Oh boy, try it with logic. If they would like to hype the price up they would have done exactly that! They could manipulate the market however they would like.

But if you want to talk about your concerns, please go more into detail:

1. Why is it wrong in your opinion if a company offers shares to Investors to get funds? And what would be better?

2. Do you criticize just the "buzzword" smart contracts, or do you believe all partnerships are just words but non-existent?

3. And if you believe the partnerships are real, do you think they should avoid "buzzwords"? Because that would be hard if they partner with "smartcontract.com", and "smart contract" is a buzzword, right?

 

At least it was before the HF and it seems to be a mix of idealism and criticism because of the HF-decision.

This is the main-point for them:

"Cryptopia believe in immutable blockchain technology, we believe that ETH forking their network to save the failures of a 3rd party software developer operating independently that ETH had nothing to do with sets an incredibly dangerous precedent and will likely open the floodgates to rollbacks for any reason.

Cryptopia is delisting ETH with the intent to avoid participation in both the upcoming fork and the inevitable future forks."
https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Forum/Thread/675

Sometimes I had the impression or the very speculative theory that Polo could be too close to Ethereum. But since they've added ETC I don't believe it anymore. And if I should name my Nr. 1 exchange it's Polo. It's never good to trust exchanges but they seem to be professionals.

You write so funny things!  

Let's think about it... who was it who sold his Factoids to buy into the damaged Ethereum? You really believe it makes sense to see a "HYIP" in the Factom share sale but not in Ethereum? In fact both are no HYIP's, but Ethereum seems to be doomed. And the market is manipulated. But even whales will cash out at one point and than it's about the race who is first to press the buttons.  

And you believe a market full of superficial gamblers who make prices just because they react on prices, which is the opposite of "smart money", should be a qualified source for a confirmation of another price? You turn things upside down! It's so irrational that it's funny again.


But seriously: This view on things is exemplary for the market. I mean, there are many smart Investors. But the majority is so arrogant and ignorant and superficial and lazy... it's enough reason for the fact that Ethereum is still way overpriced and Factom is still under the radar, while the next roulette just has started: ETC - number 1 by volume now.

That will be entertaining for weeks, maybe months!


Btw: My analysis why ETC could survive and ETH could die: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=428589.msg15750720#msg15750720

Your summary of my summary is very good - good headline: ETH will be the testnet for ETC

I mean, it's kind of funny and it really could become reality! Ethereum now is known to rush things out, so it could be a good advice for ETC not to hurry with updating and just to watch and research Ethereum, and bit by bit ETC will have more quality than ETH. It's simple logic.

I'm not a coder, but after all what I've read about theDAO and it's hack it's not true. Example:



Ethereum itself seems to be flawed according to the latest developments on the DAO Hack. Philip Daian, a researcher at Cornell University’s Initiative for Crytocurrencies & Contracts, just presented his latest findings on the hack, concluding:


"I would lay at least 50% of the blame for this exploit squarely at the feet of the design of the Solidity language.  This may bolster the case for certain types of corrective action.

I refuse to lay the blame exclusively on a poorly coded contract when the contract, even if coded using best practices and the following language documentation exactly, would have remained vulnerable to attack."


In a highly technical publication detailing the exploits that the hacker may have used, Daian stated:

"[T]his was actually not a flaw or exploit in the DAO contract itself: technically the EVM was operating as intended, but Solidity was introducing security flaws into contracts that were not only missed by the community, but missed by the designers of the language themselves."

(...)

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/ethereum-solidity-flaw-dao/


Somebody else (Daniel Krawisz) states:

This problem is so serious that it cannot be treated as a bug in the DAO. The problem is with Solidity itself, which is the scripting language used in Ethereum. Update: The problem actually all the way down to the Ethereum virtual machine.

(...)

This means the same issue exists in Serpent, another Ethereum scripting language, and every other one they might come up with.

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/ethereum-is-doomed/#selection-11.0-11.15


 

I have no clue if it's all correct or not.

But theDAO proved one thing: Even Ethereum-Devs are obviously not able to develop a smart contract in a secure way.
At least it seems as if there is no way to code more complex stuff without feeling uncertain.


Under the line I personally don't have much faith in Ethereums future (or ETC's), because I don't believe it will ever be used for real business. I don't mean it that critical because my view is: Ethereum has a lot of value as scientific project, as something to find out possible ways but also how it can't be done. But for Ethereum the problem could be, that others will learn out of it and will do it better while Ethereum took too much steps into a direction that won't work.


Safe to say is: There will be serious and professional competitors in future. And what is left for Ethereum? A cute twin, a bail-out, a blockchain that can't be trusted, a team that can't be trusted - neither regarding their abilities nor their priorities. 

Why should ETH-traders don't like/trust Polo? In my opinion it's by far the best exchange.

"Once we did it, it would ruin the credibility of their coin."


It's naive. Because it would also ruin more credibility of Ethereum.

Investors won't decide. Potential users will decide. And if more should decide like Stampery - Ethereum will die, also Investors will los trust.

The price also could be a risk, because Ethereum would lose also credibility if there should be dumping. That's not that much of a risk for ETC because it's more expected: It still involves theDAO.

And if the price should go up again, it wouldn't mean anything. I would believe it's manipulated, because I always believed that it was and is (at least backed). But potential users won't say "wow, nice price, let's use Ethereum". They have to consider more.

I've seen the plans for an 51%-attack on the ETH-forum and I don't have much doubt that there will be some kinds of attacks. But: There is a psychological problem that shouldn't be underestimated: How does the ETH-team look now?

Short overview:

1. They (or some of them) developed theDAO
2. TheDAO was funded with a lot of team-money - ridiculous $150 Mio in total. That's 3 times of the original Ethereum-CFC if I recall it correctly(?)
3. Slock.it wanted funds - could be seen as intention to develop theDAO - could give a shady impression
4. TheDAO launched on Polo - and it wasn't too successfully while some even believed it would rise in price --> totally misconception/irrational
5. Than the "Hack" - and obviously: All warnings ignored but claimed it would be secure. It says some things about them as developers.
6. Articles come out, not blaming just the code of theDAO but the Ethereum-coding-language: Solidity
7. Decision to do rush out a HF, because time is running -  and totally convinced the other chain would die soon after
8. But: ETC lives and gets stronger - not weaker (at least for now)

And now add to this:

9. Ethereum-guys attack the original chain to bail out their butts again.


All points smell like "money is the priority" while nothing seems professional. For me personally just the existence of theDAO was a signal not to touch Ethereum. Not because I believed it would be not secure. I have no clue about coding. But the economical side was bad in my eyes, for Ethereum. I mean, it's speculation because we will never find out. But also the high funding was not rational. It seemed too shady, to much like: Easy way to get funds for other Ethereum-projects.

And the believe of blinded Investors, the price could increase beyond the funding was totally naive. It had to go down, because every time it would have invested it would have "lost" funds (to invest) while there always would have been the possibility of a bad investment.


Thing is: Without any doubt they have a very serious credibility-problem now and that will become worse if they should attack ETC and be successful in killing it.

Out of their perspective it would be rational to do it, because if ETC survives it really could be the beginning of Ethereums dead. But if Ethereum-members and miners should be responsible for it, there will be many people in Crypto, maybe a majority, who will disagree with that.

Again it would seem as if the team will do anything to rescue themselves. In combination with all what happened before, and some articles that were highly critical about the DAO and even more, it will begin to seem shady. I mean, Vitalik Buterin is one of the biggest stars in Crypto. People have a lot of respect for him and I really respect him as well and I don't believe that he ever had bad intentions or is in the Game just for the money. But people will lose faith.

And: Even without any thoughts about ETC, the next bad news for Ethereum, if there should come out more flaws regarding the code or whatever: Not sure if it would survive. As I said: I'm not a coder, but there seem to be serious problems and if not even ETH-Dev's are able to develop a smart contract in a secure way - who will use Ethereum for smart contracts?

And of course: That would also be a problem for ETC if true.

Habe gerade genau darüber in den Original-Thread meine Theorie gepostet:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=428589.msg15750720#msg15750720


Auf deutsch und in Kurzform ohne Belege (edit: doch ein paar Links):

1. Falls ETC überleben sollte, was ich nicht weiß, planen sie alles zu übernehmen was Ethereum tut. Sie werden es einfach kopieren (open source).

2. Das bedeutet: Ethereum und Ethereum classic werden sich technisch nicht unterscheiden. Zumindest wird ETC technisch nicht schlechter sein. Sie schleppen nur eben die DAO-Probleme mit sich herum, aber das sind ökonomische Probleme.

3. Wenn man sich fragt, warum man sagt Ethereum das Original sein soll und ETC nicht, dann gibt es nur einen Grund: Das Team! Technisch ist ETC das Original.

4. Andere Perspektive: Das original Team hat Ethereum verlassen um v.a. sich selbst finanziell rauszuhauen. Diese vermeintliche Notwendigkeit entstand aus dem schlechten Job den sie vorher gemacht haben, sowohl technisch, als auch **vorsicht Spekulation**: Vermutlich was das Funding betraf. Ich persönlich glaube, dass das DAO vor allem dafür gedacht war um wiederum Ethereum-Team-Mitglieder mit Kohle für ihre Projekte zu versorgen: slock.it wäre sicher nur der Anfang gewesen.

5. Frage: Warum sollte man dem Original-Team vertrauen, das bewiesenermaßen einen sehr schlechten Job gemacht hat was die reine Programmierarbeit betrifft, und das bewiesenermaßen die eigenen finanziellen Interessen vor die Unverletzlichkeit der Blockchain stellte? Meiner Ansicht nach ist das ein Total-Schaden betreffend Glaubwürdigkeit. Sowohl was Fähigkeiten betrifft als auch was Intentionen und Prioritäten betrifft.

6. Wenn Firmen sich fragen welchem Projekt sie vertrauen sollten, warum sollte es ETH sein? Loyalität gegenüber Vitalik Buterin weil sie ihn persönlich mögen? Oder werden sie lieber die Technik wählen in die sie vertrauen können? Ich denke letzteres.

7. Sollte es Tendenzen in so eine Richtung geben, werden immer mehr Miner und auch Developer überlaufen. Es könnte zukünftig heißen dass VB und seine Leute nicht nur ihre finanziellen Interessen rausgehauen haben, sondern dazu auch noch sich selbst. Denn VB hat keine Wahl. Er kann schlecht zu ETC wechseln wenn ETH schwächer werden sollte.

8. Meine Schlussfolgerung ist: Sollte ETC die nächsten Wochen und Monate überleben, werden sie an Stärke gewinnen und ETH verlieren und ETH wird sterben.


Doch ein paar Links, der Vollständigkeit halber:


ETC wird alles kopieren:

At the initial stage, maintaining 100 percent compatibility with Ethereum is a high priority for us. This also means that we don't really need to do much development, we simply fork the code from the Ethereum repository and update accordingly. But, of course, if current Ethereum developers want to join us — now or in the future — they are more than welcome to do so. We are aiming for the same thing here: building a better future for humankind, where smart contract platforms provide a mechanism for social and economic cooperation on a truly global scale.
https://steemit.com/crypto-news/@ghostyeti/interview-with-arvicco-developer-of-ethereum-classic



Die ersten Zeichen das sich andere Projekte für ETC entscheiden könnten:


More and more companies are openly showing their support for Ethereum Classic. To the majority of enterprises in the cryptocurrency world, supporting ETC may not make much sense. But Stampery feels there is a good reason to support the pre-hard fork Ethereum initiative. After all, the company wants to let anyone create verifiable records of their data.
http://themerkle.com/stampery-drops-forked-ethereum-blockchain-support-due-to-censorship-concerns/


Why Stampery supports Ethereum Classic

(...)

For transactions to be final and unmodifiable, blockchains need to be immune to third party interference. This promise was completely broken by Ethereum. Hard forks should only happen when a catastrophic bug puts in danger the core values of the technology. In this case the consensus mechanism worked just fine. The blockchain was modified simply because a group of people lost too much money and they decided to bail themselves out.

This is completely unacceptable for Stampery because it creates a dangerous precedent. A powerful government might now decide to push for a hard fork that changes blocks in which we anchored data. They could claim “national interest” for doing so. Or a “too big too fail” corporation could force a fork because it wants to wipe all proof of some questionable process recorded on the blockchain. Because of this we prefer to anchor our data to a blockchain in which hard forks happen only when a protocol-level bug needs to be fixed.

(...)https://medium.com/@Stampery/why-stampery-supports-ethereum-classic-4c86ec7cca17#.2ufi5ptwm



Factom, mein Haupt-Investment, hat im März bekannt gegeben ihre Chain auch in Ethereum verankern zu wollen (erste Wahl ist natürlich Bitcoin):

Factom Plans To Anchor Into Ethereum Blockchain
http://themerkle.com/factom-plans-to-anchor-into-ethereum-blockchain/

Und ich weiß nicht was sie tun werden. Aber der Plan macht jetzt keinen Sinn mehr. Denn warum sollte Factom, und Factom hat auch eine eigene Blockchain, sich in eine Blockchain absichern die definitiv nicht vertrauenswürdig ist?


Und wenn Factom beginnen wird Daten für Smart Contracts bereitzustellen, und gestern haben sie da Neuigkeiten gebracht, warum sollte ETC ignoriert werden? Es gibt keinen Grund für andere Firmen und Projekte ETC nicht zu nutzen wenn sie technisch auf Augenhöhe sind und in Sachen Vertrauen Meilenweit voraus.


Ich glaube, dass ich mit dieser Theorie richtig liegen könnte falls ETC nicht zu Tode attackiert wird oder über den Preis sterben sollte falls der DAO-Hacker einfach alles dumped. Aber selbst das Szenario hieße ja nicht tot. Für mich wäre es dann ein Kauf, da es ja auch eine Art Befreiungsschlag wäre und technisch ja nichts verändern würde.


Es wird jedenfalls spannend bleiben.

Still low interest rate: 0.0298%

It's unusual because everytime(!) the price increased since Margin Trading was enabled, the interest rate went up to over 1%.

I don't care if they try to short it but it's nothing now in comparison to how it was shorted in the past. I've made some money because they paid good for it.

There is an interesting "paradox" and it could turn out as very bad for ETH:

If ETC should survive, ETC will copy everything what will be developed for ETH. At least that's the plan:

At the initial stage, maintaining 100 percent compatibility with Ethereum is a high priority for us. This also means that we don't really need to do much development, we simply fork the code from the Ethereum repository and update accordingly. But, of course, if current Ethereum developers want to join us — now or in the future — they are more than welcome to do so. We are aiming for the same thing here: building a better future for humankind, where smart contract platforms provide a mechanism for social and economic cooperation on a truly global scale.
https://steemit.com/crypto-news/@ghostyeti/interview-with-arvicco-developer-of-ethereum-classic


What's interesting about that situation is: The Ethereum-team would do the development, but ETC could become the project to trust!

If it survives potential problems because of the DAO-hack etc.

--> ETC will be more Ethereum than Ethereum. Because it will be the same tech on the original chain and without a bail-out-decision to secure funds of friends.


What I mean becomes clear if you read this:

More and more companies are openly showing their support for Ethereum Classic. To the majority of enterprises in the cryptocurrency world, supporting ETC may not make much sense. But Stampery feels there is a good reason to support the pre-hard fork Ethereum initiative. After all, the company wants to let anyone create verifiable records of their data.
http://themerkle.com/stampery-drops-forked-ethereum-blockchain-support-due-to-censorship-concerns/


Why Stampery supports Ethereum Classic

(...)

For transactions to be final and unmodifiable, blockchains need to be immune to third party interference. This promise was completely broken by Ethereum. Hard forks should only happen when a catastrophic bug puts in danger the core values of the technology. In this case the consensus mechanism worked just fine. The blockchain was modified simply because a group of people lost too much money and they decided to bail themselves out.

This is completely unacceptable for Stampery because it creates a dangerous precedent. A powerful government might now decide to push for a hard fork that changes blocks in which we anchored data. They could claim “national interest” for doing so. Or a “too big too fail” corporation could force a fork because it wants to wipe all proof of some questionable process recorded on the blockchain. Because of this we prefer to anchor our data to a blockchain in which hard forks happen only when a protocol-level bug needs to be fixed.

(...)https://medium.com/@Stampery/why-stampery-supports-ethereum-classic-4c86ec7cca17#.2ufi5ptwm



The problem for Ethereum could become:


- Why should companies trust ETH instead of ETC if ETC will be technically the same as ETH?

- Why shouldn't they use ETC if it's the same as ETH if they can trust ETC more than ETH?

- Why should anybody trust the original team and not the original chain?




And if there should be a tendency for such a situation: At least some Ethereum-Dev's would leave ETH and join ETC --> ETC would become stronger and Ethereum weaker. In the end it could be ETC which will become the real Ethereum again, and in fact it always was the original.

In fact the Ethereum-team abandoned the original chain! Why? Because of their bad job with TheDAO! Because of the high funding of theDAO! And what was theDAO about? Speculation, but I believe it was to fund Ethereum-guys - slock.it and so on. I never believed in theDAO because for me it looked too shady. But, just my personal opinion.


Under the line I'm not sure how good the chances are that ETC will survive, but if, I expect it to become stronger than ETH and ETH to die. And I'm not joking here. And I'm not saying it because I'm against ETH or for ETC - no Investment.
 


Btw: I'm mainly in Factom. And Factom also announced in march:

Factom Plans To Anchor Into Ethereum Blockchain
http://themerkle.com/factom-plans-to-anchor-into-ethereum-blockchain/

And I don't know what they'll decide but it doesn't make much sense to secure a system into a blockchain if it's immutability is a question of submissive decisions with a focus on bailing out Investors. I mean: If the DAO would have been funded just with $10 Mio and not with team-money, would there be two chains now? Never.

And yesterday Factom announced a partnership with smartcontract.com, and on their site:

Ethereum Smart Oracles
Give your Ethereum smart contracts access to external resources like data feeds, your internal systems, additional blockchains and traditional banks/payment networks.
https://smartcontract.com

And it's not about Factom what will happen with data they'll provide to Ethereum, but they can provide it to all Smart Contract projects, ETC included. What I want to say with that: There is no reason to ignore ETC out of perspective of other companies. They won't feel loyal to Ethereum because they like Vitalik and his team.


There is some possibility that in future ppl will say that the original team abandoned the original Ethereum while ETC will be Ethereum.
Because there are not that many reasons to trust the original team which injured the original chain because of own interest as a result of bad code before. It's like a step-by-step but lastly total damage of credibility.

You can't import fractions but you can transact whatever amount you wish.

1. Import your Factoids with your passphrase into the wallet (GUI)
2. Transaction of whatever amount you wish


Possible step 3: If you want to hold some Factoids for longterm, I would recommend not to store them in the wallet but to use Factoid-papermill (paper-wallet-address-generator).

It's all here:
https://www.factom.com/howto/

Not about Factom, but about a competitor, Stampery & Ethereum, and really interesting:


Stampery Drops Forked Ethereum Blockchain Support Due To Censorship Concerns
http://themerkle.com/stampery-drops-forked-ethereum-blockchain-support-due-to-censorship-concerns/


Why Stampery supports Ethereum Classic
https://medium.com/@Stampery/why-stampery-supports-ethereum-classic-4c86ec7cca17#.2ufi5ptwm
 


Edit: They should take a look at Factom:

"We can’t deny we might eventually see a decline on the Ethereum Classic blockchain. In that case, we will just switch to a more secure blockchain that can offer fast blocks and relatively high adoption."

I don't see a problem. First, not writing here doesn't mean that he does not read from time to time, but: If we are honest about this Forum and also this thread it's very often just superficial bullshit.

The Ethereum-team is not the only team that is very inactive here. The same is true for a lot of other projects. It's like "the more professional a team is the less they post on BCT". Serious project-teams see this forum more as a snakepit - a mix of short-term-focused hypers and trolls.

I like this forum, but if I would be a professional I would hate it. And even I'm sometimes disappointed that it's (nearly) always just about the price and "one-line-comments". Deeper discussions about the context are very rare and ppl doesn't seem to be overly interested.

There are better discussions on reddit - but I don't like Reddit as platform. ;-)

Most of all serious Dev's don't use this forum, at least not much.
So, it's not a sign at all. He is active: https://www.reddit.com/user/vbuterin

That's something I really like about him. He is very communicative. Also on twitter: https://twitter.com/vitalikbuterin?lang=eng

It's too simple to say "There is No one that speaks for a decentralized blockchain". It's true that nobody can say "It's mine!". But it's also true that it's natural for humans that in all "human systems" (sharing same interests) there are some kind of leaders and a majority that wants exactly that.

So, I agree it's not precise from me to say "Doubtful that ETC would be that stupid." as if ETC would be like a company. I should have said "the Developer-team behind ETC" - that's what I've meant. People who are more active, more skilled, with plans beyond the usual traders/users. And there is something like a Core-Team behind ETC. I have no doubt about that. There are people with more influence and with plans and who act strategic.


It's the same in all projects that are not dead or dying. You won't find any decentralized blockchain-project without "leaders". The human factor always involves some centralizing aspects.

And regarding my questions and speculations there would be a huge difference if just one guy writes an open letter to hand over funds to build some kind of "ETC-foundation", whatever his intentions might be, or if it comes from a group that is really active for ETC - Developers, Miners etc..

The first scenario wouldn't mean much and could be forgotten. The other scenario would have some effect because other steps would follow. And we'll find out. I have no doubt about that.

And just by the way: Ethereum is one of the best examples for a technical decentralized project, that is very centralized regarding the human factor.

Very interesting blog-article from Steven Masley:


How to Factom

I am Steven Masley, and I like Factom. That’s why I’m teaching you how to use and run it. This guide will make it easy for you to try out a blockchain technology.

I won second place in a global month long blockchain hackathon sponsored by Blockchain Education Network (BEN) by building a decentralized identification system on top on the Factom network. Through this, I landed an internship with the Factom team and have been in Austin throughout the 2016 summer.

To address the elephant in the room: I believe side chains serve a purpose for allowing more diverse use cases of blockchains, that can be implemented easier than through Bitcoin script. As the demand for blockchains increases, the Bitcoin network will have issues handling the new demand, potentially raising transaction fees. Side chains such as Factom allow incredible scaling of blockchain use, while reducing the load on the Bitcoin network.

(...)

https://medium.com/blockchain-education-network/how-to-factom-88471921929c#.dkt2o392k

I don't believe you're right in that point. I mean, of course: There is no structure like the Ethereum-foundation but I believe that those behind ETC are serious about it. Because I've read this some days ago:


https://steemit.com/crypto-news/@ghostyeti/interview-with-arvicco-developer-of-ethereum-classic
http://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-hard-fork-creates-competing-currencies-support-ethereum-classic-rises/

And what he says is basically a mix of idealism and the will to implement all what will be developed for ETH in ETC as well.

And my concerns are also not only my concerns:

While most miners supported the Ethereum hard fork to prevent future breaches, Claude Lecomte, CEO at MinerGate, opposed the plan and posted a statement shortly before the hard fork took effect yesterday, claiming it will jeopardize Ethereum on legal, business and philosophical levels.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/minergate-ceo-opposed-ethereum-hard-fork/

He also mentions the legal side and he did it before the Hard Fork.

It's not unlikely that guys like that will form a serious team for ETC. And Arvicco even claims there is already kind of a team.


Btw: I'm really not here to spread FUD (even if I'm not invested, also not in ETC! - one of my investments, Factom, would collaborate indirectly with Ethereum if successful). My intention was to find out more about the current situation. My personal conclusion for now is: Potential risks are most likely underestimated.