|
|
|
|
|
by ringaroundthetx
3105 days ago
|
|
> 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. |
|
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.