Your real problem is that 99.99 of businesses are built on experience which normally based on proven track records. The JINN boy's only track record is up to date that he pulled off a successful scam with JINN and failed to deliver anything, except the new money party of IOTA.
Given that statistically from 10 tech start-ups only 1 can succeed even when experienced professionals run the show, without experience the chance is minuscule. Now, if you combine this statistical reality with the fact that the JINN scammer boy failed to deliver anything with the JINN project, so he was given a chance already and he failed, it is clear that the JINN scammer boy is not the 0.01 percent that can succeed and monetize on the concept of alternative crypto currency in the Internet of Things field.

As I pointed out to the the scammer duo of CfB-David several times in different threads, Internet of Things is the most difficult sector terms of generating revenue. In the IoT sector, not even well established businesses can generate a steady revenue nor they are profitable, all of them survive on the lifeline of angel or venture capitalist investments.
Without any experience in the field, a proven scammer promise to build a multi million dollars venture in the most difficult industry sector. That's called scam which takes the money from the wannabe rich or naive or delusional or greedy audience (pick which one is applicable to you, but most likely there will be multiple applicable to your case).

Note, all you cheerleaders, shills and sockpuppets most likely couldn't care less about delivering a business or delivering anything really - you are interested in the 5x, 10x, 100x or whatever number ROI is in your mind. The only problem is, more precisely the real problem is that at the end of the chain there will be an army of bagholders (see NXT).

I hope sloanf sockpuppets don't put much effort into his posts - that would be a complete waste of time as all I can see is "This user is currently ignored".

They deleted my entire post because I was dare to ask how on earth a 24 years old without any experience in business, technology, software development and especially in IoT will build a multi-million dollars technology operation in the Internet of Things sector. This question was enough to say I am troll - obviously this was seen as an interruption in the money collecting party back then - and the post was deleted.

This is from my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=854280.msg13639666#msg13639666 which was apparently very impolite and made the GDC developers to delete the thread to "not give platform to post  uncivil remarks" like this one:

---

First the 24 years old business executive and the man from Belarus scammed the investors with JINN. A 24 years old delusional boy decided to take on Intel, Samsung, Motorola, AMD and Texas Instruments by rolling out a revolutionary micro processor. Never mind Intel's R&D budget is 3 billion $ per year and can produce only gradual innovations in minor steps with that monetary force, this delusional 24 years old boy with the "investment" from even more delusional users promised that he will build a completely new micro processor. WTF? Anybody who understand a bit hardware design and manufacturing knows, how ambitious and therefore how fucking absurd from them that business plan is. No wonder they failed to deliver anything with JINN so far, and of course they never will deliver anything. He is barking on that JINN brought a good ROI to his investors and he forgot a long time ago what actually he promised with JINN. He says, you could sell JINN, why you didn't sell it, he says your financial loss is not my responsibility. Not different whatsoever from a typical Bobsurplus scam operation.

IOTA is exactly the same process. They will never ever monetize the IOTA project in the IoT sector. There is no monetization route for alternative crypto currency tokens in IoT, not even for Bitcoin. IOTA will come to the market, the shills and sockpuppets will do the moon talk and the greedy "investors" like tobeaj2mer01, albert_mt and others will realise some profit. The 24 years old business executive will be proud that he made them some money and that will be the end of the IOTA story. Naturally, there will be a lots of disappointed bagholders at the end of the chain, but who cares about that, right tobeaj2mer01 and albert_mt? You will make some profit during the IOTA P&D, and you don't care whether it is a scam or not.

His mediocre Java programming skill seems enough for the uninformed and naive crowd to buy into his scams (JINN before IOTA). In the meantime he and his 24 years old business partner are proud that they delivered many 100 ROI with the NXT scam and apparently they promised to the wannabe rich "investors" that they will repeat the process with IOTA.

My question has been which CfB and the Scandinavian entrepreneur boy failed to answer so far: what about and who will be the bagholder at the end of the chain once this wonderful "business plan" of P&D is implemented.

Not long time ago I opened their thread and in the very last post CfB said that he deleted a few posts. I guess it should be enough proof that the posts are deleted from there - the lead developer, my great Belarusian friend said himself that he deleted them.

Yeah, the activity of the noob sockpuppet accounts in the IOTA thread is spectacular. Typical P&D operation: before the pump the sockpuppets start the moon talk and of course rebut all arguments and critics.

Normally, I am OK with handling the sockpuppets and shills :-))))) in my unmoderated Vericoin and Bitbay thread I have had opportunity to get some experience with them :-)))

What do you mean of proof? Proof of that a 24 years old boy who collected hundreds of thousands for JINN and failed to deliver anything now - with zero experience in business and IoT technology  - collected $500K for IOTA, and promises an Internet of Things system?

So anybody knows if the VRC developers going to open a thread here in Bitcointalk?

The critical posts are deleted from the moderated IOTA thread. Feel free to post your opinion about IOTA here - the posts won't be deleted from this unmoderated, uncensored thread.

 

Yes, we should all put on ignore that fucking sockpuppet sloanf troll. He doesn't have a minimal character to use his original nick to troll this thread with his fixation about Armstrong.
The troll ignores all rational argument from TPTB_need_war and all others. It is getting really annoying that the information about Armstrong is buried in the crusade trolling of a fucking sockpuppet account.

I wanted to defend the project and the developers, but yeah, if everybody think I am hurting the project then I will close down the thread.

As usually any arrogant idiot does you think you are smart, but you can't even search the public company registers. Why don't you click on the top 14 November 2015 document, the latest Annual return of the company of the developers at

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08249041/filing-history

and then you can see that they have 115 investors. Contradict to your claim, this information was of course available before as well. When I heard from mtomcdev about Zovolt 6 months ago the previous Nov 2014 Annual Return which lists the very same number of investors was available on the companies house web site.

That's the value of your "research" and demonstrates the absolute zero value of the words that are coming out of your mouth. You can't even "research" a simple company details, but you are talking about complex technology matters and Internet of Things systems (one of the most complex use cases in information technology).

OK. I need to read again the links and your posts. No offence was intended, but you are posting very advanced ideas and opinions so it is very possible I completely misunderstand or can't even comprehend your posts.
Let me know please if you find out anything interesting!

First barabbas pointed out that our developers are losers, because according to barabbas anybody can be a member at W3C. I pointed out that as usual he is talking bollocks and there is a difference between paid group membership and W3C membership. Our developers are not paid, but professional W3C members. As usual, barabbas was wrong again - of course without he would acknowledge that he was talking rubbish.

Then, barabbas' new theory was the Gadgetnet developers are losers because they never produced any useful material. I pointed out that as usual he is talking nonsense and the work of the Gadgetnet developers is fully integrated into the W3C code base and it is used by the world largest companies who are active participants of the W3C standardization initiative. That's fine and as it is expected as our developers are experienced software engineers. As usual, barabbas was wrong, as usual the facts don't bother him.

Then barabbas moved on - of course without acknowledging that was talking rubbish again -, barabbas' new claim was that our developers are in fact losers as they "didn't attract ONE SINGLE INVESTOR". I pointed out that in his third claim he is talking bollocks again, and according to the public company register our developers indeed did attract 110 investors (as I can see in the publicly available list many of them well known and serious people like Sir Richard Needham and others are well known venture capitalist partners). Therefore barabbas was wrong again.

Then, following that he was proven wrong on all above subjects, barabbas, - the person who never ever worked a minute in software development nor made any money from a software development project - lectures this community, the investors and the developers about innovation, technology and which software is a viable proposition. Note, not his academic background (which is zero in the field) nor his work experience (which is also zero in the field) nor his investment experience in the technology field (which is zero as well) qualifies him to lecture software engineers who make living from developing software.

You are correct albert_mt, there is no point to debate with him any more.

Still, the world largest companies put huge amount of effort and resources into the standardization process of W3C and generally speaking into research and development to create better, safer, more optimal and usable solutions. It's called innovation. That's the very reason you can drive car instead of travelling by riding a horse, your car consumes 5 L petrol instead of 15 L on 100 km which was the case 30 yeas ago or you are using a software on your PC that is more capable and user friendly than a DOS console.




That is not true, but I understand you are not overly worried about facts - you never were if such facts don't support your agenda. His company Zovolt which helps for the Gadgetnet developers backed by 110 investors via their first round of founding. So suddenly does the large amount of investors makes tzpardi a good coder? Contradictory what you said his business has many investor, so he must be a very good coder then using your absurd logic of what makes one a good coder. The details about the 110 investors are available in the public company register. Again, you are wrong and spreading and forming opinion based on information which is not true. Probably you do it not because what users believe about you that you are just a poisonous troll, but I think you do from an incorrect opinion because you have no idea what you are talking about - like in the case of W3C - , but regardless of the origin of your incorrect information, the result is that you are wrong again.




That's quite true and the Gadgetnet developers is having a vision about the final journey: decentralized Internet of Things system. The developers explained to us what type of system and business requirements such system addresses. More importantly many large, TOP 100 tech firms subscribe to the decentralized IoT concept and many more will (just like large corporations start to subscribe to the block chain concept by realising the business benefits of block chain). I don't explain the benefits of a decentralized IoT system to you because you don't care about facts such as why scalability and high availability are important and very expensive problems in enterprise computing as well as you simply don't comprehend these technical details.




Oh dear ... I explained to you above, many open source material came already from Gadgetnet at https://github.com/w3c/web-of-things-framework and several TOP 100 tech firms find that already useful (many times more achievement what 99% of crypto projects will ever achieve, apart from Bitcoin of course because Satoshi's block chain concept is being adopted by large corporations). You really don't care about facts, do you?




Fine. I am passionate about certain technologies like Bitcoin, Skycoin, Ethereum and Gadgetnet and argue about them all over the places. Please note, Gadgetnet is not selling coins nor selling shares nor plan to do any of those in this platform, they don't even will list their coin on any exchanges. They plan to make money and create market for Gadgetcoin (thought that is not priority at all) by working with many of the TOP 100 firms. So this is not a sales thread, but it's good we discuss what the project aims to achieve and how realistic those goals are (as I stated above, the chance for a small startup to succeed is very little in the difficult field of IoT, but at least they have a more or less realistic plan).

I can understand both points made in the first quoted paragraph, I agree businesses have the incentive to use decentralized systems which could yield savings and solves many issues of enterprise computing (these are scalability and high availability as I have heard it from the Gadgetnet developers). I also agree the mainstream demographics of individuals couldn't care less about such technology. I can understand from your explanation that average Facebook and other social network users - your target audience - will be the very last group of users who will be interested in decentralised technology. They are perfectly happy with any centralized client software.

Thought I am not sure if the mass will be ever focused on the implications government surveillance later if such users don't care now (which is related with the second quoted paragraph). It seems to me the majority of users aren't interested in libertarian concepts and have been happily giving up freedom to authorities. This especially true in the case of your main target audience, the Asian societies. Maybe I misunderstand your business plan, but it seems to me your business plan is based on the assumption, that the technologically dumb 90% of users (who couldn't care less about the back in system) later will need a decentralized system. If we take out the end-to-end encryption as due to incoming government regulations it is not feasible, then from end user viewpoint decentralized systems do not provide more to end users than centralized systems do, in fact it is more difficult to use a decentralized system. But you could be right, I know you think through these issues and see many more aspects of the problem then I unable to see and understand.

This summarize the relevant laws and government measures at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#Australia

What I hear from the Gadgetcoin developers and UK based legal experts is that the UK government will create a law so companies such as Apple, Google or any service providers will no longer be able to incorporate encryption that even they cannot decipher. (The above Telegraph article summarizes that). It means all software service providers, cloud business, SasS providers will have to introduce a master key within their online services. This new proposed law has a huge implications on all online services and even on Bitcoin: if a business run a centralised server then the master key will be mandatory. IMHO even Bitcoin miners will be subject of the new law. I predict the Bitcoin foundation and core developers modify the protocol to comply with the new laws. They will have no choice but to comply.
Witnessing the hysteria about terrorism in Europe and US (50% of the US presidential debates is all about terrorism and security) this law will be adopted by all developed and third world counties.

Any business plans which aim monetize secure, encrypted communication or anonymity is a fantasy. Due to the incoming laws such secure, encrypted communication that hides the content from law enforcement won't be tolerated by the government.

Which I don't understand, we supposed to be here more or less libertarians who question the status quo and don't subscribe to totalitarianism. I guess in the first place, the democratic and decentralised manner of Bitcoin - which is of course a myth, but that is an entirely different matter - brought us to this forum. So here we are in this libertarian, rebellious forum ... and Martin Armstrong's court case epitomises what libertarians and open minded individuals dislike in the government of this 21st century:  the institutionalised corruption, unfairness and abuse of power. All these are -  combined with the disgusting role of the current Goldman Sachs director Alan Cohen -  the very attributes of Armstrong's court case. And then the sockpuppet wankers make the conclusion that Armstrong is a convicted criminal. Oh dear ... what would be internet without these idiot trolls.

Don't be upset about these sockpuppets. They can't even afford $40 to watch the Armstrong movie.
It says a lot about them that they flood the thread with sockpuppet accounts.
When a sockpuppet is provoking you by saying that you are stupid then we just need to ignore them.