Enjoy http://www.virgin.com/entrepreneur/the-virgin-podcast-charles-hoskinson
I didn't mention bitshares for two reasons. First I haven't reviewed the technology in bitshares 2. I haven't seen formal technical documentation nor have I looked at the code. Second, I have to review the license structure. I remember when bitshares 2 was announced it wasn't under a proper FLOSS license. I cannot recommend a technology that is owned by or controlled by a single entity.That's even more funny.
I really don't think that's a fair characterization. BitShares has a history of making extraordinary claims without the requisite formal analysis. Many of the projects I mentioned have been upfront with stating they are experiments not meant for mission-critical use.
Bitshares has claimed the opposite positioning itself for enterprise use. Naturally this requires a lot more due diligence. To this date I still maintain that the core value proposition of your community that is the notion of a value stable currency needs to be academically vetted.
There are more than a dozen formal papers on ethereum since it came out. A lot of people are studying it and trying to improve the model. Nothing on BitUSD. Nothing on DPoS. This is a shame because they are topics that need study and evolution outside of the mind of one person who is often wrong.
BitShares has a history of making extraordinary claims without the requisite formal analysis.
It.. does ?
It requires vetting because first the model is unique and interesting and could benefit from brilliant minds iteratin and refining. You get this for free after the bootstrap. Second, the system is experiment and thus cannot be safely used by legacy systems and actors sensitive to risk.
The more peer review the model gets, the more adoption and respect your system gets. Notice how the bitcoin core developers grudgingly accept ethereum's contributions? The entire valley is rushing to have a smart contract solution? But they do not acknowledge that bitshares has a value stable currency? They never discuss DPoS. This isn't a conspiracy it's a lack of respect for the project because the rules keep changing and the technology never is properly explained or vetted. You can ignore this or say I'm wrong but it doesn't change the reality of the matter.
It requires vetting because first the model is unique and interesting and could benefit from brilliant minds iterating and refining. You get this for free after the bootstrap. Second, the system is experimental and thus cannot be safely used by legacy systems and actors sensitive to risk.I totally agree! But this academic game is, besides the real and free value it brings, a social game. Science often is a way to make something socially acceptable.
The more peer review the model gets, the more adoption and respect your system gets. Notice how the bitcoin core developers grudgingly accept ethereum's contributions? The entire valley is rushing to have a smart contract solution? But they do not acknowledge that bitshares has a value stable currency? They never discuss DPoS. This isn't a conspiracy it's a lack of respect for the project because the rules keep changing and the technology never is properly explained or vetted. You can ignore this or say I'm wrong but it doesn't change the reality of the matter.QuoteIt.. does ?
Yes notice the only PhD on the project left? Dr. Charles Evans
I didn't mention bitshares for two reasons. First I haven't reviewed the technology in bitshares 2. I haven't seen formal technical documentation nor have I looked at the code. Second, I have to review the license structure. I remember when bitshares 2 was announced it wasn't under a proper FLOSS license. I cannot recommend a technology that is owned by or controlled by a single entity.That's even more funny.
I really don't think that's a fair characterization. BitShares has a history of making extraordinary claims without the requisite formal analysis. Many of the projects I mentioned have been upfront with stating they are experiments not meant for mission-critical use.
Bitshares has claimed the opposite positioning itself for enterprise use. Naturally this requires a lot more due diligence. To this date I still maintain that the core value proposition of your community that is the notion of a value stable currency needs to be academically vetted.
There are more than a dozen formal papers on ethereum since it came out. A lot of people are studying it and trying to improve the model. Nothing on BitUSD. Nothing on DPoS. This is a shame because they are topics that need study and evolution outside of the mind of one person who is often wrong.
It requires vetting because first the model is unique and interesting and could benefit from brilliant minds iterating and refining. You get this for free after the bootstrap. Second, the system is experimental and thus cannot be safely used by legacy systems and actors sensitive to risk.Chaeles, i am one of your fans but i do agree with dan that to get the code done first. Vitalik never explained his idea well in the first place as well. Dan does much better job than V-boy [emoji12]
The more peer review the model gets, the more adoption and respect your system gets. Notice how the bitcoin core developers grudgingly accept ethereum's contributions? The entire valley is rushing to have a smart contract solution? But they do not acknowledge that bitshares has a value stable currency? They never discuss DPoS. This isn't a conspiracy it's a lack of respect for the project because the rules keep changing and the technology never is properly explained or vetted. You can ignore this or say I'm wrong but it doesn't change the reality of the matter.QuoteIt.. does ?
Yes notice the only PhD on the project left? Dr. Charles Evans
It requires vetting because first the model is unique and interesting and could benefit from brilliant minds iterating and refining. You get this for free after the bootstrap. Second, the system is experimental and thus cannot be safely used by legacy systems and actors sensitive to risk.
The more peer review the model gets, the more adoption and respect your system gets. Notice how the bitcoin core developers grudgingly accept ethereum's contributions? The entire valley is rushing to have a smart contract solution? But they do not acknowledge that bitshares has a value stable currency? They never discuss DPoS. This isn't a conspiracy it's a lack of respect for the project because the rules keep changing and the technology never is properly explained or vetted. You can ignore this or say I'm wrong but it doesn't change the reality of the matter.QuoteIt.. does ?
Yes notice the only PhD on the project left? Dr. Charles Evans
I really don't think that's a fair characterization. BitShares has a history of making extraordinary claims without the requisite formal analysis. Many of the projects I mentioned have been upfront with stating they are experiments not meant for mission-critical use.
Bitshares has claimed the opposite positioning itself for enterprise use. Naturally this requires a lot more due diligence. To this date I still maintain that the core value proposition of your community that is the notion of a value stable currency needs to be academically vetted.
There are more than a dozen formal papers on ethereum since it came out. A lot of people are studying it and trying to improve the model. Nothing on BitUSD. Nothing on DPoS. This is a shame because they are topics that need study and evolution outside of the mind of one person who is often wrong.
More than 50% of the projects you mentioned are barely in a proof of concept stage while BTS documented well enough for a senior expert like you to make a good judgment and differentiate between "extraordinary claims" and reality.
Personally I think it's an emotional issue between you and Dan. It's none of my business so I'll stay away.
I just don't think it's very professional to let those things interfere - when you paint a detailed landscape of the crypto-world just do thoroughly without any bias or intentional omissions.
Actually I now think it's quite manipulative, especially when your target audience is no position to find out what's missing.
As much as I admire your talking skills and deep insight regarding the crypto-world, I must admit today I've lost faith in your good intentions regarding BTS.
I agree jakub. They are almost ALL are controlled by a single entity while under development and for some time thereafter.
I wouldn't use the word funny to describe the omissions, nor CH's avoidance of BitShares 2.0.
I do agree with CH in many of the perspectives he has previously voiced about BitShares project management and governance, but I see these omissions as more of an academic bias.
It represents a disqualifying degree of rigor, a rigid level of compliance to proofs and standards that necessarily slow down progress and innovation in a space that is extremely competitive and problems need solutions or the people pursuing them run out of resources. Etherium is a good example of that.
The scientific process and engineering / academic standards are crucial for long term progress, not as much (tho I would never say not at all) in the short term. Innovation and invention is always on the very edge of the dividing line between what is known and what is not. Innovation requires risk, it requires failure, as that is key to learning and adapting. If one's thinking is too closely tied to what exists and what has been proven it limits the freedom to think in the opposite way, outside the box (of existing knowledge), to explore unhindered to fail, unhampered by existing conventions and approval hierarchies. The greatest inventors of history were individuals that worked more in isolation than in groups. Tesla readily springs to mind as does DaVinci.
I think CH has much to offer, but I would like to see more about his "libertarian perspective" and less about proofs and published papers. I would love to hear more analysis of governance models and the underlying first principles of freedom they help or hinder. CH says he's very interested in identity, so I would like to hear more about it's role in governance and the role of fundamental elements like identity and privacy (which offer protection from powerful entities like The State or "fortune 1,000,000" corporations) and the way the influence those principles.
For all the mistakes Stan & Dan have made in running the BitShares project, a huge undertaking and with huge "rock and a hard place" decisions to be made, I have to give them major accolades for what they have been able to accomplish.
It requires vetting because first the model is unique and interesting and could benefit from brilliant minds iteratin and refining. You get this for free after the bootstrap. Second, the system is experiment and thus cannot be safely used by legacy systems and actors sensitive to risk.
The more peer review the model gets, the more adoption and respect your system gets. Notice how the bitcoin core developers grudgingly accept ethereum's contributions? The entire valley is rushing to have a smart contract solution? But they do not acknowledge that bitshares has a value stable currency? They never discuss DPoS. This isn't a conspiracy it's a lack of respect for the project because the rules keep changing and the technology never is properly explained or vetted. You can ignore this or say I'm wrong but it doesn't change the reality of the matter.
We have done a poor job explaining all of the features because we have been developing them so quickly. This rapid development has pros and cons. Charles has identified some of the cons.
I really don't think that's a fair characterization. BitShares has a history of making extraordinary claims without the requisite formal analysis. Many of the projects I mentioned have been upfront with stating they are experiments not meant for mission-critical use.
Bitshares has claimed the opposite positioning itself for enterprise use. Naturally this requires a lot more due diligence. To this date I still maintain that the core value proposition of your community that is the notion of a value stable currency needs to be academically vetted.
There are more than a dozen formal papers on ethereum since it came out. A lot of people are studying it and trying to improve the model. Nothing on BitUSD. Nothing on DPoS. This is a shame because they are topics that need study and evolution outside of the mind of one person who is often wrong.
More than 50% of the projects you mentioned are barely in a proof of concept stage while BTS documented well enough for a senior expert like you to make a good judgment and differentiate between "extraordinary claims" and reality.
Personally I think it's an emotional issue between you and Dan. It's none of my business so I'll stay away.
I just don't think it's very professional to let those things interfere - when you paint a detailed landscape of the crypto-world just do thoroughly without any bias or intentional omissions.
Actually I now think it's quite manipulative, especially when your target audience is no position to find out what's missing.
As much as I admire your talking skills and deep insight regarding the crypto-world, I must admit today I've lost faith in your good intentions regarding BTS.
It requires vetting because first the model is unique and interesting and could benefit from brilliant minds iterating and refining. You get this for free after the bootstrap. Second, the system is experimental and thus cannot be safely used by legacy systems and actors sensitive to risk.
The more peer review the model gets, the more adoption and respect your system gets. Notice how the bitcoin core developers grudgingly accept ethereum's contributions? The entire valley is rushing to have a smart contract solution? But they do not acknowledge that bitshares has a value stable currency? They never discuss DPoS. This isn't a conspiracy it's a lack of respect for the project because the rules keep changing and the technology never is properly explained or vetted. You can ignore this or say I'm wrong but it doesn't change the reality of the matter.QuoteIt.. does ?
Yes notice the only PhD on the project left? Dr. Charles Evans
This is the difference between ethereum and bitshares. To many ethereum appears like a academic experiment, as you had attested to before: there were many who wanted to go with the non-profit model for ethereum clashing with your opinion of a for-profit. There are pros and cons of each.
ALAS should we have waited for a peer review of POW before moving to DPOS? No, we would have been laggers rather than innovators. I think the trend indicates (as Etherum moves to POS) that academic review did not have to uncover weaknesses here. Does academic review promote innovative tinkering?
I wouldn't use the word funny to describe the omissions, nor CH's avoidance of BitShares 2.0.
Yes, Thom, I am the first to agree that CH is right about incomplete documentation hurting the image of BTS. But that's not the issue here.
What I'm saying is that CH intentionally omitted BTS and now he's hiding behind some artificial reasons.
Of course it's my subjective perception, and CH will argue they are not artificial, so it will remain unresolved.
It requires vetting because first the model is unique and interesting and could benefit from brilliant minds iterating and refining. You get this for free after the bootstrap. Second, the system is experimental and thus cannot be safely used by legacy systems and actors sensitive to risk.
The more peer review the model gets, the more adoption and respect your system gets. Notice how the bitcoin core developers grudgingly accept ethereum's contributions? The entire valley is rushing to have a smart contract solution? But they do not acknowledge that bitshares has a value stable currency? They never discuss DPoS. This isn't a conspiracy it's a lack of respect for the project because the rules keep changing and the technology never is properly explained or vetted. You can ignore this or say I'm wrong but it doesn't change the reality of the matter.QuoteIt.. does ?
Yes notice the only PhD on the project left? Dr. Charles Evans
This is the difference between ethereum and bitshares. To many ethereum appears like a academic experiment, as you had attested to before: there were many who wanted to go with the non-profit model for ethereum clashing with your opinion of a for-profit. There are pros and cons of each.
ALAS should we have waited for a peer review of POW before moving to DPOS? No, we would have been laggers rather than innovators. I think the trend indicates (as Etherum moves to POS) that academic review did not have to uncover weaknesses here. Does academic review promote innovative tinkering?
Tauchain is taking a very academic approach, it's not popular either. The academic approach is really just an approach to how you explain your technology. Satoshi didn't take the academic approach though.
That being said I do think Bitshares needs to be better explained and Charles is a good person to do it. It's now at the point where it's so powerful that no one seems to understand fully how it works and what it can do except Bytemaster himself. Knowledge centralization can be a problem because at some point you want to attract developers in.
Ethereum is really an academic experiment for idealist developers. It appeals to a specific personality type, and specifically to developers. While Bitshares used to appeal to a speciifc personality type but then the dilution and other controversial moves now has Bitshares attractive to a pragmatic following but the idealists don't really know where Bitshares is going to go.
We know Bytemasters ideals, we know about the contractless society, but until Bitshares is on the path to profitability it doesn't yet live up to the original promise of Bytemaster. It's the original promise which attracts the idealists, the original experiment, to create a profitable DAC.
The problem there is that ch has already told me there is no intent to work with bitshares. Unfortunately what happened early on has made that very unlikely. I dont know whose fault it is because after charles gave me an explanation i asked bm and received a different one (and bm probably wouldnt have even told me had he not known charles already had due to a promise of some sort to charles).
I didn't mention bitshares for two reasons. First I haven't reviewed the technology in bitshares 2. I haven't seen formal technical documentation nor have I looked at the code. Second, I have to review the license structure. I remember when bitshares 2 was announced it wasn't under a proper FLOSS license. I cannot recommend a technology that is owned by or controlled by a single entity.
I didn't mention dogecoin either :) Do you want to discuss the interview?
I didn't mention dogecoin either :) Do you want to discuss the interview?
Academia is overrated. If you want to study Chinese with a degree, the academia people want you to have a highschool degree with math and physics which has nothing to do with Chinese. I think these elite university people are in reality stupid, while the smart people would never get close to university because it's so mean.
Once you pass the test for eg. Chinese you can study, wheres the problem?
The 3% kids who had hard time in school will not be able to make a highschool degree because going into a classroom is not possible anymore.
There was the doctor congress in Amsterdam recently and I talked to some doctors. They know nothing about drugs and are not friendly. I think most do not say what they think because they would get persona non grata.
Nothing against Charles... but why do you guys care so much what he thinks about bts? And why are you complaining that he didn't talk about your coin in an interview?He himself brought an interview to bitshares forum in which he does not mention bitshares. And keeps demanding to discuss the interview. Doesnt it seem odd?
There are probably a lot better ways to promote bts than sitting here whining about Charles
QuoteAcademia is overrated. If you want to study Chinese with a degree, the academia people want you to have a highschool degree with math and physics which has nothing to do with Chinese. I think these elite university people are in reality stupid, while the smart people would never get close to university because it's so mean.
Once you pass the test for eg. Chinese you can study, wheres the problem?
The 3% kids who had hard time in school will not be able to make a highschool degree because going into a classroom is not possible anymore.
There was the doctor congress in Amsterdam recently and I talked to some doctors. They know nothing about drugs and are not friendly. I think most do not say what they think because they would get persona non grata.
The value of having some of the brightest minds in the world work on your pet problems for free and also actively look for ways to break it is beyond measure. This is especially true in the hard sciences. There is still rigor in the STEM fields and computer science is among the most rigorous. Why not make the initial investment? You get free labor, branding, potential partnerships and recruits as well as legitimization in the eyes of many legacy actors. You win the free thinkers on the vision. You win the world with rigor and strong execution.
Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.
The one thing academic papers do provide is "respect" whether or not it is deserved. I give them about as much respect as I do a college degree. They are meaningless predictors of the ability of someone to actually do a job.
Similarly, there are three kinds of false credentials: celebrity endorsements, government studies, and rigorous academic reviews."
Guys it's ultimately about collaboration with the best and brightest. DL has stated that they don't come from academia and thus undervalues expansion into that field. I strongly disagree and feel an enormous amount of innovation comes from academia. It's a philosophical difference and one of the examples of why we don't collaborate more.
In respect to why I shared this interview, again I was hoping to have a discussion of the ideas presented within.
Guys it's ultimately about collaboration with the best and brightest. DL has stated that they don't come from academia and thus undervalues expansion into that field. I strongly disagree and feel an enormous amount of innovation comes from academia. It's a philosophical difference and one of the examples of why we don't collaborate more.
In respect to why I shared this interview, again I was hoping to have a discussion of the ideas presented within.
I think this is fair enough. Ideas are what we should be discussing. Academic papers are just another way of attempting to communicate ideas.
Guys it's ultimately about collaboration with the best and brightest. DL has stated that they don't come from academia and thus undervalues expansion into that field. I strongly disagree and feel an enormous amount of innovation comes from academia. It's a philosophical difference and one of the examples of why we don't collaborate more.
In respect to why I shared this interview, again I was hoping to have a discussion of the ideas presented within.
I think this is fair enough. Ideas are what we should be discussing. Academic papers are just another way of attempting to communicate ideas.
I have an idea.
What if Dan and Charles publicly discuss how to make BitShares 2.0, Cryptonomex and Graphene better ... in a Hangout on Beyond Bitcoin (https://beyondbitcoin.org)? ;)
Sounds like a hangout topic the community would support, actually. But i wonder if it is possible to do so with class....
I'll consider it if you guys make one of those cool boxing match posters.
The value of having some of the brightest minds in the world work on your pet problems for free and also actively look for ways to break it is beyond measure. This is especially true in the hard sciences. There is still rigor in the STEM fields and computer science is among the most rigorous. Why not make the initial investment? You get free labor, branding, potential partnerships and recruits as well as legitimization in the eyes of many legacy actors. You win the free thinkers on the vision. You win the world with rigor and strong execution.
I'll consider it if you guys make one of those cool boxing match posters.
I met both of you in conferences and following is my impression
BM --- Great thinker and doer ... kind of stubborn。
Charles --- Excellent educator and great seller ... easy to adjustQuote from: IOHKCharles link=topic=19294.msg247917#in msg247917 date=1445376354I'll consider it if you guys make one of those cool boxing match posters.
Similarly, there are three kinds of false credentials: celebrity endorsements, government studies, and rigorous academic reviews."
You cannot honestly believe that rigorous academic review sits in the same category as a cursory mention by Kim Dot Com?
It is not the academic reviewer who counts; nor the pundit who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Further he has expressed interest in a show featuring himself and DL on the single condition that it be marketed as virsus rather than collaborative.
As always when in doubt follow the money.
Generally speaking, academic papers are produced by those who can add more value by teaching than by doing. More often than not academic papers are so formalized that they do a terrible job teaching. In other words, academic papers are written by academics for academics and are usually useless for those who actually want to DO what the papers talk about.I can vary much vonfirm this! More so, I had hard time convincing my co-authors that I want the papers actually EXPLAIN things instead of STATING things ..
Further he has expressed interest in a show featuring himself and DL on the single condition that it be marketed as virsus rather than collaborative.
ELI5: Academic reviews, like statistics, can be made to prove anything.
explanations ARE statements, but are backed by facts and evidence that are substantial and constitute some level of practical, actual "proof".Generally speaking, academic papers are produced by those who can add more value by teaching than by doing. More often than not academic papers are so formalized that they do a terrible job teaching. In other words, academic papers are written by academics for academics and are usually useless for those who actually want to DO what the papers talk about.I can vary much vonfirm this! More so, I had hard time convincing my co-authors that I want the papers actually EXPLAIN things instead of STATING things ..
ELI5: Academic reviews, like statistics, can be made to prove anything.
Academic reviews can only prove facts by definition.
Like IOHKCharles says, big institutions (which bitshares aims to attract) will do a higher degree of due diligence when looking into the technology. Who do you think they will use to carry out such investigations? The answer is experts, of course. And what do you think will be their first question when looking at the technology?
There is a difference between EXPLAINING and STATING something that is obvious TO YOU ..
IMHO thing should always be explained for everyone (in the field) to comprehend and give enough instructions/explanations to rebuild it from skratch
Pretty good talk actually. This is my take :
- There is a huge needless energy consumption for a small network like Bitcoin
- Scalability is an issue with bitcoin
- Bitcoins speed sucks
- Contol is at stake with bitcoin
Thats enough for me .
Further he has expressed interest in a show featuring himself and DL on the single condition that it be marketed as virsus rather than collaborative.
I took Charles' comment as a joke.
Got it :)There is a difference between EXPLAINING and STATING something that is obvious TO YOU ..
IMHO thing should always be explained for everyone (in the field) to comprehend and give enough instructions/explanations to rebuild it from skratch
I agree with you generally xeroc.
My reply was perhaps a nit-picky one centered around the meaning of the word explanation. To explain things one must make statements, to assert facts and evidence. If the GOAL of those statements is merely a decree and avoids the question of HOW, those statements are NOT explanatory in nature.
Oh kids, I love you all equally.Human interactions to learn you have!
QuoteThose who can, do; those who can't, teach.
Generally speaking, academic papers are produced by those who can add more value by teaching than by doing. More often than not academic papers are so formalized that they do a terrible job teaching. In other words, academic papers are written by academics for academics and are usually useless for those who actually want to DO what the papers talk about.
The one thing academic papers do provide is "respect" whether or not it is deserved. I give them about as much respect as I do a college degree. They are meaningless predictors of the ability of someone to actually do a job.