Which news wouldn't be bad for ETC but for ETH? The law. That could be a point to attack, even if it should turn out as unsuccessful. It would have impact on the market and on the team of course. What I see coming here is a "psycho-war".
I see that as fact. Because if the blog-post and the article should be fakes - it's a psycho war.
If both should be true - it's a psycho war.
If just one should be true and the other fake - psycho war.
There will always be opportunists in situations like this. Some troll the forums, some put it into more "refined" blog posts. The markets are not THAT stupid, although it might have a small effect sufficient for the "blogger" to cash in on a short (as an example). In any case - this one is quite lame. No substance, anonymous group nobody has ever heard of before. The question regarding the blog-post is more: Is it just one guy who holds ETC or wants to short ETH and tries to have impact on the market. If yes, there is most likely no problem. If ETC should be behind the post, it would show intense intention to damage ETH. I believe now it's just one guy. Reason: https://bitflikz.com/products/short-sleeve-mens-t-shirtDoubtful that ETC would be that stupid. And it shows some intention to make money with "everything". |
|
|
|
Which news wouldn't be bad for ETC but for ETH? The law. That could be a point to attack, even if it should turn out as unsuccessful. It would have impact on the market and on the team of course. What I see coming here is a "psycho-war".
I see that as fact. Because if the blog-post and the article should be fakes - it's a psycho war.
If both should be true - it's a psycho war.
If just one should be true and the other fake - psycho war.
There will always be opportunists in situations like this. Some troll the forums, some put it into more "refined" blog posts. The markets are not THAT stupid, although it might have a small effect sufficient for the "blogger" to cash in on a short (as an example). In any case - this one is quite lame. No substance, anonymous group nobody has ever heard of before. The question regarding the blog-post is more: Is it just one guy who holds ETC or wants to short ETH and tries to have impact on the market. If yes, there is most likely no problem. If ETC should be behind the post, it would show intense intention to damage ETH. |
|
|
|
It's about as real as a blog post can be. I don't see them having any leverage though. Should have asked more precise! ;-) Why I asked is simply if somebody knows that some kind of group really plans to do that. And if that would be the case the blog-post would have the intention it shows: Open letter - like an announcement. But it also could be an attempt to bring more uncertainty. There is another article: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/source-ethereum-insiders-believe-dao-hack-inside-job/And this guy also wants to stay anon. And it's also an "uncertainty-article". Scenario 1) Both articles are part of an attack on Ethereum. Scenario 2) At least the last one is true, and if, maybe both. He basically speaks about paranoia in the team now, because the DAO-Hacker could be a member. And I believe those concerns are real even if the interviewed guy should not be what he says (close to the Ethereum-foundation). I mean, it would be understandable to consider an Insider-Job of a member. It would be rational I believe. And he also says: “The internal dynamics are a mess, and people are beginning to worry about the legal implications of the code change."
And that could fit to the "open-letter". I never thought about the legal side and I don't have any knowledge about those things. But the problem I see is that it's maybe not totally clear and with ETC there is a competitor now which most likely gain momentum every time there could be bad news for Ethereum. But: Not totally true, because all potential technical problems of Ethereum would be the same on ETC if I'm correct. So, bad news because of the tech for ETH would be bad news for ETC. Which news wouldn't be bad for ETC but for ETH? The law. That could be a point to attack, even if it should turn out as unsuccessful. It would have impact on the market and on the team of course. What I see coming here is a "psycho-war". I see that as fact. Because if the blog-post and the article should be fakes - it's a psycho war. If both should be true - it's a psycho war. If just one should be true and the other fake - psycho war. |
|
|
|
The "Richlist" is no richlist. It's the distribution of Factoids on the Bittrex-exchange. That's what I thought, too. But honestly, a "real richlist" wouldn't tell you the truth eiter. Whales usually do split their funds into multiple wallets to obfuscate their balance. Yes, true. Richlists are not that revealing. It can be interesting because at least it's possible to see if there are changes. But it's always possible that one person has 10 addresses with 10k each or something like that. What I would be interested in: The distribution on Poloniex. And even more: I would like to see when huge amounts are deposited or withdrawn and who opens orders and when and buys and sells etc. That would be advantages ;-) I would like to see the team disclose their Factoid addresses and me being able to independently verify them. I would like to see the team disclose when or how they sell their Factoids. Somebody is repeatedly dropping 100 BTCs on market for months like they don't care, any investor with that kind of money in a project wouldn't sell it like that. So that leaves founders who still hold a large amount of FCTs they're coincidentally very quiet about. It's all quite ironic for a project representing honesty and transparency to offer no transparency to FCT holders. I am not asking for much. A decent blockchain explorer to track large addresses movements, and more transparency from the Factom team what they have done with their FCTs or what they will do with them in the future. I'm not aware of any project that discloses private team members holdings. Does Dash do that? Does Ethereum do that? Does any other team of a major project do that? It's like asking someone to show how much they hold in their bank accounts. That information should stay private and it is personal in my opinion. There was a token sale and lots of people bought FCT at the time, what you see on Polo is simply normal speculation activity. People buys low and sells high and if they hold many FCT of course they don't want to reck the market and get it below a certain point. Also when FCT was first listed it was reeeeally cheap, so some people may have quite a good stock of them and are just playing the market to their advantage. You seem to be obsessed by the fact that Factom is selling coins... Or you are just trolling for your own purposes. I don't think Factom Inc, the company, holds any Factoids. They also stated that if customers wanted to buy Entry Credits directly with FIAT or CC they can but in that event Factom Inc will go on the Open Market buy FCT at current market price and convert them to EC for customers. The distribution of FCT as stated on this thread and during the token sale was 50% token sale, 20% early investors, 30% to people who contributed to the project. There was a total of just over 8 million FCT. They are not many so it's very easy for a third party whale to stock up and make the good and bad weather on exchanges. And the explorer can show you FCT transactions. Have a closer look. What you are looking for is something like blockscan.com does for XCP assets, but yes I don't know of many other explorers that allow you to do that. Also a tool you are seeking or a way to see the top addresses like you are asking would allow you to predict the market somehow that's probably why you are so keen. I have bought a few BTC worth of FCT during the token sale and I'm holding, I personally think FCT is undervalued but I don't do day trading I'm in it for the long run, wait to see what Factom comes up with in terms of partnerships, customers, and software releases. That's when the real value of FCT will come up. Right now it is purely driven by speculation and people that believes in the project who like me HODL! Accusing Factom or their team members of selling FCT or rigging the market is silly, first everyone is free to do what they want with their money, second it is an open market and there are many players around with large pockets. See what's happening with ETC and ETH? The mother of all pumps? Finally you seem to have come out late to the game, you got to accept that and make your own judgement before deciding where you put your money. Absolutely agree! The concerns of some, members of the team could have dumped can be thrown into garbage now. It would be stupid to sell right before an announcement. Plus: Also no sign of insider-buying before the announcement. I believe they are too professional to play such games. They want more than that. |
|
|
|
Where Factoid re going to be position regarding these smart contracts project? How re entry credits, that is Factoids being used to fuel this? In other worlds, why should I buy more?
The basic logic is always: 1) Whoever wants to record data into Factom has to purchase Entry Credits before. 2) Whenever Entry Credits are purchased Factoids get burned (always! no matter if somebody buys EC's with Dollar or if he buys Factoids) 3) Conclusion: The more data will be factomized the more Entry Credits will be bought and... --> the more Factoids will be burned4) The more Factoids will be burned the higher the price needs to be - otherwise more Factoids would be burned than new created (73k per month) With this announcement Factom can be used to provide data to use it for Smart Contracts. Example: 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.comFocus on "like data feeds". And now imagine what that would mean for the number of Entries if all kinds of Data-Feeds will be recorded and audited: Why should anybody want this? Another benefit of using Factom data feeds for your smart contract via an oracle will be the inherent auditability of data from the Factom blockchain, making it difficult to obfuscate the terms of the contract later. The benefit is if you ever need to look back on the terms for why a contract executed it will be very clear because the Factom blockchain will have permanently recorded the contractual parameters, and that performance has occurred. This will be a perfect digital audit trail that does not require you to call up your lawyer or dig through your paper files to prove it.https://www.factom.com/smartcontract-factom-announce-collaboration/ |
|
|
|
|
Found a way to say it in short words:
1) Factom won't be just a recording-system for data but also a provider of data!
2) Before it can be provided it needs to be factomized = Entries.
|
|
|
|
I really like this: You also might have been wondering why Factom has been so busy Factomizing data. This week we will have exceeded over 3 million entries into the Factom Blockchain. This is an exciting milestone in Factom history and includes data streams for the Russell 3000, land registries, and notarization services. This does a few important things. It gives the world data that can’t be backdated and changed and also demonstrates that one can create digital data that can’t be unwritten. https://www.factom.com/smartcontract-factom-announce-collaboration/I'm not able to anticipate what exactly this will be about, but basically I understand it this way: Factomizing data won't be just beneficial for companies and their data but also for data that is important for anyone. Not sure how to say it and also not totally sure if I'm right, but my own thoughts about Factom basically were: Companies and private User can use Factom to record their data and for their own purposes. But this seems to me as if they add another direction: All kinds of important data could be factomized to make it accessible via Factom. And that can be everything. Doesn't even make sense to make a list with potential data. All kinds of. From weather-data to stock prices, all kinds of statistics, (...) If I'm right with that it can be about a lot (!) of Entries. |
|
|
|
The "Richlist" is no richlist. It's the distribution of Factoids on the Bittrex-exchange. That's what I thought, too. But honestly, a "real richlist" wouldn't tell you the truth eiter. Whales usually do split their funds into multiple wallets to obfuscate their balance. Yes, true. Richlists are not that revealing. It can be interesting because at least it's possible to see if there are changes. But it's always possible that one person has 10 addresses with 10k each or something like that. What I would be interested in: The distribution on Poloniex. And even more: I would like to see when huge amounts are deposited or withdrawn and who opens orders and when and buys and sells etc. That would be advantages ;-) |
|
|
|
Interesting, the Factom team at the remain support ETH (Ethereum) blockchain or go to the ETC (Ethereum Classic) blockchain?  Etherum classic is just another attempt by another alternative dev team to make some quick money. The market has showed what it thinks about the coin. Huge dump yesterday, 100% down price. It ll continue going down until it dies. (...) Funny, Ethereum classic is "just another attempt by another alternative dev team to make some quick money"? You seem to believe it's a clone-Coin, but it's just Ethereum! It's Ethereum without the DAO-bailout! And it's Ethereum without money backing and it's Ethereum without backing of the market. So, of course the price crashed. That was clear before and those who are behind knew that. If you want to criticize attempts of making money, my advice would be: Focus on TheDao and why it even existed in that way and on the question if there would have been a bail out if theDAO would've been just a $1 Mio Smart Contract-fail, instead of an overhyped $150 Mio too-big-too-fail-monster. And yes, most likely ETC has not much chances. But it won't die any time soon. And in the opposite it's not a high price that indicates that Ethereum is healthy. The more I think about it all and about potential intentions behind the rushed out DAO and how it was funded and why the price immediately fell below it's funding-marketcap after launch and before the hack, and if the ETH-market is backed and manipulated by big money or not - the more I believe there could be even more issues that are not seen, yet. But even if the market should be not backed, they did something that shows priorities. To do a Hard Fork to bail out an application - that's not trivial. This is a very interesting article about it: The unfinished state of Ethereum should have been made clear to its investors – and those who invested in the DAO – up front. No way is it ethical to persuade people to invest large amounts of money in a product whose key selling point is its immutability, then when it goes wrong claim that it wasn’t ready for release and needs to be changed. (...) The problem with deciding that Ethereum, and by extension the DAO, are still in development (rollbacks are part of life), is that they are in fact live as far as their users are concerned. Never mind the code, the problem is the data. Data in a live financial system should not be changed. That is true even in existing financial systems. The Ethereum community has agreed to a change that makes their system less trustworthy than a conventional financial system. For a technology that aims to disrupt conventional financial systems, that is not clever. (...) Ethereum is only immutable because Buterin says it is. Until he changes his mind. Which he inevitably will, next time there is a major loss. His investors will expect him to, since – y’know – the system is still “in development”. And he will agree, since – y’know – the community is in charge. It’s all smoke and mirrors, really. Now where have we seen this before? The Ethereum community is painfully learning why, after thousands of years “in development”, banking works the way it does. http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2016/07/21/a-painful-lesson-for-the-ethereum-community/2/#5217270d7efaJust by the way: If Factom would do a Hard-Fork to bail out an application that is build on Factom - what would be left? A system that nobody could have trust in. If the Factom-team would do that it would be like selling the idea behind Factom. And that is basically what Ethereum did, with the reason it's still in development while that should have been a reason not to rush out a flawed $150 Mio-App that started with a lot of nice words and idealism about "social experiment" when it really was about money. It's something especially you could learn something out of it with your complaints about the M2-delay. Maybe it's better not to rush out releases because of a focus on short-term-priorities (money now!). That can damage everything it is about in long-term. But of course, it's all right as long as the ETH-price is high, right. ;-) If I would like to criticize attempts of making money, my first target would be Factom! Not cause it s making money but cause it aint. The price s been more less static since the last major pump and the market does not seem to respond to these tiny updates and presentations we ve been receiving during the last couple of months. So, M2 s the only thing which can move the market, one way or another. Cause when Ether team promises a fork and set it up for a particular date and block, THIS HAPPENS. With Factom, it s always around the corner. About the price, the market, via it s perception of the price, is the only real determinant of value of particular coin or token. The fact Ether is almost 10x the price of Factom, even after this DAO charade, can tell you what the market thinks about Ether vs Factom. You or I can hope and wish for things to be different. However, in the end, it all comes down to the market, right. It's not Factom's fault (the team's) how the market reacts or not reacts. They can do their best to deliver Factom as promised and I hope it's what they do. Exactly that is not what the team of Ethereum did. You say: "Cause when Ether team promises a fork and set it up for a particular date and block, THIS HAPPENS. With Factom, it s always around the corner." And that is hilarious! As if it would be something good that they had to rush out a Hard Fork to prevent that a "Hacker" (who just executed the "law in code" - smart contract) would get the DAO-Ether because they've rushed out the DAO before and funded it with about $150 Mio! The whole story is a massive fail! And it's a result of "rushed out". But you are so sticked to your complaining behaviour against Factom that you have to focus on a hard fork as promise that was delivered in time while hiding the facts behind. They failed to deliver what was really promised --> TheDAO as project with future. And that was a massive fail that will have longterm-impact. The Factom-team doesn't play by Crypto-rules to give a short-term-focused market short-term-signals to pump the price. But what they always did is: A lot of promising long-term-signals. It's not their fault if a "Crypto-Community" prefers hypes without base and roulette as if it would be about luck. |
|
|
|
Interesting, the Factom team at the remain support ETH (Ethereum) blockchain or go to the ETC (Ethereum Classic) blockchain? Etherum classic is just another attempt by another alternative dev team to make some quick money. The market has showed what it thinks about the coin. Huge dump yesterday, 100% down price. It ll continue going down until it dies. (...) Funny, Ethereum classic is "just another attempt by another alternative dev team to make some quick money"? You seem to believe it's a clone-Coin, but it's just Ethereum! It's Ethereum without the DAO-bailout! And it's Ethereum without money backing and it's Ethereum without backing of the market. So, of course the price crashed. That was clear before and those who are behind knew that. If you want to criticize attempts of making money, my advice would be: Focus on TheDao and why it even existed in that way and on the question if there would have been a bail out if theDAO would've been just a $1 Mio Smart Contract-fail, instead of an overhyped $150 Mio too-big-too-fail-monster. And yes, most likely ETC has not much chances. But it won't die any time soon. And in the opposite it's not a high price that indicates that Ethereum is healthy. The more I think about it all and about potential intentions behind the rushed out DAO and how it was funded and why the price immediately fell below it's funding-marketcap after launch and before the hack, and if the ETH-market is backed and manipulated by big money or not - the more I believe there could be even more issues that are not seen, yet. But even if the market should be not backed, they did something that shows priorities. To do a Hard Fork to bail out an application - that's not trivial. This is a very interesting article about it: The unfinished state of Ethereum should have been made clear to its investors – and those who invested in the DAO – up front. No way is it ethical to persuade people to invest large amounts of money in a product whose key selling point is its immutability, then when it goes wrong claim that it wasn’t ready for release and needs to be changed. (...) The problem with deciding that Ethereum, and by extension the DAO, are still in development (rollbacks are part of life), is that they are in fact live as far as their users are concerned. Never mind the code, the problem is the data. Data in a live financial system should not be changed. That is true even in existing financial systems. The Ethereum community has agreed to a change that makes their system less trustworthy than a conventional financial system. For a technology that aims to disrupt conventional financial systems, that is not clever. (...) Ethereum is only immutable because Buterin says it is. Until he changes his mind. Which he inevitably will, next time there is a major loss. His investors will expect him to, since – y’know – the system is still “in development”. And he will agree, since – y’know – the community is in charge. It’s all smoke and mirrors, really. Now where have we seen this before? The Ethereum community is painfully learning why, after thousands of years “in development”, banking works the way it does. http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2016/07/21/a-painful-lesson-for-the-ethereum-community/2/#5217270d7efaJust by the way: If Factom would do a Hard-Fork to bail out an application that is build on Factom - what would be left? A system that nobody could have trust in. If the Factom-team would do that it would be like selling the idea behind Factom. And that is basically what Ethereum did, with the reason it's still in development while that should have been a reason not to rush out a flawed $150 Mio-App that started with a lot of nice words and idealism about "social experiment" when it really was about money. It's something especially you could learn something out of it with your complaints about the M2-delay. Maybe it's better not to rush out releases because of a focus on short-term-priorities (money now!). That can damage everything it is about in long-term. But of course, it's all right as long as the ETH-price is high, right. ;-) |
|
|
|
I personally never understood the high price and I still don't understand why it's still high and I expect it to go down.
Some representatives of the banking oligopoly have invested in ethereum. They will try to play same price control game between bitcoin and ethereum as they do between gold and silver. The dao fiasco was quite painful for them but they have a lot of fiat and will not give up easily. Interesting theory. But let's try it with some logic here. 1. Professionals of the banking-system invested in Ethereum?
It's possible. And I don't have much doubt that there are not only Crypto-people on Polo but also Professionals from stock-markets or whatever. At least it's obvious that there is some bigger money and it's also obvious that most of it is traded in Ethereum - nothing comes close regarding ETH's volume. 2. Would they back the price in risk-times, when fundamentals bring a lot of uncertainty in the market plus the possibility that Bitcoin could shoot up plus a chart that already looked unhealthy when DAO launched and now even more - double-top?Maybe I'm wrong and there is not that kind of backing but exactly that is my impression - that "helping hands" show up as buy-support when real problems showing up, to bring certainty into the market. If that should be true I wouldn't expect it from professional traders if they don't have at least Insider-Infos - very close connections to those who really have the power, VB and his guys. Thing is: If there is money backing and price-manipulation my conclusion would be: a) Those who have the control over the code also have the money to have some control about the price b) If it should be about banking-profis, I would assume that they have access to Insider-Infos or wouldn't take such a risk with much money. a) and b) wouldn't differ much. 3. Would professionals have bought into the DAO? That's something I would say: Never. Why? Because I'm not a professional. Not even close. But for me it was safe that TheDAO would turn out as a bad investment (and I warned, not just saying it now after all what went wrong), and I did not think much about potential security risks, just a very simple economical conclusion: a) It was funded with ETH so the DAO-price would be totally connected to and fluctuate with the ETH-price. b) The ETH-price already didn't look too good. It was about to build a double-top. c) Most important: There never was a reason why the DAO should be worth more than exactly the ETH it was funded with. It would have been totally irrational to expect that the DAO-price would go above it's funding. d) Also important: Every time theDAO would have invested like it was planned, let's say in slock.it first, it would have "lost" some of those funds. That would have lowered it's marketcap, whil...... e) ...all investments would have been longterm and with all risks involved. If return with profit it would have taken some time. f) It was a social experiment and all the nice words could not cover that there would have been a lot of fights and a lot of manipulative attempts to get some of the funds. With other words: In my opinion it was a bad investment, even without the security issues. Most likely it would have turned out as a risk for the Ethereum-price which of course would have impact on the DAO-price again. I really doubt that professionals with the focus on profit would have bought into it. It's much more likely that it was funded by people close to the team and in the team - and it was a hype etc. And now there was a bail-out and everybody should have the question if there also would have been a bail out of a smart contract if it wouldn't have been about $150 Mio but about $15 Mio and without Investors close to the team. Somebody said that the Bail-out is/was similar to a scenario of a HF in Bitcoin because Factom or Counterparty would be in trouble. No kidding: Just the existence of TheDAO with such a funding is a miracle for me. Since theDAO I have doubts about the Ethereum team and how professional they are. I really would like to know the intentions behind, because I don't understand it. All scenarios I believe to be realistic are red flags. My theory is: The price itself is a risk for Ethereum or the interests of those who hold a lot of it, and that there is fear because of the risk it could come down. Because I'm sure that there is a lot of manipulation going on to back the price, but not just to make short-term-profit. Maybe more to get on a high level over the time. I can't prove that and of course, I could be wrong. But if I'm right, those who do that must have very close connections to those who really know what's going on because they do what's going on (Developers) - or it's the team itself. All other scenarios would be a huge risk for those who play with a lot of money in this market. And another thing is interesting: There are hard times for Ethereum but Coinbase adds it with a very good timing. Does it solve any real problems. No. But could it help the price. Sure. If it's about Ethereum and it's situation with focus on the market-situation, my advise is to focus on TheDAO. Because if something is rushed out in a way like that, it's either just totally unprofessional, which would tell us a lot about the team which is basically from the Ethereum-team, or there was pressure. And with pressure I mean some kind of intense intention. And in most of all cases the simplest scenario is true: Money was needed. Or a way out was needed. Because theDAO also would have made possible to get ETH into it, and to sell DAO-tokens for BTC --> That's like selling ETH without selling it directly. And right after launch it was below the ETH-price pretty fast. So the question is why. I can't answer it, but why should normal Investors sell it below it's price when there is nothing wrong? It was two weeks before that "Hack" happened. *********** Maybe all this is too much of a conspiracy theory, but if we think about guys from a "banking oligopoly" it would be even more some kind of conspiracy theory. Because professionals wouldn't bet. They would try to control it. And they couldn't control their investments without at least close connections and insider-infos. Under the line I don't believe that. There is most likely an "Ethereum-oligopoly". Very rich Ethereum-Investors with close connections to the team or it's the team or both. But the problem in all scenarios is that the market becomes a high risk, not just because of the DAO-disaster. Take a look at the chart and think about which professional would back the price after a double top. Even if all would be good, the market would be a high risk and even more because the possibility of a sharp rise of Bitcoin is a risk for all Alts, Ethereum included. And is it possible that this all is totally wrong? Theoretical yes. It could be something like a "natural market", without a rich group manipulating it. But does the daily volume fit to the about 5k daily active users on Poloniex? I doubt that. And would there have been a DAO-bailout for normal Investors and would a natural funding brought about $150 Mio? Even more doubts about that. |
|
|
|
I am aware of all the discussions and have my own view, I was just interested in which elements you took into account for your view e.g technical, chain functionality, currency, markets price and interest, centralize vs decentralize, trust/loss of trust, security, distribution etc. Also, what do you define as a financial disaster.
Isn't it obvious? Financial disaster happens if there is a loss of confidence. Crypto currencies are especially vulnerable. A small group of people decided they need hf to bail out failed project. Now it is obvious this small group can be forced to make the next fork. Meh, sorry I just don't buy it. We're still seeing articles of industry leads continually touting Ethereum tech. Yes, there are the few who write about how the HF is detrimental (trust issues and all that). But with the latest news from Msft, not to mention the price drastically pumping after the HF...I mean....I simply don't buy in to the idea that Ethereum is in the middle of a disaster or is dying or however one might want to tag it. It seems the masses value Eth more now than before the HF. The price is no indicator about quality. It's a result of the wish to make money and Investors/Speculators/Traders will invest as long as they believe that the ETH-price gives chances for that. They (we) also would buy into scams if there would be the believe that enough others will buy even more and drive the price - before the race would start to go out sooner than others. Not saying Ethereum is a scam, just want to say: The price is not about quality and btw.: It seems manipulated and backed. More important is one question in my opinion: If we think about Ethereum out of the perspective of potential Customers who want to use it for Smart Contracts, for their real business: Would they trust the tech? Is it really possible to feel safe with it? If Ethereum-Developers don't seem to be able to develop something like TheDAO secure, how will it be possible for anybody to feel safe with it? And I doubt that a HF gave more trust in general. And in the end it will need real use, or the price will go down. It's not possible to build Ethereum and than a project that is funded with expensive Ether to fund Ethereum-projects like Slock.it etc., if nothing leads beyond Ethereum to real business and money outside of Ethereum's eco-system, which is based on speculation, Magic won't happen. And that circles back to the question: Will there be enough trust in Ethereum that real-business-Customers will use it? Because it's possible that everybody who is interested in technologies with a focus on Smart Contracts watches Ethereum with high interest - but not to use it. I believe, the highest risk for Ethereum will be competition, that there could be better systems in future, most likely not that complex but more secure, maybe specialized for different purposes and so on. Ethereum seems like a project that wants to be "all-in-one" but all is nothing if there is a lack of stability and security and trust. I'm not saying that it's that way. I'm not sure. But before all it's safe to say: The price is no indicator and "masses" are not always right. "They all" (let's say "too many") bought into TheDAO and it was a total lack of quality. And the hype was irrational but maybe intended, while it would have been even more irrational if it would have increased in price after launch - some people believe it would. I personally never understood the high price and I still don't understand why it's still high and I expect it to go down. Because: All value (price) is based on speculation and conclusions are based on the price ---> that is a circle that can't work out. |
|
|
|
Very interesting article: Bitcoin: The Trust Anchor in a Sea of Blockchainshttp://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-the-trust-anchor-in-a-sea-of-blockchainsFactom (Paul Snow and Brian Deery) - mentioned here: "(...) The Benefits of Immutability
While bitcoin is still mainly seen as digital currency, it’s essentially a timestamped log with special properties. As such, it can be utilized for far more things than payments and store of value. I presented some of the alternative uses several years ago and the list continues to grow. Brian Deery, chief scientist at Factom, wrote an excellent history of timestamping, in which he argues that a secure timestamped record wasn’t feasible before the existence of secure digital value.
Deery writes:
"There needed to be a way to entice people to brute force hash chains. A good way of doing that would be to give them money."(...) It’s worth noting that anchoring does not automatically make a service's data as immutable as bitcoin's data, but it does provide a strong guarantee that any tampering will be evident. A recommended best practice for these services is to provide easy-to-use tools for users to verify the anchors against the state of the system. Why is this so important? I think Paul Snow, CEO of Factom, stated it best:
"One of the things about immutable ledgers is they tend to be honest because it's very hard to know today what lie I want to tell tomorrow. And if the lie has to be in the ledger and I don’t know what the lie is going to be until tomorrow then basically my ability to lie is dramatically reduced."" |
|
|
|
Is that a lite wallet? I just want to check my coins from the ICO are still there (I'm in deep HODL, just want to check they're OK) No, this is the main and only web wallet. No have other Factom wallet. The base data wallet downloaded for 3 hours. I think that now it is the only way to check your factoids. Ok, thanks for that! A lite wallet would be great, maybe one day soon Unfortunately no. Factom team already many times reported that another wallet will not be because they are not interested. That's not totally correct: Quote - Reddit - TannerBeau: "I'm a designer with Factom. I can probably say that UX/UI has been given some love. There are some other factors preventing an updated release, but it is in the pipeline and shouldn't be much longer.
I am hopeful that there will be a couple more-friendly wallet solutions available relatively soon after milestone 2."https://www.reddit.com/r/factom/comments/4tim4z/factom_series_a_and_its_valuation/d5i36tnWhat they basically said was that their priorities are on the Milestones. But I have no doubt that it all will become much more user-friendly over time. |
|
|
|
Thanks tempus! It really does seem like they have a lot in the hopper: M2, EthereumAPI, Honduras, Chinese smart cities, DHS, 3 million entries milestone ...
No problem! And yes. I even believe that the news we know about could be just the tip of an iceberg. Most likely there is much more they don't speak about because they can't --> NDA's. Tempus are you signed in on Bnkofthefuture ? Factom is doing a shares sale round now about 5 million dollar raised. But coolest part if you sign in there you can get extra information documents, negotiations , expectations etc just a tip for people. Okay, thanks for the advice! |
|
|
|
Thanks tempus! It really does seem like they have a lot in the hopper: M2, EthereumAPI, Honduras, Chinese smart cities, DHS, 3 million entries milestone ...
No problem! And yes. I even believe that the news we know about could be just the tip of an iceberg. Most likely there is much more they don't speak about because they can't --> NDA's. |
|
|
|
That article is a good example for what I believe is wrong in Ethereum but also in Crypto generally. This for example: "On Thursday, Ethereum hit another business milestone when Coinbase, the leading mainstream platform for buying and trading of bitcoin, added support for ether. Coinbase customers—there are $4 million of them in 32 countries—can now easily buy and trade ether using the Coinbase web site or mobile app."How is it an "business milestone" if a project is added by a new exchange? It doesn't say much about Ethereum at all or at least it's not going beyond Ethereum. The price may go up because of that, but it's just because people would anticipate: "More people will buy Ethereum" - it's just about the market and the market is just about the price. And that is exactly what I believe was the problem with TheDAO. It was funded with expensive Ether and pumped up like a bubble with the priority to fund other Ethereum-projects like slock.it. And it's all about nice theories about a "social experiment". What it would have been about: Manipulative wars to get some of the millions. And generally it was not thoughtful. It was rushed out and usually there is high intention if something is rushed out. And one question is: What exactly would go beyond Ethereum into real business and be effective? For me it's all like little magic-tricks to give an illusion of an economy - but it's an Ethereum-economy that is for the price and based on the price while there are real weaknesses and a trust-problem that could turn out as not just temporary. If I should make a bet about Ethereums future it would be: It's a forerunner but others will learn out of it's weaknesses and maybe overtake. I believe Ethereum is very valuable as kind of laboratory to find out what is possible and how and what is a risk and why. But safe to say is: Ethereum will have to face serious competition in future and than a high price won't help. It will be about fundamental qualities in comparison. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
