This is why IOTA's data marketplace will be a game changer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX3M8Ka9vUA&app=desktop It basically unlocks all that data stored on phones, cars, weather sensors, satalites, etc., and gives immediate access to anyone with internet and allows for it to be sold in microtransactions, this allows everyone to use vast stores of data and do so without making a direct investment of hardware or having to contact data sources to acquire that data or pay for data they don't need in order to get the data that's actually useful. This opens up opportunities to improve efficiency within systems and gather real time and legacy data in an efficient manner. It will also allow stores of data that may be of little use to those that procured it to be sold for profit or to recoup costs. |
|
|
|
The jerkoff above only has 3 posts. Don't feed the troll please.
I'm a jerkoff and a troll for elucidating legitimate concerns and questions about a cryptocurrency that claims to provide complete financial privacy? Maybe you should try and refute my concerns instead of reverting to appeal to authority and ad hominem attacks. Welcome back... Quack? |
|
|
|
IOTA is one of a kind beautiful coin but its past shows somekinda weird situations with pumps and dumps. I normally plan to buy and hold iota for future but I am still not sure cause of their bad pr.
Investing is a game of who can gather the best data and make a rational choice as to who will win long term. Being manipulated means you will lose that game. Either fact check or assume you are playing a game of greater fool (it goes both ways), but don't fool yourself into the belief that you are investing if you follow the second path--you are speculating and that's a game of timing. It's better that you know what game you are playing than to misapply a set of rules. |
|
|
|
The idea of IOTA is good, it looks like it will be the currency of the future, but nevertheless I remain wary. Maybe their pr is not so good but from time to time I see some really bad stories and I was not impressed with their "partnership" with microsoft.
Maybe be wary of conflict of interest:  I proof my data because I don't want rumor and self-interest dictating my investments, nor do I wan't others collecting while I wait on the sidelines. https://blog.iota.org/iotas-data-marketplace-setting-the-record-straight-576fbf0b4513 |
|
|
|
1. But that doesnt mean that we shouldnt listen. Why are Peter Todd, Ricciardo Spagni and others calling out IOTA? There has to be a good reason why.
2. Okay, but until the day they turn it off, it will still be centralized. True or False?
3. Time will tell. But lets be humble enough to admit we were wrong depending on the outcome.
4. Ty. I'm an obvious shill lol.
1. "Losers focus on winners," seems apt as LN is continually delayed and IOTA will solve scaling and fees within the next year if Dom's goal of 100-1000ctps is reached. What's funny is how no one notices that the uptick in FUD corresponds with the IOTA's release of more user friendly wallets (ask yourself why the article writer didn't wait for Trinity if he was intent on achieving his stated goal?). The obvious reason for these last minute attacks is that, even when the use case is limited to P2P (which isn't what IOTA is focused on), the benefits will be obvious: fast and feeless. Unless you trap IOTA in a bottle and stall development to the present, which marketing can't do (though a few idiots will drag old articles out like a nagging wife who argues from the past), IOTA will prove the best solution to the issues in cryptoland (scaling, fees, microtransactions). Add exchanges (exchange module) to the mix and you have a perfect storm of upgraded usability. But as long as people continue to blindly follow authority, they will stay on the sidelines and watch the flippening hoping that their masters are correct and the genie can be put back in the bottle. 2. True--just like until the day Bitcoin figures out how to prevent mining centralization. With IOTA it looks possible, with BTC not so much. 3. Huh? My point was that Fluffy had as big a failure of foresight as the IOTA Devs--there's no future outcome to consider. Both events happened. 4. Off-topic shilling, don't be surprised if it's removed. Also goes to my point on attacking projects for your own potential gain. 1. Okay, I hear you. But are you saying that Peter Todd and Ricciardo Spagni are doing nothing but spreading FUD and theres no truth to what they said? 2. Thanks for your honesty, and I'm willing to give it a chance because you made compelling arguments. 3. I may have misunderstood what you said. Sorry. 4. Shill? Yes, but only because I believe in the project so much and I anxiously wish others would take a look. But I am not attacking for my own gain. I only believe that an off-chain solution for implementing tangles are better. With that said.  You post a Matrix picture, I post a Matrix picture.  1. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. They may have valid criticisms, but the stuff they've been tweeting doesn't fall under that heading. 2. TY 3. TY 4. It's poor taste to post media of another coin when it isn't within the context of the thread--just putting that out there. Good luck. |
|
|
|
That's the most dumbass article i've ever seen. He just randomly trying and compiling stuff he doesn't even need to perform his actions.
At least do some proper research if you want to publish something interesting about a certain cryptocurrency.
I would say, IOTA is currently the only suitable platform for IoT companies to build upon.
How though? Are you just saying that because you're holding a bag or do you truely believe that? Even then, i'd rather know than believe. So how do you know it is ready for IoT? I've never been a fan of this coin but the delusion of people invested in this beyond my comprehension. Yes I truly believe that, and I'm also invested in it. When is a platform ready? IOTA is still in development, but they're already doing real-world projects (e.g. making Taipei a smart city). At least it's the only platform with the potential to become the de-facto standard for IoT microtransactions. It must be feeless, scalable, has a data marketplace, and already have a good foundation with skilled people from all over the industry. Tell me what other IoT dlt platform offers this? The FUD about the bad wallet just distracts from the great technology that a lot of (especially crypto) investors never even touch. Guess you will be suprised when I say almost every other IoTblockchain -dag company. You mean like "the IOTA of China" that's nothing more than an ETH token? That's like saying there are a bunch of privacy coins, when we all know there's only one, maybe two (if I'm being generous), valid attempts at privacy. |
|
|
|
1. But that doesnt mean that we shouldnt listen. Why are Peter Todd, Ricciardo Spagni and others calling out IOTA? There has to be a good reason why.
2. Okay, but until the day they turn it off, it will still be centralized. True or False?
3. Time will tell. But lets be humble enough to admit we were wrong depending on the outcome.
4. Ty. I'm an obvious shill lol.
1. "Losers focus on winners," seems apt as LN is continually delayed and IOTA will solve scaling and fees within the next year if Dom's goal of 100-1000ctps is reached. What's funny is how no one notices that the uptick in FUD corresponds with the IOTA's release of more user friendly wallets (ask yourself why the article writer didn't wait for Trinity if he was intent on achieving his stated goal?). The obvious reason for these last minute attacks is that, even when the use case is limited to P2P (which isn't what IOTA is focused on), the benefits will be obvious: fast and feeless. Unless you trap IOTA in a bottle and stall development to the present, which marketing can't do (though a few idiots will drag old articles out like a nagging wife who argues from the past), IOTA will prove the best solution to the issues in cryptoland (scaling, fees, microtransactions). Add exchanges (exchange module) to the mix and you have a perfect storm of upgraded usability. But as long as people continue to blindly follow authority, they will stay on the sidelines and watch the flippening hoping that their masters are correct and the genie can be put back in the bottle. 2. True--just like until the day Bitcoin figures out how to prevent mining centralization. With IOTA it looks possible, with BTC not so much. 3. Huh? My point was that Fluffy had as big a failure of foresight as the IOTA Devs--there's no future outcome to consider. Both events happened. 4. Off-topic shilling, don't be surprised if it's removed. Also goes to my point on attacking projects for your own potential gain. |
|
|
|
In fairness he did do the other reviews with some objectivity, and I have heard some BTC developers like Peter Todd have also expressed dislike on how the IOTA developers have tried to hide some things to the public. I didnt get into the details but it was said that IOTA is centralized.
Anyhow, I read your post history and you are close with the Monero developers. Ask them about IOTA.
I suppose Riccardo Spagni would also disapprove in some things about IOTA. If tangles and dags are to be used and tested, its better to do it off-chain like what Burst is attempting and keep the base blockchain "pure".
Things wrong with this post 1. Appeal to authority 2. Bitcoin is centralized, so Todd should look to his own house--note he also shit on Monero in its early stages and has since changed his tune. Nor should we forget that he has vested interest. 3. Monero community memebers were the ones who put IOTA in front of me (thank you). Also, Fluffy, should apply the same logic to early "No GUI" Monero as it had no fool proof security and mere difficultness kept noobs away so they couldn't harm themselves--same applies for early Bitcoin as it had no seed generator--can't recall if Monero had a seed generator in it's CLI days, but that doesn't negate the fact it was unusable for most speculators). What's missing here is the acknowledgement that the wallet and network are secure and no testnet was needed. Sure, only offering a GUI would have alienated noobs and kept them away, but the IOTA Devs stated very clearly that they weren't going to make the wallet foolproof and that it would only be barebones--I guess some speculators failed to grasp that this meant, "Be your own bank." Even better was there was no plan to release a wallet at all, but the community was so adamant about getting one that Devs gave in--this is a case of it being better if they had never listened to the community as the Dev's instinct to never take on the hassle of any wallet development was correct. Of course we can play backseat dev after the results are known--where were all these concerns before it happend? Oddly, I can't find a warning from anyone? It's like no one could have forseen noobs trusting their seeds with random dudes on the internet. Pretty sure no one has really examined the Dunning Kruger level of the average crypto speculator--if they did, they'd probably pull all the money from the market and wait for a healthy correction as we sort out the projects that actually can achieve their aims from vaporware and legacy coins that hang their hat on network effects while bringing nothing useful to the table. 4. Hyping Burst at the end--way to show what you are all about, Concern Troll. 1. Its not an appeal to authority. Its an appeal to some people who know more than the average joe. 2. Maybe it is, but its not the same as how IOTA is centralized. You know this is true as long as the coordinator nodes controlled by the IOTA Foundation are running. 3. I didnt say community members. Some are just as unmindful as the rest. I said what do the Monero developers think of IOTA? 4. Guilty that I am hyping Burst lol, but the off-chain comment is also from Ricciardo Spagni. In one interview he said that he is talking to some business people in helping fund a development for an off-chain layer for Monero where all kinds of "scams" and token issuance can happen, but the main chain should remain "pure", just like what Burst is developing now. But no, I am not a concern troll. 1. "an appeal to some people who know more than the average joe." is the definition of an appeal to authority--and is especially suspect when there's a conflict of interest. Although anyone who has read Todd's retweet of the moronic article in the OP would have trouble calling him an expert if that was the only evidence. Also, ComeFromBeyond invited Todd to debate his opinions in public, but Todd backed down. If he is confident in his criticisms, his actions do not reflect it. 2. Do you have any math that says they can't turn it off when it reaches a critical mass? I've looked and all the information is that this is how a DAG works--assuming you can apply the same logic to a DAG as POW is wrongheaded. 3. What do they think of that time Fluffy couldn't see into the future and trolled speculators (costing them money) and likely setting up a shorting opportunity for those who knew what was coming? Fluffy's shit stinks, he's been proven not to have perfect forsight. And if I apply the same logic to him as he applied to the IOTA Founders, he should be under investigation for securities violations. Now, my real belief is that Fluffy was naive about what he did, so he is innocent, but I apply the same line of reasoning to the IOTA Founders and get an outcome of the IOTA Founders likely had Dunning Kruger (it goes the other way too) and thought the aveage user is more proficient than they actually are. 4. Don't care--good luck with your shilling. |
|
|
|
I agree with most of the comments on this subject IOTA is very bad altcoin and I do not think it will be the next bitcoin. I still do not understand how this useless altcoin in the top 10 altcoins. In my opinion, this project is overvalued given their technology and supply. Personally, I will not bet on this project for 2018 because I think that Ethereum will be better.
IOTA was averaging 14tps the other day (that's Eth on a good day) and not a single fee. Stress tests have been >800. Also, smart contracts are being looked at, but at the moment, other coins are developing smart conract platforms that are implemented over IOTA's network--this means IOTA can support Ethlike networks--all which make IOTA faster and more secure as a M2M network. Not sure why the IOTA hate, but it would be wiser to hedge than to assume your wrong assumptions can reach a consensus of ignorance and invalidate observable facts. |
|
|
|
I heard about a lot of people that lost their coins while there was a swap or something before some months. These people are still trying to get their IOTAs back but there are a lot of problems and the support is not responding.
You're talking about reclaims--needless to say, security trumps ease when it comes to returning people's funds: https://blog.iota.org/claims-and-reclaims-finalization-e692844c505a |
|
|
|
Generally speaking there is a huge problem and reason why cryptocurrencies cannot be mainstream. The whole process is too complicated for many people. Do our parents know how make a wallet what is private key etc.? No, therefore we will have to wait 20-30 years or will appear a coin which solve these user-unfriendly issues
M2M will be mostly backend--I think it's weird that people equate their P2P experience with things that will be automated or performed by an IOT programmer in the future. If you realize that you are using IOTA in a few years, it's likely they have failed to become the backbone of the IOT--which has been the stated goal from day one. This focus on P2P shows how much Dunning Kruger effect there is in crypto at the moment, not that that will hinder development. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter how people feel about IOTA. Either it works or doesn't. Either it is first in the IOT race or it's not. The rest is a sideshow. |
|
|
|
we may even see it under a buck!
I hope you're right. |
|
|
|
In fairness he did do the other reviews with some objectivity, and I have heard some BTC developers like Peter Todd have also expressed dislike on how the IOTA developers have tried to hide some things to the public. I didnt get into the details but it was said that IOTA is centralized.
Anyhow, I read your post history and you are close with the Monero developers. Ask them about IOTA.
I suppose Riccardo Spagni would also disapprove in some things about IOTA. If tangles and dags are to be used and tested, its better to do it off-chain like what Burst is attempting and keep the base blockchain "pure".
Things wrong with this post 1. Appeal to authority 2. Bitcoin is centralized, so Todd should look to his own house--note he also shit on Monero in its early stages and has since changed his tune. Nor should we forget that he has vested interest. 3. Monero community memebers were the ones who put IOTA in front of me (thank you). Also, Fluffy, should apply the same logic to early "No GUI" Monero as it had no fool proof security and mere difficultness kept noobs away so they couldn't harm themselves--same applies for early Bitcoin as it had no seed generator--can't recall if Monero had a seed generator in it's CLI days, but that doesn't negate the fact it was unusable for most speculators). What's missing here is the acknowledgement that the wallet and network are secure and no testnet was needed. Sure, only offering a GUI would have alienated noobs and kept them away, but the IOTA Devs stated very clearly that they weren't going to make the wallet foolproof and that it would only be barebones--I guess some speculators failed to grasp that this meant, "Be your own bank." Even better was there was no plan to release a wallet at all, but the community was so adamant about getting one that Devs gave in--this is a case of it being better if they had never listened to the community as the Dev's instinct to never take on the hassle of any wallet development was correct. Of course we can play backseat dev after the results are known--where were all these concerns before it happend? Oddly, I can't find a warning from anyone? It's like no one could have forseen noobs trusting their seeds with random dudes on the internet. Pretty sure no one has really examined the Dunning Kruger level of the average crypto speculator--if they did, they'd probably pull all the money from the market and wait for a healthy correction as we sort out the projects that actually can achieve their aims from vaporware and legacy coins that hang their hat on network effects while bringing nothing useful to the table. 4. Hyping Burst at the end--way to show what you are all about, Concern Troll. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
I get it, the cryptoidiocricy jumped on a story and made the most of it, but please stop repeating it like you don't know any better--or maybe you really are that dumb. Also, there was never a retraction, except for the news-site that printed that lie and quickly retracted it when the Foundation pulled out their lawyers--maybe you need to learn how to fact check.
