0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QuoteGreat job, I hope we will see bitshares on TED soon.If bitshares marketing contacted me, then I'd be happy to mention them on TED or any of the other venues I speak at.
Great job, I hope we will see bitshares on TED soon
Great job, I hope we will see bitshares on TED soon.
I'm key noting the international blockchain summit in january fuzzy. Drop by the Cayman islands and we'll chat.
Quote from: Thom on December 09, 2014, 04:54:33 amQuote from: gamey on December 09, 2014, 02:20:58 amQuote from: charleshoskinson on December 09, 2014, 02:17:03 amDid I criticize or attack anyone in the TED talk?Yea, you attacked all sorts of people. Don't you watch your own videos man?Perhaps you might care to enlighten the rest of us gamey, or do you just wish to cast aspersions through innuendo? I saw no accusations, at least not against this community.I don't know charles, but his TED talk was good imo.It was a joke. It is hard to reply and not set him up to give his spiels. The joke was a requirement. I'm sure his talk was wonderful. I didn't watch it but I'm not even sure how he made the connection about his speech with my comment which was actually about "casting aspersions through innuendo". You ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer. I think that much is obvious. So no, I do not "wish to cast aspersions through innuendo". I just want to chuckle. "hidden camera" ... rofl.
Quote from: gamey on December 09, 2014, 02:20:58 amQuote from: charleshoskinson on December 09, 2014, 02:17:03 amDid I criticize or attack anyone in the TED talk?Yea, you attacked all sorts of people. Don't you watch your own videos man?Perhaps you might care to enlighten the rest of us gamey, or do you just wish to cast aspersions through innuendo? I saw no accusations, at least not against this community.I don't know charles, but his TED talk was good imo.
Quote from: charleshoskinson on December 09, 2014, 02:17:03 amDid I criticize or attack anyone in the TED talk?Yea, you attacked all sorts of people. Don't you watch your own videos man?
Did I criticize or attack anyone in the TED talk?
QuoteNone of us are without fault Charlie. Usually when there is a problem it is both sides...Almost certainty, but this isn't the issue. It has more to do with the perception and treatment. We had a great opportunity to build a great relationship back in January of 2014 at the conference and instead the first thing the Bitshares marketing team did was a Dan Larimer asks the tough questions video. Frankly if that's what you wanted to do, then why not have a debate with Dan and Vitalik about technology? Instead using a hidden camera with a staged question, it just seemed to me to be so mean spirited. To me it all comes back to Walter Mondale in 84's quip about Gary Hart: "Where's the beef?". You guys have spent a hell of a lot of time spinning plates, answering the wrong questions, and picking fights with projects or people. I had to learn the hard way it's a really bad way to run a project and live life. Focus on the positive stuff. Focus on who you want to help and how you're going to change the world. I like to think the reason why people like this TED talk was that I said hey here are two people you probably know or have heard about and here are some problems they have. Here is how this technology is going to make their lives better. Ask yourself about what in the Bitshares portfolio is good and try to connect it to a real person and then show the beef. You don't need a 10 grand a month marketer with some ninja plan to blanket the airwaves to accomplish this nor a large conference presence- most of which are just circle masturbation to be honest. Just people like you Fuzz who are passionate, smart and willing to commit a little bit of time everyday.
None of us are without fault Charlie. Usually when there is a problem it is both sides...
Fuzz I really do appreciate your passion for this ecosystem and the hard work you commit to propagating good ideas; however, you got to understand that I haven't exactly been treated fairly over the past year and while I really like some of the great ideas the team has put forth, we can't seem to work together for whatever reason. Maybe that's my fault, but it's the current reality.
For some reason you walked away from that. Not sure why though...seemed like you were pretty interested at the time. I would be happy to see you create something that uplifts people and lowers barriers to entry in this space--as opposed to going out and pouring honey in people's ears. That is and always has been my point.
Then this would happen to Fuzz if I won: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2ZpsbGr7s8
Quoteany disagreement here charles? If agreements can be fully defined and measured, then yes;
any disagreement here charles?
At minute 9:05 you said "smart contracts are protocols that can verify and enforce agreements". As far as I know there is no protocol that can do that without the help of humans insofar as, if there is a disagreement that needs to be resolved, either a trusted third party or an oracle (only possible if the content of the contract can be quantified) has to "verify" what is right and enforce the contract or respectively tell the software to enforce it (give the funds stored in the contract to one of the parties). Do you see that any differently?
Great talk Charles!One thing I still dont get is this idea of putting property deeds on a blockchain (which you talked about in the talk). Blockchains are great for enforcing the rules of information transfer (such as domain names) and transactions etc, but how can they be used to govern what happens in the physical world? Even if the guy has his house deed on the blockchain, dont you still need the government to enforce that and evict squatters? And if i remember correctly, blockchains were invented to make make governments irrelevant.
As for property rights management: I contend that blockchain technology can only make property rights management more convenient but does not make it possible in the first place. Ahmed can register anything he wants in some blockchain, no once cares if there is no socially and/or forcefully enforced agreement (enforced by a state or the "local community" or or a security company) about what the basis for property rights is ("the law" or "the laws" for the libertarian version). If we assume that it was enough if Ahmed proved that he once lived on the land in question before the war began in order to regain his land then he would still have problems proving that he lived there if there was no one else that verified it (anybody can make a entry in a decentralized database claiming all kinds of things). But I could see how that would work if it was combined with the reputation solution and many reputable individuals testify that he actually lived there. Overall this is possible today too (reputable individuals can testify in front of a local court/arbitrator), blockchain technology would just digitize it and scale it better.
Agree, I would just like to see the language to be more precise. It always sounds as if blockchain technology and smart contracts in particular can replace any human element.
Alot of smart people are thinking ahead and ofcourse noone is smart enough to see that many steps ahead... but there is some substance there... that blockchain can completely cut out some people like notaries because of a reputation/voting system, but nonetheless it won't be without a big fight from the gov't which will think that it is untested thus can lean to anarchy. Prediction markets can cut out professionals as consultants for information.... there are just so many possibilities and it just takes the world of coders to use imaginations that they have an abundance of to harness in the right direction, funneled via blockchain tech which the genius of satoshi presented us.
Quote from: jsidhu on December 05, 2014, 05:44:25 pmQuote from: delulo on December 05, 2014, 03:23:41 pmThat was a good presentation! Thanks for sharing it.At minute 9:05 you said "smart contracts are protocols that can verify and enforce agreements". As far as I know there is no protocol that can do that without the help of humans insofar as, if there is a disagreement that needs to be resolved, either a trusted third party or an oracle (only possible if the content of the contract can be quantified) has to "verify" what is right and enforce the contract or respectively tell the software to enforce it (give the funds stored in the contract to one of the parties). Do you see that any differently? As for property rights management: I contend that blockchain technology can only make property rights management more convenient but does not make it possible in the first place. Ahmed can register anything he wants in some blockchain, no once cares if there is no socially and/or forcefully enforced agreement (enforced by a state or the "local community" or or a security company) about what the basis for property rights is ("the law" or "the laws" for the libertarian version). If we assume that it was enough if Ahmed proved that he once lived on the land in question before the war began in order to regain his land then he would still have problems proving that he lived there if there was no one else that verified it (anybody can make a entry in a decentralized database claiming all kinds of things). But I could see how that would work if it was combined with the reputation solution and many reputable individuals testify that he actually lived there. Overall this is possible today too (reputable individuals can testify in front of a local court/arbitrator), blockchain technology would just digitize it and scale it better. The blockchain is not corruptible thats the big difference.. essentially notaries are replaced by a reputation system.Agree, I would just like to see the language to be more precise. It always sounds as if blockchain technology and smart contracts in particular can replace any human element.
Quote from: delulo on December 05, 2014, 03:23:41 pmThat was a good presentation! Thanks for sharing it.At minute 9:05 you said "smart contracts are protocols that can verify and enforce agreements". As far as I know there is no protocol that can do that without the help of humans insofar as, if there is a disagreement that needs to be resolved, either a trusted third party or an oracle (only possible if the content of the contract can be quantified) has to "verify" what is right and enforce the contract or respectively tell the software to enforce it (give the funds stored in the contract to one of the parties). Do you see that any differently? As for property rights management: I contend that blockchain technology can only make property rights management more convenient but does not make it possible in the first place. Ahmed can register anything he wants in some blockchain, no once cares if there is no socially and/or forcefully enforced agreement (enforced by a state or the "local community" or or a security company) about what the basis for property rights is ("the law" or "the laws" for the libertarian version). If we assume that it was enough if Ahmed proved that he once lived on the land in question before the war began in order to regain his land then he would still have problems proving that he lived there if there was no one else that verified it (anybody can make a entry in a decentralized database claiming all kinds of things). But I could see how that would work if it was combined with the reputation solution and many reputable individuals testify that he actually lived there. Overall this is possible today too (reputable individuals can testify in front of a local court/arbitrator), blockchain technology would just digitize it and scale it better. The blockchain is not corruptible thats the big difference.. essentially notaries are replaced by a reputation system.
That was a good presentation! Thanks for sharing it.At minute 9:05 you said "smart contracts are protocols that can verify and enforce agreements". As far as I know there is no protocol that can do that without the help of humans insofar as, if there is a disagreement that needs to be resolved, either a trusted third party or an oracle (only possible if the content of the contract can be quantified) has to "verify" what is right and enforce the contract or respectively tell the software to enforce it (give the funds stored in the contract to one of the parties). Do you see that any differently? As for property rights management: I contend that blockchain technology can only make property rights management more convenient but does not make it possible in the first place. Ahmed can register anything he wants in some blockchain, no once cares if there is no socially and/or forcefully enforced agreement (enforced by a state or the "local community" or or a security company) about what the basis for property rights is ("the law" or "the laws" for the libertarian version). If we assume that it was enough if Ahmed proved that he once lived on the land in question before the war began in order to regain his land then he would still have problems proving that he lived there if there was no one else that verified it (anybody can make a entry in a decentralized database claiming all kinds of things). But I could see how that would work if it was combined with the reputation solution and many reputable individuals testify that he actually lived there. Overall this is possible today too (reputable individuals can testify in front of a local court/arbitrator), blockchain technology would just digitize it and scale it better.
I think most of them believed you are 'the smart contract'... in my humble opinion. They like it because of that. They thought smart contracts is hiring good talks like you....
I would LOVE to see you run for delegate here. If you brought in some Ethereum folks and got them using BitShares, you might just get enough votes!
QuoteWatched and enjoyed - although there was nothing new to a long time reader of this and other forums.There were over a thousand people in the audience and only a few of them had ever heard of bitcoin much less things like smart contracts.
Watched and enjoyed - although there was nothing new to a long time reader of this and other forums.
Yes, good job. I actually meant that I enjoyed your talk even though there was nothing new in it to me. It must have been fascinating and insightful for your target audience.
Honest question here CH - Do you have days that you are not in complete in awe of yourself?
QuoteWhat happened to your new coin idea?I was discussing a hypothetical situation where one takes DPOS and other components of the Bitshares ecosystem and sharedrops litecoin to a new chain. It was meant to be a discussion about how incumbancy value can be transfered and what factors aid or detract from it. Not a fully formed coin idea. Obviously the thread was poorly handled. Moving people off of bitcoin is going to require creativity and some solid data.
What happened to your new coin idea?
But I prefer to think you came by to share your wonderful talk (Congratulations; I enjoyed it!) and to be nice. The following sounds fine to me.
Charles, would you consider being a delegate in BitShares?
Ethereum reference and/or the dropping of a big name or two.
there are plenty of good things about bitshares to talk about from market pegged assets to incumbancy value transfers and titan. DPOS will be interesting to discuss in 2015.
This is a good presentation. You have a talent for breaking down complex concepts into plain english.
Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97ufCT6lQcY. Next year, I'll mention Bitshares.