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.

[Riverhead]

IMHO this is more about marketing than adherence to academic standards. While I'd like to believe CH didn't mention BTS for academic or even emotional reasons I don't think either is the case.

Bitshares got a somewhat deserved  image of being anti bitcoin in the early days. This caused it to fall out of favor with many in the crypto space and even became somewhat of a pariah.

Therefore CH's choice to omit BTS from his talk is more about protecting himself as a brand than any sense of academic or licencing concerns.

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.

[Stan]

ELI5:  Academic reviews, like statistics, can be made to prove anything.

To misquote President Teddy Roosevelt

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.

[Stan]

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?

I gave academic reviews top billing -  right up there beside statistics! 

[fuzzy]

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  adjust

I'll consider it if you guys make one of those cool boxing match posters.

They are both stubborn... I can assure you. 

[twitter]

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  adjust

I'll consider it if you guys make one of those cool boxing match posters.

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

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.

Sorry to derail your thread, but my reason for that is financial.  At this point it's either uopeople.edu, which ive been thinking about lately, or wait until bitshares rises.

[Tuck Fheman]

I'll consider it if you guys make one of those cool boxing match posters.

I'm on it!

[IOHKCharles]

I'll consider it if you guys make one of those cool boxing match posters.

[Tuck Fheman]

Sounds like a hangout topic the community would support, actually. But i wonder if it is possible to do so with class....

We have two of the brightest minds in the world, I don't think that would be an issue, but that's up to them ... if they had the desire to discuss such topics.

However, Charles did indicate he knows little to nothing about BitShares 2.0 and Graphene. So perhaps once he's had an opportunity (once such information is available) to research the topic this discussion could take place. Or perhaps the two of you, Charles and Dan, could simply have a discussion where it's a Q&A about BitShares 2.0, Graphene, etc.  That would probably be a quicker way for Charles to find out what he wants to know on particular topics rather than waiting for documentation to be written. I'm guessing there are certain areas that he would like to address more than others, the key issues.

Perhaps this adds nothing to BitShares 2.0. Perhaps it's pointless and a waste of Dan and Charles time (let us know!), but I sure would be interested to hear such a discussion and I feel it would benefit 2.0 and the Community.

That's my 2 UIA.

[fuzzy]

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?

Sounds like a hangout topic the community would support, actually. But i wonder if it is possible to do so with class....

[Tuck Fheman]

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?

[bytemaster]

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.

[monsterer]

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?

[Tuck Fheman]

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.

[IOHKCharles]

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.

[Stan]

Mark Twain once famously said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

Similarly, there are three kinds of false credentials: celebrity endorsements, government studies, and rigorous academic reviews."

 

[bytemaster]

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.

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.

And you lose on the ability to ship a product in a timely manner.     This is an age old debate between engineers and scientists and mathematicians.   Engineers only care that something works, where as a scientist wants to know why, and mathematicians want objective proof.

There is a time and a place for all of the above.   I am very interested in understanding WHY things work and breaking it down.  I like to explain / teach what I learn, but when it comes time to formalize it I find it adds little extra value to what I am doing.  I leave it to someone else.

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.

[lakerta06]

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?

There are probably a lot better ways to promote bts than sitting here whining about Charles

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?

Reaction in this thread is normal imo.

[IOHKCharles]

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.

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.

[38PTSWarrior]

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.

[Tuck Fheman]

I didn't mention dogecoin either Do you want to discuss the interview?

Nope. I have no issues, can contribute nothing worthwhile and think you're loaded with useful information that I want to absorb.

Disclaimer: I can't compete intellectually with you guys, so the only way I can participate in something I find interesting is by creating a meme associated with the topic. It's kind of a crutch.

It also has a side effect of making a percentage of readers laugh, which makes me laugh, so it's a win/win that I can't refuse when the opportunity allows.

But, I thought your quote from 8/14 simplified by a Dogecoin meme would be funny (again) in this moment. You've joined the likes of Albert Camus (my favorite) and Warren Buffet.

so praise. very math. much absorb.

[jakub]

For those who did not have a chance to listen to the podcast:

During his talk, CH did not mention other significant projects (like MaidSafe and Tauchain) and it was quite natural as the flow of his speech did not go into the areas those projects deal with.
And I wouldn't say anything if it had been a similar case with BTS.

But it was quite the opposite: CH talked for several minutes about the very issues BTS addresses head-on: the problem of finding a solution for a decentralized exchange and the problem of finding a solution for blockchain governance. And while talking about these issues, he mentioned several project names and private companies but failed to say a single word about the existence of BTS.

I thought it was strange, maybe an unintentional black-out.
But not, he later admitted it was intentional.
Basically he did it because he did not agree with the Graphene license and because BM had failed to produce a proper white-paper for Graphene technology.

[lil_jay890]

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?

There are probably a lot better ways to promote bts than sitting here whining about Charles

[liondani]

I didn't mention dogecoin either Do you want to discuss the interview?

You should.... That would be epic

[IOHKCharles]

I didn't mention dogecoin either Do you want to discuss the interview?

[liondani]

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.

You can not ignore a blockchain that is on the top 7  blockchains the last 2 years... Mentioning a technology doesn't mean you are recommending it! Your answer feels so pathetic... 

[IOHKCharles]

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). 

Guys the fundamental problem you are having here is that you want me to market a project that I have no stake in and one of the co-founders I just can't work with. I appreciate the Bitshares community and I enjoy talking with many of you, but if I'm going to judge Bitshares from a technological viewpoint, then it really does need more formalism. Cryptocurrencies are not agile systems that are subject to rapid change as lessons are learned. They are mission critical software because you can't easily change things after it has shipped and the financial harm of mistakes is significant in both real losses and lost confidence.

In terms of the interviews I share, I enjoy having a discussion around the concepts, which is what all good communities are built on. If you'd like to talk about the content of the interview, then I'll be happy to continue this discussion. If you want to talk about my emotional state or my relationship with DL, then I'm sorry I'm not going down that road. There is nothing to gain from it.

[Pheonike]

HA! HA! 

[Tuck Fheman]

[fuzzy]

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.

It.. 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). 

[Thom]

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.

I cloaked my perspective in that one line, but since you came right out and said it overtly I totally agree, it's an emotional issue. You just explained the main issue better than I. I followed with reasons why the "lets get it done ASAP" perspective can make more sense in the crypto space.

[luckybit]

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.

It.. 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.

[Louis]

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 totally agree with Jakub, that it's an emotional issue on CH's part.  The very least CH could have done is just mention Bitshares in passing, as he does many of the other projects, especially being introduced as "the founder of two of the most important companies in the bitcoin space, Bitshares and Ethereum" and using this forum to post his talks and ideas.

[luckybit]

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.

Sometimes it's just geek politics. We see the same stuff in academia. It's only important to explain to the mainstream user.

Silicon Valley prefers Ethereum but China prefers Bitshares.  Bitshares 2.0 has to be explained well in Chinese and in other languages than English. It has to develop more global appeal because there is a limit to how many people you can attract looking in the same places as Bitcoin and Ethereum.

[jakub]

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.

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.

[fuzzy]

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.

Bts, it seems, has done very well despite being ommitted from just about everything crypto related that ive seen.  Bitshares is rarely mentioned so i dont mind either way whether charles mentions it or not.  The simple fact that charles is setting up shop here to post these things tells me charles is very interested in what bts has done thus far and wants to gain access to what we have built.  I dont need to hear words from him to know he respects the project because the very fact that he is here posting stuff tells you that he sees bts as among the best of the crypto currencies. 

I try to read between the lines, but i can definitely see what you are saying @jakub.

[topcandle]

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.

It.. 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?

[twitter]

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.

It.. does ?

Yes notice the only PhD on the project left? Dr. Charles Evans

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]

[jakub]

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.

[Thom]

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 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.   

[santaclause102]

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.

It.. does ?

Yes notice the only PhD on the project left? Dr. Charles Evans

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.
But you are totally right, much could be done here. On the other side it's a trade of between fast iteration and keeping the social proof up. I would claim that Ethereum did many things right in the latter category but is left behind technology wise compared to Bitshares ALTHOUGH someone that operates within the constraints of social proof can't admid it

[bytemaster]

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.   

[IOHKCharles]

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.

It.. does ?

Yes notice the only PhD on the project left? Dr. Charles Evans

[karnal]

BitShares has a history of making extraordinary claims without the requisite formal analysis.

It.. does ?

[topcandle]

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.

Always enjoy your responses.  My question is: why would it need to be academically vetted if the free market can do that?  If its not viable, it will just fail.  A good paper will not make it any better than it already is. 

[IOHKCharles]

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.

[jakub]

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.
That would mean that all the 20-30 projects that you did mention have documentation richer than this, none of them is proprietary and you do recommend all of them.

[IOHKCharles]

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.

[jakub]

As always, a very interesting talk and perfectly delivered. I really enjoyed it as your talking skills are unquestionable.

But one little thing is quite funny here...

For about 20 minutes, you managed to give a very detailed and extensive overview of the current landscape of the crypto-world (including the significance of a decentralized exchange and problems with blockchain governance) and mention about 20-30 project names, yet you also managed not to refer to BitShares (or Graphene) a single time. Not even once.

And then you talked for a couple of minutes about the need for unforgeable decentralized digital voting system, yet not a single mention of FMV.

Those omissions are quite funny. Especially that you've chosen to be part of this forum, not any other from quite a few available.
I hate to think it's intentional. I also hate to think you consider BitShares so insignificant. But to be honest I don't know what to think apart that it's a quite funny situation.

One correction: actually the name BitShares appeared once during your show - and it was uttered in the very beginning by the journalist interviewing you.

[Method-X]

Enjoy http://www.virgin.com/entrepreneur/the-virgin-podcast-charles-hoskinson

  Do more, do more!

[IOHKCharles]

Thanks Cass

[cass]

https://soundcloud.com/virginpodcast/charles-hoskinson

soundcloud section on site doesn't work for me .. here the direct link to soundcloud if anyone else is facing same problems

[hadrian]

Tomorrow I shall listen to this and 'Security Now!'. Thanks for the heads-up.

[Fox]

Listening...

[IOHKCharles]

Enjoy http://www.virgin.com/entrepreneur/the-virgin-podcast-charles-hoskinson