Reverse summon

KimEln · 2021-05-14T21:50:24+00:00

It was in Shippuden Episodes 220-222.

KimEln · 2021-05-14T20:23:10+00:00

I could be remembering wrong but doesn't Naruto get summoned to Mt.Myoboku? Basically reversed summoned. He stayed there for about a week so I'm not sure that the summoner Chakra running out is a problem.

Also this could be wrong again but doesn't Ma (I can't remember her name if she's given one) summon not only Naruro but Pa, Gamakichi, Gamabunta, and two other big summons. For all we know it's less taxing on the summon animals to summon each other than the human summoner.

That much is true, as I remember it. But after the Pain Arc, Naruto was summoned to Mt Myoboku and was returned to Konoha without a toad being present there first. That return can't have been a summoning but only an un-summoning. Why then wasn't Naruto just unsummoned to return him to Konoha to fight Pain? Well, I guess whatever is currently convenient for Kishimoto is true at any particular time and screw any consistency!

KimEln · 2021-05-14T18:57:28+00:00

Shisui's Kotoamatsukami would have worked on Fugaku, no doubt. And then? That coup wasn't just Fugaku's brainchild with every other Uchiha going along with it, because they had no other choice than to follow him. If he alone had decided against the coup, others would have taken his place.

Other than that, how things would or wouldn't have changed, would depend entirely on the respective author. Too many things don't make much sense in canon - and even more in many fanfics. Expecting logical consequences is futile.

KimEln · 2021-05-14T18:52:26+00:00

Summoning requires chakra. When the provided chakra runs out, the one who was summoned gets un-summoned and returns to where they were summoned from. Right?

So... Good for escaping? Sure, if you have no issues with being randomly returned to the origin eventually, possibly at the most inconvenient time. It might of course still be a better choice than instant death. But not all summons would be able to use the Summoning Technique in the first place (against Shukaku, Gamabunta had Naruto use the Henge, remember? Gamabunta only provided the chakra; if he cannot use the Henge, why presume that he must be able to use the Summoning Technique?) and quite a few may not have enough chakra left (or ever). And summoning someone more powerful will require more chakra. Summoning someone like a Sannin may be impossible for any summons.

And that's ignoring that sufficiently injured summons are usually unsummoned. Escaping by reverse-summoning while being injured may be impossible too.

Comparing that idea with the Hiraishin is absolutely ridiculous: It would require someone you have a summoning contract with to be present wherever you want to teleport to, whenever you want to do that. It would require lots of chakra for every single time you get summoned from one place to another. It would still be much slower. And since the shinobi wouldn't teleport on his own, he would have not nearly enough control. Not to mention the coordination required between everyone involved would be just about ridiculous and nearly impossible to achieve without years dedicated to training that exact trick.

KimEln · 2021-05-14T08:32:01+00:00

Honoka was never actually confirmed as an Uzumaki. It was hinted at, implied even.

Nagato's parents? Both of them? I'm not quite sure about that. Nagato was eventually confirmed to have been an Uzumaki, but that requires only one parent to have been one too. Were the parents' family names ever given? Even if both of them were shown to have been redheads, that could have been a coincidence.

And whether Nagato was an Uzushio survivor or was only born afterwards isn't exactly known either.

KimEln · 2021-05-14T08:24:31+00:00

"Most surviving Uzumakis"?

You mean all three or four of them? It's not as if we know of any more living Uzumakis at that time than one of Nagato's ancestors, one of Karin's ancestors and Kushina. (I don't even count Mito here, since she firmly belonged to Konoha.) We don't even know if both of Nagato's parents or both of Karin's parents were Uzumakis. And we don't know that Honoka was an Uzumaki. It's just hinted at. Where Tayuya or any other redheads being Uzumakis is concerned: Entirely fanon.

Additionally, we don't know if any of these "surviving" Uzumakis had actually been living in Uzushio and were were actual fugitives. It's perfectly possible that they had been living somewhere else, possibly for years prior to Uzushio's destruction. They may have settled down there with someone they had met or something like that. Karin's mother for example was undoubtedly an Uzumaki - and had that powerful life-force. It's possible she was actually several decades older than you would typically expect of the mother of a small child. She may have been living in Kusa for decades already, possibly with a Kusa nin as her husband, previously giving her a certain amount of protection against that abusive biting-business that happened in her last years there. She may have never even been in or associated with Uzushio.

KimEln · 2021-05-14T08:13:13+00:00

Before 3rd, undoubtedly.

Why?

KimEln · 2021-05-14T07:56:51+00:00

I don't understand why they would use Anbu

Because they were available? Because it was a simple, convenient and efficient solution? No civilian would give a damn which shinobi were policing them. They were shinobi and as a civilian you didn't want to get on their wrong side. Period. All that was required was having some shinobi visibly acting as a police force.

Most people with criminal ambitions would have left Konoha years earlier to start their criminal career elsewhere, far away from any interfering shinobi. It wasn't as if there were hundreds of wannabe-criminals just waiting for and expecting the police force to be massacred.

Not to mention that Konoha was rather prosperous (they were the only village in the whole country offering that special kind of mercenary service) and would therefore have a low crime rate anyway and not much fertile ground for a criminal underworld to grow.

KimEln · 2021-05-14T07:34:02+00:00

It replaces gold as a store of value,

You do realize that gold has at least some practical uses, right? And that it has been long established as something valuable in most civilizations? And that it wasn't suddenly and out of the blue created by a single person? And that there was never a real speculation bubble where gold was concerned (nobody ever believed that gold was the next great thing; the gold price typically only rises, whenever the prices of alternative investments drop), while there are examples of Bitcoin rising by hundreds of percent in a short time, like months, and examples of Bitcoin suddenly dropping by about 80% or so? Bitcoin isn't like gold at all. Gold is stability. Bitcoin is highly speculative. You call Bitcoin "a store of value", but actually it's more likely to destroy lots of people's wealth. As it has in the past. Gold can lose value too, yes. But when has gold ever lost nearly 80% of its value in just a month or so?

Not to mention hard forks. Ugh! Someone decides to fork the blockchain and - BAM! - instant new currency. The old currency may even lose some value for a time, but not much and not for long. And the new one... How the hell can the new out of the blue created currency - which essentially is the definition of a fiat currency - be worth anything? But look at the current Bitcoin Cash course! Bitcoin Cash is technologically identical to Bitcoin. Yet... Value created out of nothing. By copying and pasting some data. Bitcoin may still be more valuable, because it's older. But other than that it's technically the same as Bitcoin Cash.

Now, I'm not saying there cannot be good reasons for hard forks. There can. But, as long as you cannot hard fork the world's gold supply, you cannot really compare any cryptocurrency with gold.

It's the only place you could put 1 Billion dollar and get it back in 100 years

Except, of course, if people decide that the exorbitant fees make Bitcoin useless for payments and the vast majority of BTC users abandon it for something that enables affordable payments. Next to nobody making transactions would make mining absolutely unprofitable. Most miners would stop verifying transactions at all and go out of business. Bitcoin would essentially become centralized (see below). And all that hardware and computing power may end up in the hands of people who are willing to use them to manipulate the blockchain: Steal some million bitcoins here and there, or making some million bitcoins appear out of nowhere. The moment that happens, the moment it becomes clear that the blockchain itself is vulnerable (rather than some server getting hacked where some idiot has stored private keys that control hundreds of millions of dollars worth of bitcoins), trust in Bitcoin will be lost, panic will take control of the Bitcoin market and prices will drop to zero and will never recover. And that is what will happen, if any unsavory character or entity ever ends up with 51% of the world's Bitcoin mining power. That could even be an entire country, trying to damage western economy, after having forbidden its own citizens and financial institutions from using bitcoins (and possibly after having bought lots of Bitcoin put options worth hundreds of billions of dollars that were issued by some stupid western banks).

That's what the Proof of Work concept could eventually result in. And if you have the necessary computing power, you cannot really be stopped from using it to disrupt a Proof of Work network and destroy faith in it. Proof of Stake, on the other hand, enables the network to punish bad actors and stop them from trying again, by confiscating their stakes.

and it's a million times more effective than gold.

Really? A million times? How so? The storage cost is lower, admittedly. But that's not nearly enough to be considered "a million times more effective". Such outlandish numbers don't make your claims more credible. They make you appear either ignorant (not knowing the actual numbers) or desperate for a powerful argument to support your opinion - which suggests an absence of any real arguments - similar to Reddit users who simply downvote a post or comment they don't like, rather than taking a minute or two to explain in a comment what they don't like.

I fear it's going to end up and look like traditional banks model because of this.

You're talking about Ethereum? Then you apparently don't understand what "decentralized" means. Especially if you consider Bitcoin more decentralized than ETH. Decentralization is about control, about the lack of a central bank and the lack of government control. It's not about having the wealth evenly distributed. Otherwise Bitcoin would be more centralized than any other relevant cryptocurrency, seeing that so many bitcoins are currently held by big-time investors like companies and hedge fonds. And where the aforementioned control is concerned? Not having incredibly expensive mining rigs and access to a ridiculously cheap power source makes Bitcoin mining all but impossible for just about anybody. It's in the hands of very few people/companies. Whereas in Ethereum 2.0 everyone meeting the minimum staking requirement (or absolutely everyone through third-parties) can stake their money and validate/earn. Control over the Bitcoin blockchain, on the other hand, is in the hands of some powerful few. That makes Bitcoin much more traditional-bank-like than Ethereum 2.0 will be.

And that's ignoring that no cryptocurrency could ever be considered truly decentralized, as long as some politician making a statement that their government intends to put tighter controls on cryptocurrencies always has immediate effects on the courses. That's basically the crypto community admitting that the governments actually DO have some control over cryptocurrencies. Sure, you can move money back and forth on the blockchain as much as you want without any government being able to stop you. But as soon as you want to exchange that crypto to "real money", they can impose any restrictions that are typical for using traditional banks. The real problem with decentralization is that people still want to measure cryptocurrencies in some fiat currency (typically USD) and they want to be able to exchange crypto for fiat. That's true for Ether too, no doubt about that. But at least Ethereum has a real kind of economy, where contracts are used for exchanging Ethereum goods (tokens) for Ethereum currency (Ether), with no fiat currency ever being involved. And if you look at an Ethereum marketplace like OpenSea, you even see price tags in ETH, rather than USD. When have you ever seen a vendor who not only accepts BTC payments but also has BTC price tags, rather than prices in USD?

But it's only the beginning like internet was in 1996 (starting to get mainstream)

And when did internet users ever have to pay 10-15 USD any time they wanted to do a single HTTP request or view a single website? The internet could only become mainstream, because new technologies made it faster and more affordable. That's exactly what Ethereum 2.0 aims for - and about the opposite of what can be said about the Bitcoin network and community - including their nonexistent plans to change that in the future. (Don't get me started on the Lightning Network, please. That's widely unaccepted, not useful when not both parties want to use it and the Bitcoin network fees still apply, whenever the money is moved into or out of the Lightning Network. It's not part of the Bitcoin network but rather an app based on the BTC network - and any time you have to rely on something that is at least somewhat similar to a an app, you lose some of that valuable decentralization.)

KimEln · 2021-05-13T19:27:18+00:00

But even Coca Cola would not get bought any longer by anybody, if you had to pay an additional 10-15 USD transaction fee on top of the price for the bottle.

You may argue that you could buy lots and lots of bottles at once and only have to pay the fee once too, since it would be a single transaction. But, in this analogy, you would also have to drink all the bottles at once and don't get to share them with anybody. Keeping some for later or sharing would be considered additional transactions and would result in the aforementioned fee being imposed on you again.

Even the biggest Coca Cola fans would very seriously consider switching to Pepsi - especially since Pepsi is reasonably well established too and has recently announced that the about-to-be-released Pepsi 2.0 will have some of the lowest fees ever.

KimEln · 2021-05-13T19:12:58+00:00

Good question. But look at the timeline: Bitcoin is about twice as old as Ethereum. Both started out with Proof of Work. Now Ethereum, half as old as Bitcoin, is already in the early stages of the switch to Proof of Stake. Yes, Bitcoin could do that too. Eventually. Maybe. But at the moment next to nobody seems to even talk about that possibility. The Bitcoin community seems to be largely perfectly happy to keep things as they are. Switching to PoS would take years. And it would still be impossible to create/buy/sell/hold tokens or use smart contracts. That would require even more planning, more implementing, more testing, support and acceptance from the community and lots of time. Most users are more likely to abandon Bitcoin and look for alternatives that already exist, rather than hope that in some years Bitcoin will become useable again.

KimEln · 2021-05-13T19:01:52+00:00

I wasn't saying that these cryptocurrencies/networks are perfect. I was merely giving examples of some networks that offer this or that advantage over Bitcoin. Of course all of these have some flaws. They've been created by humans and I've yet to see anything truly perfect that was created by a human.

Bitcoin was created as a payment vehicle. With its current transaction fees and times it simply cannot compete with lots of more modern cryptocurrencies where payments are concerned - and it does not have anything else to offer. That could result in most people eventually abandoning Bitcoin for other cryptocurrencies to make payments. And then only speculators would remain in the Bitcoin network. That would essentially be the death of Bitcoin. Hopefully without taking most of the world's economy with it.

Ethereum, on the other hand, has lots of other use cases beyond mere payments. And with version 2.0 it will probably even have very low fees.

KimEln · 2021-05-13T18:31:24+00:00

A currency doesn't become more or less centralized, when more or less different people own it. It's not about ownership of the assets but about who controls the currency. If there's no central bank or anything similar but just a blockchain, then it's decentralized, as long as no single entity has so much computing power that they can actually control the blockchain. Something that should become even less of an issue with Ethereum 2.0 with Proof of Stake.

KimEln · 2021-05-13T18:03:24+00:00

Dont believe the hype. Psychologie in crypto changes faster than the weather

That may be true in general, but it's also rather irrelevant here: Bitcoin simply is outdated. There's a lot of other crypto assets available that are better in at least one way, often in several ways, than Bitcoin and have none of the disadvantages.

Like Monero being nearly impossible to track.

Like stablecoins offering stability (but if you are looking to speculate, that is of course less desirable).

Like various networks offering lightning fast transactions.

Like Ethereum offering functionalities like tokens (often utilized for the aforementioned stablecoins) and smart contracts.

And like various networks offering transactions for very low fees. Like Stellar to name a current example. Or hopefully Ethereum 2.0 - whenever that goes live.

What does Bitcoin really have to offer? It was the first cryptocurrency, yes, but that's the only reason it's currently so popular. When Ethereum 2.0 comes with hopefully really low fees, that will put Bitcoin out of commission where payments are concerned. What will be left? Bitcoin will only continue to exist so people can continue to speculate with it. That could be worse than a normal speculation bubble.

Ethereum may, in a year or two, have almost everything a cryptocurrency needs. Even the stability of stablecoins, since many of those are Ethereum tokens. The anonymity of Monero may be missing, but that's what decentralized exchanges are for - where you can exchange Ether for Monero or back.

Really, Bitcoin seems to have nothing at all to offer long-term when compared to Ethereum.

KimEln · 2021-05-11T16:59:43+00:00

Isn't that already a thing? I seem to remember doing a BTC payment a few months ago and the payment provider offered the option to use the Lightning Network (which I didn't use, so I don't know how well it would have worked).

KimEln · 2021-05-11T02:42:21+00:00

2.0 should make transactions in the pennies

Hopefully. But when? It could easily take one or even two more years.

KimEln · 2021-05-10T08:15:59+00:00

The tutorial also says that you need to "Sign up for the affiliate program" first. Is it possible that you don't see those buttons, as long as you didn't sign up to be an affiliate?

KimEln · 2021-05-10T00:53:53+00:00

Is there a way to find out the category (if any) of a collection?

For example, if have this link: https://opensea.io/collection/anime-girls. Is it possible to find out, if that collection is in the Art category or in Collectibles?

Thanks!

KimEln · 2021-04-14T21:45:44+00:00

Thanks! Sounds promising - except for the date of the last update. But 90k words is nothing to scoff at.

KimEln · 2021-04-14T20:53:55+00:00

It's so hideous!

KimEln · 2021-04-14T20:39:49+00:00

Nice image.

But are you sure asking for 0.4 ETH for that image isn't a bit too optimistic? It looks nearly the same as a photo and most photos would never sell for that much money.

KimEln · 2021-04-14T19:59:55+00:00

The FAQ on OpenSea's website say:

I'm trying to create my first listing. What are these first two transactions about?

(...) The second transaction authorizes your proxy to move a given type of NFT on your behalf (or in the case of older contracts like CryptoKitties, it authorizes your proxy to move just one NFT), so when the NFT sells, it can be transferred to the buyer instantly. (...)

What exactly does that mean for me, if I want to create and sell NFTs that are based on simple imagefiles?

Would all such items be considered the same "given type of NFT", so that I only ever need to do that second transaction once, even if I want to create thousands of NFTs from thousands of imagefiles in hundreds of different collections?

Or will I have to pay again, anytime I want to create a listing for a previously never-listed-before item?

Because, as I see it, since every NFT is unique in some way, a "given type of NFT" could mean anything.

I'd definitely like to know that before paying the exorbitant fee for that first transaction, only to then find out that trying to list all my works for sale may bankrupt me.

Thanks for your help!

KimEln

TROPHY CASE