A better question is, why are there so many fucking ETH topics? Are people making tons of money on this? Is this thing going to live up to this hype?? Can anything?
I know right?! Maybe it's on its way to 50, who knows... Do you mean $50 per Ethereum? It is possible. The litecoin went to that price range about 2-3 years ago. But it will take time. I doubt it. Litecoin had some genuine use cases (GPU mining, hedge against Bitcoin, etc), but the truth is coming out now that Ethereum is a lie. |
|
|
|
Down we go after a brief defence by insiders at a lower double-top again. Now ETH makes lower lows again. The truth is coming out now. |
|
|
|
Genius  Bitcoin implements a [ unambiguous via longest chain rule] partial order of transactions and Smart Contracts's need total order. It is not that hard to come up with some models of event ordering [ that show that total ordering is required]. This is an interesting post, and shows more the direction, although I don't agree with NS[ Nick Szabo] on ethereum. unenumerated.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-dawn-of-trustworthy-computing.htmlThis is another essence of my technological point which I have stated previously as follows: * computers are electronic elements with billions of components. how does such a machine achieve consistent state? see: Shannon and von Neumann and the early days of computing (maybe even Zuse)
* partitions, blocks, DAG's, .... all this stuff generally confuses the most fundamental notions. after investigating this matter for a very long time, I can assure you that almost nobody understands this.
I can assure you I've understood the point deeply about the impossibility of absolute global consistency in open systems (and a perfectly closed system is useless, i.e. static). Go read my debates with dmbarbour (David Barbour) from circa 2010. Laymen let me attempt to explain this to you. Putting Smart Contract data on a global block chain means that as those contracts interact, it is impossible to prove that the order that the contracts are run is commutative and that the contracts will halt. This is well known because Turing Completeness (the ability to run any logic) requires unbounded recursion. This is the essence of the famous Halting Problem. All you laymen need to know is that Ethereum and Nick Szabo propose that which is impossible. I told Charles Hoskinson this in Skype when he was contemplating forming Ethereum with Vitalik (I guess before it became a bigger thing with many others involved). Ethereum responded by inventing gas, so that scripts would halt by failing once their gas is exhausted. This is horrific because it means the state machine is put into an indeterminate state. Indeterminism manifests as errors and chaotic machines that do random actions. On top of that, Vitalik recently admitted in one of the videos I watched that they know Ethereum violates commutativity (and they have no real solution). WATCH IT BLOW UP FOLKS!Nick "Satoshi" Szabo has just made another huge blunder by not realizing the above, as enet correctly points out. So please stop telling me Szabo is at Satoshi's level. Not even close. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin implements a [ unambiguous via longest chain rule] partial order of transactions and Smart Contracts's need total order. It is not that hard to come up with some models of event ordering [ that show that total ordering is required]. This is an interesting post, and shows more the direction, although I don't agree with NS[ Nick Szabo] on ethereum. unenumerated.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-dawn-of-trustworthy-computing.htmlThis is another essence of my technological point which I have stated previously as follows: * computers are electronic elements with billions of components. how does such a machine achieve consistent state? see: Shannon and von Neumann and the early days of computing (maybe even Zuse)
* partitions, blocks, DAG's, .... all this stuff generally confuses the most fundamental notions. after investigating this matter for a very long time, I can assure you that almost nobody understands this.
I can assure you I've understood the point deeply about the impossibility of absolute global consistency in open systems (and a perfectly closed system is useless, i.e. static). Go read my debates with dmbarbour (David Barbour) from circa 2010. Laymen let me attempt to explain this to you. Putting Smart Contract data on a global block chain means that as those contracts interact, it is impossible to prove that the order that the contracts are run is commutative and that the contracts will halt. This is well known because Turing Completeness (the ability to run any logic) requires unbounded recursion. This is the essence of the famous Halting Problem. All you laymen need to know is that Ethereum and Nick Szabo propose that which is impossible. I told Charles Hoskinson this in Skype when he was contemplating forming Ethereum with Vitalik (I guess before it became a bigger thing with many others involved). Ethereum responded by inventing gas, so that scripts would halt by failing once their gas is exhausted. This is horrific because it means the state machine is put into an indeterminate state. Indeterminism manifests as errors and chaotic machines that do random actions. On top of that, Vitalik recently admitted in one of the videos I watched that they know Ethereum violates commutativity (and they have no real solution). WATCH IT BLOW UP FOLKS!Nick "Satoshi" Szabo has just made another huge blunder by not realizing the above, as enet correctly points out. So please stop telling me Szabo is at Satoshi's level. Not even close. |
|
|
|
Another reason one might imagine that perhaps Vitalik could be corrupted to participate in the pump by emphasizing Casper vaporware and hiding the fact they were not close to solving the fundamental technological issues. And yet they were running out of money (but not now if they can sustain these higher prices for ETH and/or have sold a lot of ETH on this price rise ... in either case selling ETH to bag holders). So one might imagine perhaps the insiders have cleverly realized they could control Vitalik so they would be able to cash out. The professionals play these games very strategically. You bag holders have no chance against them (unless of course you sell early enough and get out the door before the rest of the bag holders). Note I am not short ETH, but I did play this game strategically also. I waited for ETH to reach a nosebleed price before I started to reveal the truth more aggressively. This is a warning to these professionals (hucksters) to not fuck with my coin when I release it. Edit: I have just challenged Vitalik directly: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/45bhus/so_the_ethereum_foundation_can_now_fund_itself/czx5jejEdit#2: Vitalik admits they've been selling on the pump (in violation of escrow?). And note he mentions raising monthly budget so more money in their pockets (see how this works, I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine!): https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/45bhus/so_the_ethereum_foundation_can_now_fund_itself/czwqr30 |
|
|
|
Your problem will not be with me, but rather the community filing a legal case and the SEC action that might follow a case.
Just continue promoting ETH if you feel smug...
Or you're just having a bad day. I'm rather enjoying this actually. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately the free-fall seemed to stop. Looks like a lot of buy orders saved it from falling further. Let's see though if there'll be more price drops.
How can anyone prove it is not insiders buying from themselves again? Not enough bag holders sustained selling to force the insiders to give up. So they'll pump up the price further and get more bag holders to buy from them at higher prices. They'll only quit when there are more sustained sellers than buyers. I also wonder why none of the coders working on eth have come to this board to discuss with you the issues that you have mentioned regarding their design?
Maybe because it would mess up their alleged scam model The thing that I would have like to have known in simple terms is - is it a problem they can disguise from most for long enough to drive the price up near BTC levels before it is discovered or is it an issue that will become very clear to everyone long before that is possible?
I think perhaps the question should be for how long can promoters prevent a small % of the coming bag holders from running to the door. I mean the issue you mentioned with BTC
You mean when I posted near the top price for BTC in 2013 that the block chain scaling Tragedy of the Commons would be the defining issue for Bitcoin. I don't know how much higher the ETH price can go. Because I don't know how many and what genre of speculators hold it and whether they want to sell for short-term profits or hold long-term. I don't know to what degree that hiding the truth about Ethereum's technology has impacted that equation. Not all coders are capable of probably creating something perfect first time so it can be experimental for them to solve issues as they arise.
Yet promoters claim lead developer Vitalik and endorser Nick "Satoshi" Szabo are crypto gods. I understand with etherium being touted as a work of genius and everyone saying it is a perfect bitcoin killer it would be nice it that was true (not for me because i still have more btc than eth in a big way) and not just non techs getting kind of played along even if the devs know there is a major issue.
Yup the promoters inducing you buy ETH in fear of missing a train. Myself and r0ach are apparently saying that train has no tracks. Note it is possible that somehow Ethereum can keep the technological truths obscured in technobabble. Unfortunately apparently smooth and the Monero folks didn't understand all scaling issues exhaustively, so they are unable to do their usual dissection of altcoins in the case of Ethereum. So yes, i can only imagine there is some problem with etherium if nobody is able to refute this clearly even though they have had plenty of time. But how big is this issue to end users and those that don't understand this tech 100%. Also if this problem will become apparent to all users and grossly effect their usage of etherium what is the time frame. Is it like BTC will take a few years or will it be much more quickly?
On the other hand it would be good if VB or another top dev on etherium could come here and discuss this issue an d see if you guys can talk it through and see what if anything could be done or not done. If nothing can be done with changes to the current design then the price is going in the wrong direction possibly.
I don't know for sure. But the level of hype suggests to me that Humpty Dumpty will take a great fall soon enough. |
|
|
|
The legal case is being documented here and now. Keep on digging YOUR grave (as you are now bringing yourself into culpability as a promoter).
Weren't you also a promoter of Dash? You like the jail time coming...
OK... this is getting out of hand... take a FUCKIN' CHILL PILL and go re-read my posts... if you still feel as strongly afterwards... then you can just GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!  Your problem will not be with me, but rather the community filing a legal case and the SEC action that might follow a case. Just continue promoting ETH if you feel smug... |
|
|
|
I also wonder why none of the coders working on eth have come to this board to discuss with you the issues that you have mentioned regarding their design?
Maybe because it would mess up their alleged scam model The thing that I would have like to have known in simple terms is - is it a problem they can disguise from most for long enough to drive the price up near BTC levels before it is discovered or is it an issue that will become very clear to everyone long before that is possible?
I think perhaps the question should be for how long can promoters prevent a small % of the coming bag holders from running to the door. I mean the issue you mentioned with BTC
You mean when I posted near the top price for BTC in 2013 that the block chain scaling Tragedy of the Commons would be the defining issue for Bitcoin. I don't know how much higher the ETH price can go. Because I don't know how many and what genre of speculators hold it and whether they want to sell for short-term profits or hold long-term. I don't know to what degree that hiding the truth about Ethereum's technology has impacted that equation. Not all coders are capable of probably creating something perfect first time so it can be experimental for them to solve issues as they arise.
Yet promoters claim lead developer Vitalik and endorser Nick "Satoshi" Szabo are crypto gods. I understand with etherium being touted as a work of genius and everyone saying it is a perfect bitcoin killer it would be nice it that was true (not for me because i still have more btc than eth in a big way) and not just non techs getting kind of played along even if the devs know there is a major issue.
Yup the promoters inducing you buy ETH in fear of missing a train. Myself and r0ach are apparently saying that train has no tracks. Note it is possible that somehow Ethereum can keep the technological truths obscured in technobabble. Unfortunately apparently smooth and the Monero folks didn't understand all scaling issues exhaustively, so they are unable to do their usual dissection of altcoins in the case of Ethereum. So yes, i can only imagine there is some problem with etherium if nobody is able to refute this clearly even though they have had plenty of time. But how big is this issue to end users and those that don't understand this tech 100%. Also if this problem will become apparent to all users and grossly effect their usage of etherium what is the time frame. Is it like BTC will take a few years or will it be much more quickly?
On the other hand it would be good if VB or another top dev on etherium could come here and discuss this issue an d see if you guys can talk it through and see what if anything could be done or not done. If nothing can be done with changes to the current design then the price is going in the wrong direction possibly.
I don't know for sure. But the level of hype suggests to me that Humpty Dumpty will take a great fall soon enough. |
|
|
|
Have you done[published very transparently and with equal emphasis to other technobabble hype] any analysis?
You should be asking Ethereum that question. You are the one proclaiming it cannot scale because of this theory. Without knowing the increase in average verification costs, this is just FUD. I don't think that's even possible because their stated goal seems to be a general purpose "world computer". To analyze anything like this, they would probably have to identify not one, but all of their target markets (killer apps) and compare the costs of doing it centralized vs price on Ethereum chain, then decide if there's any benefit from doing it decentralized at a likely higher markup. The fact that they don't know A) who their target market actually is, or B) how much it can scale at all, makes that a very difficult analysis. If you really think about it, assuming Ethereum doesn't burn to the ground, with it's limited load capacity you could likely only end up with one small industry using it. One industry would likely find much higher value in it than others and dwarf them in the ability to pay. At that point, there's no reason to have a general purpose "world computer" and Ethereum would probably turn into a transitional technology as a new chain is created specifically for that industry. I had monsterer on Ignore again because he posts nonsense always. Yeah r0ach, the FUD is by definition coming from Ethereum since they promoted this as a general purpose scripting platform. I had made that same point previously because I grow weary of repeating myself. |
|
|
|
I think it's not only whales playing.
Can't believe they would be able to produce a 35 mil (more than 50% of BTC) volume.
Buying from yourself over and over again doesn't require 35 mil in order to produce 35 mil in volume. |
|
|
|
(hint: Frontier, as opposed to next stages).
yeah the technobabble promotion of Casper without proper disclosure that it won't work. Vitalik has certainly been made aware of my logic. I even posted on his blog post. The legal case is being documented here and now. Keep on digging YOUR grave (as you are now bringing yourself into culpability as a promoter). Weren't you also a promoter of Dash? You like the jail time coming... |
|
|
|
My point is a long-term HODLer may lose their investment, because Ethereum is fundamentally flawed.
I see... that's a whole different story... my post was in regard to the potential aftermath of the current double-top.  The point is if this crashes back to 30 cents, then it may not be rising again EVER. I see you are determined to troll this thread with noise and spin. If I hear from regular investors here who have successfully sold large volumes of ETH, then I can perhaps have some belief that this isn't just the insiders selling to themselves to create fake volume and a fake price, as the dumb investors buy from the insiders at higher and higher prices. You know damn well that if you can continue to convince people to not sell, then the alleged insider scam can continue unabated. But eventually people need to sell, and that is when the insiders will stop offering bids because they don't want to buy (unless it is from themselves) rather they want to cash out at the highest possible prices sold to the greatest number of bag holders. |
|
|
|
with dramarama!!!
Liar. No such drama was posted. r0ach showed that Ethereum is obscuring the truth of the risk in disclaimers and X marks over words. Trickery. |
|
|
|
Look out below. Going to be a lot of bag holders who can't sell as liquidity collapses in a mad stampede out the door.
Yeah OK... I'm sure all those folks that bought their ETH for $0.30 are panicking heavily right about now...  My point is a long-term HODLer may lose their investment, because Ethereum is fundamentally flawed. They might want to capture the $14 price whilst they can, if they can. Disclaimer: I am not giving investment advice. Each person should make their own decisions. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not any more distributed than Ethereum; it is just as redundant in that regard. Ethereum just took the concept of the programmable scripts in bitcoin and extended the functionality...
Duh. And the verification of long-running scripts creates a higher verification cost which thus demands the coin centralize sooner and more egregiously than Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
