Just to avoid "disappearing into the shadows", I thought I'd respond here.
If you read the actual thread, you'll see that I never claimed the things he says I claimed, especially not "Ethereum is just fine as it is". I also never disparaged EOS and STEEM, except for a small implicit jab at Dan.
The core of my argument is that he's underestimating the value of ETH's first-mover advantage, and that the issues he raised are being actively worked on.
When his posts started becoming emotional and rambling, I chose to withdraw from the conversation, in the same way you would start eyeing the door at the pub, when the person you were talking to at the bar starts raising his voice and becoming increasingly animated. Unless of course, you care enough about the issue to become emotional and defensive as well, which I don't.
Ah excellent,let the debate begin.
Glad you had the minerals to talk, I love the fact that you put my statement in quotes lol, now who is being emotional ;-).
I would never eye the door in the pub when someone raised their voice and or got animated, in fact I would push the point harder down their throat begging for them to throw the first punch tbh.
Let me take some time to read the link you posted, I am really hoping you are not referring to Plasma as the solution to the problem or the move the PoS aka proof of wealth, but we shall see. I look forward to locking horns with you mate.
I'm sorry you took offence at me quoting you; that was not my intention. It was intended to illustrate why I felt compelled to reply.
As for the pub thing, I suppose we're just different people. I prefer a calm exchange of ideas to a shouting match, and especially to a fight. I've gotten into enough trouble to know that nothing good comes out of a fight, even when you win.
No need to apologize, I am a big boy.
Sorry for the late response, the EOS ‘launch, or failure to do so, has kept me busy. So I looked over the exchange and I agree there is nothing really negative within (which I must admit was a little disappointing, I love a good mud slinging match), so let’s do this.
Unfortunately, this discussion will never come to a metaphorical symbiotic conclusion in my opinion. Crypto followers are synonymous with religious believers in that the only way to prove who is right for them is to die., by which time it is too late to throw the “suck it biiiatch” in their face. More importantly, they are so ingrained and brainwashed they cannot see another alternative as viable.
For us it is an undefined but finite amount of time (hopefully not too long). Let's not forget that EOS and Steem are not vaporware by definition, if these methodologies continue to prove successful, the Eth dev team may change direction.
Let’s stick to the facts and see if either side can agree if not only to disagree?
I think ETH has a future if it can win the race of fixing its issues before another project overtakes it in adoption. Its first-mover advantage has given it a massive head start, but the competitors behind it are moving much faster and closing the gap. If ETH can pick up its pace before they catch up, it has a future, if it can't, then it does not. I find it difficult to speculate whether it can, but I'd put its odds at near 50:50.
I want to see PoW beaten as the future of consensus by either PoS, DAG, or FBA. I would be sad if, in a decade, PoW is still the dominant consensus mechanism. So far, no major failings have been exposed/exploited in the other mechanisms, which is encouraging. There is already plenty of money to be made in attacking them, but no successful attacks have been carried out, to my knowledge (maybe on IOTA, but I don't think highly of them). Based on that, yes, PoS has a good shot at being the future.
My answer to this applies both to Casper and Plasma. I've spent some time on the Ethereum R&D wiki pages, and even the more simple articles there, like the PoS FAQ or the Sharding FAQ, are already quite technically complex, even before considering their respective published papers. I like to think of myself as an intelligent person; I have two Computer Science degrees; I'm an experienced software developer; people pay me up to $125 per hour for my expertise; but I still struggle with fully understanding the finer points of their arguments. If I spent a few days studying, then I'd probably understand it fully, but I'd still lack the domain knowledge required to assess it within the broader context, which takes many months to obtain.
Most of us don't have the expertise to make judgements on things like this, nor the time to gain that expertise. There are people smarter than us arguing one thing, and equally smart ones arguing against them (e.g. Paul Sztorc vs. Vitalik). All we can do is more or less blindly trust one side or another. We usually do this by looking at the vision they're promoting, or the results they've delivered so far. My main reason for trusting Vitalik is that he's delivered a product with massive uptake and mindshare that's been battle-tested and survived for years. If he says that Casper and Plasma will fix its shortcomings, that's good enough for me. I don't have time for the months of study needed to verify his claims. When someone else delivers a better product, which then survives heavy loads and attacks, I will switch my allegiance.
Basically, I want a better smart contracts platform in the future. It doesn't matter if it's Ethereum or something else, it just needs to be the better one. But my definition of a better one includes having undergone significant adoption and survived the heavy loads and attacks that came as a result of that. At this point in time I'm choosing not to speculate on another platform passing that test, and speculating that Ethereum will fix its issues in a timely manner instead.
P.S. I don't know your background, but before you accuse me of being too stupid to understand the tech, consider the Dunning-Kruger effect. As someone who's been in the field for a while, I am acutely aware of how much there is I don't know, and how much context and theory can be behind even seemingly simple statements in those R&D papers.
lol I love the pre-emptive strike. I am in no position to argue anything against a mind such as that belonging to Big V.
Short answer EOS BABY.
Long(er) answer to come, I will read your posted links.
P.S. I left school with absolutely fuck all so you are ahead of me academically for sure, but I have battled against the "learned" many times and am able to hold my own.
Great response and I will reply as soon as I have had to time to digest the articles as best I can.
Actually, you claimed that Transactions per second are irrelevant. And the thread is in the context that ETH is not a working product.
Sooo
Welcome to steemit! HAHAHA
The fact you have a steemit account throws me for a loop. You claim ETH does more than steem? Those words can only be uttered by someone who doesn't even know what steem is.
We can both agree on one thing now. Steem accomplished putting you in an awkward situation. I mean did you seriously think a full blown social media dapp is not useful to a point where you say we might as well stick with 15 tps?
Anyone who thinks something like that, simply having a steemit, is admitting you dont actually agree with that!! HAHAHA
Without avatars, it's hard to keep track of who said what on Reddit, so you may have mixed up who it was that said TPS is irrelevant. It certainly wasn't me. I don't think it's irrelevant at all.
In one of my replies, I quoted you saying that I'd never heard of Steemit, and replied with "umm, excuse me?". In that reply, the "excuse me" was a link to my Steemit account.
I had a quick scroll through your profile, and it looks like our first posts on Steemit are within 2 weeks of each other. And I'm sure both of us had our accounts for a while before making our first posts. I obviously am not as active here as you are, but that's mostly because of time constraints.
So my point here is that you seem to be arguing against someone else, and not me. I'm a fan of STEEM, and I don't know enough about EOS to have a strong opinion, but I dislike the way its ICO was run. Funnily, STEEM also had a contentious beginning, though it recovered nicely. EOS might well do the same.
The ICO was actually a very clever move.
It was designed to stop whales running in and buying up all the tokens at once ( we have seen ICO's sell out in a matter of hours). It was also allowed as many people out there to hear about the project, have time to research it and make an informed decision on whether to buy in or not.
What are your gripes with it?
Having given it more thought, I can't find any objective argument against how they did it, but subjectively it still somehow doesn't sit right. Maybe a reason will come to me at some later point, or maybe the feeling will go away.
Then I guess we can lay this one to bed.
I do not in any way shape or form encourage anyone to downvote @cryptoscopia or anything along those lines. I have no intentions to bully, this is just proving a point.
Hey this is the free market, I will not bully or threaten anyone. I will state facts only and rebut all statements made.
OP states he does not want to get emotional but his opening line is steeped in direct condecendence. I will take 0 offense to anything said to me so please do and say what you feel is best.
Disagreement and debate are the only way we as people progress, I love this stuff, let’s have fun and hash this out.
Response was meant to other person. For some reason I got the response and names wrong. Which is weird, but is user error on my part. I edited the posts for it to make proper sense.
Sorry about that.