Topic: GadgetCoin/GadgetNet (Read 2428 times)

I wanted to defend the project and the developers, but yeah, if everybody think I am hurting the project then I will close down the thread.

better you close this thread and stop arguing. 

As usually any arrogant idiot does you think you are smart, but you can't even search the public company registers. Why don't you click on the top 14 November 2015 document, the latest Annual return of the company of the developers at

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08249041/filing-history

and then you can see that they have 115 investors. Contradict to your claim, this information was of course available before as well. When I heard from mtomcdev about Zovolt 6 months ago the previous Nov 2014 Annual Return which lists the very same number of investors was available on the companies house web site.

That's the value of your "research" and demonstrates the absolute zero value of the words that are coming out of your mouth. You can't even "research" a simple company details, but you are talking about complex technology matters and Internet of Things systems (one of the most complex use cases in information technology).

Point one: W3C membership. If you joined under the pretense the company you started, with your own money, you actually BOUGHT the membership because your loser company never sold anything, never created anything and never attracted any investors. Show that registry where other supposed investors are listed and the amounts they invested. I researched it months ago and found evidence of three attempts in which no one except another Zpardi -probably "T"- invested. The three companies have had the same address and no employees nor record of income or, if any, nemial and meaningless. LOSER. With big high capitals. This individual also has joined every local, national, regional, whatever bitcoin-related "organization",  losers all. So not wrong, perfectly right, regardless of tricks.

Point two: Producing anything and listing it in github as open source, regardless what it might be, has no PROFIT or SPECIFIC use case. I don't care if part of it or all of it or none at all is used to create the next coca-cola, ok? Nothing will ever come out of it in the way or MONEY, alright? And you said this was an attempt at making money, right? You are in all the wrong company, the company of total losers (and the idiots that support them). Experienced software engineers? Where? what have they done? Who has ever employed them -for pay- and at what level? These are very simple questions that can figure in any resume of an 18 year old, where are those credentials? LOSERS.

Point three: Refer to point one. A simple Google search will offer plenty evidence of what I have posted regarding TZapardi.

Point four: You know nothing whatsoever of what my personal or professional experiences might have been. ZERO. Nor I want to bring up my resume since I am not selling it or anything supported by it for that matter. I stated months ago, when you tried to recruit me for this project under very false pretenses of being under employment and significant monthly pay, that it wasn't viable at all. And posted some of the many reasons why. Everyone who reads this is perfectly aware now of just how exactly right I was about it EVEN THOUGH, technically, the porno video broadcasts were -and are- perfectly possible. Similarly, the ... rest? (what is it, a cheaper way to opening your garage door from the curb, of monitoring your alarm system, selling some snake oil as Viagra? What?) is just vapor, pure and simple. Vapor that, again, you try to desperately support in the only hope of being able to at some point recoup your investment at the expense of some bigger idiot, just like you pretended on twitter you partially did.

No I am not wrong and you know better than most that I haven't been wrong yet -not any major accomplishment, just basic use of common sense-, in this or other projects (and there are a substantive number of them I have debunked publicly). you just don't have any skin in the game anymore in any of them and still do in this one.

But I will let you and the other idiots enjoy your pretension and your fantasy of riches and let the time and the common sense bring you the reality, again, and the realization that I was in fact right from the very beginning, since further discussion, based on blatant dishonesty, is pointless. You are selling snake oil, vapor, nothing else. And so is Tzapardi and the other "developers". Once again, NOTHING will ever come out of it. ZERO. You just need a bit more time to start admitting it since you realized that is the reality quite a bit of time ago already.
 

First barabbas pointed out that our developers are losers, because according to barabbas anybody can be a member at W3C. I pointed out that as usual he is talking bollocks and there is a difference between paid group membership and W3C membership. Our developers are not paid, but professional W3C members. As usual, barabbas was wrong again - of course without he would acknowledge that he was talking rubbish.

Then, barabbas' new theory was the Gadgetnet developers are losers because they never produced any useful material. I pointed out that as usual he is talking nonsense and the work of the Gadgetnet developers is fully integrated into the W3C code base and it is used by the world largest companies who are active participants of the W3C standardization initiative. That's fine and as it is expected as our developers are experienced software engineers. As usual, barabbas was wrong, as usual the facts don't bother him.

Then barabbas moved on - of course without acknowledging that was talking rubbish again -, barabbas' new claim was that our developers are in fact losers as they "didn't attract ONE SINGLE INVESTOR". I pointed out that in his third claim he is talking bollocks again, and according to the public company register our developers indeed did attract 110 investors (as I can see in the publicly available list many of them well known and serious people like Sir Richard Needham and others are well known venture capitalist partners). Therefore barabbas was wrong again.

Then, following that he was proven wrong on all above subjects, barabbas, - the person who never ever worked a minute in software development nor made any money from a software development project - lectures this community, the investors and the developers about innovation, technology and which software is a viable proposition. Note, not his academic background (which is zero in the field) nor his work experience (which is also zero in the field) nor his investment experience in the technology field (which is zero as well) qualifies him to lecture software engineers who make living from developing software.

You are correct albert_mt, there is no point to debate with him any more.

As usual UK you are lost in hyperbole and throw out there vague concepts as if there are some specific representations behind them. It's snake oil, ok. Let me be specific: open source = FREE. As in no money, no profit. Ever. No matter who uses it.

DECENTRALIZATION. WTF? it isn't viable. ON ANYTHING. It doesn't work. The law catches up sooner than later. And who, for legitimate purposes, needs it? Still believing broadcasting porno is viable ? Come on...

INNOVATION: tech is innovated every hour of everyday. None of it as a result of either decentralization or (yet) crypto shit. the tech is in sensors, microchips... CONTROLLED and REGULATED and PATENTED (ask Samsung ). The innovations are already progressing, every second, toward wearables, drones, self-driving cars and a myriad of other CENTRALIZED AND REGULATED AND PATENTED AND CONTROLLED and, most importantly, USEFUL and SELLABLE things.

BLOCKCHAIN: its a FREE tech. Nascent one. Bloating is in the process of being resolved and then and only then-and when it is 100% secure (pipe dream?). Sine it doesn't cost anything,  of course it has a lot of people interested. It doesn't mean anyone that comes up with solving those two problems via open source will make a single penny off of it. Clear now. Meanwhile, only a bloating ledger, useless in practical, reliable endeavors. Clear on that?

TZAPARDI and his three iterations of the projects of companies with no employees but himself and the same home address (his): I reiterate: anatomy of a loser. Put any ribbons you wish on it. Just like this absurd attempt at getting money, regardless how small, from the likes of you and other idiots. Sorry but it's gone. Puff.

he doesn't care. why don't you understand, chocobo explained to you. He lies in the face of the facts. please close this thread alcoinuk!!!!!!!! this thread and arguing with the troll actor is not helping for Gadgetnet.

Still, the world largest companies put huge amount of effort and resources into the standardization process of W3C and generally speaking into research and development to create better, safer, more optimal and usable solutions. It's called innovation. That's the very reason you can drive car instead of travelling by riding a horse, your car consumes 5 L petrol instead of 15 L on 100 km which was the case 30 yeas ago or you are using a software on your PC that is more capable and user friendly than a DOS console.




That is not true, but I understand you are not overly worried about facts - you never were if such facts don't support your agenda. His company Zovolt which helps for the Gadgetnet developers backed by 110 investors via their first round of founding. So suddenly does the large amount of investors makes tzpardi a good coder? Contradictory what you said his business has many investor, so he must be a very good coder then using your absurd logic of what makes one a good coder. The details about the 110 investors are available in the public company register. Again, you are wrong and spreading and forming opinion based on information which is not true. Probably you do it not because what users believe about you that you are just a poisonous troll, but I think you do from an incorrect opinion because you have no idea what you are talking about - like in the case of W3C - , but regardless of the origin of your incorrect information, the result is that you are wrong again.




That's quite true and the Gadgetnet developers is having a vision about the final journey: decentralized Internet of Things system. The developers explained to us what type of system and business requirements such system addresses. More importantly many large, TOP 100 tech firms subscribe to the decentralized IoT concept and many more will (just like large corporations start to subscribe to the block chain concept by realising the business benefits of block chain). I don't explain the benefits of a decentralized IoT system to you because you don't care about facts such as why scalability and high availability are important and very expensive problems in enterprise computing as well as you simply don't comprehend these technical details.




Oh dear ... I explained to you above, many open source material came already from Gadgetnet at https://github.com/w3c/web-of-things-framework and several TOP 100 tech firms find that already useful (many times more achievement what 99% of crypto projects will ever achieve, apart from Bitcoin of course because Satoshi's block chain concept is being adopted by large corporations). You really don't care about facts, do you?




Fine. I am passionate about certain technologies like Bitcoin, Skycoin, Ethereum and Gadgetnet and argue about them all over the places. Please note, Gadgetnet is not selling coins nor selling shares nor plan to do any of those in this platform, they don't even will list their coin on any exchanges. They plan to make money and create market for Gadgetcoin (thought that is not priority at all) by working with many of the TOP 100 firms. So this is not a sales thread, but it's good we discuss what the project aims to achieve and how realistic those goals are (as I stated above, the chance for a small startup to succeed is very little in the difficult field of IoT, but at least they have a more or less realistic plan).

This is NOT, contrary to what you have tried to convince yourself of,  rocket science but pure common sense: you can already set up your home or office's temperature from any internet connected device at no cost. And about another thousand "things" of the internet that have no intrinsic value but ADD value to products and services. Gadgetnet having even a minimal part in this, pluuuuhse... what are you talking about? What experience? The experience of loser "enterprises" that didn't attract ONE SINGLE INVESTOR as the case of tzapardi is? Come on...  you need to read a bit more and understand a very simple concept: anyone capable of coding is just a low pay potential employee, nothing else. I don't care if he joins "standards organizations" or a bridge) club. And a coder who has failed more than three times at starting ANY kind of business is a loser who is probably also a bad or at least mediocre coder, nothing else. But even if you get Buterin, you have to have an idea to direct him to what to code, whats the final journey. The use case that will grant payment for. None of that is in a significant way in the industry today and it is quite unlikely it will be for some time to come. And i guarantee you no useful advance of any kind, tech or otherwise, will ever come from either the losers at gadget net or the scammers at IOTA.

Case rested.

I had an email exchange with the developers. Actually they have asked me not to create an another feud with barabbas and don't quote them, but I will ignore them in this occasion. Though I am not quoting them, below is my opinion and understanding of the matters in hand.


Wrong. Your statement indicates how little you know about enterprise software development in general. W3C is the most influential technology organisation of the world. They define standards like the very HTML standard which we use when posting to each other, but many more standards as well which are essential to any businesses which develop a solution. Here is the list of standards (I guess similarly meaningless projects in your book) of this meaningles organisation at https://www.w3.org/TR/

Because of the position of W3C, the W3C IoT standard will be the dominant in the field. This organisation at http://www.iiconsortium.org/members.htm just one of the many who directly work with W3C to finalize the IoT standards. Our developers work in a professional capacity with W3C. I do not assume you know what does mean and what is the implication of that.


Wrong. What you are talking about is the group membership which can be purchased so businesses like Google and Intel are group members. The W3C membership cannot be purchased. Software professionals - based on their expertise and experience - are invited to be a W3C member. tzpardi is a member, moreover he maintains the WoT source base at W3C. He is also the main software contributor there. Again - due to lack of understanding what you are talking about - you are just absolutely wrong.



You are wrong again. The Gadgetnet developers - whom have several decades experience in enterprise software development - authored the W3C security document which is the base of the IoT software implementation within the world's most influential technology organisation. The document is at https://github.com/w3c/web-of-things-framework/blob/master/security.md. Large companies such as Intel, Siemens, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Toshiba, Alibaba, Vodafone, Canon, Google, Oracle are all active participants of the W3C WoT standardization process. While you're posting your "opinion" to this forum that the GadgetNet developers know nothing about security and Internet of Things, the world largest technology businesses create Internet of Things solutions by incorporating the security and other designs of the Gadgetnet developers.

As I said, you are reading all kind of things on the internet, but since you are not a software professional you have no idea what you are talking about.

Why are you giving this troll barabbas a platform? He has had his chance to receive replies from the devs, but he lies in the face of the facts he has already been told. Read his post. Look how much of it has been beyond addressed.

I emailed mtomcdev, tzpardi and sent a message to the third developer jgal via the private forum to ask a reply here to barabbas post or email me what they think.

I think barabbas is jumping to conclusions again based on pieces he read somewhere on the internet about IoT but without having actual working experience in this highly specialized industry, so let see what technology professionals who actually work in the field think. It is important to have a debate with sceptics like barabbas to validate and stress test ideas, so let see what the developers say.

The problem is not the total lack of business acumen of both the dev and the Tzapardi guy -in his case much worse for he has been trying for several years and has been unable to achieve absolutely anything at all-; the problem is that there's not even a VISION here. An idea. Much less a workable one. The "W3C project" is absolutely meaningless. ANYONE can be a member -they welcome anyone- and has no practical purpose in the case of Gadgetnet. None.

Ok, just like the exercise in absurdity that was the porno cameras, equally absurd is any and everything they have ever mentioned for it has been -and very few-, copies of things that are already fully available and have been used for decades in some cases, SUCCESSFULLY. Like hospital monitoring, broadcasting, etc. All of that is just idiotic hyperbole with zero possibility of ever work EVEN IF, technically, actually works for they have to deal with issues they have no idea whatsoever how to face, such as security, reliability, rules and regulations compliance, and many others. Put in simpler words, all they believe they know is that a network of computers, IF permanently connected to the internet, can be reliably used to transmit digital information (packages). Which every average 7th grader knows by now. And these two losers have the absurd pretension of making a business of it. Laughable.

But if it all wasn't absurd enough, they have concoct this idea of creating a token with which to lure the vitally needed owners of those computers connected to the internet since, without them nothing is possible... oh, wait, they cannot just trust that those guys -losers all, don't forget- can have enough computers connected, right? So they actually have to go to Amazon and pay for big servers so the connection remains reliable (although still insecure. And unregulated). There goes the neighborhood (the cheaper alternative to current true and tested -and affordable- services that have been reliably provided for many years... you follow? Chances are ZERO. NONE. At least the scammers at IOTA have an idea. They figure with time people is going to subscribe to a bunch of services online and they are willing to provide the tech that will allow the collections of those subscriptions on a daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly or yearly basis... except that neither Microsoft nor Adobe nor any other company already collecting subscription fees has any need or use for a third party provider of fees collections. Specifically, there's no need, nor ever will be, for such third party product... but, since the purpose of the scammers is not to provide any product or service with practical purpose in the end, but just to create another step in the pyramid so more idiots will continue giving them their money, as such an scheme, it not bad. Not bad at all.

As for the other 700 crypto projects, I am a bit more optimistic. First of all I don't know enough of all of them to blanket term them all as having zero possibility. I can see many uses for the blockchain that can -and should already- be practical and providing income. I can also see use cases for limited -but risky and profitable- use cases in the dark net, illegal stuff... And I definitely see a use case worldwide for a crypto currency (bitcoin, unless they mess it up ... and I'm afraid inevitably they will to some extent or other), as, well ... currency. Not token for conventional or unconventional business but as currency to purchase things and services, from betting (legally) to ordering stuff online from a very limited amount of vendors. I see as a potential use case the marijuana industry. Big and certain to become really huge in the very near future. But they don't need scammy cryptos around, they will just use Bitcoin as a preferred alternative to dollar, euro or yuan... kind of a philosophy stand. I doubt adoption is going to go lower and expect it to be significantly higher as millenials dominate more and more the demographics and new generations of libertarians join the fray. It will be a slow adoption but will grow to be a kind of dollar alternative worldwide. The other 699? Afraid not. Agree on that one (to the limited extent of my knowledge of them).    

The IoT market is an incredibly difficult field. All rational and sane individuals understand that. It's controlled by very large multinational companies and it is almost impossible to succeed for small, part time development teams like the Gadget developers. I have been telling there is little chance (10%) to succeed in this field. To be fair the developers mtomcdev and tzpardi are quite level headed and realistic regarding what they can achieve in the IoT field. They have been telling us they are simple software developers, they are not business men, they need the help of experienced business people and they need to secure a sizeable VC or angel investment in order to succeed. IMHO, if they can come up with a novel solution for a niche market segment then perhaps it is possible to succeed. It's definitely very difficult and as the industry matures it is even more and more difficult for small teams.
Still, since we are talking about experienced developers, real use cases and real software development in case of GadgetNet which participate in real projects like the W3C one, their chance is about 99% more than other crypto projects can hope (except a very few well founded projects). As you know the other 700 crypto projects chance to survive is absolutely zero. We will see. They are releasing something and we will know more about their chance in a month time.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gilpress/2016/01/27/internet-of-things-iot-predictions-from-forrester-machina-research-wef-gartner-idc/#2715e4857a0b47fd28476be6

And a total loser like the Tzapardi guy and the other children (not to mention the scammers at IOTA), are going to do anything,  anything at all, in this field? If you believe that you deserve fully what has already come to you.

the "fallicious claims" was my post based on how I understood it. the GDC devs said it seems nothing to gain from the collaboration and no point to continue the discuss it longer. I started this    IOTATOKEN DEV jumped into it  ,maybe we shouldn't !!!!!! sorrry for starting this  

You really just need to focus on the conversation you had with TZ, you are putting too much weight on what people said that weren't in the conversation. This is a fruitless fight. I wish IOTA luck and I know the Gadget devs do as well.

Last reply on this:

First of all we have been talking about this concrete collaboration for 2 weeks, not 3. Don't be so loose with facts.
Secondly the collaboration was laid out and pretty much agreed on within a few days, there was some ambiguity and several times TZP got impatient due to same reason as today, but then he would claim to understand that we don't have time to answer within the hour and we'd continue. Then we were approaching finalization in the last days, we had agreed on what each layer could do to boost each other and he wanted to know what Gadget would get in return, I replied, he wanted more details, I couldn't reply immediately, he got impatient overnight and for the 10th time 'pulled out', which I decided to just let happen, since it was clear that this pattern was going to continue.

I had no issue with it at all and wished him all the best, then I come here and see fallicious claims about the collaboration falling apart due to not being able to 'work out the details or scope', which is 100% false. Which can be proved with a simple screenshot of our conversation last night.

i don't understand. the GDC devs felt that the collaboration is not realistic and better to not discuss it any more because in 3 weeks the two parties couldn't agree anything. what they lied to you and what was the dishonesty?

I am 100% calm, but I do not appreciate dishonesty and lies after having spent hours on offering to help someone out. If you guys had been honest and disclosed the real reason, which was pure impatience, that would be the end of it. No problem. Like I have already stated: I am simply here to clear this up so that there is absolutely no ambiguity about the real reason: which is impatience. Honesty is a prerequisite for collaboration on our end.

Good luck.