Quote from: delulo on March 17, 2014, 11:53:07 pm

Quote from: toast on March 17, 2014, 11:43:38 pm

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?

Quote from: toast on March 17, 2014, 10:05:09 pm

My guess: shares exist as balances just like with BTC. To issue all 1m shares costs a small tx fee. To send your 1m to 1m different addresses costs... how much does it cost to do that with bitcoin? When would you ever even do that?

So shareholders only profit from tx fees?

up

Quote from: 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

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.

Quote from: delulo on March 17, 2014, 10:03:37 pm

From above: BM mentioned that before about someone not from I3 lacuning the chain. Is it that always someone not from the US will launch the chain because of legal implications? And what does that actually mean "launch the chain" other than putting the open source code out there?

I3 will publish the source from the US. "Launch the chain" means run the first node and publish who to connect to.

Quote

Say we use .dac, what if some one registers the .dac TLD with ICANN? Or does ICANN come up with the new TDLs that are coing out right now?

If it happens while we're barely started, we sigh and switch to a different one.
If it happens after we get momentum... what happened when someone tried to trademark Bitcoin?

Ok. Got it.

Off topic: A node is just a miner that is mining on his own (running the full bitcond client in case of bitcoin) and not as part of a pool?

From above: BM mentioned that before about someone not from I3 lacuning the chain. Is it that always someone not from the US will launch the chain because of legal implications? And what does that actually mean "launch the chain" other than putting the open source code out there?

Say we use .dac, what if some one registers the .dac TLD with ICANN? Or does ICANN come up with the new TDLs that are coing out right now?

Edit: Sorry to ask dumb questions. I just learn the most asking provokingly naive/dumb questions

Quote from: delulo on March 17, 2014, 08:10:12 pm

.dns
.we

.dns is being used by the guy making DNSchain as a meta-tld to resolve blockchain domains. Not sure exactly how it works but I think he will register .dns with ICANN so that example.bit can exist "officially" as example.bit.dns

So i still have to ask to get that...  All URLs that have a domain from BTS DNS will look like this: ....name."what we are looking for here".dns ? 

BM mentioned that before about someone not from I3 lacuning the chain. Is it that always someone not from the US will launch the chain because of legal implications? And what does that actually mean "launch the chain"?

.dns
.we

Quote from: delulo on March 17, 2014, 05:20:00 pm

What about this basic problem:

The value of certain TLDs depends soleley on their historically grown adaption (it became .com but it could also have been .bis or anything else). The value of the TLD .com belongs to no one, it is a public good (correct me if that is wrong; I assume that all the costs associated with domain registering are process costs and the ICANN doenst makes a profit from it).

BTS DNS is creating a system within a public good category that is a private good (the shareholders own half of the value of the domains that come out of this system).

So BTS DNS would only work if the overall processing costs are cheaper than the traditional system. The latter is basically free but inefficient.

....BUT the efficiency must be so much better that it can outcompete the historically grown value of .com .de (ICANN issued TLDs).

There might be flaws in this analysis because I never really bothered with Domain issues... Correct me if I have wrong assumptions.


 

I think from the video (I'm not very tech) but the value comes from the fact the domains can't be seized by .gov 
and they also mentioned something about preventing man in the middle attacks.

So from the start this will appeal or have value to companies and consumers that either benefit directly from those advantages or that believe .govs are over-reaching/invading their/others privacy and so choose to support a system that is free of that.

Ok got that. But if governments forced browser (companies) to not not use the BTS DNS system this would be almost equally bad.

And is the follwoing assumption right? .com / .de etc TLDs are not possible because the browser companies agree with the consenus that those domains are associated with the ICANN register.