[kordlessagain]

I do not invest in ETH. The reason why varies, but essentially I hold a belief that various portions of their stack have various levels of trust which are not well understood. For example, the Ethereum community has "allowed" people to use poorly constructed libraries to build contracts that were later invalidated by someone "goofing around". Other incidents show the stakeholders are willing to change core code to get their stored values back (or their associates stored values back). These issues are not to say the core chain of Ethereum is of low trust. It is not.

You are correct in assuming there is no way for a scalable and fast blockchain to store data that serves the worlds needs. Ethereum is built on the promise to do away with current decentralized services, by way of allowing the identity and value used to be placed on their chain and executed using some programmable logic, in a way that is trustworthy.

Of course we've been doing this for years with centralized services. Images drawn by people, for example, have no business being in a chain, but they could be "pinned" to the chain by way of some loose, lower trusted consensus than the main chain. A few of us could store it for a price using IPFS/Filecoin while others of us make a statement that we know the file in question exists by signing an entry on a main chain - instead of just putting the image there in total.

[ringaroundthetx]

> The Ethereum community has "allowed" people to use poorly constructed libraries to build contracts that were later invalidated by someone "goofing around"

Ah back when Ethers were $7 each instead of the $800 today

The real question is whether your poor investment decisions are relevant to the discussion of this thread

These are commodities, broken things about them makes the more valuable or scarce, just like when an oil pipeline is destroyed in a conflict zone. Your opinion about oil has no bearing on you making money.

[kordlessagain]

> poor investment decision

We should talk about your poor assumption generation algos. Risk assessment indicates a willingness to examine certain "opportunities" which only exist in hindsight (i.e. confirmation bias) over observations of truth of reality. For example, if we knew the DAO hack was possible, ETH may never have gotten expensive enough to justify a fork for it.

Factually, it is true that the Ethereum maintainers are willing to fork their chain if it means getting their money back from someone who found a hole in their codebase - a codebase few people understand at a fundamental level. This inability to understand it at a fundamental level, coupled with the inherit irrationality of the markets indicates it may be of higher risk than a Bitcoin investment.

This means "opportunity", at least in the context you give it, could indicate a blind willingness to follow the lead of others, when one themselves may be in doubt over how they may guarantee a given level of risk during the waiting period for outcome.

That you'd bother to attack me over this point is fairly irrational, except if you were one of those people hoping to continue to blow hot air into this particular crypto market.

Fact is, we just might NOT need Ethereum where we're going. Time will tell.

[Florin_Andrei]

> your poor investment decisions

Y'all need to calm down a little.

[ringaroundthetx]

It was supposed to be provocative

someone took a hard look at the project and made up irrelevant reasons not to participate in owning the underlying gas of the network, forfeiting a 11,800% profit from $7 after the DAO incident to $830 today, and maintains that opinion while continuing to masquerade them as related!

[frgtpsswrdlame]

Nothing about that relates to their investment decisions. If I'm in blackjack holding a 19 and I choose not to hit and the next card comes up a 2, was that a bad investment decision?

[ringaroundthetx]

In extremely basic hi/low card counting, if you had the information to suggest that most of the high cards had already been played, then yes that was a bad decision not to hit or weigh it more objectively to come to the same conclusion.

This is in line with whatever analogy you were going for, and OP, who had information.

[beaconstudios]

your analogy to card counting is incorrect. You wouldn't hit on 19.