BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: charleshoskinson on December 05, 2014, 06:03:39 am
-
Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97ufCT6lQcY. Next year, I'll mention Bitshares.
-
And by next year you mean in 2030 or after, right?
-
Once you guys have a 1.0 client and some polish. Getting a bunch of non-crypto people to mass adopt an alpha product is counter-productive IMO. When you're on TED, then you're free to make your own call :)
This aside, 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. You guys are under the need more data to market properly category.
-
Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97ufCT6lQcY. Next year, I'll mention Bitshares.
+5%
This is a good presentation. You have a talent for breaking down complex concepts into plain english.
-
+5%
This is a good presentation. You have a talent for breaking down complex concepts into plain english.
Once there is a lot of data and some stability behind the Bitshares ecosystem, it would be a lot of fun to do a TED talk on Bitassets. The whole idea of creating a cryptodollar is what attracted me to Bitshares in the first place.
-
If this thread follows the same pattern as others, then you'll start by saying something nice (done). Next, you'll remind us how you built BitShares. Finally, you'll critique how things have gone to heck here after they didn't listen to you & would have been much better. And somewhere in there will be an Ethereum reference and/or the dropping of a big name or two.
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.
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.
Charles, would you consider being a delegate in BitShares?
-
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.
Thank you
Charles, would you consider being a delegate in BitShares?
Stan emailed me about this possibility months ago; however, I haven't invested a great deal of thought into it. I'm starting an education venture next year and I'd like to start having a bit of impartiality. That said, if a position is open where I could conduct research in the form of building models, aggregating data and analyzing it like a data scientist, then I wouldn't be opposed to it.
Honestly, I'm most passionate about voting, ID management, and secure communication. In terms of a software project for next year, I think my talents could be better suited towards evolving mailvelope using dart and polymer alongside some new cryptographic primitives and blockchain linkage. This work would have a much greater and less polarizing impact than anything I've done previously.
Ethereum reference and/or the dropping of a big name or two.
Well I did watch the room last Friday.
-
What happened to your new coin idea?
-
good presentation!
-
What 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?
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.
Honest question here CH - Do you have days that you are not in complete in awe of yourself?
-
Honest question here CH - Do you have days that you are not in complete in awe of yourself?
Lol, we are here to talk about the TED presentation. Not how magical I am. I mean if you want to say so Tony I won't stop you. 8)
Totally going to pull a Stan:
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/001/569/insp_captkirk_5_.jpg)
-
Watched and enjoyed - although there was nothing new to a long time reader of this and other forums.
-
Watched 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.
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.
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.
-
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.
It was a rather overwhelming mob that formed during lunch (first time I ever ate lionfish btw; highly recommend). Most were interested in micro-insurance and better metrics for risk management. Bermuda is a big insurance market in general. Remittances were also an issue they care about as many have to send money to relatives at fairly high rates. You can tell I biased the presentation towards that end.
I think there has been a lot of great work lately in trying to bridge the knowledge gap about cryptocurrencies. Unfortunately, bitcoin isn't capable of supporting these kind of dreams and needs to be carefully replaced.
-
Watched 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.
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!
-
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 didn't get paid anything for the presentation. TED never gives honoraria for talks. They did cover my airfare and hotel but I was only there for a total of three days with most of the time spent doing TED stuff. I really like cryptocurrencies and its fun to evangelize.
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!
Then this would happen to Fuzz if I won: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2ZpsbGr7s8
-
Charles, that was excellent. You certainly have charisma and eloquence in abundance.
And the general tone of this thread literally lifted my spirits +5%
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
Thanks and to go into more detail with your question, first blockchains are agnostic to the use case and philosophy. They were not invented to obsolete entity XYZ or expose corruption ABC rather they are just a specialized database that has strict rules on how entries are added and never permit deletion. The end result is a distributive, censorship resistance and high integrity database. Satoshi and others decided to apply this construct to currency, but as I mentioned it has been also applied to things like DNS and one can imagine many more use cases.
In respect to land deeds, its a layered problem. First, we have the issue of no breeder documents identifying people within the community. Generally this is done via testimony and familiarity. Such a system cannot scale, which is why governments get into the business of controlling ID documents such as passports, drivers licenses, state ID cards, etc. The hope is that we can build an identity system using a blockchain due to its unique benefits of censorship resistance and high integrity. Does a government have to follow this identity? No, however, the vast majority of those seeking identification are commercial interests (ever use a student ID for example?).
Second, we have the issue of the land itself. As I mentioned in the talk, this is an issue of proving occupancy and ownership in the event of a dispute between parties. For example, how can the government of Afghanistan prove Ahmed versus Mohammad rightfully owns the land? What if there is a multi-generation dispute? Storing registration on a blockchain produces a permanent, immutable living history of the lands occupants. Yes it is true that the government and the people do not have to follow the records, yet this is true for all land claims regardless of sovereignty. It's all about giving a better system for people to track ownership of assets that doesn't require a government to manage or be reliable. Rather they get involved after the fact when there is a dispute.
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 only had roughly 13 minutes so I couldn't cover something I really wanted to talk about that is private law. Most countries actually give people the right to decide both the legal system and the method of arbitration for commercial transactions. For example, I could enter into a contract living in New York with a man from Hong Kong and agree to follow Swiss law and arbitration. But one doesn't have to stop there. One can follow private legal systems such as Unidroit or even the middle ages Lex Mercatoria.
The reason why governments permit this degree of legal flexibility stems from trade. Shipping is a notorious industry with hundreds of years of maritime law and legions of international agreements that allow for remarkably complex private legal arrangements and arbitration. Tribal and religious law is another example permitting flexibility. The point of all of this discourse is to convey that the next evolution of our ecosystem will be to take private law and codify it into smart contracts using some language like E and make blockchains the arbitrator.
Courts should uphold the decisions as they meet the standards of international agreements on contracts and a blockchain arbitrator should meet all criterion for objectivity. Of course, this is still hypothetical; however, there are some good papers on how one can structure such things -> http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/548/469.
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.
I rather believe that its another set of tools to aid us in building more fair and transparent relationships. Remember starting a company before legalzoom and rocketlawyer? You had to go to a third party and pay out the ass. Now you can spend a few hundred and have professionally written articles of incorporation and legal templates for everything from non-disclosure agreements to no complete clauses. As law becomes more digital, it should become more like software in that we'll have open source legal libraries and APIs that the community can rapidly iterate and refine.
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.
I wish I could have covered provably fair elections as well. There is really a renaissance coming and it's really exciting to see it from the frontlines.
-
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?
any disagreement here charles?
-
any disagreement here charles?
If agreements can be fully defined and measured, then yes; however, this is a big if. Generally speaking meaning is a characteristic generic to the system itself thus requires human judgment to sort it all out.
-
If I was a mathematician I would aim to understand the links between intelligence, prediction markets and integrated information. Then I would investigate the consciousness of beauty, pain, love and freedom.
-
I really enjoyed your presentation, Charles !
I think you'd be a valuable delegate if you're interested in such a position in the future. Good luck to your future ventures. 8)
-
any disagreement here charles?
If agreements can be fully defined and measured, then yes;
I guess that yes referred to this bit "smart contracts are protocols that can verify and enforce agreements" which was your original statement from your presentation.
I rather asked whether you agree with my statement on that original statement from you which relativized it...
-
However brief, this was indeed an insightful and inspiring talk - thank you Charles! :)
-
Then this would happen to Fuzz if I won: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2ZpsbGr7s8
Lol...
Charlie Charlie Charlie.. Contrary to your belief I actually do not hate you or worry so much about you getting paid for what you do as long as it is completely transparent and truly beneficial.
I have never hated you. I have simply questioned your motives and methods. I have even gone so far as to reach out with an offer to help pay you (what I can afford) for providing educational content (if you don't remember: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5252.msg71111#msg71111).
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.
-
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.
So going on TED and evangelizing blockchain technology doesn't uplift spirits? Fuzz, you and several others in the Bitshares community have propagated this notion that I'm some sort of empty suit demagogue always working towards special unknown interests. Apparently from a different thread there is fanclub that goes around telling people my dark sins from the foundation to ethereum. Toast commented on the reddit about me leaving ethereum and incorrectly said it was somehow similar to when I left Invictus. They were two totally different situations and I'm still on good terms with Vitalik, Joe and others from the project.
You can pretend you guys aren't doing these things, but you honestly are and it really dampens my enthusiasm for marketing bitshares. Furthermore, pretty much everything I've done in this space has been released under a creative commons or some form of open sourced license. Creating free classes about how bitcoin and blockchain technology works is in some way honey? Writing a 36 page whitepaper on crowdfunding is honey? Working on an identity management system using a blockchain is honey?
You say hey I offered some money to get Charles involved in marketing bitshares, but do you know how many times Invictus contacted me for advice on marketing? Zero, never once did anyone from the team skype me or send me an email. Ethereum is apparently vaporware in the beginning only held up by marketing skill and then when I'm a free agent no one says hey he might have some good advice?
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.
Thus I'm going to just try to stay neutral and comment on technology I think has promise, is well maintained, and has the potential to serve as a foundation for new markets. Perhaps bitshares will achieve this in 2015 and if it does, then I'll do a TED talk or some other presentation on it. I don't need money for an incentive. I just want the tech to exist and be usable.
-
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.
None of us are without fault Charlie. Usually when there is a problem it is both sides...
-
None 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...
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.
Did they figure out how the camera was hidden afterwards? Was it the old hide the camera in the phone game ?
Probably
"Focus on the positive stuff" lol you crack me up.
-
Did I criticize or attack anyone in the TED talk?
-
Did I criticize or attack anyone in the TED talk?
Yea, you attacked all sorts of people. Don't you watch your own videos man?
-
Ok gamey
-
Did 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.
-
Did 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.
-
Did 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.
I actually thought that Dan brought up some valid questions in that "hidden camera" episode (though I was completely unaware the camera was hidden--I thought it was captured using a phone).
I also think that it is hard for any of our community to know how to deal with you because your leaving was shrouded (and still is to this day) in mystery. I can always go back to this point and I always will because until we understand the specific terms under which you left we have no reason to trust you. Let's remember that you have your name on the BitShares Whitepaper...which means you effectively gain a great deal of renown for all the work that Dan and his team have done long after you left--work that makes pretty much makes the initial whitepaper obsolete. But history will likely not acknowledge the ridiculous amounts of work that Dan and team put into building this without you receiving too much credit.
You are now in a position where you can either ignore bitshares (if for some odd reason it fails) or stand up and say you were one of the people who came up with it (when it proves highly successful).
I know you have said previously that you left due to philosophical differences, but I believe there is more to it. I have even been hinted that there is more to it--though BM (to his credit?) keeps your secrets. I wish I knew exactly why you left--just to go to another project. Unfortunately I have been largely forced to give up on that.
Btw...I really DO like your educational content (education is a soft spot of mine). I just wonder how you can afford to go without pay for all these things and literally spend all your time evangelizing for a project that up until just a few months ago had no funding. I am very passionate about what I do and there is absolutely no way I could spend the amount of time doing what you do without getting paid for it and also feed my family.
So I guess in short--it all has always come down to this shroud of secrecy and your unwillingness to be transparent about these things. However, I must also place some of the fault on BM because he is obviously willing to keep this information secret. Our community has legitimate reasons to ask questions and I am glad we can (and do). I am also glad that Dan's secrecy with respect to your history with the bitshares project does not carry over to his own life and work as he is by far the most open developer out there with respect to his work and intentions. I am also glad for your occasional big lebowski quotes. But I would be far more glad for full disclosure...it would set my mind at ease.
-
I'm key noting the international blockchain summit in january fuzzy. Drop by the Cayman islands and we'll chat.
-
I'm key noting the international blockchain summit in january fuzzy. Drop by the Cayman islands and we'll chat.
You and your lavish vacations....(jealous).
-
Great job, I hope we will see bitshares on TED soon.
-
Great talk charles!
-
Great job, I hope we will see bitshares on TED soon.
+5%
-
Great 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
.
If bitshares marketing contacted me, then I'd be happy to mention them on TED or any of the other venues I speak at.
+5%
-
Great 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.
Sweet. Let's make this happen.
-
Great 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.
What is the best way to contact you? You can PM me if you wish. :)
-
Skype me charles_hoskinson or email at charles.hoskinson@gmail.com