The Ethereum Paradox

[r0ach]

Ethereum is a system of redundantly executed code, a general purpose CPU mirroring the functionality of the worlds most inefficient botnet without parallelization.  Unless blockchain scaling is either huge or infinite, the validation and redundancy of simple transactional data, which Bitcoin attempted to solve in a distributed manner, is far more useful in a cost benefit analysis rather than open ended computational redundancy.  In other words, Bitcoin is an ASIC for a specific purpose, and struggles to fulfill that role even with a streamlined design.  Ethereum, on the other hand, has introduced an objectively less efficient design to try and conquer even more problems.

Such a design would obviously be dead on arrival out of the gate barring any other factors being introduced.  This is where partitioning comes in.  A partitioned network allows load to be split in order to scale further.  Here comes the paradox.  If the entire purpose of Ethereum is a system of redundantly executed code, how does partitioning even fit in the picture in the first place?  I guess you can say, ok, we're arbitrarily defining how much redundancy is enough, but how do you actually determine that?

As you can see, Ethereum is effectively useless without partitioning because it relies on scalability far more than Bitcoin does, while Bitcoin is struggling to achieve any scalability itself.  When you see Mike Hearn talking about using Ethereum as an OTC derivatives settlement, that functionality will be non-existent without partitioning.  The load carrying capacity would be far too small and fees far too large to do at scale.  It will be a case of centralized services vastly outperforming decentralized ones.  Who cares if it's trustless if it costs 10,000 times more?

Transactions can be bundled in Bitcoin without much of a side effect in order to scale, while bundling computational redundancy in Ethereum would defeat the purpose of it existing at all.  This is in addition to the fact that nobody has successfully deployed a partitioned cryptocurrency in the first place.  Fuserleer has been working on one for years and has been unable to release something.  IOTA is about to release.  I haven't dug through it enough myself, but Anonymint claims it's doomed because it will rely on centralization for convergence.

In summary, through bundling or even just plain on-chain transactions alone, Bitcoin can just barely reach functionality of an internationally used currency, at least justifying it's market cap.  Ethereum operating as a "world computer" is an obvious stretch of the imagination.  Since they issued an IPO money grab for their coin supply, I think most investors will already be considering the coin a failure if it has to dilute investors to infinity by leaking mined coins forever.  No actual secure PoS network has even been invented so far, so the coin needs not only one, but two cryptocurrency firsts in order to be considered viable - a valid PoS network and a partitioned network.  In order to even think about touching Ethereum, you're basically required to ask yourself, is Vitalik an order of magnitude smarter than Satoshi?

[1713853068]

1713853068

[1713853068]

1713853068

[1713853068]

1713853068

[1713853068]

1713853068

[1713853068]

1713853068

[1713853068]

1713853068

[tokeweed]

But will ETH reach 10 USD?

[sinner]

probably.. call the top. im starting to think $20

[tokeweed]

If Chinese exchanges start listing ETH, probably more...

[sinner]

ether mining is still all GPU and they claim to be ASIC proof... i wouldnt expect Chinese exchanges to list ether until there's some ether mining in China.

[tokeweed]

ether mining is still all GPU and they claim to be ASIC proof... i wouldnt expect Chinese exchanges to list ether until there's some ether mining in China.

Maybe China is developing miners for ETH just like they did with LTC...

[benthach]

probably.. call the top. im starting to think $20

you have a wet dream for a moment there buddy, there will be many other platforms coming online one after one to make etherium look nothing but a scam of a homeless beggar begging for money at every bitcoin events, but he is millionaires right now. don't forget this coin smart contracts is using command line for god/buddha/allah sake.
the price will keep going higher as whales are mentally manipulating right now but it is going to be DOA the moment the wallet is released from this get rich quick coin. it's dragging on for a reason, it make people think there is something more about this coin so people keep throwing their life saving at it. it's an unproven scam coin and chance is one negative new this coin should be down to nothing.

[TPTB_need_war]

Ethereum sold the future, first with an IPO for vapor, next with making a lot of publicity about Casper which they should know won't work.

Thus I conclude the insiders have decided to bailout on this final pump.

So why are you constantly making threads spreading pointless FUD about ethereum?

Yeah why are you doing that stoat?

And you are lying about my identity and have refused to retract your slander, when I am clearly not the two users you accused me of being and I have even shared my LinkedIn photo and identity.

Why can't you admit that Ethereum's developers suck and after $millions wasted, they still have not solved the most fundamental issue that must be solved in order to make scripting on a block chain work?

The technological challenge with a long-running script on a block chain is verification. The gas (and txn fees) are paid to the winner of the PoW block, not to all miners, but all miners (full nodes) have to endure the SAME cost of verification. Yet not all miners have the same hashrate, thus not all miners have the same income per block. Thus some miners recoup less of their verification costs than other miners. As I explained in greater detail, this forces mining to become 100% centralized in one miner with 100% hashrate.

Ethereum is off on another tangent named Casper, with shards, consensus-by-betting, etc, which is another hopeless and futile attempt to solve a problem that CAN NOT BE SOLVED BECAUSE OF THE INVIOLABLE CAP THEOREM!

Ethereum will never solve this problem and remain decentralized. Never. Thus all the scripts and products being built on top of Ethereum are headed to failure when Ethereum fails to solve the scaling problem of verification in a decentralized manner. Because centralization of scripting is meaningless, we always had that already.

I have solved the problem because I realized verification MUST be centralized (due to the inviolable CAP theorem and the correct understanding that a 100% decentralized system can not solve the Byzantine General's Problem), and thus I instead designed a way to control the centralization of verification with decentralized PoW miners (because each user submits a PoW share with their txn and because PoW mining is rendered UNprofitable for all parties).

So who will be the winner of everything? Me. Not Ethereum. Not to mention that marketing plan is light years ahead of any altcoin, because I will market directly to the millions of masses and achieve millions of adoptions (and be the first coin to do so).

Look I was there at the beginning telling Charles (one of the guys who founded and organized the creation of Ethereum) in Skype that Vitalik's PoW algorithm could be parallelized thus not CPU only, telling him that they could not solve the fundamental problem above, and telling him that they were going to raise too much $ with too many mouths to feed and still wouldn't solve the fundamental problems. Originally Charles was recruiting me to form this company, not Vitalik. But I balked and said I didn't want to raise all that money and I didn't want to start something until I was sure I had solved all fundamental issues. If you don't believe me, go ask Charles.

All the gory details about Ethereum's technical incompetence are here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/42rvm3/truth_about_ethereum_is_being_banned_at/

Enjoy the Ethereum pump while it is hot and while people are ignorant of the truth about the technical incompetence of the Ethereum developers. Eventually the truth will come out and especially when my white papers and coin are released.

Edit: r0ach has also explained what I've been pointing out about Ethereum for more than a month.

So far I see the ethereum blockchain and consensus protocol working fine.

It hasn't been scaled yet. Bitcoin's scalepocalypse will pale in comparison to Ethereum's doom in the wild. Essentially what Ethereum is designing with Casper is a technobabble wrapper around centralized verification, because either they know that verification can't be decentralized (as I have explained), or they are determined to delude themselves otherwise (with the result being the centralization occurs anyway).

With centralization, Ehereum can scale except note that will be viewed as a failure by the market, unless verification centralization can be hidden behind Sybil attacks on the verification nodes (meaning no one can prove that a 1000 nodes aren't controlled by the same entity). I have a strong suspicion that is why Ethereum is being funded by Peter Thiel and other banksters, because they understand Ethereum is a way for them to control without being detected. Satoshi had prevented this outcome in Bitcoin by setting the maximum block size to 1MB, which thus restricted verification from centralizing entirely (yet it will still be impossible to prevent Bitcoin Classic from centralizing due to the other economics of profitable PoW mining).

But centralization always leads to failure. So ultimately this will fail sooner or later.

And what I see from you is just a load of wild claims.

That is because you are n00b and you can't understand the technological arguments. The points I have made are not wild at all. Do you realize I was probably the first person to predict Bitcoin's scalepocalypse in 2013 as ArticMine graciously admits today:

I introduced this concept in 2013 in my thread Spiraling Transaction Fees and I nailed the block size as the fundamental issue in my last post in that 2013 thread.

Seems stoat you had no clue how long I have been here in this forum and doing serious technological research.

[mkc]

Ethereum is a system of redundantly executed code, a general purpose CPU mirroring the functionality of the worlds most inefficient botnet without parallelization.  Unless blockchain scaling is either huge or infinite, the validation and redundancy of simple transactional data, which Bitcoin attempted to solve in a distributed manner, is far more useful in a cost benefit analysis rather than open ended computational redundancy.  In other words, Bitcoin is an ASIC for a specific purpose, and struggles to fulfill that role even with a streamlined design.  Ethereum, on the other hand, has introduced an objectively less efficient design to try and conquer even more problems.

Such a design would obviously be dead on arrival out of the gate barring any other factors being introduced.  This is where partitioning comes in.  A partitioned network allows load to be split in order to scale further.  Here comes the paradox.  If the entire purpose of Ethereum is a system of redundantly executed code, how does partitioning even fit in the picture in the first place?  I guess you can say, ok, we're arbitrarily defining how much redundancy is enough, but how do you actually determine that?

As you can see, Ethereum is effectively useless without partitioning because it relies on scalability far more than Bitcoin does, while Bitcoin is struggling to achieve any scalability itself.  When you see Mike Hearn talking about using Ethereum as an OTC derivatives settlement, that functionality will be non-existent without partitioning.  The load carrying capacity would be far too small and fees far too large to do at scale.  It will be a case of centralized services vastly outperforming decentralized ones.  Who cares if it's trustless if it costs 10,000 times more?

Transactions can be bundled in Bitcoin without much of a side effect in order to scale, while bundling computational redundancy in Ethereum would defeat the purpose of it existing at all.  This is in addition to the fact that nobody has successfully deployed a partitioned cryptocurrency in the first place.  Fuserleer has been working on one for years and has been unable to release something.  IOTA is about to release.  I haven't dug through it enough myself, but Anonymint claims it's doomed because it will rely on centralization for convergence.

In summary, through bundling or even just plain on-chain transactions alone, Bitcoin can just barely reach functionality of an internationally used currency, at least justifying it's market cap.  Ethereum operating as a "world computer" is an obvious stretch of the imagination.  Since they issued an IPO money grab for their coin supply, I think most investors will already be considering the coin a failure if it has to dilute investors to infinity by leaking mined coins forever.  No actual secure PoS network has even been invented so far, so the coin needs not only one, but two cryptocurrency firsts in order to be considered viable - a valid PoS network and a partitioned network.  In order to even think about touching Ethereum, you're basically required to ask yourself, is Vitalik an order of magnitude smarter than Satoshi?

This is very insightful. I just withdraw my orders to buy ETH.
Over the year I realize smaller promise will deliver something useful, huge promise always end up  going nowhere.

[r0ach]

Thus I conclude the insiders have decided to bailout on this final pump.

The thought crossed my mind too, but I'm not sure.  It's always possible some VC or banking money drank the koolaid and bought in when they have no idea how it works, or likely doesn't work as the case may be.  The funniest part is on the website how it's plastered literally everywhere how unsafe Ethereum is to use.  It's like they've already figured out it will inevitably fail and are trying to decrease the liability as much as possible:


(no, this photo is not edited)

And another.  I guess they are being honest that this thing is a grenade, just there's too much dumb money in the game and nobody bothered to read the fine print:





i.e. it is dangerous for anyone to attempt to use commercially instead of 1 guy running a hello world script per day.

[monsterer]

the validation and redundancy of simple transactional data, which Bitcoin attempted to solve in a distributed manner, is far more useful in a cost benefit analysis rather than open ended computational redundancy.

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... That and gave us a working 12 second block time. These are the main innovations.

I won't speculate on the valuation, or whether it will 'work' as per the hype, but these are the facts. IMO Casper is a huge mistake, though.

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

[monsterer]

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.

Higher, yes. But maybe insignificantly so. Have you done any analysis?

[TPTB_need_war]

Have you done[published very transparently and with equal emphasis to other technobabble hype] any analysis?

You should be asking Ethereum that question.

Did Nick "Satoshi" Szabo mention any such analysis during his apparent endorsement of Ethereum in his presentation where he promoted centralization as a problem.

Did Ethereum just violate the SEC securities law by underpromoting transparency (c.f. the linked Coin Center report), e.g. hiding it in obscure layers as r0ach has shown and put talking head Vitalik on a stage to promote the shit out of it with technobabble.

[monsterer]

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.

[generalizethis]

The funniest part is on the website how it's plastered literally everywhere how unsafe Ethereum is to use.  It's like they've already figured out it will inevitably fail and are trying to decrease the liability as much as possible:

Very convincing argument, r0ach!       <--- because sarcasm

Shut up, rOach! <--- because I'm invested

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

[TPTB_need_war]

(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...

[r0ach]

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.  Or maybe 50 different Ethereum chains to run the lottery and ticket purchases in 50 different states.  I'm just slapping myself in the face trying to figure out how this thing is supposed to work at scale on a commercial level.

[TPTB_need_war]

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.