hahahahaha

I'm too quick, and yeah, such a thing happens.  The topic is not exactly simple, and many of us, including yours truly, are attempting to wrap our minds around various aspects of this area, our opinions about it, and maybe even changing our opinions from time to time...




I don't think that this is going to stop courts from attempting to make actual people responsible, even if there would likely exist a kind of inability for actual people to change the smart contract once it goes into effect.




You kind of lose me a bit when it comes to differentiating what is possible with turing complete code as compared with non-turning complete code, but I think I kind of get your point.



I guess that is why I am saying that courts are going to attempt to analyse and to apply principles within accepted norms - and yeah there will likely be some growing pains in this transition and maybe even some realization that the old rules may not be able to be applied.  However, in the Ethereum (dao context), when individuals come up to the plate and they intervene, they are showing the court that there are intervention possibilities and even folks that could either be held responsible or forced to undo the undoable.


These are decent illustrative examples.. Thanks.

That is a pretty bold number on a pretty short timeline.

Surely, $4,400 in less than 16 months is within reasonable possibilities, but I anticipate that it remains a less than 25% probability at the moment and under the current circumstances... Nonetheless, I would be delighted to witness such a number in such a short timeline... that is a bit more than a 7x increase from the current price, and it would be nearly a 20x increase from where the price was floating a year ago.... 

Funny cartoon, but really, no one is saying that... So the cartoon is engaging in a strawman attack, and you, chopstick, are engaging in the same strawman attack by circulating the same.   

Dinofelis.  I don't really disagree with the overall conclusion regarding what you are asserting, yet probably my point is bit of a different way of coming at a similar conclusion as you (especially regarding the fact that there should not have been an intervention), but I have different reasons for my conclusion, at least at the moment.

I don't claim to be any kind of legal expert, and possibly, I don't understand this area of the law well enough in order to really attempt to get caught up on legal mumbo jumbo.  Nonetheless, I am of the opinion that there is not a lot of legal precedence in regards to smart contracts and whether such smart contracts can really be implemented to involve and affect a considerable number of people, whether those people are investors, beneficiaries or otherwise affected by the carrying out of the terms of these kinds of smart contracts.

So far, when we are talking about the hardfork and the various ramifications of such hardfork, that is not a case that is in front of any court, and when we are talking about the dao hacker potentially stealing money, that case is not in front of any court either and whether we are talking about whether the dao hacker was screwed by ethereum carrying out the hardfork to disallow him from gaining the value of the dao hack, that case is not in front of any court, either.  Anyhow, I am trying to suggest that if these kinds of cases were to go in front of courts, I am of the belief that a large number of courts are not going to get caught up in turing complete contracts and to concede that the contract controls everything when in fact people are affected in various kinds of ways.  Whether these kinds of courts make sense or not, they are going to rule in terms of people, intentions, equity and common law principles. 

There may be some instance sin which any court ruling has little to no effect, because no one could change the outcome, which could arguably be the case with a situation such as bitcoin in which the transactions on the blockchain are immutable, but in the case of Ethereum, there has already been demonstrations of mutability, which could embolden courts on a higher level to order the carrying out of hardforks (once it is shown to be capable of being done by persons in control).  Bitcoin, on the other hand, could possibly say "fuck you" to the court.. because no one can change the history (nor is anyone willing to attempt to do such).

So, yeah, I agree with you about the various principles about smart contracts being turing complete and untouchable, but I really doubt that turing completeness works in situations that there is not the existence of a proof of work system such as bitcoin that allows for decentralized and secure immutability.  On the other hand, this is likely an evolving area of the law, and it is going to continue to be interesting how courts attempt to approach these matters, especially in circumstances in which there may be true decentralization - and whether heads could roll, even though those heads are not able to execute whatever the court, in such circumstances, is ordering them to execute.

You are describing too much in absolutes.  There is a decent possibility that you could be correct; however, what you assert is not obviously the case.  There are also concepts described as leading, signaling and following.  Sure, there could be some coins on each exchange that are controlled by the same folks or entities, but that is not a necessary factor in order to achieve a similar result with folks with similar agendas following the signal within minutes (as you say) of the occurrence of the dumping on the other exchanges. 

You even are bold enough to characterize the dump as "unsuccessful", but what the fuck do you know about the goals and objective of the various players?  You are purely speculating because you do not indicate that you know any of them personally (and you surely would indicate if you actually knew any of them, if you did).  Let's say hypothetically, one of the dumping entities had some kind of contract with a miner or some other holder of coins that they could purchase up to a certain quantity of coins from them off line (over the counter) (let's say up to 30k of coins) within a certain window time-period based on the BTC price at that time.  They may have manipulated prices on the exchanges with a far smaller quantity of coins in order to obtain those coins over the counter (and off the exchanges).

I guess my point is that you don't really know what is going on, even though frame the situation in kind of absolutes and in order to strongly assert that the only possibility is what you describe, which is misleading, and approaching nonsense to describe the situation in such absolute terms.

What's new about that?  Surely, over time, some whales may become more sophisticated in their attempts to keep coins on many of the exchanges, but sometimes, there is just lead and follow going on, and sometimes there may be a lead, but other players are not willing to follow.

Yeah, the overwhelming majority of folks participating in these forums are not whales, and therefore, we can only attempt to extrapolate based on what we see and what seems logical, and the dynamics change over time, including which exchanges seem to be leading and the willingness of traders to follow under certain circumstances and also what kinds of FUD is going to be affective in order to attempt to cause a panic dump or even the kinds  of "good news" to attempt to support a pump.

Surely, also some theories and explanations regarding price movement make more sense than other theories and explanations.





I don't know whether there has to be a purpose, except for in the short term, it appears that this specific dump was successful in that some lead and others followed.  Surely, some whales have a better ability to predict and to control price direction as compared with others, yet I doubt that anyone of them really know the longer term price direction (I guess what we would characterize as medium term, weeks to several months).  I would anticipate that they frequently try to manipulate by either pumping or dumping, and sometimes the pump or dump works and other times it does not.. and when the volume is low, then it is more likely going to yield better abilities to predict for such whales. 

Those of us who are smaller fish, just attempt our best to go with the flow and to set up plans that work for us, and some of us are likely better at setting up and tailoring such plans than others.  In the end, maybe it does not matter so much what is your plan except that your plan is tailored to your own circumstances.

I don't see any purpose in really attempting to ascribe any kind of deeper or meaningful purpose to these pumps and dumps, except for the fact that they are going to occur and on individual levels we strive to prepare for them, even though they may take place in somewhat unpredictable ways, they are in the end, anticipated to take place and without significant rhyme or reason except for the fact that they are able to take place.



I think that in the medium term, we have a fairly decent chance of price appreciation, and I am becoming a bit more bullish in my thinking that we are at least going to experience some shorter term pumps in the near future, absent some kind of hacking event or something like bitfinex in the near future.  Anyhow, there are a few resistance points in the upper $600s and mid-to-upper $700s that we have to make it through before becoming too anxious about the price.

Whatever, savetherain. 

I think that I sufficiently made my point already, but maybe a bit of a further explanation could be helpful - rather than sitting back without acknowledging your seemingly attempts to buy into superficiality while denigrating the comments of others.

Yes, some kind of pump or dump can start in one location, such as china, but the bitcoin is much more complex than being controlled by a narrow set of interests and market movements play on each other, even if they may have started in one location.  There exists all kinds of lead and follow from various trading points, and to characterize the matter as "chinese" or an "attack" seems to largely lose the point with attempts at superficiality and misleading attempts at oversimplification.

Also, the "attack" characterization seems to imply that there is something going on that is beyond mere market dynamics.  In fact, most exchanges have been experiencing fairly low levels of trade volume, which leaves pumping and dumping (in either direction) fairly easy to carry out with a relatively low number of coins... Characterizing such trading as an "attack" comes off as an exaggeration in the least, and could be characterized as misleading if such language were coming from a troll - which I would not want to suggest that IMI is a troll, though you, savetherain, frequently do come off as a bit of a troll.... but that may be just your strange ways of presentation?   

I agree with a lot of dinofelis's responses to this, yet I would also add that there are concepts of unjust enrichment, fraud, etc... in common law.

Even if technically and specifically, the DAO hacker was following the technical language of the contract, in the law there are potential remedies for these kinds of unintended and unexpected contracts that could cause the DAO attacker not to profit from the technical loophole that he found.  On the other hand, such DAO attacker and loopholes and technical flaws in the contract does not, in my opinion, justify a hardfork of ETH.. that is a bit of a different story and attempting to take the law into your own hands and at the same time denigrate any potential value that may have existed with the ETH ecosystem prior to the hardfork.

You are delusional if you believe that mining1 has any intention of wanting to "start to understand."  hahahahah 

I do appreciate your efforts in your various explanation though.  They are very good, detailed and they provide decent technical specifics and perspective - at least for the rest of us who have some intentions to actually attempt to "understand" better.

I agree with you about goal to trigger some stop-loss margin calls, but such dumping does not need to be characterized as either an "attack" nor "chinese."  

Sure, anything is possible, but the way that you outline the scenario seems to be a bit ridiculous in terms of specifics.  We have enough going on right now with the various battles within ETH and ETC, so any future coins that develop from that are likely going to be related to forks of one or the other of those two, rather than some attempts at a solidarity coin to combine them.  On the other hand, there is some low level likelihood that somehow the ETH and ETC camps will combine forces in such a way to come to some kind of compromise agreement in which one or another of the forks dies off in order to create one coin from the two (which would likely be branded as ETH, even though it may in essence absorb the ETC ideology of non-mutability and no fucking around intervention into its new perspective)

You seem to be talking about some kind of pure form of theories that do not play out in real application.

Surely, there are going to be some instances in which miners take pure and rational views based on wearing just one hat, but the reality of the matter is that most miners are going to be dabbling and diversifying their investments in a variety of ways and there is going to be a combination of rational thinking and emotional thinking, which causes behavior that is a bit more difficult to quantify into some kind of pure model.



I agree with the first part of your point, and I think that the second point that you are making concerns the low incentive to attack ETC based on its relatively low value... yet it seems to be a wrong conclusion based on the fact that bitcoin has enough computing power security to comfortably and securely support at least a 10x increase in value.  So, I am not really sure what you are getting at with making such BTC/ETC comparisons, when in the end, there is a lot more complicated politics going on with ETC as compared with BTC's more simple foundational use as a financial instrument (I mean bitcoin is extremely secure because the main intention is storage of value and use in those kinds of currency-like applications).



I largely agree with your first point here, yet regarding your second point, it seems dangerous to attempt to pigeon-hole Ethereum too much.  There continues to be a lot of pump and dump dynamic and marketing, etcetera, so I doubt that we can easily write off ethereum and/or its related ETC in the coming several years.  Yeah, sure it may continue to be a kind of valueless scam, but it is likely going to be able to continue to play on its previous marketing and pumping success for quite some time to come in at least the medium term future... In other words, there continue to be a hell of a lot of ETH "true believers" who have not yet caught on to the scam nature of the way the whole Ethereum marketplace has played out to date.

There should be some excitement when we experience some price movement, no matter which direction especially when we had been experiencing extended periods of flat prices and fairly mediocre trade volume.

I don't see any major reason to get worked up regarding one bitcoin trade, unless you are attempting to play your bitcoin trades balls to the walls, which generally tends to be a bad strategy - unless you happen to be a whale who can kind manipulate prices.

Accordingly, let's say for example yesterday you had $1000 available that you could invest in bitcoin, and your view of bitcoin price was super bullish.  In those kinds of circumstances (depending also on the amount that you already had invested in bitcoin), you may have reasonably chosen to invest anywhere between $700 and $800 into bitcoin at $618 and then waited to see which way the price goes and have $200 to $300 available for further buying in the event that prices moved against your optimism (which just happened).

Mining1... you are full of shit and contradictions that I am questioning whether to respond to you globally or to pick apart your various points of bullshit.

I guess I should pick it apart a little bit, otherwise possibly you and/or other readers may conclude that my comments are too general.




Most likely the essence of the earlier argument by dinofelis has to do with the failure of the ETH overall and the recognition that we are not quite ready for Turing completeness - especially the DAO and ETH seemed to be an attempt to lead us down that path, and we are just not ready, yet.  Likely, the better conclusion is that for quite some time to come, we are going to need various kinds of human intervention, but whatever the fuck combination of human intervention and non-intervention that ETH and the DAO came up with was either before its time or otherwise all fucked up - but what would you expect from scheming pump and dump contradictions? 

Sure, some day there could be a role for turing completeness and smart contracts, yet whatever evolved through ETH seemed to be much more hype and marketing rather than real attempts at real world applications - just like your attempts to characterize criticisms as bullshit and dead from the start, when there is some bases for the criticisms.









You seem to be the one that is naive in your attempt to belittle other folks when you in fact seem to be missing some of the overall points.

Yes, there was considerable problems with the evolution of ETH based on recent mutability applications.  ETH carried out hardforks more than once and engaged in other manipulations, but this last one kind of seemed to have bit them in the ass (likely more than expected). 

I don't know whether ETH had ever intended to be immutable, yet the recent success of ETC to sustain itself as an ETH rebellion demonstrates (beyond the pump and dump aspect) that a considerable following in the Ethereum community were displeasured by the way that ETH had gone about its most recent hardfork and even the justification for that decision to hardfork and the way that they carried it out.



Here you go again, trying to minimize Ethereum's decision to hardfork by suggesting false equivalencies and suggesting that anyone can hardfork at any time.  Sure, in the end, there is some truth to your stupid ass assertion that any chain can hardfork, but you are losing quite a bit of nuance when you try to suggest that anyone can hardfork at any time... and failing to take into account exactly how ETH decided to hardfork and under what circumstances and what circumstances would cause another chain to hardfork. 

News ALERT... not all coins are created equal and not all hardforks are created equal.. and likely bitcoin has learned some from ETH about the dangers of hardforking and are even more reluctant than they were earlier regarding going down a hardfork path - especially a controversial hardfork... on the other hand, if a hardfork is clearly non-controversial, then there is likely more reason to go down such path (which was not the case with ETH's hardfork... ETH's hardfork was controversial - and maybe not realized by some folks until after witnessing how much support ETC received subsequently to the hardfork).





I think that I already addressed this point.. even though any blockchain can hardfork, not all blockchains are equal, and not all blockchains will enter into controversial hardforks without some kind of preparation for repercussions.


Yes, you are trying to justify particulars of the hardfork when in essence, the hardfork decision was rash, unjustified and likely more controversial than anticipated.


Name calling is not helpful, even when you seem to be the one that is attempting to avoid engaging with substance by throwing out these kinds of remarks and your actual remarks seem to show that you are living in a bit of a fantasy world that is filled with selective choosing of facts... and spin.


O.k.. you seem to be engaging in more characterizations here, rather than reality.

Ethereum is centralized and bitcoin is not.

A large point of bitcoin's proof of work adds up to decentralized immutability.. and that is largely what gives bitcoin value as being paradigm shifting like no other coin.. including Ethereum.. .

Ethereum has demonstrated its centralization with recent actions including the recent hardfork.  Bitcoin has been having a battle over this for nearly a year, and in essence bitcoin has not been easy to hardfork and there remains considerable resistance to the hard forking of bitcoin.  Ethereum's recent experience lends additional factual evidence and logic concerning why bitcoin should not go down any kind of controversial hardfork way... and your attempts to suggest that bitcoin is some how similar or equal to ethereum seem to be based in fantasy world thinking rather than accounting for actual facts and actual recent history concerning both chains.




This is one of the stupidest comments that you could make.  Your mere assertion of such fact does not make it true.

Ethereum has recently been hardfork in a controversial way over a controversial and insubstantial reason, which demonstrates its lack of decentralization.  Bitcoin on the other hand has the most powerful computing system dedicated to proof of work, which allows for decentralization and immutability.... Ethereum is no where near bitcoin's level, so you are talking nonsense in your assertion about Ethereum's supposed "most decentralized" standing.

The above serves as more spinning of mining1.

Can you snap out of your attempt to suggest that all cryptos are equivalent and that ETH is the best of the alt cryptos?  Probably not.  You seem to be so intent on spinning the supposed success model of ETH that you are blinded by the dynamics of the big money involvement in it, to the extent that it exists and is hyped (used as marketing) by the ETH community.

Surely there is some decent developments going on in ETH, but in the end most of what is going on ETH can be absorbed into the backbone of BTC as a sidechain or some other variations, such as rootstock.  The extent to which big money is investing in ETH is likely overhyped, and likely they are going to have a lot of skepticism regarding how much to continue to invest into it when it is remains mutable, contradictory and more manipulated by some rather than others. 

Good luck with all that centralization and attempts at spinning it as being somehow equal to BTC or some kind of meaningful competitor to BTC.

You would be more believable mining1, if you did not appear to be spinning so much.. .and talking in absolutes. 

You seem to be contradicting yourself on an ongoing basis in your attempts to spin ETH as preferable to to ETC and to denigrate the substance behind the onboarding of folks into ETC. 

Of course, there are pumps, dumps and manipulations on both ends, which is not difficult to achieve in either market with such low marketcaps and also even lower liquidation and abilities to manipulate the price at various liquidation price setting points.

This whole dynamic of the ETH decision to hardfork, and ETC community's decision to take advantage of such stupid-ass decision of ETH to have thought that they could just quickly hardfork without really thinking through their rashness, will take a while to iron out.  Very quite likely that both ETH and ETC are going to be pumped and dumped for a couple more years, at least in order to attempt to figure out if their is some kind of resolution.. unless there is some kind of compromise that can be reached... such as ETH reversing the hardfork, which seems to have its own complications, at this point.

Have you thought about your own comment?

What is a successful coin?

A centralized one or a decentralized one?  Makes little sense.  

A large aspect of the value of bitcoin remains it's decentralized component that is backed up by proof of work, and no one is going to attempt to recreate something that costs so much money in terms of establishing the extended proof of work network, so in that sense, any semblance of a system that is competing to bitcoin is going to have to be centralized in some regard, which defeats the whole purpose and makes it something other than bitcoin.  

Yeah, sure there may be some attempts at competitors and some attempts to assert that they are the same as bitcoin and attempts to steal some of bitcoin's market cap, but in the end, none of them are going to be sufficiently decentralized in order to really compete.....

So, yeah, I will believe it when I see it, and in the meantime, seems unrealistic to be concerned and/.or fearful about something that is very unlikely to occur... and unlikely to really provide anywhere near the same level of decentralized immutability that is provided by our lilie fiend, bitcoin.  



Edit:  Added on below:




Nothing wrong with diversifying at various points in time when such diversification is prudent and practical.  Actually, diversification should be included in any long term investment strategy. 

At this point, concerning your pie in the sky hypothesis of some kind of "bank backed" crypto meaningfully competing with bitcoin, there is nothing even close to justify diversify into (except maybe using 1 or 2 % of your crypto investment into various crypto "competitors" that you may consider to have some pump value or even some decent fundamentals that could justify their increasing in market cap).

Yeah right...

You seem to be living in a little fantasy world in your attempt to spread FUD and to suggest something that currently in the very low probabilities of happening.   

"all they gotta do"  - right.

If all they gotta do were true, then they would have successfully nipped this baby in the bud a long time ago.... So it is going to take a lot to attempt to implement various kinds of "all they gotta do" across various jurisdictions, if the goal were to use those kinds of mechanisms to attempt to demoralize the bitcoin community and attempt to depress the price... not likely.. helrow?   

I had not even realized that there was a ban of localbitcoins in Germany, so I googled it, and it appears that the ban began in about December 2014.  Wow!   I had considered a lot of the western european countries as a bit more receptive to bitcoin, yet I understand that there is all kinds of contradictions when it comes to the actions of various governments (in other words, hard to keep track of what everyone is doing even when consistently attempting to follow relevant bitcoin news developments).

You are coming off as a kind of ETH pumper, and you are the one who seems to be dreaming when you seem to be confusing various pumping attempts with some kind of utility that ETH may be able to provide that bitcoin cannot provide (or at least may be riding on the tails of the security of bitcoin).

I was asserting my assessment of the situation, and yeah, likely I am not following all the ETH pumping and endorsements as closely as you seem to be. 

Regarding my supposed over investment in ETC.  I did buy some ETC soon after the fork, and I never did buy any ETH - yet nonetheless, the quantity of my ETC investment remains at less than 1% of my whole crypto holdings and the other 99% is in BTC or otherwise related to BTC.  I doubt that my ETC investment has much of any influence on my comments about ETH, but you are correct with any implication that I am invested in BTC and not in ETH.  

Based on my earlier comment, did you want to suggest that I may be overinvested in BTC?  Seems like a whole other irrelevant claim, but you can make it if you like.  On the other hand, when folks begin to go into full scale ETH advocacy, I begin to believe that they likely have a considerable investment into ETH and are likely drinking quite a bit of the ETH pump koolaide... nonetheless, hopefully in the coming years, we will see how some of this is going to play out, and in a few years, we will likely see some changes in the market caps of these various competing and complementary crypto technologies.