Topic: Two hacks and two approaches - is Bitcoin is looking better than Ethereum? - page 2. (Read 2165 times)

Bitcoin was always looking better than ethereum...this only showed the discrepancies between the bitcoin devs and the ethereum devs.

We usually call those altcoins, so this isn't anything special aside from them wanting to market themselves as as relevant to Bitcoin. IIRC I had mentioned that something like "Bitcoin Original" would pop up eventually even though it's based on nonsense.

The majority of the people voting on that website have very limited knowledge.

It's just another damaging altcoin attempt, nothing more.

True, and Bitfinex itself isn't that large an exchange. The MtGox hack tanked the bitcoin price from $1000 to $100 and it has taken two years but the price hasn't quite recovered. If there was a serious competitor to bitcoin in 2014, bitcoin would have been in danger...

there's a fork coming for bitcoin too, apprently
https://bitcoinforks.org/

we even have luke-jr posting his comments on the consider it page  
https://btcfork.consider.it/

IMO this fork will fail to gain any significant support like ETC did.
but its worth a look at what they are doing, its interesting to say the least.

there shouldn't be a "bail-out-switch" in bitcoin or any other coin so when you screw up yourself you can fall back on it and get your money back.
if the bitfinex hacker had used a weakness in bitcoin protocol and stole the funds (or like a long time ago created coins out of thin air) then it would be possible to think about a fork in bitcoin but this hack was a screw up from the exchange owner themselves.

i think this is a fair assessment/conclusion.

ETH never had a chance at replacing BTC.

I never once thought "Hey ETH is the new thing, Bitcoin is obsolete now.."

Still don't think it even came within reasonable spitting distance of having a chance..

As far as its current price trend, which looks better right now, I think ETH was extremely overvalued and I'm not about to buy in now..

In the case of ETH, if I understand correctly (and I may not), ethereum is suppose to be something closer to a distributed supercomputer then to money.  Also, again if I understand correctly, doing a reorg by the miners would really not have accomplished anything as the attacker could have simply executed the attack a second time in a similar way. Lastly, although some people will disagree with this, the fact that the DAO was hacked is verifiable on the blockchain, as anyone can verify that ETH was taken from the DAO that should not have been.

On the other hand, with the Bitfinex hack, it is not possible to verify on the blockchain that Bitfinex was in fact hacked, as in order to know that Bitfinex was hacked, you will need to trust the operator of Bitfinex. In order to confirm that BTC was even taken from Bitfinex's wallets, you will need to either trust Bitfinex, BitGo, or collectively several account holders of Bitfinex. Although I disagree that this is what happened, it is possible that Bitfinex in fact received something of value in exchange for the ~120kBTC that was withdrawn from their wallets.

I am somewhat disappointed that Bitfinex did not attempt to get the miners to do a reorg of the blockchain, as this would give everyone a very important lesson as to when it is safe to trust that a confirmation is sufficiently confirmed. Although it is still technically possible, I don't think this will happen after ~5 days of the hack. the fact is that miners rely on economic incentives to collectively act in a way that builds only on the Bitcoin blockchain with the most work. If there are economic incentives to build on an alternate blockchain, then miners would logically do this. I would much rather everyone learn that a transaction is not "really" confirmed until the miners have received block rewards totaling the amount of the transaction since the transaction confirmed (this may be less in some circumstances depending on if fraud is involved or not). I would much rather this be discovered now to resolve what is almost certainly a hack/theft then in several years when there is a lot of idol mining capacity and a large reorg is done to reverse a very large (in terms of BTC) transaction that is legitimate.

Yes, you're right.

Bitcoin has had several soft forks already so "fork-o-phobia" isn't really correct. Perhaps "hard-fork-o-phobio" would be more accurate.

Bitcoin team has some sort of Fork-o-phobia. Bitcoin needs a couple of great changes to be implemented, but they fear to do that because the big bad fork may affect the price.
Ethereum team did the fork too easy, but it's a more complicate story. And now the ETH-ETC war will make bitcoin team phobia even stronger.

The result is a stone age sturdy Bitcoin mammoth, and if something big happens the mammoth may die and an Ethereum which, while it's still young and forks should come easy, it forked so bad so instead of evolving, it started a war between its own supporters.

Conclusion: both cases are extreme and neither is good.

For me, Bitcoin is certainly looking better than ETH/ETC at the moment, this 'hack' of Bitfinex doesn't have anything to do with Bitcoin itself, while in the case of Ethereum, that was bound to happen due to how it was programmed.

This two hack attempts are totally different in my view as actually dao have security fault or eth have allowed dammps to run in mainchain than side chain so whole chain has to forked to address this security bug. However bitfinex got hacked due to their security fault not that of bitcoin network so actually bitfinex have to fork their security.

A fair point - and some have suspected that the DAO hack was also an "inside job" which has nothing to do with any failure of the underlying Ethereum smart contract implementation either (yet they got involved enough to create a hard fork).

What's got bitcoin core developers got to do with an "inside job" that happened in an exchange ? I don't think is fair to blame them for the hacking which for me is not a hack but an inside job. Nothing to do with it. Its just the greediness of the people running bitfinex or at least one or a few of them which have made this move. Bitcoin is of course looking better as a lot of other exchanges have been hacked in the past and bitcoin resisted to all of these situations.

Bitcoin is looking better than ETH - It's coming to its original price before the Bitfinex hack.

ETH Dropped a lot, and I don't see the future in this alt coin.

Stick to Bitcoin

Nothing happen with Gox , bitcoin go on, fix its wounds,(dont believe the same for the investors) , so Finex it was just an exchange, no major app of btc was hacked, and i dont want to think the option ! really!!

Fortunately, I think this has set the fork-at-any-cost camp back in a huge way. I think they realize that their only chance to get big blocks is to fork without any suggestion of majority or consensus. I think some of the more extreme big-blockers see the viability of both ETH and ETC as a reason to say "let's fork and let the market decide." Terrible idea, but there will always be some around here who are willing to break consensus for their agenda.

If you have to fork Bitcoin for every little hack, we would have 1000's of little side-chains floating around. Ethereum has created a problem for themselves now, because for the next hack, they will have to fork again. Ok, I exaggerated a little,
but you get what I am trying to say.

Bitcoin has had a similar thing happening to them, and it was quickly patched up and hidden away in the archives. ^smile^

but still bitfinex have so many funds from various people around the world if you say bitfinex is not important then it's like saying $60 million is not an important thing,but see how much your wealth right now