Take a look into his post-history ;-)

I'm just speculating here and of course we can say: ETC started because of idealism.

But it's not idealism that strengthened it. It's capitalism. And it's possible that the replay attacks forced exchanges to open up markets for ETC.

And that could be the major-point. Without markets there would not be much value, or if it would be traded just on a small exchange. It would be called "shitcoin" etc.

But Poloniex gave ETC credibility and a big market. Suddenly it was beneficial to mine it and it was a nice gamble to buy it - but it turned out to be beneficial as well. I did not - always too carefully ;-)

And now there are ppl who are invested and if people are invested they care. And if they care about the project they're invested in they begin to speak negative about the competitor. It's a very complex dynamic. And replay attacks most likely played a role, maybe the most important one.

The theory about replay attacks is not mine. I've read it in an article. But an interesting conclusion is very simple:

If they could have prevented it:

1. they did not because they believe it wouldn't be necessary

2. they did not because they believed it would even be advantageous

Both conclusions would be wrong. So, it's still possible that they did not because it would have been hard to prevent it or would have opened the door for other problems and time was running out. But in all scenarios it's correct to say that one "rush-out" lead into more mistakes and the need to rush out more and to make more mistakes and so on.

And this could lead into the next fail:

http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/07/31/51pool-attack-plans-51-network-attack-ethereum-classic/

It's said, and I agree:

"If this ever were to be the case – and the Ethereum community would better hope it won’t be – 51Pool will attempt to 51% attack ETC as many times as necessary.

(...)

It is evident for everyone to see this is not an effort representing the entire Ethereum community. Unfortunately, every single supporter will be caught in the crossfire of repercussions that will undoubtedly follow these attacks, if they are ever executed. The Ethereum developers can prevent all of this mess from happening if they wanted to. It will be interesting to see if they decide to intervene or not."


It's another situation for the team without a good choice. If they step in to prevent that, it would look even more as if control too much. But if the attack should happen there are only two scenarios and while only one would be bad for ETC, both would be bad for ETH. At least in short-term. And if ETC should be able to defend an attack it would even strengthen ETC and weaken ETH.

What I believe is: At least a lot of Bitcoiners never really liked Ethereum. So it's possible that ETC is also used to damage ETH. And to prepare such an attack needs too much time, so it's possible and maybe even likely that there are already miners in line to defend ETC, but not visible yet.

Under the line it's a gamble and not a smart one. And it's right what is stated in the article: The pool doesn't represent the community or the team. But of course the public won't differ much.  

That is indeed an interesting question. One theory is: They hoped the replay attacks would hurt ETC but not ETH. Somebody would move ETH and also move ETC unintentionally while the ETH-team believed, ETC would be and stay worthless and die soon after the Hard fork. They didn't anticipate that exchanges would list it as reaction on the replay attacks and that ppl would buy it and miners would mine it.

So, if the theory should be right that ETH-folks believed that not to prevent replay attacks would damage ETC, it was a really bad strategy. But totally in line with some of their moves before, from DAO until the rushed out HF and their intentions to do both.

The more I think about it all the more I believe that ETH won't need more bad news regarding the tech to be doomed. It is as if they are willing to do everything to damage all credibility of the project and of the team and to bring themselves into a position without any choice to make a good decision.

And ETC - if it survives it will most likely become Ethereum again, while ETH will be called ETHF.

Being lazy, arrogant, ignorant, naive, superficial, greedy, demanding, (...) has led people into all kinds of disasters - not just financial ones.

And you are not able to show just one post of me that one could call "overoptimistic" in which I don't say myself that I'm not sure how realistic it is - if I describe an optimistic scenario!

So, I'm just honest. You should take a look into the mirror...

See, in the other post you say you care about your money. And we are on the same side here. What you believe to see as indications that I could be an insider results out of the fact that I am very consequent in what I do. I don't want to buy bullshit. I focus on pearls.

In 2014 I tried to play roulette. But I hate it not to know what's going on. And while it's never possible to really know what is going on behind the curtain, I use nearly everything to come to conclusions. And while I know that those conclusions are subjective, not facts, I combine it all and increase the possibility of being more correct than wrong - never safe. And "black-swans" are not predictable.


So, you should figure that we are on the same side in this game. And just btw: My approach would never be to say that somebody could be an Insider.
First I would look deep into his post history. Than I would ask questions. People are not good in remembering lies. I would figure if somebody would reply with lies or just shows uncertainty.

If you would do that and ask me the way I would ask, you would find out: No reason to believe that "tempus" is an Insider. You wouldn't even ask because my post-history shows enough.

This is getting stupid. I'm not even an ICO-Investor. I recognized Factom right after it launched on Polo.  

See, the bad thing here is: I can't prove what I'm not. I could prove what I am, and tell you a lot of my personal life and that would make clear that I'm not from Factom and it would make clear why I have time for this and also why I see it as kind of a "job" to invest in Crypto. I do this full-time. But I'm not a professional and my reasons are personal and I have no reason to post a diary here.


You say "You have too much information", but I just do deeper research and I analyze informations with another approach. It's never just about objective infos but especially subjective informations --> communication. I focus on little details. I could give you tons of examples and not just about Factom. And if you look into my post-history: Focus on my posts in the Heat-thread (1 or 2 weeks ago). Very often I use communication to find out more.

Example: My first post there was to James: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15555631#msg15555631

I won't say here why I've asked him. But I could tell you a lot about it. And I knew before that he would answer and what his answer would be. One line from me, one line from him and I could write you a wall of text why I asked and what I believe to see there.


Second post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15556402#msg15556402

3 questions. 2 are important. One (the third) is not worth to ask. Public Information. If you look how it was replied: The first two important questions were ignored. The unimportant one was answered. My next post was about my concerns about that. And that lead into a lot of bullshit and lies.

I didn't do that to hurt them or to spread FUD. I just wanted to know if Heat could be worth to invest in. They had an article in forbes, so I believed it could be a good project. But: I looked deeper into it and recognized many points I did not like and how they react and I can't say I know everything about them, but for sure I won't invest in lazy guys, who don't do the basics before they ask for money, and liars who intentionally misquote me:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15595975#msg15595975



Or look into my posts about Neucoin back in October. I predicted how it would end and in that case there was no possibility to be wrong.


******************

I say that because I looked deep into Factom as well. If I would have recognized aspects that I could have considered as weak or dishonest, I would have communicated it and they would have answered. Because I ask in a way that it would be revealing not to answer. But all I saw was honesty and professionalism. I don't say they are perfect and without any mistakes. But in comparison with other projects I looked into, I don't know of any on that level.


For me it's always about the question if that what is visible can give informations about what is behind. And while it's never safe, just about possibilities, things become clear if I have a lot of informations. That's why I have a lot of informations because I collect informations to be able to do what I do.

And this situation, that some here seem to believe I'm from Factom is mainly a result because I shared informations and also speculations. If I wouldn't have done that, nobody would believe in this stupidity. And funny is: If I'm critical, Heat for example, I'm accused to be paid from a competitor. Neucoin was the same. And some others as well. It's a typical reaction.

 

This is a good point:

"we should all be equal but that is rarely if ever true sadly"

You and I are potentially equal, because I know nothing you are unable to find out. I never had any kind of insider-infos. We are not equal because I'm more diligent and more precise and maybe I have more time because of personal reasons and most likely I know more about psychology etc. But what I do is no rocket science.

No problem! And yes. Ancun could be very interesting. I don't know anything about them, but I like this parts:

- leading innovative electronic data notarization services provider
- broad range of industries, including voice, email, documents, contracts, copyright, electronic government, medical data, instant messaging
- partnerships with more than 100 notarial offices in China

It's all on Factom's Blog:


Factom will provide Ancun an application interface to blockchain for their back office operations. Factom will also build an application interface to integrate with Ancun’s existing software systems. Factom’s technology will support Ancun’s notarization services for more than 100 locations in 28 provinces across China.

(...)

Ancun is a leader in the internet industry and a leading innovative electronic data notarization services provider. Ancun has accumulated extensive experiences in eight product types over a broad range of industries, including voice, email, documents, contracts, copyright, electronic government, medical data, instant messaging. They also have partnerships with more than 100 notarial offices in China. Ancun Zhengxin is a subsidiary of Ancun Group and is responsible for Ancun Group’s platform development and maintenance.

(...)


https://www.factom.com/ancun-and-factom-inc-announce-a-mou-for-the-integration-of-blockchain-technology-and-traditional-notarization-services-in-china/

Absolutely agree! Attacks on ETC will lead into more sympathy for ETC, most likely also help from miners, and it will damage ETH's credibility - in any case.  

That's interesting. If it's 1) correct, and 2) a tendency it's a nice one.

Ancun just had a few Entries per day and now this jump to 13,586

Maybe a first sign of what I believe we will see in future:

1. Increasing number of customers
2. Increasing number of Entries per customer
3. Exploding number of Entries in summary


In my opinion that's the main-potential of Factom. If we think about market reactions everybody knows:

People react on rising volume and price. They want to know reasons why a project rises, and some even buy just because a rising price. But for many people it's also a sign to be carefully. Also trivial: Prices often crash after a sharp rise.


But Entries: It's possible that the number of Entries will increase continuous, that people will see what I say above: Points 1,2,3

And that would be new in Crypto. The market would react on an increasing or even exploding number of Entries like it normally reacts on volume and price. But Entries won't be volatile, won't crash. Without technical problems it can grow nearly unlimited. The market won't even know how to handle that, because even after a sharp rise the price could be cheap. It could be a wrong decision to sell and ATH's could still be a buy.
 


This is the doc for usage statistics:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RUZLxxoAfT3C5jIJ144DLYdztYe_sqrKqbTlZuD05-s/edit#gid=445871101

They are not drinking champagne. More taking pills and talking to therapists. Whatever will happen to ETC, ETH is damaged and the team has lost a lot of credibility. The media-echo is bad for ETH, while ETC gets increasing support.

ETH is in a desperate situation, in all scenarios I can think of - just more or less - or more precise: bad or worse.

There are basically two scenarios but with multiple outcome-scenarios:

1. They are successful with the 51%-attack

2. They are not successful



1.

a) If they should be successful in destroying ETC all ETC-supporters just come back to ETH and after some weeks ETH is back on track

b) ETH-Miners destroy ETC but they damage ETH's credibility even more.


I doubt that it would be a). I believe that destroying ETC will also damage ETH.


2.

a) If not successful it just stays how it is

b) If ETC-Miners should be able to defend ETC it could strengthen ETC and weaken ETH. Because also an attempted attack would most likely damage more credibility and an unsuccessful attack would seem weak.


Again I doubt it would be a).


So, both scenarios may not end well for ETH. And if they shouldn't be successful I can imagine what media will write about it.

I'm always open for a good discussion. Thing is: You can't say I have a lack of arguments, right? You don't need to agree but if you want to discuss "stuff" you also should come up with arguments.

But now you say I've insulted you while you think it's okay to spread around I would work for Factom.

Or that you've said this:

"You do confirmed that, Factom does not provide any answers to Factoid holders, no marketing materials, no frequent updates, in one of their past posts they even say "WE DONT CARE"."

But I never said that. So, it's a little bit too optimistic to believe I wouldn't answer or reply in a nice way.



I never said "Please believe me!!! Buy more!!! Please don't sell!!!!. What I am: A supporter in some ways but just because I write down my opinion and it's positive about Factom because I like what I see in this project and how it's handled. But I'm not a shill (not even sure what that is), not a pumper, not from Factom, not an expert.



Nope. I just have time. I watch Factom and other projects, I write down my opinion, I even write down my theories just for my own. But even more I like to discuss it.

And of course, I already said Factom is my Nr. 1 but I'm not concerned that you could write it down. It's more about misleading infos you spread around. It's already hard enough for newbies to understand Factom. It doesn't need wrong infos. And it's not the first time that you are misleading.



I don't say you shouldn't write here or wherever. Feel free to write whatever you want. Just saying that I'll answer if it's bullshit. If you disagree with my opinion and my arguments, rebut it.

And man, to repeat that you believe I'm not just a holder doesn't make your claim true. In fact that's a simple red herring because you desperately need to make a point where arguments are missing. I'm the wrong person for games like that.


I didn't say that. In fact I said the opposite but you didn't like it. So let me explain what I mean with "childish behaviour:

1. You are kind of "natural-demanding".

2. Because you are so demanding you are (nearly) always disappointed.

3. Because you can't handle your disappointment you act impulsive

4. Instead of taking a look into the mirror it needs others to blame

5. The combination of 3 and 4 leads to impulsive accusations, not rational criticism

6. If you come up with rational criticism somebody like me rebuts with arguments

7. That's disappointing and you start again with 1


What it is about: Self-assurance. You hope others will agree. But I answer. And what is your reaction? To claim that I'm paid from Factom.

Thing is: Even if that would be true it would not rebut my arguments. Exactly because of that you need such a claim to make a point.
 

 

1. For me this is not personal. You say I insulted you. But you spread at least wrong rumors, if not even lies about me and you try to imply I would have made claims I never did. Again: Not personal, but I'll never react just friendly on something like that.

2. You are free to do whatever you want, so am I.

Not sure why, but I didn't even think about a thread for ETC and posted some stuff about ETC in the ETH-Tread. I'll post it here as well:

Disclaimer: Just watching, not invested in ETH or ETC. But of course: One of the most interesting situations I've seen in Crypto since Craig Wright. ;-)



Who will survive - without safe answer of course








About a 51%-attack

I'm not a technical guy, that's why I have to ask:

Regarding the replay attacks: http://www.coindesk.com/rise-replay-attacks-ethereum-divide/

Is the only way to get this solved that one of both executes a(nother) HF?

Because ETC won't Hard Fork. I don't believe that.

And ETH can't do another HF. Or maybe I'm wrong with that, but it couldn't be called ideal.


Or will it become un-important over time because user will separate it themselves?

It's not wrong what you say here. Factoid-holders could spread the word - potentially. But: It's too early. Because we would not reach companies. They do. We would reach people like us - individuals. And it would make sense, also regarding Factom's use case, if there would be already applications for private persons. And if the system will have quality and more and more people understand what will be possible with Factom, it can be expected that there also will be a growing numbers of applications for private people - like photo-app's, easy-to-use apps to factomize files with drag and drop, maybe even something in the gaming sector, maybe some app's for artists and so on. There is a lot potential I believe.

But for now thousands of Investors would just make "marketing" for the market.


 
No. I did not say that! I said: "They could be a little bit more communicative" and that I understand that they are not more communicative. I did not say that they don't give answers and it wouldn't be true to claim that. Because they do. Mostly Brian Deery and most of the times on reddit. But also here. And some questions are not really worth to answer because a lot of questions already imply lazy behavior. And I understand that they don't reply on all of those questions.

And there are also marketing materials. They did a lot of good marketing. Just look into the Ann of this thread. Watch their videos. There was this three days ago:

Factom Developer Insights - Paul Snow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50gGy59cGq4

This was some days before:

Factom Developer Insights - Brian Deery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcEZNeypL7M


Two days ago their announcement: https://www.factom.com/smartcontract-factom-announce-collaboration/

They're active on Twitter: https://twitter.com/factom?lang=de

I really don't know how you can say that they don't give frequent updates! Paul Snow talks about M2 by the way. He does not say when it will be released, but they are pretty open.



See, what you do here is: First you make a claim that has no base to come to a conclusion that are based on that, which means there is no base!

And that is either a sign that you are not informed and that you don't really care about what they provide, or it is a manipulative attempt to make a point. And I believe it's both. If you would do it smarter I would even say: You are paid. I don't say that because I see no strategy. But that doesn't change the fact that you repeatedly spread des-info.  




If Factom's marketcap would go to hundreds of millions of $ or even $1 bn now, it would be totally overbought. It wouldn't have base at this point. I mean, you can calculate how much demand it would need to give a high marketcap like that base. What you want is pump and dump - but why should they want it? For them it wouldn't even be good marketing because something like that gives an opposite signal of what they want. It always gives a shady impression! They would have to face questions about their intentions and priorities.

And exactly that are the questions to answer about Ethereum! You say "larger market cap, higher price"  - but where is any base for such prices? Would a market cap of $50 Mio change anything in terms of use? Does it need a high Ether-price to execute smart contracts?

And where are useful smart contracts? Where are the businesses who really use Ethereum or just say that they will use it? What I know is that some companies use Ethereum to research Smart Contracts - but that is not the same. Because what I believe is: Ethereum is a laboratory and many are interested in it, also companies. But as a scientific project. They learn out of Ethereum and they also learn out of their mistakes and  flaws in it's code. What they most likely learn is that overcomplex systems won't do a good job. I believe many learn now that Ethereum is no platform they should ever use.

So, if you can show me signifacant stuff - please. Maybe there is. I'm not totally informed. But what I know is that there was a research about smart contracts on Ethereum and a high percentage is totally buggy. And the fact that even Ethereum-Dev's were not able to develop theDAO secure, the fact that it was totally damaged already two weeks after launch - that says a lot.

And it's existence as hyped up and overfunded "social-experimental-investment-company-whatever-project" also showed priorities. TheDAO was the most revealing "thing" I've ever seen in Ethereum. I always believed that the market is manipulated and I believed that the team is involved. But: While manipulation is obvious but not unusual, I can't be sure and I can't prove involvement of the team.

But TheDAO showed much more. It showed the will to take a high risk for the eco-system to get funds for Ethereum itself. The slock.it-guys are members of Ethereum. And they developed theDAO. They wanted it to fund slock.it. They wanted a pretty high salary from theDAO to care about it's security! Monthly salary! They wanted to make a living out of it. If it would have gone as planned it would be the best deal ever. But, where would have been the real value? Slock.it? Other Ethereum-projects? Or was theDAO aimed to buy a farm?

Really, it's very interesting to watch and it's very revealing. I always were careful with Ethereum because I believe that complexity is risk and it all was way too fast in combination with a lack of precision. But theDAO: I call it shady. The hack is a result of bad code. But it's existence with such a high funding and the hype around it and that they hyped it with own millions - something was and is wrong with it. The Hard Fork is just another proof for me.

So, for me nothing is left in Ethereum. The price has zero base. Ethereum is a very ambitious project but totally damaged. The code seems to be deeply flawed (not my opinion, just what I've read), the immutability of the blockchain is injured, the credibility of the team went from 90% to 20% or even less, there is a competitor now on the original chain which could be called: Original Ethereum but abandoned from the original team! There will be most likely legal consequences and I'm not educated on that side but there will be most likely more concerning news.

What is good in Ethereum? Like I've said, I always were carefully and didn't buy. But I had a lot of respect because it is very ambitious and the team seemed to be professional. My opinion about it has changed now. If I should be forced to buy it, I would buy ETC and not ETH.




Wow, just three lines and so much *********:

1. "True, DAO was not delivered as it should. However, I d always go first for those transparent and consumer friendly ones"

So, theDAO is consumer-friendly? What is consumer-friendly? TheDAO was Hacker-friendly. So yes. Let's say it was consumer-friendy.


Factom is not "consumer-friendly"? They focus highly on being customer-friendly. But you are a speculator or more a gambler.


2. "it s my money and I want to get something in exchange."

Ah, ok. So, who has your money? Factom?

The guy you bought from has your money. If you want "something" in exchange, go and sell your FCT's and you have BTC to invest in something "consumer-friendly". Maybe you'll find another money-burner. ;-)




3. "without early investors Factom would not be where it is now."

Not sure about that. The ICO wasn't that much money. And even if it was a start: You didn't buy into the ICO or am I wrong? What have you done for Factom? You are supportive, right? Spreading des-info. Of course, they owe you some hundred percentage of profit in the next hours.

And if you mean us with early Investors, because we bought after launch: It wouldn't make much difference if any. If the price is 20 cent or 20 Dollar doesn't change anything. Not regarding the system and also not regarding it's use or the price for Entry Credits. Factom can't be attacked over the market --> another point why I really like it.


That's a funny question. But I'll give you a serious answer: Everything.

Why? Because you can't even call it logical!

1. Is it rational to be invested and to spread des-info?
2. Is it logical to claim that you want something in exchange for your money if you never gave money to Factom? And if: You could count your profit! Some hundreds %.
3. Is it logical to be demanding and to believe anybody of them would care if they see that you act like a troll?
4. Is it logical to be invested but not to be informed about basics?
5. Is it logical to call something like theDAO "consumer-friendly"?
6. Is it logical to call Ethereum (or TheDAO) transparent?


Really I could list up more. Nothing makes sense here and that's why I like it. You are my x-file. ;-) But seriously, I don't get it. If you would do it smarter I maybe really would believe a competitor pays you. But it doesn't make sense.

What I believe is: You are just mentally childish. Like a demanding child that writes a wishletter for christmas one day after easter and says "job is done, where is the Santa?". And seriously: It's irrational. It's not in line with reality. It wouldn't ever be smart if they would act like you would want them to act. It would damage Factom because it would hurt their credibility while they would focus on wasting time instead of using it most effective.

I see no logic. There is one point I'm able to understand: You want profit and you want it as soon as possible. Same here. But while I at least try to be supportive you are destructive - without any effect but still. And what I believe is: With that attitude you already lost a lot of money. Can't proof it and I can't say I really care. But I would be surprised if it's possible to make money without acting rational.



 

What they are saying is that they believe in immutability of blockchains and disagree with a bail-out! And you should ask why anybody would want to deal with a project that rushes out and fucks up a $150 Mio Smart Contract. That's not the fault of any exchange!

And just by the way - replay attacks:

At present, it appears that exchanges have been most affected by the vulnerability.
http://www.coindesk.com/rise-replay-attacks-ethereum-divide/

I wouldn't blame the mess to any exchange. Polo did a great job but it's also respectable just to say "no, we don't want that".

"way too optimistic"

If you read my posts with all my speculations and calculations about optimistic scenarios you'll find out: I always say "if they should be successful", "if they deliver the system how it's planned", "if it will be stable" and so on. Because that is my personal conclusion: If they will deliver quality I have no doubt that it will be used and that it will grow.

So, I would say I'm optimistic because I believe that they are able to deliver quality and obviously they want to do that and obviously they're working hard. But I'm not too optimistic, because I also said multiple times: This is a high risk market. It's impossible to be on the safe side.


"big time personal interest"

I'm invested. And it's my number 1 Investment. So, yes.



"(...) an interest beyond being a holder. This is why you end up arguing with 10 different people at the same time."


I like it to discuss and I like controversial discussions. That can be called "beyond being a holder". I discuss also in other threads without being invested. What I don't like is superficiality and ignorance. If you want to do some psycho-analyses tell me why it triggers me that much. ;-)



"I would go as far and say you work for Factom"

No need to pay me and I doubt they would use and pay sockpuppets. My support for Factom is because I honestly believe in this project and also the team. And different to somebody like you, who is constantly demanding and in a superficial and ignorant way destructive, I don't want to be just a parasite who wants to make profit out of the work of others.

And just by the way: I also was critical in some points. I was very critical because the wallet did not work for me and I felt very unsafe with my Factoids on Polo but it's fine now. There is nothing I'm really critical about now. They could be a little bit more communicative but I understand that they are not.



"please, stop praising them that much"

I just say my personal opinion and I'm honest about it. It's not praising. If I would want to act like that I would write short posts with simple messages - like it's common in Crypto --> "Soon this will go to mooooooon!"


Once more, it all comes down to the market, the invisible hand is what determines the price. Having 1k volume on Polo shows what the market currently thinks about Factom compared to 15x that ETH and ETC volume. Yes, that same broken, stolen from and trashed ETH. Why? You tell me why is this?

I explained it multiple times. I wrote long posts about (psychological) market dynamics with focus on Factom and in comparison to Ethereum:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=850070.msg15634362#msg15634362


The short version is:

The team behind Factom is doing everything to lower barriers for potential customers to use Factom.

They do nothing to lower barriers to buy Factoids. They don't explain why it could be a good buy. They don't use the usual triggers to manipulate ppl into buying. They are not very communicative with the Crypto-Community. They simplify everything regarding "us" (crypto-folks) to what is needed. They give all infos and they give news. But it is as if they say: "Everybody is self-responsible". They won't do any work that should be done from those who are interested. I mean, questions like "where do I find the wallet" are in fact stupid. I answer it because I have time for that. But somebody who really cares should just go on their site. It's not much work. And the team doesn't care about things like that and I would see a bad sign, a red flag, if they would. I see it all on "green" because they show a lot of intention and motivation to deliver a useful system and all the partnerships show that they do a good job - also on the business-side.

What you don't get is the fact, that exactly the situation on the market is an opportunity.

I try to make it easy: There are 100% participants in this market and let's say 90% know what Ethereum is and what it is about, even if most likely not even 5% understand it deeply. Those who want to be invested in Ethereum are or were invested. The marketcap already was at $1.5 bn! There is not that much room left and in the current situation it's even a high risk because it is about to turn against ETH. There is a lot of room for a price-decline.


For Factom my estimation is more like only 20% know about Factom. Many see it on the exchange but the majority knows near to nothing and it's not easy to get into it - to understand it and why it has potential. If I would be wrong with that there would be more questions and also more who already know more. But there is an increasing tendency. There are a lot of indications for that. And I believe there will be hype. But not because of manipulative attempts of the team.

Under the line the current situation is potential, also on the psychological side - the market.

Ethereum: I believe it's the total opposite in nearly all points. And btw: One reason, maybe the major reason is, that they are focused on the price and that they've rushed things out for money. DAO is a proof and the mess they are in is a result. If I would see signs for such an approach in Factom I would dump most of my Factoids.

Just a little advice: While it may be not important what individuals say (and we can think of Cryptopia as "Individual" and not very important for Ethereum), it's always good to know what is going on collectively, to find out which opinions are "out there" and how intense they are. And the more individuals share opinions the more intense it is or becomes. Markets act psychologically, even if reactions are based on objektive informations. For me personally that is one priority, to find out "moods" and "opinions" of the collective.

Translated to the current situation of ETH after the hardfork: What Cryptopia says is not common sense but it's also not just Cryptopia. It is a collective opinion with kind of "increasing intensity". It's also true that those arguments now are used against Ethereum, so there is some intention. But Cryptopia is one example for those who stated their opinion before the Hard Fork and not after it like some others.


For Ethereum this situation and such arguments are really bad. Because it's hard to defend and if this tendency (collective criticism of the HF with such reasons) should continue to increase it won't have just impact on the price but also on everything else.

The reason is hard to explain but it's because of the mix of objectivity (the opinion is not without any base) plus "mood" (more emotional and subjective reactions and often with intention) and that can be self-fullfilling because it's spreading and intense. At some point it even changes opinions - that ppl who thought that the hard fork would be the right decision now believe and say it was wrong.

It's a dangerous dynamic for Ethereum and it can't be fixed because they can't jump back and there are no arguments to defend some of the criticism.