Topic: [RFC] æthereum: a turing-complete coin distributed as per bitcoin's blockchain - page 4. (Read 48649 times)

LOL at the number of retards who hate this spin-off. I guess you bought Ethers huh?

Yes you can airdrop to Bitcoin still but you may be asking them to adopt on a BitShares DPOS blockchain now.
Very good advertising for DPOS over POW so I certainly encourage it though  

I'm not sure what you mean by "designed for the Bitcoin blockchain" or how that is relevant to a spin-off (you can create a spin-off clone of any coin).    

In any case, I find it very unlikely that the Ethereum team is considering PoS rather than PoW, as your link suggests.  This would appear to be a material change to the IPO agreement, but I guess their TOCs have enough wiggle room to allow for that.  It's interesting to note that if the 26% inflation went to stakers rather than miners, then it would reduce the amount of capital inflows required to maintain the coin's valuation at an artificially high level.  So I can see why some people would think this would be a good idea [but I have a very different opinion [I also highly doubt that PoS is even a consideration]].        

The other point made by Bytemaster (BitShares dev) about working with Ethereum and merging/annexing blockchains seems like a good idea if it can be executed credibly.  If the Metcalfe V~N^2 relationship holds, a fully-successful merger of two like-minded user bases would double the value of everyone's holdings (assuming both coins have the same market cap at the time of the merger).  I'd love to see someone attempt this.

Lol. Too bad Ethereum is unlikely to be designed for the Bitcoin blockchain anymore...

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ethereum-bitshares-partnership-740684

Okay that is plausible. It is actually equivalent in some sense to an IPO-based spin-off from the start; the spin-off matches the current coin holdings.

A spin-off of Monero would look different than a spin-off of Ethereum for the reasons you mentioned and I agree that there is no real spin-off equivalent.  Since bitcoin is 13 / 21 = ~62% mined, perhaps you'd distribute this same percentage of the CryptoNote clone according to the spin-off principle.  

The argument in favour of this approach might be that the reduced inflation rate would more than offset the "free coins" that bitcoin holders could claim.  When mining from zero, a coin needs more money flowing into the system to maintain the price than when mining from 62% (assuming equivalent behaviour of holders).  Large miners are probably less likely to be holders by default than the ~one million people who could each make claims for what amounts to few dollars each of the spin off.  

An argument against might be that the people who really care already own Monero, and that the spin-off would die due to indifference.  Monero has the advantages that (1) its current distribution appears legitimate (there was no pre-mine), and (2) that its price has been tested and retested by the market since money must constant flow into the system to maintain its price.  

Going off on a tangent somewhat, the thing with Ethereum is that as soon as mining starts, we really have no idea what demand for additional coins will be.  The inflation rate for ether is approximately 26% the first year which means net inflows of 26% of their market cap are required just to sustain the price.  It's not clear to me that inflows will even be positive at the current price, however.  

I wonder what a spin-off version of Monero would look like.

For coins with an IPO it is fairly obvious that you clone and give the IPO coins to bitcoin holders instead and then follow with the same mining paramters thereafter. This gives a direct comparison between the IPO model for initial distribution and the spin-off model, with the rest (mining) kept the same.

Maybe you could say this for a premine as well, although the situation is slightly different. Notably Ethereum has both an IPO and a premine, so this question will need to be answered for æthereum.

But for coins without an IPO or premine, how do you decide on the allocation? It seems like you could more or less arbitrarily decide how much of the coin goes to bitcoin holders and what the mining parameters to use, meaning there is not really one natural spin off equivalent. Or perhaps the natural amount to go to a spin off in this case is just zero (matching the IPO amount, as above). Of course, one can't rule out that a version with some different parameters might do better, but that could be said for just about any coin with or without the spin-off model.

The developers gave their permission to clone and tweak a few config params when they open-sourced it.

Do you understand yet?

Open source is a business model. It has advantages and disadvantages for the developers. You can't take one without the other.

Me too.  

I don't see why some people are upset at the concept, because I see it as an inevitable experiment that we'll eventually learn the answer to one way or another anyways.  Where does the value come from if the tech and the tokens can be freely cloned?  I think the answer is "from the network of users," but what does this mean exactly?  Would a credibly-launched spin-off of Monero out compete it?  Ethereum?  I don't know, but it's an interesting question to ask.  Cryptocurrency has forced us to rethink what money is and where its value comes from.  We still have a long journey ahead of us in answering that.       

Of course it's not neutral, from the first time I heard of this I knew it was meant to further empower bitcoin holders.

Personally I see it being not as powerful as lots of people are fearing it will be.

The main coins the spin off system is meant to compete against is Ethereum and Monero, but both of these coins will lead due to their teams and their own communities.

Ethereum already has its own community and so does Monero, the people that want those coins are already investing in them.

The spin offs will most likely drop heavily in value due to the bitcoin holders selling to get free coins, at the end of the day the only people left holding the spin off are a few people that want to compete with the coin they cloned from, that doesn't really sound like a winning proposition does it? The very reason you make a spin off is to get all the existing bitcoin holders on board, but once they sell for bitcoin (Because they are naturally against alts anyway) then you're no longer left with your advantage and the only real community that wanted to be apart of that alt is already apart of it, (the original coin)

I'm falling asleep so sorry if that makes no sense, think of it like this:

Ethereum -> clone to AEthereum -> advantage, bitcoin holders now have AEthereum -> bitcoin holders mostly sell to get free bitcoin -> you're now left with people that liked the idea of the Ethereum project holding AEthereum, roughly the same people that have invested into Ethereum in the first place -> now most bitcoin holders have sold AEthereum, the spin off advantage is now gone and the currency crashes

Of course this is my tired silly speculation.

I want to see what happens.

I feel that Ethereum or Monero will not have to worry about this 'threat'

Erm. Maybe because the spin-off tech isn't really out there. Yet.
Although I have no doubt it's coming thanks to your and D&T's efforts,
and I for one am eagerly awaiting it.

But what is starting to emerge is something that I predicted would
happen: the spin-off technology will not be perceived as neutral
as it was right from the start cherished as a weapon against non-Bitcoin
cryptocurrency.

Grief and anger will come out of this, until spin-off demonstrates its
beneficial features. Especially when the "target" is a high-profile coin like Ethereum.
Or that pet ferret of BTC moguls, Monero (which of course will be shielded and safe).

Nice, then someone else will make an open source turing complete currency and then in two years Ethereum won't matter.

The illusions we're labouring under are only ever clear in hindsight.  IMO, one of the illusion relates to the importance of a coin's "tech" versus the legitimacy of its ledger.  I believe that wealth is stored in the ledger and the tech will adapt as necessary.  Spin-offs are one method of adaptation.  

Note that if Ethereum had launched using the spin-off model, it would not be possible to potentially create a threatening clone.  Why do you think they chose not to do this?

@bitjoint - you are really not *getting* the whole idea of "open source".

It is not an "honor system" that has "implied rules of behaviour" - it is a model that accepts the idea that "you don't use the code itself to make money".

If Ethereum haven't figured that out properly then they simply shouldn't been doing open source at all.

I have spent at least 8 years working *full time* (sometimes in excess of 12 hours a day) for *no reward* to create the CIYAM project (https://github.com/ciyam/ciyam) and yet I am not going to complain if someone "clones it tomorrow".

What would be morally *wrong* is to clone the open source and then try and make it "closed source" (there are reports about that to do with cgminer I have seen reported on this forum).

I think that solving the scamcoin problem (scam as in "git clone https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin") is a wonderful goal. But Ethereum is being built from scratch, and a HUGE effort of hundreds of devs is being put on it. You can't just come and leech thousands of hours of development in this shameless way. This is the equivalent to Satoshi releasing the code and the very same day VISA comes, clones, implements, and fucks up the original creator, abusing its current market position.

C'mon, it's just common sense. Do we really need to explain why this is wrong?



NO.

What you are proposing could kill the altcoin scams, but also legit projects like ethereum. By "git cloning" any project and just modifying few parameters you are becoming what you despise: A parasite.

The idea behind Aethereum is that it is a pure spin-off: it is exactly the same as Ethereum except that the initial distribution of coins is proportional to the unspent outputs in the Blockchain. It doesn't claim to be novel in any other way--that's the entire point.  It's an experiment about what's important in a currency: is it the "tech" or is it the legitimacy of the ledger?  If Aethereum is credibly launched, will its more efficient initial distribution of coins help it out-compete Ethereum even though it is exactly the same in every other way?

Regarding your comment that spin-offs are shameless and parasitic, many people believe it's altcoins (especially those that are pre-mined and IPOed) that are parasitic and hurt cryptocurrency.  Spin-offs are cooperative in that all bitcoin holders are automatically piggybacked along with any new innovation.  Instead of purchasing coins in an IPO, the coins are freely claimable by signing a message with your bitcoin private keys. And developers can still profit by purchasing the initial spin-off coins undoubtable dumped for cheap by bitcoin holders who view their spin-offs as "free."  

This seems like a low-risk way to experiment with new cryptocurrency features that are too risky to implement in bitcoin.  It removes the worry that you might "miss the next big thing."  That's a good thing because it's this worry that certain altcoin promoters take advantage of to pump and dump their coins.  

Wow guys - I am surprised by the vitriol here - after all the *scams* from "the next big thing" project I actually think that Peter R has come up with a reasonable idea to "reign in the greed" (i.e. *stop IPOs*).

Look at Ripple - a huge amount of marketing hype filled with initial statements that "XRP are like postage stamps" to finally "XRP is going to make all the devs and investors rich" (and we all saw how that went down).

It appears to me that Ethereum is basically following the Ripple approach (maybe even less fairly) so if it all goes "belly up" like Ripple did I hope you guys are going to be taking back some of the flak that you are throwing at Peter R.

Ethereum are free to stay "closed-source" as long as they like (and Ripple did exactly that for some time - not that it helped).

Sure, here you go.. this is what "dictator" means:


He obviously doesn't... he thinks and acts like a dictator. He's become what bitcoin fights: concentration of power.

I may have a nice position in btc, but I would never EVER try to parasite projects in this shameless way. I hope this project fails hard, and I hope the ethereum guys don't release the source too soon so you can't take advantage of it. You are the worst kind of person one can find in the FOSS community: a disrespectful leecher.

Leecher: It refers to the act of giving yet providing nothing of substance in return, as it is named after the parasitic organism a leech. (just in case you didnt know the definition)

As far as I see this is not about modifying but just cloning and tweaking few config params.

I'm sure in one - unity spirit is weak. Every geek wants its own crypto by copying other's work. It's shameless and parasitic. That will not bring us victory over banksters tyranny.

Come on - unique but based on same source code. That's what I call nonsense.

Nonsense.  The developers give their permission for the code to be modified or cloned when they open-source it.