Ethereum - better than Bitshares?

[bitbro]

Echoo

[fuzzy]

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?

[JoeyD]

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.

[santaclause102]

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. 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....
 

[CWEvans]

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. 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?

[santaclause102]

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.

[santaclause102]

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....

[BldSwtTrs]

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.

[toast]

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?

[santaclause102]

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...
 

[toast]

Shhh you guys have summoned him, he has his name on google alert

[fuzzy]

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. 

[BldSwtTrs]

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.

[fuzzy]

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...

[santaclause102]

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?!