IOTA is the next big thing

[cryptimus prime]

Dont be surprised, the IOTA FUDders usually dont speak good english, are not eloquent, not able to articulate themselves and facts are not their strength.
I hope you guys listened to my call and are already inside this rocket ship.

IOTA is a very interesting idea but we all know most of these projects show promise but having a real usecase is the most important thing, speculating on the price and marketcap do not make much sense to me

The whole idea of IOTA is to be used as soon as possible. I predict we will see more real world use with IOTA then with ETH.
Take your time and learn from this new video from the Netherlands meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDD96FXQkkg

Also a lot of "insider" news. Smart contracts on IOTA for example on the roadmap with high priority.

To get the deep, important informations you need to take your time.

Elaad Netherlands has already demonstrated what IOTA can do with their loading stations for electric cars.
More will follow, Bosch will probably implement this technology in their car hardware into different car brands. Volkswagen, BMW...

ETH was also planned to be the backbone of IOT, but Innogy for example has ditched ETH for IOTA.

[wojak]

ETH was also planned to be the backbone of IOT, but Innogy for example has ditched ETH for IOTA.

funny, I was just checking hackday and it comes up:
https://hackaday.com/2017/11/09/iot-with-the-ethereum-blockchain/

waiting to see it with IOTA

[cryptimus prime]

Another use case by Sytrax Germany: https://twitter.com/sytraxgermany/status/928256738545020930

You just need to search a little bit around. But IOTA will have many different use cases, machine2machine, human2machine, human2human. Micro and bigger transactions.
Imagine you dont need to pay for your transactions. How sweet is that? And how does BTC look like compared to that? Obsolete.

In case of XMR I can understand you pay extra for transactions, they are anonymous. But BTC transactions are simpl and IOTA is doing it better and for free. You cant beat that.

Blockchain technology is disruptive.
But IOTA is disruptive to blockchain.

[facenew111]

I am in Iota since many month. Not ICO member but since yassin deal in Slack.

IOTA have actual one very big disadvantage and this make me crazy.

You need sometime many trys to make a Transaction.

Not only click and send.

After the team remove this mistake I am sure that IOTA have a very good future.

"You need sometime many trys to make a Transaction"

agreed, reattach reattach and wait for 2 hours until sent from wallet.  not good as blockchain wallet.

[facenew111]

Dont be surprised, the IOTA FUDders usually dont speak good english, are not eloquent, not able to articulate themselves and facts are not their strength.
I hope you guys listened to my call and are already inside this rocket ship.

IOTA is a very interesting idea but we all know most of these projects show promise but having a real usecase is the most important thing, speculating on the price and marketcap do not make much sense to me

The whole idea of IOTA is to be used as soon as possible. I predict we will see more real world use with IOTA then with ETH.
Take your time and learn from this new video from the Netherlands meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDD96FXQkkg

Also a lot of "insider" news. Smart contracts on IOTA for example on the roadmap with high priority.

To get the deep, important informations you need to take your time.

Elaad Netherlands has already demonstrated what IOTA can do with their loading stations for electric cars.
More will follow, Bosch will probably implement this technology in their car hardware into different car brands. Volkswagen, BMW...

ETH was also planned to be the backbone of IOT, but Innogy for example has ditched ETH for IOTA.

I bet ethereum will select raiden for iot.

[joshki]

IOTA's tech is shit, their crypto is shit, their devs are prima donnas who can't write code, and the entire thing is totally centrally controlled.

Not to mention the fact that their entire market has no blockchain use case whatsoever.

Tell me again why anyone would put any money into this shitshow?

[generalizethis]

IOTA's tech is shit, their crypto is shit, their devs are prima donnas who can't write code, and the entire thing is totally centrally controlled.

Not to mention the fact that their entire market has no blockchain use case whatsoever.

Tell me again why anyone would put any money into this shitshow?

Tangle is shit? How?

It scales and is feeless--that's a usecase.

I'm not a fan of centralization, but manufactures don't have a problem with it, and if they do relinquish control after the bootstrap period,  I have no problem with it--monero is cash, so I don't need iota to be antifragile in the face of regulation.

Good luck with your anger mgt, you seem to go emotional ad hominem with your dev analysis.

[joshki]

IOTA's tech is shit, their crypto is shit, their devs are prima donnas who can't write code, and the entire thing is totally centrally controlled.

Not to mention the fact that their entire market has no blockchain use case whatsoever.

Tell me again why anyone would put any money into this shitshow?

Tangle is shit? How?

It scales and is feeless--that's a usecase.

I'm not a fan of centralization, but manufactures don't have a problem with it, and if they do relinquish control after the bootstrap period,  I have no problem with it--monero is cash, so I don't need iota to be antifragile in the face of regulation.

Good luck with your anger mgt, you seem to go emotional ad hominem with your dev analysis.

"Tangle" doesn't work, which is why it has to be centralized.  The entire concept of crypto currency was to eliminate the central control.

But I'm more concerned with the fact the devs wrote their own broken crypto, deployed it, and then when called on it pretended that they did it on purpose to break anything that copied from them.  That's in direct violation of the spirit of the open source movement from day 1.  Also they had to write a whole new number system because apparently they think binary isn't good enough.  That's rock bottom stupid.

There's no anger here, merely analysis.

Oh, and "scales and feeless", if it were true, is not a blockchain use case.  The concept of putting the IOT on a blockchain is pants on head idiotic.

[generalizethis]

IOTA's tech is shit, their crypto is shit, their devs are prima donnas who can't write code, and the entire thing is totally centrally controlled.

Not to mention the fact that their entire market has no blockchain use case whatsoever.

Tell me again why anyone would put any money into this shitshow?

Tangle is shit? How?

It scales and is feeless--that's a usecase.

I'm not a fan of centralization, but manufactures don't have a problem with it, and if they do relinquish control after the bootstrap period,  I have no problem with it--monero is cash, so I don't need iota to be antifragile in the face of regulation.

Good luck with your anger mgt, you seem to go emotional ad hominem with your dev analysis.

"Tangle" doesn't work, which is why it has to be centralized.  The entire concept of crypto currency was to eliminate the central control.

But I'm more concerned with the fact the devs wrote their own broken crypto, deployed it, and then when called on it pretended that they did it on purpose to break anything that copied from them.  That's in direct violation of the spirit of the open source movement from day 1.  Also they had to write a whole new number system because apparently they think binary isn't good enough.  That's rock bottom stupid.

There's no anger here, merely analysis.

AFAIK DAG's work and need to be centralized in the bootstrap period. I've read nothing to disprove that, have you?

I'm not going to argue the politics of the decentralized spirit. I have that in my cash in the form of monero. I personally have no use for machine to machine transactions, so don't care if it is centralized in its early phase--my only question is whether it survives the early phase and does the scaffolding come down once it reaches that phase. In the meantime I am watching the manufacturer's response--the ones who have the usecase--and that has been positive.

[joshki]

IOTA's tech is shit, their crypto is shit, their devs are prima donnas who can't write code, and the entire thing is totally centrally controlled.

Not to mention the fact that their entire market has no blockchain use case whatsoever.

Tell me again why anyone would put any money into this shitshow?

Tangle is shit? How?

It scales and is feeless--that's a usecase.

I'm not a fan of centralization, but manufactures don't have a problem with it, and if they do relinquish control after the bootstrap period,  I have no problem with it--monero is cash, so I don't need iota to be antifragile in the face of regulation.

Good luck with your anger mgt, you seem to go emotional ad hominem with your dev analysis.

"Tangle" doesn't work, which is why it has to be centralized.  The entire concept of crypto currency was to eliminate the central control.

But I'm more concerned with the fact the devs wrote their own broken crypto, deployed it, and then when called on it pretended that they did it on purpose to break anything that copied from them.  That's in direct violation of the spirit of the open source movement from day 1.  Also they had to write a whole new number system because apparently they think binary isn't good enough.  That's rock bottom stupid.

There's no anger here, merely analysis.

AFAIK DAG's work and need to be centralized in the bootstrap period. I've read nothing to disprove that, have you?

I'm not going to argue the politics of the decentralized spirit. I have that in my cash in the form of monero. I personally have no use for machine to machine transactions, so don't care if it is centralized in its early phase--my only question is whether it survives the early phase and does the scaffolding come down once it reaches that phase. In the meantime I am watching the manufacturer's response--the ones who have the usecase--and that has been positive.

Do they?

Can you prove it?

If you don't want to argue, and obviously can't argue the points I made, why bother responding?

[generalizethis]

IOTA's tech is shit, their crypto is shit, their devs are prima donnas who can't write code, and the entire thing is totally centrally controlled.

Not to mention the fact that their entire market has no blockchain use case whatsoever.

Tell me again why anyone would put any money into this shitshow?

Tangle is shit? How?

It scales and is feeless--that's a usecase.

I'm not a fan of centralization, but manufactures don't have a problem with it, and if they do relinquish control after the bootstrap period,  I have no problem with it--monero is cash, so I don't need iota to be antifragile in the face of regulation.

Good luck with your anger mgt, you seem to go emotional ad hominem with your dev analysis.

"Tangle" doesn't work, which is why it has to be centralized.  The entire concept of crypto currency was to eliminate the central control.

But I'm more concerned with the fact the devs wrote their own broken crypto, deployed it, and then when called on it pretended that they did it on purpose to break anything that copied from them.  That's in direct violation of the spirit of the open source movement from day 1.  Also they had to write a whole new number system because apparently they think binary isn't good enough.  That's rock bottom stupid.

There's no anger here, merely analysis.

AFAIK DAG's work and need to be centralized in the bootstrap period. I've read nothing to disprove that, have you?

I'm not going to argue the politics of the decentralized spirit. I have that in my cash in the form of monero. I personally have no use for machine to machine transactions, so don't care if it is centralized in its early phase--my only question is whether it survives the early phase and does the scaffolding come down once it reaches that phase. In the meantime I am watching the manufacturer's response--the ones who have the usecase--and that has been positive.

Do they?

Can you prove it?

If you don't want to argue, and obviously can't argue the points I made, why bother responding?

I asked you to provide evidence that DAG's do not need to be bootstrapped. If you don't have it, just say so--no need to deflect.

I said my usecase for decentralization, not sure why that's unacceptable to you, but it's acceptable to me

[joshki]

I asked you to provide evidence that DAG's do not need to be bootstrapped. If you don't have it, just say so--no need to deflect.

I said my usecase for decentralization, not sure why that's unacceptable to you, but it's acceptable to me

It's not decentralized.

You're making the assertion that it has to be centralized.  That's the antithesis of the entire concept of cryptocurrency. 

The usecase of the coin, as they say, is for IOT.  That idea is idiotic, and everyone knows it.  My light bulbs don't need a cryptocurrency. 

[generalizethis]

I asked you to provide evidence that DAG's do not need to be bootstrapped. If you don't have it, just say so--no need to deflect.

I said my usecase for decentralization, not sure why that's unacceptable to you, but it's acceptable to me

It's not decentralized.

You're making the assertion that it has to be centralized.  That's the antithesis of the entire concept of cryptocurrency. 

The usecase of the coin, as they say, is for IOT.  That idea is idiotic, and everyone knows it.  My light bulbs don't need a cryptocurrency. 

Autonomous cars need to pay for electricity and atm, they don't need that transaction to be decentralized. So we're good on both fronts, thanks for helping me validate my points. I appreciate the effort

[joshki]

I asked you to provide evidence that DAG's do not need to be bootstrapped. If you don't have it, just say so--no need to deflect.

I said my usecase for decentralization, not sure why that's unacceptable to you, but it's acceptable to me

It's not decentralized.

You're making the assertion that it has to be centralized.  That's the antithesis of the entire concept of cryptocurrency. 

The usecase of the coin, as they say, is for IOT.  That idea is idiotic, and everyone knows it.  My light bulbs don't need a cryptocurrency. 

Autonomous cars need to pay for electricity and atm, they don't need that transaction to be decentralized. So we're good on both fronts, thanks for helping me validate my points. I appreciate the effort

We have bank transfers and credit cards for that.  IOTA provides nothing better than either of those.

BTW, there aren't any autonomous cars. 

[Ponylon]

Imagine a world were all the machines are connected to a computer, like literally everything. There will need to be some sort of provider to facilitate that and IOTA is the one. Imagine gong to a public toilet, which will be able to directly verify your ID, but either scanning a fingerprint of facial recongnition (a camera might be installed that ID's all entrees) and upon not flushing the toilet, you'll be fined automatically by the system. The same can be applied with thresspassing, crossing red light and many other legal things. When everyone is IDed, people will feel more comfortable doing things - but we'll definitely have a backlash from liberterians who don't want to fall under the system. It will become though so convenient to use various services using IoT, that eventually people will give in. As they did for Facebook and other services, were they were willing to provide their personal information. IOTA will be ready when this expands.

[cryptimus prime]

What amazes me mostly is when I read the critics about IOTA and see that most of them are just founded on a lack of knowledge and absolutely no imagination of the market potential for such a technology.
It simply is too much for the intellect of the average crypto "investor". This was always the case, also years ago with XMR and ETH.

So I am pretty relaxed having entered IOTA at 30 and 40 cent. In 1-2 years we can sell it on the FOMO masses who bought ETH for 400 USD. 
I think we have a nice way to go, but we wont ever see that low prices again.

[generalizethis]

Does someone want to tell waymo that their product doesn't exist? https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16615290/waymo-self-driving-safety-driver-chandler-autonomous

Can also tell sopra steria that they can partner with credit cards for their iot needs: https://www.soprasteria.com/en/media/press-release/blockchain-and-the-iot-sopra-steria-partners-with-iota

My mom use to tell me to think before you speak, for the internet age it's, "Research before you post."

[cryptimus prime]

@generalizethis

I share your opinion regarding XMR. I am also completely satisfied to have a good portion diversfied into XMR, a really decentralized form of crypto.
But if I have to chose between ETH and IOTA now in order to see my investment grow, then I go for IOTA.

Also this recent partnership with Sopra Steria and its importance is also difficult to grasp for the most investors.
The most will understand it when IOTAs market cap has exceeded, 10, 20 or 30 billions USD.

With a pioneering track record in creating state-of-the-art Blockchain technology which is mature enough to be deployed on a large scale, IOTA has convinced Sopra Steria of its value thanks to its expertise in securing the links between connected objects.

For its part, Sopra Steria will not only provide access to a portfolio of specific customers within the industry, it will also allow IOTA to leverage its IoT skills and resources. This will enable IOTA to apply the full extent of Sopra Steria's extended security know-how to connected objects. Lastly, Sopra Steria has played a pioneering role as one of the first European integrators of Blockchain solutions, with many implementations to its credit.

Sopra Steria will "provide access to a portfolio of specific customers within the industry" to IOTA.
Means more partnerships and faster real world implementation instead of endless ICOs on ETH of which I am tired of.
When I hear that ICO word I feel some kind of anger building up. 

[e-coinomist]

Sensors? It's software, there are no sensors. I suggest you research your fud.

No they do exists, an old approach has been weather stations connected to the BOINC network and GRC Gridcoin laying on top of that, adding a sort of data economy that never took of. The idea has been incentivising people into setting up these things, or getting the technology enthusiast who volunteered for BOINC interested in crypto economy.
You would have to add IoT buzz for that to work out.
It is possible to monetize sensory data, like any data, some people are even collecting your mouseclicks (google, adsense) to generate value from that. But the more usefull sensor data usually is recipient of a subsidy.

"Tangle" doesn't work, which is why it has to be centralized.  The entire concept of crypto currency was to eliminate the central control.

But I'm more concerned with the fact the devs wrote their own broken crypto, deployed it, and then when called on it pretended that they did it on purpose to break anything that copied from them.  That's in direct violation of the spirit of the open source movement from day 1.  Also they had to write a whole new number system because apparently they think binary isn't good enough.  That's rock bottom stupid.

There's no anger here, merely analysis.

Oh, and "scales and feeless", if it were true, is not a blockchain use case.  The concept of putting the IOT on a blockchain is pants on head idiotic.

You are historically mistaken there, let us have a look back into 1958
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setun
For a timespan of 6 years that has been Super Computing state of the art. Not a new homebaken solution.
And the devs are releasing their source, take a look at https://github.com/iotaledger/

However the centralized accusations are spot on. I doubt they can now get exchanges for their project once they had proven to be able taking IOTA out of people's wallets. No exchange can take on a risk like that.

[MV7]

Sorry, but I don't really see how you can call iota the "NEXT" big thing. It has already had like an 800x increase in price since its debut, and consistently one of the top 10 coins on coinmarketcap. It already is a big thing...

As Ethereum was around 10 USD and had a market cap of around 1 billion USD (like IOTA now). Was it already the big thing? I would say no.
And yes ETH made great ROI for ICO investors too.

But ETH with 30 billion market was finally BIG. This is the way IOTA will take.
For me gains of x30 are huge.

And I do not invest my money into small market cap joke coins, so I wont see higher returns anywhere.

Do you have a timeframe for when this could happen? Within a month, within a year? Sorry, it's just hard to imagine IOTA having a >10 billion market cap, or a 30 billion marketcap like ETH. I'd love to see your timeframe though and your reasoning behind the timeframe, such as development roadmaps and things