[ANN] Ethereum: Welcome to the Beginning

[_ingsoc]

When will they release this coin? What does "Test Release" means?

Testnet means we can mess around with Ethereum (incomplete) without any of it being "real". So you can download the code, do stuff, possibly even mine, but none of it has any "value". That's on mainnet.

[1714171254]

1714171254

[1714171254]

1714171254

[1714171254]

1714171254

[1714171254]

1714171254

[1714171254]

1714171254

[1714171254]

1714171254

[_ingsoc]

Since the fundraiser is now delayed and a testnet will be run first, the discussion about that seems to be unnecessary. So lets focus on the technical aspects and development for now.

It's kind of like a hostage situation when people are unhappy with terms. They won't commit their ideas to the actual project until the demands on both sides can find balance. For some people that balance never comes, but there's obviously a large percentage of people who post here who are unhappy with what's been proposed in exchange for their Bitcoin and won't release their thoughts to Ethereum even though they're interested (therefore holding their energy hostage before spending it on the project constructively).

The delayed fundraiser has put the thought in their minds that the terms may be under review, so they've cooled it a bit. I don't know if that's actually the case, so we wait and see.

[KoinMaster]

Thanks Charles for this reply, the community has been waiting for this statement for almost a week now. No one questing the financial expertise of GS. The question is what are they using it for?

The answer: To control/screw/scam people, the market, the little guy, and also countries....

The best example is Greece. Goldman Sachs has been advising Greece to join the euro, despite the fact that they knew Greece was cooking its books/budget number. In fact GS helped Greece in cooking its budget and hide it's true national debt level. Then, after that country joined the Euro, they were secretly betting on its default.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/greek-debt-crisis-how-goldman-sachs-helped-greece-to-mask-its-true-debt-a-676634.html
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-02-25-bernanke-fed-greece_N.htm

And this is only one evil deed from Goldman Sachs. There are hundreds of more.

Does the Ethereum Project really wants to be associated with such a parasitic entity?

These are the facts...

Will this information make a difference for you guys at Ethereum?

Only you could tell......

How many times do they need to say there is no Goldman Sachs connection? 90+% of this forum would benefit greatly from taking comprehension classes. Every freakin' post has some tie to Goldman Sachs, when if you just read through the information and go back to the source you'd realise it's totally stupid.

Cool down man! Please don't try to suggest that we were the ones who brought up the GS connection. If Charles hadn't mention it in the introductory video, we wouldn't be speaking about it. And because somebody says something this doesn't make it true. You should know that. We need convincing, open and honest communication.

[_ingsoc]

Cool down man! Please don't try to suggest that we were the ones who brought up the GS connection. If Charles hadn't mention it in the introductory video, we wouldn't be speaking about it. And because somebody says something this doesn't make it true. You should know that. We need convincing, open and honest communication.

Oh my God, are you kidding me? Can we just put the Goldman Sachs logo on the back of one of those t-shirt designs? If this is the average Bitcointalk user's reasoning, we are doomed. GMO got to you.

[lonsharim]

This really cracks me up

And because somebody says something this doesn't make it true.

What don't you believe? Charles telling in the video that a couple of guys working on the project used to work for GS in the past or Charles categorically stating on the thread that GS has nothing to do with Ethereum or both?

What this proves is that there is a little bit of trust deficit especially as you are evaluating whether or not to invest your hard earned money. Ultimately nothing anyone is going to say to you is going to make any difference because there will always be a lingering doubt. You have had explicit clarifications from the man in the video himself. There is no real way to solve this other than accepting that the man is telling the truth. If you don't believe and GS bothers you so much then there is only one recourse - don't risk it man.

[KoinMaster]

Cool down man! Please don't try to suggest that we were the ones who brought up the GS connection. If Charles hadn't mention it in the introductory video, we wouldn't be speaking about it. And because somebody says something this doesn't make it true. You should know that. We need convincing, open and honest communication.

Oh my God, are you kidding me? Can we just put the Goldman Sachs logo on the back of one of those t-shirt designs? If this is the average Bitcointalk user's reasoning, we are doomed. GMO got to you.

Personal attacks won't shut me up, so you might want to reconsider your communication strategy.

[FreeTrade]

Do I understand correctly that there is a 75% premine on Ethereum?

25% for devs that can't be spent for a year
50% for a foundation

Do I understand furthermore that the Bitcoin raised is going to pay Dev salaries, so if the whole thing blows up - the devs and staff still get paid?

[KoinMaster]

This really cracks me up

And because somebody says something this doesn't make it true.

What don't you believe? Charles telling in the video that a couple of guys working on the project used to work for GS in the past or Charles categorically stating on the thread that GS has nothing to do with Ethereum or both?

What this proves is that there is a little bit of trust deficit especially as you are evaluating whether or not to invest your hard earned money. Ultimately nothing anyone is going to say to you is going to make any difference because there will always be a lingering doubt. You have had explicit clarifications from the man in the video himself. There is no real way to solve this other than accepting that the man is telling the truth. If you don't believe and GS bothers you so much then there is only one recourse - don't risk it man.

The sentence you are quoting from me refers to the status quo before Charles' recent statement here on this forum about no GS-connection. I will probably invest in ETH, but not before asking hard questions and not letting been shut up before I get satisfactory answers to them.  

[dabosshun]

When will they release this coin? What does "Test Release" means?

Testnet means we can mess around with Ethereum (incomplete) without any of it being "real". So you can download the code, do stuff, possibly even mine, but none of it has any "value". That's on mainnet.

Thanks for the answer!
But how about the other one: When will this coin be released (not the Test stuff)?

[FreeTrade]

Lets put the fundraiser in simple terms that everyone can understand.  Everyone should agree agree that all investments should have a proper risk/reward ratio. This project itself has a lot of risk and potentially a lot of reward, so neither can outweigh the other.  Now lets look at this objectively from that perspective.

Ethereum project;
Risk = Very High
Reward = Very High

Founders;
Risk = 0%
Reward=100%

Early adopters;
Risk = 100%
Reward = ?

Put that on a graph.  Does that seem like a fair transaction to you?  

Hmmm - I'm reminded a little of Dragon's Den - The entrepreneur asks for a big investment. The dragons ask what it will be used for. The entrepreneur says 'to pay myself a big salary'. The dragon says 'I'm out'.

I want to see the devs with skin in the game - if their project fails, they shouldn't be sitting on a big BTC cushion.

[lonsharim]

Thanks for the answer!
But how about the other one: When will this coin be released (not the Test stuff)?

That's going to take sometime judging by the timelines we have seen already. Previously it was a 2 months IPO (between 1st Feb and March end) after which mining could be done and coins could be exchanged etc. Now that the IPO has been delayed we will have the see the new terms of the IPO when it is announced.

[lonsharim]

The sentence you are quoting from me refers to the status quo before Charles' recent statement here on this forum about no GS-connection. I will probably invest in ETH, but not before asking hard questions and not letting been shut up before I get satisfactory answers to them.  

Indeed, that is your prerogative

[gutshot5820]

They need to offer more ETH per bitcoin, lower the MAX to an acceptable level and therefore the pre-mine.  And lower their shares of the coin to a level that doesn't reflect a persona of greed. If they are right and follow through, they can still be multi-millionaires by changing the structure in a way that it is not overly diluted and fair and equitable to early investors.  The way is is structured now, they are punishing you for being an early adopter and instantly becoming wealthy without any risk at all.

Lets put the fundraiser in simple terms that everyone can understand.  Everyone should agree agree that all investments should have a proper risk/reward ratio. This project itself has a lot of risk and potentially a lot of reward, so neither can outweigh the other.  Now lets look at this objectively from that perspective.

Ethereum project;
Risk = Very High
Reward = Very High

Founders;
Risk = 0%
Reward=100%

Early adopters;
Risk = 100%
Reward = ?

Put that on a graph.  Does that seem like a fair transaction to you? 

I like you a lot more when you don't tell me to kill myself. I'm quoting you because this is the essence of what you've been getting at in all your ramblings, and I think these are fair concerns.

Well I am glad you have some concerns and will at least weigh pros and cons before investing.  Just look at the risk/reward ratio and it is way out of line, bordering on insanity.  If you were the world's greatest cook and asked a venture capitalist or businessman to fund your new restaurant,  Guess who makes the most money?  Whoever takes the most risk.  That's the guy who is paying for the risk out of his own pocket.  It's been that way since the beginning of time.  Granted, if you have risked a lot of your time and mental energy, you deserve payment for assuming that risk of your time and potential energy as sweat equity.

This is the only project that I have ever heard of that the founders have no sweat equity, no equity in capital and want all the rewards before the business even opens and then will ask the investment community to fund the entire project before it even starts and assume all of the risk.

I have been appalled at that concept from day one, it is borderline insane and downright thievery of the bitcoin community in my opinion.

[Taborresen]

I don't know how you can NOT understand "up to 30,000 bitcoin" and "50% pre-mine" its staring right at everyone's face.  We can all do the math and surmise the repercussions from this deal.  You can't sweep it under the rug or divert our attention from it with tech talk.  100 questions wont answer that one.  If you can't figure out what everyone's main concern/disgust is and you have to gather a list of questions to ferret it out....I don't know how to respond to that.

We should ask and let them answer. We should give them a chance to corrects these mistakes by changing(even cancelling) the IPO terms and the 50% premine (to 1%). Also we demand PoW before investing.

Give them a chance? Demand?

Then dont invest.

[Herp]

The Goldman Sachs issue is relevant in the stupid context of this overly greedy structured IPO, of leaving nothing on the table for investors. It's about those ex Goldman guys being behind this lame IPO structure. Doesn't matter if they work or don't work for Goldman Sachs anymore.

Funny how devs here are making 180 degree turn saying they won't allow Goldman Sachs to invest, yet they've bragged about their team members working for Goldman Sachs as being a good thing. This pretty much shows a duplicitous nature.

[lonsharim]

We should ask and let them answer. We should give them a chance to corrects these mistakes by changing(even cancelling) the IPO terms and the 50% premine (to 1%). Also we demand PoW before investing.

If you read Vitalik's original post on Ethereum (I think on the unofficial thread) he talks about empowering all different categories of people involved in cryptocurrencies, the miners, investors and the development community. I think in terms of fairness it allows everyone to access piece of the pie. If IPO is too risky for instance you can either mine or participate in the project or simply buy once the IPO is over. I actually like this issuance model.

0.5X going to founders, early stakeholders and developers along with the BTC raised is a legitimate concern that I think is shared by a large number of people and I hope before or by the next announcement for the IPO this is revised and explained in greater detail.

I think for the sake of transparency if they open up and say how they plan to spend the minimum 500 BTC they want to raise it might put to rest some of the concerns. Does it automatically scale if the IPO raises 5000 BTC? Is there a reserve fund for excess money raised beyond what is required? Do the original stakeholders (i.e. the founders) also get remunerated?

I don't think some of the answers will be forthcoming immediately because it looks like these points are being debated behind the scene and are evolving. As long as I know these answers before the IPO I can make an informed decision.

[zhao150]

why IPO cancel?

[Herp]

why IPO cancel?

Because it would have been a failure given this cold negative reception. Dev's statement says something else about mining algo or some BS like that but it's nonsense. That wasn't the real reason, just some announcement to save face.

[_ingsoc]

If you read Vitalik's original post on Ethereum (I think on the unofficial thread) he talks about empowering all different categories of people involved in cryptocurrencies, the miners, investors and the development community. I think in terms of fairness it allows everyone to access piece of the pie. If IPO is too risky for instance you can either mine or participate in the project or simply buy once the IPO is over. I actually like this issuance model.

0.5X going to founders, early stakeholders and developers along with the BTC raised is a legitimate concern that I think is shared by a large number of people and I hope before or by the next announcement for the IPO this is revised and explained in greater detail.

There's no doubt this is what most of the community seem to think on here. I like the issuance model too. However, I do think gutshot5820 finally articulates important points on the idea of risk. It's great to empower everyone and allow all of us to get a piece of the pie, but people who contribute early are asked to carry significantly greater risk than those who get in on the project when it's been built and is ready.

I think the bigger issue is that people feel they don't get enough in return for the risk they have to carry, which is turning people off and is echoed throughout the thread, given that the perception is 1000-2000 Ether isn't that much per Bitcoin if coupled with dilution and very little risk for the creators. Whether this is an accurate perception, I don't know.

[_ingsoc]

Because it would have been a failure given this cold negative reception. Dev's statement says something else about mining algo or some BS like that but it's nonsense. That wasn't the real reason, just some announcement to save face.

I think a more accurate statement is that they've been overwhelmed. They did not expect to receive this much attention prior to the fundraiser. They need to get proper infrastructure in place and get people to engage the community. That's my take. It's not an easy task.