentralized market solution is flawless, it is obviously a viable use case, but the hardware industry and hardware integrators will be taking apart the IoT concept and such publicity will hurt your and the project's reputation. |
|
|
|
so what more bullshit ico or is it mineable?
It seems to me it is not mineable, as the DEV explains it, the instant transaction processing won't make possible the mining. If miners confirm the transaction, then the transaction cannot be instant. It was said to us there is no "up front money collecting" from investors. I hope they will distribute the coins for free like BRO promised it :-))) |
|
|
|
I think, I also decided not to invest - except if the DEV answer my questions about real time hardware control and outlines how that will be possible at all with the Blackhalo solution?
I am mainly interested in the IoT offering, but it seems to me the IoT concept does not even exists on conceptual level. If there is not even conceptual solution, I can't see how this project will release a working, blockchain enabled, peer to peer Internet of Things software that controls hardware in real time.
I believe I already answered this, im not able to monitor this thread constantly because I'm usually working. But yeah you can do zero confirmations with multisig because your device or you hold the raw transaction. It depends on the application/hardware. Best that you give me some example or use case and I can explain to you how I would approach it. This isnt dissimilar from NightTrader multisig engine which I have made. I just dont have any front end for it. Controlling hardware in real time is fairly easy when you know multiple signatures are involved. Add this to checklocktimeverify and you can have outputs convert to different things based on blocks. Handling raw transactions where you hold the other signature can leave you secure with the fact that you can do zero confirmations. Thanks for your reply. I am familiar with the green address concept of Bitcoin that requires a third party and allows instant transactions and I believe you are not referring to that. So if your solution conceptually is not that, let see a concrete use case: open a gate in a sport venue where users uses their wallet to enter the venue and the gate controller device charges 10 BitBay coin for opening the gate. My understanding is, prior to opening the door the device must know if the 10 BitBay Coin is available for the buyer. The device must ensure the balance is available, it's not a double spending and it's a legitimate transaction, otherwise the door cannot be opened. Once the gate controller device is satisfied the balance is available, and only in that case it opens the gate. How long it takes for the device to verify if there is a sufficient balance on the address, because prior verifying the balance the gate cannot be opened? In other words, how long the user must stand for waiting the device perform the service? If you say so you worked out and willing to explain this I am sure that's the case that you will have a working solution :-)) Seems to me that is more of an automated payment system than the first wave of IoT - which is person-centric, that is connecting the devices around an individual to that individual's lifestyle. Yes, it is :-))) Since we are talking about a digital currency ... I thought it means paying for device services with digital currencies. The authentication capability of the blockchain without payments doesn't justify IoT integration into the blockchain in my opinion. |
|
|
|
I think, I also decided not to invest - except if the DEV answer my questions about real time hardware control and outlines how that will be possible at all with the Blackhalo solution?
I am mainly interested in the IoT offering, but it seems to me the IoT concept does not even exists on conceptual level. If there is not even conceptual solution, I can't see how this project will release a working, blockchain enabled, peer to peer Internet of Things software that controls hardware in real time.
I believe I already answered this, im not able to monitor this thread constantly because I'm usually working. But yeah you can do zero confirmations with multisig because your device or you hold the raw transaction. It depends on the application/hardware. Best that you give me some example or use case and I can explain to you how I would approach it. This isnt dissimilar from NightTrader multisig engine which I have made. I just dont have any front end for it. Controlling hardware in real time is fairly easy when you know multiple signatures are involved. Add this to checklocktimeverify and you can have outputs convert to different things based on blocks. Handling raw transactions where you hold the other signature can leave you secure with the fact that you can do zero confirmations. Thanks for your reply. I am familiar with the green address concept of Bitcoin that requires a third party and allows instant transactions and I believe you are not referring to that. So if your solution conceptually is not that, let see a concrete use case: open a gate in a sport venue where users use their wallet to enter the venue and the gate controller device charges 10 BitBay coin for opening the gate. My understanding is, prior to opening the door the device must know if the 10 BitBay Coin is available for the buyer. The device must ensure the balance is available, it's not a double spending and it's a legitimate transaction, otherwise the door cannot be opened. Once the gate controller device is satisfied the balance is available, and only in that case it opens the gate. How long it takes for the device to verify if there is a sufficient balance on the address, because prior verifying the balance the gate cannot be opened? In other words, how long the user must stand for waiting the device to perform the service? If you say so you have worked this out and willing to explain this, I am sure that's the case, and you will have a working solution :-)) |
|
|
|
|
Big dumps in all markets.
In the meantime Pnosker is doing work for an exchange, this time to evaluate IE's coin. It seems this work out for the devs, they are getting more and more work, first ARCH and now IE's coin. In the meantime the bag holders left with a stagnating coin and no development whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
there is nothing real except some pictures...
And the pictures display an amateurish 3D printed enclosure. If the progress is manifested in very poorly designed 3D printed enclosure and the DEV feels that such picture must be published, in the meantime he has no idea why the transaction time is significant in real time hardware control, then I am worried about the direction of this project. Seeing the quality the 3D printed enclosure this coin reminds me some high school project on Kickstarter at the early days when the quality control was not in place. Hi my friend. Do not fall for Shitbay. Without any doubt, It is a scam masterminded by a Chinese I know very well. All they intend to do is selling all kinds of fancy features plus bithalo, which is sold around 30-50 btc. I hope XTC is not a scam, but by far it pissed off many investors. It is very clever to be tough to any devs in a shitstormed altcoin world. You know those pumping and scam groups very well I think. Shitbay is right from there. sorry to spam this thread again. Well I am not claiming that BitBay is a better coin than TileCoin at all, quite the opposite, I have been very critical in the BitBay thread. It's clear these coins, BitBay and TileCoin don't have the IoT solution,not even in conceptual level. Having said that, other features of the software could work, I am talking about IoT. I fully agree with you about the issues in the P&D driven altcoin market. |
|
|
|
|
@BitBay Team
Though I am very sceptical about your IoT solution and I am quite convinced that your IoT solution will remain a vaporware, your professional and business minded approach made me rethink my decision of not investing :-)) if the rest of the software works (and I am sure the Blackhalo solution will work for decentralized market), your project could be a winner.
It is a confusing situation :-)))
|
|
|
|
Some mixing of apples and oranges here perhaps. As David posted earlier, the mechanisms for IoT will have a much different trust requirement & execution than for example a marketplace sale, which again will be different from a smart contract fulfillment. The tech he has outlined recognizes these different scenarios.
It seems to me you are the one who is mixing here something. Of course the DEV recognizes the difference and needs in IoT related implementations ... no shit ... it is a very different ball game ... the issue is that Dave (though he is a hard working, very knowledgeable and honest guy) doesn't have a feasible IoT design, not even at conceptual level - at least he couldn't answer my simple question about turning ON/OFF an IoT enabled light switch in the context of a blockchain enabled application. He doesn't know how real time hardware control works, as simple as that. And nothing wrong with that, IoT and hardware control applications that expose a user interface are complex software, but in this case they shouldn't collect the money by using the buzz word of Internet of Things, because it is completely misleading. |
|
|
|
As I said, I am very interested in smart contracts technology and all IoT related coins (I am bombarding with smart contract ideas the VeriCoin devs for months :-))).
I did my research about BitBay, TileCoin (XTC) and GadgetCoin, the underlying tech and asked the same questions about transaction time and real time hardware control in all threads.
The TileCoin team didn't even bother to answer, it seems either they don't have the answer or don't understand the significance of transaction time in real time hardware control.
At BitBay Dave, a very knowledgeable, well known developer answered, but he skipped the question about IoT and real time hardware control. I am sure they will have the smart contract software, decentralized exchange, marketplace, etc but it seems to me their focus is certainly not on the Internet of Things (IoT) element of the solution.
The GadgetCoin dev hasn't ignored my question. GDC claims 1 second transaction time and explains clearly the technology behind the software, namely Ethereum's account balance concept and transaction processor nodes instead of miners. (I like the fact that the GDC dev understands the significance of the Ethereum's tech and willing to learn from other solutions)
If GadgetCoin works then I am very interested in this venture. Here in the United Kingdom we have a massive market for an IoT management and payment platform like GadgetCoin is, not mention the +20 billion worldwide market which is ready for a working solution. Please let me know when we can test the software and most importantly, how can we make money from this coin?
Hi AltcoinUK, We agree with your assessment that the UK market could be potentially huge for this venture, and indeed the market is crying out for a working solution. That's why it's important for us to focus 100% on getting this software ready for the community to test now. The sooner we can get feedback the sooner we can start approaching some big players in the market for integration and pilot project opportunities. Thank you for your continued interest, and it's nice to see some early support already, we will try to continue being as transparent and open to communication as possible. This is a community venture after all. With regards to how we are going to make money, we will make clear the monetization strategy in the coming days, so stay tuned to this thread. We will also PM you the credentials to use our test network and software. Great. I will be glad to sell your development board and smart contract technology in the UK & Ireland market. Give me exclusive rights for selling here the development board :-))) I will make a call to my friend he has a few self storage facilities, if we can get self storages using the GDC technology to open storage doors (as your white paper describes it) then that could be huge and game changer in the hardware control application business. |
|
|
|
|
I think, I also decided not to invest - except if the DEV answer my questions about real time hardware control and outlines how that will be possible at all with the Blackhalo solution?
I am mainly interested in the IoT offering, but it seems to me the IoT concept does not even exists on conceptual level. If there is not even conceptual solution, I can't see how this project will release a working, blockchain enabled, peer to peer Internet of Things software that controls hardware in real time.
|
|
|
|
So could you answer please one of the most important questions for the IoT feature: how the software works terms of real time hardware control. So far none of the IoT coins (BitBay, TileCoin, GadgetCoin) answered this question and I hope you have the answer.
Let see a very simple and basic IoT sample, you have a light switch controlled by an Internet of Things Zigbee switch sensor, how do you turn on/off the light, do you wait 60 seconds until the transaction is included in the blockchain or do you have a workaround to complete the smart contract quicker to execute the hardware control?
I am very interested in your coin :-)) it is a great project and I am sure you have managed to make it work and it would be great to know how the solution works before making a decision about investing in the coin.
Well there are a few techniques to this. With checklocktimeverify, there is a whole bunch of new types of spending we can do. For example, we can spend so coins convert to a different address later, we can lock coins for months at a time. A 2 of 2 multisig account can convert to a 3 of 3 or (really anything)... its all about how you want to program the device. With that said, most devices will need their own key and will sign on its own behalf. This would be used for more than just spending money. Since you get a secure connection to the device, it can hold coins, it can perform contracts with you etc. Thus, using double deposit we can create a set of rules and protocols interacting with the device. One example is a hardware staking wallet with multisig. At Blackcoin they are working on this. Their lead dev rat4 already coded in multisignature staking. It was lovely. So that just needs to be applied in the context of a device. This is just ONE example. Losing your hardware need NOT lose your coins even in a 2 of 2 multisig since we can lock the coins to convert back to the users key at a later date. I think you are referring to Peter Todd's CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY implementation. Peter is contracted right now to ViaCoin, in this case they are working on the same stuff as you do. I thought the main issue with the CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY for IoT application is the timing, but I could be wrong. I understand with CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY no need to wait for the 10 minutes confirmation time before agreeing on an escrow for example, but I would think for IoT is still not feasible as it will still take 20 seconds or so to complete a contract. Thanks for your reply, it's great! This all depends on what you are negotiating. And it may actually require waiting for confirmations. In BlackHalo, i make the client go to escrow after only a few confirmations. Its a series of 3 or 4 transactions and its outline how its done in my whitepaper that comes with the program or found at Bithalo.org I am still with altcoinUK on this one. I do not want to wait 50ms for my doors to unlock (to quote IBM example on IoT), much less 10 seconds. As I gather, 10 Seconds is blazing fast when it comes to crypto. Also, why would I want a trustless system with my house. What purpose would it have? I only need for my house lock to trust me and vice versa, why would I need a blockchain for that? IMO this whole concept needs some thinking, not just get-on-blockchain-fadtrain. I can envisage some uses for blockchain based IoT, but having crooks datamining the blockchain to plot a pattern when I am at home and not isn't something I'd really like. Finally, thanks God :-))) someone who knows what IoT is and what he is talking about :-))) You are absolutely right, and it seems to me the BitBay DEV simply don't understand the significance of transaction time in real time hardware control, that's why he skipped my question completely - just like the TileCoin DEV. I don't blame them - it is a complex area, but I believe their solution has nothing to do with IoT - as we can see that from their answers. I think the closest to a working solution is GadgetCoin. At least it seems they understand the concept of Internet of Things, how hardware works, the challenges and their white paper describes a clear solution for 1 second transaction time. Also, as for the family home in the peer to peer shared network, GadgetCoin's white paper says families and businesses can implement the software as a private network, in this case the hardware control is not accessible to the public network. I think BitBay is a wonderful idea, the smart contract will definitely work for decentralized market, but as you said very correctly the IoT aspect requires lot more work - their IoT solution doesn't even exists in conceptual level. |
|
|
|
there is nothing real except some pictures...
And the pictures display an amateurish 3D printed enclosure. If the progress is manifested in very poorly designed 3D printed enclosure and the DEV feels that such picture must be published, in the meantime he has no idea why the transaction time is significant in real time hardware control, then I am worried about the direction of this project. Seeing the quality the 3D printed enclosure this coin reminds me some high school project on Kickstarter at the early days when the quality control was not in place. |
|
|
|
I'm expecting apex to at least go over the $100,000 market cap... look at the other participating coins cap in the blocknet..
Just made the calculation, market cap will be $100,000 when APEX gets to 4386 satoshi. How about 1 million market cap next year?  we will be, before the end of the year Made my heartbeat increase rapidly when I saw those numbers. $100-200,000 market cap is nothing, and plenty of useless dead coins are at $300-400,000 like Cloak. Can't wait for Apex to blow up. I have APEX from the very beginning and I have a direct interest in its success so lets hope the market cap will get to 1 million sooner than later, but the market cap means nothing really, it reflects nothing else then the current coin price multiplied with the number of coins rather than the real strength of the coin, and such market cap calculation results in nonsensical number like the Cloak's $300k market cap. Cloak could have a $300k market cap, but the viability of the coin is zero and you correctly said it is dead, while APEX is progressing. |
|
|
|
|
As I said, I am very interested in smart contracts technology and all IoT related coins (I am bombarding with smart contract ideas the VeriCoin devs for months :-))).
I did my research about BitBay, TileCoin (XTC) and GadgetCoin, the underlying tech and asked the same questions about transaction time and real time hardware control in all threads.
The TileCoin team didn't even bother to answer, it seems either they don't have the answer or don't understand the significance of transaction time in real time hardware control.
At BitBay Dave, a very knowledgeable, well known developer answered, but he skipped the question about IoT and real time hardware control. I am sure they will have the smart contract software, decentralized exchange, marketplace, etc but it seems to me their focus is certainly not on the Internet of Things (IoT) element of the solution.
The GadgetCoin dev hasn't ignored my question. GDC claims 1 second transaction time and explains clearly the technology behind the software, namely Ethereum's account balance concept and transaction processor nodes instead of miners. (I like the fact that the GDC dev understands the significance of the Ethereum's tech and willing to learn from other solutions)
If GadgetCoin works then I am very interested in this venture. Here in the United Kingdom we have a massive market for an IoT management and payment platform like GadgetCoin is, not mention the +20 billion worldwide market which is ready for a working solution. Please let me know when we can test the software and most importantly, how can we make money from this coin?
|
|
|
|
Why do you keep replying to a newbie account, like he's the dev? He obviously doesn't understand your question. And you think so much work is going to be put in this coin for a 10 minute wait before the light goes on? Just wait for Asic-8Tile to answer your question technically...
You are absolutely right, but I thought he is part of the dev team as he jumped in and answered that nonsenses. And yes, since the dev didn't bother to answer my above question about transaction times, I assume they don't have the answer - which is not surprising as it is a technically difficult are. However, the BitBay and Gadgetcoin devs seems understood the significance of transaction time in real time hardware control and at least the BitBay and Gadgetcoin devs answered the question of transaction time. And come on guys please, really, what are these cheap 3D printed enclosures? Is this the quality and expertise of this project? Such amateurish 3D printed enclosures are not even at the quality of Kickstarter or the UK Corwdcube and we are talking about a serious money here and not a crowd funded hobbyist project. |
|
|
|
Could we get clarification about the confirmation (block, transaction) times? Quick transaction is key with hardware and you claim 24 seconds transaction time which is not too bad. When can we see a working software that demonstrate this feature?
BTC ecology is more important than transaction time.You can refer to XCP. Tough I have been using Bitcoin for years I don't know what BTC ecology is ... but I believe if you want to perform an Internet of Things function then the transaction time is pretty vital. I thought, if you want to turn on a sensor or turn on/off a light you can't wait 60 seconds until the transaction is processed (i.e.. included) in the blockchain. This is a wonderful project like BitBay or GadgetCoin and I am sure you have a working solution, I would just like to understand how your solution works terms of one of the most important aspects of it, the real time hardware control. XTC is directly based on BTC blockchain. The transaction time is BTC block interval. All right, so how the real time hardware control that is vital feature for any Internet of Things applications is possible with a 10 minutes confirmation time? Do we need to wait 10 minutes to turn OFF/ON an IoT controlled light switch or are you doing CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY like the BitBay team or you do instant transaction based on the Ethereum account balance concept using a completely rewritten software like GadgetCoin does or what is your implementation details please? The main applications of XTC are these based on BTC blockchain. You can see in OP. 2.1) TilePay is the wallet for TileCoin/Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies 2.2) TileVest is the crowd-equity funding mechanism 2.3) TilExchange is the decentralized trading platform (possible cross-chain capability) 2.4) TileClub is the Investment Club 2.5) TileLend is a decentralized cryptocurrency lending platform 2.6) TileGateways is where TileCoin is converted to other cryptocurrencies and Fiat Wtf are we talking about? :-))) Have you read my question at all? You have replied second time to my question, but completely ignored to answer it. Let me know which part of my question made you post that 6 completely irrelevant points and also let me know what is the reason you ignore my simple question about IoT real time hardware control and transaction times. What I mean is different application can bear different transaction time. I also think BTC ecology is more important than transaction time. I am sorry for bothering you ... but if I spent so much time with this simple question, after trying so hard I would like to know how your application works if you don't mind :-))) I am sure that's case about "BTC ecology" ... but still here is my original question: Do we need to wait 10 minutes to turn OFF/ON an IoT controlled light switch? In other words, is your application capable to perform real time hardware control and if yes, then how is that achieved as your transaction confirmation time is 10 minutes? Moreover, I tend to believe the reason that you are ignoring my question, because you have no idea at all what involves with the Internet of Things applications and how the BTC blockchain and its 10 minutes transaction confirmation time makes very difficult (if not impossible) real time hardware control for blockchain based applications. Am I right, you are not a dev and you have no idea what are you talking about terms of IoT applications? As I said I am asking the same questions in the BitBay and GadgetCoin threads, but at least there are some meaningful answers to the question ... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
