Topic: [ANN] [GDGC] GadgetCoin | IoT | M2M |Smart Contracts on Hardware - page 10. (Read 88548 times)

We are migrating the blogs to a new server and it could be some problems in opening the blog posts.

OK, I understand. If there is no collaboration possible then I think it is better to not getting into disagreement with the IOTA team nor with the NXT community. First I thought it is better to debate how viable their project is, but probably it is not good idea and sorry for involving you with this unnecessary discussion about IOTA.

I contacted the NXT community and jl777 a few months ago and respectfully suggested cooperation to bring the block-chain technology and digital currency concept to Internet of Things. Anybody who works in the Internet of Things field understand how difficult to make money in it. I thought we would have better chance to succeed by working together instead of with the current fragmented efforts. They didn't even answer. We should respect that position and carry on with our plans.

@mtomcdev

I suggest stop sharing the info with regards to your next step, how IoT businesses work, the problems with IoT and lets discuss all GadgetCoin business matters on Slack. You have already shared a white paper and many information. I think that is more than enough educational material for the IOTA project. They don't even have a business plan to outline their monetization strategy, most likely they never ever worked on an Internet of Things project, so all you do here is giving ideas how to do IoT business.

You gain nothing with disclosing more info here in Bitcointalk. Bitcointalk is the platform of the legendary and hero members who roll out coins, Supernet assets and all kind of money collecting schemes and then try to sell to the crowd. The lack traffic and support in this thread indicates that you can't distract the party and gain support here. Therefore, no point to try here any more. You don't need to prove anything to the audience of Bitcointalk, only to your investors and we can do the communication on Slack.

I am happy if you guys say so. I don't know much about Iot but I recruited 8 web cam models from Slovakia and Romania. they are ready to start. i think the web cam part of the business plan will work.

Last year - the same time when this project GadgetCoin started - there was the Bitbay scam with the IoT label. It turned out David and Bitbay had nothing to do with IoT. They of course collected 1 million dollars and it was the biggest scam of 2014. This year IOTA put the IoT label on the coin, but there is no business plan how they actually make money from IoT. As I posted above, they will collect 1 million dollars and that will be the end of the IoT story. Perhaps the IOTA tangle thing will be a success, but IMHO they will make precisely ZERO dollar revenue from IoT. The IoT label need to present the money collecting ICO with a popular subject.
I currently have investments in 3 real world UK based IoT businesses, plus this GadgetCoin IoT investment. My first experience with IoT businesses was years ago. I admire the ambition of IoT startups, but I fully agree with mtomcdev: an Internet of Things business is far more complicated, far more difficult and far more work than people think.

I can't comment on IOTA but I can share our experience about the Internet-of-Things business.

The issue is, virtually no application/software provider is making money from Internet-of-Things. Not even Xively, the signature company of IoT. We spoke virtually all IoT companies in Europe and USA during the last year, so we understand what others do. Most IoT businesses can survive only on VC or angel investment capital but virtually none of them is profitable. Certainly none of them is profitable from only IoT software.

There are tens of thousands of developers like us dream about the opportunity of 50 billion IoT devices and then soon or later all of us realize the monetization is a very difficult subject. If you want to sell your own platform then you need to compete with Atmel, Samsung, Texas Instruments, Fujitsu, Siemens and the likes. Impossible. Why on earth any IoT system integrators - your primary customer base who actually rolls out the devices - would prefer yours instead of the Fujitsu, Siemens or Samsung solution?  Any of those large players employs thousands of extremely experienced engineers and offer in-house certification process. We are talking about medical, home automation, industrial and security devices which all need to be certified. It isn't the domain for anonymous, open source companies. I think anybody who understand a bit the industry would agree that it is almost impossible to make money for a start-up in the IoT space without having a partnership with a well-established player.  

For that reason

- We are making partnership with established companies and organizations. Finally it works as we are already testing the clients' devices and integrating the devices into GadgetNet. Without the partnership of a real world IoT system integrator nobody would even consider using an untested, uncertified, open source start-up solution. Our first system integrator partner is ZoVolt. They have more than 100 investors, many of them are IoT industry people, they have IP, consultancy experience, access to FCC and CE diagnostic labs and capability of manage certification process. We are talking to other, bigger system integrators to bring them in. We will contribute more and more to W3C to get credibility in developing an industry standard solution.  

- In step one we target a niche area, the IoT powered video devices. Both security and video conference IoT devices. We found it is very difficult to compete in the sensor and industrial device (such as PLC) area, but once our application will be stress tested in real life with the most data intensive video IoT devices then we should not have problem with credibility and we should be able to serve all segments of the IoT industry.
   
The Internet-of-Things business is lot more complicated than application software engineers think. I think any engineer who ever tried to make money from IoT would echo this. We learnt this difficult business the hard way in the last few years and we are extremely lucky that we are still in business. I think we have a good business plan and we are executing that.

Thanks for your support!

I read the whitepaper for IOTA and......unless they have something up their sleeve we have little to worry about. It honestly looks like a scam to me.

I've copied this from the IOTA thread. The competition is on. I hope our GadgetCoin will win the race.

@chocobo
@altcoinUK
@zsp
@albert_mt

Thank you all very much for your support.
Also, finally we received all papers from the US lawyers and finally we are able to allocate the shares in the DAC to all VICR owners.

While I believe that Gadgetcoin is miles ahead on all the categories listed by mtomcdev, these two are where any other bitcointalk project has little to no chance, especially since GDGC has already worked with W3C for months.

@mtomcdev

Don't be sorry. It is very good you haven't created an ICO and consequently many bag holders. Better to build the platform slowly but surely on a real foundation instead of bringing into the process a potentially Pump & Dump scenario with an ICO.

You identified the issue of lack of privacy in the BTC blockchain and that real world businesses indeed need privacy. The fact that everyone, including IOTA see privacy as the main requirement indicates GadgetNet is on the right track.
You also came up for the need of private/public blockchain. Now even Vitalik Buterin start to banging on the private blockchain.
You identified the regulatory compliance requirement. IMHO others will realize soon that regulatory compliance is a real issue, and oooops, that's why banks, businesses, individuals don't even consider using digital currencies in larger scale than the 100,000 BTC users (after 6 years of media hype, hundreds of millions VC money and significant development effort).

Keep up the good work and don't worry that your project isn't popular on bitcointalk.org.

No need to discuss here what others do. Lets support the devs to make the GadgetNet platform profitable.

We are grateful more than ever for the support of our coin holders, but I have to admit our development team have miserable failed to gain a greater support for GadgetNet/GadgetCoin on bitcointalk.org. We are sorry for that our platform isn't popular. IOTA started 2 days ago, but it is already lot more popular than GadgetNet. We obviously can't compete with the NXT community in generating interest for our software and tech within this environment. Still we believe that GadgetNet can be a successful venture outside of bitcointalk.org. Since the VICR process closed we have been working with IoT businesses such as ZoVolt as well as W3C to make our platform better and one of the primary Internet-of-Things micropayment solutions. I am not familiar with IOTA nor with TileCoin and I am unable to make a comparison between the solutions, but here is what we do:

1) Privacy. As we explained many times, the lack of privacy within the public block-chain such as Bitcoin is a major issue for real world Internet-of-Things companies. We addressed that requirement by implementing the private/public block-chain concept. As you can see in your wallet, your transaction information exist in your private block-chain, it is available for you, but it is not exposed to the public block-chain. This is what IoT companies, factories, solution providers and regulatory bodies require.

2) Performance. Real time Internet-of-Things devices management requires a reasonably good performance. You don't want to wait 12 minutes for a transaction confirmation to open an IoT powered Pay as you go self storage door. The transaction and device management must be instant. Our average transaction processing time is 0.875 second. This include device control and payment processing. You can see the instant transaction processing by sending money in your wallet.

3) Interoperability. We found this is a key issue for Internet-of-Things companies. To address this requirement we have started working with W3C to integrate and industry standard communication protocol suit into GadgetNet. The key word is "industry standard". Large industry players such as Ericsson or Fujitsu who support the W3C project won't touch a non-standard platform, but even small factories require standardized software to control their PLC devices or security companies to manage their IoT camera devices.

4) Scalability. IoT devices are very domain specific and it is probably the less important issue for the industry, but we still addressed this requirement and the GadgetNet platform is scalable. We rented 10 super large servers in the summer to stress test the software by creating 50,000 instances. There were no performance degradation at all and the data indicates the platform can manage +10 million devices. Though these numbers are irrelevant at this stage. If the GadgetNet platform will manage 100,000 devices then our investors will be multi millionaires, and therefore it is no point to get ahead of ourselves by talking about the scale of million and billion devices.

5) Regulatory compliance. No real world Internet-of-Things business will use a platform without regulatory compliance is in place. In majority of cases these are ISO companies which require the application and devices must be audited and transaction information to be available for the regulators upon request as well as in real time. GadgetNet addresses this by implementing the private/public block-chain concept.

6) Device provisioning. No real world Internet-of-Things business will use a platform without provisioning and management capabilities. To send a UDP packet from device to device is fine, but that is only 1% of the process. The devices must be provisioned: configured,  managed and upgraded in a secure manner. The provisioning process must be audited. We manage this via smart contracts. You can see how our smart contract engine works in your wallet. The Internet-of-Things devices use the very same smart contract engine.

7) Security. Using the PPK infrastructure the security is pretty much same as for any other digital currencies.

GadgetNet can move to the monetization phase very soon by providing for clients a technology with the above attributes.

PS:
Terms of the business development, everything is going as we promised, and we will bring an update on that.

I have nothing but respect for the NXT founders for creating such a great platform and vibrant community like NXT is. I like and respect James, jl777. Despite he is a prolific vaporware asset wizard, he is an extremely talented man in software development and more importantly in selling his ideas. No doubt Come-from-Beyond will be very successful with the IOTA project having the support of many talented people. You can see those many legendary and hero members in the IOTA thread. Even TPTB_need_war is there already. Those influential crypto users will make IOTA a very successful project - within this Bitcointalk environment. The founders will probably raise 1 million dollars by selling IOTA and then the NXT community will start selling to each other the IOTA digital currency. What will happen beyond that is predictable by the current state of NXT and other alt digital currencies.
Terms of the technology. Anybody who ever worked with IoT understand what are the real world use cases and user requirements, and can make the conclusion whether IOTA addresses them or not. It's cool having a protocol that could manage 50 billion devices, but IMHO that's simply not what real world IoT companies are expecting from an application frameworks. Of course I can't speak for the GadgetCoin developers, but based on the GDC whitepaper and info posted in this thread I believe GadgetCoin is on the right track in providing a real world application platform for real world businesses. There will be many cool projects like IOTA, TileCoin, etc., but IMHO there is enough space for multiple blockchain based IOT platforms, so personally - while I am respect them and I am sure they will make some money - I am not panicking from IOTA nor from TileCoin.

i am still reading this forum every day but I lost almost all interest in crypto. i support only two coins, GadgetCoin and Bitbay. others have no purpose. NXT used by 0 real world users after 2 years development. IOTA will be the same. few people will make lots of money with it. the NXT community will sell to each other, but nobody will use it in real world.

There is a new project IOTA. How GadgetCoin will compete with the NXT community? Can it compete?

We made a significant progress in the software and business development during the last 2 weeks.  A detailed update will be provided by Monday.