I'm having an impossible time understanding how the IOTA project is viable. It aims to service the IoT niche. However, Bitcoin already is tackling this niche in a variety of ways. Let's remember that BTC has first mover advantage & network effect (should not be underestimated), as well as hundreds of millions of $ in funding distributed among projects aiming to directly/indirectly make BTC & IoT a reality.
1. Lightning (IoT vision with nano-payments, unlimited transactions after opening channel, infinitesimally low fees) -- ETA: 3 months for testnet version / Pre-reqs: CLTV (already active), CSV (active within 2 months), malleability fix via SW (active within 3 months).
2. 21, Inc. (explicit vision of IoT, $120+ million funding, relationships with top computer networking companies like Qualcomm, Broadcom, Cisco, Intel, etc.) -- already out with a very hype-ey, successful 21 bitcoin computer MVP that is attracting a lot of attention from Silicon Valley types / Vision of mass market, low-cost/free chip as final product integrated at the scale of millions into consumer electronics devices (and, like I said, the crucial *relationships* with vendors to realistically make this happen).
3. Sidechains that are 2-way-pegged (Blockstream is working directly on this problem, Paul Sztorc of Bitcoin Hivemind is also working on it with Drivechain) -- Once available, this means essentially any blockchain tech can be custom created and pegged to BTC. If we need a custom designed IoT-specific blockchain, then no problem, sidechain functionality will exist to facilitate it (just like Sergio Lerner's RootStock is taking advantage of right now, with their recently released white paper, but *by building on top of BTC via a sidechain* -- not as a separate block chain)
As for this marketing about quantum-resistance, this is a far-off/futuristic problem. If we have learned anything from history, it is that technological problems are always resolved, one way or another. There is currently $6 billion USD of incentive to solve the quantum problem (plus whatever other problems exist), and that incentive will only be increasing in coming years. It's difficult to see how the argument can be made that such problems spell doom for BTC & so somehow justify IOTA?
Let's assume that magically what I've said so far is addressed sufficiently.
What is the plan for IOTA to actually gain traction? So far, what I see is: "we hope the community will work hard to bring success". Really? This is the plan, and people are throwing 1,000 BTC at this 'castle in the sky'? Presumably, only because of the name recognition of 'come from beyond' backing it, just like Ethereum attracted attention mainly because of Vitalik's backing.
If I'm wrong about all this, then I look forward to a comprehensive refutation
-eragmus
1. 999'999'999.999999999
2. Correct
3. Every transaction can have extra data attached, this can be used to host data interpreted by other blockchains/platforms
1. Lightning (IoT vision with nano-payments, unlimited transactions after opening channel, infinitesimally low fees) -- ETA: 3 months for testnet version / Pre-reqs: CLTV (already active), CSV (active within 2 months), malleability fix via SW (active within 3 months).
2. 21, Inc. (explicit vision of IoT, $120+ million funding, relationships with top computer networking companies like Qualcomm, Broadcom, Cisco, Intel, etc.) -- already out with a very hype-ey, successful 21 bitcoin computer MVP that is attracting a lot of attention from Silicon Valley types / Vision of mass market, low-cost/free chip as final product integrated at the scale of millions into consumer electronics devices (and, like I said, the crucial *relationships* with vendors to realistically make this happen).
3. Sidechains that are 2-way-pegged (Blockstream is working directly on this problem, Paul Sztorc of Bitcoin Hivemind is also working on it with Drivechain) -- Once available, this means essentially any blockchain tech can be custom created and pegged to BTC. If we need a custom designed IoT-specific blockchain, then no problem, sidechain functionality will exist to facilitate it (just like Sergio Lerner's RootStock is taking advantage of right now, with their recently released white paper, but *by building on top of BTC via a sidechain* -- not as a separate block chain)
As for this marketing about quantum-resistance, this is a far-off/futuristic problem. If we have learned anything from history, it is that technological problems are always resolved, one way or another. There is currently $6 billion USD of incentive to solve the quantum problem (plus whatever other problems exist), and that incentive will only be increasing in coming years. It's difficult to see how the argument can be made that such problems spell doom for BTC & so somehow justify IOTA?
Let's assume that magically what I've said so far is addressed sufficiently.
What is the plan for IOTA to actually gain traction? So far, what I see is: "we hope the community will work hard to bring success". Really? This is the plan, and people are throwing 1,000 BTC at this 'castle in the sky'? Presumably, only because of the name recognition of 'come from beyond' backing it, just like Ethereum attracted attention mainly because of Vitalik's backing.
If I'm wrong about all this, then I look forward to a comprehensive refutation
-eragmus
HI CFB, I haven't had the time to read the white paper but can you help answer a couple questions?
1. Is 999,999,999. the total supply of IOTA in existence?
2. There is no inflationary model or mining, correct?
3. Can you explain Iota's ability to communicate with other Blockchains?
Thank you
1. Is 999,999,999. the total supply of IOTA in existence?
2. There is no inflationary model or mining, correct?
3. Can you explain Iota's ability to communicate with other Blockchains?
Thank you
1. 999'999'999.999999999
2. Correct
3. Every transaction can have extra data attached, this can be used to host data interpreted by other blockchains/platforms
Although I agree with most of your post, the bolded is patently false. Any crypto without suite 2 or equivalent will not be safe in the foreseeable future.