Topic: [ANN] Ethereum: Welcome to the Beginning - page 1244. (Read 2007155 times)

I said this a few months ago when Vitalik was writing the paper, it was my first and only comment. You wrote the problem and the answer above.

The name should be changed.

Simple is beautiful.

Ethereum is hard to spell, hard to pronounce. We need a simple name just like "Bitcoin"!

When will ipo starts? thanks

I'm very interested, I will continue to focus

Sure, to have a nice returns you need to be one of the very first in. I myself bought at IPO (0.01) and sold two times: once at 0.23 and the other at 0.2.

It must suck to be the guy who bought at those prices.

Without mentioning the "buymastercoin" scam who was advertised on the main MSC website, the guy had the guts to sell the MSC at +0.5 and noobs bought from him. Nice way to scam and to 50-fold your money in the blink of an eye.

Most of those that didn't participate in the MSC IPO but bought afterwards have been assraped.

Price development after public trading (on exchanges!) is what Im getting at in case you didnt guess it. Also Facebook must have been a real doozie for Mark Zuckerburg and friends but the IPO still zucked.

http://coinmarketcap.com/msc_90.html

Yeah, Mastercoin has been a nightmare for investors.  To date it is 1000% of the buy-in price.  I was really expecting a much higher return performance than that.  I should have bought Dogecoin.  What was I thinking?

Usually the IPO is a risk investment which makes it easy to scam. In my opinion it is pretty easy to set up a contract that obligates the developers to reach certain targets or else to pay back the initial investment. This of course would mean that the price of ethers would be higher than in a common IPO, but by doing so it would turn into a real community project. Higher security would ensure people to jump in and give the whole project a higher sustainability. People are less likely to sell-off, developers are less likely to drop the project.

Easy as that.

Now, why is noone doing so? The answer is obvious: there are still enough people hoping for fast money and developers that don´t see the inherent problems in this way of promoting their project.

I'm actually really interested in this project, but on this forum the word IPO is usually spelled SCAM. The problem is that IPO basically makes the developer's rich. After they become rich are they still motivated to improve the project? I wouldn't be.

Mastercoin is doing quite well, thank you.

Cough, Mastercoin.

Seriously, I guess their greed or maybe the hope of individual members of Ethereum to get as many board members  hooked as possible before the IPO by incentivicing them this way, got them carried away and will turn out as a huge disappointment once the shares are openly traded. However, if the project can survive that break away of interest and trust in the beginning they may actually make true of some of their promises and develop good stuff later on.

+1
and the permanent inflation of 0.4X is going to hurt as well.

no investments yet. two weeks or so. read the last two pages

Great to see you here.

You are right - so what? Those who are looking to get rich quick will be utterly disappointed by Ethereum.... Except the founders.

Charles & Vitalik,

I agree with the premise of decentralized database of contracts that eliminates centralized trust, but getting there requires we also pay attention to some realities.

As I explained to Charles on the phone last year, there is a fundamental flaw in your design which as far as I can see makes it untenable.

A Turing complete scripting layer run by the full clients (mining nodes) is subject to the Halting problem. You are begging for Murphy's Law due to centralizing chaos. When we run JavaScript in our Chrome browser, we are not requiring Google's servers to run the scripts. I see your mitigation is to charge the contract per line of code executed (beyond 16) for each transaction on the contract. However the cost of execution is "not one size fits all", thus you prevent innovation and bind together that which should be decentralized freedom.

Perhaps the tenable solution will be something along the lines of CoinWitness, where the script is run externally and only the proof is run by the mining nodes. On your blog you mention this technology but not for the purpose of fixing the problem I am claiming.

As I explained to Charles on the phone, I don't think your proof-of-work will remain consumer PC cpu-only.

Also you admit on your blog that you don't address the centralizing of mining.

Interested to see the progress you all make.

theyre doing fine

They haven't changed their IPO? They acted like we care about something being undeveloped.

What we really care is about is a fair IPO. Ethereum is still failing, and they aren't even trying to address the real issue.



Whores will be whores till the day they die.




I'll buy your Ethereum at a 66% discount when it hits Poloniex

I think this problem with this IPO is more will be raised during the fund raiser than the supply of fresh money coming in after, the real irony is although this is probably the most innovative thing in crypto since bitcoin it's also the most likely to make a loss on post IPO.

About this I'm talking