Topic: [RFC] æthereum: a turing-complete coin distributed as per bitcoin's blockchain - page 9. (Read 48633 times)

Neither. From the users' point of view they are the same.

Thank you for expressing your concern GTO911.  

My recommendation for members new to our cryptocurrency community is to simply do nothing.  By holding bitcoin, you will automatically be granted the same % of aether.  If aether takes off, you piggyback all the gains; if aether crashes and burns, you had nothing at risk.

I would recommend that GTO911 sell his share of aether if he believes it to be a scam: he essentially gets "free money" if he believes aether to be valueless.  If he is willing to sell it for cheap enough, some people might be tempted to take a nibble in case it works out.  

What kind of counterargument is this?

What would give a coin more value: a) dedicated dev team that can expand and elucidate on the coin's feature set or b) some cloner?

Because it is a clone of the open source code, the original and successive versions will be copied.

Yes.

The greater proportion of Bitcoin you own, the greater proportion of aether you will receive.

But the reason success depends on adoption is a network effect. So it needs actual users, not potential users.
As you say, depends on the launch. but what I am arguing is that it would require a massive, like massive, momentum at launch to overcome 1) its utility being less ubiqitous than that of Bitcoin, 2) it's functionality offering no more than the already well publicised and well-supported ethereum.

(I would also suggest a 3) that the particular end users, not just holders, of Aethereum/ ethereum would demand a greater netwrok effect already extant before getting into it, which increases the necessary momentum at launch exponentially.



I do believe that the conditions hold and the point I was making is that I argue that the market would, in this case, not favour the spin-off as is, despite the reduced trading cost.
Reasons are: 1) That theorem doesn't seem to account for technologies where 'there can only be one' - it doesn't have a mechanism to account for the increased value granted by a given altcoin's proportion of market share. 2) Humans don't necessarily take the rational course. This is a case where I believe that the 'buzz' around one coin or the other (and I'm guessing that'll be ethereum) will have a greater effect than transaction costs, leading to a network effect advantage for that one coin which will be a very difficult headstart for the other to recover from.


All just my opinion. I can't know the future. Very interested to see if someone can counterargue this, though, since I would prefer the coin (Aethereum) with lower transaction costs to survive. I'd also be interested as to what kind of consensus of human ethics could be encoded into it (eg bitcoin addresses containing over B1000 at x date don't count; or ethereum devs get Y% of all transactions as a fee to reward their work and foresight).

any contra arguments?

So the more btc you own, the more æther you will get. Right?

There will be a specified block number. The address holds the coins as of that block number is the one that gets to redeem.

How will you prevent multiple addresses signing on the same coins?

that you should do regardless

Indeed, cryptocoins are nothing without adoption.  The spin-off technique is a method to achieve the largest built-in potential user base, based around a coin distribution that we know to be efficient for the largest cryptocurrency (bitcoin).

Please remember that this is an experiment.  We don't know how the general spin-off technique will play out in practice, nor do we know how important promotion of the spin-off's "launch" is.  On the one hand, if the "launch" is poorly advertised, then there are less potential buyers but there are also less potential sellers.  If the launch is widely promoted, then there are more potential buyers but also more potential sellers.  

As smooth pointed out, if you believe the conditions for Coase's theorem hold, one could argue that the market would likely favour the spin-off because there are less trading costs needed to achieve an efficient distribution (and zero IPO costs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem

1 - will the coins I receive depend on my current btc account balance or the btc amount spent before in this account?

2 - can I claim multiple btc accounts?

3 - how can I sign the signature if I use coinbase wallet?

Who's the team ?

It's a great idea, but falls into the trap that so many great technical ideas have - it expects the human behaviour part of the plan to simply fall into place.

Cryptocoins are nothing without adoption. Bitcoin was lucky (and well designed) in that the circumstances existed for it to be adopted by a growing population of users, ie there was a need for it. That market is now owned by Bitcoin. Altcoins could be useful for their particular functions, or even to make a quick buck according to some investing and selling strategy, but no altcoin could provide a comparable store-of-value function to Bitcoin. (unless it somewhow 'overpowered Bitcoin - highly unlikely, but FUD could conceivably do the job)

But Ethereum fulfils another need, so there is room for a similar adoption curve (though slower, which could be fatal). It may, due to being the only tool for it's job, hold enough value to kindle such an adoption curve.

But, as I understand it, Aethereum, though, cannot co-exist with ethereum. They would have to merge, or one would have to beat the other. And that would have to happen decisively and soon after first of the two is introduced. Otherwise they would both lose use value, since that value is based on the one chain being an unchallenged 'authority'.

One would assume that adopters (and here I mean users and investors, not 'latent' adopters who have a right to claim and use their aethercoins, but have not taken any steps to do so) would choose the rational chain, ie aethereum which doesn't involve an entry fee paid to a pyramid mostly made up of the ethereum devs.

One would assume that. But humans don't follow the rational course. They follow 'buzz' and those humans who are smart investors or early adopters aim to preempt the buzz. You simply can't preempt a buzz around an underdog unless it has a solid, irrefutable advantage -  something that the first mover (or major player) cannot answer.

So my opinion is that, though I would love to see Aethereum succeed, it lacks the momentum (unless we were to create a 'movement' around it) to come out as more than an underdog to ethereum and, as an underdog, lacks the killer quality that could see it overtake ethereum.

Yes thinking about it he has potential energy in the Bitcoin market not control.

Still the argument in my view is mute just make 2 spin-offs, let the market choose, I think it's obvious but who knows it may fly.

After all I'm swapping fiat for Bitcoin because the bankers with mountains of fiat can't do the same, some may feel like Satoshi is the equivalent problem in Bitcoin like the bank's of today in fiat and choose an alt over Bitcoin. 

I'm happy to leave it to the market, and encourage diversity.

no, the same % of the altclone market that he already has in the Bitcoin market.

No you can spin-off to only addresses containing unspent outputs generated between block X and Y and Satoshi won't get any.

Interestingly, these models can probably best be implemented on Ethereum (or its spin-offs).