Even if something is online most of the time. It would be preferable that some core functionality works even when temporarily offline.
A non IoT example is a payment terminal. If it’s online it asks you to sign with your signature and it settles later. It would be very inconvenient if it wasn’t like this, even if it’s connected 99% of the time.
That’s basically what we want. If a device is offline then one device should be able to do a peer-to-peer transfer to another device through a signed message basically.
If two parties agree to lock some safecoins in a multisig wallet signed by both of them with some safecoins, the amount to spend and maybe more as a kind of deposit. They could then go offline and send safecoins to each other through IOUs under some certain amounts.
If the two parties who wanted to transact didn’t have coins locked up between them, for this particular way to work they would need to find a route through other connected devices. None would need to be connected to the internet, but they need to be connected to each other at least.
There could certainly be cased where they wouldn’t find a route, so a question still is what to do in those cases. They could send IOUs to each other and hope the other party is honest, in some cases that could work, especially if it signed with a signature representing some real world entity and it was verifiable offline that it was. In that case it would be just like with signing when paying with a credit card and if one party doesn’t get paid they can take legal action or whatever. Maybe something like IOTA or a similar mechanism would help for this case? I’ve tried asking on IOTA forums how IOTA supposedly can prevent double spends when offline without getting any answers to this. If it does have some mechanism for this, then why not use that mechanism for just transferring safecoins in these offline cases instead of using IOTA itself? There should be other ways to do this also I would guess.
I understand the limitations but when safecoin is eventually issued it should learn from what iota and raiblocks have done and issue at least a billion safecoin to every maidsafecoin which would still be a 1 to 1 conversion but much nicer than dealing with fractions all of the time
IMO The Maidsafe suite of applications could be used as a backbone for IOT network but it is not limited to just this application.
My question to you, what services do you imagine the IoT device would be selling and buying? and why would the financial component of the transaction be limited to one specific currency?
*the thieves started moving funds from the stolen seeds to their own.
*In parallel, they orchestrated a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack against many of the publicly known and popular IOTA fullnodes. In doing so, they prevented the victims from rescuing their funds. At times, you couldn’t find a single public node, to successfully log into and move your funds before the attackers could do so.
*The attack leveraged the fact, that in these early stages many of the publicly exposed nodes are operated by community members and are not yet protected against threads, which every server publicly available on the Internet — including your average web server — faces.
To me, that sounds like added functionality at the client layer, rather than the service layer. Primarily, because there is no service to reach, if the device is not connected. Edit: Maybe that is a tautology, but hey!
Queuing tasks offline for online commit sounds like it would have useful use cases, but it can’t be mistook for completing an online transaction - nothing much happens until it is committed online.
Issues
1.1. Centralization
1.2. Tip Selection Attack Vectors
1.3. Ternary Overhead
1.4. Non-fungible Tokens
1.5. Broken Custom Hash Function
1.6. Intentional Vulnerabilities
1.7. No Recourse Against Spam
1.8. Non-zero Transaction Fees
1.9. The Internet of Things Does Not Exist
1.10. Premature Use of Post-Quantum Cryptography
1.11. Poor Wallet Security
1.12. Unusable Network and Wallet
And its out there and backed by big companies who, are betting on a couple of horses not just one this early in the game… IOTA has alot of work to do and alot of dancing will be done to get there as result, IMO this Bosch deal will not end well… What I do know having spent 11 years in Germany and Switzerland working for big league Hi Tech American and Canadian companies is this: Big German companies don’t like being abused as test sites for USA vendors, for long…, the clock is ticking, other horses are in play…
The article link above is IMO FB FUD against IOTA to buy time which IMO means: FB is entering the same
IOT space as well…, they slow down competitors by using an arm’s length “experts” opinion in tangential market segments to spread the FUD so it doesnt stick to their FB foot… in this case through one of their subs Oculus VR
Liken it to Google who might be playing a similar card with Maidsafe given David Irvine has been there @ Google a few times, that said I can say w/ some personal experience, Google (like MS) are infamous for “listen, TY very much” and then they run off, organize 12 attack coders to leapfrog/copy behind their wall of lawyers, and then come back quickly to sink/hi-jack a project, their way…
Be careful out their folks, yes its opensource, but that does not necessarily mean “Open Kamona” from a business perspective…
I think Maidsafe has an opportunity to change the world for the better, as long they don’t get co-opted and snuffed out by FB, Google and MS or Amazon…, time is of the essence…
