In reality, of course, it should not matter. The proposal is very real in the sense that the words actually were written in the github issue, and the arguments for it are real arguments.
Show this thread
For those still wondering whether or not https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/960 … was an April Fool's joke, the answer is: it was an April Fool's meta-joke. *The point* was seeing people argue about whether or not the proposal is "real".
-
-
-
If the community wants fixed supply and people believe that EIP 960 is a good way to achieve that, then it should adopt the proposal. If the community does not, then it should not. This is true regardless of whether or not the original intent was in jest.
Show this thread -
And by the way, most people missed one of the more well-hidden jokes in https://blog.ethereum.org/2018/04/01/announcing-world-trade-francs-official-ethereum-stablecoin/ …: ~20% of the blogpost was plagiarized fromhttps://tron.network/en.html
Show this thread -
I do now believe that fixed supply is worth considering. Arguments: * With ASICs, PoW issuance fails at making coin distribution more egalitarian * With PoS, PoW issuance not needed for security * With rewards coming from rent+other burned fees, can have rewards without issuance
Show this thread -
And long-run-inflationary tokens are a bad idea because of arguments in https://vitalik.ca/general/2017/10/17/moe.html … Crypto can avoid being too inegalitarian through emergence of new coins, not through any single coin being super-inflationary.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What data did you collect from your social experiment? What I read was overwhelmingly in support of the idea you floated in "meta" jest...
-
1. People do broadly support fixed supply 2. Community has gone a long way from "are the core devs up high going to make this happen or not?" closer to "I don't care about the source, I think it's a good idea", but there's still a long way to go to get there.
-
We need to more actively encourage active community involvement especially in deciding economic parameters, which are legitimate tradeoffs between goals and not just a "technocratic security setting". The totally organic response to EIP 867 was encouraging; need even more of that
-
I can appreciate and rally behind the call for constantly increasing community involvement (more than I can the timing of the "experiment"). In the end - the more dialogue the better - however, whenever - it gets started. All the best.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How about you guys get to making eth more useful, and not letting crap launch on your platform, instead of tweeting april fools crap???
-
Standing in the way of "crap" launching on the platform requires gatekeepers. Ethereum is designed to make gatekeepers obsolete... and that's wonderful. If you're advocating for gatekeepers, then you may want to look into other blockchain projects instead.
-
lol
-
Your response shows your lack of education and desire for anything other then (perceived) monetary gain.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Grow up.
-
oh shush you. It was very funny, and you should only be investing what you can afford to lose.
-
It wasn’t funny. It was irresponsible. And there are people that actually took him seriously. Whether they can afford to lose or not is beside the point.
-
On the contrary, it was quite funny. It was april 1st, and if you take anything seriously on april fools day, your liable to be disappointed.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
really? i thought the joke was you doing any meaningful contribution to the repo
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.