Name ONE thing that could go wrong with this coin

Lightning Network.

the only thing is failure to scale up while competitors (pretty much only NEO right now) slowly take market share.

FPBP

Veeky Forums could come up with the meme that breaks the camel's back and Vitalik crashes ETH with no survivors.

lightning network doesn't give Bitcon smart contracts or ERC-20 tokens, BTC and ETH aren't competitors

A circulating supply that is not capped and is controlled fully by a pink unicorn shirt wearing communist.

Yeah but normies dont care about aht shit
also nice digits

Gives less of a reason to buy ETH as a paired currency, no more delays / no cost.

eh maybe, but that's not going to kill ETH (one of like maybe 5 cryptos that is actually being used in the real world).

As we begin to move out of the initial hype of crypto and into actual use case scenarios, it will continue to face challenges when more and more people realize it can't scale to meet global adoption.

i still like eth short/mid term, but if ada does what its supposed to and xlm gets adopted...

that being said, we haven't seen eths final form just yet.

t. owns all 3

never heard of the platform getting hacked - or do you mean a contract bug?

LN will see same adoption as segwit, but keep pretending it'll solve the problem

your point is still mute because ETH also has side channels

yes, they are - BTC is just fucked because it's a subset of Ethereum that happens to also be worse in that tiny overlap

It does solve the problem, sweetie.

eth is inflationary, also much MUCH less secure..they had to hard fork very recently because it got basically hacked.

they're very different from a software engineering perspective: eth is cutting edge, hell they want to change the entire staking mechanism. while bitcoin is all about security and pure transactions. very different. ethereum is a fucking distributed computer.

Also, kindly tell me why should anyone consider various ETH forks.

This is just the beginning of a massive network of smart contracts and decentralized applications.

you mean ETH classic? you shouldn't consider it..if ETH wasn't actively being developed it would be worthless, buying ETH longterm is a bet they will solve the scaling issue.

if you don't think they will, then invest in an actual competitor to eth like NEO

>eth is inflationary,
inflation decreases every year as mining difficulty increases.

cats.

100% sure you have no fucking idea what it actually is

> eth is inflationary

rapidly progressing towards being deflationary - full PoS will likely add sinks that will reduce supply

> also much MUCH less secure
your calculator is also more secure than your computer, yet you still use your computer to do calculations

the platform itself is secure, what happens on top of it is the concern of app developers

> while bitcoin is all about security
not anymore than ETH

> and pure transactions.
as I said, it's literally a subset of ETH, and it's disgustingly bad in that overlap

bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-transactionfees-btc-eth.html#6m

so BTC is 'pure transactions', but it does it a milllion times worse than a competitor with a better roadmap and larger feature set

bitcoiners are so easy to BTFO honestly, you're absolutely ignorant and brainwashed, just parroting bullshit you heard on /r/bitcoin

I'm curious, what specifically makes the language shitty? Asking for a developer friend

Honestly, Vechain could be a tough competitor.

They already have enterprise support which is something ETH desperately need. You can't make much money if the only dApps are fucking mobile game tier shit.

> eth is inflationary
this fucking meme again. I swear 99% of you guys do no research which is probably why I make so much money in crypto

>as I said, it's literally a subset of ETH, and it's disgustingly bad in that overlap
that's exactly why it's more secure. it moves slower and is less ambitious therefor less risk of technical problems, you know, like the one that just fucking happened?

> your calculator is also more secure than your computer, yet you still use your computer to do calculations
if you think that analogy makes sense there is no use arguing with you. completely retarded.

Hey ETH fags i've been trading ETH for alts always, NEVER BTC faggotry

Anyways, quesiton (semi brainlet) Should i just buy ETH now at a high price, convert it to the ALT i want. Or should i wait for it to drop to low 700's then buy the ALT?

Am i potentially losing a lot of money by buying now? pls halp

Couldn't give you specifics, I dropped out of CS and am a brainlet, I just read on hackernews or some shit that it's an absolute mess, and saw a video of weev ranting about how much better tezos is

this

look, I like eth, eth is awesome, and yes, if they stick to the current inflation it will stop being inflationary fairly soon.

but you know what? you don't know what they're going to do. their goal isn't to create an asset, it's to create a decentralized computer. it's going to undergo a hell of a lot more change than BTC, and it's unclear what the result of that will be. monetary policy is not priority #1 the way it is with BTC.

My current portfolio is 2/3 BTC and 1/3 XMR and I wonder whether ETH is the best long-term coin to hedge against different market forces. Given that all of those coins focus on vastly different points it seems like a good idea, wouldn't you say?

pt 2. from I seriously cannot fathom how many of you just parrot half-truth's without any understanding about the things you're speculating in. Is the crypto community this fucking stupid? Do you guys do any research or do you just invest via memes?

Either way, thanks for being the "dumb-money" in this scene.

yes, it's only been contract exploits from shitty contracts. if cryptos get hacked, we got bigger problems.

vitalik leaving wouldn't kill it. the other devs are much more well known now.

Nobody uses it because Gas is so expensive.

sure, it was an exploit on a contract..which forced them to fork the entire chain. that's a big deal.

I like eth, eth is awesome. eth is fundamentally different from bitcoin.

>that's exactly why it's more secure
No, that's not the reason. Why are you even making a claim when you blatantly don't know what you are talking about? ridiculous approach

>less ambitious therefor less risk of technical problems, you know, like the one that just fucking happened?

can you even read? there are no bugs in the platform, there are bugs in the programs being built on top of it, exactly like regular applications

>if you think that analogy makes sense there is no use arguing with you. completely retarded.

hurr

read my post right above yours..the platform allowed people to submit a bad contract, and the entire fucking chain had to be forked. that's a big deal.

>eth is fundamentally better than bitcoin.

did a little snippy snappy to make your statement correct, free of charge

The expression is "the point is MOOT"

How could you get that wrong on Veeky Forums of all places. You have forgotten me simba, and you have forgotten who you are.

please be joking.

> lost argument
> resort to jokes

No, it doesn't stinky

no, it's not a big deal

from your first post to now you've just been vomitting easily disprovable /r/bitcoin snippets and have addressed exactly zero of the replies to your claims

at what point do you show some integrity and either shut the fuck up or admit you're wrong?

XLM

fpbp

please review your comments and the replies you've gotten chronologically and tell me again that I'm the one not making arguments

fucking hell you're one retarded buttcoiner

what the fug, I've been saying it wrong for years then, thanks user

another DAO hack would be brutal

look what being immutable brought bitcoin. it's the slowest, most expensive, broken blockchain in the whole ecosystem. mass adoption cannot happen on a coin that can't be upgraded and changed.

bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/scriptless-scripts-how-bitcoin-can-support-smart-contracts-without-smart-contracts/

disprove it then you fuck, you can't just say 'hurr it's easily disprovable'

if you aren't willing to make the argument why bother posting

I've addressed every fucking claim you made already? how thick are you?

Is it healthy to hold that much btc? thought it was gonna turn to shit eventually

you're only argument against the bad smart contract hard fork:

> no, it's not a big deal

wow, good job.

your only argument against the 'bad' smart contract hard fork:

> it's bad

wow, way to hold me to a higher standard than yourself

ETC will hit $80 soon

it's a fucking hard fork because ONE PERSON submitted bad code to the network. that is the big deal, if you don't get that you're way beyond reason.

Because it's not trying to be money, and a high price is not necessary to its function.

to make it even more simple for you:

ethereum - single person can bring down network
bitcoin - single person cannot bring down network

Cryptopepes.
Breed pepes to get the rarest.

neo is going to anal rape this coin

>ONE PERSON
blatantly untrue, as usual, but whatever

>that is the big deal
in what universe? ETH seems to have suffered no repurcussions from it except idealistic retards pretending Vitalik is some overlord who can do whatever he wants with Ethereum

If you were pragmatic you'd see that what you claim is a big deal and a bad thing is actually why ETH is in a position to overtake BItcoin; having a figurehead and leadership whose interests are aligned with the success of the platform is exactly why ETH is now poised to become the first mainstream ready crypto in the space:

sharding,
PoS,
zk-snarks

how long will it take for BTC to implement these things? are they even in the roadmap yet? that's what idealistic bullshit gets you

there is a coin for people who share your perspective; it's called ETC (or BTC), and it's garbage

>if you don't get that you're way beyond reason
it's so hilariously ironic how half your comments are a variation of this, and that you have yet to reply to the first claims you made

>to make it even more simple for you:
why do you pretend you have to dumb anything down for me? you're obviously wrong and have been since your first comments, which you never addressed before jumping to another topic from the /r/bitcoin copebag

>can bring down network
how is a hard fork bringing down the network

if Vitalik went crazy tomorrow and tried to 'bring down the network' no one would use his fork, rofl

you fundamentally misunderstand even the most basic things about blockchains

it gets adopted faster than scaling solutions develop and the network gets all shitty

>blatantly untrue, as usual, but whatever
well it's unclear who exploited the bug in the DAO so..

a hardfork is fundamentally bringing down the network..you are manually altering rules that were supposed to be immutable (the entire point of blockchains).

they basically manually reversed, or invalidated, transactions. I think the implications (in regards to decentralization) of that are pretty clear.

my argument is super simple: bitcoin avoids problems like this by staying off of the cutting edge, and because of that there's room for both projects.

Vitalik could die in a car crash.........

so lets say eth drops 5% and the alt you want goes up 20% alt/eth? just buy now friendo. only buy off based on the TA of the alt not the TA of your middle coin.

Cardano ADA

Large Swiss whales/grifters dumping their stacks as they are investigated for financial fraud and rubber stamping all of the foundations in Zug.

Ironic the captcha is "court taxi"

NEO and the chinks.

>well it's unclear who exploited the bug in the DAO so..

mhm I actually misread this, thought you meant Vitalik hard forked alone, but you actually said that the hard fork happened *because* of one person, not *by* one person

>a hardfork is fundamentally bringing down the network
it's just a different version of the same blockchain, it doesn't 'bring anything down'. If the network doesn't like the new fork it won't accept it - but it did, and the world moves on

>you are manually altering rules that were supposed to be immutable (the entire point of blockchains)
ETH is still a functioning blockchain with a strong community and big faith in the network, so while an idealist might agree with what you saying, it's just not what is happening in reality

would you oppose a hard fork if a 51% attack happened on Bitcoin?

>I think the implications (in regards to decentralization) of that are pretty clear.
I don't see the connection to centralization here - the Ethereum 'leaders' only have influence while the network agrees with them, if they start doing dodgy shit that no one wants to do (why would they?) then the network will just stop adopting their forks

>my argument is super simple: bitcoin avoids problems like this by staying off of the cutting edge, and because of that there's room for both projects.
fair enough - if that's good enough for you to bet your money on it

my argument is that bitcoin is a borderline useless currency with no real solution to it's problems; this is a really fucking hard thing to ignore

OK Beast

>ETH is still a functioning blockchain with a strong community and big faith in the network, so while an idealist might agree with what you saying, it's just not what is happening in reality
agree, and I think the fork was the right thing to do.

the implications of what happened are still very real though. more bugs could be found, bringing down even more important projects etc. even if these bugs were confined to specific projects it could lead to the need for more modifications and downtime which in turn affects everything else.

>would you oppose a hard fork if a 51% attack happened on Bitcoin?
nope, and if there was a successful 51% attack of bitcoin my argument would no longer be valid. but that's the power of bitcoin, I truly believe that at the moment it is the most secure crypto / the most expensive to attack. that's where the utility comes from imo.

>my argument is that bitcoin is a borderline useless currency with no real solution to it's problems; this is a really fucking hard thing to ignore
disagree strongly here, lightning is a real solution and a good next step. bitcoin is moving in the right direction very slowly, and I think that's by design.

>more bugs could be found, bringing down even more important projects etc. even if these bugs were confined to specific projects it could lead to the need for more modifications and downtime which in turn affects everything else.

we are actually seeing this playing out in real time with the Parity contract bug, who themselves suggest fixes; I think an Ethereum developer wrote an entire article on why their proposed solutions weren't good enough, so we're likely not going to see those funds being released - it just convinces me that Ethereum has a healthy community and a pragmatic decision making process - I'm not scared of hard forks as long they are justified

> I truly believe that at the moment it is the most secure crypto / the most expensive to attack. that's where the utility comes from imo.

fair enough - I don't buy it personally

>disagree strongly here, lightning is a real solution and a good next step. bitcoin is moving in the right direction very slowly, and I think that's by design.

LN is a compromise and requires adoption, it's wishful thinking to think every transaction will happen on side channels - look at how SegWit is doing. Even then, using a payment channel is minimum two transactions by itself, so users will likely have to sign up to hubs that will communicate with other hubs to allow the same payment channels to stay open, making it extremely centralized. There is also the UX problem of having to lock funds in a sidechain to spend it. I think realistically the adoption phase will take years if it ever happens, and I don't think even a mature LN ecosystem is enough, because normal transactions will still take place.

Onchain scaling (sharding) is guaranteed to work instantly and isn't dependent on outside factors; it's the safe approach to scalability