O.k.. so anytime the price per share increases over the bitcoin price, COIN then arbs it and buys coins on the market then just releases shares as they want?

Notice how the 30 day anticipated end of the Chinese BTC exchange suspension (started about Feb 8) coincides to almost exactly to the March 11 date of the SEC COIN ETF decision. Intriguing timing is all I'm saying.

When stuff is still a work in progress you need people to get the stuff done. ETH is different then BTC. I for one will follow the chain that basically the guy who created it said he will be using. Who the hell else is going to get half the **** done. Would be pretty ****ty if he died.

Look at the fees chart

https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees

That right there is the reason they want to keep it at 1MB. People fighting over getting their transaction through.

Basically market makers authorized by COIN will be able to create and redeem shares everyday. So the MM can arbitrage the price of each share to the price of bitcoin everyday. Only catch is that this must occur on gemini.

So Gemini will become the leading exchange if the etf launches since the MM and any authorized dealer will arbitrage directly on Gemini, which will cause, presumably, asymmetric demand on Gemini until the price of shares reaches nominal parity to the price of bitcoin. I use the word nominal bc it's in the MMs interest not to overcreate shares.

Now you understand why the rule change has been proposed. No etf has existed where 1 company (in this case 2 individuals, bc winklevoss and Gemini are a network of trusts rn) basically controls the entire stack:

Creation of shares
Calculation of nav
Redemption of shares
Custodian of shares
Etc

http://www.coindesk.com/who-broke-th...n-for-bitcoin/

I know it's much harder to crack the 256, but as I've said before somehow it seems someone always finds a way.

.......

I'm not too familiar with encryption but have tried to read up on this. Correct me if I am wrong: sha-256 is still extremely unlikely to be cracked anytime soon. And the world has much bigger problems than bitcoin if it is indeed cracked because so many things rely on it.

But it is likely to be unreliable at some point in the future. The lifetimes of these algorithms dont go from being super strong to cracked in an instant. They generally are considered strong then some minor weakness is found, more and more are found until finally a collision.

So it is pretty likely that bitcoin should have time to switch to a different algorithm before sha-256 is cracked.

bitcoin uses two rounds of sha256. don't lose any sleep over it.

https://www.miguelmoreno.net/bitcoin-address-collision/

My fear is that people underestimate the evolution of technology. Obv some smart people created this setup and they think it's fine. Some smart people also created the DAO :-).

Hell even Asics have seemed to be a jump ahead of what the true plan for bitcoin was.

thanks for the link bucktotal. Do you think sha256 will be what is used in 10-20 years as well?

The "break" of SHA-1 doesn't actually change anything relative to where things were yesterday.

Everyone already knew it was theoretically possible to find a SHA-1 collision, and now someone proved it could be done. However, finding 2 strings that create the same SHA-1 hash is orders of magnitude easier than finding a SHA-1 collision for a specific input.

In other words, if I hash something using SHA-1 and hand it to those same google researchers that found the collision, it will still be nearly impossible for them to find a collision for my specific hash value.

It's theoretically possible to find a collision for any hashing algorithm.

This is actually a better chart to see how they are killing it in fees now. https://blockchain.info/charts/trans...imespan=2years

Bottom line, it can't continue this way. Well I guess they can keep it this way but they will lose a lot of market share. They will be forcing people to go to the competition. The fact they are "overloaded" is just super bullish for cryptos in general. Makes for a great reason to diversify.

So there are enough people who want to pay a decent fee for their bitcoin transactions. Seems mostly bullish for bitcoin to me

But agree, we need Segwit for an initial bump + so we can work on real scaling solutions like LN.



Personally I don't think much economic usage is "forced" to alt coins as of now. For example, I follow the bitcoin (and alt coin) gambling community a lot and bitcoin is still easily the most popular currency (even if 1 sites accepts multiple cryptocurrencies.) Also for example the ETH daily TX graphs don't show much growth to me (same since May '16.) But I can see the rational of alt coins being interesting for smaller transactions at some point if bitcoin solutions for that are not in place on time.

Good point, I should have chosen my words more carefully.

It was always theoretically probable, that given today's computing power, someone would find a SHA-1 collision. Just as it's still theoretically improbable that someone would find a collision with SHA-256 - at least for now.

To my knowledge, it's also still theoretically improbable to find a SHA-1 collision for a specific input.

I agree.. ETH for example shows no growth. This is because it hasn't been adopted anywhere and isn't really being used yet. The same was the case for bitcoin to start out. There hasn't exactly been a reason to switch from BTC to ETH. That reason is starting to happen right now. With major adoption being bitcoins major advantage, it's 2nd is liquidity. You can buy/sell the most $'s and experience the least slippage which in turn gives it less volatility then the others in general. That right now honestly is the only major thing I can think of of why to use BTC over other things.

Fees will hit a high point and people will become educated and move to other options. I use BTC alot and can say my experience with transferring ETH just blows the BTC experience out of the water. ETH is what transferring money in this day and age should be like. It will find a way. As happened with BTC, it appears adoption needs to take place first and foremost.

Oh ya.. if they get that proof of stake thing to work... holy ****.. it's how I'll make my millions.

I see growth in Ethereum. It is hard to measure this based on the blockchain, a lot of transactions before has been hackers attacking too cheap operations, some has been more or less spam and some has just been people playing around.

But I am starting to see some actual use. Just from my own perspective, 12months ago I had sent 0 transaction to people since genesis, last months I have actually sent like 5 transactions. And I keep hearing similar stories:
https://twitter.com/ErikVoorhees/sta...97808573587457

When I need to send money to my geeky friends I actually prefer to use ETH over BTC today because of fees and times. And I assume many more people have the same preference.

It is true that very few places accepts them and no killer app is out. But that is how everything starts. And right now Bitcoin is full and a lot will start to spill over. Then we have enterprise, raiden, golem, augur, zero wig-casinos, IPFS etc starting right now.

I have been in Ethereum since before the crowdsale and I have never been more bullish than right now.


Imo if you want to understand ETH vs BTC you should try to buy them and withdraw them and after that it should be pretty clear that
1. Ethereum is not as polished as Bitcoin yet
2. Ethereum is so much faster and cheaper right now
3. Bitcoin has a lot lower friction than dollars when it comes to buying things online

Then there is the main story about dapps and how different dapps can work together to create very complex big system, each taking care of something that is needed in a very large process.

Really wouldn't be that hard to gain the adoption BTC has. You get a big processor like Bitpay to add ETH. Honestly, why wouldn't bitpay want to start using ETH? I'm guessing their transactions tend to be on the smaller size since a lot of it is just small retail purchases. Who wants to pay high fees on small purchases? Then throw in the dark markets and tack on the gambling sites and there ya go, you could then spend ETH anywhere you could spend BTC. They are already traded on all the exchanges. I guess they could be more prevalent on Chinese exchanges. Another bullish possibility is China picking up on it.

im no expert... but 2^256 is a really really big number. Until we can even conceive of how to make computers/asics that can even count that high within their operational lifetime, sha256 is ok. And when that day comes, there will be lots of time (years) to upgrade the hash algo and hardware.

tx signing using ecdsa is much more important to consider, which is why schnorr signatures are in the pipeline.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles...cy-1460642496/

Anybody concerned that governments can make bitcoin transactions illegal thus resulting in a plummet of the currency?

I'm relatively clueless but that is my only concern really. Otherwise it's genius and sky rocketing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's always been a concern and always will be. It appears so far the stance has been more along the try and regulate it side as opposed to shut it down.

This whole scaling issues with BTC has me wondering if ETH is on the same path. BTC basically says well we're full now, but if we expand the block size were ****ed because then blockchain will get too big.

Anybody know how ETH addresses the issue of the blockchain getting to big? I know they are far from full and have taken the stance of basically bring on as many transactions as you want. Is there a reason they don't care how big it gets?

I believe sharding is the plan.

https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-e...&hidefilings=0

New prospectus for COIN submitted today. Dunno what to make of it. Maybe the SEC told them a couple changes they need to make? Curious to see how market reacts.