Crypto thread
#41
(08-06-2019, 11:58 PM)billydingdong Wrote:
(08-05-2019, 09:12 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote: ...

This also reminds me about the height of the ethereum pump cycle in about mid-2017 when there was ongoing discussion of the flippening.. that ethereum shit was pumped to death out of hopium of a flippening (which would have been conceptualized as ethereum's market cap going higher than bitcoin's marketcap), but many of those folks more knowledgeable about the scaminess and smoke and mirror bullshit of ethereum would have surely recognized the artificial reality of such a situation, if it had occurred because even to date, [1] there is not a real solid understanding of either their total coin supply nor the extent of the [2] premine holdings and supply that is held due to a kind of premining or other shenanigans of their coins distribution, [3] including the bailouts that they have either done or that they have discussed in their foundation meetings.  That kind of shit (shenanigans) does not go on in bitcoin, including the accompanying marketing and/or attempts at pump and dump... Ripple is good at smoke and mirror marketing too... hahahaha  might pump? might pump?

This is mostly unfocused and unintelligible writing... I'll address the points that I think you've tried to make.

Fair enough if you believe that you do not understand something, but there is no need to tell me about what points that I tried to make because my posts speaks for itself. To the extent that you want to respond to my post and to make your own points, I will look at that. Great.


(08-06-2019, 11:58 PM)billydingdong Wrote: [1] To your point about inflation, the absence of a hard cap is a good thing...

Yes. It is a good thing that if Ethereum wants to have a money that just resembles the status quo institutions, so in that regard, the continued supply of Eth and even uncertainties about the supply causes that money to be hardly any different from status quo government fiat and even removes a decent amount of certainty about both its current supply, future increases in supply and/or changes in policies about changes in its supply or future supply.

So in that regard, the whole thing around both the vaguenesses in ETH regarding how much there is, how much was premined, how much is the future supply would be quite a bit less of a sound money than bitcoin... that's for sure.... and so far, as far as I understand Ethereum has not moved away from its vagueness in those supply management regards which causes it to be far from a valuable asset in terms of hardness of money and/or transparency in that direction.

(08-06-2019, 11:58 PM)billydingdong Wrote: it's FAR from given that bitcoin or any other hard-capped proof-of-work coins will be economically viable to secure the network over the long-term as their block rewards dwindle and reduce to nothing.

Who fucking cares? We are all going to be dead in the future anyhow.

Look we know the supply emissions until 2140, and the plan is that no more mining rewards after that time. Therefore the fees will generate the mining rewards from thereafter. One thing seems to be true so far is that part of the paradigm changing aspect is that there has been no other currency that has been attempted with such scarcity, which in fact is a supply that has already been fixed, but an issuance that continues to 2140. There will be lost coins along the way too, which will likely cause bitcoin's supply to be even in the more and more scarce direction with the passage of time.


(08-06-2019, 11:58 PM)billydingdong Wrote: As of right now, ETH inflation is around 4.5% of total supply (around 13,500 new ETH issued daily, total supply of about 100 million), and block rewards have only been going down: https://etherscan.io/chart/ethersupply.  Additionally, after proof of stake, ether inflation rate will be even lower, around 1%. That seems to be a reasonable amount to secure a network, especially when that 1% is given to holders who are staking.

You state it as a certainty, and the seeming level of ongoing centralization in ethereum should cause considerable doubts about knowing what is the actual supply or even the future supply. But, yeah, if you have faith in ethereum, then there are going to be some attempts to stick to various stories and to solidify narratives, even if those stories and narratives seem to have a decent amount of shifting - that again is beyond bitcoins level of scarcity, its level of transparency about its supply, its security of its supply and its unchanged narrative about its supply that was already set forth in the algorithm more than 10 years ago and ever since stayed on course without material deviation.

(08-06-2019, 11:58 PM)billydingdong Wrote: [2] I don't see a problem with lightly premined coins. In fact, I see it as a useful way to align the incentives of the founders so that they stay on board and see out the success of a project. Ethereum was 12% for the founders out of an initial supply of 60 million. The supply has since grown to 100 million with the creation of block rewards for the miners, so the original founders' % ownership and control has been diluted while the value of their coins have gone up.

Of course, if people believe that this system is good, then they can invest into it, as long as they know about it and realize how it is different from bitcoin.


(08-06-2019, 11:58 PM)billydingdong Wrote: That sounds ideal to me.

Of course, it would "sound ideal" to you. You love yourself some ethereum, and you are blinded by your love.
hahahahahaha

Go on. Keep on loving it, and maybe that will help its overall market performance, network growth, etc. I have my doubts, but again, who cares what I think about it.. .let your money speak for you, and if each of us is investing in as much of an approximation to our views then in the long run we should be better off. So in that regard, I do not perceive myself to be competing with you or even discouraging you or anyone else from investing in something that I consider to be quite inferior to bitcoin, based on a lot of misinformation and bordering on scamminess in several areas.

You may end up doing quite well for yourself in such investment, in spite my ongoing skepticisms.

(08-06-2019, 11:58 PM)billydingdong Wrote: So what is the problem with this and how do you suggest the original founders be compensated for their efforts and incentivized to stick around and improve the protocol?

Some of that is water under the bridge, and people can decide whether to invest or not... what the fuck do I care?

They can compare it to bitcoin too, and decide if they believe it is a better incentives system.

You believe it to be a better set-up for the creation of incentives, and good on you. I don't agree.

(08-06-2019, 11:58 PM)billydingdong Wrote: Why should all  of the benefit and value accrue to the miners and not the original team? 

Sounds scammy and unnecessary to me, and does not sound like a fair distribution... but whatever do what you like.

(08-06-2019, 11:58 PM)billydingdong Wrote: Even Satoshi Nakomoto holds around 1 million bitcoins out at total ~17.8 million   supply (5%) -- which I don't see as problematic either.

I doubt that those coins are ever going to be spent, but we will see. Of course, the outstanding existence of those coins and their ongoing non-movement does concededly contribute to some level of uncertainty about what is going to happen with those coins and will they ever move. The existence of those coins and their non-movement has been discussed long before my coming into the BTC scene in late 2013, and I believe that I knew about the status of those coins quite near to the beginning of my coming into bitcoin.

(08-06-2019, 11:58 PM)billydingdong Wrote: [3] What bailouts? If there is a hard fork (as with what happened in the DAO fiasco) where stakeholders are made whole after fraud or problems with a smart contract, then the miners that secure the network have to agree on it. That's a democratic and robust way to resolve a problem --

There was the DAO issue that caused the fork, and then there had been some discussion regarding bailouts for other issues such as the parity wallet and some other bullshit stuff. For some period of time, ethereum marketers were touting out how wonderful it was to hardfork and to do it often, and the dao fork kind of caused them some subsequent hesitations.

There is a website showing at least 6 ethereum hardforks after the initial hardfork. https://www.etherchain.org/hardForks between September 2015 and October 2017, and I thought that there were one or two other scheduled hardforks that were abandoned in a last minute kind of way.

So yeah even if ethereum hardforks less frequently in the future, they are surely less hardfork averse than bitcoin folks, and you can take that dynamic for whatever value you believe it to be worth and to make your investment decision to the extent you believe that information helps you in your investing allocations towards ethereum or not.

(08-06-2019, 11:58 PM)billydingdong Wrote:
it even happened on Bitcoin when it was rolled back through a hardfork in 2013 due to an error in versions 0.7 and 0.8.

That comes off as a child level of argument to even suggest the mere fact that bitcoin once had to emergency hardfork in 2013 based on a bug, therefore, ethereum's level of hardfork friendliness is even close to what happened in bitcoin. As far as I know, bitcoin has had only one or two hard forks in its whole history, and recently has had a preference for softforks. There may be some time in the future in which either bitcoin needs to perform a hardfork because it is the only way to accomplish some kind of fix or that maybe there will be an emergency that requires another hardfork, but that still does not even bring bitcoin close to ethereum in terms of its hardfork friendliness.

(08-06-2019, 11:58 PM)billydingdong Wrote: So once again...I don't see a major issue here.
Of course, you do not. You luv ur selfie some ethereum.

(08-06-2019, 11:58 PM)billydingdong Wrote: Price has recovered and multiplied in both projects since their respective disasters. Is it concerning? Maybe a little, but the ultimate success of all these projects highly speculative anyways.

Of course, from my point of view, as I have already asserted several times, ethereum is way the fuck more speculative than bitcoin, and it is also very dependent upon the success of bitcoin in order for it to be successful. It is not a two way street. Bitcoin is not dependent on ethereum or any of the other coat-tail hanging on scam coins to be successful in order for bitcoin to be successful.

Don't get me wrong, some of the scam coins, whether ethereum, various ERC 20 coins, ICOs, other shitcoins has brought money and attention into the bitcoin space and also there are likely some technologies and even social or marketing efforts that bitcoin is able to learn from and to consider incorporating into its platform to make bitcoin more robust or user-friendly.. or also sometimes showing clearly what roads or paths NOT to go down.
Reply
#42
Surely, ethereum is not the only entity engaging in various shades of shenanigans, smoke and mirrors and misrepresentations in the space, and of course, we can look at bcash and even Coinbase's launch of bcash trading in December 2017.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...ash-launch

I am sure that coinbase is going to attempt to settle such suit rather than to be dragged through public testimony regarding their ridiculous launch of bcash trading on their platform.
Reply
#43
If any guy thinks that I am on too much of an incoherent rant in terms of my negging on ethereum and other shitcoins while using bitcoin as a kind of comparison metric, the below linked podcast of Guy Swann from yesterday seems to capture a decent amount of my thinking in terms of why bitcoin is better and so far the best.

https://overcast.fm/+MYnxZsm8U

Guy Swann reads an article of Ben Perrin's entitled "My path to bitcoin  maximalism"  It's about a 20 minute read, but makes a lot of really good points regarding the various shenanigans of other blockchains that I frequently refer to without elaboration.
Reply
#44
(08-07-2019, 02:32 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote: [1] Of course, it would "sound ideal" to you. You love yourself some ethereum, and you are blinded by your love.
hahahahahaha

Go on. Keep on loving it, and maybe that will help its overall market performance, network growth, etc. I have my doubts, but again, who cares what I think about it.. .let your money speak for you, and if each of us is investing in as much of an approximation to our views then in the long run we should be better off. So in that regard, I do not perceive myself to be competing with you or even discouraging you or anyone else from investing in something that I consider to be quite inferior to bitcoin, based on a lot of misinformation and bordering on scamminess in several areas.

You may end up doing quite well for yourself in such investment, in spite my ongoing skepticisms.

....

[2] You state it as a certainty, and the seeming level of ongoing centralization in ethereum should cause considerable doubts about knowing what is the actual supply or even the future supply.  But, yeah, if you have faith in ethereum, then there are going to be some attempts to stick to various stories and to solidify narratives, even if those stories and narratives seem to have a decent amount of shifting - that again is beyond bitcoins level of scarcity, its level of transparency about its supply, its security of its supply and its unchanged narrative about its supply that was already set forth in the algorithm more than 10 years ago and ever since stayed on course without material deviation.

...

[3] There was the DAO issue that caused the fork, and then there had been some discussion regarding bailouts for other issues such as the parity wallet and some other bullshit stuff.  For some period of time, ethereum marketers were touting out how wonderful it was to hardfork and to do it often, and the dao fork kind  of caused them some subsequent hesitations.  

There is a website showing at least 6 ethereum hardforks after the initial hardfork.  https://www.etherchain.org/hardForks between September 2015 and October 2017, and I thought that there were one or two other scheduled hardforks that were abandoned in a last minute kind of way.

So yeah even if ethereum hardforks less frequently in the future, they are surely less hardfork averse than bitcoin folks, and you can take that dynamic for whatever value you believe it to be worth and to make your investment decision to the extent you believe that information helps you in your investing allocations towards ethereum or not.


...

[4] That comes off as a child level of argument to even suggest the mere fact that bitcoin once had to emergency hardfork in 2013 based on a bug, therefore, ethereum's level of hardfork friendliness is even close to what happened in bitcoin.  As far as I know, bitcoin has had only one or two hard forks in its whole history, and recently has had a preference for softforks.  There may be some time in the future in which either bitcoin needs to perform a hardfork because it is the only way to accomplish some kind of fix or that maybe there will be an emergency that requires another hardfork, but that still does not even bring bitcoin close to ethereum in terms of its hardfork friendliness.

Keep in mind, you're the one saying Etherem is a scam project, and I'm just showing that your reasons for saying are dubious.

[1] Like I alluded to, I don't see the problem with a lightly premined coin as an incentive mechanism and a sort of 'equity stake' for rewarding original developers + founders and encouraging them to remain involved in the project.  This is effectively no different than Satoshi Nakamoto or Charlie Lee having an early opportunity to accumulate with mining when the project is formally deployed.

I can't begrudge either strategy so long as the network remains sufficiently decentralized and founders are unable to exert undue influence over miners and the ledger. I'm much more concerned about miner centralization -- which is a risk in just about all the major coins including Bitcoin.


[2]  My belief in decreasing inflation is not a challenging faith to have... Inflation rates via block rewards have only been going down in both absolute and percentage terms.

Orange is inflation rate
Blue is total supply


[Image: DmR52BzUcAAZT5t?format=jpg&name=small]

I'd even argue that you have to have a greater amount of faith that solely transaction fees will sustain Bitcoin miners and that they will want to continue securing the Bitcoin network when faced with the prospect of decreasing block rewards. Remember that miners will devote energy to the highest ROI chains and there is FAR from guaranteed that Bitcoin will stay that way.

The fact is nobody knows what inflationary policy is best long-term to keep miners' and holders' interests aligned and better for a project to be flexible and low. Ethereum actually has a possible

[3] Hard forks are necessary for making material improvements on a project. It should be no surprise that Ethereum or any other smart contract platform would need to hard fork more than Bitcoin or a peer-to-peer platform because a smart contract platform is more sophisticated by several orders of magnitude.

So if hard forking is not fatal and probably necessary for a cryptocurrency, the question is what kind of hard forks are acceptable to maintain the integrity of the network?

[4] Haha, not hardly! If the Bitcoin ledger can be rolled back and if protocol improvements can be implemented via hard fork then it's not so 'immutable'... Not even Bitcoin has 'absolute immutability'.

Hard forks are problematic when they are contentious and chaotic, and fortunately, Ethereum hasn't had one of those types of torpedos yet to sink the protocol. If these hard forks were so problematic, then why would dev teams and enterprises keep building on top of it...?

Bitcoin may be fine as an investment in the near term and investment capital is likely to flow into it in the next run-up since it's the traditional crypto bellweather. It has a good narrative and investment thesis as 'store of value'/'digital gold', which I've already outlined.

But historically when Bitcoin pumps, Ethereum pumps harder (also true in reverse on the way down). And more to the point, Ethereum is a grander project with a more compelling thesis, especially when the investing public comes to understand it as 'programmable money' or 'programmable store of value'. 

I see little material progress on Bitcon's horizon especially when compared to Ethereum and Bitcoin's best hope is that the 'store of value' meme and price action wins out despite its technical shortcomings, network congestion, and sclerotic pace of development. Which is entirely possible.

If I'm going to speculate in this space, I think I'll go with the coin with larger dev adoption, numerous enterprise collaborators, success having implemented material improvements, and more utility with actual use cases (DeFi, stable coins, asset tokenization, etc).
Reply
#45
(08-07-2019, 10:07 PM)billydingdong Wrote:
(08-07-2019, 02:32 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote: [edited out]

Keep in mind, you're the one saying Etherem is a scam project, and I'm just showing that your reasons for saying are dubious.

It might be fair to suggest that not everyone in ethereum is "in" on the scam.

Surely there is a decent amount of market action that is also causing some people to get involved in ethereum for legitimate reasons, and the level to which you are arguing  against me likely means that you are sufficiently convinced that there are legitimate aspects to ethereum.  

Sometimes, the scammers do not know that they are scamming or involved in scammy bullshit.

Whether I have sufficiently backed up my statements, you may have some points there too, that I have not sufficiently backed up my statements to actually establish various scammy aspects that I have asserted...  but this is no fucking court of law, either, so I believe that I have provided enough information, even if based on opinion and inferences rather than direct evidence to sufficiently support various assertions that I have made.  You differ in your opinion regarding the level to which I have backed up my statements, so we disagree  about some of that.

By the way, it could take a very long time for a lot of this to play out, and surely ethereum could get pumped for 10 or 20 years, and maybe some stronger foundations will be built that will cause me to change my current beliefs about ethereum, but at this point, I am merely providing my various opinions and some of what I believe to be sufficient support for my conclusions.  I don't give too many shits if you still decide to invest in ethereum, or increase your allocation into ethereum or whatever.. surely those are your choices.

(08-07-2019, 10:07 PM)billydingdong Wrote: [1] Like I alluded to, I don't see the problem with a lightly premined coin as an incentive mechanism and a sort of 'equity stake' for rewarding original developers + founders and encouraging them to remain involved in the project. 

Surely we have already covered this several times and we conclude differently.

(08-07-2019, 10:07 PM)billydingdong Wrote: This is effectively no different than Satoshi Nakamoto or Charlie Lee having an early opportunity to accumulate with mining when the project is formally deployed.

Probably Satoshi is the only case of a fair mine, so far.  Or at least relatively speaking the most fair that could be possible under the circumstances, especially if Satoshi's coins never move again.  Anyhow, we still do not know who the fuck Satoshi is, so it is quite inaccurate for you to be saying that it is just like satoshi.. because none of the cases, so far are just like satoshi.

Regarding Charlie Lee, who gives any fucks?  You think that I have any inklings to defend litecoin or to even suggest that litecoin is better than ethereum.. As far as  I know, litecoin is closer to ethereum than it is to bitcoin in terms of its premining because we know who the fuck is charlie lee and we also know who the fuck vitalik is and some of his ethereum foundation buddies.. but yeah of course, if we attempt to stick with ethereum, there is a decent amount of convolution in the whole way that ethereum was launched as a kind of ICO and all the bullshit around that, too.  So, yeah, it is not the same as bitcoin's launch.  Snap back into reality with better comparisons.


(08-07-2019, 10:07 PM)billydingdong Wrote: I can't begrudge either strategy so long as the network remains sufficiently decentralized and founders are unable to exert undue influence over miners and the ledger.

They are different systems, and ethereum was built on attempting to copy bitcoin, while at the same time  "improving" it while at the same time providing  mechanisms for a bunch of snotty nosed 14 year olds to attempt   to get rich in the process and to be able to randomly print money in subsequent times.


(08-07-2019, 10:07 PM)billydingdong Wrote: I'm much more concerned about miner centralization -- which is a  risk in just about all the major coins including Bitcoin.

New topic?  Huh?  Seems to me that mining in bitcoin has become a lot more distributed through the years, and mining in bitcoin is really the only BIG ass system that is functional.

Who gives any shits about other coins, they hardly even compare to bitcoin in terms of either size or in terms of how well it works, especially given the enormous size of bitcoin's mining.  If there were a comparable coin, then maybe this would be a topic worthy of discussion.. otherwise, bitcoin is leagues in front of any other crypto system.  So, in other words, who gives any fucks about the rest or attempting to make a comparison because ALL of the other coins are in the baby leagues while bitcoin  is playing in the major leagues.. so comparisons are likely NOT going to be too accurate until you adequately and materially account for the difference in size aspects.


(08-07-2019, 10:07 PM)billydingdong Wrote: [2]  My belief in decreasing inflation is not a challenging faith to have... Inflation rates via block rewards have only been going down in both absolute and percentage terms.

Orange is inflation rate
Blue is total supply
[Image: DmR52BzUcAAZT5t?format=jpg&name=small]

Who the fuck knows what that seemingly made up shit is?

Like I said, if you have confidence in ethereum's supply management then go ahead and invest in that shit.

I have already provided reasons for my skepticism, so I don't see what purpose there is to keep batting around nonsense that seems to appear that they have their supply management in order, when it seems that the actual evidence is to the contrary.. and there continues to be a lot of uncertainty in terms of both coins already issued and what the future supply is going to be... and even if their picture of the future looks acceptable, it seems that vitalik and friends can easily enough change the roadmap....   So why waste our time in discussing such bullshit?
If you want to waste your own time, or you are a believer in ETH, then no one is stopping you.  Go at it.

(08-07-2019, 10:07 PM)billydingdong Wrote: I'd even argue that you have to have a greater amount of faith that solely transaction fees will sustain Bitcoin miners and that they will want to continue securing the Bitcoin network when faced with the prospect of decreasing block rewards. Remember that miners will devote energy to the highest ROI chains and there is FAR from guaranteed that Bitcoin will stay that way.

There is a plan in place that is pretty fucking solid in bitcoin, so if it has to be tweaked down the road, then so be it. With these kinds of systems, it seems much better to go with the flow than to presume it is going to be dead in 100 years.  In 100 years, why the fuck would I care?  Surely I am  going to be long dead.

Anyhow, hypothetically, I would not have been opposed to continuing with some kind of a continued inflation rate like 1% or something like that, but bitcoin is intentionally and purposefully NOT built with any inflation rate. It is a fixed supply.  So let's see how that works over the years.  We have never witnessed such a thing, yet just because we have never witnessed such a thing does not mean, automatically, that it will not work and miner fees will not adequately and sufficiently adjust.  

The market has known about this for the total time of BTC's existence, yet bitcoin's price has continued to perform well, at least so far, so let's see how it continues.  Mostly the concept seems to be bullish on price, at least for the upcoming future.  You can invest in BTC if you want or you can continue to naysay that bitcoin is going to be dead in 100 years because block reward is going to dry up... o.k o.k o.k.. whatever.


(08-07-2019, 10:07 PM)billydingdong Wrote: The fact is nobody knows what inflationary policy is best long-term to keep miners' and holders' interests aligned and better for a project to be flexible and low. Ethereum actually has a possible

The main punchline is that people know what bitcoin's monetary policy is... and ethereum's remains less than clear and even suspicious in some ways.

(08-07-2019, 10:07 PM)billydingdong Wrote: [3] Hard forks are necessary for making material improvements on a project. It should be no surprise that Ethereum or any other smart contract platform would need to hard fork more than Bitcoin or a peer-to-peer platform because a smart contract platform is more sophisticated by several orders of magnitude.

O.k.  great.  Hardfork away and as much as you need.  Have fun.


(08-07-2019, 10:07 PM)billydingdong Wrote: So if hard forking is not fatal and probably necessary for a cryptocurrency, the question is what kind of hard forks are acceptable to maintain the integrity of the network?

Are you just assuming some strawman creation of a scenario, here?

(08-07-2019, 10:07 PM)billydingdong Wrote: [4] Haha, not hardly! If the Bitcoin ledger can be rolled back and if protocol improvements can be implemented via hard fork then it's not so 'immutable'... Not even Bitcoin has 'absolute immutability'.

You are just making shit up.. .o.k.. great... comes off as pie in the sky and desperate.


(08-07-2019, 10:07 PM)billydingdong Wrote: Hard forks are problematic when they are contentious and chaotic, and fortunately, Ethereum hasn't had one of those types of torpedos yet to sink the protocol.  If these hard forks were so problematic, then why would dev teams and enterprises keep building on top of it...?

Didn't already respond to this and say who cares?  Refrain:  "Hardfork away and as much as you need.  Have fun."

kind of feeling like I am in the middle of a song or a poem, now.

(08-07-2019, 10:07 PM)billydingdong Wrote: Bitcoin may be fine as an investment in the near term and investment capital is likely to flow into it in the next run-up since it's the traditional crypto bellweather. It has a good narrative and investment thesis as 'store of value'/'digital gold', which I've already outlined.

Bitcoin does not give any shits about what you or I think or even the various narratives, because bitcoin does not have or need marketing.  It markets itself.  So, you can buy it or not... that is your choice.. either way, it will be going up in value and gravitating value for a good number of years into the future... probably 100 years or more, but again, what do I care much about 100 years into the future, except maybe the general outline rather than specifics?

(08-07-2019, 10:07 PM)billydingdong Wrote: But historically when Bitcoin pumps, Ethereum pumps harder (also true in reverse on the way down).

Historically bitcoin has had several pumps, and only one pump since ethereum came into existence in 2015.  Bitcoin gives two shits about ethereum, and if you eth buddies are able to pump ethereum, then go ahead.  Sure it is possible, but I am not  sure if you can count on it with any kind of level of precision, even if that is what a lot of the ethereum bagholders are prognosticating.


(08-07-2019, 10:07 PM)billydingdong Wrote: And more to the point, Ethereum is a grander project with a more compelling thesis, especially when the investing public comes to understand it as 'programmable money' or 'programmable store of value'. 

Good luck with a supposed "more compelling thesis."  

(08-07-2019, 10:07 PM)billydingdong Wrote: I see little material progress on Bitcon's horizon especially when compared to Ethereum

Yes.  That's the same bullshit that ethereum pumpeners have been proclaiming since their beginnings.  Ethereum is a bitcoin 2.0, and they had some good periods, but if you look back to price performance of the past two years, ethereum is not doing anywhere close to as good as bitcoin currently... Currently, on a two year timeline, bitcoin is up nearly 200% and Ethereum is down 32%... So maybe you will catch up.. maybe?  Maybe?

(08-07-2019, 10:07 PM)billydingdong Wrote: and Bitcoin's best hope is that the 'store of value' meme and price action wins out despite its technical shortcomings, network congestion, and sclerotic pace of development. Which is entirely possible.

You are making up shit, again.  There is nothing wrong with bitcoin, you dumbass.

(08-07-2019, 10:07 PM)billydingdong Wrote: If I'm going to speculate in this space, I think I'll go with the coin with larger dev adoption, numerous enterprise collaborators,  success having implemented material improvements, and more utility with actual use cases (DeFi, stable coins, asset tokenization, etc).

Great.. .go with it.  You are presumably a BIG boy, so you should be able to make decisions for yourself, and your  3% of you total holdings into ETH and 0% in BTC.  That is your choice.  

Like I mentioned in the stock investing thread,  I usually recommend that guys invest 1% to 10% in bitcoin, and of course how much they invest will depend on their own situation including other investments, cashflow, timeline, risk tolerance, view of bitcoin as compared with other assets, and how much time they will spend on managing their investing.  Furthermore, even though it took me a bit of time to establish my bitcoin stake and my goal was 10%, which I had largely established by the end of 2014, I ended up investing a stake of closer to 14% by the end of 2015.  

Furthermore, I recommend that guys invest no more than 1% in any non-bitcoin crypto (or all of their non-bitcoin cryptos combined).  But of course, guys can chose their own allocation levels based on their own circumstances which may either justify their differing investment framework other maybe even their more gambling approach to these kinds of matters.. which I don't really believe in taking a gambling approach, even though I recognize that other guys differ from me in their thinking and the way that they employ their investment strategies.
Reply
#46
Another thing is that ethereum has block cluttering issues and they are all over the place in terms of whether they have temporary solutions, and pie in the sky cocksured that they have long term solutions - yet more than a year, its been a real bitch for anyone attempting to sync the whole ETH blockchain, but their common refrain is "why should everyone need to sync the whole blockchain... it is good enough just to sync part of it, and let the BIG BOYS sync the whole thing.  

Some of the latest proposals involve teaming up with other blockchains, and who the fuck knows if they are serious or just brainstorming in a kind of desperation?


https://ethresear.ch/t/bitcoin-cash-a-sh...ereum/5735


https://cointelegraph.com/news/buterin-p...short-term
Reply
#47
Alright, well I've said my piece about your main objections:
  • Supposed 'scamminess'
    ridiculous assertion given that it's the project with the most substantial developer + enterprise adoption

  • Ethereum supply
    rapidly decreasing inlfation rate and will be around or less than 1% soon; also no reason to believe hard capped coins offer a better solution to securing the network long-term as block rewards reduce

  • Problems with initial issuance
    12% of initial supply and now less than 7% of current total supply; premining is no better or worse as an incentive/reward mechanism than early mining

  • Problems with hard forks
    — not all that problematic if they're not contentious and almost always essential to materially improve the protocol

  • Problems with bailouts
    only one with a provable malicious actor early in the project; the proposed Parity wallet bailout you mentioned was discussed but never happened
And I find none of your responses convincing and I don't see why anyone else should either: just rehashed talking points with a loose grasp of the subject matter. We'll see what happens over the long-term with Ethereum, but if you think bitcoin is going to be the only relevant crypto currency in the coming years you're in for a rude awakening.

JayJuanGee Wrote:You are making up shit, again.  There is nothing wrong with bitcoin, you dumbass.

Calm down, gramps. Bitcoin's network congestion and scaling problems are well-documented. Whether they're back-breaking and whether other cryptos will end up offering more adequate solutions that are sufficiently decentralized remains to be seen. If you could take your eyes off trivial analysis of price movements and knew more about the actual tech, you'd be able to easily see that  Wink
Reply
#48
(08-08-2019, 02:50 PM)billydingdong Wrote: Alright, well I've said my piece about your main objections:

And your recap below does not really add any value, but does allow you assert your points in one spot, even though such conclusory assertions do not make your points any more substantiated beyond what seems like nearly a pure wish on your side.

(08-08-2019, 02:50 PM)billydingdong Wrote:
  • Supposed 'scamminess'
    ridiculous assertion given that it's the project with the most substantial developer + enterprise adoption

Yeah right. We can see how these supposedly good things play out, especially when the updated code supposedly releases early 2020 (that is if it does)

(08-08-2019, 02:50 PM)billydingdong Wrote:
  • Ethereum supply
    rapidly decreasing inlfation rate and will be around or less than 1% soon; also no reason to believe hard capped coins offer a better solution to securing the network long-term as block rewards reduce

  • Your supposed inflation rate is surely based on unknowns and surely speculative regarding what they say they are going to do in the future... Funny thing with bitcoin is that much value is based on not changing and therefore it is asserted that bitcoin will keep doing what it is doing and not change unless it has to, with ethereum, the value is based on that it will change because what it is currently doing is not working..

    (08-08-2019, 02:50 PM)billydingdong Wrote:
  • Problems with initial issuance
    12% of initial supply and now less than 7% of current total supply; premining is no better or worse as an incentive/reward mechanism than early mining

  • Yes and you are making shit up with your attempts at false equivalencies, here. I already responded to this talking point that you got from ethereum central, several times.

    (08-08-2019, 02:50 PM)billydingdong Wrote:
  • Problems with hard forks
    — not all that problematic if they're not contentious and almost always essential to materially improve the protocol

  • Yes. If you state it. It must be dee true.

    (08-08-2019, 02:50 PM)billydingdong Wrote:
  • Problems with bailouts  
    only one with a provable malicious actor  early in the project; the proposed Parity wallet bailout you mentioned was discussed but never happened

  • Shows ability to do bailouts, and maybe we will see if such bailouts are attempted in the future.

    (08-08-2019, 02:50 PM)billydingdong Wrote: And I find none of your responses convincing and I don't see why anyone else should either: just rehashed talking points with a loose grasp of the subject matter. We'll see what happens over the long-term with Ethereum,

    Of course, you would not have found any of my responses to have been convincing, because you had already decided that you wuv yourself some ethereum in spite of what appears to be quite substantial performance on the two year time line in comparison to bitcoin. We will see if it pumps again and if this is a good time to get into ethereum. Anyone logically looking at the matter should expect that Ethereum needs to put out 2.0 with success before it is able to pump, but you never know when there is a lot of marketing. They have been able to have pumps in the past based on crap, and if you can get others to follow, then there is no reason that a lack of functioning code will stop anyone from pumpening it again.

    (08-08-2019, 02:50 PM)billydingdong Wrote: but if you think bitcoin is going to be the only relevant crypto currency in the coming years you're in for a rude awakening.

    I never said that bitcoin was going to be the only crypto. I said that it is the only one that I would recommend putting a decent amount of long term value. I said that if you play around with the other crapola, then you better watch them closely.

    Furthermore, I asserted that I believe that it is likely that several of the nonbitcoin cryptocoins are going to have at least one more pumpening that attaches to the coattails of bitcoin and it could take a large number of years for all the crapola coins to get sorted out and go to zero, including the fact that a lot of them might live on as kind of zombie coins, continued diversions, places for dumb money, and/or attack vectors towards bitcoin, so I never asserted that I expect them all to just go away, and in that regard, I would be chicken shit to short any of them because any of the crap with low liquidity can easily pump, but that does not make it a good investment for long term, even if some guys might be able to get some decently sized short term profits out of some of them if they time them correctly.

    (08-08-2019, 02:50 PM)billydingdong Wrote:
    JayJuanGee Wrote:You are making up shit, again.  There is nothing wrong with bitcoin, you dumbass.
    Calm down, gramps. Bitcoin's network congestion and scaling problems are well-documented.

    Well documented by pie in the sky assertions, including relying on a pretty long spam attack campaign that lasted over two months in late 2017 through about end of January 2018.

    By the way, since about February 2018, there have been a few more attempts at spam attacks that hardly lasted more than a day or two, so dumbass fudster spreaders have to keep going back to the late 2017/early 2018 spam attack for their supposed evidence of bitcoin problems and brokenness, but of course, they will continue to make pie in the sky suggestions that such problem is ongoing by asserting that BTC's fees are too high and transaction times are too slow.

    That is hardly well-documented, but instead frequently and loudly orchestrated, and in the end, real users of bitcoin see that it is quite functional for the personal financial empowerment that it provides in terms of opens source, decentralized, immutable, secure value storage and transportation power.


    (08-08-2019, 02:50 PM)billydingdong Wrote: Whether they're back-breaking and whether other cryptos will end up offering more adequate solutions that are sufficiently decentralized remains to be seen.

    Yes... whenever you have anything that comes even close to the power of bitcoin, let me know, I may diversify into it a bit. Scamtheeum is not even close, currently.

    (08-08-2019, 02:50 PM)billydingdong Wrote: If you could take your eyes off trivial analysis of price movements and knew more about the actual tech, you'd be able to easily see that  Wink

    A last desperate attempt to play the tech card... Rolleyes Rolleyes

    Many pumpers and scammers try to drag possible bitcoin investors into the various deceptions regarding superior technical developments outside of bitcoin, which does continue to be a good line to attract investors into crap.

    The assumption assumes bitcoin is sufficiently broken or that their supposed better tech is sufficiently better to be necessary in bitcoin in such a way that bitcoin would not just absorb such supposedly better tech, if there were any need to do so.

    By far bitcoin has had the most evolved network effects, in spite of your wishful claims to have more developers and enterprise... There are seven network effects that are working somewhat independently but also building on each other, which are outlined by Trace Mayer. The network effects in bitcoin have not stopped building.




    As outlined by this 2015 article they are:
    >>>>>>
    The 7 network effects of Bitcoin are as follows:
    Speculation -
    Merchant Adoption -
    Consumer Adoption -
    Security -
    Developer Mindshare -
    Financialization -
    Adoption as a World Reserve Currency<<<<<<

    Of course, there has been more discussion of these network effects in other places since 2015 and there are other great theories, too regarding why bitcoin continues to kick the asses of the various crypto wannabes, including but not limited to ethereum.
    Reply
    #49
    (08-08-2019, 05:00 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote: Another thing is that ethereum has block cluttering issues and they are all over the place in terms of whether they have temporary solutions, and pie in the sky cocksured that they have long term solutions - yet more than a year, its been a real bitch for anyone attempting to sync the whole ETH blockchain, but their common refrain is "why should everyone need to sync the whole blockchain... it is good enough just to sync part of it, and let the BIG BOYS sync the whole thing. 

    Some of the latest proposals involve teaming up with other blockchains, and who the fuck knows if they are serious or just brainstorming in a kind of desperation?

    https://ethresear.ch/t/bitcoin-cash-a-sh...ereum/5735

    https://cointelegraph.com/news/buterin-p...short-term

    It was an idea kicked around on a research forum as a short-term scaling solution for the data layer; not implemented, not even a formal proposal and certainly not a suggestion as a long-term solution.

    To the larger point, yes, solving the data storage/availability problem and implementing a robust 'sharding' mechanism that improves scalability and tx throughpout while still protecting the integrity of the network are still major challenges facing Ethereum. I'm under no illusions about that.

    It's far from certain that these efforts will be successful, but at this point Ethereum has the most resources, enterprise support, and devs to address the challenge.

    (08-08-2019, 04:28 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote: [*]
    As outlined by this 2015 article they are:
    >>>>>>
    The 7 network effects of Bitcoin are as follows:
    Speculation -  
    Merchant Adoption -  
    Consumer Adoption -  
    Security -  
    [1] Developer Mindshare
    [2] Financialization 
    [3] Adoption as a World Reserve Currency<<<<<<

    Of course, there has been more discussion of these network effects in other places since 2015 and there are other great theories, too regarding why bitcoin continues to kick the asses of the various crypto wannabes, including but not limited to ethereum.
    [*]
    Talking points from 2015? Get with the times, old man.
    [1] Ethereum has a lot more developer mindshare at this point... According to a study from earlier this year, 216 developers contribute code every month to Ethereum’s repos on average, and only 50 developers per month contribute to Bitcoin’s repos. This doesn't include ecosystem and enterprise contributions, of which Ethereum is higher without a doubt.

    [2] Not unique to Bitcoin... all the major crypto assets will be financialized as more money flows into the space.

    [3] Yeah maybe. It's a compelling narrative and I've outlined the case for it, but it's a long shot and there are also valid reasons to think it won't happen. Long-term, Bitcoin faces internal challenges (possibility of miners abandoning bitcoin when block rewards decrease) and external challenges (competing cryptos becoming more widely adopted and circulated).

    Safer to bet the field.
    Reply
    #50
    (08-08-2019, 05:22 PM)billydingdong Wrote:
    (08-08-2019, 05:00 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote: Another thing is that ethereum has block cluttering issues and they are all over the place in terms of whether they have temporary solutions, and pie in the sky cocksured that they have long term solutions - yet more than a year, its been a real bitch for anyone attempting to sync the whole ETH blockchain, but their common refrain is "why should everyone need to sync the whole blockchain... it is good enough just to sync part of it, and let the BIG BOYS sync the whole thing. 

    Some of the latest proposals involve teaming up with other blockchains, and who the fuck knows if they are serious or just brainstorming in a kind of desperation?

    https://ethresear.ch/t/bitcoin-cash-a-sh...ereum/5735

    https://cointelegraph.com/news/buterin-p...short-term

    It was an idea kicked around on a research forum as a short-term scaling solution for the data layer; not implemented, not even a formal proposal and certainly not a suggestion as a long-term solution.

    To the larger point, yes, solving the data storage/availability problem and implementing a robust 'sharding' mechanism that improves scalability and tx throughpout while still protecting the integrity of the network are still major challenges facing Ethereum. I'm under no illusions about that.

    Holy shit. Maybe we made at least a tiny bit of progress for you to recognize that ethereum has decently serious (or in your words "major challenges) security/scaling issues.

    (08-08-2019, 05:22 PM)billydingdong Wrote: It's far from certain that these efforts will be successful,

    You got that right!!!!! I almost feel like giving you a guy hug for that acknowledgement. Tongue

    (08-08-2019, 05:22 PM)billydingdong Wrote: but at this point Ethereum has the most resources, enterprise support, and devs  to address the challenge.

    In your mind, and in the mind of the dream team of snot nosed 14 year olds, yes... all of this is true.

    The reality of the matter is that there might be some smart people in the enterprise looking at some of these matters, but there will be a pretty BIG ASS question regarding whether they can coordinate in a meaningful matter about something that is already lacking in its foundation - and there remains a desire to build on shit while at the same time to tear it down and start over, and many times there are going to be a variety of reasonably prudent ways to go forward, but that is not going to necessarily result in a solid forward construction.

    In other words, bitcoin already has a solid foundation, and ethereum's variety of complexity just invites the potential for more and more complexity that likely increases ways that it can break, and probably the better type solutions would be to attempt to design it more like bitcoin, but is that going to be the route forward, I doubt it because of course, the ethereum road path forward (to the extent that there is any) is to want to suggest that they are able to do more than bitcoin...which is more or less a walking bag of contradictions.

    (08-08-2019, 05:22 PM)billydingdong Wrote:
    (08-08-2019, 04:28 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote: [*]
    As outlined by this 2015 article they are:
    >>>>>>
    The 7 network effects of Bitcoin are as follows:
    Speculation -  
    Merchant Adoption -  
    Consumer Adoption -  
    Security -  
    [1] Developer Mindshare
    [2] Financialization 
    [3] Adoption as a World Reserve Currency<<<<<<

    Of course, there has been more discussion of these network effects in other places since 2015 and there are other great theories, too regarding why bitcoin continues to kick the asses of the various crypto wannabes, including but not limited to ethereum.
    [*]
    Talking points from 2015? Get with the times, old man.

    O.k. fine. I will bite this time. You have a bit of a tendency to devolve into personal attacks, and that is also one of the talking points of ethereum and some of the other stupid-ass shitcoins trying to suggest that bitcoin is "grandpa coin." hahahahahaha What a bunch of bullshit, and really a sign that you guys don't got nuttin. What a bunch of fucking dweebs that have to resort to these kinds of attempts at personal attacks and trying to suggest that bitcoin is broken or stagnant or whatever.

    Bitcoin's stagnancy, to the extent that it exists in the sense of its difficulties to change is a feature and not a bug. When you are building on top of finances and putting a lot of value storage into a protocol such as bitcoin, you don't want it to be changing all the fucking time for nearly no reason at all except for the whims of snot-nosed 14 year olds.

    I have been following Trace Mayer, more or less, since late 2013 when I got into bitcoin. He has certainly been a strong leader in bitcoin, and the 2015 overview of network effects that I provided in the above-linked article continues to be more than applicable. Sound money principles also continue to be more than applicable too, and those are strong in bitcoin, and hardly existent in a vast majority of other crypto, including ethereum, and that is a decent amount of the angle of my ongoing criticism in the direction of ethereum and many of the other shitcoins that try to present themselves as if they are similar to bitcoin or better than bitcoin, but in the end they are money printing and scamming schemes that can also be theorized under their lack of a sound money approach.

    Bitcoin brings to the table a sound money approach, and surely that has been building and building the longer that it is around because it is not deviating from its sound money approach, which is also reflected in the price and the fact that it continues to be the place where solid and smart money is going to gravitate. Of course, it is going to continue to have ups and downs in its price which is a product of any newly emerging category of asset or technology that remains in its very early stages of adoption, and even though we have seen a whole hell of a lot of increases in bitcoin's value over the past 5 years or more, it is quite likely that far fewer than 1% of the world's whole population has taken any kind of meaningful investment stake into it.

    So, there remains a considerable amount of upside potential, and those folks who continue to proclaim that they are too late to bitcoin are NOT really grasping the picture of where bitcoin is at in terms of the continued early ass phases of adoption that are continued to be presented as "too late" by mainstream media, bitcoin naysayers and altcoin pumpers. They are going to continue to find out how wrong they are in the coming years, yet the prudent folks are going to take some stake in bitcoin.. and end up profiting stupendously as long as they engage in various forms of investing into it such as making some initial investment, dollar cost averaging, buying on dips, hodling through tough periods, and perhaps even more advanced forms that focus initially on accumulating a reasonable stash then attempting to maintain allocation levels that are comfortable to their situations.

    (08-08-2019, 05:22 PM)billydingdong Wrote: [1] Ethereum has a lot more developer mindshare at this point... According to a study from earlier this year, 216 developers contribute code every month to Ethereum’s repos on average, and only 50 developers per month contribute to Bitcoin’s repos. This doesn't include ecosystem and enterprise contributions, of which Ethereum is higher without a doubt.

    I would take studies like that with a BIG ASS grain of salt, especially since they are not even showing their sources for their data on how the fuck they are counting contributions, and if in the end, ethereum remains a BIG ASS fucking mess, then what the fuck are these supposed quantity of developers accomplishing in ethereum and its larger ecosystem? Figuring out ways to develop more pump and dumps and to print their own coins and dumb shit like that? They are not exactly making for a solid ethereum ecosystem. I am surpised that ethereum has not been attacked more frequently it does not really come off as being very secure with all the scam projects that seem to come out of its camp.

    (08-08-2019, 05:22 PM)billydingdong Wrote: [2] Not unique to Bitcoin... all the major crypto assets will be financialized as more money flows into the space.

    I will concede that various financial instruments, whether adding various investment avenues or opening up additional markets is going to take a long time to evolve. So, in that regard, there seem to be finanicialization instruments that are being built from a variety of avenues, and I agree that ethereum does seem to have a decent number of such tools being built upon it and with ethereum in mind. So, yeah, it could take a decent amount of time to see how this area develops. I surely did not assert that bitcoin is the only one of the cryptos that is experiencing various network effects, whether we are discussing financialization or other network effects, but I did assert that network effects are likely much more important than getting caught up in stupid-ass analysis of technical aspects that may or may not be better than bitcoin in some ways, when the more important part would be whether bitcoin's adoption or network effects is being adopted or hindered rather than getting caught up in the weeds of those kinds of matters that might be not so relevant to the big picture regarding what is happening.

    (08-08-2019, 05:22 PM)billydingdong Wrote: [3] Yeah maybe. It's a compelling narrative and I've outlined the case for it, but it's a long shot and there are also valid reasons to think it won't happen.

    World reserve currency status does not need to happen in order for BTC to be successful. World reserve currency is described as a possible outcome that might even be somewhat dependent upon the other networking effects becoming bigger, Bigger and BIGGER. It would be somewhat stupid if any investment strategy counted on bitcoin's world reserve currency status happening. That would be like gambling. I personally do not gamble with my investments, or at least I try to gamble as little as possible. I suppose gambling is on a spectrum anyhow, so there is always going to be some gambling involved, and that is one of the reasons that any somewhat mature prudent investment portfolio should attempt to retain various hedges and insurances.

    (08-08-2019, 05:22 PM)billydingdong Wrote: Long-term, Bitcoin faces internal challenges (possibility of miners abandoning bitcoin when block rewards decrease)

    Yeah, you keep repeating this bullshit assertion. Sure, there is some possibility regarding what you are saying to be true or to be an outcome, but it is surely a kind of pie in the sky small likelihood scenario. Guys should not be structuring the vast majority of their investment on pie in the sky small likelihood scenarios, including failing / refusing to invest in bitcoin because something like this could happen in 100 years or whenever. Fuck that is dumb, and in part, its dumbness is not even based on current happenings. Currently bitcoin is receiving so fucking much hashing power that it NOT even funny... and that has pretty much been the trajectory of bitcoin's hashing power since its beginnings... ongoing and seemingly exorbitant increases in hashing power..

    Fuck bitcoin has been, is and continues to be amazing in that hashing power regard.

    (08-08-2019, 05:22 PM)billydingdong Wrote: and external challenges (competing cryptos becoming more widely adopted and circulated).

    Yes, more baseless wishful thinking from you regarding any possible alleged competing challenges that bitcoin has in the BIG meanie crypto space.

    I will concede that in retrospect there appeared to have been multiple attacks against bitcoin in 2017 and a lot of false narratives regarding bitcoin being broken, etc etc... but bitcoin prevailed through the many bullshit attacks that were physical, FUD and multifaceted, and more or less came out like a phoenix amongst the ashes that FUDsters were attempting to put it. These were: 1) bitcoin's passing and locking in of segwit in August 2017, 2) prevailing through the uncertainties of the first contentious hardfork attack, which was started by bcash on August 1, 2017, 3) the November 2017 dropping of the segwit2x attempt of a corporate takeover hardfork, 4) the stupid ass FUDing that came Ethereum about some kind of supposed importance of a flippening, would of it had occurred, but it did not and 5) the late 2017 through about January 2018 spamming attacks on the bitcoin network that caused bitcoin's transaction fees to go up and transaction times to slow down, but more or less the transactions were still processed and seemed to even inspire a faster launch of lighting network.

    In spite of all the above attacks towards bitcoin, and likely even more that I am not listing, the market more or less spoke about the value of bitcoin during those exact times and in the midst of those multi-faceted attacks to pretty much decisively show that bitcoin was king, is king and will continue to be king, absent some compelling evidence to the contrary (and nothing else is even close). So in other words, if you cannot fucking recognize the importance of those kinds of happenings and you believe "price does not matter" blah blah blah.. No, price does not matter when it is going against you and your stupid ass scam coin development (aka ethereum).


    (08-08-2019, 05:22 PM)billydingdong Wrote: Safer to bet the field.


    Two points, you dumbass.

    1) As far, as you have represented, so far, you are not putting your money where your mouth is.. you fuck... You asserted that you are investing in ethereum and you don't own any (none at all) bitcoin.

    2) Certainly, I am not opposed to some level of diversification, but it surely is not smart to diversify for the mere sake of diversification, and if you cannot recognize that bitcoin is king and the rest of the shitcoin projects are merely riding on the coattails of bitcoin, then your vision remains quite fogged up about what is going on. So in that regard, it not helpful to diversify amongst shit for the mere sake of diversification and it is not necessarily prudent to diversify within a field that is mostly all correlated. Diversification is usually attempted to be accomplished amongst asset classes that are not exactly in the same field, even though frequently some of the asset classes still perform similarly, so sometimes it can be difficult to diversify adequately if almost everything seems to move together, but even if there has been some historical difficulties in the direction of diversification, the vast majority of prudent and thoughtful investment advisors still attempt to do their best in terms of some types of diversification among differing fields. Again, the mere fact that diversification is justified in greater fields does not mean that some kind of full fledged diversification would be prudent in crypto and might cause a worse outcome than merely just diluting the value that you have invested in the strongest (which is still volatile as fuck) of the asset class, which is bitcoin.

    It's worth repeating one more time, guys do whatever the fuck you want, and I give two shits if you invest into bitcoin or not, you have to make these kinds of decisions for yourselves in terms of your own situation including your other investments, cashflow, risk tolerance, view of bitcoin as compared with other investment possibilities, your timeline, and your skills, time and resourcefulness in terms of managing aspects of your holdings.
    Reply
    #51
    Here's a nice and telling image.

    Probably could substitute ethereum for altcoins... hahahahahaa

    [Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F37mp7b....MT2WHE2Ojg]
    Reply
    #52
    (08-09-2019, 06:17 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote: Here's a nice and telling image.

    Probably could substitute ethereum for altcoins... hahahahahaa

    [Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F37mp7b....MT2WHE2Ojg]

    What a fast turn of events. So here you are now telling us Bitcoin is a bloated Walmart-shopping single mom land whale...

    Look, Bitcoin may not be the most promising project in crypto but it isn't THAT bad, JJG -- no need to exaggerate.  Wink
    Reply
    #53
    (08-09-2019, 08:05 PM)billydingdong Wrote:
    (08-09-2019, 06:17 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote: Here's a nice and telling image.

    Probably could substitute ethereum for altcoins... hahahahahaa

    [Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F37mp7b....MT2WHE2Ojg]

    What a fast turn of events. So here you are now telling us Bitcoin is a bloated Walmart-shopping single mom land whale...

    Look, Bitcoin may not be the most promising project in crypto but it isn't THAT bad, JJG -- no need to exaggerate.  Wink

    hahahahaha

    You seem to be attempting to view matters too literally in terms of reading certain wrong details from the image including the unbangable aspects of that particular BIG chick as a symbol.

    Otherwise, I don't see anything that is inconsistent with that particular image regarding the current suffocating status that alts seem to be in, including the fact that overall, bitcoin is driving this bad boy.

    Sorry for your loss.

    By the way, I have seen quite a few posts of even bitcoiners who are wanting to increase their bitcoin stash by attempting to buy various altcoins, including ethereum and hopening for a pumpening... which may or may not happen and may or may not be easy to time.... Surely, I had already said that I have my doubts about ethereum being able to pump more relative to bitcoin absent some kind of clear path with plausible code of their ethereum 2.0 or whatever the fuck number they are giving it.. but hey, I have been wrong a number of occasions before in the past regarding ethereum's ability to pump and the power of its marketing team to put out some kind of pumpening message that was able to take root much more and much further that I considered possible, and probably even a lot of eth heads were surprised by the levels of such past pumpenings.
    Reply
    #54
    Getting this thread back on topic, Electric Capital released a first-half developer report for 2019.

    https://medium.com/@ElectricCapital/elec...836d68fecb

    Developers are one of the most important aspects of an ecosystem, crypto or otherwise, because they build the tools and technological infrastructure to make projects accessible and widely utilized.

    Platforms attract developers who build dev tools and projects for businesses & customers, which attracts more developers who build dev tools and projects for businesses & customers, and the cycle continues until a handful of projects dominate a space.

    Real life examples of developer network effects resulting in dominance of a platform:
    1. Github + nearly all developers who push code and collaborate on software projects
    2. App Store + app developers who build the apps (note: these devs also build open-source tools to make app building easier)
    3. Wordpress + wordpress developers that build templates and plug-ins
    Summary of the report...
    • Total devs in crypto ecosystem is 6,800 that are publishing to public repositories.
    • Number of devs overall in crypto has actually gone down ~10% since last year, but eprojects in the top 100 lost about 4% of devs.
    • Nearly 80% of this developer loss is from lightweight developers who contributed only 1x per month
    • The top 100 projects have more than 50% of all devs
    • 19 of the top 100 ecosystems average 40+ developers
    • For devs by project, it's basically Ethereum #1 (~ 1,200), Bitcoin #2 (~ 300) , EOS #3 (~200), and everyone else.
    Here's a tweet thread summary by the CEO of the company that released the study:

    https://twitter.com/avichal/status/1160967404895137792
    Reply
    #55
    (08-13-2019, 09:17 PM)billydingdong Wrote: Getting this thread back on topic, Electric Capital released a first-half developer report for 2019.

    You seem to be erroneously suggesting that attempting to make comparisons to bitcoin versus ethereum... or even attempting to provide arguments against one crypto or another would not be "on topic" for this thread.

    The last few days, we have seen a decent downward movement in bitcoin, and a bit of lagging following in other coins, but really it is much more difficult to really appreciate price dynamics on such short-term time horizons, unless guys are trying to trade short-term price swings - which takes way too much energy to my liking to follow too many projects (or too much mere luck) for my likeness.

    On the other hand, if guys are investing longer term, then these levels of price swing of greater than 10% in the past several days, depending on which coin, could cause some motivations to buy on these kinds of a little bit BIGGER swings.

    Should the Electric Capital news cause any kind of inspiration to do anything?  It is referring to a kind of "crypto" general evaluation of developers, which is kind of difficult to decipher from my perspective, especially if they are making some kind of lumping together of crypto, then actual meaning get's lost in the sauce, no?
    Reply
    #56
    (08-13-2019, 10:22 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:
    (08-13-2019, 09:17 PM)billydingdong Wrote: Getting this thread back on topic, Electric Capital released a first-half developer report for 2019.

    [1] You seem to be erroneously suggesting that attempting to make comparisons to bitcoin versus ethereum... or even attempting to provide arguments against one crypto or another would not be "on topic" for this thread.

    ...

    [2] Should the Electric Capital news cause any kind of inspiration to do anything? [3] It is referring to a kind of "crypto" general evaluation of developers, which is kind of difficult to decipher from my perspective, especially if they are making some kind of lumping together of crypto, then actual meaning get's lost in the sauce, no?

    Gonna ignore the Bitcoin price info because that's not particularly relevant to what I just posted...

    [1] I don't care to see this thread turned into Bitcoin v. Ethereum. There are other projects out there and if you study the report, Bitcoin and Ethereum combined don't even have a quarter of the total devs in the space.

    [edit: Though worth mentioning, Ethereum has ~4x more than Bitcoin Wink ]

    [2] If you consider developer ecosystem to be an important metric* that could give coins value, then you should consider buying coins of those projects that have substantial developer involvement. I've seen how developer quantity and buy-in can snowball so I believe it's important. YMMV

    [edit: And of course there are other metrics like liquidity, market share, transaction volume, trading volume, mining reward, recent and planned protocol improvements, enterprise adoption, Google trends etc.]

    [3] I can barely understand what you're trying to say here, but I'll try to respond.

    The report is quantifying and analyzing developer contributions to projects on github based on those projects' tags (e.g. tagged 'Ethereum', 'Bitcoin', 'EOS', etc). Within the study, it's analyzing # of developers by project, # of contributions by project, and frequency/quantity of contributions by developer (i.e. differentiating between an uninvolved developer who makes 1 commit vs. multiple commits).

    One thing the report doesn't do is measure the quality of the devs' contributions. However, having more devs building things is always considered a good thing from an ecosystem perspective.
    Reply
    #57
    (08-13-2019, 10:59 PM)billydingdong Wrote:
    (08-13-2019, 10:22 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:
    (08-13-2019, 09:17 PM)billydingdong Wrote: Getting this thread back on topic, Electric Capital released a first-half developer report for 2019.

    [1] You seem to be erroneously suggesting that attempting to make comparisons to bitcoin versus ethereum... or even attempting to provide arguments against one crypto or another would not be "on topic" for this thread.

    ...

    [2] Should the Electric Capital news cause any kind of inspiration to do anything? [3] It is referring to a kind of "crypto" general evaluation of developers, which is kind of difficult to decipher from my perspective, especially if they are making some kind of lumping together of crypto, then actual meaning get's lost in the sauce, no?

    Gonna ignore the Bitcoin price info because that's not particularly relevant to what I just posted...

    [1] I don't care to see this thread turned into Bitcoin v. Ethereum. There are other projects out there and if you study the report, Bitcoin and Ethereum combined don't even have a quarter of the total devs in the space.

    Surely, there could be some better tailored threads, but this one, for now, seems to be as good as any for making various kinds of comparisons between various cryptos, whether you are positive or negative on the concept. I am not opposed to posting in some other thread, but you seemed to be suggesting that there was some kind of off-topicness to our previous discussion, which seems far from the case. Of course, there could be a topic that is more honed to your liking, too I suppose, but so far this forum does not seem to have a lot of members who are interested in bitcoin, ethereum or even other cryptos in order to cause a need for such special thread.... Nonetheless, if other threads are created, then it might be discovered that there is interest, depending on how the thread is made. For example, "swooping the world and using crypto," which does not even seem to be that great of an example, but maybe you still recognize what I am saying about interest could seem to increase if the thread topic is a bit more tailored.

    Regarding your point about the study supposedly establishing that there are more developers on projects other than bitcoin and ethereum causes me to grant even less credibility to such report or even its attempt to be materially and substantially relevant to talking about projects of importance... but whatever, if you believe that such amorphous concepts of developers working on projects that are not even getting much economical usage is important, then so be it. I would prefer NOT to waste my time and energies on such focus.

    And, even though I don't have a whole lot of confidence it ethereum, some credibility should be given to it in terms of generating some economic activity, so bitcoin has like 93% of economic activity and ethereum has like 7% of economic activity, and the remainder of coins have the remainder of the economic activity (which is NOT very much).


    (08-13-2019, 10:59 PM)billydingdong Wrote: [Though worth mentioning, Ethereum has ~4x more than Bitcoin Wink ]

    Likely baloney. Likely a bunch of snot nosed 14 year olds trying to figure out ways to scam others out of their money, which I would not categorize as meaningful nor substantial kind of development activity.. but do what you like in terms of granting credibility to such likely meaningless nonsense.

    (08-13-2019, 10:59 PM)billydingdong Wrote: [2] If you consider developer ecosystem to be an important metric that could give coins value, then you should consider buying coins of those projects that have substantial developer involvement. I've seen how developer quantity and buy-in can snowball so I believe it's important. YMMV

    Could be. Bitcoin is not really broken, so maybe that is the reason why it does not need as much work. There are still a lot of interesting things going on in terms of bitcoin development on a regular and ongoing basis... so I don't know what kind of crap scams might be in the works with the various other supposed developer activities.

    By the way, there are so many scam coins, including ethereum, that had developed their scam projects with a budget and even built in funding, so in that regard, they can pay developers to figure out ways to market their various projects and to build things that sound good on paper and cause hype and dumb money (and even not so dumb money) to invest in their snake oil salesman imitation bitcoin 2.0 wannabe crap.

    (08-13-2019, 10:59 PM)billydingdong Wrote: [3] I can barely understand what you're trying to say here, but I'll try to respond.

    The report is quantifying and analyzing  developer contributions to  projects on github based on those projects' tags (e.g. tagged 'Ethereum', 'Bitcoin', 'EOS', etc). Within the study, it's analyzing # of developers by project, # of contributions by project, and frequency/quantity of contributions by developer (i.e. differentiating between an uninvolved developer who makes 1 commit vs. multiple commits).

    One thing the report doesn't do  is  measure the quality of the devs' contributions. However, having more devs building things is always considered a good thing from an ecosystem perspective.

    O.k. That is a fair enough clarification. I was harping on the idea that frequently there is a lot of lumping in various projects together, and really does not mean a whole hell of a lot, and sometimes projects fail and/or refuse to use the term bitcoin or even to make some kind of adequate comparison to bitcoin in order that there is a kind of reference point, but frequently their failure/refusal to use the term bitcoin means that they are off into some kind of abstract presentation of information that ultimately is meaningless gobledy-gook mumbo jumbo, that might sound good, but is not adequately grounded.
    Reply
    #58
    I like this tweet from Jimmy Song, in terms of comparing bitcoin and alt coins.  hahahahahaha

    https://twitter.com/jimmysong/status/116...3365414912

    [Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fnsa40.casimages.com%2Fi...TsAKA7OAhg]
    Reply
    #59
    Today, I did listen to the below-linked Laura Shin podcast (which was a bit over 20 minutes), overviewing the Electric Capital analysis of developer activity in the space. 

    https://overcast.fm/+L3Vh1sS94

    Surely, I continue to take too many inferences from the data (especially including which coins are supposedly better or more likely to pump) with a BIG ASS grain of salt, I am certainly not opposed to the data being out there which provides opportunities to see trends or even areas of focus or interest - or even areas in which money might be flowing to pay developers... which may or may not end up being lasting trends.  According to the Electric Capital representative, the study did attempt to focus on larger projects, such as Bitcoin and ethereum, and differentiate out some of the lower tiered coins (below 100 in market cap), and to attempt to focus on "on chain" and unique code submissions, rather than second layer or even some code submissions that might be largely copied code without much unique contributions.
    Reply
    #60
    Here's a nice little tweet, and the poster, Melik Manukyan, has a lot of interesting followers, too.

    https://twitter.com/melikmanukyan/status...7162462208

    [Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0x4YNIr.j...RUIa7ZPG6Q]
    Reply


    Forum Jump:


    Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)