Charles Hoskinson on Virgin Media talking about Cryptocurrencies

[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.