Topic: **** Official Ethereum QA thread **** - page 10. (Read 34551 times)

so pick a different jurisdiction, or no jurisdiction.

Our goal and what we try to do every single day. But we have an obligation to work within the legal framework. If the United States wants to make the deployment of Ethereum difficult, then we can't change that reality. We just have to work around it as best as we can and eventually get Ethereum launched.

Question: Will the IPO be built in a way to reward early investors ? or is the double reward thing not listed anymore

I would also like to know this.  Thanks.


I was thinking about this issue while reading your quote.

"The revolution begins with the mind and ends with the heart. Knowledge for all, accessible to all and shared by all"

I still think there is some confusion about fees here. Fees do not go to ether holders nor the project developers. The fee structure has no impact on who owns what.

vitalick could you please answer

[1] I don't quite see how the price to execute etherium code will be determined.

there has to be some sort of clever system based on realtime or near realtime demand for, well what ever the limitation is to get things into the next block?

it could be an etheirum fork would set fees lower......

etherium = a bundle of switches, how do you price using a switch? ( iasked the same question of master coin and still don't have  an answer....)

[2] I am also wondering if some sort of of chain processing can be done, and results are somehow integrated back into the etherium chain, that can be verified thus reduce bottle necks.....

Ethereum has the limitation that every node needs to process every transaction, just like Bitcoin. So on the computational side, it's not more powerful than a single smartphone from 1999. Hence, I don't think saying that Ethereum "is a botnet" is accurate. Can Ethereum be used to help monetize other botnets? That is a more interesting question; I suppose with the decentralized dropbox protocol you can also earn money by renting out other people's hard drives, but an unknown program taking up lots of disk space is something that would be very easy for antiviruses to detect.

Okay, that seems like it can work and cause nodes to waste computational resources. But the cost of such an attack is very high, as Alice needs to  do the attack instead of mining an entire block. Furthermore, miners should only broadcast a block once they are done processing it, so Alice would not reach very many nodes with her block. The issue can also be mitigated with a software change: when a node hears about Bob's block and the successor to Bob's block, and it is still processing Alice's block, it can start processing both in parallel, and then when it finishes the successor to Bob's block it would pause processing Alice's because Alice's block would not be the longest anyway. Thus, Alice is only slowing processing down 2x for one minute. So my intuition is that this is one of those "interesting in theory, not particularly worrisome in practice" situations like selfish-mining.

It could be because crypto's are money itself, not just another VC startup. The former relies on the shear force of the idea itself, the latter relies upon a huge kickstart, makes a lot of people take risk.

ETH = best thing since sliced bread and eth needs $100 Million (or whatever) does not compute.

Further BTC, LTC and PPC has proved that you can do it with out asking for huge funds up front, and those three are in the top market cap.

Sunny King exemplifies good practice. He spent a year on PeerCoin, and was out their having to buy up, mine or mint his own product. Zero premine, zero funding. The Same for XPM.

SK goes to the point of refusing donations.

so far in ETH, you are going to
raise 30K btc, that puts you $20~30 Million
then, do a premine as well.

Its hard to think of any thing else that has anything near this in startup terms, in crypto's, ripple maybe.

I'm not saying the ETH offer is wrong, or bad, but his IPO model garners a lot of negative feed back.

However this why a judge can never judge himself, thats why

"You don't see why so many people think of it that way."

It would be near impossible to be objective in your position, thus this weights out the counter argument in your mind. Wetware usually cannot occupy a subjective domain and function objectively.

Does ethereum permit people to make transactions containing executable code in the blockchain? So it's like a huge botnet?

What are the legal issues holding up US investors?  Is it the risk of being accused a money launderer? Seems the new "witch".

I think you should say 10000 wei = 1 ether 
watching 

And what about the Finney-like attack?

1. Alice finds a block but doesn't send it to peers
2. Bob finds a block and sends it to peers
3. Alice sees this coz she connected to a big part of the network
4. Alice sends her block to peers
5. Some nodes accept Alice's block, some accept Bob's one
6. The next block triggers chain reorg that invalidates Alice's block with some probability (if she knows who r the biggest miners then she shouldn't send her block to them to make this probability very high)

The catch is that Alice's block contains very long-running transactions and nodes that accepted it wasted their computational resources. The situation becomes worse if such the nodes r computing her block when the next one arrives.

Thanks, for coming up with such an innovative idea. I am cool with the founder receiving their share, this is part of the corporate IPO process.
However, as with any top innovation, this project carries a great deal of risk which is borne by the IPO investors and founders. The 0.4X inflationary model exacerbates this risk. Would it be possible to decrease this inflation to a more manageable number.

I don't see why so many people think of it that way. When you're getting VC funding for a startup, it's common practice to hand out something like 10-20% in the first round. Nobody ever thinks of that as some kind of evil plot where you sell the company and then pull the rug out from under the hapless venture capitalists and dilute them 80-90%; people think of it as, well, you creating X shares and only handling out 0.1X-0.2X to the VCs. It's the same here; we're taking preorders for 67% of the initial issuance instead of 100% of the initial issuance.


Actually, we never were planning to have a miner collect more than 50% of transaction fees. Now, we're debating between 0% (tx fees burned), 50% and something in between.

For some reason I was thinking there was an ongoing 12.5% (or some amount) allocation of released coins going back into the pre-mine fund for ongoing development.  Most of the information has been taken down - I stand corrected.

Something I'd like to point out is that there is a difference between releasing a currency and a search engine.  Not sure there is a "right" way to do it insomuch as ... comparing this to Google or Apple or Microsoft doesn't seem equitable to me.  I get incentivizing founders and I'm ALL for it.  And building warchests for development - all for that too.

But when trying to justify allocations to the screamers (many of whom should be ignored) - I think it's important to remember at some level releasing a currency type platform is quite a bit different than company built around advertising, marketing, or operating systems.

I don't quite see how the price to execute etherium code will be determined.

there has to be some sort of clever system based on realtime or near realtime demand for, well what ever the limitation is to get things into the next block?

I am also wondering if some sort of of chain processing can be done, and results are somehow integrated back into the etherium chain, that can be verified thus reduce bottle necks.....


it could be an etheirum fork would set fees lower......

Exactly, and even if we wanted one, then we'd get forked. The market has no incentive to pay a tax even if its good for the network. One and done and then get it done.

What "ongoing tax" are you talking about? There is no ongoing tax. What they get through the premine is it, period, end of story.

Agree completely. In the business world, this is called "Golden Handcuffs." It aligns the interests of all involved parties.