Charles Hoskinson on Virgin Media talking about Cryptocurrencies

[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).