No BTC is not.
There is no debate ETH was an ICO as it literally had an ICO and was 72% premined.
Bitcoin... "initial coins" are mined to "raise funds" so centralized mining pools can buy ASICs and pay electricity bills.
No initial coins - no premine, they are mined to EARN money for provable service not RAISE money to do something in future which implies trust, mining pools might get centralized but contributors to mining pools are not - anyone is free to delegate their hash to pools and EARN completely independent money.
mining pools with ASIC's are not a requirement for PoW, but a downside. It couldn't have been further from intent or state for bitcoin for very long time.
mining could've been done by anyone with a computer, then by anyone with gpu, and only later by anyone with ASIC's - so it is permission-less entry by anyone with common consumer equipment.
PoW is not only a distribution mechanism but also a security mechanism -
a real time service for others transacting and rewarded via block-rewards and fees - nobody was selling coins from "initial" premine. Many miners getting paid all separately to pay for electricity costs are not same as single centralized company selling premine even conceptually.you can't compare money being paid to a centralized company to money being paid to electricity companies. electricity doesn't become elastically more expensive the more people use it at these levels if we are looking at money flow. note how PoW is mathematically provable method to show the work was actually done to secure the blockchain which is where the cost of electricity comes in - it's very solid proof that puts something at stake if trying to be dishonest, ICO's have nothing to secure.
They are stretching definition of initial which even in IPO is equivalent to premine. It doesn't matter in premine if you distribute it slowly or quickly - it's still a premine. They are stretching definition of coin/asset as a place holder token "vaporware" that relies on trust in a company to deliver in future to ones used live to reward for providing real time security in past/present. They are stretching offering from fundraising sale which may be used for buying something by many individuals to earning from a service.
It's fine if you decide to use ICO as long as you acknowledge centralization of funding there, and use a unique ICO model to get good distribution of coins. But lets not lump decentralized crypto like BTC fairly distributed without even intent of profit originally to centralized premined projects like ETH.
EOS has a lot to offer, there's zero reason to make completely wild comparisons like this for what I can only imagine as media attention.
You do not have to find equivalents in other chains - they ARE different. Focus on advantages and disadvantages and what design choices were made.
POW provides very little security, it gets the credit, but ultimately security is comes from the public record of full nodes. POW is a brute force system for deciding who should produce the next block and creates a scarcity of blocks. There are other ways to create scarcity of blocks and therefore POW isn't adding security.
Bitcoin has 21 million initial coins, those initial coins are locked in a smart contract that is distributing them at a a fixed schedule in exchange for payment in hash power. EOS has 1 billion initial coins, those initial coins are locked in a smart contact that is distributing them at a fixed schedule in exchange for payment in ETH which is proof of prior hash power. In fact this proof of prior hash power applies to the ETH crowd sale which took bitcoin as payment.
Claiming that POW adds security is like claiming that increasing what you pay your security guard will increase the security of your home. Beyond a certain point all extra pay is complete waste and adds no security. In fact, the reality is that it is the camera that broadcasts your front door to the entire world gives you security, the guard is just there for show.
Only those who think sunk cost and/or believe in the debunked cost theory of value can claim mining adds value to the token. Only those with no concept of opportunity cost can support POW.
Dan I need help with my EOS Tokens? Are you on chat? My tokens are missing. I don't really understand what I 'm doing I guess
Can i have my 69 EOS Tokens back please. I don't understand where they are.
TxHash: 0x93176bc6b5ae3c59a44cf67f44778a784564896a3aa9cabfa9bedbfc7edfaf89
From: 0xBCaf20380cd23fBD77117B3d375b46421c58A538
To: 0xd0a6e6c54dbc68db5db3a091b171a77407ff7ccf
Here is myetherwallet address where the tokens should be:
0xA69Ed18dc377352De05b82e19C2d750cA9841AD9
Did you follow all the directions to access them? Here is one of a few tutorials on STEEMIT:
https://steemit.com/eos/@vitkolesnik/how-to-buy-and-claim-eos-tokens-a-step-by-step-tutorial
If you're still having trouble, you can also try the EOS telegram group: https://web.telegram.org/#/im?p=@EOSproject
Thanks Dan.
I hope I get this right: In chat he explained further that due to on chain funding and various estimates of how much would be available, development will easily be funded and possibly far far exceed what was collected in the ICO making it very viable to fire malicious funded holder or move against them without concerns for lack of funding like we might see on chains without native on-chain funding mechanisms (e.g. most ico'ed projects like eth) 1 bil evaluation would make up to 50 mil available each year for development, 10 bil - up to 500 mil and so on (<=5%/yr).
This is extremely valuable point to me and reiterates importance of decentralized organizations and funding (DAO or DAC first created on bitshares graphene afaik ~ 2014)
10/10
This analogy is golden. :D
I bought 100 eos and hope that this would change my live in 2 years.. I really think this has the biggest potentional.. I also wrote a post about it some weeks ago.. At least starting in crypto brought me steemit.
These "literal" nitpicks are exactly what I was addressing in the article. Conceptually, it's more or less the same thing, and was meant as a comparison for what can be "done better". He was making an analogy. When you start saying things like "stretching definition of initial", it's merely semantic differences. This is also confirmed by something else Brendan said:
As for the "vaporware" comparison, and notwithstanding the progress I've witnessed on the EOS github, the vaporware "analogy" could be extended to bitcoin as well. I mean, what is the community really getting for all that money, except for a super expensive way to get things done that should cost a fraction of the price? Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for my "too low fee" bitcoin transaction to go through, back from 2015! I guess at this point it's disappeared from the network and considered an "undesirable transaction".
No one denies the revolutionary impact of bitcoin. But that doesn't mean the tech and the politics couldn't use a dramatic overhaul either. Ford's Model T, or IBM's first PC were also "revolutionary". But at some point it doesn't hurt to rethink everything from the ground up, and devise a fully updated model reflecting updated technical capabilities and usage cases that hadn't even yet been conceived back in 2008. It has gotten me thinking, however, that an IBM-PC-iPhone could be kind of cool, especially if I can lug it behind me in the trunk of my car!
"Wild comparisons" are rather subjective. Some might say that "EOS has a lot to offer" is a "wild comparison". Anyway, how does anyone come to such conclusions, other than by critically analyzing and comparing what "already is"?
And how do you focus on the advantages and disadvantages without also comparing what is similar, and what can be done better? If bitcoin works for you, stick with it. If not, well, consider other options, or use both. But personally, I appreciate people who'd rather just say what they think, without worrying about intruding into someone's semantic "safe space".
This is similar to what I recently dealt with in the bitshares community when I gave attention to a problem I deemed rather important. I even spent dozens more hours of my own time developing a potential "fix" for it. If my code passes a thorough peer-review and is eventually accepted, I believe the whole ecosystem, from bitshares, to STEEMIT, and possibly even EOS will benefit in the long-run. Of course, it did seem at first some would prefer to bury their heads and "leave well enough alone". Some of us, however, may feel that's simply just not quite "good enough"...
You bring forward sole solid points!