Seems to me that confusion is going to mean an ETH price of less than $0.25 for both forks, so the future relative price of them is not relevant right now.
So it seems this is mostly a shorting game now, to convert your ETH to BTC.
And/or to accumulate more ETH cheaply, in hopes it will someday recover and not go to $0 (i.e. die).
I don't think that it will lose value quickly. At most slowly capitulate because founders , developers, and original die hard investors hold most of the coins so the market cap can , misleadingly , remain high. I have seen many shitcoins last a long time in such circumstances. Where we should be looking is the moment when staff at the ETH foundation start leaving due to not being paid and a rush to switch to PoS - this will be the stronger indicator of problems. Nailed it. But realize that the entire switch to PoS has been this all along. It will take a long time to die, absent some other unforeseen 'event'. |
|
|
|
If I am a miner, I will support the soft fork and freeze the stolen funds. If the DAO holders offer us 50% of the stolen funds, we will do a hard fork.
If the miners can benefit from the hacking like this and the hacker does not benefit, he may think twice before his next hacking. Other miners will mine more profitably by accepting his offer and thus have a greater hashrate. Checkmate. Your vote has been economically overridden. Andreas and Emin getting frantic and grasping for straws: https://twitter.com/el33th4xor/status/744769932739624960Isn't there an inter-fork fungibility issue? He can offer miners "higher" payments, but only using coins on the fork that recognizes his ownership. Depending on market value between the forks miners may still be better off on the other one. |
|
|
|
Thanks - I had fun making it. Ethereum sounds promising but right now The DAO fiasco is a grave example of what happens when half baked code which attracted close to 250 million USD (value at one point) in investments got released without proper testing and/or clear goals. I hope the thieves are punished. Hopefully Ethereum will survive and thrive.
You did a great job of hitting all the correct points in your parody video. Did you research a lot of posts here on BCT to gain that insight? My perspective is that Vitalik has a certain way of approaching computer science and reliable s/w development which is flawed. I don't expect them to improve. I expect them to go deeper into clusterfucks because one thing I learned in life is that WYSIWYG. So I have decided to take the bull by the horns. I am simply drawing attention to the absolute lack of logic and even responsibility. I hope good things come out of it.
You did that very well. I don't want to expect, I want to make sure good comes from it. I know how to code. So I can do something rather than just hope. As a programmer I could see that The DAO was put together haphazardly expecting to be a quick and dirty funding vehicle for the Slock.it project. The Slock.it team felt that they should gift the DAO smart code to the community for bigger exposure. The project got too big as we all know but sadly it was the Slock.it team that asked to be paid to provide future security for their broken code. Someone somewhere figured out that this thing was full of holes and exploited it. The whole project handling was rather immature and unprofessional and many of us fell for it. I invested 100 ETH myself. The joke is on me too. :-) There are no safety mechanisms built into the SOLIDARITY. There was no attempt to do this incrementally. They released Turing-complete scripting into the wild knowing full well that it must blow up. Very, very unprofessional. We can't blame this just on The DAO. The root cause starts with Vitalik and his delusions. Casper was another delusion that we knew would fail. How many months and $millions did they waste on that. I don't think they knew it would blow up, and more than they know that Casper will blow up. They believe their own bullshit. |
|
|
|
Hundreds of crypto's are trending toward zero -- bangomatic.
In fact, I recently changed exchanges for better, lower prices on AEON.
My thinking is if Monero takes off, AEON could benefit. Sort of like a Bitcoin-Litecoin mirror.
Monero has already taken-off. I know what you mean , but if there is no development happening on AEON, it's just gonna keep drifting toward zero, which sux because I own a truckload of these coins and was hoping that someday they would be worth something and I'd be able to run an AEON wallet on my phone. EDIT: Maybe smooth could give an update? I will announce updated development plans in approximately three weeks. On the topic of Monero already "taking off" I wouldn't particularly agree. Yes it is up nicely over the past several months but it's not exactly a moon shot. At 2 USD (about 20 million USD market cap) the current price of Monero will seem extremely cheep if the project accomplishes its objectives to any significant degree. The relevance to AEON I will leave up to the reader. |
|
|
|
As far as I can tell he is saying there is a feature of EVM that makes it easier to write dangerous contracts. There is still no claim that the EVM did not execute the contract as it was written and according to the specification. |
|
|
|
@smooth what is your opinion about Bitcoin-NG protocol. There's no reason for this to be incompatible with Monero-CN right?
My recollection of it from when I looked last year was that it would work with CN, but I think it requires miners to identify themselves, which is kind of controversial even for Bitcoin and would probably be even more so on a privacy-oriented coin. I think there are at least two better ways to do something similar. |
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=6495"What is the difference between a government or bank which decides to override the free market, and a block chain that does the same?" Attorney Brian Klein: "People will pick block chains so to speak based on do they want whether someone can intercede or do they want it more autonomous. Bitcoin seems to be more hands off right, and if Ethereum gets more hands on, that is going to change the perception of the people who are investing and building it. So I think maybe there will be a third block chain (that sort of a third ledger or whatever you want to call it) that rises because it offers a different variable. People will pick what they want." Attorneys should stick to what they know, which is the law. In general (and it appears in this specific case) they know next to nothing or nothing at all about blockchain technology. A blockchain that is "hands on" accomplishes literally nothing useful. The concept is vacuous. It is like attorneys arguing over the title to an empty bank account. So it seems he worships Ethereum because he thinks it is necessary for achieving maximum innovation.
Maximum innovation of how many different ways you can title an empty bank account. It is clear from this episode that the entire project as constructed is pointless, fork or no fork. "The Attacker" was one clever dude, or lucky, to find this fatal vulnerability, not only in the coding of the DAO (which can be fixed in future contracts, maybe) but in the entire foundation and premise of the project (which can not), and I'm going to go with clever. |
|
|
|
I'm the only one who think that the dato was only a scam Simon Jentzsch,Christoph Jentzsch and Stephan Tual should be arrested and their good confiscated and used to pay back users. They earned a lot selling the dao tokens.
Now I think they should be the only responsable for this theft.
what are the differences between slock.it and all others ponziscam we know so well?
You are certainly not the only one thinking that (not saying I agree or that I don't). The questions further continue to mount given that all of the leadership of Ethereum, The DAO, and slock.it are widely suspected to be heavily invested in The DAO so they are making decisions and pushing things, like forks that freeze and seize coins, that may well affect their own wallets in a very big and apparently undisclosed way. This coming after Vitalik dumped 25% of his coins and told the public only after the fact. (Interesting question: who else knew before or during his dumping?) Either way, the lights finally flipped on in the Ethereum ecosystem and the cockroaches are scurrying. |
|
|
|
Did they really act without political control driving their choice?
(Answer: obviously not, although I would use the word influence rather than control.) Satoshi uses the phrase "cooperating to attack the network". If the miners are acting independently they are not cooperating, and if they are influenced or coodinated by a third party they are not acting independently, they are cooperating (albeit indirectly). There is not really any such thing as a non-attack soft fork in a properly functioning (i.e. mining not centralized) PoW chain, because without some mechanism to cooperate, the game theory does not support an individual miner ever activating a soft fork. In order to reject a non-conforming block the miner would have to mine on a shorter chain which is individually irrational. Responding to another comment upthread, miners can not perform a hard fork. A hard fork has to be adopted by the entire community, including both mining and non-mining nodes. This mistake is made endlessly in the Ethereum community. I don't know if Vitalik is encouraging it or what. The entire whole point of immutability and censorship resistance is to protect minorities, and the above-described game-theory is precisely what accomplishes this. By design (though not in practice today), miners are powerless functionaries with no meaningful discretion. If you want decisions made by a voting majority you can just create a corporation and have it run a database server. That is vastly more efficient than a blockchain with effectively the same result. All soft forks (even ones universally-recognized as benign such as those used in Bitcoin for upgrades) are a warning flag that the coin is not very decentralized and is not secure against miners cooperating to attack the network. If Ethereum soft forks to freeze or transfer coins, and this is a result of the structure of the ecosystem, it will demonstrate not only that the network is insecure, but that the ecosystem itself is incompatible with having secure network. That shouldn't really be a surprise though, with one person being given so much de facto authority that is the only real result possible. If you doubt his authority and influence, just imagine hypothetically how the process would be proceeding if Vitalik had never proposed forking, or if he opposed it. There would be vastly more opposition, more debate (or less because it would be seen as an absurd idea not even worth debating), and the forks would be far less likely to ever happen. |
|
|
|
"Cryptopia has decided to delist ETH as we no longer have faith in ETH to remain impartial and decentralised or to act in the best interests of all of its users." Maybe I'm being brutal, but good for these guys. Exchanges need to take a stand against blockchains that show they are little more than flimsy technology centrally controlled by a dictator. It's really bad that there was a code exploit (but forgivable in some ways), but what is not forgivable is rolling back the blockchain to avert theft. That destroys the social contract and has no place in crypto. There was no code exploit in Ethereum itself. There is really no reason why the Ethereum devs should be involved at all, much less pushing forks. That they are involved, ask yourself why. |
|
|
|
most TRUSTED centralized blockchain platform.
"Centralized blockchain platform" adds no value whatsoever. Ethereum may survive for a while doing that because the hype is strong, but it would become (if it isn't already) fully a ponzi scheme with no underlying business value. |
|
|
|
You're mixing apples and potatoes here. Bitcoin mostly uses soft-forks in order to improve its capabilities. Bitcoin has never used any kind of coin-control or bailouts which is exactly what ETH is going to do. If they do that, ETH is not immutable. Period.
Forking to remove 184 billion Bitcoins is a form of coin control. Do you understand that Bitcoin was forked to address an issue created by a bug in the Bitcoin code? It was not forked because a transaction script did not do what someone expected as DoOverCoin is proposing to do. |
|
|
|
"Cryptopia has decided to delist ETH as we no longer have faith in ETH to remain impartial and decentralised or to act in the best interests of all of its users." (ht aerbax who posted this in the ANN thread) |
|
|
|
There should always be miners selfish enough to mine any transaction. Isn't it?
How do you get every single miner to collude not to do it?
The way a soft fork works is that miners not only don't include the transactions but won't build on a block that does. You only need 50%+ of the miners to sign on to pull of the attack, not every single miner. |
|
|
|
Why do you think even with all the shit going on no one wants to look here?
That seems false. There are new faces here as well as formerly-active people showing up again, and the same on the subreddit, etc. Happens every time the price goes up, which is understandable. |
|
|
|
If 51% of the miners decide to fork, I think I will follow the majority and support the fork to get back the money from the attacker.
Satoshi had a term for that, he called it attacking the network: As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network ... - Satoshi Nakamoto (bitcoin.pdf) So, no, there has been no "hack" or "attack" so far, but Vitalik, Tual, and their cronies are working on one. Soft forks are 51% attacks. At best, when done for relatively-benign upgrade purposes, they demonstrate a vulnerability of the network and should still raise some level of concern that the developers and miners are able to conspire to pull off a 51% attack. When done transfer control over coins, that is outright theft. Smooth if forks are authorized by a protocol that was designed in the coin from the start, i.e. an ability to vote on changes by stake holders for a PoS coin (e.g. DASH), then that appears to not be a 51% attack. But otherwise I agree with you, and when you have the same group of devs from the ICO able to control the politik then they are essentially running the enterprise. There is a grey area where someone from the outside creates a fork and the users and miners spontaneously decide to switch over to it. This can be argued to be a feature of decentralization and open source, and necessary to correct deficiencies. Yet it is still a 51% attack. If done with proof-of-burn, then it is not a 51% attack. But your analysis of the issues here seems to be oversimplified because the law interacts with all this to create more complex scenarios. Please read this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1517223.msg15271289#msg15271289I'm not really sure that "authorized voting forks" are even compatible with Satoshi's original design at all. He wrote that the nature of the system required that its core properties be set in stone forever. Probably the ideas of governance and voting were considered by Satoshi(s) during the years of development, as they are pretty obvious ones to consider. A reasonable conclusion (and one I have reached somewhat independently) is that "set in stone" is required because there is no good way to differentiate between good changes and bad changes. Allow changes (e.g. by "voting") and the structure collapses in on itself. Limited time to read or comment more, will do so later. |
|
|
|
Dash is better and older but I like monero  Monero was the first to offer anonymous transaction actually. Somewhat debatable. Darksend RC1 (release candidate 1) was announced April 17, 2014. Monero launched (with anon features) April 18, 2014. I don't know how well the Darksend RC1 worked, nor when Darksend had an official release (not merely a candidate). The first versions of Darksend were closed source; Monero has always been open source. Monero was a fork/relaunch of Bytecoin, which was released about a month earlier with anon features included but also with a massive hidden premine, so Monero's code (but not the Monero blockchain) was indeed clearly first. |
|
|
|
Bag hold + Lie your ass off and play games and cash out is the motive / agenda.
That's what the ETH supporters are currently doing. After the hard fork, they all have to work longer as their $50 million will be lost back to the DAO. Let wait and see.
You do realize that ETH will lose all the value that the underlying technology (the blockchain) has? If they take back those coins, they are no better than the Fed and they lose decentralization and immutability. This suggestion is horrible. Nobody should have any right nor power to take anyone's coins in a decentralized system regardless of whether they are legit, stolen or whatever. Correct. After this HF you must call it VBCoin, not ETH. If 51% of the miners decide to fork, I think I will follow the majority and support the fork to get back the money from the attacker. Satoshi had a term for that, he called it attacking the network: As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network ... - Satoshi Nakamoto (bitcoin.pdf) So, no, there has been no "hack" or "attack" so far, but Vitalik, Tual, and their cronies are working on one. Soft forks are 51% attacks. At best, when done for relatively-benign upgrade purposes, they demonstrate a vulnerability of the network and should still raise some level of concern that the developers and miners are able to conspire to pull off a 51% attack. When done transfer control over coins, that is outright theft. |
|
|
|
|
I propose that Ethereum be renamed DoOverCoin.
Ever sent coins to the wrong address?
Ever lost your private key?
Every sent coins to insecure smart contracts?
No problem! DoOverCoin has your back!
|
|
|
|
If I remember correctly multiple posts in a row is a ban reason.
just sayin you might want to edit your posts into one post smooth.
Good point. Was just going through the thread and answering questions. Will combine. EDIT: fixed |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
