Why does everyone praise vitalik for his involvement in ethereum. He's considered a genius because he fits the starved autist stereotype but it seems to me like Gavin Wood did most of the heavy lifting. He wrote the official ethereum yellow paper, implemented the underlying tech, and created the solidity programming language for writing smart contracts. your autist is a false god, praise gav.
pic related, it's gav
Other urls found in this thread:
gendal.me
blockstream.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
>Starved autist
Holy fuck I lmaoed
Not a bad observation, desu.
If I had to guess its because Butin was involved in Bitcoin at such a young age and knew how to attention whore to the press. As far as I can tell he hasn't written any significant software or white papers. Even the idea for a cryptocurrency with better smart contract support was devised prior to Ethereum.
If you want to know what the real story is: Butin is mostly arrogant and way over-hyped. I've spoken to people before who had their ideas stolen by the guy or misrepresented and most of the industry views Ethereum as a pump and dump. The crowd funding and investment stuff was heavily fucked up. There's also a lot more going on with Ethereum that I can't publicly say just because its probably only known to the investors and by the looks of things they have enough problems as it is.
tl; dr, only people not in the know seem to buy into this hype. Those who work in the blockchain space aren't really impressed by him and think of Ethereum as quite naive. They also have major cash problems and burned through most of their funding already (not sure if this is public but notice how they're not hiring -- if this is private knowledge then fuck it, I don't even care any more, there's enough liars in the blockchain space.) I would not be surprised if they're not around in a few years.
holy shit, thanks for the great response. I'm a newfag to blockchain tech myself but I've been doing some really basic smart contract writing and I've read the ethereum white paper. Why do you think it isn't a legitimate platform for creating decentralized applications? do you know of any better options or should I build a specialized blockchain from scratch for a DApp?
I need to sleep for now. The tech side is more complicated than the people side but I'd argue just as fucked-up. I'll post an account of the tech stack tomorrow if the thread is still up.
The tl; dr is: I think you'll be disappointed by how Ethereum defines a "smart contract" and what existing "DApps" are out there. The truth is most of them could have been done with standard multi-sig but then Butin wouldn't be able to throw around cool sounding buzz-words like "decentralized autonomous corporation" to make reporters cum. I question what role Ethereum will have in future decentralized applications when so many of them require custom code and cryptographic protocols. Most of the future smart contracts will be discovered by entrepreneurs and cryptographers, and probably won't have anything to do with Ethereum, desu.
fuck niggers :)
Tldr it was all marketing
SELL YOUR ETH HOLDINGS AND GET OUT
>I read poloniex trollbox so I know things the post
>t. baghodler
It will all run as Bitcoin sidechains.
Everyone not going all in on Bitcoin in 2016 deserves a bullet to the brain.
your posts have close to zero substance. let me know of another blockchain project that has ethereum's capabilities
oh wait, you can't
>Those who work in the blockchain space aren't really impressed by him and think of Ethereum as quite naive
completely false. you are a charlatan
>ethereum's capabilities
as in royally fuck you in the ass out of nowhere?
no i don't know any.
>He attended the University of Waterloo but dropped out to work on bitcoin full time
holy shit that's one bad life decision lmao
I've been looking into it a little more and I'm starting to think that ethereum's "capabilities" are its fatal flaw. It tries to be everything but lacks maturity and flexibility. As someone else mentioned the sidechain concept has some potential. Instead of creating one platform that is meant to support every decentralized application you simply make the blockchains compatible with each other. Doesn't sounds as ambitious but it's definitely more realistic.
I'm not convinced that ethereum has no future though, I just believe that its goals will be significantly reduced in scope. Ethereum markets itself as the beginning of web 3.0, literally the foundation of the future of the entire internet. Ambitious, probably excessively so.
>ethereum's "capabilities" are its fatal flaw
i think that was obvious from the get go
>It tries to be everything but lacks maturity and flexibility.
It is a general purpose blockchain. It by definition is trying to encompass everything that makes sense to put on a blockchain.
It obviously lacks maturity. The network has been live for less than a year. All of its problems are solvable. Nothing ever goes flawlessly.
>Instead of creating one platform that is meant to support every decentralized application you simply make the blockchains compatible with each other
You're exposing your ignorance here. Sidechains have still not been implemented and it makes no sense to do this if you actually understand what's going on. Sidechains were always meant to be a temporary bridging solution that would allow people to transition to the superior blockchain in the long run.
>Sidechains were always meant to be a temporary bridging solution that would allow people to transition to the superior blockchain in the long run.
this is completely wrong and false tho
I'll admit, I'm not too experienced with this topic but I do think that your definition of sidechains is too limited.
gendal.me
>Imagine there is a Bitcoin-like system out there that you’d like to use. Perhaps it’s litecoin or ethereum or perhaps it’s something brand new. Maybe it has a faster block confirmation interval and a richer scripting language. It doesn’t matter. The point is: you’d like to use it but would rather not have to go through the risk and effort of buying the native tokens for that platform. You have Bitcoins already. Why can’t you use them?
They outline the problem as being one of taking on a one size fits all approach, which was exactly my point in the previous reply.
>What if you could send Bitcoins not only to individuals, addresses and centralized services but to other blockchains?
Like I said, it's a way of making different blockchains compatible with each other. The "superior" blockchain depends entirely on the context of its usage. If one block chain is inferior to another in the context of a specific application then the sidechain portal can be used to allow for compatibility.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "a temporary bridging solution".
ethereum hasn't seen much success yet since there aren't many popular apps created on it. Despite this there have been many custom blockchains popping up all over the place.
don't use words like "completely" when you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. you shitposting kiddos need to stop talking and lurk more
the authors of the sidechains white paper said this:
>If, in the medium term, there were wide agreement that the new system was an improvement, it may end up seeing significantly more use than Bitcoin. As there are no changes to parent chain consensus rules, everyone can switch in their own time without any of the risks associated with consensus failure. Then, in the longer term, the success of the changes in the sidechain would provide the needed confidence to change the parent chain, if and when it is deemed necessary to do so.
blockstream.com
right now, it's not obvious what the "superior" blockchain is to many of the participants. it doesn't matter in the long run, though. they will all move over to ethereum
* Counterparty has a working version of Ethereum's virtual machine that runs on Bitcoin.
* Rootstock are working on a version of the Ethereum virtual machine that runs on Bitcoin.
* It is already possible to do everything that Ethereum does using cryptographic protocols. I have done work on zero-knowledge proofs that prove that it's possible to create arbitrarily complex consensus rules for the Bitcoin protocol on top of a cryptographic protocol with zero need for a soft or hard fork.
* Most of the DAPs that Ethereum uses already run on Bitcoin using custom code + multi-sig oracles.
* In fact, you can use distributed oracles to capture almost everything that Ethereum describes as a smart contract
You're not talking to some ignorant kid spreading fear and doubt about Ethereum because I have some ulterior motives. I've done a lot of early work on smart contracts in the blockchain space, including authoring several successful open source projects. Before that I consulted for some of the largest startups in the Bitcoin space so I actually know what the fuck I'm talking about.
The posts in this thread honestly just show me how much hype you all bought into because none of you have even the slightest clue about cryptography or what's happening with blockchain startups. As for Ethereum's tech stack: you have no idea how bad things are.
Virtual machines are notoriously hard to keep secure and the slightest bug is enough to throw off consensus. The probability of all current issues being resolved in an entire programming language implementation is close to zero which is one of the many reasons why Bitcoin's scripting language is purposely limited. The recent bug in the DAO only scratches the surface in the amount of technical debt that Ethereum has.
Some of it may but you don't even need sidechains to make Bitcoin suitable for Ethereum-style smart contracts. You can represent the entire thing as cryptographic protocols.
Uppity faggot BTFO.
I'm the OP posting from a different computer. I took the time to look into your claims and it's clear that you know what you're talking about, I learned a lot from just the research. Honestly, a lot of this is beyond me but I am interested in getting involved with the crypto community. I have a few questions:
>Virtual machines are notoriously hard to keep secure and the slightest bug is enough to throw off consensus
are you saying that any virtual machine that runs on a distributed blockchain is destined to run into the same issues? is there a market for this class of VMs?
I got excited about ethereum because I thought it would be my chance to get into the development side of this technology without having to know the complicated cryptography behind it. The more I look into it the more skeptical I become. Do you have any tips for an ignorant teenager who wants to eventually start developing decentralized applications?
>counterparty
"we copy pasted the EVM and now it's ours!"
>rootstock
vaporware that also copy pasted ethereum's codebase
>other 3 points
If it's not at the protocol layer, it does not "run on Bitcoin". it runs on a different protocol that utilizes Bitcoin for a fraction of the consensus mechanism . period.
>Most of the DAPs that Ethereum uses already run on Bitcoin using custom code + multi-sig oracles.
>Most of the DAPs that Ethereum uses
Do you mean DAPPs or something else? Ethereum doesn't use dapps. Dapps use Ethereum. Your "most of the dapps" have some sister application that's using Bitcoin is just plain wrong.
>The posts in this thread honestly just show me how much hype you all bought into because none of you have even the slightest clue about cryptography or what's happening with blockchain startups.
That's rich coming from you.
>As for Ethereum's tech stack: you have no idea how bad things are.
Maybe you can enlighten us plebs?
>The probability of all current issues being resolved in an entire programming language implementation is close to zero which is one of the many reasons why Bitcoin's scripting language is purposely limited
This is a myth that gets repeated by people who don't realize that no, it was already hard enough to get a consensus mechanism working with Bitcoin. Adding a scripting language to the protocol was a whole extra level complexity that Satoshi didn't want to bother with yet.
Maybe you aren't a kid, but you sound ignorant. I've talked with plenty of "blockchain consultants" and people working at the "largest Bitcoin companies" and many of them are clueless.
>The recent bug in the DAO only scratches the surface in the amount of technical debt that Ethereum has.
Another absolutely ignorant comment. The bug with the DAO is not "technical debt" with Ethereum as a protocol. Someone didn't write a smart contract properly.
your problem is that you're thinking from a technical point of view and not from a functional.
The masses don't give a fuck with what you're talking about. you're part of the ,"why are people using java instead of python or go", or why people still use an iPhone and not a nexus.
The general population doesn't really care about all the shit you just mentioned.
Basically. Like Donald Trump. A good PR campaign can make people ignore the technical issues if they buy into it.
>Maybe you can enlighten us plebs?
And this is why I don't bother posting. You haven't addressed a single thing I said. All you've done is written a long post whining about what I wrote.
Don't expect my time when you act this immature.
well, he's a multi-millionaire now. with best connections to the top.
Voices of reason.
Blockchain is a (powerful) meme, but lacks any useful application. The web3 idea is good, but needs more than one type and network of consensus.
Practically everything that you've written has been off-base or could be construed as "whining".
Equating half-assed Ethereum copycats to a released blockchain project with a full scripting language is invalid.
>It is already possible to do everything that Ethereum does using cryptographic protocols
Oh really? Maybe you should link me to the github of this supposed protocol because that would be a big deal.
Too bad there's no zero knowledge proof library on Ethereum yet where you can anonymously claim that you own a github account that has any successful open source projects. In other words, you're full of shit.
This this this
DAO fail is just the tip of the iceberg if people keep pouring millions into this insane idea.
It will be glorious tbqh.
1. No multinational or nationstate will ever use ethereum. After DAO, any chance of that evaporated, if it even existed before.
2. No pleb will ever use ethereum (muh mainstream adoprion) since everything a pleb needs in finance can be done with current tech or bitcoin.
Institutional/venture capital who fell for the meme but understand now will be slowly unloading on the true believers, after which this shit comes crashing down.
Feel free to screencap for future reference.
Wow, Tony Hawk's seen better days.
sidechains have plenty of legit uses besides transition you nigger there is nothing temporary about sidechain as solution no reason to abandon the idea over time. you can easily use them to partition/privatize part of the global ledger whenever suits you too. there might be services that run their own sidechain for near instant transactions and only update the global blockchain with net results periodically like every month.
Buy ethereum
lots of people from that school are multimillionaires, esp in the valley
with better connections too