BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: mich431 on January 18, 2014, 09:20:14 pm
-
Hi all,
Ethereum (often considered a Bitshares alternative) is about to start something in 6 days / 25.1.2014... (see countdown at Main site: http://ethereum.org/ )
Do you think its better than bitshares? Why yes, why no?
Is it better to invest 100% in Ethereum instead of indirectly investing 1:10 (PTS share of bitshares is 10% only)
into bitshares right now? Can bitshares outperform ethereum by factor 10?
Really thinking about it where to invest and its a tough decision.. so whats your oppinion on that and why?
Whitepaper: http://vbuterin.com/ethereum.html
Forums: http://forum.ethereum.org/
Mich431
-
Hi all,
Ethereum (often considered a Bitshares alternative) is about to launch soon (6 days / 25.1.2014)...
Do you think its better than bitshares? Why yes, why no?
Is it better to invest 100% in Ethereum instead of indirectly investing 1:10 (PTS share of bitshares is 10% only)
into bitshares right now? Can bitshares outperform ethereum by factor 10?
Really thinking about it where to invest and its a tough decision.. so whats your oppinion on that and why?
Main site: http://ethereum.org/
Whitepaper: http://vbuterin.com/ethereum.html
Forums: http://forum.ethereum.org/
Mich431
Sorry to be rude, but you can't just expect detailed when you haven't done even the most basic homework.
In anycase, look here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1765.0
-
there is a reason for your thread beeing posted in the development section of this forum and mine beeing here...
btw. Why are you rude if your sorry for it?
-
Hi all,
Ethereum (often considered a Bitshares alternative) is about to launch soon (6 days / 25.1.2014)...
Do you think its better than bitshares? Why yes, why no?
Is it better to invest 100% in Ethereum instead of indirectly investing 1:10 (PTS share of bitshares is 10% only)
into bitshares right now? Can bitshares outperform ethereum by factor 10?
Really thinking about it where to invest and its a tough decision.. so whats your oppinion on that and why?
Main site: http://ethereum.org/
Whitepaper: http://vbuterin.com/ethereum.html
Forums: http://forum.ethereum.org/
Mich431
Hey, i'm a big fan of Ethereum but you've got your numbers wrong, they are starting fundraising at the end of this month. They anticipate releasing a product I believe right before the toronto conference in April
-
good point... they dont say whats happening in 6 days (fixed in starting post) ... tho sucha countdown refering to a revelution implied to me its about launching it...
-
Hi all,
Ethereum (often considered a Bitshares alternative) is about to launch soon (6 days / 25.1.2014)...
Do you think its better than bitshares? Why yes, why no?
Is it better to invest 100% in Ethereum instead of indirectly investing 1:10 (PTS share of bitshares is 10% only)
into bitshares right now? Can bitshares outperform ethereum by factor 10?
Really thinking about it where to invest and its a tough decision.. so whats your oppinion on that and why?
Main site: http://ethereum.org/
Whitepaper: http://vbuterin.com/ethereum.html
Forums: http://forum.ethereum.org/
Mich431
Hey, i'm a big fan of Ethereum but you've got your numbers wrong, they are starting fundraising at the end of this month. They anticipate releasing a product I believe right before the toronto conference in April
Do you have any details about the fundraising Adam? The website is a little sparse.
-
NXT, Ethereum, BitShares X, Mastercoin, and Colored Coins all solve different problems.
When they launch in April they will have a basic blockchain and would still have to implement all of the other infrastructure on top of it.
Should be interesting to see what kind of fundraising model they opt for.
-
NXT, Ethereum, BitShares X, Mastercoin, and Colored Coins all solve different problems.
When they launch in April they will have a basic blockchain and would still have to implement all of the other infrastructure on top of it.
Should be interesting to see what kind of fundraising model they opt for.
tho its not easy to draw lines here i still wouldnt compare NXT with Bitshares for an example...
but if ethererum is successful as a protocol, it is probably easier to replicate the idea of bitshares ontop of it
-
I'm not intimately familiar with the details of the fundraiser, I think they're still under discussion. I know it will be some sort of Mastercoin/Kickstarter style "give us development money we give you Ether" model.
I believe the intent is to announce full details at the Miami conference, end of the month.
One thing to note is that Ether is a relatively medium-term opportunity compared to other metacoin layers since the money supply goes up forever at a relatively fast rate. Ether is not as inherently deflationary as Bitcoin for example.
-
Adam, what did you mean by that sentence
One thing to note is that Ether is a relatively medium-term opportunity compared to other metacoin layers since the
money supply goes up forever at a relatively fast rate. Ether is not as inherently deflationary as Bitcoin for example.
Medium term compared to short or long term? ;)
Bitcoin and more so Ether are inflationary until mining is (almost) done...
supply goes up forever at a relatively fast rate
???
-
I looked it up in the whitepaper. I am not sure if this is the most recent iteration, I complained about the founders being separated out from other before-launch developers and I believe they've lumped them both together
The issuance model will be as follows:
Ether will be sold in a Mastercoin-style fundraiser at the price of 1 ether for 0.0001 BTC. Suppose that X ether gets collected in this way.
0.25X ether will be given to the founders.
0.25X ether will be given to the Ethereum organization as a reserve pool to pay expenses in ETH such as ETH salaries or bounties for those developers who want part or all of their compensation to be in this form
0.5X ether will be mined per year forever after that point (ie. permanent linear inflation)[/quote]
You can read more at the whitepaper http://vitalik.ca/ethereum.html, look for Issuance
But basically this means that every year, 50% will be added to the money supply. Forever. That is distinctly different and noticably less "profitable" for early adopters choosing where to invest than flatly deflationary concepts like mastercoin or bitshares. Once the supply is issued, that's it. The number can shrink but it can never grow. With Ethereum they're anticipating so much growth that even with an exponentially growing (50% compounding annually is exponential, right?) money supply the demand will far outpace supply.
There's no right answer here, and I for one am glad that people are trying out different approaches because that's how we're going to find the answer. No matter who wins, all these concepts and companies are being developed in public and building open source ecosystems. That's nothing but a win, so I say invest in all of them.
-
I looked it up in the whitepaper. I am not sure if this is the most recent iteration, I complained about the founders being separated out from other before-launch developers and I believe they've lumped them both together
The issuance model will be as follows:
Ether will be sold in a Mastercoin-style fundraiser at the price of 1 ether for 0.0001 BTC. Suppose that X ether gets collected in this way.
0.25X ether will be given to the founders.
0.25X ether will be given to the Ethereum organization as a reserve pool to pay expenses in ETH such as ETH salaries or bounties for those developers who want part or all of their compensation to be in this form
0.5X ether will be mined per year forever after that point (ie. permanent linear inflation)[/quote]
You can read more at the whitepaper http://vitalik.ca/ethereum.html, look for Issuance
But basically this means that every year, 50% will be added to the money supply. Forever. That is distinctly different and noticably less "profitable" for early adopters choosing where to invest than flatly deflationary concepts like mastercoin or bitshares. Once the supply is issued, that's it. The number can shrink but it can never grow. With Ethereum they're anticipating so much growth that even with an exponentially growing (50% compounding annually is exponential, right?) money supply the demand will far outpace supply.
There's no right answer here, and I for one am glad that people are trying out different approaches because that's how we're going to find the answer. No matter who wins, all these concepts and companies are being developed in public and building open source ecosystems. That's nothing but a win, so I say invest in all of them.
Your math is wrong, the inflation rate will approach 0% as the monetary base approaches infinity.
-
Your math is wrong, the inflation rate will approach 0% as the monetary base approaches infinity.
what is the monetary base in your equation?
What would be Ethereum's business model? How would ether holders profit from other developers building upon it?
-
Your math is wrong, the inflation rate will approach 0% as the monetary base approaches infinity.
what is the monetary base in your equation?
What would be Ethereum's business model? How would ether holders profit from other developers building upon it?
Day One: Monetary Base is 2x
Year One: Monetary Base is 2.5x
Year Two: Monetary Base is 3x...
Everyone who contributes funds is diluted 33% in the genesis block, 50% by the end of the first year, 66% in 3 years and over 80% in 10 years.
-
Your math is wrong, the inflation rate will approach 0% as the monetary base approaches infinity.
what is the monetary base in your equation?
What would be Ethereum's business model? How would ether holders profit from other developers building upon it?
Day One: Monetary Base is 2x
Year One: Monetary Base is 2.5x
Year Two: Monetary Base is 3x...
Everyone who contributes funds is diluted 33% in the genesis block, 50% by the end of the first year, 66% in 3 years and over 80% in 10 years.
What I meant was this: Ethereum doesn't provide any service by itself. It is just a base layer. So the question is: How is it assured that ether holders profit if a DAC layers on top of ethereum?
-
Their profit model is that of bitcoin, asset appreciation.
100% of revenue is paid to miners.
A *more* important question for them is will it be more profitable to implement BitShares on top of Ethereum or with its own chain? As a developer building a new DAC I would have to conclude I could lower expenses and increase revenue and decentralization by building my own chain. One time development costs are nothing compared to the life time a DAC is designed to operate an the value of that DAC.
-
Their profit model is that of bitcoin, asset appreciation.
100% of revenue is paid to miners.
A *more* important question for them is will it be more profitable to implement BitShares on top of Ethereum or with its own chain? As a developer building a new DAC I would have to conclude I could lower expenses and increase revenue and decentralization by building my own chain. One time development costs are nothing compared to the life time a DAC is designed to operate an the value of that DAC.
I agree with the latter.
100% of revenue is paid to miners.
You are right from a labor theory of value standpoint ;) In the end most people profit form price increase due to demand increase due to (potential) usability.
But I dont get the ROI model. Bitcoin has stepped up to be a currency for day to day transactions and a store of value (right now mostly valued because of its network strength). But ethereum advertises itself with being just a base layer so no services like bitcoin (basic money transfer) so there would be no value if nothing i built upon it. How do they want to avoid that I come along build on it and dont let ether holders profit from it? And how could I let the ether holders profit from it?
bytemaster, are you sure the system doesn't allow to have a separate chain but still using it/building upon it?
-
I'd love to see the lead developers of Bitshares, Ethereum, NXT, eMunie, .. have a public discussion in a dedicated forum thread.
-
I'd love to see the lead developers of Bitshares, Ethereum, NXT, eMunie, .. have a public discussion in a dedicated forum thread.
We will be participating in a live panel on Friday (BitShares/Ethereum/Mastercoin) to debate the issues and it should be available for download somewhere.
-
I'd love to see the lead developers of Bitshares, Ethereum, NXT, eMunie, .. have a public discussion in a dedicated forum thread.
We will be participating in a live panel on Friday (BitShares/Ethereum/Mastercoin) to debate the issues and it should be available for download somewhere.
Yep! This will be on Let's Talk Bitcoin! in early February.
-
Great! Can't wait!
-
I'd love to see the lead developers of Bitshares, Ethereum, NXT, eMunie, .. have a public discussion in a dedicated forum thread.
We will be participating in a live panel on Friday (BitShares/Ethereum/Mastercoin) to debate the issues and it should be available for download somewhere.
sounds good look forward to that !
-
what i understand is investment wise Ether isn't designed for strong price appreciation due to high starting ipo price and huge number of ether (1 Trillion + ether?) , while proto / ags / bitshares offer good potential returns on investment for Investors as a reward for risk taking.
i still like Ether, however i do not view it as a threat or direct competitor to Bitshares.
-
Your math is wrong, the inflation rate will approach 0% as the monetary base approaches infinity.
what is the monetary base in your equation?
What would be Ethereum's business model? How would ether holders profit from other developers building upon it?
Day One: Monetary Base is 2x
Year One: Monetary Base is 2.5x
Year Two: Monetary Base is 3x...
Everyone who contributes funds is diluted 33% in the genesis block, 50% by the end of the first year, 66% in 3 years and over 80% in 10 years.
What I meant was this: Ethereum doesn't provide any service by itself. It is just a base layer. So the question is: How is it assured that ether holders profit if a DAC layers on top of ethereum?
Yes precisely. This also the issue with bitcoin's relationship with mastercoin. There is no direct demand created for bitcoins by the Master Protocol. They have to hope that people will just hold bitcoins as a result of the growth of the meta-protocols being built on top of it. This is far from guaranteed.
-
Their profit model is that of bitcoin, asset appreciation.
100% of revenue is paid to miners.
A *more* important question for them is will it be more profitable to implement BitShares on top of Ethereum or with its own chain? As a developer building a new DAC I would have to conclude I could lower expenses and increase revenue and decentralization by building my own chain. One time development costs are nothing compared to the life time a DAC is designed to operate an the value of that DAC.
I agree with the latter.
100% of revenue is paid to miners.
You are right from a labor theory of value standpoint ;) In the end most people profit form price increase due to demand increase due to (potential) usability.
But I dont get the ROI model. Bitcoin has stepped up to be a currency for day to day transactions and a store of value (right now mostly valued because of its network strength). But ethereum advertises itself with being just a base layer so no services like bitcoin (basic money transfer) so there would be no value if nothing i built upon it. How do they want to avoid that I come along build on it and dont let ether holders profit from it? And how could I let the ether holders profit from it?
bytemaster, are you sure the system doesn't allow to have a separate chain but still using it/building upon it?
They can answer it, if they can prove that to implement Bitshares on top of ethereum and share the common metacoin with the other DACs such as third-party brand DomainShares (just for example) would make it more competitive than to implement on its own chain and own metacoin. And may the absence of distributed HTTP protocol be the reason?
And this will also answer another question: Why it will be more competitive to implement on ethereum than a copycat of it (let's say, ethereum_2, ethereum_3)?
Ethers do be precious. Ethereum is not just a metacoin. It's also used to drive the contracts( machines that executes the bytecodes). So the need for ether will surely increase, What I don't understand is: Who will execute the bytecodes? In other words, who are the contracts?
And I think one of the problems of ethereum is that: the blockchain will be dumped all by similar bytecodes repeatedly.
Is there some misunderstanding I took?
-
what i understand is investment wise Ether isn't designed for strong price appreciation due to high starting ipo price and huge number of ether (1 Trillion + ether?) , while proto / ags / bitshares offer good potential returns on investment for Investors as a reward for risk taking.
i still like Ether, however i do not view it as a threat or direct competitor to Bitshares.
Where did you get 1 Trillion from? The IPO price is .001. That's close to a 1 trillion starting mkt. cap. Don't you think that's ridiculous? I agree that the IPO price is very high, but I think the supply will start between 30-60mm coins. I'm not sure though.
-
I'd love to see the lead developers of Bitshares, Ethereum, NXT, eMunie, .. have a public discussion in a dedicated forum thread.
We will be participating in a live panel on Friday (BitShares/Ethereum/Mastercoin) to debate the issues and it should be available for download somewhere.
Yep! This will be on Let's Talk Bitcoin! in early February.
Did anyone get this?
-
I'd love to see the lead developers of Bitshares, Ethereum, NXT, eMunie, .. have a public discussion in a dedicated forum thread.
We will be participating in a live panel on Friday (BitShares/Ethereum/Mastercoin) to debate the issues and it should be available for download somewhere.
Is there a video online or something to download of this discussion? Saw the photos in fb photo stream!
-
1)Ethereum may having trouble with its design. I bet Ethereum will drop the cpu mining in Q3 and release its first version in Q4
2) Ethereum is trying to build DAO that use its dedicated mining hardware which may go nowhere
Yep! This will be on Let's Talk Bitcoin! in early February.
-
1)Ethereum may having trouble with its design. I bet Ethereum will drop the cpu mining in Q3 and release its first version in Q4
2) Ethereum is trying to build DAO that use its dedicated mining hardware which may go nowhere
Yep! This will be on Let's Talk Bitcoin! in early February.
Sounds like the exact business model Charles was trying to get us to use with BitShares before I killed mining... lets see how long it takes them to figure out that mining with dedicated hardware is a dead-end hardware lock.
Can you provide links to backup your claims / speculation?
-
Hi all,
Ethereum (often considered a Bitshares alternative) is about to start something in 6 days / 25.1.2014... (see countdown at Main site: http://ethereum.org/ )
Do you think its better than bitshares? Why yes, why no?
Is it better to invest 100% in Ethereum instead of indirectly investing 1:10 (PTS share of bitshares is 10% only)
into bitshares right now? Can bitshares outperform ethereum by factor 10?
Really thinking about it where to invest and its a tough decision.. so whats your oppinion on that and why?
Whitepaper: http://vbuterin.com/ethereum.html
Forums: http://forum.ethereum.org/
Mich431
Ethereum isn't designed to be a good store of value. I won't be investing in it but I'll use it for sure and I'll mine it if it can be mined with general purpose hardware. I will not buy dedicated hardware to mine it.
I think the fact that the majority of investors and programmers alike are saying they wont be buying the tokens should tell you something. At the same time it's agreed upon that Ethereum is a cool technology and a nice experiment. It's just not something to "invest" into because if it's a DAC it's not a for profit DAC.
-
Hi all,
Ethereum (often considered a Bitshares alternative) is about to start something in 6 days / 25.1.2014... (see countdown at Main site: http://ethereum.org/ )
Do you think its better than bitshares? Why yes, why no?
Is it better to invest 100% in Ethereum instead of indirectly investing 1:10 (PTS share of bitshares is 10% only)
into bitshares right now? Can bitshares outperform ethereum by factor 10?
Really thinking about it where to invest and its a tough decision.. so whats your oppinion on that and why?
Whitepaper: http://vbuterin.com/ethereum.html
Forums: http://forum.ethereum.org/
Mich431
Ethereum isn't designed to be a good store of value. I won't be investing in it but I'll use it for sure and I'll mine it if it can be mined with general purpose hardware. I will not buy dedicated hardware to mine it.
I think the fact that the majority of investors and programmers alike are saying they wont be buying the tokens should tell you something. At the same time it's agreed upon that Ethereum is a cool technology and a nice experiment. It's just not something to "invest" into because if it's a DAC it's not a for profit DAC.
Ethereum has a linear and infinite increase in ether supply (as far as I know). This in my opinion is what makes it a questionable investment (the one blockchain for everything is a trade of that comes with the system as a whole...). Is there any good reason to no limit the money supply with ethereum? Because that just (unnecessarily?) dilutes everyones shares.
-
Because mining!
-
Because mining!
Toast I can see you pacing out BM in terms of forum posts per second which is great. But what did you wana say?
If you meant mining is a habit and thought pattern the bitcoin community / ethereum guys keep. I think this is unlikely. They are not dumb...
-
I just meant to give a direct answer to.
Is there any good reason to no limit the money supply with ethereum? Because that just (unnecessarily?) dilutes everyones shares.
If you assume a change as big as removing mining (they're even considering specialized hardware...) then there are a whole bunch of changes you could assume until ethereum is no longer ethereum. Basically, I have no confidence they'll switch away from mining "gracefully" given they are trying it at all.
-
Because mining!
Toast I can see you pacing out BM in terms of forum posts per second which is great. But what did you wana say?
If you meant mining is a habit and thought pattern the bitcoin community / ethereum guys keep. I think this is unlikely. They are not dumb...
I think Ethereum will generate revenue by selling dedicated mining hardware, amongst others.
-
Because mining!
Toast I can see you pacing out BM in terms of forum posts per second which is great. But what did you wana say?
If you meant mining is a habit and thought pattern the bitcoin community / ethereum guys keep. I think this is unlikely. They are not dumb...
I think Ethereum will generate revenue by selling dedicated mining hardware, amongst others.
But what a businessmodel is that? How do they want to make sure that no dedicated mining company outperforms them?
-
Their business model is to raise 30,000 BTC for initial distribution. They are clearly not trying to collect money from anyone interested in the economics of Ethereum as an independent entity.
-
Their business model is to raise 30,000 BTC for initial distribution. They are clearly not trying to collect money from anyone interested in the economics of Ethereum as an independent entity.
You mean their business model is to provide a service which they think has enough idealistic value so that people donate because they think this will make the world better or because they would like to use Ethereum and then the Ethereum founders take a share of the donations as a compensation? Really?!
-
I just meant to give a direct answer to.
Is there any good reason to no limit the money supply with ethereum? Because that just (unnecessarily?) dilutes everyones shares.
If you assume a change as big as removing mining (they're even considering specialized hardware...) then there are a whole bunch of changes you could assume until ethereum is no longer ethereum. Basically, I have no confidence they'll switch away from mining "gracefully" given they are trying it at all.
Specialized hardware is nothing but a new platform for new ASICs to be built on. In fact, the production thereof will likely be the place where they can gain control of a "decentralized" consensus technology as they would be one of the primary choke-points for distribution. And if they actually get the 60,000BTC (Hoskinson, I believe has said that will be the cap in multiple interviews) it will be VERY difficult to overcome their advantage in the space of researching that specialized hardware (plus they would already have the developers on the pay roll). Btw...they will almost certainly get the 60,000BTC. Human Greed is a powerful thing.
Mining is centralizing--and centralization on a technocratic elite is arguably worse than the elite with which we now fight (you know, the few who own nearly half the world's assets http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-02/its-1-world-who-owns-what-223-trillion-global-wealth). I cannot see a single way where it doesn't become so. TaPoS is the closest thing that I can consider as being viable as it offers the needed reward incentives for being part of the ecosystem while also securing the network from potential threats.
Ethereum is not centralizing based in the blockchain portion of their tech (necessarily)...it is centralizing due to the incentive structure it will create for the insiders. The Silicon Valley model they are attempting to utilize is centralizing. If you do not agree...look at Facebook as just one example.
He who controls the intellectual capital to work consistently on this project will become, over time, the new elite if we are not careful. Sorry if this talk is not popular, but it is a very real outcome that deserves careful inspection at every step. The human element is the centralizing factor...and it is unpredictable.
*definitely interested in alternative viewpoints...
-
Because mining!
Toast I can see you pacing out BM in terms of forum posts per second which is great. But what did you wana say?
If you meant mining is a habit and thought pattern the bitcoin community / ethereum guys keep. I think this is unlikely. They are not dumb...
I think Ethereum will generate revenue by selling dedicated mining hardware, amongst others.
That would be hilarious because I heard Charles Hoskinson say that they are seeking a mining algorithm which decentralize the hardware sales as much as possible.
-
Because mining!
Toast I can see you pacing out BM in terms of forum posts per second which is great. But what did you wana say?
If you meant mining is a habit and thought pattern the bitcoin community / ethereum guys keep. I think this is unlikely. They are not dumb...
I think Ethereum will generate revenue by selling dedicated mining hardware, amongst others.
That would be hilarious because I heard Charles Hoskinson say that they are seeking a mining algorithm which decentralize the hardware sales as much as possible.
And what incentive does he have to say otherwise? I'm pretty sure mark zuckerberg would say the same of facebook... If i'm going to appeal to a community driven on decentralization and with primarily a libertarian philosophy to give me 60,000BTC, why would I say anything else?
I mean this guy wanted to monetize Keyhotee for christ's sake. Ask me if I trust Bytemaster or Charles's philosophy and it is a hands down Bytemaster. Hoskinson has the charm of a salesman, and that is all he is nowadays. Not an attack, just the truth.
-
Shhh you guys have summoned him, he has his name on google alert
-
I just meant to give a direct answer to.
Is there any good reason to no limit the money supply with ethereum? Because that just (unnecessarily?) dilutes everyones shares.
If you assume a change as big as removing mining (they're even considering specialized hardware...) then there are a whole bunch of changes you could assume until ethereum is no longer ethereum. Basically, I have no confidence they'll switch away from mining "gracefully" given they are trying it at all.
Specialized hardware is nothing but a new platform for new ASICs to be built on. In fact, the production thereof will likely be the place where they can gain control of a "decentralized" consensus technology as they would be one of the primary choke-points for distribution. And if they actually get the 60,000BTC (Hoskinson, I believe has said that will be the cap in multiple interviews) it will be VERY difficult to overcome their advantage in the space of researching that specialized hardware (plus they would already have the developers on the pay roll). Btw...they will almost certainly get the 60,000BTC. Human Greed is a powerful thing.
Mining is centralizing--and centralization on a technocratic elite is arguably worse than the elite with which we now fight (you know, the few who own nearly half the world's assets http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-02/its-1-world-who-owns-what-223-trillion-global-wealth). I cannot see a single way where it doesn't become so. TaPoS is the closest thing that I can consider as being viable as it offers the needed reward incentives for being part of the ecosystem while also securing the network from potential threats.
Ethereum is not centralizing based in the blockchain portion of their tech (necessarily)...it is centralizing due to the incentive structure it will create for the insiders. The Silicon Valley model they are attempting to utilize is centralizing. If you do not agree...look at Facebook as just one example.
He who controls the intellectual capital to work consistently on this project will become, over time, the new elite if we are not careful. Sorry if this talk is not popular, but it is a very real outcome that deserves careful inspection at every step. The human element is the centralizing factor...and it is unpredictable.
*definitely interested in alternative viewpoints...
This Btw...they will almost certainly get the 60,000BTC. Human Greed is a powerful thing.
doesnt make any sense. Why would any rational person give them money if there is no good ROI? The only exception would be intransparency (people not seing trhough it; hype is enough). Or people think ethereum is of higher value for the community and donate for idialistic reasons. But I dont think any of these reasons wuold be sufficient...
-
Why would any rational person give them money if there is no good ROI? The only exception would be intransparency (people not seing trhough it; hype is enough). Or people think ethereum is of higher value for the community and donate for idialistic reasons. But I dont think any of these reasons wuold be sufficient...
DOGE?
-
doesnt make any sense. Why would any rational person give them money if there is no good ROI? The only exception would be intransparency (people not seing trhough it; hype is enough). Or people think ethereum is of higher value for the community and donate for idialistic reasons. But I dont think any of these reasons wuold be sufficient...
Their answer is that they expect the demand to grow exponentially (vs the linear growth in supply), therefore it should still offer a good ROI for investors.
-
doesnt make any sense. Why would any rational person give them money if there is no good ROI? The only exception would be intransparency (people not seing trhough it; hype is enough). Or people think ethereum is of higher value for the community and donate for idialistic reasons. But I dont think any of these reasons wuold be sufficient...
Their answer is that they expect the demand to grow exponentially (vs the linear growth in supply), therefore it should still offer a good ROI for investors.
They could just make it POS so the value would increase more and the demand therefore would be higher which again would increase the price which was my initial question... So they just prefer to sell mining hardware against POS....
-
Why would any rational person give them money if there is no good ROI? The only exception would be intransparency (people not seing trhough it; hype is enough). Or people think ethereum is of higher value for the community and donate for idialistic reasons. But I dont think any of these reasons wuold be sufficient...
DOGE?
Doge nevel claimed to have any real technical advantage. Ethereum essentially does... But heard behavious is a valid arguement, agree... Just dont know if it applies here as people will ask those questions if it is a technical venture.
-
I believe the intent is to announce full details at the Miami conference, end of the month.
How did that go?
Were Dan's questions ever addressed with specificity?
Ether is not as inherently deflationary as Bitcoin for example.
Bitcoin is not deflationary (http://blog.pecuniology.com/2013/05/05/bitcoin-is-not-deflationary/). It currently is inflationary to the tune of 12% per year. If ether is not as deflationary as Bitcoin, which is inflationary, then how inflationary is it?
-
I believe the intent is to announce full details at the Miami conference, end of the month.
How did that go?
Were Dan's questions ever addressed with specificity?
Ether is not as inherently deflationary as Bitcoin for example.
Bitcoin is not deflationary (http://blog.pecuniology.com/2013/05/05/bitcoin-is-not-deflationary/). It currently is inflationary to the tune of 12% per year. If ether is not as deflationary as Bitcoin, which is inflationary, then how inflationary is it?
0.4X ether will be mined per year forever after that point
That would mean 40% inflation per year https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/%5BEnglish%5D-White-Paper
The part about th issuance is about 1/3 down the site. As far as I understand it the inflation rate goes down over time because 0.4 of the ORIGIONAL money supply are mined every year....
-
Doge nevel claimed to have any real technical advantage. Ethereum essentially does... But heard behavious is a valid arguement, agree... Just dont know if it applies here as people will ask those questions if it is a technical venture.
What technical advantage ? All I'm hearing is the equivalent of Much Turing Many Complete. Can someone explain to me how in hell one would create a DAC/O/X without a Turing-complete language? I'm having a very hard time imagining a large DAC like bitcoin running on just a single Turing-Complete language.
When I hear people talk about Ethereum, including the previous I3 CEO himself, I get the distinct impression they've only recently learned of the term and have only now discovered the power of programming languages and the sales pitch seems to spin it to make people believe that only Ethereum is capable of using Turing-complete languages. To me it sounds they want to corner the entire alt-coin and bitcoin2.0-market and force everyone to use their single scripting language.
Also some of the BS Hoskinson is spewing in his interviews (especially the almost direct quotes from Steve Ballmer cum suis) makes me believe he either has no previous knowledge of open-source business models or he hates being late to the monopoly pie.
I did not know they were focusing on hardware licenses, if so they are essentially trying to become a patent-troll and this has all the makings of another big monopolistic scam. If that's the case people should be warned about Ethereum and what they are being pulled into, money grubbers will still like it, but I feel bad about trying to abuse peoples idealistic views to scam them out of their money and getting them to fund something that is diametrically opposed to their ideals.
One of the most disgusting refutes to aleviate the fear of Ethereum being a scam, is the BS story of the community being able to "fire the founders/investors" and how that is supposed to be a powerful notion. Yeah right, you try copying and improving Apple or Microsoft's business models and see how long you can compete honestly. This sound like all we want is massive funding, manpower, lawyers and now I hear licenses, but the community is "free" to orchestrate a hard fork. Yeah that really sounds free, especially if there are things on top of the thing needing a hard fork, yeah no problems there, nope, it really sounds like freedom to me.
-
Doge nevel claimed to have any real technical advantage. Ethereum essentially does... But heard behavious is a valid arguement, agree... Just dont know if it applies here as people will ask those questions if it is a technical venture.
What technical advantage ? All I'm hearing is the equivalent of Much Turing Many Complete. Can someone explain to me how in hell one would create a DAC/O/X without a Turing-complete language? I'm having a very hard time imagining a large DAC like bitcoin running on just a single Turing-Complete language.
When I hear people talk about Ethereum, including the previous I3 CEO himself, I get the distinct impression they've only recently learned of the term and have only now discovered the power of programming languages and the sales pitch seems to spin it to make people believe that only Ethereum is capable of using Turing-complete languages. To me it sounds they want to corner the entire alt-coin and bitcoin2.0-market and force everyone to use their single scripting language.
Also some of the BS Hoskinson is spewing in his interviews (especially the almost direct quotes from Steve Ballmer cum suis) makes me believe he either has no previous knowledge of open-source business models or he hates being late to the monopoly pie.
I did not know they were focusing on hardware licenses, if so they are essentially trying to become a patent-troll and this has all the makings of another big monopolistic scam. If that's the case people should be warned about Ethereum and what they are being pulled into, money grubbers will still like it, but I feel bad about trying to abuse peoples idealistic views to scam them out of their money and getting them to fund something that is diametrically opposed to their ideals.
One of the most disgusting refutes to aleviate the fear of Ethereum being a scam, is the BS story of the community being able to "fire the founders/investors" and how that is supposed to be a powerful notion. Yeah right, you try copying and improving Apple or Microsoft's business models and see how long you can compete honestly. This sound like all we want is massive funding, manpower, lawyers and now I hear licenses, but the community is "free" to orchestrate a hard fork. Yeah that really sounds free, especially if there are things on top of the thing needing a hard fork, yeah no problems there, nope, it really sounds like freedom to me.
Holy sh*....
Did I hear an echo?
-
Echoo
-
Holy sh*....
Did I hear an echo?
Echoo
I don't quite follow, did I double post or was this topic debated ad nauseam somewhere on this forum and I missed it?
Or have I accidentally landed in some text based adventure through some scifi twist of fate?
"l" to look at my surroundings.
"i" to inspect my inventory.
If I go "s" will things turn sour?
Can I press "L" to read my log and see what my goal is, is it the fabled Amulet of Yendor?
:o , that could very well be a great marketing trick. Put an Amulet of Yendor equivalent in your DAC and lure all them adventurous treasure seekers who dream of obtaining the "almost" unobtainable.
-
Holy sh*....
Did I hear an echo?
I don't quite follow, did I double post or was this topic debated ad nauseam somewhere on this forum and I missed it?
I think fuznuts is referring to the post he made on page 3 that covers similar ground maybe? Don't know, anyway I liked both your posts.
I posted my 'conspiracy theory' about Ethereum on their Bitcointalk page early Feb, but I'll repost here, same sort of idea as you guys just a bit more 'out there'
Is this the Ethereum gameplan?
Hypothetical scenario
Right now in the US they are busy struggling with how best to regulate crypto-currencies.
These are the potential conclusions I think they will draw...
1. It is too hard to try to regulate the hundreds of crypto-currencies that are out there.
2. Banking compliance is a serious business and issuing bit-licenses and trying to monitor hundreds of new untrusted exchanges is not feasible.
3. Crypto-currencies have deflationary tendencies which run counter to most existing currencies.
The potential solution...
1. It might be possible to regulate 1 base crypto-currency on which other things can be built.
2. Only large existing retail/investment banks with sufficient experience in banking compliance can be trusted as exchanges.
3. A reasonably inflationary crypto-currency would be ideal.
How does Ethereum stack up?
1. Yes Ethereum could be the base crypto, lots of things can be built on top of it, but link back to it when you need to transfer out to fiat.
2. Large existing banks might already have an interest in Ethereum, there is a very large pre-mine, where is it going?
3. Ethereum is very inflationary.
Result...
'They' will decide Ethereum gives consumers the benefits of crypto-currencies while giving the regulators the ability to regulate it and ensure there are as few bad actors as possible.
They will make it legal for on-line retailers to accept Ethereum as payment and they will make legal Ethereum to fiat exchanges, administered by large existing banks.
However moving to fiat or making online purchases with any other crypto-currency will be illegal.
Some investment banks are incredibly powerful and influential with large global footprints, they will be able to help ensure this model is also adopted in many other countries. This could make Ethereum insurmountable
______________________________
This is only a hypothetical, but I came up with it because I thought the pre-mine and inflationary model was unattractive.
There's also not a lot of reason why people wouldn't fork Ethereum and create their own competing models with more attractive parameters. (less inflationary and no pre-mine.)
However Ethereum's inflationary model & large pre-mine (Which goes to?) would be appealing to TPTB.
By influencing regulations and laws in favour of Ethereum they could also ensure no competing models could threaten it.
Using this hypothesis, the way Ethereum is being approached starts to make a lot of sense.
Thoughts?
-
I understand why no one could have have developed a competing fork of Bitcoin (needing some coordination to bootstrap the project), but I don't understand why someone couldn't just develop a competing fork of Etherium. I don't see a network effect.
If its going to be an open source project, why not just wait for them to code it, then fork it into 'Free Etherium' (no organization, no premine, merged mining, bitcoin-coinbase-schedule, ppc-mining, etc)? People would only have to switch once.
It seems obvious to me.
Is there anyone who knows econ with the Etherium team?
-
Holy sh*....
Did I hear an echo?
I don't quite follow, did I double post or was this topic debated ad nauseam somewhere on this forum and I missed it?
I think fuznuts is referring to the post he made on page 3 that covers similar ground maybe? Don't know, anyway I liked both your posts.
I posted my 'conspiracy theory' about Ethereum on their Bitcointalk page early Feb, but I'll repost here, same sort of idea as you guys just a bit more 'out there'
Is this the Ethereum gameplan?
Hypothetical scenario
Right now in the US they are busy struggling with how best to regulate crypto-currencies.
These are the potential conclusions I think they will draw...
1. It is too hard to try to regulate the hundreds of crypto-currencies that are out there.
2. Banking compliance is a serious business and issuing bit-licenses and trying to monitor hundreds of new untrusted exchanges is not feasible.
3. Crypto-currencies have deflationary tendencies which run counter to most existing currencies.
The potential solution...
1. It might be possible to regulate 1 base crypto-currency on which other things can be built.
2. Only large existing retail/investment banks with sufficient experience in banking compliance can be trusted as exchanges.
3. A reasonably inflationary crypto-currency would be ideal.
How does Ethereum stack up?
1. Yes Ethereum could be the base crypto, lots of things can be built on top of it, but link back to it when you need to transfer out to fiat.
2. Large existing banks might already have an interest in Ethereum, there is a very large pre-mine, where is it going?
3. Ethereum is very inflationary.
Result...
'They' will decide Ethereum gives consumers the benefits of crypto-currencies while giving the regulators the ability to regulate it and ensure there are as few bad actors as possible.
They will make it legal for on-line retailers to accept Ethereum as payment and they will make legal Ethereum to fiat exchanges, administered by large existing banks.
However moving to fiat or making online purchases with any other crypto-currency will be illegal.
Some investment banks are incredibly powerful and influential with large global footprints, they will be able to help ensure this model is also adopted in many other countries. This could make Ethereum insurmountable
______________________________
This is only a hypothetical, but I came up with it because I thought the pre-mine and inflationary model was unattractive.
There's also not a lot of reason why people wouldn't fork Ethereum and create their own competing models with more attractive parameters. (less inflationary and no pre-mine.)
However Ethereum's inflationary model & large pre-mine (Which goes to?) would be appealing to TPTB.
By influencing regulations and laws in favour of Ethereum they could also ensure no competing models could threaten it.
Using this hypothesis, the way Ethereum is being approached starts to make a lot of sense.
Thoughts?
Pretty on-point, except I openly say that could be an attempt to co-opt a decentralized renaissance and leash it to a central point of control (sounds absolutely scary to me). So mine sounds less "rational" and more downright frustrated to those who have a tendency to think the world is a little nicer a place than I do..
We can all be idealistic about this technology, but there is no reason that I can think of why this kind of technology couldn't be built to become Centralization 2.0, where the "Empire" now has all the decentralized resilience that humanity once boasted as its primary means of combating corrupt regimes.
Really like the way you said it...
-
I might be an idealist, but I have been burnt enough in the past to not be wary about the future or the dangers of human nature. I'm not deluding myself into thinking that Bitcoin will improve man or prevent wars or something like that. All I'm hoping for is that it can be an equalizer. I don't mind there being forest fires, just as long as new growth is allowed to happen. (And we don't have insane idiots thinking they can "win" if they blow up the entire planet if they are about to lose, with the means to do it as well.)
I've seen what monopolization (centralization) can and has done and how it murders innovation. I also have seen how they appeal to the lazy and Ethereum seems to target the "can't-be-bothered-to-figure-it-out"- and the "who's-backing-it"-market very specifically. I completely share your fear of centralization in hardware and especially in wetware.
My hope is that there will be more scripting-libraries in the short term that can interface with crypto-currencies and manage their own wallets, work on top of Bitcoin or any other coin/blockchain for that matter and make things like Ethereum practically irrelevant as long as it cannot offer something better. If their main goal is to have no features, that to my eyes that looks like they'll have no way to compete in an honest market.
Very short term I'm kind of dreading the arrival of Wall-Street. Here comes an army of uninterested who might just as well try to see how low they can go and milk the idealists trying to prop up the price of bitcoin. Why do so many bitcoin-speculators hail the coming of the Locusts, as if that could have no negative impact on bitcoin price and as if that would make bitcoin any more valuable or useful or guarantee an increase in price?
-
Looks like Vitalik is scheduled to talk to the Silicon Valley Ethereum groupies. http://www.meetup.com/EthereumSiliconValley/events/169053392/
The interesting part is that he's supposed to discuss several problems facing cryptos, including "every node must process every transaction". If I'm not mistaken, this scalability was a key point upon which Dan Larimer nailed him in that video clip from the Miami conference. Vitalik did not have a good answer ready then (probably because there isn't one). So now, either they have some solution to share or they are just addressing it because there's been enough negative feedback on this. I'm guessing it's the latter.
Does it seem to anyone else that V-man and Hoskinson seem to be all over the place? Are they ever going to develop this Ethereum concept of theirs or just keep talking about it? And does anybody understand at this point where they're getting their funding?
-
Does it seem to anyone else that V-man and Hoskinson seem to be all over the place? Are they ever going to develop this Ethereum concept of theirs or just keep talking about it? And does anybody understand at this point where they're getting their funding?
This is precisely why there are many people being brought in behind the scenes. Who knows who the hell these people really are...but they are apparently "insiders", which always has a tendency to bring and lock in talent. They are creating a pageant..and the pageant is meant to get others to do the work for them. Meanwhile, back at the bat cave, Bytemaster and their team are actually working on making a product and hoping that it will impress people enough to inspire competition in the space.
"Ether" is supposed to be "Petro to Bitcoin's Gold"--or so says their salesman Hosk. It's definitely a nice feeling to see that one is not alone in their assessment of the possible conclusions. :)
-
Meanwhile, back at the bat cave, Bytemaster and their team are actually working on making a product and hoping that it will impress people enough to inspire competition in the space.
+5% +5% +5% +5%
-
Does it seem to anyone else that V-man and Hoskinson seem to be all over the place? Are they ever going to develop this Ethereum concept of theirs or just keep talking about it? And does anybody understand at this point where they're getting their funding?
You really believe behind the concept is V-man ??? Of course they have the advantage to talk 24 hours per day... V-man=Satoshi Nakamoto 2.0 (or is it again the 1.0 rembranded)
KJV Matthew 7:15
15. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
-
Does it seem to anyone else that V-man and Hoskinson seem to be all over the place? Are they ever going to develop this Ethereum concept of theirs or just keep talking about it? And does anybody understand at this point where they're getting their funding?
You really believe behind the concept is V-man ??? Of course they have the advantage to talk 24 hours per day... V-man=Satoshi Nakamoto 2.0 (or is it again the 1.0 rembranded)
KJV Matthew 7:15
15. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Whoever it is, they definitely are trying to brand V-man as the next Steve Jobs or Elon Musk visionary-genius.
-
V for Vendetta???
(http://nwarders.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/v-for-vendetta2.jpg)
-
what features etherium has which BTS tools doesn't have?
-
Hi all,
Ethereum (often considered a Bitshares alternative) is about to start something in 6 days / 25.1.2014... (see countdown at Main site: http://ethereum.org/ )
Do you think its better than bitshares? Why yes, why no?
Is it better to invest 100% in Ethereum instead of indirectly investing 1:10 (PTS share of bitshares is 10% only)
into bitshares right now? Can bitshares outperform ethereum by factor 10?
Really thinking about it where to invest and its a tough decision.. so whats your oppinion on that and why?
Whitepaper: http://vbuterin.com/ethereum.html
Forums: http://forum.ethereum.org/
Mich431
We will find out if Ethereum is released.
-
VB wrote somewhere that etherium can be used to create "layers" (or something hell i knew) of other coins on top of or in it,
is it true?
-
VB wrote somewhere that etherium can be used to create "layers" (or something hell i knew) of other coins on top of or in it,
is it true?
It can be used to create literally anything that computers can do, that's the point. The only question is whether its efficient enough on ethereum to be worth building there. Our market engine can't be easily replicated inside ethereum to work as well as ours without some critical changes.