3 ms·

So what if Ethereum is lackluster from a technology standpoint? That isn't the point of Ethereum. The point is to raise a large amount of BTC. Not every potent

So what if Ethereum is lackluster from a technology standpoint? That isn't the point of Ethereum. The point is to raise a large amount of BTC. Not every potential Bitcoin contributor, Vitalik included, is OK with pouring their heart out into furthering the cause of Bitcoin, while having a grotesquely small personal BTC stash compared to early adopters of Bitcoin who did relatively _nothing_ to earn theirs. Unfairness breeds unfairness, and hyped up Bitcoin IPOs are the natural result. You don't need $20M to make a cryptocurrency. Case in point: Counterparty. I don't know why you brought them up seeing as they didn't do an IPO at all. Counterparty is actually an excellent counter to Ethereum's marketing. They've been around for roughly as long as Ethereum has been marketing itself as "Bitcoin Evolved", but as opposed to Ethereum, Counterparty has in that timeframe actually produced a working decentralized Bitcoin stock market and derivatives exchange with a marketing and development budget of roughly zero.

nullc 12y ago
> Unfairness breeds unfairness, and hyped up Bitcoin IPOs are the natural result So because someone can't manage to get paid to do $arbitrary_thing and get their choice of $arbitrary_payment it's okay for them do do things that violate the normal bounds of good and honest conduct and run some sketchy investment scheme? I don't buy it. If you need to get paid and can't get paid to do what you want to do, perhaps you should consider doing something else? We don't all get what we want at all times. > compared to early adopters of Bitcoin Vitalik was involved in Bitcoin as early as just about anyone else. His bitcointalk account predates mine— for example.