Sure.
Firstly, this comment:
"The important thing about Ethereum is that it is freedom. It's a platform where people can go and build things"
Firstly, this comment:
"The important thing about Ethereum is that it is freedom. It's a platform where people can go and build things"
Well is Bitcoin then "freedom"? Is node.js "freedom"? Is RoR "freedom"? Can you elaborate on the above quote and why it's important to keep in mind? To me, that quote means absolutely nothing in an attempt to create an attractive soundbite.
Furthermore, it bothers me what that quote was in response to. @PeterMcCormack was voicing his lack of confidence in Ethereum because of the hundreds of millions (maybe now $1B+?) that has been lost due to "smart contract bugs".
A more honest response that I would've personally appreciated would be that @PeterMcCormack has a valid point. Ethereum has made dangerous design decisions when it comes to security and attack service area, it is simply part of the tradeoff that comes along with its ambition.
The ETH lost in the various bugs was predicted by many Bitcoin devs _years_ ago because of the very obvious tradeoffs Ethereum makes. Many have been warning others, like I am attempting to do now, simply to try and put an accurate disclaimer on the experiment that is Ethereum.
I have no problem with your ambition. In fact, it's one of the things I respect about you. What bothers me, to @Excellion's point, is the inaccurate marketing and lack of disclaimers to those you know don't have the ability to responsibly vet themselves, like @PeterMcCormack.
For you to write that concern off as "Ethereum is freedom. Stupid people are going to be stupid. All of those projects are below my standards" was hard to listen to.
Really? The DOA was below your standards? Was Parity below your standards before they pissed away hundreds of millions of dollars? If I recall correctly you famously refused to comment on it both before and after the bug was exploited...
At what point does a project go from "revolutionary" to "stupid people being stupid" in your opinion? Before or after people lose money? Do you have any projects now that you'd like to publicly label as below your standards? The people would like to know before they implode.
I also interpreted (which could be incorrect) your comments about Ethereum being "freedom" to be contrasted against Bitcoin and rooted in your story that you attempted to build Ethereum on top of Bitcoin and was not allowed to by Bitcoin developers, which is not true.
That narrative you authored will always bother me because it simply isn't true, and you've historically marketed Bitcoin developers in a negative light to advertise Ethereum which I take personal offense to.
I could have missed it, but I've yet to see an apology to early Bitcoin developers in which you've harmed, and I think one is in order, personally.
Lastly, your attempt to categorize @PeterMcCormack's security concerns with Mt. Gox is just borderline disingenuous. Can you elaborate on that? I really hope you have a point you didn't get a chance to make.
The other topic I want to touch on before pausing is validation and your opinion on full nodes. You said, "fast-sync nodes are the same as full nodes and provide the same functionality". Can you expand on that?
Also, in your opinion, why do you think I and other Bitcoiners consider that quote to be false and a flat out misleading lie?
In my opinion, one of the fundamental value props of a public blockchain and one of the fundamental innovations is the ability to verify and maintain a copy of the public ledger known as the blockchain without trust. You admit that you don't do that and don't see value in that.
In the podcast, it seems the topic was almost intentionally made to be confusing to the point where @PeterMcCormack had to change the topic. I'd like to give you an opportunity to elaborate on that.
Is it true it requires a certain individual or entity, mainly one that is sufficiently capitalized, to participate in the Ethereum network without being required to trust another entity? And that you yourself don't even meet those requirements? What are the current requirements?
Also, how can you confidently say Ethereum is decentralized and secure when you yourself can't state with 100% certainty that Ethereum's entire history is valid and you yourself don't hold and maintain a copy of the Ethereum blockchain?
Or, you can't do something as simple as telling me at any given point how many ETH exists? I found the lack of transparency on that topic extremely bothersome.
I personally think it should be clear that not only is it not encouraged to fully validate and maintain a copy of the Ethereum blockchain, but it is extremely difficult, is only getting harder, and has only been accomplished over a long duration by a select few entities.
This of course makes me seriously question your comments on ETH as money. If ETH is a store of value, which you said it was in the podcast, surely knowing the rate at which it's issued and how many ETH exist currently is a top priority.
However, I will leave the ETH as money comments out of this for now. Instead, I'd like to give you an opportunity to expand on the above. Or, correct me where I am wrong in interpreting your words.
If Ethereum is not a public blockchain that is intended for individuals to maintain and self-audit its ledger, then what is it for? Do you see that as both security tradeoff and a contradiction against its claims to be decentralized?
Is Ethereum vulnerable to the concept that trusted third parties are security holes (authored by @NickSzabo4)? Do you believe that trusted third parties are security holes? Why don't you maintain a full copy of the Ethereum blockchain? None of this was addressed.
I'd also like to state there are many things I respect about you @VitalikButerin. My reasoning behind my efforts here is rooted in my belief that Ethereum is inaccurately marketed to a point where I see it as malicious.
I would be disappointed in myself if I didn't address my concerns and help give a voice to the opinions that many others have.
