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?)<p>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?<p>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).<p>[1] <a href="https://www.lora-alliance.org/technology" rel="nofollow">https://www.lora-alliance.org/technology</a>
[2] <a href="https://blockchain.info/charts" rel="nofollow">https://blockchain.info/charts</a>
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.
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