51–60 of 74 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's technically true but not actually so and is very misleading. Quoting you, > Don't take anyone's word for it; ask for unbiased sources.
>That's technically true but not actually so Not sure what you mean by this. In case you need a refresher, this is how hardforking works: http://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/1952/what-is-a-h...
I was curious what the respective chains hashrate is: Ethereum classic: 650~ GH/s Ethereum: 4400~ GH/s The minority chain is honestly doing better than I expected. I wonder how long it will last? What about price: Classic: $1.87 USD Ethereum: $11.69 USD That's fairly significant volume for both. It will be interesting to see where this ends up.
Surprisingly, the volume of Ethereum Classic trades has been much higher than the volume on the fork side since the fork.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Totally independent of Ethereum, this style of argument is kinda weak. We really should be trying to build something better, either by improving the existing system or building a parallel system that will slowly replace what's there. Good enough is the enemy of great. While I agree that this style of rethoric is often overused, GP does raise an important question. Now that Ethereum has forked, there is a great deal…
>GP does raise an important question. Now that Ethereum has forked, there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding the real benefits of the system, and about whether the benefit is worth the risk of switching. Oh, absolutely. We should always talk about what was good, what was bad, and what was irrelevant. I feel the "what we have now is ok" argument is dismissive. It actively prevents us considering the good, bad or…
There's a lot to be fixed about our current financial system. But I think both Ethereum-with-fork and Ethereum-without-fork are demonstrably worse than the status quo (which I think you also agree with). Ethereum is great as an experiment, but now we have experimental results from the DAO hack, showing something that clearly needs to be rethought. This manifesto seems to instead be presenting Ethereum-without-fork as a good and complete option, and all of its reasoning could have been written the day before the hack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surprisingly, the volume of Ethereum Classic trades has been much higher than the volume on the fork side since the fork.
Most of it has been from BTC-ETC markets, which shows that support for ETC came mostly from outside the original Ethereum community.
If it was Bitcoin I would say putting regulation in place made no sense. If you wanted regulated currency you could use USD, EUR and so on. As for ETH putting regulation in place makes more sense. What you get is "regulated smart contracts" environment. "Fiat smart contracts" if you will. The real question then turns into: How is the regulatory authority governed? Is it a participatory democracy? A representative dem…
There's no indication that the Ethereum Foundation intends to treat the platform as a regulated environment. What the fork shows is that they were willing, at least once, to launch a big effort to save one large faulty contract and its investors, in the still relatively early history of the blockchain. It seems ridiculous to think that Ethereum as a platform will have a serious system of regulation. And that's part o…
I've pretty much lost all faith in Ethereum and its motives. The way this has played out pretty much demonstrates that a good idea, no matter how beautiful, while still subject to being ruled by people capable of corruption/greed/or whatever you want to call it, can be tainted absolutely.
It's interesting because for so many years, Ethereum was hailed as this ultra-resilient alternative to Bitcoin. Developed slowly and deliberately after Bitcoin had already gotten traction, it was supposed to fill in where Bitcoin couldn't. Instead, it's proved to be far more chaotic and unreliable than Bitcoin at its worst hours. Building currencies (or a "decentralized smart contract platform") is hard.
I really wish they would both just go away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> techno-libertarian crypto-currency advocates inhabit an entirely alternative reality. I really don't understand how people keep parroting stuff like this. By any metric, Bitcoin has been a resounding success and has completely discredited any of its original detractors. Despite this, people still go around saying "Haha, Bitcoin, what a silly idea. It will never work.". It already has worked! If anything, people lik…
Currently approx 2.3 transactions per second
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a $50MM exploit Calling it an exploit seems politically charged. There wasn't an exploit in the Ethereum software itself, which behaved exactly as intended. Instead, someone wrote a shitty, poorly-designed contract that had a loophole in it. Someone took advantage of that loophole and make a bunch of money off of it. To me, "exploit" has connotations of breaking the ethereum system somehow, which was not the case.…
exploit: "a software tool designed to take advantage of a flaw in a computer system" The exploit was on a poorly written smart contract, not ethereum itself, correct -- I never said otherwise. >the judgement of the Ethereum devs to have ultimate control and veto power over anything This is the misinformation I'm talking about. The Ethereum devs had neither control nor veto power. That's simply not how hard forking wo…