Frogolocalypse

> Now imagine Ethereum. It was ICO'd, talking in today's terms. Is it a security? (hint: SEC just admitted it's not)

I didn't see any admission like that. Quite the contrary. I think the statement pretty clearly places the ethereum ICO (as distinct from the functioning network after) as a security.

https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/22/launching-the-ether-sal...

There are a number of points in that post that scream security.

> The main point here is that there's absolutely nothing innovative about BTC anymore

That demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what makes bitcoin valuable, and what separates it from all other competitors. Bitcoin node decentralization is what keeps it censorship resistant, and in bitcoin node decentralization, it is ahead of any and all competitors. It likely has more fully validating nodes than all other cryptos combined, and by some margin.

There are a lot of people that want to sell you on a great new thing. Until they can get 150,000+ fully validating nodes to support their technology, they will be nothing more than a mildly distributed inefficient database. What is innovative about bitcoin is that it is the only real cryptocurrency, because it is the only one that isn't controlled directly by its creators, and also maintains its decentralization. The only ones that are even close are ethereum and litecoin, and ethereum is beholden to a single person who dictates changes to the network. Litecoin is simply a clone of bitcoin with minor changes to its implementation, but has a fraction of the fully validating nodes.

> Why are Litecoin's transaction fees multiple orders of magnitude smaller than Bitcoin's?

Supply and demand. People pay more to transact in bitcoin, because it is more secure, because it is more decentralized.

Like i said...

That's a really interesting insight. Thanks.

And here i thought i was being clever...

You fail on number one I'm afraid, and go down from there. 1. By that rationale, buying baseball cards is buying a security. Maybe if you were the ISSUER of the cards, you'd have a point. But even then, it's tenuous. Maybe if they were selling pre-release cards? 2. So baseball card buyers are buying securities? 3. Where is this supposed bitcoin enterprise? 4. Where can I buy these coins from satoshi?

Because the issuers of the token (management) don't directly benefit from its use. It is the selling and profiting off the token that makes it a security. If it provides utility to the participants and doesn't provide a direct incentive to the issuer, it is not a security.

ICO's certainly bring all of these things into a discussion though, don't they?

> a card that entitled you to some fraction of that baseball player's future income

I think i have an idea for a new ico....

Call it : sportico!

Can't see any reason why they wouldn't. This seems all very straightforward. It looks like the advice is going out now to inform the market there are likely to be issues with many ICO's, and especially new ones.

Not 100%, but a lot, for sure. I definitely read it as most.

What's funny in bitcoin, of course, is that none of those coins were sold, nor were they offered for sale.

I think that is a very considered and wide ranging statement. The proof is in the pudding though. He looks like he has called out some ICO's, but until enforcement proceedings start, it is still not clear. I can't see how any pre-mined ICO, like ripple, wouldn't be treated like a security given those statements.

As a long time crypto investor, even i recognise that ico's are out of control. It is my opinion that if you can't mine it yourself, or get someone independent from the issuer to do it for you, it's a security in everything but name. Any presale token is simply a security towards the coins once released. I can't see how that isn't a security.

http://open.edu.au partners with a number of Australian universities like RMIT and Griffith, and five or six others, to deliver all of the content online. However each subject generally still has an invilgated exam. From what i understand though, even these exams can be undertaken in a host of other countries.

Miners require nodes, so they have them too, because without nodes they can't source transactions. Every node, applying consensus rules, extends the blockchain by accepting valid blocks that meet consensus rules.

We have had a year long education in the limited power of miners with many people incorrectly attributing responsibility for maintaining the protocol. Miners were rightly shown to be powerless to force consensus changes on the nodes. When push came to shove they did what they were told, at the threat of being crushed with a pow change.

Only if you don't like recognising a store of value when you see one.

Risk = reward.

> Ethereum is already better-equipped to scale and the protocol is actively evolving

That is laughably false. Ethereum node decentralization is cratering, because it is becoming impossible to even synchronize a node anymore. I'd suggest you're not as technically inclined as you assert if you don't recognize this.

> In terms of transaction throughput, Bitcoin has a stupid hard limit of 1mb per 10mins of data

Bitcoin has a hard-limit in order to protect the decentralization of its nodes, and the consensus rules of the protocol. It's OK, I suppose, if you don't mind forking a supposedly immutable blockchain every time a few big investors lose money, but bitcoin is a slightly better value proposition than that.

Who do you think you're kidding? It works exceptionally well as a store of value, regardless of volatility. It is approaching an increase of value of 100x in three years.

The miners are incentivized not to undertake the attack you envisage because the outcome of such an attack is a fairly routine modification of the consensus protocol to an alternate Proof-of-work algorithm, which instantly renders all of the attacking miners hardware obsolete. They quite rightly want to avoid any strategy that might lead to that outcome.

They don't verify transactions actually. That is what nodes do. They retrieve valid transactions from nodes, order them, and then hash them according to the consensus proof-of-work algorithm, which in this case, is SHA-256, until it produces a block that will satisfy the node consensus requirements.

The purpose of this restriction is to protect the decentralization of bitcoin nodes. It is this decentralization of nodes that separates bitcoin from every other crypto competitor, and by some margin.

That makes no sense at all.

Proof of stake is not trustless.

The fact that it isn't working yet, if it ever works at all, is a good indication of the problems faced.

> Sorry but non of this sounds very convenient or useable

Then you don't understand how bitcoin works, so it's probably best you refrain from commenting on bitcoin architecture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=4E3NiDC9i8E

I'm the one who understands why all of the forks you support fail mate.

I'm the one who understands why all of the forks you support fail mate.

And here you are, with you still trying to fight a battle you've already lost. Four times. Losing exactly the same way every time. Because even after all of those losses, you still can't figure out why you always lose. Because even after all of those failures, you still don't understand why you lost, because you still don't understand how bitcoin works.