|
Herp
|
 |
January 30, 2014, 01:09:39 PM |
|
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. Yeah, they want to raise a fat chunk in initial IPO followed by crap dilution afterwards and inflation. Mining = inflation There's no inflation or dilution in Mastercoin for example. They've released a fixed number and that's it. No more pumping into the market. Also, the fat % allocated to themselves is really shameful. Taking 0% of the risk while being this shamefully greedy is also lame. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even if you use Bitcoin through Tor, the way transactions are handled by the network makes anonymity difficult to achieve. Do not expect your transactions to be anonymous unless you really know what you're doing.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_ingsoc
|
|
January 30, 2014, 01:16:42 PM |
|
There's no inflation or dilution in Mastercoin for example. They've released a fixed number and that's it. No more pumping into the market.
In that case, Mastercoin is an apt name because anyone who enters the market after someone else is a slave to the person before them. Inflation, if understood and used correctly, is important because it can serve new generations who don't want to be slaves. |
|
|
|
|
lonsharim
|
|
January 30, 2014, 01:18:22 PM |
|
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.
Surely if we are raising X ether in IPO the starting mining difficulty will correspondingly have to be adjusted. Whatever the number of hashes your rig produce, if you can mine the basic minimum of 1000 ether faster than you can scrypt mine alt-coins worth 1 BTC this will be unfair to IPO investors. I don't think I have read anything about this but I also think that mining 1000-2000 ethers will not be that quick. If that happens than ether will fall below its starting price because of P&D tactics. The only logical conclusion the project developers will not be unfair to the IPO investors (with their 0.5X vested interest) ergo inflation created by mining will not have as large an impact as we think. |
|
|
|
|
|
Herp
|
|
January 30, 2014, 01:18:29 PM |
|
There's no inflation or dilution in Mastercoin for example. They've released a fixed number and that's it. No more pumping into the market.
In that case, Mastercoin is an apt name because anyone who enters the market after someone else is a slave to the person before them. Inflation, if understood and used correctly, is important because it can serve new generations who don't want to be slaves. You mean if you buy something from someone in a voluntary exchange you're a slave? Really? |
|
|
|
|
lonsharim
|
|
January 30, 2014, 01:23:07 PM |
|
There's no inflation or dilution in Mastercoin for example. They've released a fixed number and that's it. No more pumping into the market.
In that case, Mastercoin is an apt name because anyone who enters the market after someone else is a slave to the person before them. Inflation, if understood and used correctly, is important because it can serve new generations who don't want to be slaves. You mean if you buy something from someone in a voluntary exchange you're a slave? Really? He is talking about first mover advantage which is a valid concern. With mining ethers especially on the algo they are claiming a CPU miner will still be able to get something even if he is late in adopting the platform and currency. This gives it a true decentralized (non-concentrated) advantage something neither Mastercoin nor Nxt can claim. What better way for a platform/currency to succeed than to be truly distributed. It's a long term view which may not match the view of speculative investment. |
|
|
|
|
|
Herp
|
|
January 30, 2014, 01:29:55 PM |
|
There's no inflation or dilution in Mastercoin for example. They've released a fixed number and that's it. No more pumping into the market.
In that case, Mastercoin is an apt name because anyone who enters the market after someone else is a slave to the person before them. Inflation, if understood and used correctly, is important because it can serve new generations who don't want to be slaves. You mean if you buy something from someone in a voluntary exchange you're a slave? Really? He is talking about first mover advantage which is a valid concern. With mining ethers especially on the algo they are claiming a CPU miner will still be able to get something even if he is late in adopting the platform and currency. This gives it a true decentralized (non-concentrated) advantage something neither Mastercoin nor Nxt can claim. What better way for a platform/currency to succeed than to be truly distributed. It's a long term way which may not match the view of speculative investment. Sorry but this is totally BS claim. Someone joining the network will mine hard for some currency he might buy cheaper from some exchange as he won't be able to compete with big corporate miners. The mining model means inflation and devaluation, which lowers potential profits for currency holders. It also creates unnecessary energy consumption which is also not required. |
|
|
|
|
lonsharim
|
|
January 30, 2014, 01:32:21 PM |
|
There's no inflation or dilution in Mastercoin for example. They've released a fixed number and that's it. No more pumping into the market.
In that case, Mastercoin is an apt name because anyone who enters the market after someone else is a slave to the person before them. Inflation, if understood and used correctly, is important because it can serve new generations who don't want to be slaves. You mean if you buy something from someone in a voluntary exchange you're a slave? Really? He is talking about first mover advantage which is a valid concern. With mining ethers especially on the algo they are claiming a CPU miner will still be able to get something even if he is late in adopting the platform and currency. This gives it a true decentralized (non-concentrated) advantage something neither Mastercoin nor Nxt can claim. What better way for a platform/currency to succeed than to be truly distributed. It's a long term way which may not match the view of speculative investment. Sorry but this is totally BS claim. Someone joining the network will mine hard for some currency he might buy cheaper from some exchange as he won't be able to compete with big corporate miners. The mining model means inflation and devaluation, which lowers potential profits for currency holders. It also creates unnecessary energy consumption which is also not required. The fact that he might get it cheaper on the exchange than mining is actually pure speculation on your part. After having spent 1/1000 for an ether why would I want to sell it for lower. |
|
|
|
|
|
Herp
|
|
January 30, 2014, 01:40:40 PM |
|
There's no inflation or dilution in Mastercoin for example. They've released a fixed number and that's it. No more pumping into the market.
In that case, Mastercoin is an apt name because anyone who enters the market after someone else is a slave to the person before them. Inflation, if understood and used correctly, is important because it can serve new generations who don't want to be slaves. You mean if you buy something from someone in a voluntary exchange you're a slave? Really? He is talking about first mover advantage which is a valid concern. With mining ethers especially on the algo they are claiming a CPU miner will still be able to get something even if he is late in adopting the platform and currency. This gives it a true decentralized (non-concentrated) advantage something neither Mastercoin nor Nxt can claim. What better way for a platform/currency to succeed than to be truly distributed. It's a long term way which may not match the view of speculative investment. Sorry but this is totally BS claim. Someone joining the network will mine hard for some currency he might buy cheaper from some exchange as he won't be able to compete with big corporate miners. The mining model means inflation and devaluation, which lowers potential profits for currency holders. It also creates unnecessary energy consumption which is also not required. The fact that he might get it cheaper on the exchange than mining is actually pure speculation on your part. After having spent 1/1000 for an ether why would I want to sell it for lower. Point is fresh currency keeps coming to the market by mining, devaluing the stake of existing holders and we're also talking pre-mine here, which excludes the community. So basically people buy into this IPO based on "proof of stake" and then devaluation comes with "proof of work". Cleverly designed model to rip off people. People are also taking a huge chance of them delivering on some complicated Turing when coins like Mastercoin are already testing their distributed exchange, days away from launch. People are also taking the risk of giving up 1st mover advantage and we know what 1st mover advantage meant for Bitcoin. You don't see alt coin atms being installed everywhere in the world for example. Bitcoin is the superstar due to 1st mover advantage. Very often it's not a question of who has best tech but a question of adoption. This is why HD DVD lost the fight with Blueray, for eg, even though they've had better specs. |
|
|
|
|
lonsharim
|
|
January 30, 2014, 02:09:46 PM |
|
Point is fresh currency keeps coming to the market by mining, devaluing the stake of existing holders and we're also talking pre-mine here, which excludes the community. So basically people buy into this IPO based on "proof of stake" and then devaluation comes with "proof of work". Cleverly designed model to rip off people.
People are also taking a huge chance of them delivering on some complicated Turing when coins like Mastercoin are already testing their distributed exchange, days away from launch. People are also taking the risk of giving up 1st mover advantage and we know what 1st mover advantage meant for Bitcoin. You don't see alt coin atms being installed everywhere in the world for example. Bitcoin is the superstar due to 1st mover advantage. Very often it's not a question of who has best tech but a question of adoption. This is why HD DVD lost the fight with Blueray, for eg, even though they've had better specs. You are mixing two different things here Firstly with regards to dilution and speculation, its a valid concern but if you want to purely speculate then in the medium term you have time. Day 1 after the IPO only X is available, Day 2 is X + 0.4/365 * X (for the sake of simplicity) and a large portion of inflation happens on Day 366 when X + 0.4X + 30% of 0.5X is in circulation and available - assuming there are no hoarders and no long term view investors. You have at the very least months before you decide your exit strategy if you are in it only for speculation. Secondly, no one ever said it is not a risk. I do not understand you plugging for Mastercoin at every given opportunity, its smacks of bias. Worse is to call this a model designed to rip off people. If you don't agree with the model that's perfectly fine, but to question the honesty of people associated with this project based on your dislike of issuance model without anything concrete is not cool. |
|
|
|
|
|
Herp
|
|
January 30, 2014, 02:31:46 PM |
|
Point is fresh currency keeps coming to the market by mining, devaluing the stake of existing holders and we're also talking pre-mine here, which excludes the community. So basically people buy into this IPO based on "proof of stake" and then devaluation comes with "proof of work". Cleverly designed model to rip off people.
People are also taking a huge chance of them delivering on some complicated Turing when coins like Mastercoin are already testing their distributed exchange, days away from launch. People are also taking the risk of giving up 1st mover advantage and we know what 1st mover advantage meant for Bitcoin. You don't see alt coin atms being installed everywhere in the world for example. Bitcoin is the superstar due to 1st mover advantage. Very often it's not a question of who has best tech but a question of adoption. This is why HD DVD lost the fight with Blueray, for eg, even though they've had better specs. You are mixing two different things here Firstly with regards to dilution and speculation, its a valid concern but if you want to purely speculate then in the medium term you have time. Day 1 after the IPO only X is available, Day 2 is X + 0.4/365 * X (for the sake of simplicity) and a large portion of inflation happens on Day 366 when X + 0.4X + 30% of 0.5X is in circulation and available - assuming there are no hoarders and no long term view investors. You have at the very least months before you decide your exit strategy if you are in it only for speculation. Secondly, no one ever said it is not a risk. I do not understand you plugging for Mastercoin at every given opportunity, its smacks of bias. Worse is to call this a model designed to rip off people. If you don't agree with the model that's perfectly fine, but to question the honesty of people associated with this project based on your dislike of issuance model without anything concrete is not cool. I own some Mastercoin, Angel Protoshares and other cryptos and I wanted to get into this Ethereum also. If you check my posting history you'll see I was among the very first to learn about this venture during a forum spat between Invictus and Etherum founder, when project wasn't yet announced. This financing model is ripping off people by putting huge chunk of risk on their back while taking none themselves. About the latter, one may ask how honest are these people involved if this issuance is so rip off like? Can you trust them delivering going further when they seem to care more about getting settled for life and becoming millionaires rather than other consideration? |
|
|
|
|
lonsharim
|
|
January 30, 2014, 02:50:45 PM |
|
This financing model is ripping off people by putting huge chunk of risk on their back while taking none themselves. About the latter, one may ask how honest are these people involved if this issuance is so rip off like? Can you trust them delivering going further when they seem to care more about getting settled for life and becoming millionaires rather than other consideration?
I may be completely wrong here but I believe that the issuance model will be further tweaked and balanced before the IPO's new date is announced. Eventually no matter what the model is, it is not going to satisfy each and everyone of us. That I am pretty sure of. For sure as potential investors we would like more clarity and hopefully more balanced terms. Only time will tell but we must give them that opportunity before we start questioning their honesty. That's how I feel about it anyway. I also feel that a lot of us look at this purely as profit and as commodity like much of the crypto currency universe and I think Ethereum has the potential to be more than that. Whether or not that potential is fulfilled is another debate. I am really excited about the possibility to incentivize p2p activities - whatever than might be - entirely up to the imagination of the independent developer who will built an application to leverage this platform. Since the advent of internet p2p has been a purely altruistic endevour which as has been pointed out serves the needs of the mainstream very well. Here is an opportunity and an incentive to do something beyond the mainstream in a truly decentralized fashion, a platform to leverage something other than a financial instrument. Its a really remarkable thought and if it is realized (lots of ifs and buts at this stage) it represents the next evolution of internet. Given such a lofty aim I am not sure how I can measure the worth the currency that will play an instrumental part of it. Maybe I am being too optimistic but I rather see this project succeed in its aims notwithstanding its inflationary tendencies and its effects on my investments. That's why I must invest only as much as I am prepared to risk and not a single satoshi more. Should you decide to invest I will give you the same advice. |
|
|
|
|
|
opticalcarrier
|
|
January 30, 2014, 03:18:59 PM |
|
ok ill bite, can someone explain just what exactly all this "turing-complete" compatible IS and how it works? Explain it to the level of someone with a BS in IT and who has worked professionally in IT for 20 years as a network tech
|
|
|
|
|
|
turtoro
|
|
January 30, 2014, 04:12:05 PM |
|
ok ill bite, can someone explain just what exactly all this "turing-complete" compatible IS and how it works? Explain it to the level of someone with a BS in IT and who has worked professionally in IT for 20 years as a network tech
sure: 01000001 00100000 01100011 01101111 01101101 01110000 01110101 01110100 01100001 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 01100001 01101100 00100000 01110011 01111001 01110011 01110100 01100101 01101101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 00100000 01100011 01101111 01101101 01110000 01110101 01110100 01100101 00100000 01100101 01110110 01100101 01110010 01111001 00100000 01010100 01110101 01110010 01101001 01101110 01100111 00101101 01100011 01101111 01101101 01110000 01110101 01110100 01100001 01100010 01101100 01100101 00100000 01100110 01110101 01101110 01100011 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101100 01101100 01100101 01100100 00100000 01010100 01110101 01110010 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01100011 01101111 01101101 01110000 01101100 01100101 01110100 01100101 00100000 00101000 01101111 01110010 00100000 01010100 01110101 01110010 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110000 01101111 01110111 01100101 01110010 01100110 01110101 01101100 00101001 00101110 00100000 01000001 01101100 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01100001 01110100 01101001 01110110 01100101 01101100 01111001 00101100 00100000 01110011 01110101 01100011 01101000 00100000 01100001 00100000 01110011 01111001 01110011 01110100 01100101 01101101 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101111 01101110 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 00100000 01110011 01101001 01101101 01110101 01101100 01100001 01110100 01100101 00100000 01100001 00100000 01110101 01101110 01101001 01110110 01100101 01110010 01110011 01100001 01101100 00100000 01010100 01110101 01110010 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01101101 01100001 01100011 01101000 01101001 01101110 01100101 00101110 01101001 01110100 01110011 00100000 01100010 01100001 01110011 01101001 01100011 01100001 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01110011 01100001 01101100 01100101 01110011 00100000 01100110 01101100 01110101 01100110 01100110 |
|
|
|
|
ddink7
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1000
|
|
January 30, 2014, 04:46:16 PM |
|
ok ill bite, can someone explain just what exactly all this "turing-complete" compatible IS and how it works? Explain it to the level of someone with a BS in IT and who has worked professionally in IT for 20 years as a network tech
sure: 01000001 00100000 01100011 01101111 01101101 01110000 01110101 01110100 01100001 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 01100001 01101100 00100000 01110011 01111001 01110011 01110100 01100101 01101101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 00100000 01100011 01101111 01101101 01110000 01110101 01110100 01100101 00100000 01100101 01110110 01100101 01110010 01111001 00100000 01010100 01110101 01110010 01101001 01101110 01100111 00101101 01100011 01101111 01101101 01110000 01110101 01110100 01100001 01100010 01101100 01100101 00100000 01100110 01110101 01101110 01100011 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101100 01101100 01100101 01100100 00100000 01010100 01110101 01110010 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01100011 01101111 01101101 01110000 01101100 01100101 01110100 01100101 00100000 00101000 01101111 01110010 00100000 01010100 01110101 01110010 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110000 01101111 01110111 01100101 01110010 01100110 01110101 01101100 00101001 00101110 00100000 01000001 01101100 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01100001 01110100 01101001 01110110 01100101 01101100 01111001 00101100 00100000 01110011 01110101 01100011 01101000 00100000 01100001 00100000 01110011 01111001 01110011 01110100 01100101 01101101 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101111 01101110 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 00100000 01110011 01101001 01101101 01110101 01101100 01100001 01110100 01100101 00100000 01100001 00100000 01110101 01101110 01101001 01110110 01100101 01110010 01110011 01100001 01101100 00100000 01010100 01110101 01110010 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01101101 01100001 01100011 01101000 01101001 01101110 01100101 00101110 01101001 01110100 01110011 00100000 01100010 01100001 01110011 01101001 01100011 01100001 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01110011 01100001 01101100 01100101 01110011 00100000 01100110 01101100 01110101 01100110 01100110 ^This. But seriously, Turing complete means that Ethereum will essentially be a full programming language, which can do anything that a full programming language can do. As opposed to Bitcoin, which can only do certain things as defined by its protocol--which was intentionally limited by Satoshi. |
|
|
|
|
nexern
|
|
January 30, 2014, 06:52:43 PM |
|
don't know where the hype for turing completeness is coming from but it is much more difficult, to find a language (or even sub-language) which is NOT turing complete in reference to it's usage design. anyway, the by far much more interesting question is how this semi-smart-code is sandboxed efficently without loosing to much functionality. i doubt, using the current browser (javasrcipt) sandboxing as a blueprint will work in a solid way. instead reducing the language to gain security the other way around should be considered too. giving the code self-reflection/modifying capabilities could solve this. the best language combination from my pov would be erlang (self-healing nodes, nearly unbreakable once running) as bc carrier and lisp/scheme (self-modifiable) to add logic on top. in this combination you have ultra-tons of turing completeness if you in the need...  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
grajson
Member
Offline
Activity: 100
Merit: 11
|
|
January 30, 2014, 08:54:12 PM |
|
I am newbie but realy interested in this project. I think that If they were expecting at least 500BTC from IPO and that would be enough for them, so why it would'nt be enough if ppl invest more? I would suggest premine 500BTC worth ethers = 10000000*0,5 for ther expenses no matter how much total investment will be. Or at least their % share should gradualy decerase along with the increase of the overall amount of investment. It would encourage more investors and give bigger chance for project to be succesfull - everybody would be happy  |
|
|
|
ddink7
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1000
|
|
January 30, 2014, 09:44:03 PM |
|
I am newbie but realy interested in this project. I think that If they were expecting at least 500BTC from IPO and that would be enough for them, so why it would'nt be enough if ppl invest more? I would suggest premine 500BTC worth ethers = 10000000*0,5 for ther expenses no matter how much total investment will be. Or at least their % share should gradualy decerase along with the increase of the overall amount of investment. It would encourage more investors and give bigger chance for project to be succesfull - everybody would be happy The problem is that one moderately wealthy person could invest all 500 BTC and end up owning all of the ether. You can't really set per-person limits, either, due to Sybil attacks (people making multiple wallets/forum identities/email addresses/etc. and investing with each). You also can't force everyone to invest via bank wire, which might provide some clues as to identity, but would create a "taxable event" in many jurisdictions. It's really a conundrum. |
|
|
|
|
_ingsoc
|
|
January 30, 2014, 09:46:30 PM |
|
I am newbie but realy interested in this project. I think that If they were expecting at least 500BTC from IPO and that would be enough for them, so why it would'nt be enough if ppl invest more? I would suggest premine 500BTC worth ethers = 10000000*0,5 for ther expenses no matter how much total investment will be. Or at least their % share should gradualy decerase along with the increase of the overall amount of investment. It would encourage more investors and give bigger chance for project to be succesfull - everybody would be happy The problem is that one moderately wealthy person could invest all 500 BTC and end up owning all of the ether. You can't really set per-person limits, either, due to Sybil attacks (people making multiple wallets/forum identities/email addresses/etc. and investing with each). You also can't force everyone to invest via bank wire, which might provide some clues as to identity, but would create a "taxable event" in many jurisdictions. It's really a conundrum. If anyone is interested, there's some discussion about this going on at /r/ethereum, including vbuterin (a founder). |
|
|
|
greentea
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1418
Merit: 1002
|
|
January 30, 2014, 09:48:09 PM |
|
I am newbie but realy interested in this project. I think that If they were expecting at least 500BTC from IPO and that would be enough for them, so why it would'nt be enough if ppl invest more? I would suggest premine 500BTC worth ethers = 10000000*0,5 for ther expenses no matter how much total investment will be. Or at least their % share should gradualy decerase along with the increase of the overall amount of investment. It would encourage more investors and give bigger chance for project to be succesfull - everybody would be happy I say get rid of the premine altogether as it immediately dilutes investors Ether right from the start. Raising money via an IPO AND 50% premine is what most people are complaining about... There's been no good valid explanation for the 50% premine. |
|
|
|
|
