Topic: BitBay |Decentralized Marketplace|Smart Contracts|IoT Tech|Markets Open - page 248. (Read 339486 times)
November 12, 2014, 11:16:04 AM
November 12, 2014, 11:15:08 AM
No functional wallet, no ICO please.
November 12, 2014, 11:12:27 AM
So could you answer please one of the most important questions for the IoT feature: how the software works terms of real time hardware control. So far none of the IoT coins (BitBay, TileCoin, GadgetCoin) answered this question and I hope you have the answer.
Let see a very simple and basic IoT sample, you have a light switch controlled by an Internet of Things Zigbee switch sensor, how do you turn on/off the light, do you wait 60 seconds until the transaction is included in the blockchain or do you have a workaround to complete the smart contract quicker to execute the hardware control?
I am very interested in your coin :-)) it is a great project and I am sure you have managed to make it work and it would be great to know how the solution works before making a decision about investing in the coin.
Let see a very simple and basic IoT sample, you have a light switch controlled by an Internet of Things Zigbee switch sensor, how do you turn on/off the light, do you wait 60 seconds until the transaction is included in the blockchain or do you have a workaround to complete the smart contract quicker to execute the hardware control?
I am very interested in your coin :-)) it is a great project and I am sure you have managed to make it work and it would be great to know how the solution works before making a decision about investing in the coin.
Well there are a few techniques to this. With checklocktimeverify, there is a whole bunch of new types of spending we can do. For example, we can spend so coins convert to a different address later, we can lock coins for months at a time. A 2 of 2 multisig account can convert to a 3 of 3 or (really anything)... its all about how you want to program the device.
With that said, most devices will need their own key and will sign on its own behalf. This would be used for more than just spending money. Since you get a secure connection to the device, it can hold coins, it can perform contracts with you etc. Thus, using double deposit we can create a set of rules and protocols interacting with the device. One example is a hardware staking wallet with multisig. At Blackcoin they are working on this. Their lead dev rat4 already coded in multisignature staking. It was lovely. So that just needs to be applied in the context of a device. This is just ONE example. Losing your hardware need NOT lose your coins even in a 2 of 2 multisig since we can lock the coins to convert back to the users key at a later date.
I think you are referring to Peter Todd's CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY implementation. Peter is contracted right now to ViaCoin, in this case they are working on the same stuff as you do. I thought the main issue with the CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY for IoT application is the timing, but I could be wrong. I understand with CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY no need to wait for the 10 minutes confirmation time before agreeing on an escrow for example, but I would think for IoT is still not feasible as it will still take 20 seconds or so to complete a contract.
Thanks for your reply, it's great!
This all depends on what you are negotiating. And it may actually require waiting for confirmations. In BlackHalo, i make the client go to escrow after only a few confirmations. Its a series of 3 or 4 transactions and its outline how its done in my whitepaper that comes with the program or found at Bithalo.org
I am still with altcoinUK on this one. I do not want to wait 50ms for my doors to unlock (to quote IBM example on IoT), much less 10 seconds. As I gather, 10 Seconds is blazing fast when it comes to crypto. Also, why would I want a trustless system with my house. What purpose would it have? I only need for my house lock to trust me and vice versa, why would I need a blockchain for that?
IMO this whole concept needs some thinking, not just get-on-blockchain-fadtrain. I can envisage some uses for blockchain based IoT, but having crooks datamining the blockchain to plot a pattern when I am at home and not isn't something I'd really like.
Finally, thanks God :-))) someone who knows what IoT is and what he is talking about :-)))
You are absolutely right, and it seems to me the BitBay DEV simply don't understand the significance of transaction time in real time hardware control, that's why he skipped my question completely - just like the TileCoin DEV. I don't blame them - it is a complex area, but I believe their solution has nothing to do with IoT - as we can see that from their answers.
I think the closest to a working solution is GadgetCoin. At least it seems they understand the concept of Internet of Things, how hardware works, the challenges and their white paper describes a clear solution for 1 second transaction time. Also, as for the family home in the peer to peer shared network, GadgetCoin's white paper says families and businesses can implement the software as a private network, in this case the hardware control is not accessible to the public network.
I think BitBay is a wonderful idea, the smart contract will definitely work for decentralized market, but as you said very correctly the IoT aspect requires lot more work - their IoT solution doesn't even exists in conceptual level.
Well I simply believe that in cases which require realtime or near-realtime blockchain as it exists now, will not and can not be used. Rather some sort of off-chain hybrid system, which could possibly tie in to blockchain for record keeping purposes. However, if its off-chain I think some trust delegation is required. If we're delegating trust, why not just use existing technologies. Ofc, I am still new with all this tech so I might be off the mark
Still, I do not think the physics of bitcoin-style transaction confirmation on can be cheated enough to work realtime. Especially given the limited processing power and network throughput of proposed IoT devices. I am reading up on GadgetCoin now though, maybe they'll convince me otherwise.
Smart contracting, BitBay or Ethereum style, is awesome and has many applications. I will be watching it closely.
The processing power for decryption and encryption and network throughput would be the only hurdle I forsee here. However, i think this is also going to depend on the hardware and the application. I'm certain there is a middle ground here. Hardware is the expertise of another one of our team members. I would want to defer to him on this one. If needed, I can certainly make our payload as light weight as possible for Bitcoin.
November 12, 2014, 11:11:26 AM
we are in a sustained process of ramping up the staff according to the project requirements with both coding teams and project managers in several different countries. It's a substantial investment that is being made here, and it is not a charitable one.
Hi, has David for example received any payment from you yet? Has any manager or coder received any money yet?
Yeah I got a deposit. If there wasnt a deposit I would not talk. Let me talk a little bit with the guys and see if/when they would like to be public. This seems to be a concern (I don't blame you guys). However one one hand for me at least, there is about 4 others and if this funds, it would trivial to pay me the rest of my fee. They would not really want to abandon this project simply because they have a stake in seeing it succeed and we are going to attempt to peg it to a major currency such as dollar or RMB.
It is a little nerve wrecking at times but I just try to keep calm and code my markets.
That's why I decided to invest actually (though less than if all this information were disclosed initially). Although I don't know them, and I can even understand a reason for them to want to be anonymous to a large extent, it is somewhat scary. On the other hand, you are risking much more than a few BTC - as your reputation is definitely worth much more than that - so if you feel cautiously optimistic... then I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be as well. After all I'm only risking a few BTC, which I feel confident will see a positive return...
Keep up the good work!
November 12, 2014, 11:06:12 AM
Your house unlocking would be immediate... there is a difference when you are spending coins vs communicating with something using encryption.
Well there are a few techniques to this. With checklocktimeverify, there is a whole bunch of new types of spending we can do. For example, we can spend so coins convert to a different address later, we can lock coins for months at a time. A 2 of 2 multisig account can convert to a 3 of 3 or (really anything)... its all about how you want to program the device.
With that said, most devices will need their own key and will sign on its own behalf. This would be used for more than just spending money. Since you get a secure connection to the device, it can hold coins, it can perform contracts with you etc. Thus, using double deposit we can create a set of rules and protocols interacting with the device. One example is a hardware staking wallet with multisig. At Blackcoin they are working on this. Their lead dev rat4 already coded in multisignature staking. It was lovely. So that just needs to be applied in the context of a device. This is just ONE example. Losing your hardware need NOT lose your coins even in a 2 of 2 multisig since we can lock the coins to convert back to the users key at a later date.
I think you are referring to Peter Todd's CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY implementation. Peter is contracted right now to ViaCoin, in this case they are working on the same stuff as you do. I thought the main issue with the CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY for IoT application is the timing, but I could be wrong. I understand with CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY no need to wait for the 10 minutes confirmation time before agreeing on an escrow for example, but I would think for IoT is still not feasible as it will still take 20 seconds or so to complete a contract.
Thanks for your reply, it's great!
This all depends on what you are negotiating. And it may actually require waiting for confirmations. In BlackHalo, i make the client go to escrow after only a few confirmations. Its a series of 3 or 4 transactions and its outline how its done in my whitepaper that comes with the program or found at Bithalo.org
I am still with altcoinUK on this one. I do not want to wait 50ms for my doors to unlock (to quote IBM example on IoT), much less 10 seconds. As I gather, 10 Seconds is blazing fast when it comes to crypto. Also, why would I want a trustless system with my house. What purpose would it have? I only need for my house lock to trust me and vice versa, why would I need a blockchain for that?
IMO this whole concept needs some thinking, not just get-on-blockchain-fadtrain. I can envisage some uses for blockchain based IoT, but having crooks datamining the blockchain to plot a pattern when I am at home and not isn't something I'd really like.
So could you answer please one of the most important questions for the IoT feature: how the software works terms of real time hardware control. So far none of the IoT coins (BitBay, TileCoin, GadgetCoin) answered this question and I hope you have the answer.
Let see a very simple and basic IoT sample, you have a light switch controlled by an Internet of Things Zigbee switch sensor, how do you turn on/off the light, do you wait 60 seconds until the transaction is included in the blockchain or do you have a workaround to complete the smart contract quicker to execute the hardware control?
I am very interested in your coin :-)) it is a great project and I am sure you have managed to make it work and it would be great to know how the solution works before making a decision about investing in the coin.
Let see a very simple and basic IoT sample, you have a light switch controlled by an Internet of Things Zigbee switch sensor, how do you turn on/off the light, do you wait 60 seconds until the transaction is included in the blockchain or do you have a workaround to complete the smart contract quicker to execute the hardware control?
I am very interested in your coin :-)) it is a great project and I am sure you have managed to make it work and it would be great to know how the solution works before making a decision about investing in the coin.
Well there are a few techniques to this. With checklocktimeverify, there is a whole bunch of new types of spending we can do. For example, we can spend so coins convert to a different address later, we can lock coins for months at a time. A 2 of 2 multisig account can convert to a 3 of 3 or (really anything)... its all about how you want to program the device.
With that said, most devices will need their own key and will sign on its own behalf. This would be used for more than just spending money. Since you get a secure connection to the device, it can hold coins, it can perform contracts with you etc. Thus, using double deposit we can create a set of rules and protocols interacting with the device. One example is a hardware staking wallet with multisig. At Blackcoin they are working on this. Their lead dev rat4 already coded in multisignature staking. It was lovely. So that just needs to be applied in the context of a device. This is just ONE example. Losing your hardware need NOT lose your coins even in a 2 of 2 multisig since we can lock the coins to convert back to the users key at a later date.
I think you are referring to Peter Todd's CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY implementation. Peter is contracted right now to ViaCoin, in this case they are working on the same stuff as you do. I thought the main issue with the CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY for IoT application is the timing, but I could be wrong. I understand with CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY no need to wait for the 10 minutes confirmation time before agreeing on an escrow for example, but I would think for IoT is still not feasible as it will still take 20 seconds or so to complete a contract.
Thanks for your reply, it's great!
This all depends on what you are negotiating. And it may actually require waiting for confirmations. In BlackHalo, i make the client go to escrow after only a few confirmations. Its a series of 3 or 4 transactions and its outline how its done in my whitepaper that comes with the program or found at Bithalo.org
I am still with altcoinUK on this one. I do not want to wait 50ms for my doors to unlock (to quote IBM example on IoT), much less 10 seconds. As I gather, 10 Seconds is blazing fast when it comes to crypto. Also, why would I want a trustless system with my house. What purpose would it have? I only need for my house lock to trust me and vice versa, why would I need a blockchain for that?
IMO this whole concept needs some thinking, not just get-on-blockchain-fadtrain. I can envisage some uses for blockchain based IoT, but having crooks datamining the blockchain to plot a pattern when I am at home and not isn't something I'd really like.
Yes there is a difference. Maybe its my noobishness so bear with me, how can I communicate via the blockchain if I do not spend coins? As I understand it, I have to pay a fee for using the blockchain. If I spend coins then the communication is a transaction which needs to be recorded on the blockchain and is subject to confirmation wait-time.
Am I missing something painfully obvious? Did I miss the point of the blockchain completely?
Technically speaking the only time you would have to involve the blockchain would be when registering a new device (as I see it at least). Once the keys are 'registered' to you it's simply a matter of checking 'possession' of said keys.
So the lock in the example would just read the blockchain and check whether I am registered to open the doors?
Then it would be a hybrid sort of solution, which avoids the blockchain where possible. Right?
I'm guessing the lock would not take part in securing the blockchain and would be a "lite node" or sth?
Sorry for the OT
Yeah this is correct. And please look at my notes about multisignature and timelocks in the outputs. When you use that, the need to consult the blockchain becomes much less frequent if ever.
November 12, 2014, 11:05:35 AM
Technically speaking the only time you would have to involve the blockchain would be when registering a new device (as I see it at least). Once the keys are 'registered' to you it's simply a matter of checking 'possession' of said keys.
So the lock in the example would just read the blockchain and check whether I am registered to open the doors?
Then it would be a hybrid sort of solution, which avoids the blockchain where possible. Right?
I'm guessing the lock would not take part in securing the blockchain and would be a "lite node" or sth?
Sorry for the OT
That's how I've always envisioned it at least. In order to register your device (say your fridge and door lock) you would need to create key-pairs registered to yourself. Once created these keys are used for communication and don't change - therefore don't need to update the blockchain. This process would take a block, but would only be performed once per owner - or if you got paranoid and just wanted to re-gen new keys because you feared they were exposed somehow (hacked). The rest of the time encryption would simply occur normally.
Think of it like it is with SSL on a website. Getting the initial keys/identity confirmation takes awhile... but the resulting connections to the server occur as fast as the hardware can handle the encrypt/decrypt process. When the identity changes it again requires the longer process, but afterward trust allows for near-instantaneous connections again.
November 12, 2014, 11:04:00 AM
Smart contracts take transactions to confirm but you wait for a couple confirmations. Try one in Halo and you will see what I mean. My contracts were done in May so I had a significant lean on Etherium anyways. But yeah I don't hold the funds thats cause for concern but I do know the parties involved and it would be irrational for them to walk and highly destructive to their reputations because some of them are fairly well known.
As for 60 second block times or zero confirmation transactions. That I can do thats all part of multisig when you have a device that holds a second signature it knows you can't sign for another transaction so it can send at any time and perform its actions asynchronously. Thats the beauty of multisig and hardware. IoT is a buzzword and IMO is not as complex as everyone is making it out to be for a majority of its every day applications.
is a good argument
November 12, 2014, 11:03:13 AM
we are in a sustained process of ramping up the staff according to the project requirements with both coding teams and project managers in several different countries. It's a substantial investment that is being made here, and it is not a charitable one.
Hi, has David for example received any payment from you yet? Has any manager or coder received any money yet?
Yeah I got a deposit. If there wasnt a deposit I would not talk. Let me talk a little bit with the guys and see if/when they would like to be public. This seems to be a concern (I don't blame you guys). However one one hand for me at least, there is about 4 others and if this funds, it would trivial to pay me the rest of my fee. They would not really want to abandon this project simply because they have a stake in seeing it succeed and we are going to attempt to peg it to a major currency such as dollar or RMB.
It is a little nerve wrecking at times but I just try to keep calm and code my markets.
November 12, 2014, 10:56:24 AM
Your house unlocking would be immediate... there is a difference when you are spending coins vs communicating with something using encryption.
Well there are a few techniques to this. With checklocktimeverify, there is a whole bunch of new types of spending we can do. For example, we can spend so coins convert to a different address later, we can lock coins for months at a time. A 2 of 2 multisig account can convert to a 3 of 3 or (really anything)... its all about how you want to program the device.
With that said, most devices will need their own key and will sign on its own behalf. This would be used for more than just spending money. Since you get a secure connection to the device, it can hold coins, it can perform contracts with you etc. Thus, using double deposit we can create a set of rules and protocols interacting with the device. One example is a hardware staking wallet with multisig. At Blackcoin they are working on this. Their lead dev rat4 already coded in multisignature staking. It was lovely. So that just needs to be applied in the context of a device. This is just ONE example. Losing your hardware need NOT lose your coins even in a 2 of 2 multisig since we can lock the coins to convert back to the users key at a later date.
I think you are referring to Peter Todd's CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY implementation. Peter is contracted right now to ViaCoin, in this case they are working on the same stuff as you do. I thought the main issue with the CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY for IoT application is the timing, but I could be wrong. I understand with CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY no need to wait for the 10 minutes confirmation time before agreeing on an escrow for example, but I would think for IoT is still not feasible as it will still take 20 seconds or so to complete a contract.
Thanks for your reply, it's great!
This all depends on what you are negotiating. And it may actually require waiting for confirmations. In BlackHalo, i make the client go to escrow after only a few confirmations. Its a series of 3 or 4 transactions and its outline how its done in my whitepaper that comes with the program or found at Bithalo.org
I am still with altcoinUK on this one. I do not want to wait 50ms for my doors to unlock (to quote IBM example on IoT), much less 10 seconds. As I gather, 10 Seconds is blazing fast when it comes to crypto. Also, why would I want a trustless system with my house. What purpose would it have? I only need for my house lock to trust me and vice versa, why would I need a blockchain for that?
IMO this whole concept needs some thinking, not just get-on-blockchain-fadtrain. I can envisage some uses for blockchain based IoT, but having crooks datamining the blockchain to plot a pattern when I am at home and not isn't something I'd really like.
So could you answer please one of the most important questions for the IoT feature: how the software works terms of real time hardware control. So far none of the IoT coins (BitBay, TileCoin, GadgetCoin) answered this question and I hope you have the answer.
Let see a very simple and basic IoT sample, you have a light switch controlled by an Internet of Things Zigbee switch sensor, how do you turn on/off the light, do you wait 60 seconds until the transaction is included in the blockchain or do you have a workaround to complete the smart contract quicker to execute the hardware control?
I am very interested in your coin :-)) it is a great project and I am sure you have managed to make it work and it would be great to know how the solution works before making a decision about investing in the coin.
Let see a very simple and basic IoT sample, you have a light switch controlled by an Internet of Things Zigbee switch sensor, how do you turn on/off the light, do you wait 60 seconds until the transaction is included in the blockchain or do you have a workaround to complete the smart contract quicker to execute the hardware control?
I am very interested in your coin :-)) it is a great project and I am sure you have managed to make it work and it would be great to know how the solution works before making a decision about investing in the coin.
Well there are a few techniques to this. With checklocktimeverify, there is a whole bunch of new types of spending we can do. For example, we can spend so coins convert to a different address later, we can lock coins for months at a time. A 2 of 2 multisig account can convert to a 3 of 3 or (really anything)... its all about how you want to program the device.
With that said, most devices will need their own key and will sign on its own behalf. This would be used for more than just spending money. Since you get a secure connection to the device, it can hold coins, it can perform contracts with you etc. Thus, using double deposit we can create a set of rules and protocols interacting with the device. One example is a hardware staking wallet with multisig. At Blackcoin they are working on this. Their lead dev rat4 already coded in multisignature staking. It was lovely. So that just needs to be applied in the context of a device. This is just ONE example. Losing your hardware need NOT lose your coins even in a 2 of 2 multisig since we can lock the coins to convert back to the users key at a later date.
I think you are referring to Peter Todd's CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY implementation. Peter is contracted right now to ViaCoin, in this case they are working on the same stuff as you do. I thought the main issue with the CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY for IoT application is the timing, but I could be wrong. I understand with CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY no need to wait for the 10 minutes confirmation time before agreeing on an escrow for example, but I would think for IoT is still not feasible as it will still take 20 seconds or so to complete a contract.
Thanks for your reply, it's great!
This all depends on what you are negotiating. And it may actually require waiting for confirmations. In BlackHalo, i make the client go to escrow after only a few confirmations. Its a series of 3 or 4 transactions and its outline how its done in my whitepaper that comes with the program or found at Bithalo.org
I am still with altcoinUK on this one. I do not want to wait 50ms for my doors to unlock (to quote IBM example on IoT), much less 10 seconds. As I gather, 10 Seconds is blazing fast when it comes to crypto. Also, why would I want a trustless system with my house. What purpose would it have? I only need for my house lock to trust me and vice versa, why would I need a blockchain for that?
IMO this whole concept needs some thinking, not just get-on-blockchain-fadtrain. I can envisage some uses for blockchain based IoT, but having crooks datamining the blockchain to plot a pattern when I am at home and not isn't something I'd really like.
Yes there is a difference. Maybe its my noobishness so bear with me, how can I communicate via the blockchain if I do not spend coins? As I understand it, I have to pay a fee for using the blockchain. If I spend coins then the communication is a transaction which needs to be recorded on the blockchain and is subject to confirmation wait-time.
Am I missing something painfully obvious? Did I miss the point of the blockchain completely?
Technically speaking the only time you would have to involve the blockchain would be when registering a new device (as I see it at least). Once the keys are 'registered' to you it's simply a matter of checking 'possession' of said keys.
So the lock in the example would just read the blockchain and check whether I am registered to open the doors?
Then it would be a hybrid sort of solution, which avoids the blockchain where possible. Right?
I'm guessing the lock would not take part in securing the blockchain and would be a "lite node" or sth?
Sorry for the OT
November 12, 2014, 10:54:37 AM
I guess the other point of contention with many being the size of the ICO, but there is some misinformation on that point.
3000BTC would have been the maximum ICO amount, and 1B the maximum mintage. It's not going to be that much due to the tiered levels, coupled with the fact that the majority of the huge buys (so far at least) occurred during the first hour.
My guess is that the ICO will net around 1400BTC at an average price of 270 sat and will sell 500M-600M BAY in the process.
I hope it's more than that, but I think that's fairly realistic based on current trends. Although that will not provide as much investment capital as would be required for an extended venture, it should allow for enough capital to hire additional talent, provide reasonable start-up infrastructure, and (likely) a decent little 'pop' once the coins hit the open markets and the marketplace is operational. At that point in time, hopefully, the operation itself with be generating sufficient revenue to expand - just not quite as quickly as would have been the case if everything sold out completely.
The reality is that although 1000BTC+ for a scam would be a huge haul... with the buzz and existing technology available currently to this venture... it would easily be worth 10-100X as much if it's just run honestly!
And that's assuming that nothing ever comes from the IoT aspect at all... simply having a well marketed and user-friendly crypto marketplace for buying mass produced goods from China as well as privately listed goods from all over could easily turn into a $10M/per month operation in 3-6 months.
3000BTC would have been the maximum ICO amount, and 1B the maximum mintage. It's not going to be that much due to the tiered levels, coupled with the fact that the majority of the huge buys (so far at least) occurred during the first hour.
My guess is that the ICO will net around 1400BTC at an average price of 270 sat and will sell 500M-600M BAY in the process.
I hope it's more than that, but I think that's fairly realistic based on current trends. Although that will not provide as much investment capital as would be required for an extended venture, it should allow for enough capital to hire additional talent, provide reasonable start-up infrastructure, and (likely) a decent little 'pop' once the coins hit the open markets and the marketplace is operational. At that point in time, hopefully, the operation itself with be generating sufficient revenue to expand - just not quite as quickly as would have been the case if everything sold out completely.
The reality is that although 1000BTC+ for a scam would be a huge haul... with the buzz and existing technology available currently to this venture... it would easily be worth 10-100X as much if it's just run honestly!
And that's assuming that nothing ever comes from the IoT aspect at all... simply having a well marketed and user-friendly crypto marketplace for buying mass produced goods from China as well as privately listed goods from all over could easily turn into a $10M/per month operation in 3-6 months.
Very well written.
November 12, 2014, 10:51:35 AM
I think, I also decided not to invest - except if the DEV answer my questions about real time hardware control and outlines how that will be possible at all with the Blackhalo solution?
I am mainly interested in the IoT offering, but it seems to me the IoT concept does not even exists on conceptual level. If there is not even conceptual solution, I can't see how this project will release a working, blockchain enabled, peer to peer Internet of Things software that controls hardware in real time.
I am mainly interested in the IoT offering, but it seems to me the IoT concept does not even exists on conceptual level. If there is not even conceptual solution, I can't see how this project will release a working, blockchain enabled, peer to peer Internet of Things software that controls hardware in real time.
I believe I already answered this, im not able to monitor this thread constantly because I'm usually working. But yeah you can do zero confirmations with multisig because your device or you hold the raw transaction. It depends on the application/hardware. Best that you give me some example or use case and I can explain to you how I would approach it.
This isnt dissimilar from NightTrader multisig engine which I have made. I just dont have any front end for it. Controlling hardware in real time is fairly easy when you know multiple signatures are involved. Add this to checklocktimeverify and you can have outputs convert to different things based on blocks. Handling raw transactions where you hold the other signature can leave you secure with the fact that you can do zero confirmations.
November 12, 2014, 10:49:31 AM
Your house unlocking would be immediate... there is a difference when you are spending coins vs communicating with something using encryption.
Well there are a few techniques to this. With checklocktimeverify, there is a whole bunch of new types of spending we can do. For example, we can spend so coins convert to a different address later, we can lock coins for months at a time. A 2 of 2 multisig account can convert to a 3 of 3 or (really anything)... its all about how you want to program the device.
With that said, most devices will need their own key and will sign on its own behalf. This would be used for more than just spending money. Since you get a secure connection to the device, it can hold coins, it can perform contracts with you etc. Thus, using double deposit we can create a set of rules and protocols interacting with the device. One example is a hardware staking wallet with multisig. At Blackcoin they are working on this. Their lead dev rat4 already coded in multisignature staking. It was lovely. So that just needs to be applied in the context of a device. This is just ONE example. Losing your hardware need NOT lose your coins even in a 2 of 2 multisig since we can lock the coins to convert back to the users key at a later date.
I think you are referring to Peter Todd's CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY implementation. Peter is contracted right now to ViaCoin, in this case they are working on the same stuff as you do. I thought the main issue with the CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY for IoT application is the timing, but I could be wrong. I understand with CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY no need to wait for the 10 minutes confirmation time before agreeing on an escrow for example, but I would think for IoT is still not feasible as it will still take 20 seconds or so to complete a contract.
Thanks for your reply, it's great!
This all depends on what you are negotiating. And it may actually require waiting for confirmations. In BlackHalo, i make the client go to escrow after only a few confirmations. Its a series of 3 or 4 transactions and its outline how its done in my whitepaper that comes with the program or found at Bithalo.org
I am still with altcoinUK on this one. I do not want to wait 50ms for my doors to unlock (to quote IBM example on IoT), much less 10 seconds. As I gather, 10 Seconds is blazing fast when it comes to crypto. Also, why would I want a trustless system with my house. What purpose would it have? I only need for my house lock to trust me and vice versa, why would I need a blockchain for that?
IMO this whole concept needs some thinking, not just get-on-blockchain-fadtrain. I can envisage some uses for blockchain based IoT, but having crooks datamining the blockchain to plot a pattern when I am at home and not isn't something I'd really like.
So could you answer please one of the most important questions for the IoT feature: how the software works terms of real time hardware control. So far none of the IoT coins (BitBay, TileCoin, GadgetCoin) answered this question and I hope you have the answer.
Let see a very simple and basic IoT sample, you have a light switch controlled by an Internet of Things Zigbee switch sensor, how do you turn on/off the light, do you wait 60 seconds until the transaction is included in the blockchain or do you have a workaround to complete the smart contract quicker to execute the hardware control?
I am very interested in your coin :-)) it is a great project and I am sure you have managed to make it work and it would be great to know how the solution works before making a decision about investing in the coin.
Let see a very simple and basic IoT sample, you have a light switch controlled by an Internet of Things Zigbee switch sensor, how do you turn on/off the light, do you wait 60 seconds until the transaction is included in the blockchain or do you have a workaround to complete the smart contract quicker to execute the hardware control?
I am very interested in your coin :-)) it is a great project and I am sure you have managed to make it work and it would be great to know how the solution works before making a decision about investing in the coin.
Well there are a few techniques to this. With checklocktimeverify, there is a whole bunch of new types of spending we can do. For example, we can spend so coins convert to a different address later, we can lock coins for months at a time. A 2 of 2 multisig account can convert to a 3 of 3 or (really anything)... its all about how you want to program the device.
With that said, most devices will need their own key and will sign on its own behalf. This would be used for more than just spending money. Since you get a secure connection to the device, it can hold coins, it can perform contracts with you etc. Thus, using double deposit we can create a set of rules and protocols interacting with the device. One example is a hardware staking wallet with multisig. At Blackcoin they are working on this. Their lead dev rat4 already coded in multisignature staking. It was lovely. So that just needs to be applied in the context of a device. This is just ONE example. Losing your hardware need NOT lose your coins even in a 2 of 2 multisig since we can lock the coins to convert back to the users key at a later date.
I think you are referring to Peter Todd's CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY implementation. Peter is contracted right now to ViaCoin, in this case they are working on the same stuff as you do. I thought the main issue with the CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY for IoT application is the timing, but I could be wrong. I understand with CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY no need to wait for the 10 minutes confirmation time before agreeing on an escrow for example, but I would think for IoT is still not feasible as it will still take 20 seconds or so to complete a contract.
Thanks for your reply, it's great!
This all depends on what you are negotiating. And it may actually require waiting for confirmations. In BlackHalo, i make the client go to escrow after only a few confirmations. Its a series of 3 or 4 transactions and its outline how its done in my whitepaper that comes with the program or found at Bithalo.org
I am still with altcoinUK on this one. I do not want to wait 50ms for my doors to unlock (to quote IBM example on IoT), much less 10 seconds. As I gather, 10 Seconds is blazing fast when it comes to crypto. Also, why would I want a trustless system with my house. What purpose would it have? I only need for my house lock to trust me and vice versa, why would I need a blockchain for that?
IMO this whole concept needs some thinking, not just get-on-blockchain-fadtrain. I can envisage some uses for blockchain based IoT, but having crooks datamining the blockchain to plot a pattern when I am at home and not isn't something I'd really like.
Yes there is a difference. Maybe its my noobishness so bear with me, how can I communicate via the blockchain if I do not spend coins? As I understand it, I have to pay a fee for using the blockchain. If I spend coins then the communication is a transaction which needs to be recorded on the blockchain and is subject to confirmation wait-time.
Am I missing something painfully obvious? Did I miss the point of the blockchain completely?
Technically speaking the only time you would have to involve the blockchain would be when registering a new device (as I see it at least). Once the keys are 'registered' to you it's simply a matter of checking 'possession' of said keys.
November 12, 2014, 10:48:16 AM
I guess the other point of contention with many being the size of the ICO, but there is some misinformation on that point.
3000BTC would have been the maximum ICO amount, and 1B the maximum mintage. It's not going to be that much due to the tiered levels, coupled with the fact that the majority of the huge buys (so far at least) occurred during the first hour.
My guess is that the ICO will net around 1400BTC at an average price of 270 sat and will sell 500M-600M BAY in the process.
I hope it's more than that, but I think that's fairly realistic based on current trends. Although that will not provide as much investment capital as would be required for an extended venture, it should allow for enough capital to hire additional talent, provide reasonable start-up infrastructure, and (likely) a decent little 'pop' once the coins hit the open markets and the marketplace is operational. At that point in time, hopefully, the operation itself with be generating sufficient revenue to expand - just not quite as quickly as would have been the case if everything sold out completely.
The reality is that although 1000BTC+ for a scam would be a huge haul... with the buzz and existing technology available currently to this venture... it would easily be worth 10-100X as much if it's just run honestly!
And that's assuming that nothing ever comes from the IoT aspect at all... simply having a well marketed and user-friendly crypto marketplace for buying mass produced goods from China as well as privately listed goods from all over could easily turn into a $10M/per month operation in 3-6 months.
3000BTC would have been the maximum ICO amount, and 1B the maximum mintage. It's not going to be that much due to the tiered levels, coupled with the fact that the majority of the huge buys (so far at least) occurred during the first hour.
My guess is that the ICO will net around 1400BTC at an average price of 270 sat and will sell 500M-600M BAY in the process.
I hope it's more than that, but I think that's fairly realistic based on current trends. Although that will not provide as much investment capital as would be required for an extended venture, it should allow for enough capital to hire additional talent, provide reasonable start-up infrastructure, and (likely) a decent little 'pop' once the coins hit the open markets and the marketplace is operational. At that point in time, hopefully, the operation itself with be generating sufficient revenue to expand - just not quite as quickly as would have been the case if everything sold out completely.
The reality is that although 1000BTC+ for a scam would be a huge haul... with the buzz and existing technology available currently to this venture... it would easily be worth 10-100X as much if it's just run honestly!
And that's assuming that nothing ever comes from the IoT aspect at all... simply having a well marketed and user-friendly crypto marketplace for buying mass produced goods from China as well as privately listed goods from all over could easily turn into a $10M/per month operation in 3-6 months.
November 12, 2014, 10:45:52 AM
Your house unlocking would be immediate... there is a difference when you are spending coins vs communicating with something using encryption.
Well there are a few techniques to this. With checklocktimeverify, there is a whole bunch of new types of spending we can do. For example, we can spend so coins convert to a different address later, we can lock coins for months at a time. A 2 of 2 multisig account can convert to a 3 of 3 or (really anything)... its all about how you want to program the device.
With that said, most devices will need their own key and will sign on its own behalf. This would be used for more than just spending money. Since you get a secure connection to the device, it can hold coins, it can perform contracts with you etc. Thus, using double deposit we can create a set of rules and protocols interacting with the device. One example is a hardware staking wallet with multisig. At Blackcoin they are working on this. Their lead dev rat4 already coded in multisignature staking. It was lovely. So that just needs to be applied in the context of a device. This is just ONE example. Losing your hardware need NOT lose your coins even in a 2 of 2 multisig since we can lock the coins to convert back to the users key at a later date.
I think you are referring to Peter Todd's CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY implementation. Peter is contracted right now to ViaCoin, in this case they are working on the same stuff as you do. I thought the main issue with the CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY for IoT application is the timing, but I could be wrong. I understand with CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY no need to wait for the 10 minutes confirmation time before agreeing on an escrow for example, but I would think for IoT is still not feasible as it will still take 20 seconds or so to complete a contract.
Thanks for your reply, it's great!
This all depends on what you are negotiating. And it may actually require waiting for confirmations. In BlackHalo, i make the client go to escrow after only a few confirmations. Its a series of 3 or 4 transactions and its outline how its done in my whitepaper that comes with the program or found at Bithalo.org
I am still with altcoinUK on this one. I do not want to wait 50ms for my doors to unlock (to quote IBM example on IoT), much less 10 seconds. As I gather, 10 Seconds is blazing fast when it comes to crypto. Also, why would I want a trustless system with my house. What purpose would it have? I only need for my house lock to trust me and vice versa, why would I need a blockchain for that?
IMO this whole concept needs some thinking, not just get-on-blockchain-fadtrain. I can envisage some uses for blockchain based IoT, but having crooks datamining the blockchain to plot a pattern when I am at home and not isn't something I'd really like.
So could you answer please one of the most important questions for the IoT feature: how the software works terms of real time hardware control. So far none of the IoT coins (BitBay, TileCoin, GadgetCoin) answered this question and I hope you have the answer.
Let see a very simple and basic IoT sample, you have a light switch controlled by an Internet of Things Zigbee switch sensor, how do you turn on/off the light, do you wait 60 seconds until the transaction is included in the blockchain or do you have a workaround to complete the smart contract quicker to execute the hardware control?
I am very interested in your coin :-)) it is a great project and I am sure you have managed to make it work and it would be great to know how the solution works before making a decision about investing in the coin.
Let see a very simple and basic IoT sample, you have a light switch controlled by an Internet of Things Zigbee switch sensor, how do you turn on/off the light, do you wait 60 seconds until the transaction is included in the blockchain or do you have a workaround to complete the smart contract quicker to execute the hardware control?
I am very interested in your coin :-)) it is a great project and I am sure you have managed to make it work and it would be great to know how the solution works before making a decision about investing in the coin.
Well there are a few techniques to this. With checklocktimeverify, there is a whole bunch of new types of spending we can do. For example, we can spend so coins convert to a different address later, we can lock coins for months at a time. A 2 of 2 multisig account can convert to a 3 of 3 or (really anything)... its all about how you want to program the device.
With that said, most devices will need their own key and will sign on its own behalf. This would be used for more than just spending money. Since you get a secure connection to the device, it can hold coins, it can perform contracts with you etc. Thus, using double deposit we can create a set of rules and protocols interacting with the device. One example is a hardware staking wallet with multisig. At Blackcoin they are working on this. Their lead dev rat4 already coded in multisignature staking. It was lovely. So that just needs to be applied in the context of a device. This is just ONE example. Losing your hardware need NOT lose your coins even in a 2 of 2 multisig since we can lock the coins to convert back to the users key at a later date.
I think you are referring to Peter Todd's CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY implementation. Peter is contracted right now to ViaCoin, in this case they are working on the same stuff as you do. I thought the main issue with the CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY for IoT application is the timing, but I could be wrong. I understand with CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY no need to wait for the 10 minutes confirmation time before agreeing on an escrow for example, but I would think for IoT is still not feasible as it will still take 20 seconds or so to complete a contract.
Thanks for your reply, it's great!
This all depends on what you are negotiating. And it may actually require waiting for confirmations. In BlackHalo, i make the client go to escrow after only a few confirmations. Its a series of 3 or 4 transactions and its outline how its done in my whitepaper that comes with the program or found at Bithalo.org
I am still with altcoinUK on this one. I do not want to wait 50ms for my doors to unlock (to quote IBM example on IoT), much less 10 seconds. As I gather, 10 Seconds is blazing fast when it comes to crypto. Also, why would I want a trustless system with my house. What purpose would it have? I only need for my house lock to trust me and vice versa, why would I need a blockchain for that?
IMO this whole concept needs some thinking, not just get-on-blockchain-fadtrain. I can envisage some uses for blockchain based IoT, but having crooks datamining the blockchain to plot a pattern when I am at home and not isn't something I'd really like.
Yes there is a difference. Maybe its my noobishness so bear with me, how can I communicate via the blockchain if I do not spend coins? As I understand it, I have to pay a fee for using the blockchain. If I spend coins then the communication is a transaction which needs to be recorded on the blockchain and is subject to confirmation wait-time.
Am I missing something painfully obvious? Did I miss the point of the blockchain completely?
November 12, 2014, 10:44:22 AM
after ico end,..just stay up to date with ongoing project
to avoid investor panic
I will buy some after the ICO end,to avoid investor panic
it should be some cheap coins.
November 12, 2014, 10:41:41 AM
Okay so we know that David Zimbeck has been contracted as the lead Dev but what about other members of the team?
David Zimbeck has an excellent reputation which was enough for me.
As for other team members I don't know but David is the head guy
and I seriously doubt he would get involved in anything that wasn't
genuine.
But David is just hired for doing things. He isn´t the one holding the 3k BTC.
That´s dangerous.
Devs are not holding coins. They can stop right after the ico
Most of the features will not fit in reality with 60 sec blocktime.
They are promising unlimited features developed by anonymous devs over night where Ethereum is working since months and are still not ready to launch. And sorry Ethereum has got one of the best teams in the whole cryptospace.
I decided for myself not to invest. Too may points are pointing in the wrong direction ans turning my alarm bells on.
Be careful guys.
Smart contracts take transactions to confirm but you wait for a couple confirmations. Try one in Halo and you will see what I mean. My contracts were done in May so I had a significant lean on Etherium anyways. But yeah I don't hold the funds thats cause for concern but I do know the parties involved and it would be irrational for them to walk and highly destructive to their reputations because some of them are fairly well known.
As for 60 second block times or zero confirmation transactions. That I can do thats all part of multisig when you have a device that holds a second signature it knows you can't sign for another transaction so it can send at any time and perform its actions asynchronously. Thats the beauty of multisig and hardware. IoT is a buzzword and IMO is not as complex as everyone is making it out to be for a majority of its every day applications.
November 12, 2014, 10:38:30 AM
Some mixing of apples and oranges here perhaps. As David posted earlier, the mechanisms for IoT will have a much different trust requirement & execution than for example a marketplace sale, which again will be different from a smart contract fulfillment. The tech he has outlined recognizes these different scenarios.
It seems to me you are the one who is mixing here something.
Of course the DEV recognizes the difference and needs in IoT related implementations ... no shit ... it is a very different ball game ... the issue is that Dave (though he is a hard working, very knowledgeable and honest guy) doesn't have a feasible IoT design, not even at conceptual level - at least he couldn't answer my simple question about turning ON/OFF an IoT enabled light switch in the context of a blockchain enabled application. He doesn't know how real time hardware control works, as simple as that. And nothing wrong with that, IoT and hardware control applications that expose a user interface are complex software, but in this case they shouldn't collect the money by using the buzz word of Internet of Things, because it is completely misleading.
Well I am a little mystified here. You are calling out both the Tilecoin Dev and David, so I am not sure if any answer is going to work for you. I thought David's answer (which focused on your main concern, confirmation / trust, and not hardware) was pretty intelligible.
In any case, both the road map and the business plan make it clear that IoT is not the 1st developmental priority of BitBay, so if it is your immediate priority I would agree this is not your coin. However, it seems to me that BitBay is committing to IoT not because it is a buzzword, but because IoT will dwarf today's internet, and thus needs to be integrated in any serious new venture in this space. You may not agree with the direction they are taking, but David took the time to discuss it with you - so to then turn around and say it is 'just a buzzword' to the BitBay dev staff seems hardly justified. And clearly not true.
November 12, 2014, 10:35:10 AM
Your house unlocking would be immediate... there is a difference when you are spending coins vs communicating with something using encryption.
Well there are a few techniques to this. With checklocktimeverify, there is a whole bunch of new types of spending we can do. For example, we can spend so coins convert to a different address later, we can lock coins for months at a time. A 2 of 2 multisig account can convert to a 3 of 3 or (really anything)... its all about how you want to program the device.
With that said, most devices will need their own key and will sign on its own behalf. This would be used for more than just spending money. Since you get a secure connection to the device, it can hold coins, it can perform contracts with you etc. Thus, using double deposit we can create a set of rules and protocols interacting with the device. One example is a hardware staking wallet with multisig. At Blackcoin they are working on this. Their lead dev rat4 already coded in multisignature staking. It was lovely. So that just needs to be applied in the context of a device. This is just ONE example. Losing your hardware need NOT lose your coins even in a 2 of 2 multisig since we can lock the coins to convert back to the users key at a later date.
I think you are referring to Peter Todd's CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY implementation. Peter is contracted right now to ViaCoin, in this case they are working on the same stuff as you do. I thought the main issue with the CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY for IoT application is the timing, but I could be wrong. I understand with CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY no need to wait for the 10 minutes confirmation time before agreeing on an escrow for example, but I would think for IoT is still not feasible as it will still take 20 seconds or so to complete a contract.
Thanks for your reply, it's great!
This all depends on what you are negotiating. And it may actually require waiting for confirmations. In BlackHalo, i make the client go to escrow after only a few confirmations. Its a series of 3 or 4 transactions and its outline how its done in my whitepaper that comes with the program or found at Bithalo.org
I am still with altcoinUK on this one. I do not want to wait 50ms for my doors to unlock (to quote IBM example on IoT), much less 10 seconds. As I gather, 10 Seconds is blazing fast when it comes to crypto. Also, why would I want a trustless system with my house. What purpose would it have? I only need for my house lock to trust me and vice versa, why would I need a blockchain for that?
IMO this whole concept needs some thinking, not just get-on-blockchain-fadtrain. I can envisage some uses for blockchain based IoT, but having crooks datamining the blockchain to plot a pattern when I am at home and not isn't something I'd really like.
So could you answer please one of the most important questions for the IoT feature: how the software works terms of real time hardware control. So far none of the IoT coins (BitBay, TileCoin, GadgetCoin) answered this question and I hope you have the answer.
Let see a very simple and basic IoT sample, you have a light switch controlled by an Internet of Things Zigbee switch sensor, how do you turn on/off the light, do you wait 60 seconds until the transaction is included in the blockchain or do you have a workaround to complete the smart contract quicker to execute the hardware control?
I am very interested in your coin :-)) it is a great project and I am sure you have managed to make it work and it would be great to know how the solution works before making a decision about investing in the coin.
Let see a very simple and basic IoT sample, you have a light switch controlled by an Internet of Things Zigbee switch sensor, how do you turn on/off the light, do you wait 60 seconds until the transaction is included in the blockchain or do you have a workaround to complete the smart contract quicker to execute the hardware control?
I am very interested in your coin :-)) it is a great project and I am sure you have managed to make it work and it would be great to know how the solution works before making a decision about investing in the coin.
Well there are a few techniques to this. With checklocktimeverify, there is a whole bunch of new types of spending we can do. For example, we can spend so coins convert to a different address later, we can lock coins for months at a time. A 2 of 2 multisig account can convert to a 3 of 3 or (really anything)... its all about how you want to program the device.
With that said, most devices will need their own key and will sign on its own behalf. This would be used for more than just spending money. Since you get a secure connection to the device, it can hold coins, it can perform contracts with you etc. Thus, using double deposit we can create a set of rules and protocols interacting with the device. One example is a hardware staking wallet with multisig. At Blackcoin they are working on this. Their lead dev rat4 already coded in multisignature staking. It was lovely. So that just needs to be applied in the context of a device. This is just ONE example. Losing your hardware need NOT lose your coins even in a 2 of 2 multisig since we can lock the coins to convert back to the users key at a later date.
I think you are referring to Peter Todd's CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY implementation. Peter is contracted right now to ViaCoin, in this case they are working on the same stuff as you do. I thought the main issue with the CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY for IoT application is the timing, but I could be wrong. I understand with CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY no need to wait for the 10 minutes confirmation time before agreeing on an escrow for example, but I would think for IoT is still not feasible as it will still take 20 seconds or so to complete a contract.
Thanks for your reply, it's great!
This all depends on what you are negotiating. And it may actually require waiting for confirmations. In BlackHalo, i make the client go to escrow after only a few confirmations. Its a series of 3 or 4 transactions and its outline how its done in my whitepaper that comes with the program or found at Bithalo.org
I am still with altcoinUK on this one. I do not want to wait 50ms for my doors to unlock (to quote IBM example on IoT), much less 10 seconds. As I gather, 10 Seconds is blazing fast when it comes to crypto. Also, why would I want a trustless system with my house. What purpose would it have? I only need for my house lock to trust me and vice versa, why would I need a blockchain for that?
IMO this whole concept needs some thinking, not just get-on-blockchain-fadtrain. I can envisage some uses for blockchain based IoT, but having crooks datamining the blockchain to plot a pattern when I am at home and not isn't something I'd really like.
November 12, 2014, 10:33:58 AM
@BitBay Team
Though I am very sceptical about your IoT solution and I am quite convinced that your IoT solution will remain a vaporware, your professional and business minded approach made me rethink my decision of not investing :-)) if the rest of the software works (and I am sure the Blackhalo solution will work for decentralized market), your project could be a winner.
It is a confusing situation :-)))
Though I am very sceptical about your IoT solution and I am quite convinced that your IoT solution will remain a vaporware, your professional and business minded approach made me rethink my decision of not investing :-)) if the rest of the software works (and I am sure the Blackhalo solution will work for decentralized market), your project could be a winner.
It is a confusing situation :-)))
November 12, 2014, 10:31:10 AM
we are in a sustained process of ramping up the staff according to the project requirements with both coding teams and project managers in several different countries. It's a substantial investment that is being made here, and it is not a charitable one.
Hi, has David for example received any payment from you yet? Has any manager or coder received any money yet?
Jump to: