Andreas M. Antonopoulos is "bullish on Ethereum"

[iamnotback]

I'm with you and thanks for putting it more eloquently than I ever could. I invested in DAO and agree that it should cut its loses for now. I still believe in a DAO and all that it will stand for, basically giving the little man the opportunity to invest whee only VC funds could in the past. Why others are so virulently against this right is beyond me. One day I expect after all this is blown over there will be a DAO2.0. Just with better coders.

Also, I don't know if better coding is the answer ultimately. Things need to progress on the basis that smart contract code will fail, not that it won't. There are a huge amount of use cases where the value doesn't actually have to be held by the contract.

toknormal, very astute. That is indeed part of the solution.

Minecache, the problem with The DAO is not only bad code, but also the design was game theory broken as well.

It's likely the DAO is currently too ahead of its time but I believe it will come.

No there is a mass market for it right now, but those Ethereum guys (including Vitalik's blogs about it) have the design entirely wrong conceptually. They are off in the entirely wrong direction conceptually. And that includes Devest and any one else copying The DAO's conceptual design. And I am not going to tell you how to do correctly until I have some code ready to launch.

It's likely the DAO is currently too ahead of its time but I believe it will come.

No there is a mass market for it right now, but those guys have the design entirely wrong conceptually. They are off in the entirely wrong direction conceptually. And that includes Devest and any one else copying The DAO's conceptual design. And I am not going to tell you how to do correctly until I have some code ready to launch.

No sorry I don't think the mass market is there right now. Just look at how many, supposed crypto currency supporters just hate on the DAO and are happy to see it fail just because they can't comprehend it. This is internet 1993. "Why do we need this?" It needs to be sold to the doubters before mass market appears. I.e. There were only circa 20,000+ DAO investors in total. And I knew 3 of them.

The problem is the way of, and the design of what you are, marketing. I will show you how to do it.

Specifically marketing a delusion broken design to n00bs, instead of marketing a seriously beneficial product to those who can use it for revolutionizing corporations.

[iamnotback]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=6854

Andreas M. Antonopoulos: "Congrats to Vitalik for not removing the possibility for personality worship".

WTF   Vitalik has a groupie followers that worship him. Andreas worships Vitalik otherwise he wouldn't make such comparisons to George Washington. If anyone ever compares me and idols me, I will puke on their lap. This isn't about babbling talking heads, it is about a job that needs to be done and who is going to get it done correctly. Accolades are not needed.

Andreas makes the point that Ethereum can allow full exploration of the range of innovation because of the Turing-complete scripts, which Bitcoin can't do. So it seems he worships Ethereum because he thinks it is necessary for achieving maximum innovation.

Well I am going to try to teach Andreas that only some contracts are killer apps and those are the highest priority.

[iamnotback]

...
Bitcoin can't validate the Counterparty invariants, thus Counterparty can't have decentralized consensus. Sorry you can't put smart contracts on the Bitcoin block chain. Rootstock is making a side-chain instead.

But the larger issue is scaling. And also of course the fact that Turing-complete scripts can blow up. To solve this, you need me. I've been working on the technological issues for 2 - 3 years.

A side chain is the proper way to do this, and it can be merged mined with the main chain. Scaling as we both know is a very serious issue so one has to start with a base coin that can scale on the main chain properly even before adding smart contracts. Then address the scaling issues of the smart contracts themselves.

Side-chains are insecure:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/side-chains-challenges-potential-1397614121
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7613520
http://www.rootstock.io/blog/sidechains-drivechains-and-rsk-2-way-peg-design

My expectation is that Blockstream (+ the Chinese mining cartel) are going to either outright break or centralize the mining/control of Bitcoin. We need to be ready with something that works correctly for when they do.

[iamnotback]

Smooth and I discussing the optimum way of funding/launching development, and the Nash equilibrium of block chains.

Ethereum, Blockstream (Bitcoin core), BitShares, DASH all break Nash equilibrium.

[smooth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=6495

"What is the difference between a government or bank which decides to override the free market, and a block chain that does the same?"

Attorney Brian Klein: "People will pick block chains so to speak based on do they want whether someone can intercede or do they want it more autonomous. Bitcoin seems to be more hands off right, and if Ethereum gets more hands on, that is going to change the perception of the people who are investing and building it. So I think maybe there will be a third block chain (that sort of a third ledger or whatever you want to call it) that rises because it offers a different variable. People will pick what they want."

Attorneys should stick to what they know, which is the law. In general (and it appears in this specific case) they know next to nothing or nothing at all about blockchain technology. A blockchain that is "hands on" accomplishes literally nothing useful. The concept is vacuous. It is like attorneys arguing over the title to an empty bank account.

So it seems he worships Ethereum because he thinks it is necessary for achieving maximum innovation.

Maximum innovation of how many different ways you can title an empty bank account. It is clear from this episode that the entire project as constructed is pointless, fork or no fork.

"The Attacker" was one clever dude, or lucky, to find this fatal vulnerability, not only in the coding of the DAO (which can be fixed in future contracts, maybe) but in the entire foundation and premise of the project (which can not), and I'm going to go with clever.

[ArticMine]

...
Bitcoin can't validate the Counterparty invariants, thus Counterparty can't have decentralized consensus. Sorry you can't put smart contracts on the Bitcoin block chain. Rootstock is making a side-chain instead.

But the larger issue is scaling. And also of course the fact that Turing-complete scripts can blow up. To solve this, you need me. I've been working on the technological issues for 2 - 3 years.

A side chain is the proper way to do this, and it can be merged mined with the main chain. Scaling as we both know is a very serious issue so one has to start with a base coin that can scale on the main chain properly even before adding smart contracts. Then address the scaling issues of the smart contracts themselves.

Side-chains are insecure:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/side-chains-challenges-potential-1397614121
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7613520
http://www.rootstock.io/blog/sidechains-drivechains-and-rsk-2-way-peg-design

My expectation is that Blockstream (+ the Chinese mining cartel) are going to either outright break or centralize the mining/control of Bitcoin. We need to be ready with something that works correctly for when they do.

It is not that simple. Namecoin has 35% of Bitcoin's hashrate and generates only 0.063% of the miner reward revenue. 1 NMC = 0.00063 XBT. This is actually comparable to 10% of the current Bitcoin fee revenue as a percentage of the overall miner reward. Furthermore, My take is that in the case of a pegged sidechain there is actually an even lower cost to merge mine because one does not have to sell a different coin in an exchange. For many miners the hassle of exchanging the NMC for XBT is likely not worth the trouble; however in the case of a sidechain with a two way peg this exchange issue is avoided. In the case of a pegged sidechain say generating the say even as low as 0.5% of the main chain revenue one could expect and even greater proportion of the main chain's hashrate. Yes one would need 17.5 of the Bitcoin hashrate to launch a 51% attack against Namecoin; however for a Bitcoin pool such an attack has potentially a much higher downside, in the negative public relation such an attack could generate alone, than the comparably minuscule reward such an attack could produce..

This issue of double spend attacks could for example be dealt with by treating transactions between chains as coinbase transactions (120 blocks rather than 6 blocks).

I do agree that is requires a fair amount further research, but I am not prepared to simply dismiss it based on just the comments in the articles. Namecoin does provide some very compelling evidence over many years that merged mining can work even when there is a marked difference in the revenue generated by the main chain and the merged mined alt-coin or side chain.

[iamnotback]

ArticMine, the merged mining for Namecoin with very minimal validation can't be compared to the extensive CPU resources required to verify smart contracts.

I have no confidence whatsoever in Rootstock being merge-mined by Bitcoin miners. Fuhgeddaboudit.

Rube Goldberg machines suck.

[kennyP]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=6117

"Who else is doing real-life, production utilization of smart contracts right now? Nobody!  ... Learned some hard lessons ... enormous funding ... will come back ... the experiment is awesome ... I'm looking forward to DAOv2.0"

what a deja vu moment ... why is Andreas flushing his reputation down the toilet for The DAO?

I'm Roger Ver, long time Bitcoin advocate and investor.
Today I'm at the Mtgox world headquarters in Tokyo Japan.
I had a nice chat with MTGOX CEO, Mark Karpeles, about their current situation.
He showed me multiple bank statements, as well as letters from banks and lawyers.
I'm sure that all the current withdrawal problems at MTGOX are being caused by the traditional banking system, not because of a lack of liquidity at MTGOX.
The traditional banking partners that MTGOX needs to work with are not able to keep up with the demands of the growing Bitcoin economy.
The dozens of people that make up the MTGOX team are hard at work establishing additional banking partners, that eventually will make dealing with MTGOX easier for all their customers around the world.  For now,  I hope that everyone will continue working on Bitcoin projects that will help make the world a better place.

[ArticMine]

ArticMine, the merged mining for Namecoin with very minimal validation can't be compared to the extensive CPU resources required to verify smart contracts.

I have no confidence whatsoever in Rootstock being merge-mined by Bitcoin miners. Fuhgeddaboudit.

Rube Goldberg machines suck.

Time will tell, and I am also unsure if they will get the hashrate. They will need a percentage of the hashrate comparable to that of Namecoin in order to be secure. otherwise they could get attacked for the reasons you cited above. Of course if it fails or even if it works then one can learn from it and build something better.

Edit: For starters they also need  a coin that can scale as the main chain for this to work and Bitcoin does not meet this requirement.

[iamnotback]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=6117

"Who else is doing real-life, production utilization of smart contracts right now? Nobody!  ... Learned some hard lessons ... enormous funding ... will come back ... the experiment is awesome ... I'm looking forward to DAOv2.0"

what a deja vu moment ... why is Andreas flushing his reputation down the toilet for The DAO?

I'm Roger Ver, long time Bitcoin advocate and investor.
Today I'm at the Mtgox world headquarters in Tokyo Japan.
...

kiklo opined a reason:

Attorneys comment on the likelihood of SEC or other regulation/action against DAOs or crypto-currency in general:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=7789

Side note, you see those dark circles under that guys eyes in the video.
Symptoms of Liver Stress or Damage, not good.


 

But I also opined a reason upthread:

...Andreas makes the point that Ethereum can allow full exploration of the range of innovation because of the Turing-complete scripts, which Bitcoin can't do. So it seems he worships Ethereum because he thinks it is necessary for achieving maximum innovation.

Well I am going to try to teach Andreas that only some contracts are killer apps and those are the highest priority.

Hey I like Andreas. He is an inspiring speaker, articulate, and reasonably precise in his analysis of the details. I don't want to pick a fight with him. Perhaps he just needs some capable project other than Ethereum to "show me the code, talk is cheap". Since we are only talking, then I can't fault Andreas.

It is better to get along with everybody, except I am not going to follow the path/fantasy of the script kiddies.

[iamnotback]

Edit: For starters they also need  a coin that can scale as the main chain for this to work and Bitcoin does not meet this requirement.

Thanks. That was my conclusion also.

[TheMage]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=6117

"Who else is doing real-life, production utilization of smart contracts right now? Nobody!  ... Learned some hard lessons ... enormous funding ... will come back ... the experiment is awesome ... I'm looking forward to DAOv2.0"

what a deja vu moment ... why is Andreas flushing his reputation down the toilet for The DAO?

I'm Roger Ver, long time Bitcoin advocate and investor.
Today I'm at the Mtgox world headquarters in Tokyo Japan.
I had a nice chat with MTGOX CEO, Mark Karpeles, about their current situation.
He showed me multiple bank statements, as well as letters from banks and lawyers.
I'm sure that all the current withdrawal problems at MTGOX are being caused by the traditional banking system, not because of a lack of liquidity at MTGOX.
The traditional banking partners that MTGOX needs to work with are not able to keep up with the demands of the growing Bitcoin economy.
The dozens of people that make up the MTGOX team are hard at work establishing additional banking partners, that eventually will make dealing with MTGOX easier for all their customers around the world.  For now,  I hope that everyone will continue working on Bitcoin projects that will help make the world a better place.

Interesting perspective, do you believe Andres is flushing his reputation down the toilet because of this?

You should be aware that he offered to help them when they were going down (out of good faith im sure). Not sure if he ever worked on their code.

[kennyP]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=6117

"Who else is doing real-life, production utilization of smart contracts right now? Nobody!  ... Learned some hard lessons ... enormous funding ... will come back ... the experiment is awesome ... I'm looking forward to DAOv2.0"

what a deja vu moment ... why is Andreas flushing his reputation down the toilet for The DAO?

I'm Roger Ver, long time Bitcoin advocate and investor.
Today I'm at the Mtgox world headquarters in Tokyo Japan.
I had a nice chat with MTGOX CEO, Mark Karpeles, about their current situation.
He showed me multiple bank statements, as well as letters from banks and lawyers.
I'm sure that all the current withdrawal problems at MTGOX are being caused by the traditional banking system, not because of a lack of liquidity at MTGOX.
The traditional banking partners that MTGOX needs to work with are not able to keep up with the demands of the growing Bitcoin economy.
The dozens of people that make up the MTGOX team are hard at work establishing additional banking partners, that eventually will make dealing with MTGOX easier for all their customers around the world.  For now,  I hope that everyone will continue working on Bitcoin projects that will help make the world a better place.

Interesting perspective, do you believe Andres is flushing his reputation down the toilet because of this?

You should be aware that he offered to help them when they were going down (out of good faith im sure). Not sure if he ever worked on their code.

Andreas saying "I'm bullish on Ethereum" is designed to prop up ETH, same as what Ver was trying to do when he made that infamous video in support of Mt Gox. He's trying to use his reputation as a crypto evangelist to encourage people to not dump ETH, despite the hard fork, knowing that's there's a good chance ethereum might be fatally wounded now that the project leaders have abandoned the ideals of decentralisation to save The DAO when we all know ethereum has no known bug itself. Why is AA doing this, is it because he owns a lot of ETH and/or DAO? I don't know, but after all he has said and done the last 3 years, his 'bullish' attitude towards ethereum looks on a par with Ver's support of Mt Gox i.e. very insincere

Andreas offering support and tech assistance is one thing, but "bullish" .... I think he'll regret that video almost immediately.

[iamnotback]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=6495

"What is the difference between a government or bank which decides to override the free market, and a block chain that does the same?"

Attorney Brian Klein: "People will pick block chains so to speak based on do they want whether someone can intercede or do they want it more autonomous. Bitcoin seems to be more hands off right, and if Ethereum gets more hands on, that is going to change the perception of the people who are investing and building it. So I think maybe there will be a third block chain (that sort of a third ledger or whatever you want to call it) that rises because it offers a different variable. People will pick what they want."

Attorneys should stick to what they know, which is the law. In general (and it appears in this specific case) they know next to nothing or nothing at all about blockchain technology. A blockchain that is "hands on" accomplishes literally nothing useful. The concept is vacuous. It is like attorneys arguing over the title to an empty bank account.

Smooth I know you were rushed when you wrote that (because he told me in PM that he didn't have time today), so I want to say I agree with that attorney's analysis.

The people who want a hands-on block chain will get the clusterfuck they deserve and go down in flames with it.

Those who want Blockstream's clusterfuck centralization Rube Goldberg "improvements" (which are almost as bad as Vitalik's but atleast they know how to code), will cling to Bitcoin as it becomes ever more centralized.

And those that want something truly decentralized, with scaling for microtransactions onchain, and with secure killer app smart contracts, will need a third block chain. I am working on this project.

Everyone should be free to choose. Who I am to tell them what to do. Free will. Free markets. Techno-Anarchism. Reap what you sow.

[parmatiya]

If the Ethereum recovers from the current crisis, it could be stronger than ever. There are many big investors in it.

[Lauda]

If the Ethereum recovers from the current crisis, it could be stronger than ever. There are many big investors in it.

"Recovers" how exactly? By becoming a centralized, alterable and non-censorship-resistant blockchain? Any kind of fork that controls coins is a huge mistake. They're even talking about forcing a HF by investing a lot of money to rent out mining power.
OP, no he's not bullish on ETH. He's just interested in the concept of experiment with smart contracts, not ETH specifically.

[iamnotback]

OP, no he's not bullish on ETH. He's just interested in the concept of experiment with smart contracts, not ETH specifically.

This is what I am thinking also, but kennyP does have a valid concern that maybe Andreas has sold out his reputation and will go down in flames as Roger Ver did with his endorsements of Mt. Gox near the end.

In support of your and my thought, let me quote Andreas specifically from upthread as follows:

"Who else is doing real-life, production utilization of smart contracts right now? Nobody!  ...

[iamnotback]

Smooth and I discussing the optimum way of funding/launching development, and the Nash equilibrium of block chains.

Ethereum, Blockstream (Bitcoin core), BitShares, DASH all break Nash equilibrium.

I agree with smooth, there should be no DAO nor governance (i.e. no voting, not even from miners) in control of forking the block chain. The DAOs should only be for decentralizing projects and organizations (including corporations). DASH and Bitshares have this incorrect PoS+governance design and Ira Miller@DASH is incorrect about automation being unrealistic or evil:

so how can you shut down a decentralized autonomous organization?

Do you know any decentralized autonomous organization ?

I don't ..

Yes, DASH.org.  The first DAO.  

The difference: Marketing that feature is taking a backseat to development.  Doing it right I'd say.

DASH does seem to be a functioning DAO where D is distributed but sure if it is decentralized control. The stakeholders apparently vote on the actions or management of the development of the open source. The stakeholders apparently approved to have % of the mining rewards paid to a foundation which then distributes the funds according to projects approved by votes of the stakeholders. However what is not clear to me is to what degree this is all enforced by smart contract protocol or done manually by the foundation.

There are allegations however that the distribution of the DASH tokens were highly concentrated by an alleged instamine and subsequent masternode ROI scheme which may have further concentrated the tokens held by the core insiders. But I don't know if anyone has been able to prove conclusively that DASH is not really decentralized, although the suspicion is apparently strong amongst some especially Monero supporters.

[iamnotback]

I hope Andreas is sober now:

It is getting worse. The DAOAttaker is playing with all the ethereum devs and staying one step ahead.

http://pastebin.com/9MRVDC9h

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
 
Ladies and gentleman;
 
We come to you with great pleasure to now offer 2000% or 20x return contracts. You have to notify us before hand of the amount of tokens you wish to be multiplied and we will send you back a customized bytecode with a SIMPLE guide on how to successfully execute the contract and get your 2000% return from the DAO.
 
We accept payment in bitcoins or DAO tokens or ether;
 
Price Breakdown:
1) DAO token balance to multiply = 1,000 or less = 1BTC or 5,000 DAO or 50ETH
Potential Gain for Buyer - 200ETH
 
2) DAO token balance to multiply = 5,000 or less = 4BTC or 20k DAO, or 200 ETH
Potential Gain - 1000ETH
 
3) DAO token balance to multiply = 10,000 or less = 6BTC or 30k DAO, or  300ETH
Potential Gain for Buyer - 2000ETH
 
4) Anything above 10,000 will be considered by our team, and likely contain a decent premium or we may just likely reject it outright, this is aimed moreso at spreading the wealth to the smaller users, although it allows whales to do it as well, but in smaller increments.
 
**Send us an e-mail if you wish to complete this transaction; goldyloxx@sigaint.org**
 
**SERIOUS OFFER:
 
TL;DR
 
WE ARE SELLING CUSTOMIZED RECURSIVE CALL CONTRACTS OF THE DAO THAT WILL ALLOW YOU TO MULTIPLY YOUR FUNDS BY 20X.
 
DISCLOSURE: WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF OUR OWN CONTRACTS DEPLOYED WAITING TO COMPLETE A FULL HEIST OF THE DAO, WE NEED OTHER USERS TO PARTICIPATE SO IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE HARD FORK TO REDISTRIBUTE FUNDS BACK
**
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
 
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXZyLlAAoJEOr7aOGjIMncDsMH/ArUnU6GcAsVLkGBAduE08G+
AcKci986ehyzmC4XOPbhxtE2axxcOOQPjgeLgz6kfEHL1fiwfC5vQJZu3NQw2v/m
QZpd57KKAxZ245oz4pzJdkhM+3rqnG+JV9zow0vzp8vGGLOCpPLPL09JdsFWeL/H
qODyvPgj3TiKVpDZ9JhygrIBpOZbn3xi9j1yqEv/GDrB9wpDglz/L8egDOoQjLXB
zFabHIaha/4POEz6EdUGjeU3cA3eJpUYkU51mIRBkLDtwWo0JPxfdcsL4zELC6Ix
w4Bo3SjMJSqBDMZjC2HxXRm2VyC/iIfC4gSvmhDPq8sHm/Z8uQOt0sC01QMUXO4=
=vFi+

    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

That is better, not worse.

What he has done is offered to drain the rest of the DAO into others' accounts for them in exchange for a fee. He is increasing his leverage over Vitalik. I expected him to do this, because he understands leverage as he had created MPeX. Vitalik is being revealed to be the ignorant/myopic fool he is. He will force Vitalik to plead with miners to do an emergency hard fork to stop the leverage, which will of course entirely destroy Vitalik's and Ethereum reputation. Checkmate!

And I expected this, because I know who the attacker enforcer is as I had explained in other posts.

I'm looking forward to the smart contract that guarantees a miner a million ETH for processing the "attacker" transactions. Someone will be bought. And I'll be ready with popped corn.

I agree. I doubt the attacker is done. He has a counter move. I know the attacker from past debates with him.

Those buying ETH at $12 are taking a risk. The carnage may not be over yet.

He is probably letting more fools go long (to maximize the lesson he is trying to teach them) before he renews his 2000 BTC shorts and attacks anew.

[iamnotback]

Andreas is doubling-down on desperation?

If I am a miner, I will support the soft fork and freeze the stolen funds. If the DAO holders offer us 50% of the stolen funds, we will do a hard fork.

If the miners can benefit from the hacking like this and the hacker does not benefit, he may think twice before his next hacking.

Other miners will mine more profitably by accepting his offer and thus have a greater hashrate.

Checkmate. Your vote has been economically overridden.

Andreas and Emin getting frantic and grasping for straws:

https://twitter.com/el33th4xor/status/744769932739624960

So 2 wrongs make a right?

Nope. You all had a chance to only get a 30% haircut, but you were determined to vote, thus commit 2 wrongs and break Nash equilibrium and lose 100%:

The "attacker" was very emphathetic. He offered a 30% haircut, but you n00bs weren't contented and so you now you will lose everything.

Stoopid.

What are you taking about 30% haircut?

In the attacker's original interview, he stated he stopped draining the DAO at 30% drained, as an olive branch of sorts. But this depends of course of you not stealing his rightfully gained tokens with your insecure 51% attack hard fork.

Since you've all voted to steal his tokens, he is forced to drain the rest of your tokens and redistribute them to a new set of miners who will replace your existing miners.

You guys passed up the best chance you had to not lose it all.