IOTA not able to handle IoT? Issues don't end...

[pinkflower]

There is another report about IOTA not being able to keep it's promises:
https://shitcoin.com/iota-cannot-be-used-for-iot-loss-of-funds-may-occur-e45b1ed9dd6b

A few days ago I read in a Swiss newspaper, that some big players tested IOTA in several different use cases and it wasn't able to meet the requirements

As I hold quite a lot Iota, such news always scare me.
Ok I bought very cheap, so I'm not really scared.
Still the question comes up, is IOTA currently overvalued due to hype before it was every really applied?
Reasonable replies and sources preferred!

That guy was using programs he wasn't proficient in (stated in the article), made extra steps for himself and made the very dumb assumption that usability (for him mind you) transalated into IOTA being unworkable for the IOT.

The fact is that small devices wont be running nodes, or even wallets, so the assumption doesn't fit how the IOT actually works. The guy is either incompetent or disingenuous, but not suprising all the IOTA haters are quick to be oblivious to obvious when it helps them attack their fear--that IOTA will be succesful and make most blockchains obsolete. But what's great is that none of this matters, because the IOTA Founders were smart enough to take IOTA's future out of the hands of the crypto cartel with their mindless cadres of pseudo news sources and forum fanatics--do you think Bosch or Fujitsu give a shit that the average moron can't run a node? It's absurd to think corporations are going to listen to self glossed experts when their own developers have shown that IOTA works as intended.

Also, it's odd that he didn't wait for the new wallets if he was intent on getting a wallet working--though he probably still would have opted for needless steps if given the opportunity. Enjoy this P2P minded shitcoin fest while you can, because the new wallets will be user friendly and idiot proof. BTW, anyone who hasn't figured out the difference between P2P and M2M will still understand 100ctps and free.

The guy is no newb to cryptocurrencies. He has been around since 2011 and worked as a backend engineer in Kraken. The review, I think, justifies itself in terms where usability is concerned. There were already many bad IOTA reviews before that.

With that said, Im still excited in tangle technology. Burst will use tangle as an off-chain layer on top of their blockchain.

Anyhow, if you want to do something thats cutting edge, its better to do it off-chain and leave the blockchain "pure". You can read more about "colored off-chain tangles" in the Dymaxion whitepaper.

Somehow I managed to download the current version and have it running in a few minutes--so either he's being disingenuous or he doesn't know what he's doing. Read Paul's response below the article to understand why, even if you are building from binaries (and for whatever reason decide to run a full node the first time you set-up a wallet...weird), his attempt looks like an attempt to fail. Personally, I think it was a hatchet job, but it may be incompetence--depends if you want to argue for his capabilities or his integrity. The very fact that he'd be willing to sully his rep on IOTA is telling--Streisand or Dunning Kruger[?], there is an effect. There's also the little detail that he could have waited for the new wallets, if he was intent on getting the most user friendly experience--it's well known that Trinity is being released soon and it will address usability concerns. My guess is he wanted to troll IOTA before that happened, which isn't surprising given the recent uptick to FUD as Trinity gets closer to release.

TBTB have an interest in attacking IOTA before usability concerns are diminished due to having a fool-proof wallet. I saw the same FUD when Monero's main criticism was, "NO GUI!?!" Anyone who sat through Monero or Ethereum's FUD shows will see the similarities. It's weird that a decentralized system can have such uniform responses to threats, but sooner or later those threats, given specialization and sheer numbers, will drain any mass that is only maintained by network effects. If lightening network happened two years ago, BTC might have stopped the bleeding, or at the very least they should have concentrated on fungibility and traits that made it an actual digital cash--you know, live up to soapbox. The new mantra of, "Digital Gold" and "Store-of-Wealth," will be seen as a technology in its death throws as more efficient and specialized systems feed on its carcass, but who knows, maybe it gets to 100k and has its dominance cut to <30%. I mean that is the long term trend.

Not that any of this excuses the dumb equivocation that P2P user experience determines IOT suitability--or do we assume that processes can't be automated or that IOT developers won't know the network they are using? If that's the case, all crypto is dead as programmers have become too stupid to actually do their jobs or learn new systems--maybe that's the new argument, that we've hit an event horizon and stopped at BTC's apex and no new systems can be learned or automated. Funny that that line of Legacy Logic hasn't worked for the banking industry.

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".

[generalizethis]

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.

[ThatsABity]

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.

[BigBoy89]

This is why I'm telling people and my friends that IOTA is way overprices, especially at the end of 2017 when it had 14B market cap. The idea is very good, but a good realization is still missing.

I think the price will continue to decline and we may even see it under a buck!

[ThatsABity]

This is why I'm telling people and my friends that IOTA is way overprices, especially at the end of 2017 when it had 14B market cap. The idea is very good, but a good realization is still missing.

I think the price will continue to decline and we may even see it under a buck!

You're joking right? Do you even know much great things are lined up for this year? IOTA will be added to lots of new exchanges (and maybe even forex exchanges) once IXI hub is finished, big companies like Bosch and Volkswagen are going to unveil their applications with IOTA. Furthermore, their Q project will be unveiled which is probably about dedicated ternary hardware and distributed computing. I think IOTA is currently the only project that is able to really start moving things, and the price will follow.

[generalizethis]

we may even see it under a buck!

I hope you're right.

[Black_bl]

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

[generalizethis]

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.

[MartiniBlanco]

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.

[generalizethis]

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

[slaman29]

This is why I'm telling people and my friends that IOTA is way overprices, especially at the end of 2017 when it had 14B market cap. The idea is very good, but a good realization is still missing.

I think the price will continue to decline and we may even see it under a buck!

You're joking right? Do you even know much great things are lined up for this year? IOTA will be added to lots of new exchanges (and maybe even forex exchanges) once IXI hub is finished, big companies like Bosch and Volkswagen are going to unveil their applications with IOTA. Furthermore, their Q project will be unveiled which is probably about dedicated ternary hardware and distributed computing. I think IOTA is currently the only project that is able to really start moving things, and the price will follow.

Just because "great things" are lined up doesn't really add value to a project, actually. If the first things that come to mind as "Great" is listing on exchanges, then you've really got to examine what you think you mean by a project's value. I know tons of alts that are listed on X number of sites. But who is using them for their intended purpose?

Bosch? Volkswagen? I hope this won't turn out to be another Microsoft "I'm sorry we retract that statement".

Iota is like most alts... starting to really move, but nowhere solid yet. That's why I think it's overpriced too (like a lot of others).

[ThatsABity]

This is why I'm telling people and my friends that IOTA is way overprices, especially at the end of 2017 when it had 14B market cap. The idea is very good, but a good realization is still missing.

I think the price will continue to decline and we may even see it under a buck!

You're joking right? Do you even know much great things are lined up for this year? IOTA will be added to lots of new exchanges (and maybe even forex exchanges) once IXI hub is finished, big companies like Bosch and Volkswagen are going to unveil their applications with IOTA. Furthermore, their Q project will be unveiled which is probably about dedicated ternary hardware and distributed computing. I think IOTA is currently the only project that is able to really start moving things, and the price will follow.

Just because "great things" are lined up doesn't really add value to a project, actually. If the first things that come to mind as "Great" is listing on exchanges, then you've really got to examine what you think you mean by a project's value. I know tons of alts that are listed on X number of sites. But who is using them for their intended purpose?

Bosch? Volkswagen? I hope this won't turn out to be another Microsoft "I'm sorry we retract that statement".

Iota is like most alts... starting to really move, but nowhere solid yet. That's why I think it's overpriced too (like a lot of others).

You were talking about the price, and new exchange listings have influence on the price.

Please stop with the Microsoft nonsense... that was a misinterpretation by a quote of a Microsoft-employee, totally irrelevant.
IOTA is not like most alts, it's totally different. They are setting up a huge foundation with good fundamentals, backed by big corporates, and have the potential to become most decentralized, scalable, feeless crypto network on earth coming years.

[generalizethis]

Bosch? Volkswagen? I hope this won't turn out to be another Microsoft "I'm sorry we retract that statement".

Yeah Bosch isn't involved with IOTA at all    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.

https://blog.iota.org/welcome-huangquan-jiang-to-the-iota-foundation-3a3835e0fc06

http://www.bosch-presse.de/pressportal/de/en/robert-bosch-venture-capital-makes-first-investment-in-distributed-ledger-technology-137411.html

https://twitter.com/SarahNizze/status/962231566666731520

https://twitter.com/iotatokennews/status/954045852439449601

And definitely no connection with VW (besides Bosch):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=chZsiDvU7Ak

https://twitter.com/johannjungwirth/status/955119052111872000?lang=en

[MoonIsBlue]

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.

[pinkflower]

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.

[generalizethis]

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.

[pinkflower]

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. Dymaxion Dymaxion Dymaxion lol.

[generalizethis]

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.  

 

[ThatsABity]

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.

[ThatsABity]

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. Dymaxion Dymaxion Dymaxion lol.

The plan is to first decentralize the coordinator this year, then the plan is to completely shutdown the coordinators if they learned enough about how the tangle behaves. Probably Q4 2018/ Q1 2019. Imagine all sensor networks over the world providing nodes, makes it instantly the most decentralized network in the world.