Do not buy into projects where private groups get in early and pump up coins using a small supply. There is no need to pay so much for this idea. At launch people payed a valuation of 72 million. Now wonder everyone except the initial private investors made money on this. Now the valuation is still a ridiculous 13 million. Reply here for more info: https://twitter.com/jessecouch/status/700411947884236800The marketcap is at $ 648,214: http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/neucoin/(those coins that are really on the market) And the real marketcap is the buyside at Bittrex: 4 BTC. ;-) |
|
|
|
@slashdevslashnull: In my opinion the harsh critique on Neucoin is more than justified. I see nothing bad in ICO's but there should be more than just hyping, big names (who have never shown up), high promises etc. And what's that for a goal to say: "We want to reach mass-adoption!"? Every projects wants that. They have to explain why that could be successful, where is the advantage for anybody to use Neucoin? In fact it's bad tech and it's the worst eco-system I've ever seen. Just as a reminder: Initial supply was 3 billion. They sold to the community: 100 Million. And then there is a inflation rate of 100% per year of 3 billion which means that they're staking millions every day without any chance to distribute it. Our of market-perspective they stake 100% every few weeks. Now they're complaining that PoW would bring pressure on the price but what does that mean? Without PoW but full PoS: Even less for those who support the Blockchain but more for them, right? And what will they do with all the Millions they stake everyday? They can't do anything with that! This project is totally fucked up since it's start. You should read the posts around end of september and early october, when they went live and you'll see: A lot of calculations and analyzing and it was all predicted. Just two examples of my own posts: ***************** A little bit math about this idea: "To optimize for growth and adoption, a large share of the foundations’ endowment will be given to consumers in exchange for engaging with, trying out, and referring friends to NeuCoin. Another large block will be awarded to companies that help NeuCoin grow its user base and become more useful: game publishers and content providers that accept microtransactions with NeuCoin tokens, exchanges, wallets, consumer mining services, payment processors, remittance services, discounted group shopping services, marketing and distribution partners and other key services to NeuCoin users. Finally, some will be sold, with proceeds used by the foundations to increase the value of NeuCoin through consumer marketing, utility development, and core coin development."(...) to read more: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=944933.msg12556706#msg12556706***************** Or take a look at this one with two calculations (from rizzlarolla and myself) about inflation and distribution: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=944933.msg12567238#msg12567238Really, I've never seen a project like this, so badly designed and the last months they've shown that they are totally incompetent. A lot of technical issues, a complete lack of transparency and honesty etc. and now the next step of this weirdness is that they want to go full PoS to avoid pressure on the price. Truth is: There is nothing they can do. It's a totally fucked up eco-system, the worst distribution-model I've ever seen and if they would sell just the coins they stake in one day the price would go down to 1 sat. But they stake that everyday and since months now. Edit: A post about the question if the ICO was legit: One question is: Was the ICO really sold to the public and was it really a legit launch?
The problem is, if you look at the distribution:
Top 10.......2,967,553,562.06368923 NEU 96.72 %
Top 100.....3,062,105,550.67083359 NEU 99.8 %
Top 1000...3,068,146,816.34814405 NEU 100 %
Where are the 100 Mio sold in the ICO? It's not in Top100-1000. There are only about 6 Mio Coins. That's the staking of 20 hours.
(...)
to read more: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=944933.msg12572703#msg12572703 |
|
|
|
|
@sofu: Wir sind uns grundlegend ziemlich einig. Außer bei dieser Aussage von Dir:
"Manipulation ist es auf jeden Fall, das macht den Coin aber auch nicht besser oder schlechter."
...würde ich hinzufügen dass es etwas darauf ankommt wer manipuliert und mit welcher Intention. Bei ETH habe ich etwas Bedenken dass es das Team selbst sein könnte was ich wirklich für denkbar halte. Auch in dem Fall hättest Du mit Deiner Aussage zwar grundlegend Recht, aber mal abgesehen von der finanziellen Seite eines Pump-Dump-Schemas wird mit solchen Preisen natürlich auch ein bestimmtes Bild vorgegeben das möglicherweise weit von der Wahrheit entfernt sein könnte. Denn die ziemlich unwidersprochene Ansicht ist ja mittlerweile, das ne halbe Milliarde (und mehr) als Marketcap gerechtfertigt sei was ich persönlich einfach sehr bezweifle.
Aber wie gesagt, ich sehe die Dinge im Grunde nicht wirklich anders. Ich kann ja auch nicht wissen wer manipuliert und wie sich Ethereum langfristig entwickelt. Werde aber eher skeptischer was die langfristigen Chancen betrifft.
|
|
|
|
so ethereum geht den ganz tag schon in den keller. mal sehen ob das teil noch auf 3 dollar zurück geht.
Jo das ging heut zu weit runter um noch bullisch zu denken. Auf jeden Fall für mich. Einen größeren Panikdump würd ich aber nochmal versuchen aufzufangen falls es soweit kommt  Das Problem ist: Oft gibts einen Panikdump und dann gibts noch einen und noch einen (das haben wir ja die letzten Tage auch in ETH gesehen), so dass man erstens nicht weiß wann der letzte ist, und zweitens: Vor allem wenn der vorherige Kursanstieg ein manipulierter Pump war und sich die Pumper dann zurückziehen, erholt sich der Kurs zum Teil eine lange Zeit nicht sondern fällt weil Investoren irgendwann ungeduldig werden und/oder schlechte Nachrichten die Straße runter auftauchen. Ich will nicht behaupten das ich sicher sein kann das es klare Manipulation war und ETH ist kein Shitcoin, aber wir haben das Muster ja auch bei Bitcoin seit Ende 2013 gehabt. Dazu kommt dann umgekehrt: Sollte sich Bitcoin erholen (was momentan m.A.n. keineswegs sicher ist auf kurze Sicht) wird ETH tendenziell fallen. Sollte endlich die Blocksize-Probleme gelöst bzw. auf den Weg gebracht werden und dann immer mehr Projekte auftauchen die in der Summe das können was ETH zu können verspricht wird es noch schwerer. Ich werde daher nur beobachten und nichts nach dem Kurs entscheide sondern nur nach fundamentalen Infos ausgerichtet. Die finde ich ja ehrlich gesagt auch nicht überzeugend. Verstehe nicht wie sie darauf abzielen können auf ein PoS-System umzusteigen. |
|
|
|
Yeah, sorry I know that. I was asking if it was legit, are factom officially affiliated with them ?
Ah, okay! I have no doubt that it's legit. The problem is more that I don't really know what it's about. But, I'm sure we will know more soon. That's legit. I'm headed to China early in March to talk to people about various projects and efforts. Paul Thanks for the confirmation! Obviously exciting times ahead! |
|
|
|
Yeah, sorry I know that. I was asking if it was legit, are factom officially affiliated with them ?
Ah, okay! I have no doubt that it's legit. The problem is more that I don't really know what it's about. But, I'm sure we will know more soon. |
|
|
|
Good stuff. It s time for Factom to move up a bit more. I ll take steady and gradual growth over any pump and dump scheme cause I am into this long term. I do think wallet GUI should be more simplified. Im in this longer term aswell , i just believe there not eve busy with anything about factoids atm , cause its for them prob not the most important thing. You can probably also notice it by there promotion , twitter no tweet for days (people underestimate the power of Social network) , facebook pretty much quit at all. The best promotion they have prob atm is whiteorg72 in this forum. Google search getting less , Step up the promotion team you can do it. Give updates were your working on idk something. Github looks pretty busy though, everyday some development ! Would be nice to see people like Paul Snow show up here now and then and say hi to people, or atleast some1 from factom. It doesn't make that much sense to say you're in for longterm and to expect them to make promotion for Factoids. In longterm it's all about the use of the system. Speculation will be a huge aspect for the price but the price of Factoids has no influence on the demand for entry credits, while at the same time a huge demand for entry credits would drive the price. So, for them and every serious investor it only makes sense and is also the best for the FCT-price that they develop the system to enable real use and real demand. In fact, I personally wouldn't consider it as a good sign if they would promote Factoids with a focus on the price. It would raise some questions about their intentions. My personal opinion/evaluation/prediction is: If they don't do anything wrong they make it all right. What I mean with that is: If they are able to avoid technical failures, if they avoid bad news, it's just a matter of time that there will be obvious progress (Milestone 2) and more good news like iSoftStone etc. and the price will react. Btw.: It seems that there is already something going on in china. Hard to figure out with google-translator what it's about, but it seems to be something new and it is from today (somebody posted it on the Polo-trollbox): http://money.ycwb.com/2016-02/16/content_21354146.htm |
|
|
|
Das hier ist ein sehr interessanter Thread in dem mal die technische Seite von Ethereum auseinander genommen wird. The Ethereum Paradox
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.0Und da siehts offenbar nicht so gut aus. Ich muss zugeben dass ich nicht alles verstehe, aber was bisher offensichtlich ist: Es gibt keine Gegenargumente. Was mir auch aufgefallen ist: Vitalik Buterin hat (auf reddit) nicht auf "TPTB_need_war" geantwortet, der dort das PoS-System von ETH (Casper) stark kritisiert hat. Dieser TPTB-Typ wirkt etwas arrogant, aber er macht den Eindruck das er wirklich weiß wovon er spricht. Würde mich freuen falls hier jemand technisch so versiert ist das er die Diskussion in obigem Thread versteht und bewerten kann. Hinter Accounts, wie TPTB_need_war sitzen oft mehrere Personen, die als bezahlte Trolls agieren. Vitalik sollte besseres zu tun haben als sich mit denen rumzuschlagen. Wenn er damit erstmal anfängt, kommt er schwer wieder raus. Meistens werden immer wieder pennetrant die gleichen Fragen wiederholt und danach Screenshots gespammt. Zu jeder Antwort von Vitalik gibts dann wahrscheinlich einen neuen Thread auf Bitcointalk. Im Dash Thread zum Beispiel gibts echt Typen, die das zu ihrer Lebensaufgabe gemacht haben. Technisch kann ich dazu nichts sagen, aber man sollte sich von solchen Leuten nicht beeinflussen lassen, wann man einen Coin zu kaufen oder verkaufen hat. Das greift mir etwas zu kurz. Was Typen wie TPTB... betrifft: Ich denke nicht das der nen bezahlter Troll ist oder dass da mehrere hinter seinem Account sitzen, aber er plant offenbar ein eigenes Project an den Start zu bringen. Insofern ist denkbar das er ETH-Kritik nutzt um erstens eine gewisse Aufmerksamkeit zu erreichen und zweitens eine "meins wird besser - Argumentation" zu etablieren. Aber: Seine Argumentation wird von anderen bestätigt. Und ich habe echt einigen Aufwand betrieben um mehr zu verstehen und ansatzweise gelingt mir das und das in Kombination mit Nicht-Reaktionen des ETH-Teams und offensichtlich nicht gelösten Problemen und Ungewissheiten (etwa ob es ein limited-supply geben wird usw.) macht nicht den Eindruck als ob Ethereum wirklich bis zu Ende gedacht ist. Das Problem das ich sehe ist: Alleine der switch zu PoS ist für mich unverständlich, denn PoS-Systeme führen in Zentralisierung. Und auch Casper kann das nicht abwenden. Das ist zwar ein modifiziertes System aber es bleibt ein rich-get-richer-System und wird das Netzwerk schwächen weil der Anreiz verloren geht am System zu partizipieren. Dazu kommt das PoS ne Menge anderer fundamentaler Probleme hat. Kann sowas funktionieren? Für einige Jahre vermutlich schon. Aber Ethereum ist ja nicht irgendein kleiner Altcoin von dem eh niemand erwartet das er überlebt. Ethereum will eine Brücke zur realen Welt schlagen, smart-contracts, internet-of-things etc. Das heißt das es Deals braucht, Firmen die Ethereum wirklich nutzen wollen. Das werden sie aber nicht ohne fundamentales Vertrauen auf lange Sicht. Und momentan kann eigentlich niemand irgendeine Art Vertrauen haben, nicht mal auf eine kürzere Zeitspanne bezogen - wegen der in obigem Thread angesprochenen Probleme. Was bleibt also unterm Strich? Bisher nur Hype. Ich meine das nicht wertend, sondern will lediglich sagen: Es ist bisher nicht mehr. Und das kann einfach sehr schnell zusammenklappen. Möglicherweise kaufe ich ein bisschen wenn der Chart wieder vielversprechender aussieht, aber dann nur zum Traden... Ich werde nicht viel investieren und nicht langfristig denn bisher sehe ich langfristig nicht das Potential das ETH nachgesagt wird. Ich hoffe eigentlich sogar das ich falsch liege, denn dann wäre der Kurs noch sehr lange sehr billig... Falls Ethereum würde was es werden soll sind Preis über 100 Dollar und auf lange Sicht sogar mehr drin. Aber meine persönliche Einschätzung wie wahrscheinlich das ist liegt momentan unter 5%. |
|
|
|
AnonyMint thank you so much for this video. This is coming from a guy who has been into ETH from day one. You may remember me from Reddit. I was the first one to bring up this issue on their thread. (Sorry again for the drama queen remark), I never sold my stake, but it did cause me concern that nobody took your analysis seriously. Instead you were called a scammer. Not cool for a community that prides itself on being different from this cesspool. As of now, I sold all my ETH. I would love to reinvest, but I am not satisfied that Ethereum is future proof. I am done with cryptos for the time being, so my money is going back to Silver. I will keep an eye out for your project, but this is it for me. Take care trolls, shills, pumpers, dumpers, traders, devs, investors, bagholders, and Shelby. Doesn't sound like a real story to me. Sounds like something you completely made up. stoat. All you have to do is look at my post history on reddit (farage11) to see I was a fanboy for well over a year. You can also check my history and see that I went all in a few months ago after selling my IPO during the last run up in August. I could care less what you think. Imo, you are nothing more than a unkowledagble shill who badgers AnonyMint with sticks and stones, while he comes back with nukes. Your incessant shilling is juvenile. Name once where you have countered AnonyMints analysis with technical verbiage? Not once! You think people can't read your rebuttals? Show us your techical accumen and put AnonyMint in his place. Show us... that's what I thought. You are out of your depth, and that fact is a fact. Take care stoat, and know thyself. Something tells me that may be harder to attain then ETH's scaling problem. Can you explain anonymints technical complaint as you understand it? Because not one time has he explained it clearly and unobscurely. And also explain why EXACTLY it is a completely unsolvable problem? My reading comprehension is second to none and I'm university educated, I have no problems understanding everything else I read but I can't seem for the life of me, able to reach that "aha moment" when anonymint explains this "completely unsolvable problem". What was your "aha moment"? And can you explain how you arrived at it. Being someone with first hand experience, and the technical knowledge to present challenges to TPTB's arguments when applicable, I can tell you its just too damn painful to do so. No developer worth any salt is going to engage with him because it simply devolves into name calling if you don't align with his thoughts. Before long the n00b, b-lister, you are not worthy comments start regardless of if he's right or not and its just a noisy waste of time. The discussion ends in a blaze of fire with one of the parties leaving, usually it's not TPTB that has departed (he can argue all damn day) so it "looks" from the outside that he won, even if in reality his "facts" are wrong. These days I'd rather go and pull my own teeth with a set of pliers than engage in any kind of discussion because its a less painful experience. You could simply say where he is wrong, bringing infos, arguments and facts. I'm somebody without much knowledge about the tech, that's why I read discussions about it. My impression in general is (and over months) that there is a lack of controversial discussions about ETH. It's nearly always about the price. My questions about Casper, just for example, were never replied - in no topic. This is the first thread I know of that focusses on the technical side and the lonterm-potential and if ETH can be what it is aimed to be. And I don't believe that one side is completely right and the other side is totally wrong, but what I see is: All the concerns in this thread are not rebutted yet. He very well might be correct, but its a difficult task to figure it out as everything from him is a brain dump wall of text, with added shouting. Not to mention that he changes his mind on things frequently, one day something isn't possible, then it is, then he has invented the best thing since slice bread relating to the issue at hand, then it isn't possible again. Simply put, partitions for transactions are possible (we've done it, both with a block chain and with a ledger). Block chain based partitions are inefficient, ledger based partitions are not. ETH will be hard pressed to scale transactions with partitions on a block chain in excess of 2k+ tps, we've had public tests of partitioned ledgers nearing 3k tps (anyone is welcome to come and test it), and small WAN tests up to 10k+tps and I'm still not finished. Partitions with scripts/contacts are a different kettle of fish, depending on the architecture, this may or may not be possible and the jury is still out on it. The main issue is that you have a lot more data, or states, and have to ensure that there are no cross-partition conflicts of those states. Further adding to the issue is that the states can be arbitrary, and a script/contract can have many of them. In the case of a transaction it is defined in the core protocol what the state of a transaction is and how that transaction can behave. With a script/contract you don't have that luxury as they can define their own states, sub-states and sub-protocols depending on the functionality. Thank you for that answer and the further explanation! First: I don't care that much about personalities but sure, sometimes it can be a problem in discussions. In general I just try to filter out what's relevant. I have to admit that I still don't understand it deeply but your explanation in the context of the discussion and my own researches about ETH seem to me like a confirmation that ETH is highly doubtable. I mean, it's a multi-million-dollar-project and there are obviously issues without solutions. Or with other words: It seems to me as if the ETH-team itself does not know yet how to solve these problems. My own concerns were mainly about the eco-system if they switch to PoS. I know more about economy than about the technical side and I believe even if it would technically work, a PoS-System must lead into centralization and centralization would make the project irrelevant, impossible to trust it - even more when it comes to contracts. And if I'm right it has no chance in the real economy. Companies won't trust a system if it has no chance in longterm. Not totally sure if I'm right, maybe there are solutions to avoid centralization but if I understand this thread rudimentary correct, there are a lot more problems to solve. And that in combination with the impression of a highly manipulated market... doesn't look good. As a speculator it's most likely possible to make some profit in the future, because of the hype, but if all those problems are real it's just a question of time that it's more widely discussed and more people would be careful with investing. However, I'll continue to watch it and trying to understand if ETH has a chance or is doomed by design. But I won't invest any time soon. |
|
|
|
AnonyMint thank you so much for this video. This is coming from a guy who has been into ETH from day one. You may remember me from Reddit. I was the first one to bring up this issue on their thread. (Sorry again for the drama queen remark), I never sold my stake, but it did cause me concern that nobody took your analysis seriously. Instead you were called a scammer. Not cool for a community that prides itself on being different from this cesspool. As of now, I sold all my ETH. I would love to reinvest, but I am not satisfied that Ethereum is future proof. I am done with cryptos for the time being, so my money is going back to Silver. I will keep an eye out for your project, but this is it for me. Take care trolls, shills, pumpers, dumpers, traders, devs, investors, bagholders, and Shelby. Doesn't sound like a real story to me. Sounds like something you completely made up. stoat. All you have to do is look at my post history on reddit (farage11) to see I was a fanboy for well over a year. You can also check my history and see that I went all in a few months ago after selling my IPO during the last run up in August. I could care less what you think. Imo, you are nothing more than a unkowledagble shill who badgers AnonyMint with sticks and stones, while he comes back with nukes. Your incessant shilling is juvenile. Name once where you have countered AnonyMints analysis with technical verbiage? Not once! You think people can't read your rebuttals? Show us your techical accumen and put AnonyMint in his place. Show us... that's what I thought. You are out of your depth, and that fact is a fact. Take care stoat, and know thyself. Something tells me that may be harder to attain then ETH's scaling problem. Can you explain anonymints technical complaint as you understand it? Because not one time has he explained it clearly and unobscurely. And also explain why EXACTLY it is a completely unsolvable problem? My reading comprehension is second to none and I'm university educated, I have no problems understanding everything else I read but I can't seem for the life of me, able to reach that "aha moment" when anonymint explains this "completely unsolvable problem". What was your "aha moment"? And can you explain how you arrived at it. Being someone with first hand experience, and the technical knowledge to present challenges to TPTB's arguments when applicable, I can tell you its just too damn painful to do so. No developer worth any salt is going to engage with him because it simply devolves into name calling if you don't align with his thoughts. Before long the n00b, b-lister, you are not worthy comments start regardless of if he's right or not and its just a noisy waste of time. The discussion ends in a blaze of fire with one of the parties leaving, usually it's not TPTB that has departed (he can argue all damn day) so it "looks" from the outside that he won, even if in reality his "facts" are wrong. These days I'd rather go and pull my own teeth with a set of pliers than engage in any kind of discussion because its a less painful experience. You could simply say where he is wrong, bringing infos, arguments and facts. I'm somebody without much knowledge about the tech, that's why I read discussions about it. My impression in general is (and over months) that there is a lack of controversial discussions about ETH. It's nearly always about the price. My questions about Casper, just for example, were never replied - in no topic. This is the first thread I know of that focusses on the technical side and the lonterm-potential and if ETH can be what it is aimed to be. And I don't believe that one side is completely right and the other side is totally wrong, but what I see is: All the concerns in this thread are not rebutted yet. |
|
|
|
Das hier ist ein sehr interessanter Thread in dem mal die technische Seite von Ethereum auseinander genommen wird. The Ethereum Paradox
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.0Und da siehts offenbar nicht so gut aus. Ich muss zugeben dass ich nicht alles verstehe, aber was bisher offensichtlich ist: Es gibt keine Gegenargumente. Was mir auch aufgefallen ist: Vitalik Buterin hat (auf reddit) nicht auf "TPTB_need_war" geantwortet, der dort das PoS-System von ETH (Casper) stark kritisiert hat. Dieser TPTB-Typ wirkt etwas arrogant, aber er macht den Eindruck das er wirklich weiß wovon er spricht. Würde mich freuen falls hier jemand technisch so versiert ist das er die Diskussion in obigem Thread versteht und bewerten kann. |
|
|
|
I am confused. So what happens when factom reaches 0 ?
0 of what? Sheep? Eggs? Beers? I think he asks what if all Factoids get destroyed. This is not gonna happen my friend. No cause there will be a inflation , that will that will be the same as the price of the "income" so actually the coins stay 8.75 mil. It will fluctuate because there are three aspects: 1. New created Factoids (about 73k per month after Milestone 3) 2. Use of the system: The number of Factoids converted into Entry Credits (= out of the system) 3. Price of Factoids If the market would be totally objective and know how much EC's are used at every time it would level the price always at: x Entry Credits used per month * 0.001 / 73,000 = price per FCT 0.001 is the price of 1 Entry Credit in Dollar. What that means is, that the price will play a big role when it comes to the question if more new FCT's will be created than converted (out of the system), or the other way around, or if it will be leveled out. What I expect is that the price won't be totally objective to a given time but speculation will always anticipate the future potential, the market will always try to guess future demand and progress. And that's rational in my opinion, even if it won't be possible to predict the future totally correct. But the market also involves some irrational aspects. But.. I don't mean that in a negative way because I speak about high volatility (next couple of months) and most likely it will be an upward-dynamic - it wouldn't even need good news, just an absence of bad news while good news are more likely. But, we will know a lot more in a couple of months and after all Milestones are reached. And in best case, if Factom should gain traction more and more, it could lead into a very nice price-dynamic out of a steadily growing demand for EC's. Because it won't be just about more user and companies it will also be about the growing data-amounts per user and per company. In best case, Factom will be a system for growing systems plus it would lead into kind of a network-effect. The more it's used the more it makes sense for others to use it, not just because a working system gets more attention, but also because data is always in relation to other data and one company is always in relation to other companies. It will be a pretty complex dynamic but if Factom won't fail, there is a lot of potential for a steady growth. I wouldn't say that the price is undervalued right now, but measured at the potential Factom in general is still underrated. That's at least my opinion. I hope to soon hear something from the Dev teams , been quit last few days compared to weeks before. Price looks stable
and even soon to pop to 400k sat. People are accumulating a lot coins around this value
The price is really pretty stable and there was > 8 Mio of Volume just on Yuanbaohui the last 30 days. That's not the same like "they traded the total supply in just 30 days" but because of the stable price, that will lead into a price change and my guess is: Up. It's unlikely that the price will go down much after the iSoftStone-news and soon before Milestone 2. |
|
|
|
(...) Are blatantly wrong, as you know given the fact that VB said himself that the foundation have been selling Eths all the way up to $6 to ensure economical safety for the years ahead. As far as I know that is not correct. What he said was: The foundation currently has ~1.65 million ETH, plus ~$750k in non-ETH assets. 1650000 * 6.1 + 750000 = $10,815,000. Based on our current ~$200k/month burn rate, that will last us ~54 months ~= 4.5 years. That said, we are planning some substantial expansions which will increase our expenses but also get casper and other fun stuff out the door much faster, and we are also starting to get interest for corporate sponsorships coming in, which could secure us a more sustainable funding path in the long term.https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/45bhus/so_the_ethereum_foundation_can_now_fund_itself/czwpr04They did not sell. And the price of $ 6.1 was correct two days ago but after the price drop it's currently at about $ 4.90. Makes less 2.7 Mio Dollar and I expect it to go down more. The problem: They are highly dependent on the ETH-price. In that reddit thread you are quoting VB says "Have been negotiating ETH sales going all the way up " Which is obviously the smart thing to do as it is in the best interest for the foundation. If I'm not completely mistaken it implies that companies or private individuals who are looking to buy a lot of Eth have contacted Ethereum foundation and made deals. Nothing wrong about that, in fact if they didn't consideer that then I would seriously question their ability to run and develop something as major as this. Anyways my point is that the "war" guy said Ethereum was running out of funding, which couldn't be more untrue, especially now. Ah, I see the comment you mean - didn't recognize it. Not sure what exactly he means with that but either way, I agree with you that money won't be the problem any time soon. But I also agree in some points with the "war-guy". I'm not a programmer and without a deep understanding of the technical side, but I recognized that there seem to be some uncertainty about the Casper-solution, even in the team. Or to say it with other words: It's maybe just my personal impression after reading discussions about it, but for me it seems that they don't exactly know how to do it and what could be the result in longterm - for the entire eco-system. And everytime I've asked about Casper it seems nobody wants to discuss it - I did not ask ETH-Devs, but several times in the german ETH-Thread and also in the official one. Either way I'm kind of surprised that Ethereum wants to switch to PoS. In my eyes that's a bad decision because PoS, even if it's a modified, must lead into economically centralization. I also recognized that V. Buterin did not reply to TPTB about Casper - as if he doesn't want to discuss it deeply. At the moment I'm not invested, just watching and "analyzing" communication and also the market to figure out if I should buy or not. And I believe to see a lot of uncertainty and risk and I also believe that the market is highly manipulated. Can't prove that and it's not even because of the price but more because of the extremely high volume. Polo just has a little bit over 100k accounts and I never saw more than about 4000 active users at a time. I doubt that that is enough to maintain >30k BTC over several days. And if it's manipulated it won't be a usual pump group. |
|
|
|
(...) Are blatantly wrong, as you know given the fact that VB said himself that the foundation have been selling Eths all the way up to $6 to ensure economical safety for the years ahead. As far as I know that is not correct. What he said was: The foundation currently has ~1.65 million ETH, plus ~$750k in non-ETH assets. 1650000 * 6.1 + 750000 = $10,815,000. Based on our current ~$200k/month burn rate, that will last us ~54 months ~= 4.5 years. That said, we are planning some substantial expansions which will increase our expenses but also get casper and other fun stuff out the door much faster, and we are also starting to get interest for corporate sponsorships coming in, which could secure us a more sustainable funding path in the long term.https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/45bhus/so_the_ethereum_foundation_can_now_fund_itself/czwpr04They did not sell. And the price of $ 6.1 was correct two days ago but after the price drop it's currently at about $ 4.90. Makes less 2.7 Mio Dollar and I expect it to go down more. The problem: They are highly dependent on the ETH-price. |
|
|
|
What would you rather we talk about?
Where you go from here. -You very nearly released a market with a critical bug. The SDC Team has pushed headstrong into dev of market before really testing/peer reviewing the anon. -Could there be more critical bugs? -If Tecnovert is no longer in the picture then how will SDC manage without a cryptographer -Asking why an official Team blogpost was released prematurely claiming anon unbroken when in fact was broken. -Asking why The Team could not find the bug after 10+ hrs of internal testing without more help from the bug finder. -How to reassure users they can trust the anon? i.e. some attempt to learn from mistakes made. pretty basic stuff really. I can't say anything thing else than this man is telling the truth. The dev(s) made huge mistakes. Shadow is a big disappointment for guys like me, who have invested a lot of money in shadow for more than a year. There is actually one thing, I don't really understand, why are there still so many buyers? After the news, I expected SDC to go minus 80% or so. Is this problem so easy to solve? Putting it all together, the big mistakes, the time we have been waiting, I only can conclude this project looks very fragile. Nah, Shadowcoin is completely fine. The issue has been vastly overblown, aimed for maximum damage towards Shadowcoin. It speaks volumes how a FUD army of newbie accounts comes in to talk shit about the project, and promote their own. (In this case Monero) If anything, I'm disappointed that parts of their community can behave so lowly. By nature, no software is secure and claiming otherwise is naive. Bitcoin, Monero, Shadowcoin, Dash, cannot (and do not) claim that their security is impenetrable. Human mistakes happen and code is imperfect. Most serious cryptocurrencies (including Shadowcoin) even have a bug bounty program for this precise reason.While I'm glad Shnoe pointed out this major security flew, he went about in the wrong way. The standard professional (and respectful) course of action is to resolve security issues in a private manner -not by making a public blog post about it. Privately exposing bugs is not about "withholding information" or "hiding incompetence" or anything of the sort. People privately expose bugs to reducing the chance of exploiting the bug, and giving the developers time to properly resolve the bug.Now give Shadowcoin some leniency, stop spreading FUD, and move on with your life. Smooth already pointed out that it's not the best way to make it privately and in my eyes he is absolutely right with that: code: You're wrong about the minimizing the damage. I get what you're trying to say, but you occasionally leave out the possibility that such disclosures can cause (financial) damage without even having to be true. There is no way to minimize the "financial damage" by reporting it privately, except to allow insiders to trade ahead of everyone else. Brilliant idea. If the report were untrue, that would be a different matter. It certainly was true. If anything, more financial damage was caused by the false "Deanonymized? Nope" statement put out by the Shadowcash team about the report being incorrect and that it couldn't be reproduced after 10 hours of work by your core developers. That may have misled people into making trades on the basis of a false statement (yours). That's what I call financial damage. Maybe you guys should have worked on it privately instead of making a statement to (falsely) calm the market when you didn't know what you were talking about. |
|
|
|
code: You're wrong about the minimizing the damage. I get what you're trying to say, but you occasionally leave out the possibility that such disclosures can cause (financial) damage without even having to be true. There is no way to minimize the "financial damage" by reporting it privately, except to allow insiders to trade ahead of everyone else. Brilliant idea. If the report were untrue, that would be a different matter. It certainly was true. If anything, more financial damage was caused by the false "Deanonymized? Nope" statement put out by the Shadowcash team about the report being incorrect and that it couldn't be reproduced after 10 hours of work by your core developers. That may have misled people into making trades on the basis of a false statement (yours). That's what I call financial damage. Maybe you guys should have worked on it privately instead of making a statement to (falsely) calm the market when you didn't know what you were talking about. Very true. Just the idea of reporting it privately is stupid. |
|
|
|
200 or 500 factoids on almost 9 million s nothing. It does show the system works but in terms of supply reduction, it s nothing. Let us hope this speeds up soon. I agree, but it shows a very good tendency. Factom is on the right direction and if you compare it to some other projects, Ethereum for example: At the moment it needs > 1000 BTC just to catch the new created ETH at the current price - per day! In Factom, until Milestone 3, it's the opposite. Plus: Factom can already be used. Plus: If it all goes well we will see a network-effect. What I mean with that is: Those who will use the system won't simply change their minds and abandon it, because they build their history in Factom (a little bit like the Facebook-Effect). And even more important: The more the system works for a few the more it will get the attention of others. That's why iSoftStone is underrated in my eyes. It's just a memorandum of understanding and it will need some time until we will see real results, but it clearly shows the potential. Big companies (iSoftstone is really big!) are obviously interested. And, it's possible to view that dynamic because it's transparent. I don't know of any project with such a potential. |
|
|
|
Last few weeks it was monday til thursday: moon!
Friday: not much happening
Weekend: craaaash!
600BTC sold in 1 and a half hours I cant understand a bigger crash than that ATM. but ETH recovered... A little advice: Always zoom out and check how much volume there was before a price rise and at lower prices. After a pump it's pretty normal that it goes down with an equal volume but very often not that fast. It's not possible to make safe predictions but if there should be a quiet time in the next days and weeks, and if BTC should rise, I would expect that it will go down even more. Maybe to 0.008 or something like that. But: Impossible to be sure about it, because it's obviously wanted. |
|
|
|
Aber ernsthaft: Ich sehe das nicht ganz so idealistisch. Wir sehen in Crypto puren Kapitalismus. Zum Teil eine wirklich gute Seite des Kapitalismus: Innovation und ein unglaubliches Innovations-Tempo, unglaublich schnelles Lernen - nicht nur technisch, sondern auch wie der gesamte Markt funktioniert usw. Aber wir sehen eben auch echt üble Sachen, von krasser Inkompetenz bis zu krankhafteste Gier die zum Teil in einer Art des Betrugs gipfelt der letztlich oft genug total irrational ist (Paycoin ist so ein Beispiel, Cryptsy auch irgendwie, Gox ebenfalls).
Anders gesagt: Crypto ist einfach auch nur ein Spiegel dessen wie wir als Kollektiv funktionieren, aber beschleunigt. Und sicher, es gibt geniale Ansätze und eben auch vieles das positive Wirkung entfalten kann und mindestens teilweise auch wird. Aber ohne Kriege wirds auch in Zukunft nicht laufen. Ohne Regierungen auch nicht. Und die Banken werden sich verändern und auch neue Formen von Banken entstehen. Online-Wallet-Anbieter sind ja im Grunde so etwas wie Banken, teilweise auch Börsen etc.
Aber, ganz sicher ist: Es bleibt spannend und echt interessant! ;-)
1+ hätte ich nicht besser sagen können. Die Ursprünge von Bitcoin hoffen jedoch auf eine bessere (fairere) (Finanz)Welt durch Bitcoin. Ja, ich glaube sogar dass das zumindest teilweise möglich sein wird. Aber Bitcoin sehe ich da eigentlich ein bisschen mehr als "Wirkung" in dem Sinne das wir ja in einer Zeit leben in der sich Macht und Einfluss und Vermögen immer extremer zentralisieren. Das führt in Eskalationen und immer mehr Menschen begreifen die grundlegenden Probleme dahinter (eines ist ja Zentralisierung, ein anderes ist Mangel an Transparenz der Mächtigen bei gleichzeitiger Überwachung von uns allen etc.). Bitcoin ist eine von mehreren Antworten darauf. Wikileaks z.B. ist eine andere. Die Occupy-Bewegung ist eine, Anonymous ist eine usw. Und Bitcoin betreffend: Ich halte es durchaus für möglich dass sich dadurch viel verändern wird und einiges hoffentlich auch zum Besseren. Aber gleichzeitig wird die ursprüngliche Idee natürlich auch ein bisschen korrumpiert, was ich nicht mal kritisch meine weil es m.A.n. natürlich ist. Bzw. meine ich es schon kritisch aber da muss man wohl in den Spiegel schauen und akzeptieren das wir sind wie wir sind. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
