Ethereum Foundation

It is all a trap for retail investors to get robbed.

Stellar is there because Stellar and Ripple are equally Ponzi schemes. Stellar is a Ripple fork started by Jed McCaleb, the guy who started Mt. Gox. Jed is the king of getting hacked and disappearing with the money.

IOTA is garbage.

Tether is still shady as fuck though, but as a principle it could be applied to other tokens and is an interesting development.

Decred is not worth spending time and resources pursuing because it does not present anything unique or worthwhile.

I'm fine with Ethereum Classic existing. I'm just saying that I'm not interested in putting my own effort toward it.

I'm trying to understand how Praos accomplishes semi-synchronous consensus....However, even in this case, you're getting semi-synchronous chain growth, not semi-synchronous safety, as if there is a situation where a node accepts a block as finalized, and then network latency suddenly increases sharply (eg. it keeps rising exponentially), then an attacker chain could outgrow it. So it's not quite the same thing that you can get with traditional BFT-inspired algorithms...

Honestly, I don't understand the whole EOS thing. Why people decided out of all the companies in the world that could run a federated permissioned ledger that it should be one run by people with a track record of borderline fraud I will never understand.

I think Augurs approach leaves something to be desired. Disincentivizing it by demonetizing it is not strong enough IMO.

Full nodes on the Bitcoin blockchain store every transaction made going back to the zero block; full nodes on the Ethereum blockchain additionally store the static code (if any) associated with a given account and that code’s current state in storage.

Bancor is all the risk of a centralized exchange, with none of the benefits like instant multilateral execution, and settlement guarantees. The worst of both worlds.

I like to hate on Ripple as much as the next guy, but in the interest of accuracy, Ripple the company can't directly freeze Ripples; they can censor transactions on the validating nodes they control, and gateways can freeze Ripples. That's what happened to Jed [McCaleb] on Bitstamp.

Tezos has less checks and balances than off-chain governance in BTC or ETH because it disenfranchises node operators of their role in governance.

The whole premise the OmiseGo decentralized exchange is built on is flawed. You can't have an efficient market without execution guarantees. Plasma relies on bonding, fraud proofs, and penalizing, which only provides execution guarantee under the assumption of no bad actors.

I have my disagreements with the Bitcoin roadmap, PoW, etc but they're trying to do something that's genuinely cool tech. BSV is a pure dumpster fire.

"EOS is secure because the hegemon has a lot of power and can counterbalance the bad people"

Hmm, what other class of systems is that the security model of?

I created a secret phrase that I can write down anywhere, and then that can be real gold storage! Thinking about that makes everything seem awesome!

I strongly disagree with many of IOTA's technical decisions (trinary, custom hash functions, POW on transactions), and find some of their behavior deeply egregious to the point where it goes beyond mere negligence. The "security flaw as copy protection" thing is particularly offensive, and makes it difficult to trust the current dev team.

Bitcoin was an important part of getting this technology recognised, largely through the socially-sensitive MVP of a currency. However it didn’t really capture the imagination of developers in general.

Algorand is so bad....no asynchronous safety, a more than half honest assumption, no incentive mechanism design...

On chain governance is a disaster -- coin vote based governance [as in Cosmos] is a disgrace....it disenfranchises everyone who doesn't have coins -- even those with only a small amount.

12.5% of the BCH block reward is being redirected from miners to "a Hong Kong corporation". This [is being billed] as voluntary, but in reality it is of course a compulsory soft fork. It's worth noting the irony here: BCH, a chain that was born as a reaction to an ideology that claims that soft forks are the only legitimate way to make changes because they are "voluntary" is.... making a controversial soft fork and insinuating that it's voluntary.

The idea here is that miners should be proposing different consensus rules and trying to enforce them by forking off non-compliant blocks, and this will naturally stabilize toward consensus rules that the majority is okay with.

I disagree with this market-for-consensus ideology because it has nasty equilibria and could easily lead to entrenched interests. This miner group seems to respect the concern (after all, BCH largely gave up market-for-consensus for block size too) and made the fund time-limited....

As has been debated endlessly, a platform controlled by 21 crypto bros is just not all that decentralized. They can collude and censor if they wish. Governments and other well resourced actors can bribe them or force them to act against their will and against the well-being and security of the people using the platform.

It has been argued that if these block producers start behaving badly, they will be voted out, and that is the main source of decentralization in the system.

Unfortunately, there is no good way for anyone to detect that they are colluding, or have been corrupted or forced into some sort of improper action. I can imagine EOS being used for some games, but not even for games that have high value tokens. It will be too easy to organize to steal value on this platform.

The Polkadot worldview sees Ethereum connected as a potential “virtual parachain” via a bridge. For any parachain to become attached to the Polkadot relay chain, it must be voted in by the holders of dots — the Polkadot system token. These voters can also choose to pause a parachain or remove a parachain from the system if it is deemed to be out of compliance with what the majority prefers. Effectively, this is a permissioned system, and white listing and blacklisting of entire parachain networks is a core tenet of the governance system of Polkadot.

One could imagine a parachain choosing to be permissionless and allowing anyone to upload any dapp, but ultimately the DOT holders might take issue with this, as they might be considered by authorities to be responsible, so it would probably be too dangerous a policy for a parachain to offer. It is likely that this will be a permissioned and highly controlled blockchain platform.

First, some context: I think the#blockchain space benefits from experimentation, including the Libra project. What does not benefit the space is a Facebook-led blockchain project, led in typical Facebook style....

Mark Zuckerberg talks about Librain terms that are quite familiar (and validating) to the people already building blockchain systems: broadening financial inclusion & fixing a broken financial system.

How they propose to achieve that with a consortium of a few dozen mega-corporations at the helm is less clear––to say nothing of their own track record with the public’s data and privacy rights, issues many on the Committee similarly raised.

The Libra story is about dominant technology players trying to shoehorn themselves into what is going to be the future of the internet. Possibly they see the writing on the wall and want to make sure they have a seat at the table when new technologies like blockchain take hold.

Apparently Steem DPOS got taken over by big exchanges voting with depositors' funds. Can anyone confirm and/or provide details?

Seems like the first big instance of a "de facto bribe attack" on coin voting (the bribe being exchs giving hodlers convenience and taking their votes).