ETH price soaring. Are you going to move some BTC into ETH?

[stoat]

the price on bitcoin is going to skyrocket once all the people that bought etherium is comming back once the hype goes down. if we are lucky it will happend right before the halvening when the price is being bumped anyway.

Your broken english shows how out of touch you must be with the actual vibe of the world.  Good luck

[1714564193]

1714564193

[funkenstein]

Meanwhile smart contracts have just been demonstrated on the bitcoin block chain
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/02/26/zero-knowledge-contingent-payments-announcement/

relevant to eth or not?  

I do t know but this is:

http://www.coindesk.com/r3-consortium-banks-blockchain-solutions/

How so?  What are they doing, and why? 

[Minecache]

Meanwhile smart contracts have just been demonstrated on the bitcoin block chain
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/02/26/zero-knowledge-contingent-payments-announcement/

relevant to eth or not?  

I do t know but this is:

http://www.coindesk.com/r3-consortium-banks-blockchain-solutions/

How so?  What are they doing, and why? 

Building and testing multiple blockchains in parallel which includes Ethereum. Good to see this integration in live testing.

[owm123]

Meanwhile smart contracts have just been demonstrated on the bitcoin block chain
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/02/26/zero-knowledge-contingent-payments-announcement/

relevant to eth or not?  

I do t know but this is:

http://www.coindesk.com/r3-consortium-banks-blockchain-solutions/

How so?  What are they doing, and why? 

Who are they? Banks? Banks wont be using Bitcoin, they want to destroy it as its a problem for them.
So they want to create their own private blockchain-based technology. One of things they are considering for this is Ethereum.

[funkenstein]

I do t know but this is:

http://www.coindesk.com/r3-consortium-banks-blockchain-solutions/

How so?  What are they doing, and why? 

Who are they? Banks? Banks wont be using Bitcoin, they want to destroy it as its a problem for them.
So they want to create their own private blockchain-based technology. One of things they are considering for this is Ethereum.

This doesn't make sense to me sorry.  Why one cryptocurrency over another?  How is bitcoin a problem and ethereum not? 

[BitUsher]

Who are they? Banks? Banks wont be using Bitcoin, they want to destroy it as its a problem for them.
So they want to create their own private blockchain-based technology. One of things they are considering for this is Ethereum.

If and when large companies start using "ethereum" , they will simply fork the code, add their own patents, and skip the nuisance of paying a high premium of buying into a wall of overpriced ETH. If Eth is merely smart contract fuel, than whats the point in paying a premium for this fuel when a wider audience would trust MSFTfuel/IBMfuel over VITALIKfuel?

[Zedpust]

Who are they? Banks? Banks wont be using Bitcoin, they want to destroy it as its a problem for them.
So they want to create their own private blockchain-based technology. One of things they are considering for this is Ethereum.

If and when large companies start using "ethereum" , they will simply fork the code, add their own patents, and skip the nuisance of paying a high premium of buying into a wall of overpriced ETH. If Eth is merely smart contract fuel, than whats the point in paying a premium for this fuel when a wider audience would trust MSFTfuel/IBMfuel over VITALIKfuel?

Maybe there is the first runner advantage? There are many bitcoin clones and offer many unique features, but bitcoin is still the No .1

[BitUsher]

Who are they? Banks? Banks wont be using Bitcoin, they want to destroy it as its a problem for them.
So they want to create their own private blockchain-based technology. One of things they are considering for this is Ethereum.

If and when large companies start using "ethereum" , they will simply fork the code, add their own patents, and skip the nuisance of paying a high premium of buying into a wall of overpriced ETH. If Eth is merely smart contract fuel, than whats the point in paying a premium for this fuel when a wider audience would trust MSFTfuel/IBMfuel over VITALIKfuel?

Maybe there is the first runner advantage? There are many bitcoin clones and offer many unique features, but bitcoin is still the No .1

Bitcoin only has first mover advantage because it offers a unique selling point as opposed to fiat where they can use regulatory arbitrage and it has billions of dollars of infrastructure securing it. Ether isn't a currency , but fuel....

The ethereum network value is in the following -
1) Code and apps - open source and can all be forked
2) PoW mining - Vitalik is going to fork it to a PoS variant removing this advantage
3) Established userbase - Still extremely small and not worth MSFT dumping billions to jumpstart
4) Developers - Not many , but any worthwhile can be poached directly without buying a single eth
5) Branding and trademarks- Insignificant an unknown by the mainstream vs MSFT/IBM/ect..

In other words, it would insane for MSFT or a bank to be buying eth rather than just forking it and using their own patents and branding.

MSFT appears to be doing just that ... there has been no evidence that any large company is buying Ether , instead they are on the first stage of --

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

[stoat]

Who are they? Banks? Banks wont be using Bitcoin, they want to destroy it as its a problem for them.
So they want to create their own private blockchain-based technology. One of things they are considering for this is Ethereum.

If and when large companies start using "ethereum" , they will simply fork the code, add their own patents, and skip the nuisance of paying a high premium of buying into a wall of overpriced ETH. If Eth is merely smart contract fuel, than whats the point in paying a premium for this fuel when a wider audience would trust MSFTfuel/IBMfuel over VITALIKfuel?

Maybe there is the first runner advantage? There are many bitcoin clones and offer many unique features, but bitcoin is still the No .1

Bitcoin only has first mover advantage because it offers a unique selling point as opposed to fiat where they can use regulatory arbitrage and it has billions of dollars of infrastructure securing it. Ether isn't a currency , but fuel....

The ethereum network value is in the following -
1) Code and apps - open source and can all be forked
2) PoW mining - Vitalik is going to fork it to a PoS variant removing this advantage
3) Established userbase - Still extremely small and not worth MSFT dumping billions to jumpstart
4) Developers - Not many , but any worthwhile can be poached directly without buying a single eth
5) Branding and trademarks- Insignificant an unknown by the mainstream vs MSFT/IBM/ect..

In other words, it would insane for MSFT or a bank to be buying eth rather than just forking it and using their own patents and branding.

MSFT appears to be doing just that ... there has been no evidence that any large company is buying Ether , instead they are on the first stage of --

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

Maybe people are sick and tired of arrogant bitcoiners telling people what will happen in the future and it never coming to pass.

[toknormal]

the price on bitcoin is going to skyrocket once all the people that bought etherium is comming back once the hype goes down.

I'd like to discover your logic in arriving at that conclusion - at least in the short term anyway. I think Bitcoin might rally for other reasons but if I think through what happens in the event that investment tide flows back a bit to Bitcoin:

[1] - there's no impact on the BTC/$USD price just from a ETH/BTC exchange

[2] - any profit taking from the ETH rise into dollars is going to impact adversely on the Bitcoin price, not favourably

If and when large companies start using "ethereum" , they will simply fork the code, add their own patents, and skip the nuisance of paying a high premium of buying into a wall of overpriced ETH. If Eth is merely smart contract fuel, than whats the point in paying a premium for this fuel when a wider audience would trust MSFTfuel/IBMfuel over VITALIKfuel?

Quite a lot of point actually. Basically the world will not trust "MSFTfuel/IBMfuel over VITALIKfuel" because, large though they are, those corporations are in no position to launch a blockchain with the success or maturity of Ethereum. They've always just bought their way into any technology they missed out on anyway.

The whole idea behind starting the Ethereum project if you go back and watch some of Vitalik's original presentations was to garner huge amounts of network effect into a "common bucket" so that even small blockchain assets could benefit from huge underlying hashpower and associated security, reliability track record and general viability as a Bitcoin 2.0 'safe' asset or application.

Whoever gets there first only has to not make any big mistakes to hold onto that momentum because it's a self propelling cycle as we're already starting to see. Price rises --> more miners arrive --> more developers arrive --> blockchain assets & services accrue value --> consolidates network effect --> price rises.

To me Ethereum isn't a "monetary asset" the way pure currencies like Bitcoin and its specialised alt-clones are. But it can likely, IMO, still reach a marketcap as a stock who's value gets reflected in the underlying value of the blockchain tokens.

I'm thinking a small but mainstream internet stock in the short term - lets say LinkedIn ballpark.

Who knows where in the long term.

[BitUsher]

Quite a lot of point actually. Basically the world will not trust "MSFTfuel/IBMfuel over VITALIKfuel" because, large though they are, those corporations are in no position to launch a blockchain with the success or maturity of Ethereum. They've always just bought their way into any technology they missed out on anyway.

The whole idea behind starting the Ethereum project if you go back and watch some of Vitalik's original presentations was to garner huge amounts of network effect into a "common bucket" so that even small blockchain assets could benefit from huge underlying hashpower and associated security, reliability track record and general viability as a Bitcoin 2.0 'safe' asset or application.

Whoever gets there first only has to not make any big mistakes to hold onto that momentum because it's a self propelling cycle as we're already starting to see. Price rises --> more miners arrive --> more developers arrive --> blockchain assets & services accrue value --> consolidates network effect --> price rises.

I don't think Ethereum is "money" the way pure currencies like Bitcoin and its specialised alt-clones are. But I think it can still reach a marketcap as a stock who's value gets reflected in the underlying value of the blockchain tokens.

What does a Bank or MSFT have to gain by buying ether ? Any technology of value can be stolen by them and forked as its open source. If Ethereum had 50 million users that would be a completely different story and it may make sense to buy ETH, but there are less than 25k Eth users which a PoS fork and boostrapping MSFT current community would lead to a much larger and much more secure userbase than ETHereum.

Do a little research into how these companies operate. They make cutthroat , smart business decisions .

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

Right now MSFT is embracing the Ethereum technology, just like banks are embracing blockchain technology. IF enough intrest develops around Dapps than than expect a fork with MSFT issuing their own fuel and adding their own patents to the tech so they can control the technology (the extend stage), than they will continue not to buy eth fuel , and make it ethereum obsolete by removing compatibility or making it less useful deliberately in the Extinguish stage.

This isn't a slight because I'm a Bitcoin maximalist. I welcome the idea of competing alts and would lay the same claims to any bitcoiner who had the foolish idea that banks and governments would willingly adopt Bitcoin instead of create their own private blockchain.

This is just reality... I urge you to go ahead and buy a few ether if you want to play around with the tech or test a dapp to learn or develop your skillset... but investing in it because you think a bank or MSFT is going to be buying ETh is misguided and foolish.

[stoat]

No one is suggesting microsoft is buying Ether.

Even if they never do ETH price will still continue to rise massively.

[BitUsher]

No one is suggesting microsoft is buying Ether.

There are thousands of young men buying Eth specifically because of this reason.
It is naive that all this talk isn't influencing their decision as a speculative investment.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/search?q=Microsoft&restrict_sr=on

[hector3115]

All of these posts telling of how ethereum is nothing and worthless as the price rises and rises and rises.  Love it.  That means there are still plenty of bears to convert.

[toknormal]

What does a Bank or MSFT have to gain by buying ether ? Any technology of value can be stolen by them and forked as its open source.

Yeah, just like they "forked" the (open source) Apache web server to make IIS. That was a great success wasn't it ?

Or the Netscape Web Browser they "forked" into IEx that became the world's most toxic browser ? Or even Windows it's very self - "forked" from a Rosemary's Baby style demonic marriage of a schoolboy hash of Xerox/Apple's WIMPS interface and Bill Gates' paper tape interpreter sitting on top of a disk operating system they smash-and-grabbed from IBM.

Dream on.

This is highly specialised, new-wave technology and there are a handful of devs in the world who really understand it thoroughly in principle as well as practice as while having enough experience to be productive. It's not something you can just throw money at and end up "owning" any more than anyone could end up owning the Apache web server.

[str4wm4n]

*sigh* I let my girl friend convince me to invest only half of what I wanted to lol oh well still mad profits!

[BitUsher]

All of these posts telling of how ethereum is nothing and worthless as the price rises and rises and rises.  Love it.  That means there are still plenty of bears to convert.

Ethereum is worth exactly what the market dictates . With altcoins, the market price can drastically change.  As long as investors are aware of these risks than sure go ahead and buy. I am just bringing in a dose or reality.

Banks and Governments aren't going to adopt Bitcoin.
Banks and Companies like MSFT aren't going to buy ETH.

[BitUsher]

This is highly specialised, new-wave technology and there are a handful of devs in the world who really understand it thoroughly in principle as well as practice as well as having enough experience to be productive. It's not something you can just throw money at and end up "owning" any more than anyone could end up owning the Apache web server.

Vitalik is a smart kid , but you realize he isn't god right?

If MSFT has any problems with development (no problems thus far according to what they released) than they can always buy a developer or two and not invest in 1 penny of eth. They are interested in controlling the technology and IP , not being subservient to Vitalik's organization. To suggest otherwise ignores a long history reflecting the opposite.

[toknormal]

Vitalik is a smart kid , but you realize he isn't god right?

If MSFT has any problems with development (no problems thus far according to what they released) than they can always buy a developer or two and not invest in 1 penny of eth. They are interested in controlling the technology and IP

You do realise that these are decentralised, open source technologies.

There is no "IP" involved. If there was they wouldn't stand a change because the notional "IP" is owned by the users. I suppose the next closest analogue after my Apache example is the Linux operating system. Microsoft didn't steal or even buy that idea and take it over did they ? That's because they couldn't for the reasons I just outlined.

I'm not saying that you could not be right in some sense - that an alternative could come along and usurp the network effect - I'm just saying it's highly unlikely at this stage for the same reason that 1000 alt coins didn't even make a dent in Bitcoin's network effect and of the top 200 on coinmarket.com, not one single one of them was created by Microsoft, IBM, JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs even 9-years into the evolution of this technology.

[BitUsher]

Vitalik is a smart kid , but you realize he isn't god right?

If MSFT has any problems with development (no problems thus far according to what they released) than they can always buy a developer or two and not invest in 1 penny of eth. They are interested in controlling the technology and IP

You do realise that these are decentralised, open source technologies don't you ?

There is no "IP" involved. If there was they wouldn't stand a change because the notional "IP" is owned by the users. I suppose the next closest analogue after my Apache example is the Linux operating system. Microsoft didn't steal or even buy that idea and take it over did they ? That's because they couldn't for the reasons I just outlined.

I'm not saying that you could not be right in some sense - that an alternative could come along and usurp the network effect - I'm just saying it's highly unlikely at this stage for the same reason that 1000 alt coins didn't even make a dent in Bitcoin's network effect and of the top 200 on coinmarket.com, not one single one of them was created by Microsoft, IBM, JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs even 9-years into the evolution of this technology.

You cannot conflate a currency with script fuel. The average user doesn't care how their app or dapp runs , they just want it to run cheaply and efficiently and securely. Ethereum doesn't have the "network effect" when compared to MSFTfuel (XBox, ect...) ... decentralization for its own sake doesn't mean anything besides more overhead. MSFT  and other companies can and will create their own standards that are partially open source. There is no need for them to buy a pathetically small 25k userbase