
Here is why nobody has succeeded at running IoT on the blockchain - tdrnd
https://thenextweb.com/syndication/2018/04/05/nobody-succeeded-running-iot-blockchain/
======
kstx
What happens to those 10 year batterylife IOT devices when they start doing
blockchaining and maybe even needing to get info from server to just send the
damn temperature data. Also these kind of devices might use wireless networks
like LoRa with very limited bandwidths[1] and usually extremely low data
caps(50 bytes per minute anyone?)

IMHO biggest problem with blockchain hypers is the denial of current status of
the blockchain technology in regards of the number of transactions. For
example bitcoin get around 2000 transactions per second and median
confirmation time sitting in somewhere 8-9 minutes[2]. Would you like to wait
8 minutes at counter for them to confirm your payment? Likewise in IOT
applications for critical temperature monitoring, would you like to know only
after some time find out that your subject(person/machine) has overheaten?

Granted not all blockchain tech is equal in performance and compromises can be
achieved to avoid those performance pitfalls. But at what point it would just
be better to use basic signing and leave it at that(crypto engines are more or
less standard features in microcontrollers).

[1] [https://www.lora-alliance.org/technology](https://www.lora-
alliance.org/technology) [2]
[https://blockchain.info/charts](https://blockchain.info/charts)

~~~
tim333
While I'm not sure what IOT blockchain is supposed to do - I guess it's a bit
hypothetical at the moment - it might make sense for payments. For example
your smart light socket could send some currency to order a new bulb when it
goes. Or your router could charge some passer by a few cents to supply data
service. While bitcoin is slow other stuff like Stellar take approx 5 secs and
cost like 0.001 cents per transaction.

As an aside I wonder if your ccvt's AI system detected a party was happening
and ordered some recreational drugs using some currency it came with when
bought, who would be guilty.

------
randomerr
Aside from the exponential increase of data traffic the devices would need an
similar increase in processing power. A central hub in a location would help.
But the you're partially defeat the idea of a universal block chain.

------
_salmon
> all of the which would need to go through the blockchain

wat

------
fazkan
What about IOTA, its trying to implement IOTish solution on blockchain. There
are some security issues but its well backed...

~~~
ddrdrck_
Not on blockchain. Blockchain technology is just not efficient enough
(scaling, throughput, fees, processing power) to support IoT use cases. It
uses a different approach based on Direct Acyclic Graphs (DAG) that they
decided to rename "Tangle" (a pretty poor marketing decision imho)

------
ddrdrck_
I did not read the article but the fact it does not even mention iota (even to
say it is not based on blockchain but on DAG technology) indicates it is
probably very poorly researched and/or very biased

~~~
charleslmunger
Iota isn't actually a crypto currency - there's a server run by the iota team
that "coordinates" all transactions. See previous discussion here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16457120](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16457120)

~~~
ddrdrck_
The plan is to shut down the coordinator when network will be big enough. Even
with the coordinator running, to say that Iota is not a crypto currency is
quite wrong (also it is much more than a currency). In any case, to not
mention Iota in an article about "IoT and blockchains" is just plain dumb
considering this is the certainly the major project in this field (even if it
only to mention that Iota is not running a blockchain but a DAG, and that it
is not currently fully decentralized)

