Happy to answer any follow-up questions here
Bringing financial inclusion to the billions of unbaked it's the biggest unfulfilled promise of cryptocurrencies.
For it to work it must be engineered on the protocol level for this use case, I think Cardano is trying to solve this problem.
The store of value and savings part it's more or less easy to solve, the big problem is the lending without a stable coin it will be very difficult to implement, big Fiat currencies like the Dollar and the Euro have the powerful backing of a central bank and ultimately the collateralization of all the taxpayers as a protection against high volatility and black swan events, this will be very difficult to implement in crypto, MakerDAO is tring to do it but I don't see it working on a big scale.
Is there any evidence for this? Perhaps a statement from Satoshi that they were motivated to publish by the crisis?
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
Source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Genesis_block (or you can verify on the blockchain as well)
On the scalability issue if you sacrifice the decentralization is theoretically possible for Bitcoin to process on-chain, Visa level of transactions and with current energy consumption levels or even less.
You would probably get 3 to 6 physical data center locations probably on the same continent connected with high-speed links with 1 Terabyte 10min blocks.
LOL Proof of steak https://youtu.be/U3OEk2dNYcU?t=44
Proof of stake is a pipe dream. Such a system can’t reliably achieve consensus due to the nothing-at-stake problem. Additionally, randomly selecting a winner in a distributed yet unpredictable way continues to be an unsolved problem.
Sharding has the cost of weakening security.
Bitcoin is addressing scaling better than any other blockchain. It’s making transactions more efficient through technologies like Segwit and Schnorr. It’s adding robust smart contracts and instant payments using second layer sidechains like rootstock and lightning.
Ethereum is already imploding under its own weight — it’s impossible to even sync a full node on basic hardware. In a few years it’ll be dead.
How so?
> Sharding has the cost of weakening security.
Why?
Raiden is a comprehensive implementation that includes Lightning Networks for ERC20 tokens, something that Bitcoin doesn't even have.
>>Proof of stake is a pipe dream.
Your information is incorrect. Ethereum's proof of stake is close to complete conceptually and the first version, a hybrid PoW/PoS protocol called Casper the Friendly Finality Gadget, is currently under development and will be implemented in Ethereum soon.
>>Such a system can’t reliably achieve consensus due to the nothing-at-stake problem.
Your criticism is long out of date. Vitalik Buterin addressed how the Nothing at Stake problem can be solved in 2014:
https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-lov...
>>Bitcoin is addressing scaling better than any other blockchain. It’s making transactions more efficient through technologies like Segwit and Schnorr. It’s adding robust smart contracts and instant payments using second layer sidechains like rootstock and lightning.
Bitcoin's lack of Turing Completeness at the base layer is a critical weakness that limits the range of second layer solutions that are possible. Ethereum has far more sophisticated and numerous scaling solutions in development as a result.
>>Sharding has the cost of weakening security.
That is not certain to be true. There are a lot security impacting variables at play that sharding affects, and some of them positively. Even if security were reduced, it wouldn't mean the trade off for more scalability wouldn't be worth it. Sharding enables massive scaling while preserving the ability for consumer grade nodes to contribute to validation. That seems like a good trade off.
>>Ethereum is already imploding under its own weight — it’s impossible to even sync a full node on basic hardware.
That is highly misleading. SSDs have been syncing fine. HDDs have been having syncing problems, but that was solved in the most recent Geth release.
>>In a few years it’ll be dead.
Disingenuous FUD.
Ethereum is the primary Dapp platform, with 30X more developers working on it than the next most active platform. It has a multipronged scaling strategy that is in an advanced state of development and dwarfs that of any other blockchain. It is now the most widely used blockchain in the world, processing 3X more transactions per day than #2 Bitcoin. And in all of these categories, its momentum is growing.
Is the lone implementation which is still on testnet and no ecosystem surrounding it.
> ERC20 tokens, something that Bitcoin doesn't even have.
Bitcoin has no interest in implementing an equivalent as a layer-1 feature. This should be a surprise to no one. Off-chain scaling is the official direction of the Bitcoin community. There's no interest in adding bloat to the layer 1 protocol. Ethereum is the "everything including the kitchen sink" approach. Anyways, saying Bitcoin does'nt have ERC20 is factually incorrect: Rootstock implements ERC20 tokens as a second layer network.
> Your information is incorrect. Ethereum's proof of stake is close to complete conceptually and the first version
It's not any where near complete, which is why the difficulty bomb was rolled back (which in and of itself is hilarious -- Ethereum only pretends to be decentralized).
> Vitalik Buterin addressed how the Nothing at Stake problem can be solved in 2014
He described how to solve it 4 years ago, yet they still can't release even a hybrid PoS solution. Slasher does not solve the nothing at stake problem, it merely obfuscates it. Long range attacks are still possible.
I noticed you completely glossed over how PoS systems will agree on randomness. Good luck. I'm sure it's just another 4 years away.
> Bitcoin's lack of Turing Completeness at the base layer is a critical weakness that limits the range of second layer solutions that are possible.
Lack of Turing Completeness is a feature and intentional. If you want a general purpose distributed computer use rootstock. Which, by the way, is 100% compatible with the Eth VM.
> Sharding enables massive scaling while preserving the ability for consumer grade nodes to contribute to validation.
That's cute. Ethereum doesn't even have any "consumer grade" nodes today. Anyways, sounds like you're taking the long way around to agreeing with me: Sharding sacrifices security.
> That is highly misleading. SSDs have been syncing fine. HDDs have been having syncing problems,
Again, taking the long way around to agreeing with me. A full archive node currently requires a 400GB SSD! You're only option is to run a light node, which further contributes to your networks centralization.
> Disingenuous FUD.
Eh, you'll see. The monolithic approach of Ethereum is very naive.
> with 30X more developers working on it than the next most active platform
Easily proved false, anyone reading can take a look at the respective github repos. Bitcoin currently has over 550 contributors, Ethereum only has 200. Bitcoin has over 16k commits. Ethereum has only 9k. This doesn't even take into account the larger ecosystem of software Bitcoin has.
> Ethereum is the primary Dapp platform,
A little early to make any of these claims...the only popular Dapp in recent memory is cryptokitties and it brought the Ethereum network to its knees. Anyways, like I've said, Bitcoin has a fully compatible Ethereum VM running as a layer 2 network.
> It has a multipronged scaling strategy that is in an advanced state of development
I wouldn't call it multipronged -- Vitalik has it all hinging on PoS and that has been officially delayed until late 2018 at best.
> dwarfs that of any other blockchain.
Well, until you look at actual commit and contributor count. Then it's clear Bitcoin has far more development happening.
> It is now the most widely used blockchain in the world, processing 3X more transactions per day than #2 Bitcoin
I mean, bitcoin is operating at capacity. I'm sure Ethereum has more spam transactions though, I agree. Saying Ethereum is the most widely used blockchain in the world his hilarious. People know Bitcoin. A small fraction of those people know Ethereum.
> And in all of these categories, its momentum is growing.
As its network continues to crumble. Best of luck. We'll reconvene when Casper finally launches...hopefully while we're still young.
Uh, what about running a full archive node? The bitcoin txo set is also much larger the the utxo set
You're right that it's incomplete, in the sense that it's not completely finished, but not much more incomplete than the LN implementations on Bitcoin. They're on mainnet, but the developers say it's just there for testing purposes, and large amounts should be transacted on it. Its ecosystem is limited to buying sweaters from Blockstream and buying a VPN subscription.
To claim that the Raiden implementation is significantly behind the Bitcoin ones is misleading.
>>Bitcoin has no interest in implementing an equivalent as a layer-1 feature.
Which is a disastrous technical decision based on absurd self-defeating dogma. Ethereum already has 92% of the token market capitalization, up from 73% in July 2017. All the while, the token market grew from $4 billion to $60 billion.
Network effects matter, and the destructive dogma you're promoting resulted in Bitcoin letting Ethereum becoming the dominant crypto-asset platform, with a growing share of a rapidly growing market.
In any case, the fact that Raiden has ERC20-compatibility is another example of why your characterization of it as being "a poor and incomplete implementation of Lightning" is absurd. It's a comprehensive, full-featured implementation that is very nearly complete.
>>It's not any where near complete, which is why the difficulty bomb was rolled back (which in and of itself is hilarious -- Ethereum only pretends to be decentralized).
I didn't say it is "anywhere near complete". I said that Ethereum's proof of stake is close to complete conceptually and the first version, a hybrid PoW/PoS protocol called Casper the Friendly Finality Gadget, is currently under development and will be implemented in Ethereum soon.
>>Easily proved false, anyone reading can take a look at the respective github repos. Bitcoin currently has over 550 contributors, Ethereum only has 200. Bitcoin has over 16k commits. Ethereum has only 9k. This doesn't even take into account the larger ecosystem of software Bitcoin has.
Ethereum developers are working on all of the Dapps being built on top of Ethereum, each of which has its own set of repositories.
Only comparing the repositories for the Bitcoin and Ethereum official projects, which are centred only around the main clients, is an absolutely ridiculous measure of total development activity with respect to the platform.
And even this comparison is extremely disingenuous. You're comparing ONE repository hosted by the Ethereum project to one repository hosted by the Bitcoin project, when the Ethereum project has its work divided across a far larger number of repositories (151 vs 4):
It seems like every single argument you've made is misleading.
>>He described how to solve it 4 years ago, yet they still can't release even a hybrid PoS solution.
Good development takes time. The fact that the implementation has taken time to develop is not an indictment of the solution provided by VB to the Nothing at Stake problem.
>>Slasher does not solve the nothing at stake problem, it merely obfuscates it.
Ethereum is not developing Slasher, which was a very early proposal that does not contain the solution to the Nothing at Stake problem that VB proposed in the linked article.
At least learn the basic facts before confidently criticizing Ethereum.
>>Lack of Turing Completeness is a feature and intentional.
The lack of Turing Completeness limits the range and sophistication of second layer solutions that can be built on top of a blockchain. Ethereum's range of second layer solutions is far larger than Bitcoin as a result of having it. Turing-Completeness is an incredible benefit, and it's very shortsighted (or malicious) to discounts its value.
>>That's cute. Ethereum doesn't even have any "consumer grade" nodes today.
Sure it does. SSDs are consumer grade hardware, and the recent Geth update allows HDDs to sync as well. Sharding allows massive scaling while still preserving the ability of nodes to run consumer grade hardware. You have no response to this point except your snarky "that's cute".
>>Anyways, sounds like you're taking the long way around to agreeing with me: Sharding sacrifices security.
I explicitly disagreed with you. You can't even respond honestly to my comments at a basic level.
>>Again, taking the long way around to agreeing with me.
I just disagreed with you!
Here I'll past the comment again:
"HDDs have been having syncing problems, but that was solved in the most recent Geth release."
Translation: HDDs work fine now. You do not need an SSD. So I disagreed with you. Please stop lying so much.
>>A full archive node currently requires a 400GB SSD!
A full archive node is not necessary for full validation. Full validation only requires 30 GB, and like I just explained, it's now possible with HDDs as well.
>>A little early to make any of these claims...the only popular Dapp in recent memory is cryptokitties
It is currently the most widely used Dapp platform. That's factually true. And the development happening on new Dapps dwarfs anything happening on any other platform.
>>it brought the Ethereum network to its knees.
Even at its most congested, Ethereum did not get anywhere near as congested as Bitcoin, so you are implicitly arguing that Bitcoin is regularly brought to its knees, to a much more severe degree than Ethereum, and while processing one-third as many transactions.
Here is their founder giving a presentation about it at the Decentralized AI Summit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QMgVsbHu98
It ties together things like the "Who owns the future" book by Jaron Lanier and AI/Bots/APIs for new economies.
I also recommend this article from Fred Ehrsam https://medium.com/@FEhrsam/blockchain-governance-programmin...
I've skimmed the SEC documents Reg A, Reg S, Reg D, Reg CF they are all nonsensical when it comes to raising capital with crypto.
Non accredited investors buy securities all the time through their brokers.
Advertising to general non accredited public for unregistered securities may get you in trouble with sec.
Selling unregistered securities to non accredited investors happens all the time through private placements.
Meaning, don’t spam to the world your ico address and be diligent as to who you’re talking to about potential investments.
The SEC secretary wants a fine line distinction between a “private” and “public” raising of money. He’s right to point that all icos (besides filecoin) are trying to be considered as “private” while publicly share their address and don’t discern who sends in funds.
Here’s a recent SEC release: https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/statement-clayton-...