Topic: Petition: Change owner of ethereum thread (Read 2242 times)

Fbi asks vitalik to fork out rouleth? Centralized, forks, law. Other countries ask to fork out Jews or women. Then what? Immutable is the only thing that stands in their way. The ONLY point of crypto.

U seem to have gotten cancer on brains. Nobody will ever pass the ownership of the original thread to a dumbass who doesnt understand what purpose forums like this one serve. How about to issue a petition for changing ETC to ETH and send it to the dormitory toilet? I am pretty sure soon or late someone will visit a toilet and review ur petition.

I dont like the forked version of ethereum either, but looking at fallacious arguments u present in the OP its very likely that uve been a profoundly stupid fuck since birth and have just now realized how to turn on a computer.

Unless you a) have personally compiled Bitcoin Core and b) understand what the code means then you do not really know your node is enforcing the rules correctly.

If you are using a VPS to run a node then yes you are risking that the node is compromised, however anyone with physical access to your VPS will not know who you are nor how much money you have, so they do not know what they have to gain by compromising your VPS. You can somewhat mitigate the risk of your VPS being compromised by running two (or more) nodes in distinct locations hosted by distinct hosts.

If you are running a full node from your home, then you will need to personally stay with your full node 24/7 to know with 100% certainty that your node is not compromised. If you ever leave your house to go to the grocery store or to go to work (or for any other reason), then there is a chance that someone could break into your house and somehow infect the machine that is running your full node with some kind of malware.

Running a full node from your home will also reduce your privacy because your ISP (as well as your VPN provider, if applicable, and your TOR entry guard, if applicable) will know that you are running bitcoind. Your ISP will know this even if you are running your full node exclusively behind tor because there will be a burst of data received -- and possibly sent if you are relaying blocks -- every time a new block is found, so all your ISP will need to do is listen to the network and check for bursts of tor traffic every time a new block is found. If you are not using a VPN then your ISP can launch a sybil attack to get a general idea as to how much bitcoin you have. Even if your ISP cannot deduct how much bitcoin you have, they know who you are and where you live, and from that information they can deduct estimated income and affluence levels

If you are known to use Bitcoin and have high income/affluence levels then an attacker might decide that your house is a better then average target to break into in an attempt to steal your private keys. Even if your private keys are encrypted and stored in a safe, an attacker can use physical threat of harm to entice you to give up your private keys.

You are giving up a very little bit of security by running a node via a VPS, however you will be an unknown target. On the other hand, running a node from your home gives up some privacy and has it's own security risks, and the potential of appeal of attacking you would be known.

But a VPS node is not under your physical control. How do you know it is not compromised, and that it is actually enforcing rules correctly? There is too much trust involved there. You also cannot use this node to transact unless you store your private keys on a foreign VPS controlled by a third party. That seems insane. That means the only value it provides is to bootstrap new nodes -- assuming your node is actually operating honestly.

I would agree with the underlined portion.

However I am not so sure about most other users, especially those that are sending property prior to receiving Bitcoin. If I send a wire to coinbase to deposit to my account, buy Bitcoin on their exchange then withdraw to an address I generated on bitaddress then there is really no difference between coinbase sending me nothing and coinbase sending me an invalid transaction.

I would not call a light wallet to be a "full node". I also think that SPV wallets are so popular because of the near zero resources they use and the small amount of loss of security that is lost verses using a full node.

I think that running a full node at the point of sale would open up additional potential security issues, primarily the risk of a Sybil attack against the POS (point of sale). I think a better setup would be a business would have the POS display an address (and amount) to pay to, the customer pays, and a full node (or group of nodes) will report back to the POS that payment has been received. The node would be physically located away from the POS, making it more difficult for an attacker to be know the IP address of the node validating the transaction.


I am not sure about this, more and more people are moving toward using things like IPads and phones as their only "computer", which are not designed to handle the kind of work that nodes require.

I also don't think that the user who only transacts very infrequently and only receives Bitcoin after sending property will have very much interest in investing very much space on their computer to store the blockchain, and if pruning is too aggressive then users will find themselves needing to redownload the blockchain every time they open their node.

I don't think that increasing the maximum block size will increase the cost of using a light client at all.

It sounds like your answer to my question is that all merchants should be running a full node.

I am surprised by the underlined portion. I am not sure what would reverse this trend. I would argue that this might be an indication that cost is not a major motivating factor when deciding to run a full node as a merchant, so increasing the maximum block size (and this the cost of running a full node incrementally) might not cause the number of full nodes run by merchants to decline. I don't think full nodes run by non-merchants are going to do anything to prevent consensus rules from changing without consensus.

This sounds very interesting. You should create node software that works this way. I wouldn't run a node at home though (I don't want my ISP knowing that I am using Bitcoin, which they will know, even if I am using tor), I would instead use a VPS.

Im a member for quite a time now here and must sadly agree to this... Ugh.

I noticed too that theymos acted quite commanding and close minded about some discussions in the last past year.

@theymos
You are acting as a common dictator.
You as many other in the past, by limiting the market to express itself, you will not be able to understand your mistakes.

Then help to give other solutions, by limiting and censoring other solutions, you and other will not be able to understand what it is really needed to fix problems.

There were many good developer before Satoshi in the past, many were for sure better than him on developing/writing code.

But he was able to develop Bitcoin because he had a better open mind other there only being able to writing code, and to understand the market demand.

Your continue appeal to authorities/"experts" (and forcing other to follow this) is bullshit that is damaging Bitcoin by more than a year.

It makes no sense to fight ethc. You already have ethc and we're trying to give you value. Anyone with 10k I'll give you $50.

Forking crime out may have its merits. The only dapp I saw on dao is roulette. Say gambling becomes huge in ethf.

1. Fbi visits vitalik telling him to stop gambling so he forks to ethfbi.

2. Investors want their money back so they want another fork ethf2.

How many forks will it take? All the proforkers will choose which fork? Everyone will be forking everyone else.

Nobody should use EWallets. Casual users might use lightweight nodes, preferably with fraud proofs (which don't exist yet, but hopefully will in a couple of years). As many people as possible should use their own independent full nodes -- certainly anyone who accepts transactions automatically.

There are several plausible ways that full nodes could be distributed securely. I've recently been thinking that it might be best for the vast majority of Bitcoin trade to move to dedicated hardware. End-users would have something like a Trezor, which would operate as a lightweight node with fraud proofs, and businesses, both online and in-person, would have dedicated Bitcoin-acceptance devices which would contain full nodes. This also helps a lot with the various security issues.

Other possibilities/ideas:

- Everyone runs a full node on all devices. This is possible with aggressive pruning.
- Most people use lightweight wallets with fraud proofs, and all merchants run independent full nodes. (Unfortunately, history has so far shown that businesses are even less likely to set up full nodes than end-users.)
- Everyone has a dedicated Bitcoin "base station" device at home which acts as a full node and something like an Electrum server, and all of their wallets connect to this device.

I don't think so.
If this was the case then those miners should have moved their equipment to a different pool that did not support the HF. If what you are saying is true, then they were saying one thing with their mouths but were taking a second action with their equipment. Either way, I believe that you were most likely hearing propaganda (or are spreading it yourself).

No. It is the other way around. People will mine on coins because it has value. Look at the difficulty of Bitcoin. As a general rule, difficulty spikes tend to happen after increases in price.


I am not sure what you mean here. I could say that I only accept "bitcoin" that is on a branch that allows for 2MB blocks, however if I were to do this then any coin that I would receive would be worthless until and unless many others also are willing to accept coins from the exact same branch.

Most of them used exchanges and https://www.myetherwallet.com

Their interest was never long term. I've never seen them mention offline wallets.

Many of us bitcoiners have been here for 5 years pouring in blood, sweat and tears.

I was always under the impression that (possibly until recently) the only wallet software available was a full node. Although I suspect that a lot of etherum was stored on exchanges considering trading volumes.


What would you consider to be part of the economy that should be backed by a full node?
Someone who is interested in Bitcoin but never owns any, even temporarily? - No. (this person running a full node might be helpful in terms of hosting historical blockchain data).
Someone who buys bitcoin on Localbitcoins (or another exchange), and the withdraws bitcoin to their wallet?
Someone who buys and sells things on a peer-to-peer basis in the marketplace sections of the forum - with reputation that results in them sending first?
Someone who buys and sells things on a peer-to-peer basis in the marketplace sections of the forum - with reputation that results in them sending last?
Someone who only buys things on a peer-to-peer basis?
Someone who buys things from larger businesses (eg someone who buys from gyft, Expedia, ect.)?
A small business that accepts bitcoin alongside fiat as a form of payment, and has a few hundred thousand to a few million dollars worth of bitcoin sales per year?
A major bitcoin related business? Yes (obviously)
A major bitcoin exchange? Yes (obviously)

I believe 99% of ethf users were in it for the pump and dump. None had an intent to run nodes, create an economy, build contracts, nothing.

Vitalik has set a precedent. If there's ever child porn, drugs, gambling, etc. The fbi can come straight to his house and he has 0 deniability. He'll be in jail for contempt.

I suck at proper quoting so I'm quoting the whole post..

You've just supported my point. Miners did not have a choice but to mine on the branch that was decided for them. From my understanding, every pool had a significant portion of their miners opposing the hard fork. With one pool having the majority opposing the hard fork but doing it anyways because other pools did. That's what I mean by not having a choice.

Miners absolutely give a currency value. Go look at any of the coins with no mining power. they don't go anywhere. Coins need hashrate for the value to increase. Alternatively, they need massive ICOs. Which Eth did obtain, under policies that they have now gone against.  Not that I wanted to see people lose all their DAO, don't get me wrong, it was a shitty situation no matter what.

I agree, Vitalik isn't about to lock the thread, and it probably doesn't fall into the forum rules. I still think they should all branch off and create their own threads. Noting, there are now 3 proposed Ether currencies. The original is gone. Therefore, the original thread is misleading.

As far as the OP says Polo has already said they will issue ETH and ETHC. I assume this means they will add ETHC to their exchange as well. We'll have to see what happens with Ethregen.

"If there is an issue with an ETH smart contract in the future, then the economy can decide if they wish to accept tokens that are from a branch that addresses said issue, or if they accept tokens from a branch that allowed the issue to remain. "

Case and point.

I don't follow altcoins at all, but it seems to me that Ethereum's main problem here was that its economy wasn't backed by very many full nodes at all. See:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Full_node#Economic_strength
https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/features/validation

I'd guess that 99% of ETH owners were using EWallets. This is extremely dangerous, since it gives those EWallets massive control over the network. This is exactly the sort of centralization risk that Bitcoin experts are constantly warning about in relation to the max block size. It is absolutely essential that the economy be backed by many independent full nodes so that miners + a small handful of "major players" can't completely change the currency.

That is probably not a good way to look at things. What gives any cryptocurrency value is the fact that you can spend it at various merchants, and it is impossible to force a merchant to accept a particular fork of any cryptocurrency that they do not wish to accept for any reason.

The miners do not give a cryptocurrency value, they give it security. Miners might not have a choice as to which branch they mine on because if they mine on the incorrect chain then they will be mining something that no merchant/exchange will accept.

If there is an issue with an ETH smart contract in the future, then the economy can decide if they wish to accept tokens that are from a branch that addresses said issue, or if they accept tokens from a branch that allowed the issue to remain.

I don't think the thread qualifies for it to be locked by the forum. You can ask the OP of the thread in question to lock his thread and start a new one, although I somewhat doubt he will.

The OP of announcement threads for altcoins do have a lot of power because they have the ability to change the direction of the conversation. I guess this is one more way that you need to trust creators of altcoins with before you start investing in them. This might be one additional drawback to participating in a centralized, privately owned forum; I am not sure that a decentralized forum would really be better though.

I disagree, I would argue more like 20 - 40% of miners really were not in consensus. Many felt they did not have a choice, and many were not involved in the various votes. That's far from "~none". I do believe there is a large group that does sincerely believe in Ethereum's core values, and that this hard fork went against those core values.

I'm not even taking a side here, but this is what I've seen, read, and heard.

I do think the original thread should be locked and the two forks should create their own threads if ETHC is going to continue, which it seems like it will. I don't think ETHC should inherit the original Ether thread, though. Simply because it would cause confusion. ETHC would look like the "real Ether" which basically doesn't exist anymore with the community split as it is.

I agree, this has set a precedent. When the next smart contract failsdoes what it's supposed to do I guess we're supposed to hard fork again? Then there will be 3 different versions of ETH? How many times will we do this now? Who's going to decide what theft is worthy of a hard fork? I assume if core ETH devs and friends are hurt that will make it more likely to fork, like with the DAO?

It makes sense for ETHC to exist. I do think an exchange will add it if they see the right amount of support behind it. With all of the shitcoins that make it onto exchanges, why wouldn't ETHC? Certainly ETHC is better than the dozens of walletbuilder coins that get added to various exchanges monthly.

Thanks, he sold immutable tokens and now the word has been wiped clean. I started a new thread.

The forum isn't going to get involved in this sort of thing. In almost all cases, thread ownership isn't changed except with the original owner's permission. You should create a new topic. Also, if he is being deceptive, then this may warrant negative trust.