Interesting. May I ask, why no ETH? Are you of some of the issues with DASH?
https://medium.com/@omiros23/evans-and-dash-s-scam-story-add1f16528ae
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Interesting. May I ask, why no ETH? Are you of some of the issues with DASH?
https://medium.com/@omiros23/evans-and-dash-s-scam-story-add1f16528ae
About ETH: Too much money supply. To complicate. In the end only strong limitation counts. But that's only my humble opinion.
ETH tries to be an AI system, or a platform for AI systems but I think it fails at that since you can't have security if there are no limits, and practically a Turing Language is exactly that. We see now with just basic software how easy it is to introduce a backdoor. And if there is a huge incentive like 1 billion $ worth of ETH, then all hackers will jump on that. So ETH is pretty vulnerable and unsustainable.
It might still be good as a short term speculation, but I would not put all my life savings in it.
ETH has absolutly nothing to do with AI.
This is simply false.
Formal verification will largely address this issue.
What would those vulnerabilities be?
I think they are trying to introduce some kind of sandbox into the code to prohibit things like the DAO disaster happening again. A lot of memory exploits and such could arise in a fully turing language, and that might lead to practically turning ETH into a botnet. That is why I was saying that it might become an AI system, malicious or not.
I don't think software sandboxing is such a great idea on a financial platform. I don't think ETH will be a secure platform.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand what sandboxing is. They are working with functional programming languages and formal verification to ensure that contracts will function as intended.
This still does not make sense from a technical standpoint. The cryptography behind the computation does not allow for this "botnet" you mention.
Why not?
While I was working in market analytics at a firm, we used VMware for corporate simulations and market analytics, behind a secure linux distro. And this was just standard corporate protocol for simulations.
VMware is a pretty buggy simulator, they are constantly finding new bugs in it, even though it's like 10+ years old.
Then you have Xen which is basically an even lower level virtualizer, behind many Linux management and testing systems.
They are trying to work as hard as possible to eliminate bugs, but they always find new ones.
Most of the time because of the non-cooperation from hardware developers (the irony).
And then we have ETH which is basically built on all these stacks. One stack over the other, full of bugs, and you are going to tell me that a system that runs on multiple OS'es worldwide won't have a critical bug at some point that could crash the entire network?
I think that is very very likely. And if you attach a 1 billion $ bounty, you will have hackers crawling out from under every rock to make this happen.
:) I'm quite familiar with virtualization. My understanding of the Ethereum implementation and requisite cryptography give me a sense of security. Well, there is a 6 billion bounty right now so let us wait and see.
Interesting perspective. Certainly a useful characteristic for a store of value like Bitcoin. ETH is specifically not a store of value, listen to the developers. Although the issuance is not "capped", the Casper contract will aim to eventually be almost deflationary. The prospects of the Ethereum network are much more than just Bitcoin's store of value.
It could be. If it were a safe system, then you could just as well use it as a store of value.
Just as Govt bonds were not intended to be a store of value, due to their security, people do use them as such.
Eth could easily outrank Bitcoin, however due to it's security flaws and complex design (which does introduce security flaws), it will probably won't.
I would argue that it is. However in the same way that gold, while it is a great store of value is not a specific to store of value. Gold has utility in the world. Just like ETH has extreme utility on the Ethereum network. Tokens on top of Ethereum are where the store of value and transactions are going to settle. ETH is the incentive instrument for the protocol layer.
ETH is by no means insecure as you make it out to be. There is 7 billion on the line, Bitcoin only has 22. Just saying complexity = insecurities is not accurate.
Interesting thoughts about Coin-Join, but maybe most people just want to hide their transactions from the community, and not necessarly from a state actor.
What do you think about the Bitcoin implementation of CoinJoin in Joinmarket, which is implemented in a trustless manner:
https://github.com/JoinMarket-Org/joinmarket
Does that offer significant anonymity in your opinion?
um yes and no. MimbleWimble and CoinJoin are certainly interesting improvements to the Bitcoin protocol. Strong words on Bitcoin. The DASH implementation is very sloppy with the masternodes.
For annon I would put my weight behind Monero. That is about it, still giving zk-SNARKs some time.
But the only issue with Coinjoin is the need for a tusted party to do the anonymization. I believe Joinmarket itself has fixed that, and it provides strong anonymity if used properly.
Exactly why I dont really care about those. I would rather use a protocol that is annon at the actual protocol layer.