Topic: The Ethereum Paradox - page 22. (Read 99908 times)

That's wrong.

"In marketing terminology, a killer application (commonly shortened to killer app) is any computer program that is so necessary or desirable that it proves the core value of some larger technology, such as computer hardware, gaming console, software, a programming language, software platform, or an operating system " - wikipedia

The killer app for open source is easy to answer and it was the system software like operating systems, programming language implementations, etc. Open source become so necessary or desirable for that portion of software development that it proved the core value of the methodology. Other uses of it like open source chemistry or accounting software or whatever came along for the ride.

Although, it is possible that had blockchains existed at the time, that too might have been a killer app for open source (the trustlessness requirement for blockchains makes closed source blockchains a complete failure, i.e. open source is necessary).

The killer app for blockchains is currency. The other stuff like notarization, contracts, etc. may come along for the ride, the way dental billing software came along for the ride with PCs (spreadsheets were the killer app).

But the question is hard to answer if you define 'killer app' incorrectly (or at least alternatively) as something that quickly leads to millions or billions of users. That definition is sometimes used in the case of wildly popular video games that drive sales of a gaming console. But in reality, new gaming consoles (even if somewhat improved over previous gaming consoles) aren't different enough from previous ones to even need a true killer app. Virtual reality, by contrast, will need a true killer app, as yet unknown (some suspect porn).

Strange quote.  Since the economic incentives require a native token, it's hard to say that anything besides decentralized currency could possibly be the killer app.  Decentralized exchanges or stores would probably be number two.  It's unknown what number three is.  "Smart contracts" might possibly be way down the list even past things like notarization.

More on that subject from some random PhD guy's take on eth that I never heard of from a few days ago:

https://medium.com/@bedeho/why-your-ethereum-project-will-most-likely-fail-d14b6d8f1c7c#.wnguyxb3l

IBM says they really go after all corps blockchain usecases high speed like they closed up with Java int he 90s so there will not be much room left for ETH or LISK... Check this around the 20 min:

http://livestream.com/pemo/blockchainsf

This is speculative rationalization.

The problem is that TPTB_need_war and the others who contributed to this thread bring up legitimate concerns that do not show any theoretical solution. Maybe VB does have some solution, but absence of him giving such a solution isn't grounds to assume that  such a solution exist based on the size of the group, or how smart they are, or any other speculative rationalization--there is just as good a chance that the absence of a solution is because one doesn't exist or Eth's team won't be the ones who find it or an adequate alternative. Genius doesn't guarantee success, money doesn't guarantee success, and lots of man hours doesn't guarantee success, and while those things taken together are a definite plus, they cannot be used as evidence of solving a problem, theoretical or otherwise (at least one that doesn't involve specifically money, manpower or genius).

Yes,but he wouldnt have much to gain by going into a debate with him.The only winner of that kind of debate would be the small guy,the one that's unknown,aka the one that wants to release his own crypto.
Short,he would have much to lose if "lose" the debate and nothing to gain if he would win the debate.And what he and his  team is doing is promising and has alot of potential.And in his position are very few people,but in the small guy's position there could be thousands,it would be a neverending battle,everyone would want to debate him to boost his own project,now wouldnt they ?And its not like hes hiding, he's often doing interviews and answering questions.
Now imagine if the roles were reversed.VB would be the new kid on the block and tpbd would be a big project's leader.Same would happen,its only logical,he wouldnt debate about something thats not set yet and on something that you're still trying to solve,and as the development goes further more problems will arise,its only normal.Not to mention VB isnt the only brain in ethereum's team,the team is huge compared to these one man army projects.

Correct, Vitalik refuses to respond to his claims and he seems like he knows what he's talking about.  If he didn't then someone would be able to refute his claims.  I would definitely invest with hopes he succeeds and ultimately makes me a lot of money.  Right.
If only vitalik and shelby can get a debate going, even on bitcoin uncensored for all I care....

And by support you mean mine it/buy ico and hope for a profit right ?That way i may support him aswell,since NO ONE,ever,invest in something just to "support" someone else and hope whatever hes doing is going to succeed.I dont trust him or anyone else on internet,i just do this only if i think i can get some profit,im not a charity.I wont support someone with my money and hope they ll succeed and ill get a free ticket to heaven for good deeds.No one does this,who says otherwise is a hypocrit.
You only invest your money in someone else's project (buy equipment,pay electricity) only if you trust that it has some potential to grow and make some money,thats all.

I will absolutely support his coin.  He seems more of a legend than any other crypto dev, including vitalik who refuses to debate about Shelby's claims.

just look at the vibe he's giving out...you think big corporate is going to like his vibe? sure it was fine 40yrs ago when he made his software and he was young and hungry (and probably humble)...but look at how pompous and douschee he's acting on a message board.  Nobody is gonna support his crapcoin. 

This dream eventually will be gone, i don't know why people don't see his is just another project, and is no
 near to bitcoin and never will be, but people are still blinded with greed and they believe it such lies.

It makes no sense from a conceptual level.  Let's say, for example, the killer app of distributed "smart contracts" is to create some type of dead man's switch to launch nuclear warheads if the gas payments stop coming in, or some other variable trigger.  This means the code for a nation to be attacked would be running on systems located in the enemy country itself.  

The purpose of anything blockchain related is a system of redundancy, whether it's information, or in this case, computational redundancy.  By partitioning the system to different incompatible branches, you've now removed the redundancy, so what is the point of it even existing for?  The hypothetical killer app above is now woefully inadequate.  They want to scale by deleting the thing that makes blockchains actually useful.  Let's not get into the fact that PoS coins are permissioned ledgers in the first place.

As I said, if there are fundamental reasons why it can't
work, then it matters not a whit who is working on it.
A group of Nobel prize winning physicists cannot turn
water into wine.

There are limits to what you can do using computer
programs.

But also take into consideration that people which work on serious projects like ethereum ,opposite to most projects today which are made of 2-3 devs that only want start their own projects to make some money and get some experience in the meantime, have so much more experience than everyone here who just reads about it and make assumptions in theory about what will or not work, or just have vague information of it/about what it will be done.People yelled for years that it would be a scam,that it cannot be done and yet so far they achieved what they promised.And they combined that kind of FUD with pump and dump FUD,to scare both type of people that invested,those short-med term investors that looked to get some profit,and long term investors who believe in technology and that they ll have some kind of success.
TPDB said etheruem is so flawed and broken,but on the other hand he admited it can be fixed (but ofc,only he can do that) and that hes working on his own crypto,so you can understand why hes seeing ethereum as such a big threat to his tiny future project.

It is not absurd.

While we cannot know in detail the forthcoming release(s),
we know that they plan to shard the network to get around the
scalability issue.

All the discussion here has revolved around the consequences
of the sharding. The argument has been presented that no matter
how the sharding will be implemented, there are fundamental reasons
why it cannot work to the extent that we originally supposed
(see Fuserlees nice summary on the previous page if you missed it).

Still I'm not sure that it is a total fiasco. Based on from what I've gathered,
it seems to me that Ethereum can be made to work, but in much more
limited way that has been publicized.

Yes but take into consideration he wants to talk things that ethereum may release in ~1 year which is absurd.How can you debate someone about this?I mean hell,even you and your team dont have all the details about every step or decision you ll make,you would have to speak for your entire team which is absurd.
And as the guy above said vitalik passed every round of qestioning/interviews,and as i know so far they did release everything they planned and they work.Ofcourse if you wanna FUD you ll give an example of how they dont work which would be hypocrite,i mean do you really expect anything they release to work in every possible scenario and for everything that crosses your mind ?
Criticism is always welcome,but if ethereum did bad so far,every other crypto there did horrible including bitcoin.

I'm curious TPTB_need_war,

Given your opinion that Ethereum is doomed, what is your opinion on safenet?

Would be cool if you could give me your thoughts, who knows, maybe you see some weak spots there as well. Not that I necessarily agree with your Ethereum criticism but nevertheless you clearly have something of value to add to the conversation. If I'm not mistaken the area which you are putting weight on is what even Vitalik himself probably would say a problem may arise.

This is common practice in academia, arguments about theoretical problems and theoretical solutions. If vitalik has a solution that he feels works and doesn't want to discuss the implementation, he can just say as much, but to completely avoid the argument is a little sketchy. Time will prove one of these guys right and everyone is free to bet on it or not.

"There are people calling Ether a scam. Now there's something objectively silly. Vitalik passed every single round of questioning with flying colours. His posts on reddit are so technical that I don't understand a single line, yet I love it. It makes me trust him. It's legit. "

Almost every Ethereum investor.

So you want him to debate something they havent released yet and are currently working on ?There can be more reasons for that : 1.You may be right and its impossible for them to fix things (only you can,as you claimed,obviously smarter).
2.They havent decided on every aspect and its a work in progress.
3.Why would the leader of most advanced crypto go into a debate with you over something they still work on ?Give you and everyone else solutions to fix problems long before they can release?
Note that i dont understand blockchain technology in detail (not programmer) and im just making trying to make LOGICAL arguments.

Correct: