Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[awemany]

@cliff: Funny. I am actually getting a little bit more optimistic that the miners will ditch Core sometime soon. Maybe that's just mood cycles we all have, but not phase-aligned all the time

I think part of the uneasyness is that we have a bunch of aimless trolls steering Bitcoin according to their gut feeling and delusions and that we simply have so much anger now, in the community.

I do think that the conflict was caused solely by propaganda and social engineering from Borgstream, Greg and the Dipshits.

The miners so far have been just hypnotically following Core along. That seems to change a bit.

Also: Think about what the miners could do to regain (relative to alts) market confidence in Bitcoin? I can only see that a bold move would unify the community again. And I cannot see the miners further following Core to be that bold move.

@Jihan: If you ever go with SegWit, wait for Litecoin to do it first. Litecoin said they wanna do it. That saves us from a potential DAO situation, by getting some proper, live-testing of the SegWit code.

 

[cypherdoc]

New article by Daniel Krawisz: Etherium is Doomed

ouch:


Ethereum truly is different from other altcoins. If I had looked into Ethereum more carefully, I might have noticed that economics was not the only subject that the Ethereum devs did not understand. They also don’t understand law and software engineering. They created a situation in which bugs would be expected to arise in an environment in which bugs are legally exploitable. That is hacker heaven.

A sign that no one is prepared to write smart contracts in Solidity is the fact that the Ethereum dev team, the people who designed both Solidity and the DAO, could not even fix their own bug. They don’t have the ability to approach these bugs correctly, and neither, in my opinion, does anyone else. It may be possible to reliably write smart contracts that work correctly, but currently no one knows how to do it. The dev team is not likely to figure it out any time soon because they still think that this is just a bug in the DAO rather than a serious problem with their entire system. If you want a smart contract that you can actually use, you have to be certain that it is bug-free before it is deployed. there are no known tools or methods available to Solidity developers which could provide an appropriate level of certainty. Such tools will take years to be developed and until they are in common use, no Ethereum smart contract should be trusted. Ethereum is doomed.
[doublepost=1466458087][/doublepost]looks awesome:

http://razorsforex.blogspot.com/2016/06/bitcoin-trading-volumes-surge-in-brazil.html

 

[cypherdoc]

US lagging badly:

http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/20/11975356/chinese-supercomputer-worlds-fastes-taihulight

 

[bracek]

any comments on this ?

 

[lunar]

I'm surprised no one is talking about this? It seems to be a subtle but hostile mining hardfork?

I'd love to hear some knowledgable thoughts. Does it mess with BU too?

 

[albin]

@lunar

Softforks are the same as hardforks to a miner in practice, because a non-upgraded miner can be tricked into mining on top of an invalid block at minimum, up to having all their work orphaned depending on what the softfork is doing.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

To me, this whole dao-shit smells like an attack. Especially the statements after it.

The whole borgstream-loyal jerkery and a social media army are instantly ready to fire against ethereum ...

Did You notice the wordplay? They redefine words again. They bully against a fork in eth with The argument of holy decentralization. While a fork at all has nothing to so with centralization, in the case of The dao hack it does even prevent holding centralization. But as they implicitly tell, a hard fork is a nogo, because decentralization.
[doublepost=1466467576][/doublepost]Sorry for Smartphone english. Had to tell the thought. @Norway unfortunately, no, i don't visit oslo. Tomorrow i m gonna visit bodo. I love this area of The World.

 

[cypherdoc]

/u/ydtm continuing to go off. bad news for Ethereum:

The horrifying conclusion is that:

• the only way to determine the semantics / behavior of a "smart contract" is "after-the-fact" - ie, by actually running it on some machine (eg, the notorious EVM) - and waiting to see what happens (eg, waiting for a hacker to "steal" tens of millions of dollars - simply because he understood the semantics / behavior of the code better than the developers did.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4p0gq3/why_turingcomplete_smart_contracts_are_doomed/

 

[VeritasSapere]

ouch:

A sign that no one is prepared to write smart contracts in Solidity is the fact that the Ethereum dev team, the people who designed both Solidity and the DAO, could not even fix their own bug. They don’t have the ability to approach these bugs correctly, and neither, in my opinion, does anyone else.

Do you see how this is very similar to the ideology held by some small blockists, the argument stems from the idea that a development team should not be able to hard fork in order to fix a bug. analogies can be drawn with the blocksize debate.

Such tools will take years to be developed and until they are in common use, no Ethereum smart contract should be trusted. Ethereum is doomed.

Can you see how he is contradicting himself here, if such tools will take years to be developed then Ethereum is not doomed, cryptocurrencies are incredibly resilient.

So he is claiming that Ethereum has certain bugs in the protocol and that they should not be allowed to fix it, thereby concluding that they are doomed. Can you see how this is very similar to the narrative within the Bitcoin blocksize debate. It has the potential to hold back and stagnate the growth of a cryptocurrency.

 

[lunar]

I'm starting to see why Ethereum and monetas have been working closely.
This on cryptofinance from Impact Summit Zug 2016 - Johann Gevers. Totally mind boggling some of the things that are being created in this space. The world seems on the verge of a new age of enlightenment.

 

[cypherdoc]

Do you see how this is very similar to the ideology held by some small blockists, the argument stems from the idea that a development team should not be able to hard fork in order to fix a bug. analogies can be drawn with the blocksize debate.

i don't see the analogy. the limit is just that, a limit. not a bug, which allowed DAO to be siphoned out of parent DAO to child DAO in less than 24 hr due to a recursive bug. just b/c you heard the term "HF" as a possible soln to the DAO debacle doesn't mean it's analogous to the small blockist blockade. a DAO soln involving a HF isn't even determined yet; could be a SF followed by a HF, or one of several proposals on the table. all of which are conflicted to the max b/c they involve a "hands on" approach which would be the death of Ethereum from a decentralized governance claim.

Can you see how he is contradicting himself here, if such tools will take years to be developed then Ethereum is not doomed, cryptocurrencies are incredibly resilient.

it's not a contradiction. the tools to fix coding weaknesses of Solidity could take years to fix. in the meantime, Ethereum certainly could die if the price goes to zero. there's no contradiction there at all. it's a harsh reality of a free mkt.

So he is claiming that Ethereum has certain bugs in the protocol and that they should not be allowed to fix it, thereby concluding that they are doomed. Can you see how this is very similar to the narrative within the Bitcoin blocksize debate.

step back and see how you keep trying to draw a parallel to what's happening in Bitcoin so that we should somehow show support for your debacle. i don't have a problem with ppl showing support or sympathy but everyone here should be allowed to express their opinion. for many of us who have warned about Ethereum ever since it's existence, this event shows that we were right to be skeptical.
[doublepost=1466477058,1466476357][/doublepost]valid skepticism of LN:

People should know there is a chance of loss of funds when using the Lightning Network

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4p1qk9/people_should_know_there_is_a_chance_of_loss_of/

 

[VeritasSapere]

could be a SF followed by a HF, or one of several proposals on the table. all of which are conflicted to the max b/c they involve a "hands on" approach which would be the death of Ethereum from a decentralized governance claim.

I do think this statement sounds like a line from small blockist ideology. The decision is ultimately being made in a distributed fashion through the miners, just like Bitcoin. I do not see how this would be the death of its decentralized governance claim? Furthermore Bitcoin has at times in the past had to make emergencies forks because of bugs in the code, where the developers had to take a "hands on" approach, I do not see anything wrong with this, especially at such an early stage with "consensus" also considering that such "consensus" will be much harder to reach in the future, just like Bitcoin today.

it's not a contradiction. the tools to fix coding weaknesses of Solidity could take years to fix. in the meantime, Ethereum certainly could die if the price goes to zero. there's no contradiction there at all. it's a harsh reality of a free mkt.

I think you underestimate how resilient cryptocurrencies really are. I do not think the value would ever fall to zero considering how much momentum this project already has. Even if the developers abandoned Ethereum which I would consider very unlikely, new ones would step up to continue and the nodes and miners will continue running especially for people that still believe in this project.

step back and see how you keep trying to draw a parallel to what's happening in Bitcoin so that we should somehow show support for your debacle. i don't have a problem with ppl showing support or sympathy but everyone here should be allowed to express their opinion. for many of us who have warned about Ethereum ever since it's existence, this event shows that we were right to be skeptical.

I am deliberately drawing this parallel because I am seeing it all through the ethereum community presently. I think it is intresting that we are seeing this division being created within the Ethereum community along some of these same ideological lines.

I am not trying to gain support for the Ethereum project, you are referring to it as my debacle, I have not been involved in the Ethereum project besides investment and mining. I have an interest in truth, and when I think that we are applying some of the same criticisms small blocksists have made against Bitcoin Unlimited and Classic, which we have defended against. I am going to point that out, consistence is important.

 

[cypherdoc]

@VeritasSapere

i've been reading all sorts of opinions in blog posts and listening to podcasts about this DAO debacle. it's not a good situation, at_all. there are all sorts of differing opinions and no easy answers. there's also plenty of criticism about the underlying code and programming language of using Solidity (see Krawicz & /u/ydtm). at some pt you have to decide whether to keep supporting Ethereum. i know you own Eth and consult for companies that you've guided towards Ethereum. that's gotta be tough and i don't envy you.

but i've outlined in detail here what i don't like about Ethereum many times. Vitalik's economics, the premine, the inflation, the undetermined security mechanism (which is now even more up in the air re: POS given the 5% DAO tokens of the attacker). i also don't think much of smart contracting as a problem to be solved in the real world compared to that of Sound Money. ppls of the world outside the US couldn't care about smart contracting for stocks, bonds, RE, commodity investing, etc. i've brought up all the legal ramifications of trying to execute controversial contracts outside the current legal system. in fact, you should listen to this podcast involving 2 Bitcoin attorneys, which i thought was pretty good: https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/andreas-antonopoulos-is-live-right-now-with-part-2-of-ltb-297-the-death-of-thedao

i highly doubt that smart contracting will abstract away the current legal system we have. there will ALWAYS be disputes requiring lawyers, judges, and a legal system that allows counterparties to argue their case. sophisticated investors are not going to just stand by and let their funds evaporate in a fully executing smart contract when they see a problem.

and there is no way Ether is meant to be a sound money. it's simply "fuel" to drive the contracting (whatever the hell that even means).

 

[albin]

If the forks happen to return ether to DAO participants, I can't imagine the market isn't going to be crazy with all that ether supply suddenly liquid, held in the hands of scared hack victims.

 

[cypherdoc]

@VeritasSapere

personally, i don't care how you guys handle your DAO debacle. it really doesn't matter to me. but my assessment of the situation is that you are fucked. i could be wrong.

 

[lunar]

i highly doubt that smart contracting will abstract away the current legal system we have. there will ALWAYS be disputes requiring lawyers, judges, and a legal system that allows counterparties to argue their case.

This is kind of why I posted the Johann talk. I'd agree that there will always be some situations where lawyers are needed. However would you agree that within a crypto finance world there are some contracts that can ALWAYS be decided without the need for a lawyer? If this holds true, then perhaps it's possible to perceive a new development fronter between contracts that can proceed automatically and contracts that might need human intervention? (perhaps even a simple 51% nakamoto consensus) Maybe the future dividing line between smart contracts and dumb contracts?

 

[cypherdoc]

@lunar

i actually don't know; but i have my opinions.

 

[VeritasSapere]

@VeritasSapere

personally, i don't care how you guys handle your DAO debacle. it really doesn't matter to me. but my assessment of the situation is that you are fucked. i could be wrong.

I will be fine either way, the projects I advised where just in the early planning phases I am sure they will be able to shift to another blockchain if Ethereum proves itself unviable, I still can not recommend Bitcoin because of the throughput issue, I suppose Bitshares would be my second pick for what they are doing, it was a payment processor remittance type company that needed to do a lot of transactions at a low fee.

In terms of the funds that I am managing I am not concerned. The Ether only makes up fifteen percent of the total and Bitcoin more then thirty percent. I am well hedged and prepared to watch any single holding plumet while others sky rocket. It tends to be the way things go in cryptocurrency.
[doublepost=1466483388][/doublepost]

@VeritasSapere

i've been reading all sorts of opinions in blog posts and listening to podcasts about this DAO debacle. it's not a good situation, at_all. there are all sorts of differing opinions and no easy answers. there's also plenty of criticism about the underlying code and programming language of using Solidity (see Krawicz & /u/ydtm). at some pt you have to decide whether to keep supporting Ethereum. i know you own Eth and consult for companies that you've guided towards Ethereum. that's gotta be tough and i don't envy you.

but i've outlined in detail here what i don't like about Ethereum many times. Vitalik's economics, the premine, the inflation, the undetermined security mechanism (which is now even more up in the air re: POS given the 5% DAO tokens of the attacker). i also don't think much of smart contracting as a problem to be solved in the real world compared to that of Sound Money. ppls of the world outside the US couldn't care about smart contracting for stocks, bonds, RE, commodity investing, etc. i've brought up all the legal ramifications of trying to execute controversial contracts outside the current legal system. in fact, you should listen to this podcast involving 2 Bitcoin attorneys, which i thought was pretty good: https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/andreas-antonopoulos-is-live-right-now-with-part-2-of-ltb-297-the-death-of-thedao

i highly doubt that smart contracting will abstract away the current legal system we have. there will ALWAYS be disputes requiring lawyers, judges, and a legal system that allows counterparties to argue their case. sophisticated investors are not going to just stand by and let their funds evaporate in a fully executing smart contract when they see a problem.

and there is no way Ether is meant to be a sound money. it's simply "fuel" to drive the contracting (whatever the hell that even means).

I think these are all good criticisms, except for the last point. I have not heard any compelling reasons why Ethereum should not be considered sound money.

 

[cypherdoc]

I do think this statement sounds like a line from small blockist ideology.

this is actually pretty insulting to the large block argument and lacks an ability to distinguish context. you casually draw an analogy btwn us large blockists wanting a HF as a result of a year and a half kore dev blockade of the 1MB limit along with it's personal attacks and censorship that is clearly limiting tx throughput and your desire to HF the DAO to save a specific set of investors and their monies? i don't see the analogy at all.

you then again draw an analogy btwn the March 2013 "rollback" of 0.8 back to 0.7 to save the entire Bitcoin system and your desire to HF the DAO to save a specific set of investors and their monies? it's not Ethereum that is in immediate trouble (despite all the articles claiming there is a flaw in the design) so why the need for it to HF just to save the DAO investors and their monies?

it's not my fault that Vitalik may feel it is his obligation to personally intervene and "bailout" the DAO investors. it's not my fault that he has chosen to remain the face of the Ethereum project, unlike Satoshi, who walked away. it's not my fault that he chose to print up a bunch of ether and sell them for millions, iirc, based on memory and your post. Satoshi at least first released the code upon which anyone could have mined a bunch of BTC back in 2009.

I do not think the value would ever fall to zero considering how much momentum this project already has.

you're probably right about this. it always amazes me the degree to which most ppl investing in cryptocurrencies will lose money.
[doublepost=1466485328][/doublepost]

I think these are all good criticisms, except for the last point. I have not heard any compelling reasons why Ethereum should not be considered sound money.

even the Ethereum folks themselves have said ether is not really meant to be money. they mince words like it's supposed to be "fuel" or some such that "propels" smart contracting. the fact that they essentially printed up a bunch and then "sold" them in an open market is totally different than Bitcoin, as i pointed out above. you claim a predictable rate of inflation is just as good as a fixed supply. maybe, but i don't think it measures up perceptually to Bitcoin. esp since Bitcoin has set the standard, imo.
[doublepost=1466485512][/doublepost]i think the fact that Ethereum hasn't decided on it's security mechanism invalidates your claim that ether is a sound money. b/c whichever path they choose, POS or POW, changes significantly the economics of Ethereum and who has the economic power (miners or stakeholders).
[doublepost=1466485699,1466485009][/doublepost]did you listen to Andreas and his concern that there are other Eth or Dao investors who were NOT affected by the hack but will have their tokens seized by a HF? since when has that ever happened in Bitcoin according to your analogy? is it OK to seize smaller holders funds just b/c they're small?

 

[VeritasSapere]

this is actually pretty insulting to the large block argument and lacks an ability to distinguish context. you casually draw an analogy btwn us large blockists wanting a HF as a result of a year and a half kore dev blockade of the 1MB limit along with it's personal attacks and censorship that is clearly limiting tx throughput and your desire to HF the DAO to save a specific set of investors and their monies? i don't see the analogy at all.

you then again draw an analogy btwn the March 2013 "rollback" of 0.8 back to 0.7 to save the entire Bitcoin system and your desire to HF the DAO to save a specific set of investors and their monies? it's not Ethereum that is in immediate trouble (despite all the articles claiming there is a flaw in the design) so why the need for it to HF just to save the DAO?

it's not my fault that Vitalik may feel it is his obligation to personally intervene and "bailout" the DAO investors. it's not my fault that he has chosen to remain the face of the Ethereum project, unlike Satoshi, who walked away. it's not my fault that he chose to print up a bunch of ether and sell them for millions, iirc, based on memory and your post. Satoshi at least first released the code upon which anyone could have mined a bunch of BTC back in 2009.

Fair enough, you make good points, my analogy is weak, there are some big differences indeed.

you're probably right about this. it always amazes me the degree to which most ppl investing in cryptocurrencies will lose money.

I have always found that statement of yours insightful even though I differ in opinion in that I think that even the Bitcoin maximalists are at risk.

even the Ethereum folks themselves have said ether is not really meant to be money. they mince words like it's supposed to be "fuel" or some such that "propels" smart contracting. the fact that they essentially printed up a bunch and then "sold" them in an open market is totally different than Bitcoin, as i pointed out above. you claim a predictable rate of inflation is just as good as a fixed supply. maybe, but i don't think it measures up perceptually to Bitcoin. esp since Bitcoin has set the standard, imo.

It might not weigh up perceptually but factually it does, regardless of what the Ethereum developers themselves have said, Ether does function just like Bitcoin with a predictable supply and an adaptive blocksize. The distribution of Ethereum is indeed very different and even controversial to some, Bitcoins distribution is uniquely fair given that it was the first cryptocurrency. That is an advantage that Bitcoin will never lose.

I think the fact that Ethereum hasn't decided on it's security mechanism invalidates your claim that ether is a sound money. b/c whichever path they choose, POS or POW, changes significantly the economics of Ethereum and who has the economic power (miners or stakeholders).

I thought it was pretty much decided upon, PoW and then PoS, which is pretty common in the altcoin world since it allows for a better distribution at first while later removing mining with all of its pros and cons. Though you are correct in that the exact specifications of this new PoS has not been completed yet and therefore can not yet be reviewed.

did you listen to Andreas and his concern that there are other Eth or Dao investors who were NOT affected by the hack but will have their tokens seized by a HF? since when has that ever happened in Bitcoin according to your analogy?

I have not heard that yet, I should definitely check that out, though I am pretty confident if that is the case that the miners would not allow that change to happen, since that would definitely go against their incentives.