Skip to main content
shopping_basket Basket 0
Login

When the Blockchain Technology meets the Internet of Things

AndyBaloiu
6
Technology advocate

Comments

[Comment was deleted]

[Comment was deleted]

November 24, 2015 18:34

Good One

0 Votes

November 10, 2015 16:11

@erikfoxcroft

Yes, the idea is great but it terms of which device would implement the Blockchain it is hard to say at this stage because this technology looks like the early days of the Internet, the killer application are to be discovered. I guess it all comes down to the size of the smart device , some technical specs such as CPU/memory/connection. As far as I know there just a few categorizations: Light Peer Devices (light wallet included), Standard Peer Devices (Optimized/pruned Wallet included) and Peer Exchange Devices (Full Wallet included & market enabling functionalities). Perhaps this is what determines witch devices to implement.

You are right, a solution like this must be built in each building at the same time to get the full security benefits to avoid the period of time when the network is weak but the alternative is to hook-up every smart device to the main Ethereum network or even better, the Bitcoin network (it is mature enough to support almost anything) and where there are enough smart devices that need to work separately on their own chain, switch somehow to a new private chain only for that specific class of devices. The only down-side for using the first Entereum network ( --networkid "1" ) is the fact that you have to pay for Ether (a little bit pricey and otherwise hard to mine).

> the advantage of using low-powered processors with small amounts of memory to implement IoT at nearly all levels could be lost

Not necessary because as I said, you can create light nodes or nodes with pruned chains... even if it is impossible to do this on a low-powered processor, the main advantage for a normal processors is the decentralization nature of the network vs a network that is fully centralized.

Interestingly enough, there are alternative way to do this: instead of Proof of Work (PoW) consensus use Proof of Stake (PoS). It looks like PoS can help reduce costs of electricity by 41% vs PoW although it is unknown if PoS is reliable in the long run.

Feel free to read the full study by IBM Institute for Business Value here: http://www.slideshare.net/_hd/ibm-adept (must read)

0 Votes

November 9, 2015 21:26

Ericfoxcroft, it takes a fair bit to get your head around when first introduced to the concept.
Take a look at how bitcoin works, be prepared for a bit of a mind explosion but there are some good articles around that try and make some sense of it.

I guess if it was easy to comprehend it anybody could do it ;-)

0 Votes

November 9, 2015 15:41

This looks like a potentially useful idea at first glance but I have some concerns. Which devices would implement the blockchain? What range of sites and services would share a blockchain? If it was just to be a central, mains-powered hub device in each building or zone that might be feasible but to get the full security benefits, surely, it would need to be all devices, unless the end devices were secured by some other means. How would the overhead of processing blockchain transactions impact on battery powered devices?

If it was to be used on a blockchain-per-estate basis it might be manageable but if it was adopted widely, with one blockchain crossing many products and providers worldwide then the advantage of using low-powered processors with small amounts of memory to implement IoT at nearly all levels could be lost.

I'd like to see some realistic scenarios and calculations of the processor load/storage/bandwidth requirements of implementing blockchain in IoT systems before I was convinced.

0 Votes

November 8, 2015 05:08

nice

0 Votes

November 3, 2015 12:46

nice

0 Votes

Related Content

DesignSpark Electrical Logolinkedin