3 ms·

What's he playing at here? The founder of a cryptocurrency should now full well the power they have saying words like this; I know he's young, and I know there'

What's he playing at here? The founder of a cryptocurrency should now full well the power they have saying words like this; I know he's young, and I know there's validity to the "don't invest more than you can afford to lose" but a statement like 'could drop to near zero' is almost BEGGING the market to go bearish when you're the founder of a currency. Buy the rumor, sell the news has never been more apt than it is right now.

kybernetikos 9y ago
He may well want cryptos to reduce in value. Lots of people working in cryptos are more interested in the potential of the technology for creating social change than in making a fast buck from speculation, and the current high prices and high volatility are in some ways an obstacle to that. Besides, he may feel some level of responsibility for the huge number of people who have lost money to token scams or who have borrowed money to 'invest' in cryptocurrencies and are currently hurting.
davesque 9y ago
He's been making comments for a while now expressing concern over the direction the community is taking and the kinds of people who are who are becoming involved in the market. This latest comment seems to be in the same vein. I agree with him actually. Crypto is the Wild West of finance right now and, in spite of the legitimate promise shown by some of the tech, is the perfect breeding ground for fraud.
Alex3917 9y ago
> What's he playing at here? Right now there are two major known risks overhanging the market: - The Tether situation (https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/7xae98/understanding_tether_why_it_accounts_for_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/7xae98/unde...) - SEC / CFTC action against ICOs Either of those scenarios could send the markets down 85% within minutes or hours. In addition there are the usual systemic risks of 51% attacks, core infrastructure getting pwned, etc.
- cobookman 9y ago
  and 51% attacks do not require you to have 51% of all nodes on the network. Just 51% of all Active nodes on the network. If someone finds a zero day exploit and manages to crash a large number of ethereum nodes they could do a 51% attack with a relatively small number of nodes.
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    That's incorrect. A 51% attack means an adversary having 51% or more of the hashing power (calculated as hashes generated per second) and using it to disrupt the normal operation of the blockchain. A party with 51% of hashing power can single handedly create a blockchain that other nodes will accept over any competing chain, meaning they can rewrite history, or prevent any new transactions from being confirmed. If consensus were based on number of nodes, the network could be easily Sybil attacked, given the cost of running what appears to be a node is next to nothing. It would also be difficult to make such a consensus protocol usable, as there's no efficient way to poll a large number of network nodes.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  Neither would take cryptocurrencies down 85%.

kybernetikos 9y ago

He may well want cryptos to reduce in value. Lots of people working in cryptos are more interested in the potential of the technology for creating social change than in making a fast buck from speculation, and the current high prices and high volatility are in some ways an obstacle to that. Besides, he may feel some level of responsibility for the huge number of people who have lost money to token scams or who have borrowed money to 'invest' in cryptocurrencies and are currently hurting.

davesque 9y ago

He's been making comments for a while now expressing concern over the direction the community is taking and the kinds of people who are who are becoming involved in the market. This latest comment seems to be in the same vein. I agree with him actually. Crypto is the Wild West of finance right now and, in spite of the legitimate promise shown by some of the tech, is the perfect breeding ground for fraud.

Alex3917 9y ago

> What's he playing at here? Right now there are two major known risks overhanging the market: - The Tether situation (https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/7xae98/understanding_tether_why_it_accounts_for_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/7xae98/unde...) - SEC / CFTC action against ICOs Either of those scenarios could send the markets down 85% within minutes or hours. In addition there are the usual systemic risks of 51% attacks, core infrastructure getting pwned, etc.

cobookman 9y ago
and 51% attacks do not require you to have 51% of all nodes on the network. Just 51% of all Active nodes on the network. If someone finds a zero day exploit and manages to crash a large number of ethereum nodes they could do a 51% attack with a relatively small number of nodes.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  That's incorrect. A 51% attack means an adversary having 51% or more of the hashing power (calculated as hashes generated per second) and using it to disrupt the normal operation of the blockchain. A party with 51% of hashing power can single handedly create a blockchain that other nodes will accept over any competing chain, meaning they can rewrite history, or prevent any new transactions from being confirmed. If consensus were based on number of nodes, the network could be easily Sybil attacked, given the cost of running what appears to be a node is next to nothing. It would also be difficult to make such a consensus protocol usable, as there's no efficient way to poll a large number of network nodes.
CryptoPunk 9y ago
Neither would take cryptocurrencies down 85%.