Charles Hoskinson on Virgin Media talking about Cryptocurrencies

[fuzzy]

All i can say with regard to academic papers, is aaron swartz:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112418/aaron-swartz-suicide-why-he-broke-jstor-and-mit

In a world where information has become currency, I think we are past the time when academic papers represent the only avenue for rigor and peer review. 

[betax]

Those 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.

I don't believe in academic papers, normally they are not easily accessible to everybody, this is the problem with Crypto, it has to be easily accessible for anybody to understand and invest their time and money.

Xeroc is right the focus should be on explaining and documenting.

BM, I have had the same attitude as you in the past, doing vs teaching, but I have come to realised that I have done many things, that due to my lack of teaching (and incapability to open source) they have been eventually wasted. So you need to do both, or delegate

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

I like the other thread that Charles has started and el mato answers... with code references.

[xeroc]

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.

Got it

Oh kids, I love you all equally.

Human interactions to learn you have!

[IOHKCharles]

Oh kids, I love you all equally.

[Riverhead]

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.

That's the beauty of a jest. Kidding not kidding.

[Stan]

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 .

And, of course, there is a well known solution that solves all of these problems that can't be mentioned because an academic paper was prioritized lower than getting something working for everybody.

[bitacer]

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
- Control is at stake with bitcoin

Thats enough for me .

[Thom]

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.

[xeroc]

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

[Thom]

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 ..

explanations ARE statements, but are backed by facts and evidence that are substantial and constitute some level of practical, actual "proof".

My experience with academia is they strive for rigorous proof akin to mathematical proof. Nothing wrong with that at all, it is necessary from a scientific basis but it is a time consuming process in which the practical / actual / demonstrable / useful benefits can be lost to those who can implement them and get them to market.

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?

Therein lies the problem with experts and "approved" authorities. It's more about the credentials than about the proof. It can be highly political. It is a system of deferring decisions to others rather than decisions based on merit. It's a system that can work as long as the chain of deferred decisions remains uncorrupted, uninfluenced by non-meritorious factors, but the problem with hierarchical authority structures is they all eventually become corrupted.

A perfect example of what I'm saying is Quantum Mechanics and how it has negatively impacted the core of scientific research. See these interviews with David Harriman: part 1 and part 2.

[monsterer]

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?

[cass]

We at BitShares should make both audiences happy:

The practial guy .. who wants to understand how to use graphene on daily base...
and the Theoretical (academic or not).. who want to talk about on more scienetific level

[Tuck Fheman]

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.

[xeroc]

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 ..

[fuzzy]

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.

Interesting take.