They deliberately chose to develop multiple clients in multiple languages reasoning that a single client could be a point of failure i.e. if only one client was used and it faced problems/bugs in future it would effect everybody. In this scenario its impact would not be so utterly complete.
It also gets away from the monoculture, which I think is awesome if you can do it. |
|
|
|
plus it can be sent over the wire, "packed", "minified", eval'ed at will, etc... no idea why trying to reinvent the wheel  PS: I would greatly benefit from it, since JS is my main coding language  I think this mostly comes down to the fact that Java and its miscreants are the Devil. |
|
|
|
I"m just amazed how gutshot single handedly destroyed this IPO. How come Ethereum listened to him? I wasn't sure if i wanted to invest but maybe i would have
Like a said, gutshot5820 is a creature of incomprehensible determination. He is a master ruseman, truly understands the power of fear, and in between all his mongering, he actually ends up making a good point here and there. gutshot5820:  |
|
|
|
I agree completely, and I have no intention to "run" to the SEC. Furthermore, if I was 19 like Vitalik is, I'd probably decide to get rich first and then deal with SEC or whatever. The sensible thing is to remember that that did not play very well for Charlie Shrem, but a handful of millions or well worth the risk for most youngesters.
I try really hard not to think about age. Of course you make some determination of a person based on their characteristics, and the thing about Vitalik from what we read in the media is that (a) he is onto something really cool, and (b) he's young. I just feel it's a bit unfair for people to have at it because Vitalik is relative young compared to most of us, and therefore is at a higher risk of doing something stupid. I'm not saying your thoughts went down that route, but I think it's interesting to point out the reasoning, which is something I've noticed people do when they talk about Vitalik and this project (I'm probably guilty of that too sometimes). Regarding the model: business is business, and the founders have found a huge business opportunity. They have realized people is demanding get rich quick schemes and is willing to throw their money to whoever comes up with the next things that smells of innovation and triple digit % gains. You can see how colored coins get less attention than MSC... Why? The answer is very simple: greed. MSC is marketed as the "ultimate investment" (as Ethereal is), colored coins isn't.
I think Mastercoin is a nightmare of insanity to be quite frank. I don't mean that in a way to diss the project or anything like that, but I think how they did things was wildly unethical. To simply start taking people's money with no real plan, or no idea of who's going to work on your plan when you get it figured out, is in my book totally insane - perhaps even where all this craziness started. A white paper is not justification to start accepting money. In the world I come from, companies make IPO's when they already have a product that works. Before that, you have private investments, seed capital, whatever - but you do not go public.
What's happening is pure madness in my book. Profitable madness? Probably, but its unsustainable in the long term.
Let me give you an example. Way before Mastercoin, a user on here by the name of tacotime posted his ideas in a conceptual white paper on this forum. I thought it was cool and he didn't sound like a jerk, so I started helping him out. We've had endless messages sent to us where people wanted to throw money at it and instead of taking people's money without a solid plan like a lot of projects on here, we decided against it. We're both in grad school, and it's only now that we have the chance to organise things in a way that will provide people with some form of assurance. And that's why you don't take money if you can't provide that. To this day we haven't accepted a penny. Instead we focused on building relationships with interesting people and organisations and kept up to date with the ideas and trends in the field, with the hope that the project can end up giving people something they want to use. These little grassroots projects hardly get the attention the bigger ones do that cause the hysteria, but at the end of the day, I'm more interested in listening to the community (I do that even when I troll), and put something together through the people who want to use it. If that means it's small-scale and doesn't take over the world, then that's okay by me. Maybe that's idealistic and stupid, but I'm happy going down that road instead.  |
|
|
|
Yes, there is: greed.
Don't underestimate the power of that very reason.
I really do not like the "IPO" model - I wonder what Satoshi would think about that. We all know that if the technology is truly revolutionary and it sticks out, the founders will be greatly rewarded by being the very early adopters. This "IPO" thing is just a way to get rich quick while unloading the full risk on investors. Instead of working first and then harvest the fruits later, people prefers to gather the money first and then work - this model is spreading because people is realizing they can get away with it. A very "open source" model if you ask me.
The MSC "IPO" was quite a joke, with the founder "investing" on his project by sending +1,000 BTC to an address that he controlled himself.... It looks like Ethereum will take that model to a whole new level.
The saddest thing? You can bet they will raise thousands of BTC, which is a pity indeed, because it gives a strong incentive for people to replicate over and over this faulty model fueled by greed (both investor's and founder's greed), at least until the SEC steps in.
Friendly advice to the founders: the SEC will step in eventually, maybe not now but in a year or two, do not even dare to think this is play money and that you will get away unscattered by raising millions of $$ by selling unregulated securities.
While I appreciate what you're saying, and agree with some of it, you can't run to the SEC every time something happens you don't like. People really have become pathetic like that nowadays. Everyone wants to do everything and take no responsibility for the scenario where they just ended up making a bad call - plain and simple. You're not even buying any damn equity, so I don't know what the government is supposed to do (and whose government?). In any case, I hope they can arrive at terms that the vocal majority here at least agrees with. As long as the terms are clear, and everyone understands what they're buying from the Ethereum folks, we can't cry if it doesn't work out - that's the risk involved in anything speculative, let alone cryptocurrency. Although, I do think the points on us carrying all the risk are very reasonable and need to be addressed. |
|
|
|
Registration for PoolEthereum.com is now open. Alpha testers will qualify for rewards like a fee free mining window and priority support. Cloud mining services will be available prior to launch. Care to provide more information? Your website has no information and asks for an e-mail address. |
|
|
|
I am newbie but realy interested in this project. I think that If they were expecting at least 500BTC from IPO and that would be enough for them, so why it would'nt be enough if ppl invest more? I would suggest premine 500BTC worth ethers = 10000000*0,5 for ther expenses no matter how much total investment will be. Or at least their % share should gradualy decerase along with the increase of the overall amount of investment. It would encourage more investors and give bigger chance for project to be succesfull - everybody would be happy The problem is that one moderately wealthy person could invest all 500 BTC and end up owning all of the ether. You can't really set per-person limits, either, due to Sybil attacks (people making multiple wallets/forum identities/email addresses/etc. and investing with each). You also can't force everyone to invest via bank wire, which might provide some clues as to identity, but would create a "taxable event" in many jurisdictions. It's really a conundrum. If anyone is interested, there's some discussion about this going on at /r/ethereum, including vbuterin (a founder). |
|
|
|
There's no inflation or dilution in Mastercoin for example. They've released a fixed number and that's it. No more pumping into the market.
In that case, Mastercoin is an apt name because anyone who enters the market after someone else is a slave to the person before them. Inflation, if understood and used correctly, is important because it can serve new generations who don't want to be slaves. |
|
|
|
Because it would have been a failure given this cold negative reception. Dev's statement says something else about mining algo or some BS like that but it's nonsense. That wasn't the real reason, just some announcement to save face.
I think a more accurate statement is that they've been overwhelmed. They did not expect to receive this much attention prior to the fundraiser. They need to get proper infrastructure in place and get people to engage the community. That's my take. It's not an easy task. |
|
|
|
If you read Vitalik's original post on Ethereum (I think on the unofficial thread) he talks about empowering all different categories of people involved in cryptocurrencies, the miners, investors and the development community. I think in terms of fairness it allows everyone to access piece of the pie. If IPO is too risky for instance you can either mine or participate in the project or simply buy once the IPO is over. I actually like this issuance model.
0.5X going to founders, early stakeholders and developers along with the BTC raised is a legitimate concern that I think is shared by a large number of people and I hope before or by the next announcement for the IPO this is revised and explained in greater detail.
There's no doubt this is what most of the community seem to think on here. I like the issuance model too. However, I do think gutshot5820 finally articulates important points on the idea of risk. It's great to empower everyone and allow all of us to get a piece of the pie, but people who contribute early are asked to carry significantly greater risk than those who get in on the project when it's been built and is ready. I think the bigger issue is that people feel they don't get enough in return for the risk they have to carry, which is turning people off and is echoed throughout the thread, given that the perception is 1000-2000 Ether isn't that much per Bitcoin if coupled with dilution and very little risk for the creators. Whether this is an accurate perception, I don't know. |
|
|
|
Cool down man! Please don't try to suggest that we were the ones who brought up the GS connection. If Charles hadn't mention it in the introductory video, we wouldn't be speaking about it. And because somebody says something this doesn't make it true. You should know that. We need convincing, open and honest communication.
Oh my God, are you kidding me? Can we just put the Goldman Sachs logo on the back of one of those t-shirt designs? If this is the average Bitcointalk user's reasoning, we are doomed. GMO got to you. |
|
|
|
Since the fundraiser is now delayed and a testnet will be run first, the discussion about that seems to be unnecessary. So lets focus on the technical aspects and development for now.
It's kind of like a hostage situation when people are unhappy with terms. They won't commit their ideas to the actual project until the demands on both sides can find balance. For some people that balance never comes, but there's obviously a large percentage of people who post here who are unhappy with what's been proposed in exchange for their Bitcoin and won't release their thoughts to Ethereum even though they're interested (therefore holding their energy hostage before spending it on the project constructively). The delayed fundraiser has put the thought in their minds that the terms may be under review, so they've cooled it a bit. I don't know if that's actually the case, so we wait and see. |
|
|
|
When will they release this coin? What does "Test Release" means?  Testnet means we can mess around with Ethereum (incomplete) without any of it being "real". So you can download the code, do stuff, possibly even mine, but none of it has any "value". That's on mainnet. |
|
|
|
They need to offer more ETH per bitcoin, lower the MAX to an acceptable level and therefore the pre-mine. And lower their shares of the coin to a level that doesn't reflect a persona of greed. If they are right and follow through, they can still be multi-millionaires by changing the structure in a way that it is not overly diluted and fair and equitable to early investors. The way is is structured now, they are punishing you for being an early adopter and instantly becoming wealthy without any risk at all.
Lets put the fundraiser in simple terms that everyone can understand. Everyone should agree agree that all investments should have a proper risk/reward ratio. This project itself has a lot of risk and potentially a lot of reward, so neither can outweigh the other. Now lets look at this objectively from that perspective.
Ethereum project;
Risk = Very High
Reward = Very High
Founders;
Risk = 0%
Reward=100%
Early adopters;
Risk = 100%
Reward = ?
Put that on a graph. Does that seem like a fair transaction to you?
I like you a lot more when you don't tell me to kill myself. I'm quoting you because this is the essence of what you've been getting at in all your ramblings, and I think these are fair concerns. |
|
|
|
and in order to stop the mad hype about turing completeness for people that are not tech savvy i paste from wikipedia:
Most programming languages, conventional and unconventional, are Turing-complete. This includes:
All general-purpose languages in wide use.
Procedural programming languages such as C, Pascal.
Object-oriented languages such as Java, Smalltalk.
Multi-paradigm languages such as Ada, C++, Common Lisp, Object Pascal.
ok the project has nice features in theory but its not like the whole computer world will take a new direction from now on. just a good pitch.
It's about what can be built with a language like that inside of the block chain. It's not about features. |
|
|
|
i guess that in high tech societies common sense and primal instincts are pushed back with rationality and greed. I will just try to make things simpler.
Ethereum clock timer ticking -> pushed back
Ethereum IPO -> pushed back
Ethereum development after IPO -> ?
fill in the blank
Ethereum development: https://github.com/ethereumLook at the Go Ethereum suite as an example. 229 commits to the Go code since 26 December 2013. And they're releasing in multiple languages. |
|
|
|
Thanks Charles for this reply, the community has been waiting for this statement for almost a week now. No one questing the financial expertise of GS. The question is what are they using it for? The answer: To control/screw/scam people, the market, the little guy, and also countries.... The best example is Greece. Goldman Sachs has been advising Greece to join the euro, despite the fact that they knew Greece was cooking its books/budget number. In fact GS helped Greece in cooking its budget and hide it's true national debt level. Then, after that country joined the Euro, they were secretly betting on its default. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/greek-debt-crisis-how-goldman-sachs-helped-greece-to-mask-its-true-debt-a-676634.htmlhttp://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-02-25-bernanke-fed-greece_N.htmAnd this is only one evil deed from Goldman Sachs. There are hundreds of more. Does the Ethereum Project really wants to be associated with such a parasitic entity? These are the facts... Will this information make a difference for you guys at Ethereum? Only you could tell...... How many times do they need to say there is no Goldman Sachs connection? 90+% of this forum would benefit greatly from taking comprehension classes. Every freakin' post has some tie to Goldman Sachs, when if you just read through the information and go back to the source you'd realise it's totally stupid. |
|
|
|
Hopefully, regulatory issues are being worked out as promised as it will be one less thing to worry about, but I still stand with what I wrote earlier regarding the investment structure of the deal.
So far judging from the responses on all Ethereum forums here is what I see. Most of the people posting on this forum and almost all the people that were at the Miami Conference praising Ethereum are developers. There is genuine potential for this platform to be groundbreaking if done right. The devs that are shilling for the Ethereum to succeed have either been involved in pre-fund raising before and want to see this succeed for selfish reasons or they believe in Ethereum and are planning to monetize this platform in the future and want to see Ethereum succeed for selfish reasons.
Then you have the other half of the devs that are not involved with the project, see there are too many risks involved and fearful of wall street taking over the crypto industry.
Where I feel there is a severe disconnect is that the majority of opinions on this forum, Reddit, etc.. are developers and they will constitute less that 1% of the total amount of investment capital that Ethereum is trying to raise.
If you go to a Conference where the entire majority of reporters have a dev background, you are basically looking at the very definition of a biased opinion and reporting. Just because a small group of technology advanced individuals are excited about the possibility of the tech, doesn't actually mean equate a great investment.
Then you have the 99% of the general crypto population that are only interested in making a quick profit on this coin. They are not particularly interested in this new coin/platform and don't really care about the technology and only if there will be enough ROI to justify an initial investment into the pre-sale. Initially, there was a lot of hype on this coin that drew a lot of interest, but crypto investors cannot be duped. They realize they are not getting into this investment at the ground floor level and with the amount of money/bitcoin that Ethereum is trying to raise before launch, there will have to be 100 million dollar market cap for them to see a profit. Long-term is the only reason to invest. There are few pump and dump scenarios that will work with this investment structure that Ethereum is proposing because all the initial "pump" profit is being taken out of the market and into Ethereum's pocket right from the beginning.
Long term I see a lot of risks involved with pre-sale investment.
1/ There is risk of immediate loss of equity once it hits an exchange.
2/ There is risk of dilution
3/ There is risk of the company dissolving or bankrupting (however small)
4/ There is risk of this becoming vaporware
5/ There is risk that it will be forked and cloned
6/ There is risk that there will be too many security holes
7/ There is risk that a newer and better technology with greater funding and transparency will enter the market in due time
8/ There is risk that the altcoin (or platform if you want to call it that) crypto market will crash in a few years
9/ There is a risk (and I personally feel strongly about this) that the price will be considerably lower once it hits an exchange and falls to what the market feels is an appropriate price for the amount of risk and dilution involved with the project.
Of course, I could be wrong and Ethereum totally sells out and there will be another 100 million worth of btc bid aftermarket. But do you really think that crypto investors are dying to jump in to give anyone 100 million on vaporware on a diluted investment? ALL you have to look at is the forum boards and ignore the developers who are shilling for the product to succeed. There is a huge outcry against the current investment scheme. Why are people so vehemently against Ethereum's structure? Because they feel it has a possibility to be an asset to the bitcoin community but not the way its currently structured.
So in final words, whether you believe in the tech or not, all you have to ask yourself is this. Would I be better off investing in the pre-sale or should I invest aftermarket?
There is absolutely only ONE reason you should buy into the pre-sale, if you believe that it will be so much oversold and the market will not feel that it's diluted to the point where there is another huge group of buyers willing to take it off your hands and xxx times a return on your investment right from the beginning of launch.
Now I submit to you a few simple reasons why you should wait until aftermarket to buy-in.
1/ You NEGATE any risk mentioned earlier in the post and you only have to consider risk/reward. If I buy in pre-sale what risk do I take vs the reward I will have for taking that risk. Do you think there is greater chance that the market price will be higher than lower from the pre-sale price? And to what degree do you need to see Ethereum trade at to make this pre-sale investment worth it for you.
2/ Time value - What could have I done with this money invested in Ethereum that will be locked up from pre-sale until launch on a legitimate market. During those two or three months, you could have that money invested in Bitcoin (which has a lot less downside and at the current level has a good chance of increasing in value) or a dozen new altcoins that will be launching that as you can see we are in the midst of a crypto coin boom. How much money will you have lost by freezing your money up in Ethereum, when it could be actively invested in other more profitable ventures where the initial investment is not severely diluted?
3/ During the time you buy into the pre-sale (several months) and the time you are able to trade your ETH on an exchange, I guarantee you there will several new teams announcing a new platform or coin that will get much better press with a better investment structure. You take the risk of obsolescence even before the coin launches.
4/ By buying into the coin pre-sale and making it a success you encourage Wall Street to take over the crypto coin market and in the future you may see an environment where every new coin launch will be diluted and structured in a way that only Wall Street will increase their millions and the RISK will all be burdened by the crypto community. Ethereum will set a new precedent and if you think this will not happen, think again. Miners and crypto investors will be locked out of the early "pump" profits while Wall Street makes millions and we will take all the RISK. The early pre-sale investors will essentially be the bagholders.
5/ Here is the most important reason to wait until it hits an exchange to buy into Ethereum, you NEGATE all the risk I mentioned before and plus you do not enable this kind of launch in the future. There is a good chance that you will be able to buy it lower than the offering price of approx a dollar an ETH. and if the price rises a bit, you can still buy in at the pre-sale price or a little bit higher. The only reason you should be buying this pre-sale is if you believe that there is another 100 million waiting in line to buy ETH and there is no risk involved. You have absolutely nothing to lose by waiting and a lot at stake by buying and enabling this type of coin pre-sale launch.
Now, over the next few days I imagine Ethereum will hire a Marketing PR, they will hype and pump the tech and coin and gloss it over to make it look like they invented the wheel. They will cast out all the doubters and call them "FUD." Vitalik will come online and answer questions about the tech. But I say to you forget about all that. Don't get caught up in the tech, we all know the tech has the potential to be amazing. Look at the investment structure. Dont let Vitalik use excuses like this is the best way to avoid "whales" from taking over the market. That is so naive. Think!!! Regardless of the tech, is it more beneficial to me, considering risk vs reward, to buy pre-sale or buy aftermarket?
If you choose pre-sale, then good luck, all I'm asking you is to forget the tech and the chatter from the devs and focus on the pros and con of the investment only. Live long and prosper!!
Instead of writing an essay, fix what you see is wrong with what they're doing in a bullet list. Nobody can dig into all of this text. I'm not saying that to mess with you, I want to see a better plan that can be digested. |
|
|
|
Are you not worried about: "Also be aware that this is still unreleased software and can cause severe damage on your machine. Use at your own risk!"? Should I be?
I have 64-bit OS. Am I out of luck? "Download the Go Windows 32-Bit Distribution and run the installer. As of now this guide does not cover 64-Bit installations as it causes some problems compiling the secp256k1 library."
We'll have to wait and see if they distribute binaries when the testnet comes in a little under two days. If you're unfamiliar with checking out code from repositories, I wouldn't bother with that approach for now. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
