ByteMaster and Sunny King Shop Talk--Thursday, May 8th @ 4:00-6:00PM EST

[JoeyD]

I'll try to get skype up and running, but it seems I'll have to install another operating system to get that to work. That still leaves the problem that skype is not an open discussion platform and at best you'll only be able to address me personally and not all the others that have similar concerns as I do.

I'm inclined to agree in principle. It does seems strange to witness a lot of Ethereum hostility when OT actually presents a much greater existential threat to BitShares X. Ethereum is a fairly foundational technology that will be interoperable with everything from Ripple to Bitshares. Also it is the only platform being developed that can currently enable general purpose autonomous agents living on blockchain. It seems such things would be useful for funds like AGS and management of distributive orgs.

In the mean time I think you went to far when you used the word hostility, especially considering  the discussions I've seen here. I agree that opinions about Ethereum might differ quite a bit from your own, but Bitcointalk is a helluva lot more hostile towards your project. There have been discussions on this forum how Ethereum would be a great fit as one of the DAC-chain projects and I bet people would even be prepared to alot AGS-funds for it. Hell Ethereum is even listed on the bitshares website as one of the possible blockchain solutions to certain categories of DACs. Not being convinced by your design decisions or voicing concerns about aspects of your project like PoW and a single vulnerable blockchain, is not the same as hostility.

I have no information about what's been going on between you and Dan Larimer. Personally I have not noticed Larimer speaking negatively about you and I have even seen him and other Invictus-employees, as you call them, jump in to defend your project and the people involved on several occasions on this forum. This makes your assessment of an act of aggression a bit strange from my point of view. Also Dan Larimer is not the only one and most certainly not the biggest celebrity in the CC-world to have raised concern about the exact same "loaded question" and the technical feasibility or risks of your proposed design. In those discussions I have not encountered anyone who had seen or referenced the video you've mentioned. Although the video might not be made in the way you would have liked it, I think you're reading much more into it than what it is. It's not like Larimer was the only one recording or asking questions and it was very clear (at least to me it was) that the video was about DL's view on one aspect of the design of your project.

[charleshoskinson]

Skype me Charles_Hoskinson

[JoeyD]

Could you provide specific examples?

I could and to be more precise I actually have tried on several occasions on just about all public channels that I was able to including most of the ones you've listed, even in the comments-sections of the videos and podcasts that I've heard. I even had a discussion about it on bitcointalk with jmlubin who mentioned being part of the core-team. Of course I can't be sure he is, but at the very least I have tried to reach you. I'd be willing to list some of your remarks again, but as you said, this thread is not the place to discuss this.

I can name one that is relevant to this thread though. Ignoring or failing to respond to publicly voiced concerns, however unintentional the reasons behind that, is a very effective way to foster FUD.

The public mumble-conference or online discussion group does seem to be one of the better solutions and offer a chance to at least confirm that messages or questions have been received by the relevant person(s). There might be other formats possible, but I can't think of one at the moment.

[charleshoskinson]

n that respect I do not appreciate your statement above.

They are backed by consistent delays in the release of Bitshares X, problems with Keyhotee and tangible examples of projects screwing up crypto (OpenSSL). If you choose to ignore them and pretend that Invictus has no problems, then you are free to do so.

Critique is the best thing that can happen to you if you don't take it personally AND if the critic does not apply arguments that are influenced by personal/subjective issues one has with the object of the critique. The thing is such a bad discussion culture reinforces itself.

implying Invictus would not handle donations in a responsible manner.

I didn't imply that Delulo. I am making a value judgement on where the funds ought to be spent for the best interest of the community. It is in everyone's best interest to have secure software.

But I would like to see this being avoided. It lacks the necessary respect. It just increases suspicion and the assumption in some that the critic (in that case charles) is not benevolent towards the bitshares project.

I love the 2.0 space and the innovation it brings. There are some in the movement that I clearly have disagreements and issues with. If you recall, we all set aside any personal issues in Miami at the debate and asked to work together. It was Dan Larimer who then recorded a hidden cam video of Vitalik answering a loaded question. DL asks the tough questions isn't conducive to a friendly working relationship Delulo.

If he wanted to have a technical debate, then it could have been easily arranged and would have benefited the community. Asking people loaded questions at a conference with a hidden camera is just mean spirited and it creates an environment in which we are hesitant to address any question from an Invictus employee. 

This community also thought of a crypto technology magazine. Why not join these efforts and send a signal of friendly collaboration. It would work under the circumstances I tried to characterize above.

I would love to start a 2.0 magazine called DAO to address the socio-economic implications of these technologies. That said, two of the founders have created a magazine before (Bitcoin Magazine) and it turns out to be an enormously difficult task to reach critical mass. It might be more prudent to launch a joint 2.0 weekly newsletter split between Nxt, Dogecoin, Counterparty, mastercoin, bitshares and ethereum. It's less resource intensive and would build a long term mailing list for a potential magazine.

Overall I think that like in any field a few approaches will survive. Specialization will happen and every approach will have it's application which it is suited best for. There is no real competition, especially if we finally part form the currency analogy.

I'm inclined to agree in principle. It does seems strange to witness a lot of Ethereum hostility when OT actually presents a much greater existential threat to BitShares X. Ethereum is a fairly foundational technology that will be interoperable with everything from Ripple to Bitshares. Also it is the only platform being developed that can currently enable general purpose autonomous agents living on blockchain. It seems such things would be useful for funds like AGS and management of distributive orgs.

[santaclause102]

It seems Bitshares is currently most handicapped by poor execution and a lack of development methodology like SCRUM. There also still doesn't seem to be significant cryptographic talent on the team after all these months to review the code that will eventually be trusted with millions in wealth. We recruited Drs. Koblitz and Merkle amongst others to assist us on the Ethereum side and I'd highly encourage the Bitshares team to consider someone like Peter Todd at the very least to sculpt their efforts.

I don't like fuz' comments when they are not based on specific and verifiable arguments! The goal is a high standard of discussion culture. In that respect I do not appreciate your statement above. It is like fuz' statement general and resorts to personal and very general suspicion. Let's all try to keep arguments rational and NOT PERSONAL!
What I envision is a crypto (2.0) space where people/communities argue hard with each other and thus improve their approach. Criticizing each other hard in a constructive and neutral manner is only possible if everyone is generally benevolent and there is no general suspicion. Critique is the best thing that can happen to you if you don't take it personally AND if the critic does not apply arguments that are influenced by personal/subjective issues one has with the object of the critique. The thing is, bad discussion culture ans mutual suspicion reinforces itself.

I respect Charles because he brought a lot of value to the space and seems to me to be an integer person and just because everyone deserves respect and I expect that he doesn't work against Bitshares behind the scenes.
I also would like to encourage to put all the critique one has into an explicit form and avoid implicit critique like

You've raised millions from the community and in my humble opinion it's worth it to stakeholders of Bitshares X to have greater certainty.

implying Invictus would not handle donations in a responsible manner. It is not explicit so no one can really pin you down to it. It not even might have been intentionally. But I would like to see this being avoided. It lacks the necessary respect. It just increases suspicion and the assumption in some that the critic (in that case charles) is not benevolent towards the bitshares project. This can be easily avoided. Also, the more implicit (body language is the most implicit and therefore the most convincing for example) the more powerful is what you want to say.

The really important concept is making sure everything is open sourced, subject to community review and packaged in a way that is easy to understand to onboard new minds quickly. This is the reason why we are building the cryptocurrency research group, starting a new peer reviewed journal and investing heavily into onboarding academia.

This community also thought of a crypto technology magazine. Why not join these efforts and send a signal of friendly collaboration. It would work under the circumstances I tried to characterize above.

Overall I think that like in any field a few approaches will survive. Specialization will happen and every approach will have it's application which it is suited best for. There is no real competition, especially if we finally part form the currency analogy.

[santaclause102]

@Hoskinson: I'll admit to having my own fair share of fear, uncertainty and doubts about Ethereum, but that was mostly caused by things you've said or written yourself, not by what I've heard others say/write. What would you suggest to be a good place or way to publicly address these misunderstandings or differences in point of view? Preferably one where people like myself who are unable to attend conferences can still participate if only by providing questions and listening.

There was some discussion on the mumble-server to try and organize a regular public discussion round about topics like PoW vs PoS between some of the more knowledgeable people on the subject with opposing opinions. I believe Dan Larimer proposed a similar idea himself and the discussion with Sunny King seems to be one of the first results of that. Would it be possible then to organize a similar public mumble-session like discussion with someone from the Ethereum team? Might be a good chance to address at least some of the FUD you've been referring to or at the very least clear up some misunderstandings.

[charleshoskinson]

but that was mostly caused by things you've said or written yourself,

Could you provide specific examples?

What would you suggest to be a good place or way to publicly address these misunderstandings or differences in point of view?

The ethereum reddit and also the Ethereum forums. We also have been running a lot of comms through many different skype channels, which has reduced the forum footprint a bit. Post ether sale, we'll create some form of direct communication channel to the Devs.

Would it be possible then to organize a similar public mumble-session like discussion with someone from the Ethereum team? Might be a good chance to address at least some of the FUD you've been referring to or at the very least clear up some misunderstandings.

I agree with better communication in general for everyone in the 2.0 space and also to discuss the technology. We are forming the CCRG to create a not for profit, agenda free academic/open source community channel of communication specifically for the technology side of things. There also has to be a broader discussion about the socio-economic impact of 2.0 technology. It's difficult to say, which channels are most effective.

On one hand, we would love to hold this in the cryptocurrency community, but on the other the community is very small and highly polarized amongst ideologies and projects. It seems to be a better strategy to focus on having the discussion through mainstream channels via education and outreach to industries soon to be impacted by CCs such as identity management, hosting and social networks for example.

That said, we are not ignoring the CC space. Andreas will be writing an Ethereum chapter in his upcoming book mastering bitcoin, I'll be discussing 2.0 coins in the refresh of the BEP udemy course and we'll continue focusing heavily on meetup groups.

[JoeyD]

@Hoskinson: I'll admit to having my own fair share of fear, uncertainty and doubts about Ethereum, but that was mostly caused by things you've said or written yourself, not by what I've heard others say/write. What would you suggest to be a good place or way to publicly address these misunderstandings or differences in point of view? Preferably one where people like myself who are unable to attend conferences can still participate if only by providing questions and listening.

There was some discussion on the mumble-server to try and organize a regular public discussion round about topics like PoW vs PoS between some of the more knowledgeable people on the subject with opposing opinions. I believe Dan Larimer proposed a similar idea himself and the discussion with Sunny King seems to be one of the first results of that. Would it be possible then to organize a similar public mumble-session like discussion with someone from the Ethereum team? Might be a good chance to address at least some of the FUD you've been referring to or at the very least clear up some misunderstandings.

[charleshoskinson]

Charles, 1>Sounds good. I look forward to the another panel discussion with you three plus David Johnston. 2> Anthony and Vitalik have been being my close friends before the Ethereum project, they will be well taken care of during their staying in China. I look forward to seeing five friends from Ethereum team tomorrow. I have arranged my other Chinese friends who are planning on the trips around China with Vitalik. No Worries.

Also give my personal thanks to Chen Hou Wu for his amazing work on PyEthereum. Bo, you have been a good friend as well as a great resource for the Chinese cryptocurrency community.

There's no question you Ethereum folks are getting all dressed up. I sure hope there's somewhere to go...something behind it all. I think it's possible for a company/project to succeed in this space with a lot less than what you're putting into it. But good luck and I'm rooting for you.

Thanks I really appreciate it and I hope Bitshares provides as much data and code as Bitcoin has.



I neglected to mention that I also named the company after a helmsley poem:

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Although it seems that the I3 brand is being absorbed into the Bitshares brand.

[boshen1011]

Bo, we should do another panel like the one in Miami at some point in the future. Also thanks for agreeing to show Vitalik around China. Try to keep him out of trouble.

Charles, 1>Sounds good. I look forward to the another panel discussion with you three plus David Johnston. 2> Anthony and Vitalik have been being my close friends before the Ethereum project, they will be well taken care of during their staying in China. I look forward to seeing five friends from Ethereum team tomorrow. I have arranged my other Chinese friends who are planning on the trips around China with Vitalik. No Worries. 3> Our development team has been working very hard and doing great job under Dan's leadership. Thank you for your suggestions.

[donkeypong]

There's no question you Ethereum folks are getting all dressed up. I sure hope there's somewhere to go...something behind it all. I think it's possible for a company/project to succeed in this space with a lot less than what you're putting into it. But good luck and I'm rooting for you.

[charleshoskinson]

Good response, thanks. Comments:

I think making asic-proof mining is a dead end, people don't realize ethereum team think its not so this causes FUD about ethereum preferring centralization which is clearly nonsense.

On the flip side I think it causes FUD when you say "Bitshares is an economic experiment" when you are referring to Bitshares X. That's our fault for renaming the concepts but Me and .p2p are both basically clones of existing dacs

It's my understanding what sergio lerner will review toolkit code (found 5 out of the 10 top bitcoin security vulnerabilities)

Of course I'm referring to the original bitshares experiment that I suppose has now become Bitshares X, toast. But to also be fair no one has ever tried Dan's DAC business model thus the new Bitshares concept is also an experiment regardless of your concession in that respect. Second, I would recommend having more than a single security expert review your code. Heartbleed is a prime example of the consequences of under-resourced vetting. You've raised millions from the community and in my humble opinion it's worth it to stakeholders of Bitshares X to have greater certainty.

I think making asic-proof mining is a dead end

From a computer science viewpoint this isn't the case. The are ways of making the NRE cost so high that it's impossible to recoup investment.  As for the debate between PoS v PoW, I understand the position of the NxT and Bitshares community and this isn't the thread to discuss it. We've been deeply exploring a PoW/PoS hybrid for a few months now alongside other topics like scalability. Eli Ben-Sasson and Dr. Green have some great ideas about SCIP (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRcPReUpkcU) (http://www.scipr-lab.org/) (Great paper: http://www.scipr-lab.org/system/files/csnark-20130815.pdf).

At the end of the day, we all agree that there needs to be blockchain heterogeneity. Whether it is accomplished by a network of interconnected application specific blockchains, a well designed masterchain with lightweight nodes aggregating minichains forged with new cryptographic primitives or via bitcoin with some sort of sidechain scheme remains to be determined by both market forces and the implementation details of the design philosophy. The really important concept is making sure everything is open sourced, subject to community review and packaged in a way that is easy to understand to onboard new minds quickly. This is the reason why we are building the cryptocurrency research group, starting a new peer reviewed journal and investing heavily into onboarding academia.

[yellowecho]

OOOoo man, I'm very excited about this.  I have a lot of love and respect for SunnyKing and Bytemaster so I'm very much looking forward to hearing them discuss their different approaches.

[liondani]

I've always believed Bitshares has great potential, which is why I was one of the founders of Invictus, my name is on the original whitepaper and I helped Invictus receive its first round of VC investment from Bitfund.pe. I also believe that like Bitcoin, Bitshares is an economic experiment that requires a great deal of market testing prior to making claims about what is possible, which was why I recruited Dr. Charles Evans who originally came from the Bitcoin Education Project (another venture I started with Drs. Brian Goss and Nikos Bentinitis) and Emanuele Costa- an Italian quant from England.

It seems Bitshares is currently most handicapped by poor execution and a lack of development methodology like SCRUM. There also still doesn't seem to be significant cryptographic talent on the team after all these months to review the code that will eventually be trusted with millions in wealth. We recruited Drs. Koblitz and Merkle amongst others to assist us on the Ethereum side and I'd highly encourage the Bitshares team to consider someone like Peter Todd at the very least to sculpt their efforts.

[toast]

Good response, thanks. Comments:

We think trying to makr asic-proof mining is a dead end, that doesn't mean we are right and people don't realize ethereum team doesn't agree so this causes FUD about ethereum preferring centralization which is clearly nonsense.

On the flip side I think it causes FUD when you say "Bitshares is an economic experiment" when you are referring to Bitshares X. That's our fault for renaming the concepts but Me and .p2p are both basically clones of existing dacs

It's my understanding what sergio lerner will review toolkit code (found 5 out of the 10 top bitcoin security vulnerabilities)

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk