To be fair, Evan can come here and once again state his case, whereupon I may further amend the list in the OP (go see the edit now). Evan never came here to state his case, yet you took him off the list despite the overwhelming evidence presented here on this thread. Why do you still list people from Hashfast who have since been vindicated by the legal process (cases dismissed/terminated), yet let someone who won't show his face on BitcoinUncensored for fear of being exposed? Former Dash pumper Tone Vays has come to acknowledge the fact Dash's instamine is Proof of Scam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u6aA0vUKOQ&feature=youtu.be&t=3221Gleb, you need to learn more about the instamine: twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320 Clue up, old bean! Stop carrying water for Evan the Instaminer, or you start to look like a (mysteriously selective) scam enabler. Still racking up the court cases i see son  https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/11494936/Kasolas_v_DeCastroNice attempt to deflect Tone Vay's criticism of Dash's Instamine Scam by attacking-the-attacker. Somewhere, somebody might just just be ignorant enough to believe a trivial loose end from 99% complete bankruptcy process is some kind of Gotcha! trump card supreme. Now, back to the topic you were trying to avoid.  Why doesn't Evan Scamfield go on Bitcoin Unlimited? Why does he hide behind his marketing dept's pretty face? And why does Gleb take such pains to avoid the obvious DASH=SCAM conclusion which Tone was easily able to ascertain? |
|
|
|
Be warned the ETC market is basically nothing and dying. Check coinmarketcap and http://fork.ethstats.net. Prince and hash rates are in free fall. Which means it's basically unsupported. Add into this the fact that on the 27th the original DAO attacker gets his 3.6million ETC from the DAO attack. HE WILL SELL. You warning is nothing but FUD, not to mention factually incorrect. ETC already has ~1/6 of BETH's hashing power, and f2pool is going to come online soon. The ETC market is doing ~3X more volume than the BailoutEdition. I should also mention BailoutEdition, being morally hazardous and trivially mutable, is wholly unusable for applications which require objectivity and permanence. EG: https://medium.com/@Stampery/why-stampery-supports-ethereum-classic-4c86ec7cca17Why Stampery supports Ethereum ClassicWhen a transaction representing an event is included in a blockchain it has to be unmodifiable: nobody should be able to alter its content.
The transaction has also to be final: it should be impossible to delete or reverse it. Finally, a blockchain has to be censorship resistant: every transaction needs to be included in the ledger as long as it complies with the protocol.
At Stampery we don’t use a single blockchain: we use both Bitcoin and Ethereum. Having strong immutability is crucial for us, and thus we leverage the blockchain with the highest computing power (Bitcoin). But it’s also important to have low latency and redundancy, which is crucial in case a catastrophic event affects Bitcoin. And that’s why we also use the Ethereum blockchain.
And now, the fork: Why we do support Classic?
When the Ethereum hard fork happened we had no doubt: for the moment we are staying on the Classic blockchain.
Why? The answer is simple. For transactions to be final and unmodifiable, blockchains need to be immune to third party interference. This promise was completely broken by Ethereum. Hard forks should only happen when a catastrophic bug puts in danger the core values of the technology. In this case the consensus mechanism worked just fine. The blockchain was modified simply because a group of people lost too much money and they decided to bail themselves out.
This is completely unacceptable for Stampery because it creates a dangerous precedent. A powerful government might now decide to push for a hard fork that changes blocks in which we anchored data. They could claim “national interest” for doing so. Or a “too big too fail” corporation could force a fork because it wants to wipe all proof of some questionable process recorded on the blockchain. Because of this we prefer to anchor our data to a blockchain in which hard forks happen only when a protocol-level bug needs to be fixed. #REKT |
|
|
|
Classic is not Ethereum because of: a) Ether holders voted decidedly for the hard fork (and, by proxy, against Classic). True, only about 5.5% of the total supply of ether was used to vote, but that is no reason to deem the it invalid because the vote was well advertised and anyone who wanted to vote did so. For instance, I did not participate because the side I was supporting had already been winning by a huge margin. b) Miners voted in support of the hard fork, e.g. https://dwarfpool.com/eth/voting. Again, low turnout does not mean inconsequential results for the same reasons as in point a) c.i) The Foundation has recently announced that they will be supporting the non-Classic chain Seeing the results of various metrics, including carbonvote, dapp and ecosystem infrastructure adoption, this means that we will focus our resources and attention on the chain which is now called ETH (ie. the fork chain) c.ii) Ethcore (disclaimer: I actually work with these guys) has been pro-fork from the start and that position still has not changed, even despite Gavin’s recent, either misexpressed or largely misunderstood, tweet c.iii) DApps, blockchain explorers and toolkit devs are sticking to the forked (ETH) chain as well, e.g. At least one pool's users voted against the Bailout Edition, yet were overruled. Something about superdelegates.  The rushed, stage-managed pro-Bailout "election" was as crooked as the Democrat primary. Even worse, the Bailout referendum was held suddenly while at least Hillary gave Bernie voters plenty of notice in advance. |
|
|
|
Is classic the better coin to currently make a smart contract with?
If immutability is a desired attribute, ETC is the only choice. If you want to make a too-big-to-fail contract which is (given sufficient Proof-of-Vitalik) eligible for troubled asset relief, go with the Bailout Edition. |
|
|
|
You (collectively) can waffle on about theories of social justice and the right or wrong way to run a block chain but some might assert that all crypto-token systems are already compromised by the introduction of a profit motive.
No, it is the other way around. The profit motive is not a way to compromise the system, but it is the engine of the system. The whole trick was to make a system of which a solution of the Byzantine General Problem EMERGES from mutually untrustworthy, but hopefully very greedy, entities. The block chain solution is not perfect, but attempts at such a system, and the *condition* is that there is sufficient decentralization and animosity between players, very much like a free market, which solves the problem of allocating resources and solving problems of scarcity by putting A LOT of mutually hostile entities together. ETH failed in that respect, because there was too much centralisation: one BIG failing contract, and miners/developers/shareholders all colluding around that contract. Well put; great answer. I'm always surprised to hear from people who don't trust, nor understand, the profit motive and its critical role in aligning Bitcoin's incentive structure. It's weird to find Marxists and other anti-capitalists here on BTCT of all places!  But they are very welcome to sell me their ETC and continue playing make-believe with Chancellor Butarin's SocialJusticeCoin. |
|
|
|
^I'm not a moralfag. But there are shades of right and wrong, and you'd have to be blind (or have maybe been involved?) to choose not to see it.
Are you still moaning about Frap.doc getting as his sales commission a bog-standard 10% cut of the (public half of) Batch One? That's really weak tea, and was laughed out of court ("Le Bron" LOL). Or are you still believing GMAX's lies and exaggerations, in which evil future-telling psychic Frap.doc took 10% of HF's total revenues in an effort to tunnel assets out of the company (many months before it ran out of money)? Or are you still bleating for a windfall in US dollars, demanding HF refund many times the original price of the miners? If the moral wrong is so obvious, I'm sure you won't have trouble describing it. As it stands, you've simply asserted it exists. Such mere insistence does not help me "see it." And let's note you only choose to move the venue away from the bankruptcy court, into that of public opinion, when you LOST in the legal realm. There is no due process in the court of public opinion; to be accused is to be convicted as there is no definitive Settlement or Plea to effectively repudiate the charges. How noxious; you should know better. Shame you can't accept your hiveminded lynch mob got this one wrong. How typical and craven of you to wait until after the legal process has ended to register your process concerns and objections. If you weren't just full of shit and transparently/pathetically wanting a second bite at the apple, you'd have spoken up BEFORE Judge Montali accepted the settlement and dismissed the adversary case. The Frap.doc and HF haters lost, in both cases, when they got their days (IE years) in court. Now that you've been proven incorrect, you want to change the venue and put Frap.doc on trial in your own personal Morality Court, to be tried according to some hazy miasma of subjective nonsense you call "shades of right and wrong?" GTFO. Have some integrity and accept you were wrong THE WHOLE TIME. You don't have to apologize (although that is the classy, traditional response to making an unfounded accusation) but you really should STFU with your "But-But-But" moralfag ass-whinging. Next time, don't be so quick to jump on the bandwagon and regurgitate popular opinions. Think for yourself. Don't get bamboozled by the legally illiterate and those who invested more than they could afford to lose. Continuing the witch hunt long after the Supreme Witch Sniffer has declared "No Witch" is poor form. Give it up son. You lost. Now stop the tsk-tsk finger-waggling and deal with reality as it actually exists rather than how you preconceived and prejudged it. |
|
|
|
It is not to late to get a stake in Ardor
Yet another NXT token? No thanks, I don't need platform-as-a-platform bamboozling services. Do not want. Are people using Pangea Poker yet? That seemed like a better idea. |
|
|
|
4.4% is not 10%
Math is hard, when your name is Minecache. I'm sure he'll update the OP with your correction, any minute now.... *crickets* *skeleton.gif* |
|
|
|
the success of Ethereum
Tell me more about the success of the DAO.  VitalikCoin chose to institutionalize moral hazard, a choice rejected by the original, antifragile chain. Thus Ethereum is a success, but no in the way you think it is. As I predicted, the Bailout Edition is rapidly hemorrhaging capital into the immutable, authentic one. |
|
|
|
I think the failure of ETH Core to quickly disappear as predicted was too much for Frap.doc. And he'd already had enough of forum admins who failed to be sufficiently submissive. Here's the whiny post right before his final rage quit: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-743#post-25785 Regardless, the adversary case against him was settled. And that was part of a bankruptcy, where they are obligated to sue everyone they possibly can, not any kind of criminal or other wrongdoing allegation. So even the the mildest accusations against him never went anywhere (other than going around the lynch mob's circle jerk). Sorry if you were bamboozled into thinking he did something wrong (other than supporting BitcoinXT and the Gavinista coup). |
|
|
|
Without immutability, we're no better than fiat. -Johnny_Mnemonic
With immutability we're just a legacy bug ridden piece of software. ~LOL~ I think the Monero has also hard forked to correct some kind of problems. So is the bitcoin and other coins. You can't really compare a non-contentious hard fork of software (like Monero's) with the contentious hard fork of a blockchain (like ETH). Since many noobs are, like you, confused about these basic-albeit-overlapping Crypto 101 concepts, I'll try to get an educational, clarifying paper written about it. Working title: "There Will Never Be a Monero Classic." Opening quote: A hard fork to change the ownership of coins is next to impossible to pull off with Monero since it would break any subsequent transactions that used the tainted coins as a mixin.
Second opening quote: [the excellent bit fluffy wrote explaining the same thing, but with more words, that I can't find right now] Good to see that we are getting some clarity now on the real issues. Generalized religious statements about immutability don't do anybody any good and confuse many of the less experienced trading on Polo, where the troll box is full of this crap. The immutability of a block chain is a secondary property which is a function of the strength of consensus. Have you ever heard of the "Byzantine Generals' Problem?" The solution (or workaround) relies on immutable reusable-proof-of-work ledgers, rather than Sybil (and Stalin) vulnerable social network consensus. The rational for bailing out the troubled DAO asset relies on some flawed Rawlsian interpretation of redistributive social justice, and that's no way to run a blockchain.  |
|
|
|
ETC/XMR market pleeeese!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Polo did the exact right thing WRT the ETH bailout fork, including letting everyone know Vitalik had promised the original chain would just suddenly go away "because magical Shilling points or whatever lol."
|
|
|
|
I've been using BTC-E for years, but not since they decided to ignore Monero and I made a 1:1 swap out of Primecoin. On previous occasions, I've defended them from scam accusations because they have been outstanding from my POV. Until BTC-E accepts responsibility for losing their customers' ETC, I must retract all previous endorsements and defenses. The market, not BTC-E, decides what is an isn't a scam. This is no different than an exchange siding with BitcoinXT or BitcoinUnlimited, and refusing to provide BitcoinCoreCoins after a contentious+persistent chain fork (in which an enormous market for Corecoins develops rapidly). |
|
|
|
https://btc-e.com/news/230Ethereum Classic
27.07.16 19:52 from admin
Dear Clients!
BTC-e’s official standpoint on this issue is as follows: Ethereum Classic in the current circumstances is a scam. The Ethereum community decided to implement the hardfork in order to switch to the new chain. All major pools and exchanges (including BTC-e) did exactly that.
On the second day after the start of ETC trading BTC-e received a notification from Poloniex, saying that we need to secure the ETCs in our ETH wallet. At the time of notification, most of these coins have already been sent to Poloniex by our users. So there were almost none of these coins in our wallet.
We continue to receive requests from our customers demanding to return the ETCs that are supposedly deposited in our ETH wallet. We cannot do that for the reason specified above.
Anyone, who purports that we sent the coins to Poloniex in order to sell them, can check all the transactions on blockchain. All transactions are recorded and it is easy to trace the sender and the volumes of coins sent.
Best Regards,
BTC-e Team tldr1. We weren't prepared for the persistence of the antifragile and hence preferable Classic branch. Vitalik told us it would just magically disappear.
2. All our precious immutable original ETH have been stolen (definitely not an inside job) so we are forcing you to accept mutable BailoutETH in their stead.
3. Despite the demonstrated Silbert/whale/dev/community support and overall market value of ETC, we will wave our hands and simply declare it a scam. Coinbase/GDAX didn't voluntarily decide to provide their customers' ETC. They were forced to, Because Lawyers and Angry Customers. Even ignorant supreme shitlord Brian Armstrong, understanding that blatant theft is bad for business, had to make noises about intending to do the right thing (In Two Weeks). This will not stand.
|
|
|
|
The Ethereum Classic will be attacked to death by the big Etherum holders. They can sell their ETC to 0.
Oh sure, Barry Silbert and the other pro-ETC whales are just going to give up, roll over, and die as submissively as possible. Let's at least wait until Nick Szabo weighs in until we restart the production of ETC Obituaries. But what happens if the DAO hacker is actually part of the ETC team and not sell/dump his coins? We can only imagine what comedy gold would be buried under such a plot twist. |
|
|
|
ETC is gaining serious traction. It makes sense to hold some of it
ETC is open to double spend replay attacks and is barely mined so is highly unsupported and insecure. It's also about to suffer a serious 51% attack. Gud luck with that coinage. And this is supposed to endear the community to ETH investors how exactly? The fact they can roll back the clock in pursuit of their precious investments and then blow the opposition out of the water at will? Good luck putting that on a flyer. It's over. Well said. If Chancellor Butarin passively excludes or actively supports attacks on ETC, expect a mutiny within Team Vitalik as his devs either defect to Team ETC or (as is the actual case so far) pledge to support both branches and let users decide. The investment case for ETH is weaker than for ETC: What I realized so far is that a blockchain without a well-defined social contract will sooner or later face serious problems. At this moment, interestingly, the old "classic" chain is the one that already has a better contract. It’s the one that hasn’t been changed, but splitting off the majority of its value into a new chain changed its implied contract.
We can assume that whoever finds the old chain valuable believes that unintended contract behavior is no reason to fork. That chain will never face another crisis because of a similar event. On the other hand, ether holders of the new chain might still disagree if this fork was a precedent for all similar cases or just a one-time disaster fix that shouldn’t happen ever again.
-Zsolt Felföldi is an ethereum developer working on the Go implementation of the ethereum protocol, sometimes called Geth. http://www.coindesk.com/tale-two-chains-ethereum/1 dev!! ROFLMO Check again. Way more than "1 dev" now, including an original ETH co-founder. Let's also note you have zero response to Zsolt's analysis regarding the superiority of ETC's investment thesis over VB's shitty TARP bailout fork. SFYL. |
|
|
|
Ow, i miss ETC train, i see yesterday ETC price is 0.0008 - 0.0009 and now 0.004. Is now still good time to buy ETC or price will go down again and i must wait price lower to buy?
DAO attacker owns about 10% of all ETC. You do the maths what happens next once he dumps. Yes, dumping is obviously not the optimal strategy. The DAO adversary is smart enough to know that. https://www.reddit.com/r/EthereumClassic/comments/4uldjs/attention_dao_attacker_lets_make_a_deal/tldr: Better solution is to put the funds in a contract that funds an ETC Foundation and makes scheduled, manageably-sized bug bounty payments to the adversary. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
