Topic: ETH = Game Over (Read 40482 times)

That is good. That means that they are more independent from the companies who pay them and act properly.

And i think developer of ETH has been paid every months, because as we know ETH has much investors who making investment into it. I think developer of ETH just need control the coin in my opinion money is not problem for them.

Yuck I'm so over eth..

Good point

Devs should be paid for their work, you are right... But how much???
Don't you think that 20% is too much??? What if they only decide to dump their coins in future???
Would you still say the same thing then???

I think the developers should be paid for their work. The bitcoin developers are not paid, so it is controlled by the BS.

if that happens then all crypto deserves to die. do your homework. the developers keep 20% of the coins for the first bit of mining and it isn't trustless.

There are lots of discussion about the ZCash at the moment. It might even replace the bitcoin in the future.

The ZCash could be a better choice than the WBB. There are many reports about the coin in the media.

right now it is time to sell and stay away and wait for the bottom. ETH will die eventually because of being crappy but until that day it will have many pump and dumps that is why i am waiting for the bottom.


i will look into it but it looks like just advertising to me


real business usage never had any meaning with any of the altcoins and it will never have.


don't drop it on your foot

Step 1.  Sell/stop bagholding ETH

Step 2.  Buy WBB

Setp 3.  Enjoy soon to be had profits in a project that will have REAL BUSINESS usage and money coming in shortly, also a kickass wallet unseen before in crypto.

*BOOM MIC DROP*

bump
it gonna
dumb dump

https://www.reddheads.com/en/first-ethereum-hard-fork-successful-second-imminent/

Earlier this week the Ethereum community successfully executed a hard fork – the first in a planned series of two – aimed at reducing the feasibility of possible attack vectors recently highlighted by a person or group of people attacking the network.

Based on EIP (Ethereum Improvement Proposal) 150 version 1c, the hard fork implemented recalculated costs for operations available to the creators of Ethereum contracts. The attacker(s) was exploiting the fact that certain operations that require relatively large computational outlay were relatively cheap to execute. Repeatedly running these operations millions of times placed excessive strain on many Ethereum nodes and caused the network to slow down. It was a DoS (Denial of Service) attack specifically tailored for the Ethereum network. The hard fork increased the costs of the operations in question to render this particular DoS method prohibitively expensive.

Further attacks carried out on the Ethereum network before the first hard fork saw many empty accounts being created on the network due to manipulation of the SUICIDE (self-destruct) operation, to the extent that now the size of the data for the state of all accounts on the blockchain can no longer be cached, allowing the attacker to get further mileage from his malicious accounts by creating new spam operations to continually read from disk the balance of these accounts, thus forcing more work on the system. A clean-up of the attacker’s empty accounts is scheduled with the second hard fork, upcoming in a few days.

Ethereum

GO BACK HOME!

Ethereum has been under attack since the start of the Devcon2 conference in Shanghai, on 19 September. Just before the Ethereum devs went on stage for the first day of the event, a rogue transaction was made on the network, with a payload aimed at manipulating various operations to increase memory usage in the Ethereum Geth client (popular official command line interface client), eventually causing this client to crash and many nodes to drop offline. What looked like a message (written in German) directed to the Ethereum team and Ethereum in general, was tagged to the attack transaction in question: “Fahrt nach Hause”, meaning “Go back home!” or “Get the fuck out of here!”

Further attacks since 19 September include the methods specified above and general abuse of relatively low-priced operations available to contract creators on the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM).

The overall effect of the attacks was to congest the network to a level where blocksizes were greatly increased, leading to increased block creation times and blocks so full of spam that genuine transactions were being impeded from entering the network for confirmation. Full nodes were placed under strain as they managed the bloated account state of the blockchain.

judo

Multi-level defence and system improvements

As well as the protocol changes implemented by hard fork, reactions to the attacks included work on Ethereum clients Geth, Parity and others to improve performance by modifying cache settings and adding caches to deal with memory requirements, miners lowering block gas limits to limit the number of spam transactions that the attacker could potentially squeeze into each block, thereby making processing blocks a bit easier for nodes, and other defensive actions and system improvements.

Commenting on the current situation, Ethereum dev Gustav Simonsson wrote:

Correcting the gas cost of op codes makes Ethereum more efficient as it enables more txs and real throughput by disincentivizing “artificial” use of the platform – simple loops over op codes which has no utility other than DoS.

In fact, the attack surface of Ethereum is surprisingly small given that it’s much more powerful & flexible than other live blockchain systems. This is much due to having cross-client specifications & test suits and multiple implementations in different programming languages.

Claiming the attacker has “unlimited runway to continue” is ignorant FUD.

The vulnerabilities fixed over the past weeks have all been in very specific subsets of the Ethereum protocols:

gas cost of a subset of the VM op codes.
logic around “empty” accounts
performance of state handling of accounts.
unconfirmed tx (mempool) queuing & broadcast logic.
(3) and (4) have been vastly improved in geth, parity and other implementations which is why the attacker is no longer targeting these.

(1) was too a large degree fixed by the HF, although it’s clear that EXP (and possibly a few other arithmetic op codes) also need to be adjusted.

(1) and (2) will be further addressed by a 2nd HF (https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/158)

With the current gas system, there will always be some combination of op codes requiring the most resource usage for the least cost.

Prior to this HF, the block gas limit was voted to 0.5M to ensure the network remained operational and processed txs during attacks.

Now we see that the network is chugging along during attack txs with a at 2M gas limit (although older, slower systems without SSD drives will need patches that are currently being worked on in both geth and parity).

Overall, this HF + patches in clients have improved the bottleneck of Ethereum by more than an order of magnitude. In a few weeks, it’ll be another order of magnitude.

And in the long term all txs we currently describe as “attack” or “DoS” txs will become indistinguishable from regular txs as their tx fees will be proportional to their resource usage.

I'm giving ETH the advantage of doubt now. I haven't invested new money into it for a while, but in fact I'm still making good enough profit for me with trading the ETH that I already have. I wouldn't base a long-term plan on it, but I wouldn't just sell all my ETH at once either.

I seen a documentary on inflation from the Housing crisis recession..
Greenspan decided to CHANGE how it was calculated by the federal reserve.
He cooked the books hard !
He removed things like Gas or oil or housing costs or food etc etc..
Then went on to point to his pie charts saying there was NO inflation problem.

I can also attest to seeing companies pull that shrinking food weight bullshit.
I noticed Wallmart has seen doing that a LOT for years.. for example.
Cut the size of the product and still charge yet even more money.

We are in fact being raped hard by inflation.
In Canada we are pounded with never ending price increases on anything you can possibly think of.

How this is reflected in Altcoins or even Bitcoin i am not too sure though.
Guessing they are not immune though.

Anyway.. ETH = DEAD

It is on life support being propped up by a mysterious group.. most likely the dev's & friends.
So from a community stand point we have seen the limit.. it's dead as it's going to get.
..until that is, the manipulators putting up buy walls pull the life support and let her rip !

It is no coincidence the price has been frozen at $12.50 for a year with all the drama that has gone down.
The price was "decided" and not by the community ether.

Sure.. play the game but be aware if the plug is pulled ?
It's likely you would not find out quick enough to run to Poloniex to login and dump your coins fast enough.
i know because i have seen it happen before..

Ethereum Price Technical Analysis – ETH/USD Back In Action

Yesterday, I stated that the ETH buyers need an encouragement for an upside move. Ethereum price did move higher, as the buyers managed to gain strength. There was a good upside reaction, and the price cleared a couple of important resistance levels. The first one was yesterday’s highlighted bearish trend line on the hourly chart (data feed via SimpleFX) of ETH/USD...

Link

In fact, it does not really matter what the actual facts are, you are not dealing with facts, but instead dealing with a stupid ass theory (that you call the greater fool theory bubble), and trying to act as if your stupid ass theory fits the facts.  If you were not arguing backwards, and if you were actually dealing with actual facts, some of your nonsense would likely become a bit easier to deal with.






 When I see your comment, "I don't know if you are old enough,"  I get the sense that you are being a patronizing jerk, but then again, it could be that you are not using such impression in an attempt at patronizing?  Whether you are being patronizing or not, the impression that you are some how dealing with personal experiences and observations is bullshit.  Face it, you are not.  You got your dumbass theory, and you just keep beating it over and over and over, damned the actual facts.

Yeah, sure you are talking about actual facts that took place in the world, but they are not material and relevant to the current situation within the bitcoin space, so your attempts at drawing various analogies don't really fit, when you say bitcoin is like this or like that or like another thing, and you are not dealing with material and relevant bitcoin differences.  But, you do like to go on and on and on with immaterial irrelevance in an attempt to make it seem as if you could have possibly thought the matter through, and in the end you may have thought a lot about your theory, but you are missing something in terms of identifying differentiating aspects that exist in the bitcoin space.








Yeah, everything is a scam.. right???

You know what?  There is short term and long term value with a lot of products, and some product may have a short life, and have a kind of flash in the pan utility, but that does not mean that it was a pump and dump or fits in a "greater fools theory" merely because it ended up providing utility for only a short period of time.  Yeah, there is going to be "greater fools theory" in existence for a lot of products, but that does not mean that "greater fools theory" remains the dominant theory that fits a large number of failed products.

It kind of sounds as if you want one theory to fit everything.  You recently learned about this new theory called "greater fools theory," and you think it is a really great theory because it makes you feel smart because you are not one of those greater fools, and therefore, you have a desire to judge everyone as being a bunch of dummies, except yourself and maybe a few other skeptics.. and then you point at them and say, "greater fools." but in the end, you are not really grappling with reality and a variety of other dynamics that are going on and a lot of variety of ways that utility is created whether long term or short term or through speculation and other quasi-abstract ways of creating utility.

Well Facebook also beat most expectations, despite having a highly criticized business model. Internet projects are certainly undervalued. You criticize a 20 fold increase, while we might get a 1000 fold increases.






Well that has to be the Satan to whisper such things in your ears, because that is very very unlikely to happen.

But let's suppose it could, it would also be true for Gold as well, because they are cousins, so you cant apply 1 thing to BTC and exclude Gold & Silver from it.

Well, then it would probably still be held, because BTC still has the lowest inflation amongst all fiat currencies, and in 8 years it will be even lower than Gold's. So either way, if the price stagnates at 650$ (which is hardly imaginable since the USD has a high inflation rate) it would still be the best currency, above gold.









Stop right there, fiat inflation is very high these days according to some sources it's well above 7% / year.

Of course your cooked CPI data wont show this, you have to look at M2/M3 data & a currency basket index like Dollar Index for USD.

It is well above 7% yearly if you calculate it correctly, and probably even higher for small currencies.

And don't forget most of the inflation is not reflected in price increase, but in the diminishing size & quality of products





source: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/think-your-chocolate-bars-smaller-8550709



Nope, the volatility risk of bitcoin in my opinion is better than risking inflation, because the trend is going up.

Besides, I am more worried of bail-ins, than inflation, which is a serious risk.






Yes but bitcoin is not like placing a bet on a roulette table on the black chip. It has less uncertainty and definitely more stability than just a random bet.

Hence it is not random. Random = impossible to predict, while bitcoin is somewhat possible to predict.



For now.



Sure, it is mostly millionaires, yet, the financial system around us is getting worse and worse. So i think there will be hardly any better place to secure your wealth.

If we were in 1816, I'd say fuck bitcoin, nobody will use it. But we are in 2016, with a 1.2 quadrillion derivative bubble about to pop, so it's not like we have a choice.

One has to be very cautious when people start claiming that for THIS particular case/situation/paradigm shift, the "old laws of economics" don't hold any more.  It is one of those group think indicators of "bubble".  It was true for the South Sea bubble, it was true for the dot com bubble.  I don't know if you are old enough to have heard all those fancy theories at the end of the 90-ies over the "new economy", where value production wasn't necessary any more and one could build business models integrating permanent loss as long as there was growth.

When you look at things like facebook and google, who, at first sight, seem to have followed the "new economy" paradigm of giving away products for free against "growth", they ended up producing value as publicity vendors to their addicts of "free products" which are nothing else but tasty bait for publicity and data mining.

When I hear some here about bitcoin, this has a particular resonance effect in my ears.

This is one theoretical path (which I outlined several times): the speculators of today are the visionaries, which see the true value of bitcoin in the future, and are just quicker than others to go for the "real price".

However, and that's my whole point, that would mean that these people are EXPECTING bitcoin to have a *usage* value (as store of value/currency) that is on or above the current market value.  In order for that to be true (which is not impossible) it would mean that the demand for bitcoin as store of value/currency (and hence going into Fisher's formula) would have to essentially overtake the demand for bitcoin inspired mainly/only by "expectation of rise in price" (what I call "greater fool theory").  Now, if we assume that already TODAY the demand inspired mainly/only by "expectation of rise in price" is about the TWENTYFOLD of the demand for currency/store of value (without necessary expectation of rise in price) by the numbers that we pulled out of our nose but that people seem not to contest (95% "demand because it will rise" vs 5% demand for "use as currency/store of value at same price"), then hoping for a more than 20-fold increase in "true adoption" seems to me very optimistic, although not impossible.

My whole point is namely that this "true adoption" is rather hindered by a too high market price today (which, as I explained several times, increases the costs of the use of bitcoin, and hence diminishes its competitive edge which is exactly supposed to be the motor behind that "true adoption").


I still think that the MAIN demand for bitcoin is "greater fool".  My test for that is: suppose that all people demanding/holding bitcoin would KNOW somehow (because the angel Gabriel whispered in their ears, because some super smart extraterrestrial from Sirius told them, or for whatever reason) that bitcoin's price is NOT going to rise above inflation in the coming decades, would they still hold/demand bitcoin ?

If the answer to that question is "yes", then that's true adoption, they are using bitcoin as a store of value/currency because it gives them an edge.  If the answer to that question is "no", then they are ONLY holding/buying bitcoin because they expect a price rise, and we are in "greater fool theory".  My assumption is that 95% of the holdings/demand for bitcoin fall in that category today.



Huh, no.  I assume that Jonny will have a few percent more value than Kevin, the inflation of fiat (which isn't very high these days).  These few percent went in fact in the economy as seigniorage by whoever created new dollars (people who got cheap loans).  There is no fundamental difference between the value transfer with a deflationary currency, and an inflationary: the only difference resides in WHO gets it.  In a deflationary currency, all currency spenders get the value you hold (for a while).  In an inflationary currency, those with the privilege of seigniorage get that.  In a modern fiat system, that is NOT the central bank, but that are the people subscribing cheap loans.  Loans are the thing that creates money in the modern fiat system, and the receivers of seigniorage are the people/institutions getting loans for cheaper than they should (mainly the state with state loans and financial institutions).

As bitcoin is for the moment still inflationary, I wouldn't even think that there's much difference between the inflation of dollar and the inflation of bitcoin.


Yes, that is a competitive edge of something like bitcoin or gold over fiat.  I don't deny that.  But I would think that for the moment, the volatility risk on bitcoin is much higher than the gain you can hope to make by escaping inflation.



Every financial asset is based upon "subjective beliefs" but these have to turn out to be true or they break down.  A monetary asset is a infinitely recursive belief system: you are willing to obtain it against value, because you believe that you will obtain value against it, and you believe that because you think that the next person accepting it, will also believe it.

But you better be right in your beliefs (even though they are "subjective") or you are a bag holder.  So I wouldn't call that "subjective beliefs" but rather "uncertain hypotheses".  There's a difference.  I like chocolate 3 times more than apples.  That's subjective.  You may prefer apples over chocolate.  However, me estimating your preference of apples over chocolate is "subjective", but is in fact more "uncertain".  I have to guess, and bet.  If I make a mistake, I will lose.


I think they prefer dollars.


That's what I don't believe.  Maybe, one day.  I don't think that billionaires are in bitcoin because they want to secure their wealth ; I think that millionaires are in bitcoin because they hope to become billionaires.  And that's what has to stop at a certain point, and when that stops, the main reason for the demand for bitcoin is to crumble (like with every asset for which most of the demand is based on the expectation of a future price rise).  That doesn't say anything about the true value of the asset.