4 ms·

>the point is not to just hodl, but to create a core technology that can enable different applications This is has been said about every coin since the beginni

by PKop 3y ago

>the point is not to just hodl, but to create a core technology that can enable different applications This is has been said about every coin since the beginning of crypto.

rglullis 3y ago
Absolutely not. Bitcoin's initial narrative was "digital cash", i.e, digital payments and microtransactions. Given that transaction costs became prohibitive, it switched to "digital gold", or store of value, meaning that Bitcoiners defend the idea that Bitcoin's reason d'être is just to hold it. I've never seen Vitalik or any of the core Ethereum developers talking about the value of Ether being a fundamental metric of any kind. The incentives are made in a way to maximize utility of the blockchain, not the value of its base currency.
- PKop 3y ago
  You gave 2 examples supporting exactly what I just said. And there are 1000s of other ones that encompass "crypto".
  - rglullis 3y ago
    I'm really failing to understand you here. The "beginning of crypto" was with Bitcoin, can we agree to that? Can we agree that Bitcoin was not claiming to "be a general platform to power distributed applications"? If you disagree, refer to the whitepaper that says "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". Can we agree that before Ethereum each chain was just a fork of Bitcoin, and that the token (aka "the currency") was "sold" to others as something that would have its value determined by supply and demand, but that the blockchain had no use that was not connected to transactions related to the token? As in: fundamentally speaking, Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin, Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Cash... are the same? Can we agree that Ethereum (the blockchain) enables distributed applications where people do not care at all about the price of Ether? E.g, I can host files on Storj and pay with credit card, the people hosting data are being paid in Storj's token, and everyone involved in this economy is directly using the Ethereum blockchain, but don't need to hold any Ether at all?
    - PKop 3y ago
      Every coin at one point said it wasn't just for hodling, including as you pointed out BTC and ETH. Saying you have some other use case besides asset appreciation is not a unique proposition.
      - rglullis 3y ago
        BTC (and derivatives) were very much "just for holding". The fact that they hoped it could be used for day-to-day value transfers does not negate the fact that the system can only work with a continuous influx of capital. "You should pay something with BTC, but if possible buy back the USD-equivalent amount" was standard advice already in 2011. > Saying you have some other use case besides asset appreciation is not a unique proposition. Now, it isn't. In 2015, it pretty much was.
        PKop 3y ago
        >they hoped it could be used for day-to-day value transfers And they said this, including Satoshi. Yes they were wrong, but they said it. >Now, it isn't It's never been unique, because every coin has said it including, as you have mentioned in every response so far, Bitcoiners. You've also said Eth guys have said. What are we left with? Every other **coin has obviously said it. I'm not arguing they all mean it, or they've been right. I'm arguing they all said it.
        rglullis 3y ago
        > I'm not arguing they all mean it, or they've been right. I'm arguing they all said it. Then this whole discussion is pointless. Why should we care about what people say or believe, unless it can be backed by their actions? Instead of putting them all in the same bucket because on what they said, let's judge them based on what they did. And Vitalik has consistently shown that his work is aligned with the stated plans and vision for Ethereum.
        PKop 3y ago

by PKop 3y ago

>the point is not to just hodl, but to create a core technology that can enable different applications This is has been said about every coin since the beginning of crypto.

rglullis 3y ago

Absolutely not. Bitcoin's initial narrative was "digital cash", i.e, digital payments and microtransactions. Given that transaction costs became prohibitive, it switched to "digital gold", or store of value, meaning that Bitcoiners defend the idea that Bitcoin's reason d'être is just to hold it. I've never seen Vitalik or any of the core Ethereum developers talking about the value of Ether being a fundamental metric of any kind. The incentives are made in a way to maximize utility of the blockchain, not the value of its base currency.

PKop 3y ago
You gave 2 examples supporting exactly what I just said. And there are 1000s of other ones that encompass "crypto".
- rglullis 3y ago
  I'm really failing to understand you here. The "beginning of crypto" was with Bitcoin, can we agree to that? Can we agree that Bitcoin was not claiming to "be a general platform to power distributed applications"? If you disagree, refer to the whitepaper that says "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". Can we agree that before Ethereum each chain was just a fork of Bitcoin, and that the token (aka "the currency") was "sold" to others as something that would have its value determined by supply and demand, but that the blockchain had no use that was not connected to transactions related to the token? As in: fundamentally speaking, Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin, Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Cash... are the same? Can we agree that Ethereum (the blockchain) enables distributed applications where people do not care at all about the price of Ether? E.g, I can host files on Storj and pay with credit card, the people hosting data are being paid in Storj's token, and everyone involved in this economy is directly using the Ethereum blockchain, but don't need to hold any Ether at all?
  - PKop 3y ago
    Every coin at one point said it wasn't just for hodling, including as you pointed out BTC and ETH. Saying you have some other use case besides asset appreciation is not a unique proposition.
    - rglullis 3y ago
      BTC (and derivatives) were very much "just for holding". The fact that they hoped it could be used for day-to-day value transfers does not negate the fact that the system can only work with a continuous influx of capital. "You should pay something with BTC, but if possible buy back the USD-equivalent amount" was standard advice already in 2011. > Saying you have some other use case besides asset appreciation is not a unique proposition. Now, it isn't. In 2015, it pretty much was.
      - PKop 3y ago
        >they hoped it could be used for day-to-day value transfers And they said this, including Satoshi. Yes they were wrong, but they said it. >Now, it isn't It's never been unique, because every coin has said it including, as you have mentioned in every response so far, Bitcoiners. You've also said Eth guys have said. What are we left with? Every other **coin has obviously said it. I'm not arguing they all mean it, or they've been right. I'm arguing they all said it.
        rglullis 3y ago
        > I'm not arguing they all mean it, or they've been right. I'm arguing they all said it. Then this whole discussion is pointless. Why should we care about what people say or believe, unless it can be backed by their actions? Instead of putting them all in the same bucket because on what they said, let's judge them based on what they did. And Vitalik has consistently shown that his work is aligned with the stated plans and vision for Ethereum.
        PKop 3y ago