I suppose everyone understand this, but I will state it for the record.
With a $200,000+ monthly budget, Ethereum can afford fancy website design and paid promotion at sites such as Coindesk, etc..
We gave them $18 million to produce no solution to the fundamental challenges they never solved, and they spent our money on hype to fool other greater fools into buying at nosebleed, manipulated prices. We invested in screwing the newbies who come to crypto.
That is not a sustainable model for growing our ecosystem. We are poisoning the well from which we drink. back to Bitcoin might be even worse if scalability / decentralization stay low...  |
|
|
|
Everything sucks
So you can't disprove the facts I claim. So you admit I am correct. except our own creations!
After making incorrect assumptions about the facts of the other coins, now you want to make assumptions about my motives. Don't you think you've done enough ASS-U-MING. How about learning to study facts. My motivation is to shame you into studying technology if you want to invest in technology. If you just want to steal from greater fools, then we will understand that your post is just more P&D obfuscation tactics. Btw, when I talk about my own designs, I am careful to point out potential flaws and caveats. Also you will find that any white papers from me will attempt to have a section that explains positives and negatives to laymen (minimizing/explaining the technobabble). Hypesters don't. What I've never seen yet is a section in any paper pointing to the known risks and ways to get around this.... |
|
|
|
They would be worth only 1/10th of that because they would have to sell them on Kracken or local Ethereum, or some other low liquid banana republic market
Why ? There is none forcing you to do via exchanges... |
|
|
|
Basically all block chain projects have decided to abandon decentralization and just pretend (whether they realize it or not)[1]. So they can do features that don't work without centralization. Come-from-Beyond say people are happy with that, and the sheep usually are happy to be lead to their slaughter. [1] Note Monero has the most ASIC-resistant hash released thus far. They haven't solved the economic centralization issue, but for the time being afaik I presume mining is reasonably decentralized. Some yummy for you on page 15: " RSK aims to be a better payment network. To achieve fast payments, several solutions have been developed: - Use of competition-free block selection (e.g. Hyperledger, Ripple, closed-loop systems) - Use of hub-and-spoke networks (e.g. Bitcoin lightning network) - Use of high PoW block rates Hub-and-spoke networks add new centralization nodes, and require a complete adaptation of client wallets to a new, completely different payment model. Although so this alternative can be easily implemented on RSK, is not the native system for fast payments. RSK adopts the DECOR+ and FastBlock5 protocols, which allow reaching a 10 seconds average block rate that does not create incentives for mining centralization, is selfish-mining free and
incentive compatible.
" https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/90847694-70f0-4668-ba7f-dd0c6b0b00a1/RootstockWhitePaperv9-Overview.pdf |
|
|
|
Side-chains are insecure. DOA. To the BTC chain itself? IMO it lowers the complexity,... The security is reduced to that of the weakest side chain. So the pegging needs to be transient ! I have no idea what you mean. Chain reorganizations in the weaker chain can cause people to lose their Bitcoins. The chains can get out-of-sync. There is no way for a block chain to securely reference any data point outside of itself. This is fundamentally why Augur and BitUSD can't function without centralization. Yes - agreed, but I mean rather it has no negative effect to the main chain, if you don't care using the side chain. |
|
|
|
Side-chains are insecure. DOA. To the BTC chain itself? IMO it lowers the complexity,... The security is reduced to that of the weakest side chain. So the pegging needs to be transient ! from their Whitepaper: • Two-way pegging using sidechains (currently a federated peg, fully automatic peg subject to Bitcoin improvements) |
|
|
|
Side-chains are insecure. DOA. To the BTC chain itself? IMO it lowers the complexity,... |
|
|
|
So pls place a BIP quick, than it might be in the code - in time!  |
|
|
|
Honestly after reading few articles of those published by some of the attendees, from the looks of it, were heading to more centralized path if it continues this way and since 95% of miners votes are needed for this to go through (hope I understood it correctly) then it's going to complicate a bit since that's too high. I'm starting to worry though a bit since there seem to be no consensus on the matter (til now) since it looks like two groups that one looking for centralized system with more fee's and the other is after decentralized with less fee.
Core= aiming for several layers on top of a decentralized base to scale safe and properly and offer millions of users the possibilty of micropayments which will be incredible cheap and fast via LN and other implementations.Having the incredible huge majority of best skilled developers knowing and improving the network. classic= 2 devs and a bunch of power greedy individuals and scammers who think just increasing blocksize again and again and again is the cure for everything. hey Mr. Shill its never been a debate about which band camp should control and veto code. its about a open community of bitcoin that all features and upgrades should be allowed as long as they work, that means all different implementations can include the code. it should never be a "follow core or die" philosophy, or a "follow classic or die philosophy". 2mb can be included in core... just like segwit can be included in classic. heck, 2mb+segwit could be included in bitcoinj, and the other 12 branded bitcoin clients. so stop turning a code debate into a political control debate but core refuses because their payday from offchain solutions and sidechain solutions outweigh's the morals and ethics of doing what millions of people want. Correct. And IMO devs should be payed by some BTC voting system. |
|
|
|
|
I guess OP has a prepared topic template for any crypto ccy pair ....
|
|
|
|
I'd estimate, that 'working' DAPPs can only be nichy ones w/o any real risk exposure. Similar to bitcoin early bootstrapping with Silkroad you can start with:
Gaming, Betting, Cheating, Porn...
The really big one is truely decentralised poker. Hahaha yes with cheating and live stripping ... |
|
|
|
More reasons Ethereum can't scale decentralized: Truth is started to come out... Also the Dapps look mostly like nonsense or they don't need Turing complete scripts:  WOW.... all these prediction would be fit perfectly in augur... LOL Except that augur is nonsense, because the market is not an accurate prediction paradigm. The market speaks, but after the fact. I could sell you idiots turds wrapped in a Snicker's bar wrapper and you'd buy it, take it home proudly, and put in your ref for safe storage without ever opening to verify it. Then later when your frig smells like shit, you go searching for some poo and never open the Snicker. augur more like decentralized betting market, they want us to bet on everything. if you look at it that way, it actually make sense. True. But we can already do that. What augur is trying to do is figure out how to record of the outcomes decentralized. But the problem is that violates the Nash equilibrium (since users have game theories to profit on reporting different outcomes). I don't expect Augur to function decentralized and expect it to diverge into chaotic disorder unless they centralize control of the recording of the outcomes (in which case they've accomplished nothing). Bitshares is centralized which enables using a price feed for the BitUSD algorithm. There is a lot of bullshit floating around in this forum. I'd estimate, that 'working' DAPPs can only be nichy ones w/o any real risk exposure. Similar to bitcoin early bootstrapping with Silkroad you can start with: Gaming, Betting, Cheating, Porn... |
|
|
|
Under present circumstances it might be realized year 9001... |
|
|
|
|
I also like the idea of voting and maybe if there are 2 or more options, generate needed adresses to vote into. From the winner devs get paid, loosers get back all. Win Win. Sounds good?
|
|
|
|
 Just found... No Space left for the poor or any safety... And no Space left for any potential next Level adoption jump as well , so stay nichy for any sake. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
