nuttycoin

That is false. Either you are not doing your own research, or you are intentionally spreading misinformation.

Are you familiar with the term "fog computing?"

This is one of the main reasons for which IOTA was created. The term was invented by Cisco and since then there has been a lot of effort to come up with a solution.

How do you achieve fog computing with no means of transaction of value? Devices will need to pay each other for resource sharing, be it computing power, storage, data, or electricity. Your neighbors will not provide resources to you if you cannot pay them.

The problem with centralized payment systems is that they are not permissionless. If you hook your IoT device to your VISA card, your device needs to establish a connection with VISA every time it needs to make a payment, and you need your counterparty to accept payments from VISA. In addition, a large percentage of IoT transactions will be microtransactions. A centralized payment system will have to process insane amounts of transactions whose value are << $.01. IOTA flash channels allow for the streaming of data and payments in real time.

A unique property of IOTA is that it is partition-tolerant. Offline nodes can form local subtangles and attach them to the main tangle once internet connection is restored. This is impossible with a centralized payment system.

Finally, IOTA is just as much a data transmission protocol as it is a payment protocol. Data transmission on the tangle helps data become more tamper-proof, another important issue in the world of IoT.

So, IoT devices will not need to pay each other? No need to repeat a point without actually adding anything new to discussion. Companies are reaching out to IOTA, perhaps you should tell them their desire for this technology is irrational?

Additionally, while IOTA is designed for IoT, it will obviously work with non-IoT devices. If IOTA works, there is no need for many other cryptos to exist.

IOTA has no utility today. Neither does any crypto. Neither does the Boring Company. Yet they all have value.

It's foolish to think IOTA is worth nothing even though it is not production ready, because when it is, it will be worth much more than it is today.

How do you allow machine to machine payments in a trustless manner without some sort of value transfer protocol? How do you make these transactions with periodic internet connection? Are you saying IoT devices will not need to pay each other?

Commercial IoT products will be built to work in the world of IoT. If IOTA becomes the standard method of data and value transfer among IoT devices, manufacturers will implement them. Remember, device manufacturers will only include tiny JINN chips in their devices, nothing more.

You would have probably said the same about bluetooth chips when they first came out.

Is it really that insane? There is already a plethora of companies working with IOTA. No one knows much about the status of JINN due to prospective NDAs that would prevent any sort of chip production deals from becoming public. Companies are actively seeking out the foundation to see how they can become involved, not vice versa.

An IOTA efficient IoT device would simply have a tiny JINN ASIC to perform the PoW necessary to attach a transaction to the tangle.

I will add that I did mis-speak in that sentence. The hardware is not necessarily required, but will make the PoW for IoT devices negligible in terms of both transaction attachment times and energy usage. The tangle is expected to be running smoothly without the coordinator before any adoption of JINN hardware takes place.

If this was IOTA in its final form the value of IOTA should be 0. It's great that this is not the case!

And yes, statements like "IOTA an insane cult driven by fear of losing money" are FUD, regardless of how much sense your argument may or may not make.

While IOTA is not anywhere near production ready, it is important to realize that the value of IOTA is based on the expected value of utility that the tangle provides. This form of valuation is not unique to IOTA; it applies to all cryptocurrencies (and assets like growth stocks, for that matter). For this reason, IOTA's current user experience is not of the utmost importance. The author seems to think otherwise.

It is clear to me that the author has an inclination to portray IOTA in a negative light, and that he does not understand how IOTA works. It will take time for the tangle to grow to the level that the IOTA foundation envisions, and it does not take a genius to realize that fact.

People in this thread are mocking those who call articles like this one FUD, but that's simply what it is. Nothing about this article supports the argument that IOTA will not be able to be used for IoT in the future.