Quote from: dinofelis on November 28, 2016, 02:04:51 PM

Quote from: thejaytiesto on November 28, 2016, 12:53:56 AM

Quote from: CuriousGeorge on November 27, 2016, 11:19:09 PM

It seems like all of Greg sentences was becoming a real statement.
Too many forks in his chain have made the people was feeling doubt about the future of eth. just a little gap until the next fork was coming, ETH has broken.
I'm already retiring from there.

Yeah I always trusted Greg Maxwell's take on the cryptos he talked about, it seems he may be right about ETH.. its too ambitious at a core level, it's just too dangerous to make a turing complete coin, because of all the unknowns that it may trigger ending up in a mess.

This.

And this takes us to why NXT and Ardor, its successor, chose to implement Smart Transactions vs Smart Contracts in Ethereum.

Quote from: Damelon on July 08, 2016, 12:57:16 PM

Nxt and Ardor very specifically did not go for scriptable Smart Contracts. There are several reasons for not doing so:

1. You have no way of controlling the quality of the code. This can lead to unfortunate results and create huge problems.
2. A large portion of the market has need for out of the box solutions, not custom ones. Nxt and Ardor offer hardcoded and modular Smart contracts (or smart transactions) which are tested and secure. For most SME's these cover a lot of use cases and are more cost effective.
3. Lisk is still in development: Nxt already works, and has been operational for 2,5 years. Ardor will use the same tech. If a company wants to use software that's tested and tried, it should go to Nxt or Ardor (depending on the use case).
4. Waves is also still in development. Same argument as before. The idea might be sound, there is no way to predict now whether it will pull off its promise.

The child chain architecture is unique to Ardor. Lisk and Waves do not have it, neither does Ethereum. Bloat is a problem that all of them have and Ardor is the system that is concentrating on it.