GadgetCoin/GadgetNet

[altcoinUK]

Apparently it was too much fight (between me and Come from Beyond) in the thread at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=854280.0 and the developers have decided to lock it. This is the last lock message from the thread:


The community has voted and decided to lock this thread. Most likely we will reopen it in the near feature as a moderated thread. Please email me at developers@gadgetcoin.org or send a message in the wallet to the gdcfoundation account if you have any questions about GadgetCoin. Alternatively, please feel free to PM me here at the BCT forum. I will check my messages regularly. We invite all VICR contract holders to a private forum to continue the discussion about the project. We are releasing the system and start working with clients and businesses to generate revenue. We will keep all VICR contract holders and interested parties updated in the GadgetNet private forum.


DEVELOPERS!

We are recruiting developers to work on the W3C open source intiative at https://github.com/w3c/web-of-things-framework. All type of skill set and expertise are welcomed and will be useful. You need only a Github account to start working on the project. W3C is an influential technology organisation, it defines worldwide standards. Most likely will be the dominant standard for M2M and humans to machine communication. That means your work would make a real difference in a very important software development process. Also, your work will be directly exposed to the world largest companies, the participants of the standardization process.
As a side project you could also work with us on the GadgetNet software development which scope is bigger than the W3C code base, but mirrors most of the W3C source. We are willing to offer share options and eventually salary to the developers who are interested in working with us and can contribute. Please email me at developers@gadgetcoin.org if you are interested. Thanks!


I open this thread to discuss all GadgetCoin/GadgetNet related topics in a transparent, unmoderated thread.

[1714889138]

1714889138

[altcoinUK]

Anybody has any info on the IOTA collaboration? My next move on this one depends on what they will do with IOTA. Can the developers confirm anything about the IOTA topic?

[albert_mt]

Anybody has any info on the IOTA collaboration? My next move on this one depends on what they will do with IOTA. Can the developers confirm anything about the IOTA topic?

we discuss this with chocobo, tzpardi, mtomcdev and others on the private forum? why don't you join us to discuss?

[altcoinUK]

Anybody has any info on the IOTA collaboration? My next move on this one depends on what they will do with IOTA. Can the developers confirm anything about the IOTA topic?

we discuss this with chocobo, tzpardi, mtomcdev and others on the private forum? why don't you join us to discuss?

I will of course join the discussion there, but we need a public confirmation from the devs about IOTA. They can do this by answering my question.

[albert_mt]

please check the private forum!!! tzpardi informed the community that won't be collaboration with IOTA. they couldn't work out the details. they couldn't work out the scope of work and what could be gained from a collaboration.  

[iotatoken]

please check the private forum!!! tzpardi informed the community that won't be collaboration with IOTA. they couldn't work out the details. they couldn't work out the scope of work and what could be gained from a collaboration.  

Just to be sure: this is 100% fallicious and I demand that TZP come in here and clear up this misinformation.
I offered TZP and Gadget collaboration from day 1, don't forget that WE were the ones that reached out to collaborate even though we were being bombarded by trolls from the Gadget community that saw IOTA as a threat. WE extended that olive branch, even though WE were the ones with funding and media exposure. WE had no problem sharing this. I have offered funding opportunities, marketing, networking, presentation opportunities, Proof of Concept collaborative software etc. repeatedly, last time YESTERDAY, but then I had to keep working on running IOTA and our start-up so I couldn't respond to his reply IMMEDIATELY, which for the 10th time lead him to 'cancel negotiations'. I also encouraged TZP several times to invite the entire Gadget team into our IOTA Ryver so that we could get a organic dialogue going, which he refused to do. In my opinion this was his biggest error, it's really hard to run things efficiently when there is a such a tight bottleneck of 1 person acting as the mediator at all times.

I had informed TZP numerous times that we are: finalizing everything in preparation for beta and subsequent launch through initial testing, setting up nodes, finishing GUI, doing interviews like this one: http://cointelegraph.com/news/iota-beta-internet-of-things , preparing presentations for several upcoming events like this one at Google's HQ in Tel Aviv: http://www.meetup.com/Internet-Of-Things-IoT-Israel/events/227649870/ , answering countless questions in the forum, in PMs, on Skype, in Ryver, talks with several big companies that are interested in the technology, setting up new website and creating infographics etc. etc. etc. This is on top of our hardware start-up that needs to be ran daily. So AS I HAVE TOLD HIM countless times: we are not able to respond within 60 minutes at all times, which he isn't either. At first he said he had no problem with this, but every single time he would start pulling out if we didn't respond immediately in the fashion of "Ok so I cancel this" yadayada.

Sorry, but this is not how you conduct yourself in serious negotiations in a professional collaboration. I will never leak private conversations, but he can confirm that I offered

Of course what you guys got to gain is our connections, marketing, potential funding opportunities and synergy between Gadget layer and IOTA layer

yesterday to his question of what Gadget would get in return.

It's unfortunate that TZP decided to arbitrarily end this collaboration, but we wish you guys the best.

[albert_mt]

please check the private forum!!! tzpardi informed the community that won't be collaboration with IOTA. they couldn't work out the details. they couldn't work out the scope of work and what could be gained from a collaboration.  

Just to be sure: this is 100% fallicious and I demand that TZP come in here and clear up this misinformation.
I offered TZP and Gadget collaboration from day 1, don't forget that WE were the ones that reached out to collaborate even though we were being bombarded by trolls from the Gadget community that saw IOTA as a threat. WE extended that olive branch, even though WE were the ones with funding and media exposure. WE had no problem sharing this. I have offered funding opportunities, marketing, networking, presentation opportunities, Proof of Concept collaborative software etc. repeatedly, last time YESTERDAY, but then I had to keep working on running IOTA and our start-up so I couldn't respond to his reply IMMEDIATELY, which for the 10th time lead him to 'cancel negotiations'. I also encouraged TZP several times to invite the entire Gadget team into our IOTA Ryver so that we could get a organic dialogue going, which he refused to do. In my opinion this was his biggest error, it's really hard to run things efficiently when there is a such a tight bottleneck of 1 person acting as the mediator at all times.

I had informed TZP numerous times that we are: finalizing everything in preparation for beta and subsequent launch through initial testing, setting up nodes, finishing GUI, doing interviews like this one: http://cointelegraph.com/news/iota-beta-internet-of-things , preparing presentations for several upcoming events like this one at Google's HQ in Tel Aviv: http://www.meetup.com/Internet-Of-Things-IoT-Israel/events/227649870/ , answering countless questions in the forum, in PMs, on Skype, in Ryver, talks with several big companies that are interested in the technology, setting up new website and creating infographics etc. etc. etc. This is on top of our hardware start-up that needs to be ran daily. So AS I HAVE TOLD HIM countless times: we are not able to respond within 60 minutes at all times, which he isn't either. At first he said he had no problem with this, but every single time he would start pulling out if we didn't respond immediately in the fashion of "Ok so I cancel this" yadayada.

Sorry, but this is not how you conduct yourself in serious negotiations in a professional collaboration. I will never leak private conversations, but he can confirm that I offered

Of course what you guys got to gain is our connections, marketing, potential funding opportunities and synergy between Gadget layer and IOTA layer

yesterday to his question of what Gadget would get in return.

It's unfortunate that TZP decided to arbitrarily end this collaboration, but we wish you guys the best.

all he tzpardi said: you and him couldn't work out the scope of work and what could be gained from a collaboration. He never said for us it was your fault, he only said it couldn't worked out. i think he was professional on our private forum, he didn't say a bad word about you. though i will try to get to the bottom of why he felt the discussion is not progressing and cannot be finalized.

[chocobo]

please check the private forum!!! tzpardi informed the community that won't be collaboration with IOTA. they couldn't work out the details. they couldn't work out the scope of work and what could be gained from a collaboration.  

Just to be sure: this is 100% fallicious and I demand that TZP come in here and clear up this misinformation.
I offered TZP and Gadget collaboration from day 1, don't forget that WE were the ones that reached out to collaborate even though we were being bombarded by trolls from the Gadget community that saw IOTA as a threat. WE extended that olive branch, even though WE were the ones with funding and media exposure. WE had no problem sharing this. I have offered funding opportunities, marketing, networking, presentation opportunities, Proof of Concept collaborative software etc. repeatedly, last time YESTERDAY, but then I had to keep working on running IOTA and our start-up so I couldn't respond to his reply IMMEDIATELY, which for the 10th time lead him to 'cancel negotiations'. I also encouraged TZP several times to invite the entire Gadget team into our IOTA Ryver so that we could get a organic dialogue going, which he refused to do. In my opinion this was his biggest error, it's really hard to run things efficiently when there is a such a tight bottleneck of 1 person acting as the mediator at all times.

I had informed TZP numerous times that we are: finalizing everything in preparation for beta and subsequent launch through initial testing, setting up nodes, finishing GUI, doing interviews like this one: http://cointelegraph.com/news/iota-beta-internet-of-things , preparing presentations for several upcoming events like this one at Google's HQ in Tel Aviv: http://www.meetup.com/Internet-Of-Things-IoT-Israel/events/227649870/ , answering countless questions in the forum, in PMs, on Skype, in Ryver, talks with several big companies that are interested in the technology, setting up new website and creating infographics etc. etc. etc. This is on top of our hardware start-up that needs to be ran daily. So AS I HAVE TOLD HIM countless times: we are not able to respond within 60 minutes at all times, which he isn't either. At first he said he had no problem with this, but every single time he would start pulling out if we didn't respond immediately in the fashion of "Ok so I cancel this" yadayada.

Sorry, but this is not how you conduct yourself in serious negotiations in a professional collaboration. I will never leak private conversations, but he can confirm that I offered

Of course what you guys got to gain is our connections, marketing, potential funding opportunities and synergy between Gadget layer and IOTA layer

yesterday to his question of what Gadget would get in return.

It's unfortunate that TZP decided to arbitrarily end this collaboration, but we wish you guys the best.

Trust me no one ever said that the potential for collaboration was over. There just isn't a clear reason to collaborate at this time.

[iotatoken]

Trust me no one ever said that the potential for collaboration was over. There just isn't a clear reason to collaborate at this time.

And I am pointing out that this was arbitrarily decided based on us not responding immediately. I just don't have time to give this more attention.

[chocobo]

Trust me no one ever said that the potential for collaboration was over. There just isn't a clear reason to collaborate at this time.

And I am pointing out that this was arbitrarily decided based on us not responding immediately. I just don't have time to give this more attention.

Its not based on your response time. There just isn't a great reason to collaborate at this time. As you know that is just how business works, it doesn't at all mean there will never be collaboration.

[iotatoken]

Trust me no one ever said that the potential for collaboration was over. There just isn't a clear reason to collaborate at this time.

And I am pointing out that this was arbitrarily decided based on us not responding immediately. I just don't have time to give this more attention.

Its not based on your response time. There just isn't a great reason to collaborate at this time. As you know that is just how business works, it doesn't at all mean there will never be collaboration.

Again this is false given what T Z P has said since day 1. I ask for his permission to share his response to my msg from yesterday where he again wants more details, but since I didn't respond immediately 'shut it down'. But from this display of dishonesty it's increasingly guaranteeing no future collaboration.

[albert_mt]

i asked the developers in our private forum to come here to sort out the problem. this is what tzpardi answered:



"I stated in my above post that I terminated the discussion for the described reasons. We finished the discussion in an amicable manner and we wished good luck to each other with David. Even we said to each other politely that we might restart the discussion in the future. I really can't imagine what could be the problem right now. I am not sure what you guys are discussing at that forum about this topic, but could you guys please manage the discussion without grabbing us into it, so we can focus on our work."



everything is cool, there is nothing wrong David, calm down!!!!!!!!!

[iotatoken]

i asked the developers in our private forum to come here to sort out the problem. this is what tzpardi answered:



"I stated in my above post that I terminated the discussion for the described reasons. We finished the discussion in an amicable manner and we wished good luck to each other with David. Even we said to each other politely that we might restart the discussion in the future. I really can't imagine what could be the problem right now. I am not sure what you guys are discussing at that forum about this topic, but could you guys please manage the discussion without grabbing us into it, so we can focus on our work."



everything is cool, there is nothing wrong David, calm down!!!!!!!!!

I am 100% calm, but I do not appreciate dishonesty and lies after having spent hours on offering to help someone out. If you guys had been honest and disclosed the real reason, which was pure impatience, that would be the end of it. No problem. Like I have already stated: I am simply here to clear this up so that there is absolutely no ambiguity about the real reason: which is impatience. Honesty is a prerequisite for collaboration on our end.

Good luck.

[albert_mt]

i asked the developers in our private forum to come here to sort out the problem. this is what tzpardi answered:



"I stated in my above post that I terminated the discussion for the described reasons. We finished the discussion in an amicable manner and we wished good luck to each other with David. Even we said to each other politely that we might restart the discussion in the future. I really can't imagine what could be the problem right now. I am not sure what you guys are discussing at that forum about this topic, but could you guys please manage the discussion without grabbing us into it, so we can focus on our work."



everything is cool, there is nothing wrong David, calm down!!!!!!!!!

I am 100% calm, but I do not appreciate dishonesty and lies after having spent hours on offering to help someone out. If you guys had been honest and disclosed the real reason, which was pure impatience, that would be the end of it. No problem. Like I have already stated: I am simply here to clear this up so that there is absolutely no ambiguity about the real reason: which is impatience. Honesty is a prerequisite for collaboration on our end.

Good luck.

i don't understand. the GDC devs felt that the collaboration is not realistic and better to not discuss it any more because in 3 weeks the two parties couldn't agree anything. what they lied to you and what was the dishonesty?

[iotatoken]

Last reply on this:

First of all we have been talking about this concrete collaboration for 2 weeks, not 3. Don't be so loose with facts.
Secondly the collaboration was laid out and pretty much agreed on within a few days, there was some ambiguity and several times TZP got impatient due to same reason as today, but then he would claim to understand that we don't have time to answer within the hour and we'd continue. Then we were approaching finalization in the last days, we had agreed on what each layer could do to boost each other and he wanted to know what Gadget would get in return, I replied, he wanted more details, I couldn't reply immediately, he got impatient overnight and for the 10th time 'pulled out', which I decided to just let happen, since it was clear that this pattern was going to continue.

I had no issue with it at all and wished him all the best, then I come here and see fallicious claims about the collaboration falling apart due to not being able to 'work out the details or scope', which is 100% false. Which can be proved with a simple screenshot of our conversation last night.

[chocobo]

Last reply on this:

First of all we have been talking about this concrete collaboration for 2 weeks, not 3. Don't be so loose with facts.
Secondly the collaboration was laid out and pretty much agreed on within a few days, there was some ambiguity and several times TZP got impatient due to same reason as today, but then he would claim to understand that we don't have time to answer within the hour and we'd continue. Then we were approaching finalization in the last days, we had agreed on what each layer could do to boost each other and he wanted to know what Gadget would get in return, I replied, he wanted more details, I couldn't reply immediately, he got impatient overnight and for the 10th time 'pulled out', which I decided to just let happen, since it was clear that this pattern was going to continue.

I had no issue with it at all and wished him all the best, then I come here and see fallicious claims about the collaboration falling apart due to not being able to 'work out the details or scope', which is 100% false. Which can be proved with a simple screenshot of our conversation last night.

You really just need to focus on the conversation you had with TZ, you are putting too much weight on what people said that weren't in the conversation. This is a fruitless fight. I wish IOTA luck and I know the Gadget devs do as well.

[albert_mt]

the "fallicious claims" was my post based on how I understood it. the GDC devs said it seems nothing to gain from the collaboration and no point to continue the discuss it longer. I started this    IOTATOKEN DEV jumped into it  ,maybe we shouldn't !!!!!! sorrry for starting this  

[barabbas]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gilpress/2016/01/27/internet-of-things-iot-predictions-from-forrester-machina-research-wef-gartner-idc/#2715e4857a0b47fd28476be6

And a total loser like the Tzapardi guy and the other children (not to mention the scammers at IOTA), are going to do anything,  anything at all, in this field? If you believe that you deserve fully what has already come to you.

[altcoinUK]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gilpress/2016/01/27/internet-of-things-iot-predictions-from-forrester-machina-research-wef-gartner-idc/#2715e4857a0b47fd28476be6

And a total loser like the Tzapardi guy and the other children (not to mention the scammers at IOTA), are going to do anything,  anything at all, in this field? If you believe that you deserve fully what has already come to you.

The IoT market is an incredibly difficult field. All rational and sane individuals understand that. It's controlled by very large multinational companies and it is almost impossible to succeed for small, part time development teams like the Gadget developers. I have been telling there is little chance (10%) to succeed in this field. To be fair the developers mtomcdev and tzpardi are quite level headed and realistic regarding what they can achieve in the IoT field. They have been telling us they are simple software developers, they are not business men, they need the help of experienced business people and they need to secure a sizeable VC or angel investment in order to succeed. IMHO, if they can come up with a novel solution for a niche market segment then perhaps it is possible to succeed. It's definitely very difficult and as the industry matures it is even more and more difficult for small teams.
Still, since we are talking about experienced developers, real use cases and real software development in case of GadgetNet which participate in real projects like the W3C one, their chance is about 99% more than other crypto projects can hope (except a very few well founded projects). As you know the other 700 crypto projects chance to survive is absolutely zero. We will see. They are releasing something and we will know more about their chance in a month time.

[barabbas]

The problem is not the total lack of business acumen of both the dev and the Tzapardi guy -in his case much worse for he has been trying for several years and has been unable to achieve absolutely anything at all-; the problem is that there's not even a VISION here. An idea. Much less a workable one. The "W3C project" is absolutely meaningless. ANYONE can be a member -they welcome anyone- and has no practical purpose in the case of Gadgetnet. None.

Ok, just like the exercise in absurdity that was the porno cameras, equally absurd is any and everything they have ever mentioned for it has been -and very few-, copies of things that are already fully available and have been used for decades in some cases, SUCCESSFULLY. Like hospital monitoring, broadcasting, etc. All of that is just idiotic hyperbole with zero possibility of ever work EVEN IF, technically, actually works for they have to deal with issues they have no idea whatsoever how to face, such as security, reliability, rules and regulations compliance, and many others. Put in simpler words, all they believe they know is that a network of computers, IF permanently connected to the internet, can be reliably used to transmit digital information (packages). Which every average 7th grader knows by now. And these two losers have the absurd pretension of making a business of it. Laughable.

But if it all wasn't absurd enough, they have concoct this idea of creating a token with which to lure the vitally needed owners of those computers connected to the internet since, without them nothing is possible... oh, wait, they cannot just trust that those guys -losers all, don't forget- can have enough computers connected, right? So they actually have to go to Amazon and pay for big servers so the connection remains reliable (although still insecure. And unregulated). There goes the neighborhood (the cheaper alternative to current true and tested -and affordable- services that have been reliably provided for many years... you follow? Chances are ZERO. NONE. At least the scammers at IOTA have an idea. They figure with time people is going to subscribe to a bunch of services online and they are willing to provide the tech that will allow the collections of those subscriptions on a daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly or yearly basis... except that neither Microsoft nor Adobe nor any other company already collecting subscription fees has any need or use for a third party provider of fees collections. Specifically, there's no need, nor ever will be, for such third party product... but, since the purpose of the scammers is not to provide any product or service with practical purpose in the end, but just to create another step in the pyramid so more idiots will continue giving them their money, as such an scheme, it not bad. Not bad at all.

As for the other 700 crypto projects, I am a bit more optimistic. First of all I don't know enough of all of them to blanket term them all as having zero possibility. I can see many uses for the blockchain that can -and should already- be practical and providing income. I can also see use cases for limited -but risky and profitable- use cases in the dark net, illegal stuff... And I definitely see a use case worldwide for a crypto currency (bitcoin, unless they mess it up ... and I'm afraid inevitably they will to some extent or other), as, well ... currency. Not token for conventional or unconventional business but as currency to purchase things and services, from betting (legally) to ordering stuff online from a very limited amount of vendors. I see as a potential use case the marijuana industry. Big and certain to become really huge in the very near future. But they don't need scammy cryptos around, they will just use Bitcoin as a preferred alternative to dollar, euro or yuan... kind of a philosophy stand. I doubt adoption is going to go lower and expect it to be significantly higher as millenials dominate more and more the demographics and new generations of libertarians join the fray. It will be a slow adoption but will grow to be a kind of dollar alternative worldwide. The other 699? Afraid not. Agree on that one (to the limited extent of my knowledge of them).