Topic: [ANN] [GDGC] GadgetCoin | IoT | M2M |Smart Contracts on Hardware - page 45. (Read 88551 times)

There are two wallet options for embedded devices:

- The firmware includes the full wallet. Most of the ARM core devices are capable to run the full wallet. On Raspbery PI and Beaglebone Black, which both are very capable devices, loading the wallet and blockchain is not an issue at all. However, these are mainly hobbyists boards so we are focusing our tests on more industrial devices like the STM Discovery board and I can report that there is no issue as well. If a board has 1024kb flush and 128kb RAM then the application works without any issues.

- The firmware comes with a light wallet. For low power sensors and devices with very low computing power like 256kb flush and 32kb RAM AVR devices we need to be more conservative and run a less resource consuming software.

One of our main targets are the broadband routers, there are more than 500 million broadband routers, they can be secured and managed with our smart contract technology. These router devices mainly runs Linux and there won't be any resource issues.

I think you should first distribute the 10 million coins to the community, but as a bitcointalk communty member my opinion is biased.

Will follow this

Dev can you touch on this :


So the wallet will be in the firmware?

I have modified the introductory post by taking out the reference to the $5/GDC price.

Thanks for your reply.

We definitely need to sort out the distribution of the coin as soon as possible. This is one of the most important aspects of the project and being technical minded devs and focusing on software development, we have neglected to work out the distribution model yet :-)) We hope the feedback and opinions on this thread will help us to finalize the distribution process and ensure that all other important areas have a fair, decentralized and sustainable operation in place.

There are a few key assumptions

a) We are not comfortable with the ICO/IPO concept and therefore will not be collecting large chunks of Bitcoins from investors prior to releasing the open source software, the hardware and lunching the network.

b) We thought in order to keep the value of coin stable, or ideally growing continuously, the GDC Network should charge network fees in GadgetCoin (just like Ethereum charges in ether) for executing hardware related functions on the GDC Network. This will increase the demand for GadgetCoin as hardware operators need GadgetCoin to operate their devices on our peer to peer network.  We think charging 1 GDC network fee per year per device is reasonable. If the sale price of GDC is $5 then that will act as an expenditure for a business to use the GDC network.

We didn't mean we should collect $5 for 1 GDC from our community members, supporters, early stage investors. Instead we aim to charge $5 to businesses that are using the network.

Also, it is important to mention that the developers will not be selling any coins. GDC Foundation will have the initial 10 million GDC, which will be kept on a smart contract controlled account that requires multiple signatures to do anything with the money. The multi signature will be activated only by community voting. This way we can have in place full transparency and community control.

Perhaps keeping the GDC Foundation in the distribution loop is fundamentally wrong. The real question is should we first distribute the 10 million coins to the community and investors, and then the hardware operators have to buy GadgetCoin on the open market? After this we can adjust the network fee for hardware functions on a daily basis depending on the price of GadgetCoin but to keep the network fee close to the $5 per year price?

Please let us know what you think?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like we have to pay $5 to buy each coin from the devs. What if the value on exchanges drops below $5? They say it's not an IPO, but it sounds like one if the only way to initially obtain them is buying directly from the devs at a fixed price.

Cool. How the coins will be distributed?

The real beauty behind the smart contracts notion is that basically anything can be implemented with them, even complex business models like a multi level marketing scheme. I've copied a segment of the relevant code explanation from our white paper, and attached it below. As you can see, to implement a multi level structure you would have to define the layers of your MLM group in the "partners" array and extend the "shareRevenue function" to calculate the commission. Both of them are entirely doable using smart contracts.

The ML is quite a sensitive area in my opinion. It's one the trickier questions that we face - should we control how the users use the software, or allow the software to be utilized for any possibility? I think it is better if the community would decide by voting whether or not to enable MLM type of trading on the GadgetCoin Network. As far as I know multi level marketing is often associated with pyramid schemes and as a result gained somewhat of a bad reputation, but the real draw of the smart contracts and being open source means that we can support all types of trades. If the community is OK with that or does not care either way, then I see no issue utilizing the power of smart contracts for anything that is not illegal.

I am reading your white paper, there are lots of info in that, probably too much.

I understand the revenue sharing smart contracts and it is a really great idea. On that note, does your smart contract technology supports multi level marketing (MLM) type of trading? Is it possible to set up multi level sale for the hardware services if I manage the hardware on the Gadget Network using the gadgetcoin software? Similarly, would the GDC wallet support multi level marketing for currency sell? For example I have 100,000 GDC and want to sell it, can I set up my own multi level chain so I can get commission from GDC sales from the underlying sellers?

Please don't hesitate to ask any questions, we will try to answer all questions and address all concerns. All suggestions are very much appreciated and will be taken on board, we aim to make this work by listening the community.

As I said in their thread too, I like BitBay and Tilecoin, the two other IoT coins and this one seems a very good idea too. The market is endless for IoT, as you said Gartner projects plus 20 billion connected devices. That's a lot of potential customers for this and other IoT coins.

I am a very much against IPOs that completely destroyed the altcoin market, so very well done for not collecting moneys up front!

I will read the white paper, it's quite long by the way and will come back with my questions.

Thanks for your encouraging words  

Our hardware is a general purpose development board, that means there are many applications for the board, for instance, you can control a mining farm with it. As the schematics indicates we aim to give users a network enabled hardware module, it is especially suitable for sensor networks and Internet of Things applications. Hardware integrators don't touch new platforms without having a development board. Also, we target the +10 million strong Arduino, Raspberry PI and Beaglebone Black community.

This sounds really interesting and different. I would like to understand more on what the hardware actually does, is it a mining tool? 

Thank you for your question. What we try to say is that we won't be asking an upfront 100, 500 or 1000 BTC from investors via an IPO.
The coin must have a value and we aim to set it to $5 by selling GadgetCoin to hardware integrators, hobbyists with the development board, and then the end users can participate on the GadgetCoin Network and pay the network fees. Just like Ethereum will charges for network usage and collect "gas", the participating hardware modules will have to pay fees to execute smart contracts on the GadgetCoin Network. The network fees are as low as 0.00001 GDC for authorisation (i.e. to open a garage door via the Gadget Network), that means 1 GDC will be enough approximately for a year or so to operate an average home automation system. We believe it is reasonable to ask 1 GDC/year from a business or high end home for a secure, flexible, smart contract driven environment that takes out all the complexity of current hardware management platforms, and we hope pricing GDC to $5 is not over ambitious.

This is a very early stage of the coin and we are more than happy to take on board suggestions from the community to define the directions together. Please let us know if you have any more questions.

At least it is not another shitcoin clone

You say there is no IPO or ICO, yet to purchase the hardware a coin must also be bought at $5 each. Is that not the same thing?

Seems it's been quite some time since I saw an ann that caught my interest.  Definitely got an eye out on this one.

Nicely done.

Gadgets are nice. If this can get a real life use it would become a special coin