ETH hardfork incoming.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

How lofty Wisdom must wonder at the revolts of usurping Power.  

Remember the clack of scared stones,
the rhythmic throat-songs of upheaval,
the rush of fledgling warriors.
Remember the foot-falls on earthenware and bone,
the blood-feuds, the oaths pledged to idols of block and chain.

[bbc.reporter]

How the fuck can a coin based purely on greed and theft be better than ETH?!? That's correct, it isn't.

You stupid fuck. Figure out the words immutably and fugibility.

ETH is the coin based on greed and theft. Get it right.

It seems crazy when folks attempt to characterize ETC as being based on greed and theft, when in fact ETC seemed to be an attempt to temper the level of greed and theft occurring within ETH, especially in the most recent days.

Neither ETH nor ETC are great coins, but at least ETC had attempted to make a better effort to modify ETH in such a way to make it closer to bitcoin (at least in the decentralized and immutability direction), which almost makes ETC an honorable approach that is attempting to fix a bad foundation.

It is the other way around. ETH is based on greed and part of the Ethereum foundation and slock.it are thieves. They have shown a propensity that they are capable of such criminal acts. White collar crimes, yes but still the criminal intent is there.

So Minecache, if ETH is hacked again with millions stolen and Vitalik again decides to fork will ETH be a criminal coin now?

[JayJuanGee]

How the fuck can a coin based purely on greed and theft be better than ETH?!? That's correct, it isn't.

You stupid fuck. Figure out the words immutably and fugibility.

ETH is the coin based on greed and theft. Get it right.

It seems crazy when folks attempt to characterize ETC as being based on greed and theft, when in fact ETC seemed to be an attempt to temper the level of greed and theft occurring within ETH, especially in the most recent days.

Neither ETH nor ETC are great coins, but at least ETC had attempted to make a better effort to modify ETH in such a way to make it closer to bitcoin (at least in the decentralized and immutability direction), which almost makes ETC an honorable approach that is attempting to fix a bad foundation.

It is the other way around. ETH is based on greed and part of the Ethereum foundation and slock.it are thieves. They have shown a propensity that they are capable of such criminal acts. White collar crimes, yes but still the criminal intent is there.

So Minecache, if ETH is hacked again with millions stolen and Vitalik again decides to fork will ETH be a criminal coin now?

I think that I am saying very similar things to you, and I am in agreement that ETH has many greater problems with various attempts at intermeddling - and sooner or later they are going to fuck up too much and get some attention... I would not put it passed government institutions and financial institutions attempting to enable Ethereum in its various centralization intermeddling.. but sooner or later, they are going to have to snuff them out because too many people are getting screwed by some of the internally conflicting attempts to contain complicated outcomes, while playing with people's money.

To the extent that ETC can decentralize Ethereum, wow, ETC may become the savior of the shitty coin(s) situation.

[bbc.reporter]

The situation that I do not want to happen is what if the financial institutions and the government institutions come after not only Ethereum and their founders but all of the cryptosphere. They will attempt to control it and ban it that they will not allows us to take part in the world of cryptocurrencies because it is "illegal". Another question is will that stop you?

Maybe it is a good time to start learning about how to be more anonymous online.

[Ruhtilg]

The situation that I do not want to happen is what if the financial institutions and the government institutions come after not only Ethereum and their founders but all of the cryptosphere. They will attempt to control it and ban it that they will not allows us to take part in the world of cryptocurrencies because it is "illegal". Another question is will that stop you?

Maybe it is a good time to start learning about how to be more anonymous online.

Does it mean it is better not to have a foundation type of centralised controller? Then the development will be similar to bitcoin, very inefficient.

[dinofelis]

Does it mean it is better not to have a foundation type of centralised controller? Then the development will be similar to bitcoin, very inefficient.

And that's exactly what it should be.  Once the protocol is correctly coded, there's actually almost no need for "development".
Once the rules of the chess game were laid out, there's no need for "development".  You play chess the same way one played it 100 years ago.

[AlphaSun]

Does it mean it is better not to have a foundation type of centralised controller? Then the development will be similar to bitcoin, very inefficient.

And that's exactly what it should be.  Once the protocol is correctly coded, there's actually almost no need for "development".
Once the rules of the chess game were laid out, there's no need for "development".  You play chess the same way one played it 100 years ago.

So why there still bitcoin developers in the play? I think the protocol can also be developed after many years later.

[JayJuanGee]

The situation that I do not want to happen is what if the financial institutions and the government institutions come after not only Ethereum and their founders but all of the cryptosphere. They will attempt to control it and ban it that they will not allows us to take part in the world of cryptocurrencies because it is "illegal". Another question is will that stop you?

Maybe it is a good time to start learning about how to be more anonymous online.

Does it mean it is better not to have a foundation type of centralised controller? Then the development will be similar to bitcoin, very inefficient.

You seem to be suggesting that inefficiency is a bad thing for bitcoin.

You know there are a lot of balancing of attributes in this world, and efficiency is one of the balancing attributes.  Bitcoin brings some things much greater to the table of currency - and efficiency is not one of them (at least not efficiency from a centralized point of view).   If you want to achieve decentralization and immutability, then in order to achieve such paradigm shifting greatness, you likely have to be willing to give a little less priority to efficiency...

Let me give another example of efficiency... human emotions are not efficient, but if we want to allow humans to have some semblance of agency, then we need to allow some of those emotional inefficiencies .. there are other examples as well, but I think that I have said enough for now to largely attempt to make my point.

[dinofelis]

So why there still bitcoin developers in the play?

Maybe they have a hard time leaving ?

[JayJuanGee]

So why there still bitcoin developers in the play?

Maybe they have a hard time leaving ?

Well one thing is developing, and another thing is promoting and selling or changing for the sake of change.

I agree that there is likely very little need for development with bitcoin, except to entertain the possibility of possible changes, tweaks with the passage of time... so for example, scaling will likely always be a bit of an issue... to not make too big and not allow to stay too small.

Also, if an improvement proposal is made, there is likely needs within a community to assess whether such a proposal is capable of achieving consensus, and certainly developers could be sufficiently familiar and articulate enough to assess possible technical issues.. so in the end, it seems quit logical that with an adequately programed coin, such as bitcoin, changes to the protocol would be extraordinary occurrences rather than something that took place on the regular.

[Cakalasia]

The situation that I do not want to happen is what if the financial institutions and the government institutions come after not only Ethereum and their founders but all of the cryptosphere. They will attempt to control it and ban it that they will not allows us to take part in the world of cryptocurrencies because it is "illegal". Another question is will that stop you?

Maybe it is a good time to start learning about how to be more anonymous online.

Does it mean it is better not to have a foundation type of centralised controller? Then the development will be similar to bitcoin, very inefficient.

The foundation formation is very efficient. But if there is anything wrong with the Foundation leadership, it is bad for the Ethereum.

[bbc.reporter]

The situation that I do not want to happen is what if the financial institutions and the government institutions come after not only Ethereum and their founders but all of the cryptosphere. They will attempt to control it and ban it that they will not allows us to take part in the world of cryptocurrencies because it is "illegal". Another question is will that stop you?

Maybe it is a good time to start learning about how to be more anonymous online.

Does it mean it is better not to have a foundation type of centralised controller? Then the development will be similar to bitcoin, very inefficient.

Yes it will be better.  Look what happened to Ethereum because of this central controller.  They did a sloppy hard fork which would not happen if the 'inefficient' governance structure of Bitcoin was in place.

[Zosinburg]

The situation that I do not want to happen is what if the financial institutions and the government institutions come after not only Ethereum and their founders but all of the cryptosphere. They will attempt to control it and ban it that they will not allows us to take part in the world of cryptocurrencies because it is "illegal". Another question is will that stop you?

Maybe it is a good time to start learning about how to be more anonymous online.

Does it mean it is better not to have a foundation type of centralised controller? Then the development will be similar to bitcoin, very inefficient.

Yes it will be better.  Look what happened to Ethereum because of this central controller.  They did a sloppy hard fork which would not happen if the 'inefficient' governance structure of Bitcoin was in place.

I think the hard fork was not implemented properly. They should declare that they would not support anyother fork during the time.

[Labumi]

The situation that I do not want to happen is what if the financial institutions and the government institutions come after not only Ethereum and their founders but all of the cryptosphere. They will attempt to control it and ban it that they will not allows us to take part in the world of cryptocurrencies because it is "illegal". Another question is will that stop you?

Maybe it is a good time to start learning about how to be more anonymous online.

Does it mean it is better not to have a foundation type of centralised controller? Then the development will be similar to bitcoin, very inefficient.

Yes it will be better.  Look what happened to Ethereum because of this central controller.  They did a sloppy hard fork which would not happen if the 'inefficient' governance structure of Bitcoin was in place.

I think the hard fork was not implemented properly. They should declare that they would not support anyother fork during the time.

That certainly eth will give something good for the future. We just have to wait for an extraordinary life on this earth, because we need time to do it all. Still delight in the way this world and life we never envied (negative) about the success of a person. So just give the spirit knows

[JayJuanGee]

The situation that I do not want to happen is what if the financial institutions and the government institutions come after not only Ethereum and their founders but all of the cryptosphere. They will attempt to control it and ban it that they will not allows us to take part in the world of cryptocurrencies because it is "illegal". Another question is will that stop you?

Maybe it is a good time to start learning about how to be more anonymous online.

Does it mean it is better not to have a foundation type of centralised controller? Then the development will be similar to bitcoin, very inefficient.

Yes it will be better.  Look what happened to Ethereum because of this central controller.  They did a sloppy hard fork which would not happen if the 'inefficient' governance structure of Bitcoin was in place.

I think the hard fork was not implemented properly. They should declare that they would not support anyother fork during the time.

Yeah.. right...

That's not how a hardfork works.  You must be thinking about a softfork, if you think that you are going to slowly merge folks into the dominant chain.   

In fact, the ETH foundation jumped to a fairly rash conclusion and had been throwing around the idea of fork for quite some time, and really they had forked before; however, this particular latest fork happened to be a bit more controversial than they had expected.

Yeah, if they had clarified that the hardfork was not controversial, before they did it, then it would not have been a problem.  Instead they acted rashly.

[Fatunad]

The situation that I do not want to happen is what if the financial institutions and the government institutions come after not only Ethereum and their founders but all of the cryptosphere. They will attempt to control it and ban it that they will not allows us to take part in the world of cryptocurrencies because it is "illegal". Another question is will that stop you?

Maybe it is a good time to start learning about how to be more anonymous online.

Does it mean it is better not to have a foundation type of centralised controller? Then the development will be similar to bitcoin, very inefficient.

Yes it will be better.  Look what happened to Ethereum because of this central controller.  They did a sloppy hard fork which would not happen if the 'inefficient' governance structure of Bitcoin was in place.

I think the hard fork was not implemented properly. They should declare that they would not support anyother fork during the time.

Yeah.. right...

That's not how a hardfork works.  You must be thinking about a softfork, if you think that you are going to slowly merge folks into the dominant chain.   

In fact, the ETH foundation jumped to a fairly rash conclusion and had been throwing around the idea of fork for quite some time, and really they had forked before; however, this particular latest fork happened to be a bit more controversial than they had expected.

Yeah, if they had clarified that the hardfork was not controversial, before they did it, then it would not have been a problem.  Instead they acted rashly.

The Ethereum Foundation should make clear it would kill the other fork to keep the main chain, then there will be no ETC.

[Zosuda]

The situation that I do not want to happen is what if the financial institutions and the government institutions come after not only Ethereum and their founders but all of the cryptosphere. They will attempt to control it and ban it that they will not allows us to take part in the world of cryptocurrencies because it is "illegal". Another question is will that stop you?

Maybe it is a good time to start learning about how to be more anonymous online.

Does it mean it is better not to have a foundation type of centralised controller? Then the development will be similar to bitcoin, very inefficient.

Yes it will be better.  Look what happened to Ethereum because of this central controller.  They did a sloppy hard fork which would not happen if the 'inefficient' governance structure of Bitcoin was in place.

I think the hard fork was not implemented properly. They should declare that they would not support anyother fork during the time.

Yeah.. right...

That's not how a hardfork works.  You must be thinking about a softfork, if you think that you are going to slowly merge folks into the dominant chain.   

In fact, the ETH foundation jumped to a fairly rash conclusion and had been throwing around the idea of fork for quite some time, and really they had forked before; however, this particular latest fork happened to be a bit more controversial than they had expected.

Yeah, if they had clarified that the hardfork was not controversial, before they did it, then it would not have been a problem.  Instead they acted rashly.

The Ethereum Foundation should make clear it would kill the other fork to keep the main chain, then there will be no ETC.

I think that will happen in the next few weeks with the Foundation to dump ETC and so will some big holders of the ETC.

[JayJuanGee]

The situation that I do not want to happen is what if the financial institutions and the government institutions come after not only Ethereum and their founders but all of the cryptosphere. They will attempt to control it and ban it that they will not allows us to take part in the world of cryptocurrencies because it is "illegal". Another question is will that stop you?

Maybe it is a good time to start learning about how to be more anonymous online.

Does it mean it is better not to have a foundation type of centralised controller? Then the development will be similar to bitcoin, very inefficient.

Yes it will be better.  Look what happened to Ethereum because of this central controller.  They did a sloppy hard fork which would not happen if the 'inefficient' governance structure of Bitcoin was in place.

I think the hard fork was not implemented properly. They should declare that they would not support anyother fork during the time.

Yeah.. right...

That's not how a hardfork works.  You must be thinking about a softfork, if you think that you are going to slowly merge folks into the dominant chain.   

In fact, the ETH foundation jumped to a fairly rash conclusion and had been throwing around the idea of fork for quite some time, and really they had forked before; however, this particular latest fork happened to be a bit more controversial than they had expected.

Yeah, if they had clarified that the hardfork was not controversial, before they did it, then it would not have been a problem.  Instead they acted rashly.

The Ethereum Foundation should make clear it would kill the other fork to keep the main chain, then there will be no ETC.

Are you talking about "should have done"?  That is water under the bridge.  What is done has been done.  ETC is here, and it is very likely that ETH foundation fucked up in the way that they implemented the hardfork and their lack of due diligence before they jumped into such a quagmire.

[JayJuanGee]

The situation that I do not want to happen is what if the financial institutions and the government institutions come after not only Ethereum and their founders but all of the cryptosphere. They will attempt to control it and ban it that they will not allows us to take part in the world of cryptocurrencies because it is "illegal". Another question is will that stop you?

Maybe it is a good time to start learning about how to be more anonymous online.

Does it mean it is better not to have a foundation type of centralised controller? Then the development will be similar to bitcoin, very inefficient.

Yes it will be better.  Look what happened to Ethereum because of this central controller.  They did a sloppy hard fork which would not happen if the 'inefficient' governance structure of Bitcoin was in place.

I think the hard fork was not implemented properly. They should declare that they would not support anyother fork during the time.

Yeah.. right...

That's not how a hardfork works.  You must be thinking about a softfork, if you think that you are going to slowly merge folks into the dominant chain.   

In fact, the ETH foundation jumped to a fairly rash conclusion and had been throwing around the idea of fork for quite some time, and really they had forked before; however, this particular latest fork happened to be a bit more controversial than they had expected.

Yeah, if they had clarified that the hardfork was not controversial, before they did it, then it would not have been a problem.  Instead they acted rashly.

The Ethereum Foundation should make clear it would kill the other fork to keep the main chain, then there will be no ETC.

I think that will happen in the next few weeks with the Foundation to dump ETC and so will some big holders of the ETC.

So?  What is that going to do?  Temporarily drive down the price of ETC and cause fewer ETC coins to be held by ETH holders, and then after that will the ETC price bounce back or not?  Is ETC going to be dead?  A lowering of the ETC price might cause a lot of buying of ETC, then what?

[bbc.reporter]

...

So?  What is that going to do?  Temporarily drive down the price of ETC and cause fewer ETC coins to be held by ETH holders, and then after that will the ETC price bounce back or not?  Is ETC going to be dead?  A lowering of the ETC price might cause a lot of buying of ETC, then what?

The idea of lowering the price is to turn off miners from supporting the ETC chain. If the hashing power goes down then it would be less secure and more open to attacks. Remember if miners do not find it profitable to mine ETC they will go somewhere else to mine. The likely destination for them would be ETH which is what the ETH people want.