Ethereum

oh, the $30 million stolen

> why haven't they proposed another fork for those people to get their money back?

Because they aren't investors so the gods of ETH do not give a fuck

The attack was worth 130 million but $100 million had to be "rescued" by white hats. Do you really want to put your life savings in hopes of a super hero to protect you when a thief comes along?

Do you hear what you're saying?

> it can't compete with BTC
> but if BTC fails.... then

if it can't even compete with BTC why would you assume BTC would fail? Wouldn't it make sense for you to assume the coin that can't even compete fails, aka ETH? Cmon bruh.

If BTC fails I'd put my money in litecoin before I put it in ETH because ETH is a total shit show

>why would you assume BTC would fail?

Earth to dork, there's a civil war going on for BitCoin. Even if the split doesn't affect BTC that much, it's still going to end at one point, because BTC wasn't designed to be produced infinitely, which will happen around 2020. Even so, if the structural problems BTC has doesn't affect it now, is sure as hell will in the near future, and from each problem will result another fork, on and on until BTC has no more miners or investors, and is simply not worth it anymore. So why wait when you can catch the train

>If BTC fails I'd put my money in litecoin

That ship sailed a long time ago

> civil war
> 100% support for BP 141 (segwit) on the new signaling period

The civil war is over if anything

> BTC wasn't designed to be produced infinitely, which will happen around 2020.

That's the fucking point. You want a limited supply. Why would you buy into a currency that keeps printing money forever? Do you even know how inflation works and what that means?

After 2020, you can still mine for bitcoin except there's no block reward. However, you still collect fees on the transactions and the block chain keeps going. It would still be profitable to mine.

> and from each problem will result another fork

Dude, there's over 660 BTC forks. Name 5 off the top of your head for me.

> That ship sailed a long time ago

If BTC dies, then no. The price will significantly increase.

Do what you want with your money bro. Go all in on ETH.

Limited supply, limited profits. There's no longterm perspective on that

>Do you even know how inflation works and what that means?

If anything, a constant fluctuating price is good

Now I see how you want crypto to work. The more volatile it is the better so u buy low and sell high.

You don't want a coin that grows 30% constantly over time, a place to park your money.

You want to gamble on what the low point is and what the high point is, constantly, in a market that does not sleep. I wish you good luck friend but that's not what a stable currency looks like. You'll have more fun at the casino, at least you'll see some tits when you make bad calls and lose your money.

Geez dude you laid that user to rest good job.

We've all agreed this is vitalik who was posting this pasta (now in image) right guys?

Goy pls do something to make it go back to 400 so I can break even.

>wanting to park your money into something which has no intrinsic value

You might as well just buy gold at this point. Cryptocurrencies are a means to make short term profit

bought tons @ 200

will buy more if it goes down lower

Based user we need more like you. Keeping the delusional at bay. Based af

you do realize the "enterprise alliance" is a marketing gimmic right?

If they ever use ETH they'll have their own private blockchain

Keep buying tho, it's at 197

will wait for 190 mate
the weekend is upon us

Actually I've only been on biz for 2 days, I didn't know how much you guys liked crypto and shit coins. Today is the first time I posted that pic cuz I saw it today and saved it. Feel free to think otherwise though.

You're arguments are cringey af just go back to ethtrader you failed autist

>muh no intrinsic value

Absolute no understanding of society and human nature

Limited supply assures bitcoins eventual demise as a viable currency.

You want a constant low rate of inflation to combat the loss of currency (people dying or losing their keys) and growing market demand. I think once mainstream news start circulating about the last bitcoin being mined, bitcoins will collapse.

> I didn't know how much you guys liked crypto and shit coins

One of the reasons Veeky Forums was created was because people were getting sick of Butcoin discussions and dodgecoin threads being spammed constantly on /b/ and /pol/

t. semi-oldfag

>Tells me the intrinsic value of things is not an argument

>Muh human nature

I swear sometimes i feel like Veeky Forums is inhabited by people with bipolar disorder

value is defined solely based on supply and demand so I disagree with your assessment

If you got bitcoin and hold it for 10 years, the profits are very good imo. It's really the only coin with a good track record so I don't know why anyone would invest in something else. If they want to gamble, sure.

I told you your cringey . Because you are. Read before posting cuck lord.

No. Like I said, you can still mine for bitcoin once all 21 million bitcoins have been issued. Bitcoin issue happens with something called a block reward. Once the block reward is gone, you can still mine for the fees in each transaction. By the time all 21 million BTC have been mined, the number of transactions would be so huge that the fees in that block make up for it.

For example, look at this

blockchain.info/block/000000000000000000ae751aa3c8ea39d23c85605aa228e25652843837dfcf20

Look at the very first transaction on that block. Block reward is 12.50 BTC but they got 14.19635738. That's from all the transaction fees in that block. So a total of 1.69635738 BTC for the transaction fees. By the time 21 million BTC have been issued, 1.69635738 BTC would be worth a lot, not to mention there'd be more transactions per block.

Dude you're a smart man. I'm sorry it's only been 2 days and you have to put up with these (((people))) biz needs more outsiders with vision and brains.

Doesn't that still mean that that no new coins are added to the economy?
I.e. the transaction fees are simply a payment from the one doing the wallet of the one doing the transaction to the miners?

ETH isn't a store of value, it's a platform. Stop embarrassing yourself in front of the Internet.

It's also premined, that makes it a scam in pure technical terms - if the developers themselves don't believe in it why would you?

And demand is there when a certain object has a real worth behind it, be if financial or practical appliance. When it comes to BTC, it's just faith involved in it, like any other fiat currency, something which cryptocurrencies wanted to depart from.

>If you got bitcoin and hold it for 10 years, the profits are very good imo.

Until it collapses, sure

>I don't know why anyone would invest in something else

Once BTC reaches the limit, there's no telling if mining it will be profitable anymore, as mining is what keeps a cc going. Or if it will, only people with cheap as shit electricity will be able to make a profit, which makes the entire currency dependable on some chinks in their basements, ultimately monopolizing the growth

Take a hike, shitlord.

The supply is limited but bitcoin is infinitely divisible.

0.1 BTC, 0.0001 BTC, 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 BTC

and can keep going.

You don't need to add new coins to keep things afloat, you need to add VALUE. Bitcoin does this well with

1) transaction fees
2) limited supply of coins

this user knows whats up

>chinks can no longer mine
>they dump the 90% of total btc they own
>and onto the next thing

You're so weird do like all your arguments can be dismissed in seconds you're only picking up pieces trying to act smart at this point.

Cringey little man.

I understand what you're saying but with the points you're making, the conclusion is you don't want invest in crypto at all. If you don't, that's fine. If you do, then BTC is the best option, which is what I'm trying to point out.

Any coin that involves mining or any kind of distribution of any sort can be monopolized. If there's ASIC for ETH and some chinese guy makes it, he will dominate the market. That's true for anything.

Eth is a mess, a big fat mess.

>when the real flippening is eth to private blockchains

ETH price is hugely to do with EEA hype and ICO bubbles.

Bitcoin actually posses traits worth investing in for a long term investment. It's sad some will always let their biases stray them from the reality.

Ok I get that, but that's the thing.

I'll give you that the relative worth and amount of a single bitcoin might not be that important when the currency infinitely divisible. Although I think that a never ending appreciation spree due to the limited supply might encourage a lot of firms to look for something less volatile to build their platforms around.

I don't agree to your assessment of value in bitcoins though. I think the popularity of bitcoin is simply due to first-mover advantage. Once (and if) we start observing state sponsored non-mineable crypto, I don't see how non-backed crypto should justify their price.

I'm just saying that people treating cc like they're the new goldrush are pretty shortsighted. CC should be treated like that which they are, make profits.

>Any coin that involves mining or any kind of distribution of any sort can be monopolized. If there's ASIC for ETH and some chinese guy makes it, he will dominate the market

But see, that's the thing. Ether's algorithm was made specifically to avoid hoarders and potential ASICs. That way it's guaranteed that everyone gets a share in contributing to it's current value, unlike btc where you can get a couple of Antminers and make the entire currency dependable on pumping

>infinitely divisible

Fucking retard. Satoshi is the smallest unit of a bitcoin.

You have an advantage if you have money. If I have more GPUs than you or I can buy power cheaper than you, then I have an advantage. It doesn't matter what algorithm you have. I'll have your exact same setup but buy in bulk so it costs less in electricity and hardware.

I also want to see ETH's "algorithm" stand up to the test of time in that regard. BTC's sha256 has gone through extensive review by mathematicians and governments in the recent history. But a 3 year old "cryptography" algorithm called "Ethash" ? I am skeptical.

> unlike btc where you can get a couple of Antminers and make the entire currency dependable on pumping

You underestimate the current network hash rate of BTC. Do some math and you'll notice that "a couple" of antminers don't do shit

> calls me a retard

pic & filename related

A lot of what you're saying is correct right now but is planned to be changed in the future. Once Ether actually switches to PoS, the estimate is that there will be ~100 million ETH in circulation [1]. So, if that actually comes to fruition, then it could be seen as a store of value easily. I think the reason that they state that it's to be treated only as a "crypto-fuel" on their site is mostly just for legal reasons and it's hard to really take that at face value.

Also, from what I've seen, quite a few of the developers sold most of their Ether when it was less than $20, so take from that what you will.

And yes, smart contracts haven't done much lately but it's still very much in its infant stages. Just because a really significant use-case hasn't been developed yet (outside of the gambling ones really), doesn't mean it ever will. The potential is there for sure.

With Bitcoin, you pretty much know what you're getting. As has been seen lately, pretty much any significant update to the Bitcoin protocol takes years to be actually be implemented because it's so hard for the community to come to any kind of consensus. This is good for what Bitcoin is and strives to be, but I don't think every cryptocurrency absolutely has to follow that approach.

Basically, if you're going to throw money at Ether right now, it's purely speculative, and you're just going to have to "wait and see". There's definitely a real chance that it doesn't follow through with its upcoming promises in development. But if it does, I think a lot of the arguments against it right now are pretty debunked.

reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/5izcf5/lets_talk_about_the_projected_coin_supply_over/dbc66rd/

9 Reasons Bitcoin Will Always Be Better Than Ethereum.
Ethereum will always have more consensus failures than bitcoin. It has a larger attack surface, and competing implementations.
Ethereum will always be more risky because they abuse the “default option” power over apathetic nodes. Thus any regulator can just have them make aml/kyc/sec reg a requirement and bye bye efficiency.
Ethereum will always have more down time than bitcoin, check out 2017 for instance. (see point 1.)
Ethereum has 3x less reddit users, a couple x less twitter mentions, a few x less wallets, a few x less press, a few x less years of testing, less hardware wallets, less adoption in nearly every way. Where can you spend this “currency?”
Ethereum tricks devs into loser far more money with “smart” contracts that have bugs, than bitcoin does with accidentally sending change to the miner instead of to a new address.
Smart contracts will always be dumb as long as you have to trust a signal from the real, non digital world (oracle problem.) If you have to trust anyway, then just let the oracle do it all.
There’s nearly no demand for the gas you’re supposed to buy with ETH to make ETH valuable at all, unless you like it’s speculative platform utility. Gambling on gambling.
Their blockchain is bloated. It grows faster than many users can download it. It’s transactions per a second is maybe 3x bitcoin’s. It’s very likely sharding and other solutions will not “work” if you care about immutability/trustlessness.
Ethereum is more centralized, more risky, loses more of peoples money, down more often, and always will be.
P.S. I know I’ve missed some problems with Ethereum, if you spot them, please comment.

PoS with casper at best reduces the rate of ETH generated. From ETH's website:

sometime in 2017 Ethereum will be switched from Proof of Work to a new consensus algorithm under development, called Casper that is expected to be more efficient and require less mining subsidy. The exact method of issuance and which function it will serve is an area of active research, but what can be guaranteed now is that (1) the current maximum is considered a ceiling and the new issuance under casper will not exceed it (and is expected to be much less) and (2) whatever method is ultimately picked to issue, it will be a decentralized smart contract that will not give preferential treatment to any particular group of people and whose purpose is to benefit the overall health and security of the network.

> (1) the current maximum is considered a ceiling and the new issuance under casper will not exceed it (and is expected to be much less)

Note that this is still up to debate by ETH's community and nothing is certain at this point. Think how pissed miners would be when they invested in all this GPU hardware that they have no longer a use for and how disruptive it would be.

From the reddit post of ETH's god that you linked

>Block 5000000, approx ETH supply 98562556, time '2025-10-02 11:47:30.658317' blocktime 835.81
>Block 5500000, approx ETH supply 101212556, time '2128-03-20 09:14:16.483692' blocktime 17183.83
>Block 6000000, approx ETH supply 103862556, time '5189-09-26 20:57:59.367004' blocktime 520901.19

In the year 5189, Vitalik Buterin and his investor friends hold 600 MILLION ETH, which is more than HALF of ETH's supply. That's 2000+ years from now and they will still hold a majority share. If you have a problem with "fairness" and how wealth / mining should be equally distributed, why don't you see a major problem with this? It's completely fucked.

A coin's value lies in it's own utility and transaction fees. ETH was valuable for ICOs, but since those are turning out to be scams, its potential is questionable.

Sysbro is that you ?

When a CC is all over the news with positive stories you know it's time to bail the f-ck out.

Don't fucking get me started on ETH "smart contracts"

It's the dumbest idea ever, if you want to store value. Let me explain.

The purpose of "smart contracts" is write a contract and have it execute based on certain conditions, thus removing the need for any disagreements or whatever. When you sign the contract, you agree to it.

1) how many of you are actually going to read a contract? When was the last time you read TOS, fully, when you signed up for a site?

2) How many of you code? How many of you have the knowledge and the understanding to read this contract that's in code? How many of you are willing to put a large amounts of money on your ability to read and understand the code before you sign it?

3) There are many contracts, you might get multiple contracts a day to keep up with your finances, but if you assume ETH will be an everyday currency then you'll see multiple contracts per day.

How many people in this world have done (1), (2), and (3)? Ok, well, that's all the people that can legitimately use ETH. I'd say in all, about 500 people in the world can do this. How many of you are willing to learn coding just to read ETH's smart contracts to make sure you don't get fucked? By the way, learning coding isn't something you do overnight.

Now, I assert that for ETH to be POPULAR and USABLE, you will have to TRUST a 3rd party to do all this reading and other shit for you, at which point you've handed someone TRUST, which is the whole reason that smart contracts exist, so you DON'T have to trust someone. So what the fuck is the point?

Now to do "smart contracts", you do so at the cost of letting ANYONE execute ARBITRARY code on ETH's blockchain (that's what a smart contract is, anyone can write one and put it in the network to be executed), making it a HUGE attack surface. Want to experience this first hand? Let anyone login into your computer and run whatever they want. See how well your computer does at the end of the day.

Yeah... good luck with that.

All your points are vaild, but in 20 years everyone will use smartcontracts for everyuthing.

You better hope that ETH will fork if some major shit happens but it looks like they only do it for their investors with the DAO hack. $30 million ETH stolen, ETH foundation gives no fucks. If you were lucky your coins were saved by "white hat" hackers.

Are you wiling to put large amounts of money in a crypto, and pray that a white hat hacker will rescue you in an event some shit goes wrong?

Are you ok with the much greater chance of a blockchain hack on ETH compared to BTC?

There's a fucking reason why BTC keeps things simple. You only do transactions. You don't let people execute arbitrary code on your blockchain. You use known hashing and crypto algorithms that have been proven and tested over time. You don't fork when investors' money get stolen. You just deal with coins going in and coins going out, reliably. You don't need to add anything else and doing so might hurt you in the future.

This is the core software philosophy for UNIX. Do one thing and do it well. You don't need to add the extra bullshit to make it cooler and make it stand out because at the end, it'll come bite you in the ass.

b-but it will a-all g-get f-fixed soon a-user!

hint : buy NEO

>everyone will use smartcontracts for everyuthing.

lol ok bro, I just explained why this won't happen. You either get a very small group of literate users (so it can't be everyone using smart contracts) or you give another person trust, which contradicts the necessity for a smart contract in the first place

Good luck on your investment though

It all boils down to programming the contracts with human language, e.g. you could make an interface which makes only the simplest terms for them and displays outcomes for all the possible scenarios. AI is advancing fast enough.

> This is the core software philosophy for UNIX. Do one thing and do it well.
BTC will soon have sidechains, so eth will be made redundant.

You trust the coder of this program that the program

1) has no bugs
2) correctly converts everything

You realize even the most advanced AI, have errors right? Google translate doesn't works only like 80% of the time. Complex phrases it gets confused.

You have to remember, 1 wrong translation can make you lose all your money.

For widespread adoption of "smart contracts" you have to trust someone or something, which means you never needed a smart contract in the first place.

Goberments always do stuff shit though whats makes you think they can do crypto's not shit?

The average joe doesn't need to be able to read a smart contract, he just needs to trust the guy who says it's secure. It's a one time placement of trust versus something like a constant placement you get with people, who may be day decide to break your trust.

Issues about how much you can trust anything you don't absolutely understand aside, smart contracts resolve the issue of having to maintain trust over the life of a transaction as opposed to the continued reliance on the other party to execute good and honest judgement in their actions.

By then AI will code everything by itself, nigger.
You won't have to trust someone more than you have to trust the Bitcoin Client code. Understand?

I don't run bitcoin client code. I know I need to trust people / companies. I never tried to make smart contract to say "hey bro u don't need to trust people", look at this cool awesome tech check it out, it's way better than BTC. Look guys, look!

I don't live in a fantasy of smart contracts. Others do though.

> trust the guy who says it's secure. It's a one time placement of trust versus something like a constant placement you get with people, who may be day decide to break your trust.

What do you mean? You need to have someone correctly verify every smart contract you encounter. You'll get a different one every time. Go to store A, you agree to this contract, go to store B, you agree to this contract. Price changes, you agree to this contract. Different location? You got this other contract. You're signing contracts all day erryday. You place the trust in that person to do all this for you? Sure. Let's assume they can keep up. But if that person fucks up on just 1 contract, you'll lose money. What are you gonna do? Write a contract with this person to say if they fuck up you get paid? Ok, sure. You need to define each fuck up that's possible and agree on an amount paid to you on each fuck up. Oh, look, another contract. You going to hire a 2nd contract guy to review the contract on when the first guy fucks up? Ok, sure. What if the 2nd contract guy fucks up?

If you actually believe this will happen, learn ETH contracts NOW. You'll make billions! Contracts will make more contracts and you can contract with your contract. You'd make xzibit proud.

Also "AI can code everything", makes no fucking sense.

If AI can code everything this world would be so different. It can code exploits too right because it can code everything?

At this point AI has replaced humanity. You got a lot bigger problems than some crypto coin.

OK, I agree on one thing. You shouldn't invest in something you don't understand.
t. W Buffet

Don't forget your on a Cambodian neck ring enthusiast website, where anonymous people call you nigger and make up arguments based on autism.

You don't need smart contracts for every transaction though. As history has shown, so far they're mostly used for ICOs and and provably fair gambling. In the future, they would serve well enough for simple financial contracts such as futures and options.

Your problem is that you're thinking of these things like a cell phone contract you write with every person you meet on the street instead of an internet vending machine.

> You don't need smart contracts for every transaction though. As history has shown, so far they're mostly used for ICOs and and provably fair gambling. In the future, they would serve well enough for simple financial contracts such as futures and options.

Yeah but then why would I use ETH? Smart contracts on the blockchain for arbitrary code execution is a legitimate worry. Look at the wikipedia page for "ETHASH" vs "sha256" or even "scrypt". What's your least preferred one for securing your money?

If you don't need smart contracts, you don't need ETH because there's too much baggage that comes with it.

Provably fair gambling is already done in BTC using sessions generated from hashes that can be verified.

dont forget those same combodians are always right and you a goyum are always wrong

You're underestimating the reusability/transparency of open source. Also being reductive about how a bug will eventually be found in smart contracts.

>this smart contract is made of modules x,y,z
>x was written by Google employees and used 100k times
>y was written by palantir employees and used 50k times
>z is my own written module which was code reviewed by 20 of the top 1000 contributors on github/stackoverlow/whatever

There is still trust involved, yes, but you are not trusting a single institution. You have community involvement before the smart contract has any track record of reliability. This allows people to customize and create agreements while still maintaining trust instead of relying on some marketplace site where you look up the individual buyer/seller feedback like ebay

I don't care about ethereum but smart contracts are valuable

there is no purpose in Eth anymore, its an obsolete chain that gets hacked all the time, Monero will implement multisig and real smart-contracts (not scam ico) will be possible.

bro, I really hope you don't own ANY tech stocks or hold any hope for technological development.

> You're underestimating the reusability/transparency of open source. Also being reductive about how a bug will eventually be found in smart contracts.
> You have community involvement before the smart contract has any track record of reliability.

Did you read up on what happened with the recent $30 million that was stolen? You know that code was open sourced right?

You know how many times bugs in linux have been found? You know it's open source right? You know linux has a much bigger community and much smarter community than ETH right?

The argument that just because it's open source and it'll be bug free is wrong. You might reduce the number of bugs but you will not eliminate bugs. When it happens, what are you going to do?

At any point when you need someone to verify a contract between 2 people, the smart contract is no longer useful, in my opinion. You're on a coin that in 2000 years from, the original ICO owns the majority share of ETH, arbitrary code execution on the blockchain, massive amounts of supply, etc. Why not go with bitcoin instead of all these faults? My argument is that bitcoin is a much better investment long term.

comparing cryptocoins to the stock market is different. Let's take TESLA for example. A very innovative company and people buy in because they see potential.

Now, TESLA gets hacked. Do you lose any shares in TESLA? No. You don't. ETH gets hacked? Well shit, you might have a white hat hacker save you or something, who knows. Your account could be drained in seconds. NO FINRA & SIPC to save you. You're on your own buddy.

Those are very good points, but whether they end up relevant is another question.

Most people want centralisation, on all levels, even in their cryptocurrencies. Ethereum has figureheads, corporate and customer friendly communication, a few services trusting the top positions with sleek interfaces (mew). Bitcoin is fragmented, confusing, rife with internal wars.

Bitcoin is also $2700 while Ethereum is $200. The vast majority of people have trouble dealing with fractional units. They don't like owning 0.2 btc, and the mBTC denomination doesn't take hold because, once again, the Bitcoin community is too fragmented to force its usage as a standard.

The comparison to Unix is relevant. Windows is full of flaws but went on to conquer the world. You can nail the fundamentals, but if you can't make the product accessible to people three to four standard deviations under your intelligence, it's all for nothing.

Ultimately, this is why smart contracts aren't a problem. Even for Bitcoin, the number of people who have even a vague understanding of the technology are in the low hundreds of thousands, if that. Most Bitcoin users delegate knowledge, and either trust someone they see as an authority figure, or believe in the "wisdom" of the crowds.

I want Bitcoin to succeed for ideological reasons, but I'm holding more ETH than BTC. Never underestimate the stupidity of the average person. Most of humanity is irrevocably subservient and empty, looking for acceptance and appreciation. If you give them freedom thinking this will be in itself a cause worth believing in, they will actively seek a leader to explicitely tell them why this cause is great and why they're such great people for being part of this movement.

>The argument that just because it's open source and it'll be bug free is wrong. You might reduce the number of bugs but you will not eliminate bugs. When it happens, what are you going to do?
I don't think it is going to be bug free. I disagree with saying that the potential bugs in smart contracts make it useless.

>At any point when you need someone to verify a contract between 2 people, the smart contract is no longer useful, in my opinion.
What I was trying to say (and probably poorly) is that smart contracts will make these agreements more autonomous and require less intermediary interaction. Not completely remove unless you are reusing a widely accepted smart contract.

I don't think it is black and white where any verification=shit. In my simple example before I showed how there can be minimal direct involvement in verifying the smart contracts. Involving previous consensus of other established modules. It might not be the best example, but do you see the point I'm trying to make? Can you see how this could be more flexible, preferable to having a direct 3rd party verification?

It allows you to create a new agreement specific to your needs, while maintaining a lot of the trust through reusing accepted smart contract modules.

>My argument is that bitcoin is a much better investment long term.
I agree but smart contracts are still valuable.

The funny thing about smart contracts is that they are very limited without oracles (third parties that provide data from the "real" world, for example weather data or sports results).
And oracles are centralized as well as corruptible.

They're still extremely useful because they can be used to interact with any other blockchain, so for example a contract could include a condition of ownership of an asset which is used as proof from another platform.

>there's a libra in the alliance
FUCK
SELL

This is the saddest appeal-to-common-sense FUD I've seen in a while

>"Who the fuck would use a global positioning computer in their daily lives? No one does that. That's military tech."

IoTA is the next ETH

>b-but my vaguely similar circumstances tho

Kill your self together with your nigger tier "argument"

I'm not comparing crypto coins with stock market. I'm comparing the risk of investing in a new/uncertain technology. Just like people have done with tech stocks since the 90s.

>ETH gets hacked
what are you even talking about?

Eth is a value store (or currency, as defined by SEC). Ethereum the platform hasn't been hacked. When you say "hacked" you're referring to exchanges/wallets being hacked. As if that hasn't happened to Bitcoin shitloads of times?
steemit.com/bitcoin/@michaelmatthews/list-of-bitcoin-hacks-2012-2016

Cash chiefs and bank robbers will always exist, friendo

It will go back to being a 7$ worth shitcoin