[miscellaneous]

I find it amusing that you spend so much time commenting on every Ethereum post on hacker news. For someone who is so dismissive of Ethereum as a technology, you sure spend a lot of time criticizing it.

But more directly to you post: forking an altcoin would be a terrible idea for this person's usecase. Do so not only requires more work (creating and deploying clients) but also is completely insecure as such an altcoin would have no mining power behind it.

Creating a token on an existing blockchain, like Ethereum, would be a much better idea since the clients would already exist and the network would be much more secure. Moreover tokens on the Ethereum blockchain are light-client friendly and have access to smart-contract functinality.

[kang]

I comment on almost every blockchain related post I have something to add. I am not dismissive of blockchain technology but ethereum is not a technology but an implementation & I recognize its only benefit as ease of use.

The security that you mention is surely a good thing but rather an overkill in a hackspace environment. If he was purely behind mining power then he should rather start a sidechain based on litecoin.

I find it amusing that you take technical criticism so personally that you target me commenting on just a couple of ethereum post with your ad hominems. Coming to the point, I will argue based on technical viewpoints because this is HN & rather have you keep it clean too please.

[vonklaus]

I agree with your initial appraisal to some extent. However, forking bitcoin/ethereum or modifying some other coin for a hacketspace would likely be a learning excercise so the tech/coin used should be related to their interests. Hackerspaces are as much about learning as creating and given the usecase and context learning would be a focus likely more than the actual token usage.

> ethereum is not a technology

By definition is a technology a case could be made whether it is a protocol or simply an extension of an existing one. I understand what you are saying here, and once again to some extent, I agree.

However what does "easier" mean. Obviously they used blockchain technology so by definition, blockchain can do anything ethereum can do and it is likely bitcoin can or will be able to as well.

Ethereum is the first company to provide a widespread platform that is secure, easy to use, well documented and designed to build distributed apps and smart contracts. If we assume it works the way it is intended, it is important technology.

Bitcoin is the first implementation and to my knowledge, the designer itself worked on it personally. It also has a cap of coins produced.

I am not looking at the numbers, but commerce on the internet is near 10% in america and i think 4% now.

Just haphazard napkin calculations would mean that if the world accepted bitcoin at a similar rate it would be too concentrated, valuable and need too much mining to work.

Amzn did the first sale in 94.

There is ~5-6 trillion in the world.

Sonewhere between 5-10 percent of all transactions are online.

If we assume adoption to occor similar to this, that would mean 5-10 percent of the economy becomes bitcoin. I think a trajectory like this is possible.

Bitcoin was designed as a currency and ethereum was designed as an energy product.

All coins are priced in bitcoin because you can not buy most directly. Soeculators must buy bitcoin and convert it into something else.

Bitcoin will be much more of a wealth store and peg than the underlying consumable resource used in decentralized application (directly).

So that is why ethereum is important. It is an easy cheap way to allow high throughput access to a distributed database.

It would be annoying if ethereum failed to meet expectations. If bitcoin does not, it will certainly diminish ALL coins and slow blockchain develoment years (or be catastrophic if already widespread)

So yes, ethereum could or could not be a cool hackerspace token. Either way the technology is amazing in blockchain, mining, etc so it would be a good project