3 ms·

If it were only games. I remember an assistive technology product, roughly 6 years ago, which was a barcode reader plus online DB. Until the company went bust

by lynx23 4y ago

If it were only games. I remember an assistive technology product, roughly 6 years ago, which was a barcode reader plus online DB. Until the company went bust, and the device magically transformed into a brick.

donkeyd 4y ago
This may be the one of the few true benefits of Web3/decentralization. As long as people see value in the network, it will stay online. Even if it's just a few people.
- xnorswap 4y ago
  That's just as true as pre-web internet 1.0 though, what benefit does putting it on a blockchain add?
  - lynx23 4y ago
    I am guessing they imply that blockchain hosted IoT infrastructure wouldn't simply go away, because, you know, its part of the blockchain.
    - deadbunny 4y ago
      Micro transactions to turn my lights on and off? Not thanks. https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertari...
      - gpderetta 4y ago
        It also reminds me of the coin operated door in Ubik: http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1615 http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1615
        deadbunny 4y ago
        Probably a better example than mine for this example!
      - wickedsight 4y ago
        I find it interesting that, for some reason, mentioning Web3 very quickly ended up at libertarianism. My point was that storing essential data on a blockchain means it can be distributed and there's no single point of failure. For some reason people think Blockchain == crypto, however, but Blockchain can be done without crypto. Something like this can be compared to torrents, where the data is distributed, so as long as someone hosts the data it will be available.
        deadbunny 4y ago
        Web3 is crypto in everything that I have seen, admittedly I don't pay it too close attention so I may be missing some nuance but from my understanding to write something to a Blockchain I'm going to need to pay a fee to do so. I've not seen any web3 projects tout themselves as free data storage, perhaps you could point me to some so I can be better informed?
        donkeyd 4y ago
        > to write something to a Blockchain I'm going to need to pay a fee to do so >I've not seen any web3 projects tout themselves as free data storage Well, of course, because the main reason for building blockchains is currently to make big bucks by selling the attached cryptocurrency. Also, storage isn't free, so fee data storage can't exist. That also isn't what I was describing. There's no need for there to be payments involved in a blockchain, however. What blockchain does is provide a medium to store data that is signed by someone and can be read by others. It also allows this data to be stored in a distributed fashion on the devices of anyone who wants to store it, without there being a possibility that someone changes the data without anyone knowing. The commenter I responded to wrote: > which was a barcode reader plus online DB. Until the company went bust, and the device magically transformed into a brick. Hypothetically, if you were to use a blockchain to store the data, in stead of a centralized DB, anyone could run a copy of that blockchain and become a peer in the network. Users who still want to use the product after the company disappears can become a peers in the network to keep it running and prevent the device from becoming obsolete. There have already been large organizations that experimented with blockchain in somewhat similar scenarios. They all run an instance of the blockchain and any data that has to be tracked between them is written to that blockchain. It's completely private to those companies, but nobody directly owns the data and there are no currency transactions involved in these blockchains. I understand that there's confusion about this, because blockchain in the public eye means cryptocurrency. But cryptocurrency is just an implementation of the blockchain technology. And that technology works really well without any form of micro transaction involved.
  - PurpleRamen 4y ago
    With blockchains, everything is open and accessible. Nothing is hidden, nothing will disappear against the will of others. At least that seems to be the dream some people in that space are trying to achieve, as I understand it. On the more practicable side, I guess more automation for preserving stuff is also used. Making it a bit more comfortable to achieve those goals.
HPsquared 4y ago
A lot of the lightbulbs in my house have a similar model: they are basically controlled by a remote server somewhere, not owned by me. I ask the server to please turn my lights on.
- MPSimmons 4y ago
  There are some more expensive options that don't have this 'feature'. Look for Zigbee or Z-Wave. Here's a comparison page: https://www.security.org/home-security-systems/z-wave-vs-zigbee/ https://www.security.org/home-security-systems/z-wave-vs-zig... That being said, I do have some 'cloud' IoT devices too, most of which were purchased because they were: A) Cheap B) Made by large companies C) that weren't Google This makes me _reasonably_ comfortable that the device and service will likely run for a while. I have some WeMo plugs that work great, and I also bought some second-hand Amazon plugs for $5/pp at a thrift store. I want to get some z-wave light switches and scene controllers and make the actual light outlets smart, rather than putting the intelligence into the bulbs themselves. Unless you're going to be using the RGB abilities, putting the intelligence into the disposable part doesn't make a bunch of sense to me. To arrange it all, I use Home Assistant, which I don't love, but it's just the best of the open source solutions available.
- sofixa 4y ago
  The lightbulbs probably don't directly have Wi-Fi and communicate with the remote server, therefore probably support local protocols such as BLE, Z-Wave, Zigbee, therefore it's probably possible someone has reverse engineered them already (even if they don't have a local-only mode). Take a look at projects such as Home Assistant, they enable a fully local experience.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  Most smart lights these days are either wireless based on Zigbee (e.g. Philips Hue, IKEA's Tradfri) and standard profiles or, for expensive smart homes and offices, wired on KNX/EIB. With either of these, if the vendor goes bust, the only paperweight will be the gateway, but you can continue to use the appliances.
- ethbr0 4y ago
tpmx 4y ago
Someone really reinvented the CueCat from 2000/2001?
- wil421 4y ago
  Ah you beat me to it. Went to grab coffee and didn’t press reply.
wil421 4y ago
I remember the :CueCat too except it was a lot longer than 6 years ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CueCat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CueCat
- lynx23 4y ago
  Didnt know that one. However, looking at Wikipedia tells me :CueCat was given away for free. The story I was remembering above is about an assistive technology, read, EXPENSIVE and OVERPRICED technology for the disabled. It hurt quite a few people when they figured out their investment is now a door stopper.

by lynx23 4y ago

donkeyd 4y ago

This may be the one of the few true benefits of Web3/decentralization. As long as people see value in the network, it will stay online. Even if it's just a few people.

xnorswap 4y ago
That's just as true as pre-web internet 1.0 though, what benefit does putting it on a blockchain add?
- lynx23 4y ago
  I am guessing they imply that blockchain hosted IoT infrastructure wouldn't simply go away, because, you know, its part of the blockchain.
  - deadbunny 4y ago
    Micro transactions to turn my lights on and off? Not thanks. https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertari...
    - gpderetta 4y ago
      It also reminds me of the coin operated door in Ubik: http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1615 http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1615
      - deadbunny 4y ago
        Probably a better example than mine for this example!
    - wickedsight 4y ago
      I find it interesting that, for some reason, mentioning Web3 very quickly ended up at libertarianism. My point was that storing essential data on a blockchain means it can be distributed and there's no single point of failure. For some reason people think Blockchain == crypto, however, but Blockchain can be done without crypto. Something like this can be compared to torrents, where the data is distributed, so as long as someone hosts the data it will be available.
      - deadbunny 4y ago
        Web3 is crypto in everything that I have seen, admittedly I don't pay it too close attention so I may be missing some nuance but from my understanding to write something to a Blockchain I'm going to need to pay a fee to do so. I've not seen any web3 projects tout themselves as free data storage, perhaps you could point me to some so I can be better informed?
        donkeyd 4y ago
        > to write something to a Blockchain I'm going to need to pay a fee to do so >I've not seen any web3 projects tout themselves as free data storage Well, of course, because the main reason for building blockchains is currently to make big bucks by selling the attached cryptocurrency. Also, storage isn't free, so fee data storage can't exist. That also isn't what I was describing. There's no need for there to be payments involved in a blockchain, however. What blockchain does is provide a medium to store data that is signed by someone and can be read by others. It also allows this data to be stored in a distributed fashion on the devices of anyone who wants to store it, without there being a possibility that someone changes the data without anyone knowing. The commenter I responded to wrote: > which was a barcode reader plus online DB. Until the company went bust, and the device magically transformed into a brick. Hypothetically, if you were to use a blockchain to store the data, in stead of a centralized DB, anyone could run a copy of that blockchain and become a peer in the network. Users who still want to use the product after the company disappears can become a peers in the network to keep it running and prevent the device from becoming obsolete. There have already been large organizations that experimented with blockchain in somewhat similar scenarios. They all run an instance of the blockchain and any data that has to be tracked between them is written to that blockchain. It's completely private to those companies, but nobody directly owns the data and there are no currency transactions involved in these blockchains. I understand that there's confusion about this, because blockchain in the public eye means cryptocurrency. But cryptocurrency is just an implementation of the blockchain technology. And that technology works really well without any form of micro transaction involved.
- PurpleRamen 4y ago
  With blockchains, everything is open and accessible. Nothing is hidden, nothing will disappear against the will of others. At least that seems to be the dream some people in that space are trying to achieve, as I understand it. On the more practicable side, I guess more automation for preserving stuff is also used. Making it a bit more comfortable to achieve those goals.

HPsquared 4y ago

A lot of the lightbulbs in my house have a similar model: they are basically controlled by a remote server somewhere, not owned by me. I ask the server to please turn my lights on.

MPSimmons 4y ago
There are some more expensive options that don't have this 'feature'. Look for Zigbee or Z-Wave. Here's a comparison page: https://www.security.org/home-security-systems/z-wave-vs-zigbee/ https://www.security.org/home-security-systems/z-wave-vs-zig... That being said, I do have some 'cloud' IoT devices too, most of which were purchased because they were: A) Cheap B) Made by large companies C) that weren't Google This makes me _reasonably_ comfortable that the device and service will likely run for a while. I have some WeMo plugs that work great, and I also bought some second-hand Amazon plugs for $5/pp at a thrift store. I want to get some z-wave light switches and scene controllers and make the actual light outlets smart, rather than putting the intelligence into the bulbs themselves. Unless you're going to be using the RGB abilities, putting the intelligence into the disposable part doesn't make a bunch of sense to me. To arrange it all, I use Home Assistant, which I don't love, but it's just the best of the open source solutions available.
sofixa 4y ago
The lightbulbs probably don't directly have Wi-Fi and communicate with the remote server, therefore probably support local protocols such as BLE, Z-Wave, Zigbee, therefore it's probably possible someone has reverse engineered them already (even if they don't have a local-only mode). Take a look at projects such as Home Assistant, they enable a fully local experience.
mschuster91 4y ago
Most smart lights these days are either wireless based on Zigbee (e.g. Philips Hue, IKEA's Tradfri) and standard profiles or, for expensive smart homes and offices, wired on KNX/EIB. With either of these, if the vendor goes bust, the only paperweight will be the gateway, but you can continue to use the appliances.
ethbr0 4y ago

tpmx 4y ago

Someone really reinvented the CueCat from 2000/2001?

wil421 4y ago
Ah you beat me to it. Went to grab coffee and didn’t press reply.

wil421 4y ago

I remember the :CueCat too except it was a lot longer than 6 years ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CueCat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CueCat

lynx23 4y ago
Didnt know that one. However, looking at Wikipedia tells me :CueCat was given away for free. The story I was remembering above is about an assistive technology, read, EXPENSIVE and OVERPRICED technology for the disabled. It hurt quite a few people when they figured out their investment is now a door stopper.