Topic: The Ethereum Paradox - page 59. (Read 99876 times)

You should be asking Ethereum that question.

Did Nick "Satoshi" Szabo mention any such analysis during his apparent endorsement of Ethereum in his presentation where he promoted centralization as a problem.

Did Ethereum just violate the SEC securities law by underpromoting transparency (c.f. the linked Coin Center report), e.g. hiding it in obscure layers as r0ach has shown and put talking head Vitalik on a stage to promote the shit out of it with technobabble.

Higher, yes. But maybe insignificantly so. Have you done any analysis?

Duh. And the verification of long-running scripts creates a higher verification cost which thus demands the coin centralize sooner and more egregiously than Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is not any more distributed than Ethereum; it is just as redundant in that regard. Ethereum just took the concept of the programmable scripts in bitcoin and extended the functionality... That and gave us a working 12 second block time. These are the main innovations.

I won't speculate on the valuation, or whether it will 'work' as per the hype, but these are the facts. IMO Casper is a huge mistake, though.

The thought crossed my mind too, but I'm not sure.  It's always possible some VC or banking money drank the koolaid and bought in when they have no idea how it works, or likely doesn't work as the case may be.  The funniest part is on the website how it's plastered literally everywhere how unsafe Ethereum is to use.  It's like they've already figured out it will inevitably fail and are trying to decrease the liability as much as possible:


(no, this photo is not edited)

And another.  I guess they are being honest that this thing is a grenade, just there's too much dumb money in the game and nobody bothered to read the fine print:





i.e. it is dangerous for anyone to attempt to use commercially instead of 1 guy running a hello world script per day.

no, but his balls are an order of magnitude bigger

when you are thinking about dropping a million dollars of your hard earned cash into a crypto community, knowing that the lead developer has the huevos to show himself in public and stand behind his creation instead of hiding like a coward or criminal offers the potential investor a certain level of clarity that is devilishly absent from the bitcoin community.

And why do you ask, do investors love this "clarity" concept that the bitcoin community cannot seem to grasp?

Why does Wall St demand quarterly reports from every company CEO?

Well, in the words of the worlds richest coward, "if you don't understand by now, then ur obviously too stoopid"

You will not receive a dime of Wall Street money without a company CEO.

but for those admittedly too stupid who still ask why, here's the only answer:




















TRUST

you have a wet dream for a moment there buddy, there will be many other platforms coming online one after one to make etherium look nothing but a scam of a homeless beggar begging for money at every bitcoin events, but he is millionaires right now. don't forget this coin smart contracts is using command line for god/buddha/allah sake.
the price will keep going higher as whales are mentally manipulating right now but it is going to be DOA the moment the wallet is released from this get rich quick coin. it's dragging on for a reason, it make people think there is something more about this coin so people keep throwing their life saving at it. it's an unproven scam coin and chance is one negative new this coin should be down to nothing.

Maybe China is developing miners for ETH just like they did with LTC...

ether mining is still all GPU and they claim to be ASIC proof... i wouldnt expect Chinese exchanges to list ether until there's some ether mining in China.

If Chinese exchanges start listing ETH, probably more...

probably.. call the top. im starting to think $20

But will ETH reach 10 USD?

Ethereum is a system of redundantly executed code, a general purpose CPU mirroring the functionality of the worlds most inefficient botnet without parallelization.  Unless blockchain scaling is either huge or infinite, the validation and redundancy of simple transactional data, which Bitcoin attempted to solve in a distributed manner, is far more useful in a cost benefit analysis rather than open ended computational redundancy.  In other words, Bitcoin is an ASIC for a specific purpose, and struggles to fulfill that role even with a streamlined design.  Ethereum, on the other hand, has introduced an objectively less efficient design to try and conquer even more problems.

Such a design would obviously be dead on arrival out of the gate barring any other factors being introduced.  This is where partitioning comes in.  A partitioned network allows load to be split in order to scale further.  Here comes the paradox.  If the entire purpose of Ethereum is a system of redundantly executed code, how does partitioning even fit in the picture in the first place?  I guess you can say, ok, we're arbitrarily defining how much redundancy is enough, but how do you actually determine that?

As you can see, Ethereum is effectively useless without partitioning because it relies on scalability far more than Bitcoin does, while Bitcoin is struggling to achieve any scalability itself.  When you see Mike Hearn talking about using Ethereum as an OTC derivatives settlement, that functionality will be non-existent without partitioning.  The load carrying capacity would be far too small and fees far too large to do at scale.  It will be a case of centralized services vastly outperforming decentralized ones.  Who cares if it's trustless if it costs 10,000 times more?

Transactions can be bundled in Bitcoin without much of a side effect in order to scale, while bundling computational redundancy in Ethereum would defeat the purpose of it existing at all.  This is in addition to the fact that nobody has successfully deployed a partitioned cryptocurrency in the first place.  Fuserleer has been working on one for years and has been unable to release something.  IOTA is about to release.  I haven't dug through it enough myself, but Anonymint claims it's doomed because it will rely on centralization for convergence.

In summary, through bundling or even just plain on-chain transactions alone, Bitcoin can just barely reach functionality of an internationally used currency, at least justifying it's market cap.  Ethereum operating as a "world computer" is an obvious stretch of the imagination.  Since they issued an IPO money grab for their coin supply, I think most investors will already be considering the coin a failure if it has to dilute investors to infinity by leaking mined coins forever.  No actual secure PoS network has even been invented so far, so the coin needs not only one, but two cryptocurrency firsts in order to be considered viable - a valid PoS network and a partitioned network.  In order to even think about touching Ethereum, you're basically required to ask yourself, is Vitalik an order of magnitude smarter than Satoshi?