Topic: Charles Hoskinson at Coinscrum on Blockchain 3.0 (Read 2969 times)

Charles,
   Outstanding presentation. Are you already familiar with Dash DAO at a protocol level (not the hype/FUD)? Worth a look.

Pablo.

You got some nerve though..

You put your full name in the topic title then posted nothing but a link to a video.
like come on man.. why do you expect that to mean something to us all here ?
It reeks of arrogance pal..

and your playing dumb with your "productive" comment is a joke  

I still have no fucking clue why i should know who you are.
Or why you create topics like these over & over in the last while with your full name in them.

Here is a productive comment.. your idea is dumb.
No matter if you are The Legendary Infamous Mighty CHARLES HOSKINS or not.  

Well, that escalated quickly.

Charleshoskinson is Scammer.
Steal money from Japanese people.

Charles sell at incredible High price 'ADACOIN'.

CARDANO Foundation is Scam company.
charles is Main Partners.
https://cardanofoundation.org/
http://cardano.io/about.html

IOHK is Scam company.

'Attain Corporation' is Japanese Scam company.
charles is Main Partners.
http://attaincorp.co.jp/en/company/


Everyone Do not be fooled.

can not forgive.
You are hated by ALLJapanese!

You apologize to the people who bought ADACOIN.

Charles what do you think?

Mark Lamb's point to you is that you don't have to own them for any longer than the tiny time window to complete your transaction. Bitpay makes this time window extremely miniscule for payees.


I have to hold fiat for a time window to use VISA either as a payer or payee. Fiat is also debased. Bitcoin is debased. Same smell.


The typical users of Bitcoin are the miners and they often sell immediately. Holders of Bitcoin are invested for speculative gains. Ditto those who invest in stocks denominated in fiat. Both are debased. Even stocks are debased by new issuance.

The debasement cost is charged to the investors in Bitcoin and to the general population with fiat. But if Bitcoin becomes widely adopted, then the effect will be the same as for fiat.

But none of that is relevant to Mark's point, which is that transacting can be orthogonal to investing for those who want it to be, and thus the debasement effect is the same as for fiat w.r.t. to transaction cost.


The cost of PoW need not be any higher than the transaction fees if the transactions usage is sufficient hashrate to secure the coin.

Agreed Satoshi's design centralizes. I claim to have a solution that remains PoW. Claim. Not yet published. You guys might be working on formalizing DPoS or other PoS variants. It's all good. Let's better the state-of-the-art.

The argument about PoS versus PoW is a complex one because for example not only does it depend on application (as you pointed out) but also attack modes may or may not be realistic. Also PoW is still under development and for now many argue that PoW is also centralized and not trustless. So I think we just have to see how it all plays out.

I'm not looking to get into a debate, but I agree with Charles on this one.

Is it possible to send bitcoin without owning them? Bitcoin is a buy in system. You have to own them to use it. You don't have to own shares in your CC company to use VISA.

My point is that this cost is encumbered by the holders of bitcoin who are also the typical users of the network. It's fixed and doesn't have any parameters guiding it. There ought to be more reasonable ways to achieve decentralization than this approach especially considering that most of the common uses of bitcoin collapse the trust model to a centralized actor such as Bitpay or exchanges.

I have to agree. The coinbase debasement is a fixed cost of maintaining the network: it's like the cost of (say) buying a building and using it as a storehouse for (say) selling books online. Whether the blocks are empty of transactions, full of transactions or somewhere in between, the debasement's the same.

The variable cost of the transaction is the tx fee, just like the main variable cost in the above example is the books for the shop's inventory. In standard economics, these two classes of costs are treated as different in kind for a very good reason. For one, an economic actor has to shoulder the fixed costs or quit entirely; in contradistinction, variable costs are more easily controlled.

Sure, someone can get clever and claim that fixed costs are thinly-disguised variable costs because someone can bug out if he or she wants to. But that's a conflation similar to claiming that there's no real difference between durable consumer goods and non-durable consumer goods because both wear out. Even though houses have a finite useful life just as gasoline does, even though the useful-life quantities differ, there's still a categorical difference between getting a mortgage for a house (borrowing to acquire the house) and putting your gasoline on a credit card (borrowing to acquire the gasoline.)

Now why should transactors consider the variable cost - the tx fee - to send Bitcoin? Because all of them have to shoulder the fixed cost (the coinbase debasement) whether they transact or not. They have to shoulder it no matter what. So how can the fixed cost be relevant to their decisions on whether or not to send Bitcoin? It's only relevant - from a decision-relevant standpoint - to whether or not they cash out their Bitcoin and (prolly) go back to fiat. You can't escape debasement costs without leaving the Bitcoin economy entirely. That's why it's a fixed cost.

The question, "what do I have to do (or not do) to avoid that cost?" does help in keeping yer eye on the tree rather than on the forest. Note that the answers are different for each type of cost, which does show that they belong in different categories.   

I agree with that. I am cross-disciplinary between both, but hit my ceiling abruptly on the math and cryptography, e.g.:

https://steemit.com/steemit/@anonymint/improving-steem-s-rankings-to-cater-to-diverse-content-preferences#@complexring/re-anonymint-improving-steem-s-rankings-to-cater-to-diverse-content-preferences-20160717t234144491z

This is a bit more productive. The key guys is to understand that you don't have to disagree or agree with everything I say. Rather it's a discussion with various viewpoints all intersecting at points and diverging in others. This is how we make progress as a space.

As for coding, the show me the code crowd is a bit exclusive. The best minds in cryptography are often terrible programmers. Programming is a skill set like painting or writing. You're implementing ideas. The ideas have to come from somewhere.

Easy transference of virtual tokenization is a need physical data tokens can't deliver without restating them digitally--why bother with the extra step?

Smooth didn't inform me he had become so bearish. Is this why he apparently backed off his Monero/PoW dogma and joined Steem's DPoS marketing experiment? I am thinking (in addition to the effect of earning $10 million for doing nothing but mine a stealthmine at minimal cost+effort), that smooth is interested in any experiment that can popularize block chains and find a wide-scale use case for them.


I rebutted that in your observer thread.


Not with my design.


DEX can be done another way, not only via mining. See the "cut and choose" discussion I participated in Bitcoin Technical Discussion forum with TierNolan and jl777.


I emphatically disagree! Bloggers are earning CC tokens right now on Steemit with 5 second signup.

Btw, for readers who don't know it, silver is often mined nearer to the surface of the earth than gold, thus is more accessible to individuals.


The electrical power consumption of PoW block chains should become miniscule relative to the transacted value. That is a very fundamental and key factoid. I am sure Charles knows that or is paying attention to my point.


Incorrect. We are extracting much more energy in the form of transactional value and network effects.

On a more serious Note, skimmed the video.

It almost seems like the OP would like an Artificial Intelligence to govern and manage the blockchain in version 3.
IMO,
Until you can include Empathy and Compassion into an AI, the results of such a system will always be disaster.
Pure Logic is great , however Emotions make life worth living and can keep a Man from being a Monster,
if your control system is meant to simulate a human without feelings, A monster it will be.  


 

I agree, you should quit being a frustrated troll and retire.  

 

FYI:
You walked right into that one.

I'm starting to become more Smooth-level bearish on the ability to create beneficial decentralized coins for a few reasons:

1)  The subject I was talking about where any succesful cryptocurrency will have standardized alias systems, and the government will create their own alias system scaffolding and force everyone to route transactions through it, making whatever you do in the base layer pointless because you will end up with governmentcoin no matter what.

2)  The re-realization about what Ted Kaczynski said about technology being a net negative for freedom and how that inevitably applies to cryptocurrency (see above example)

3)  The fact that any open loop system will always be bottlenecked by the centralized fabs such as TSMC, Global Foundries, Samsung, and Intel.  This means no matter what you do, you will always have the equivalent of four "pools".

4)  The problem that the inherent value of the blockchain is entirely derived from the ability of everyone who uses the currency being able to mine it, because the main purpose of PoW is to create a decentralized exchange.  You remove the decentralized exchange aspect and you have nothing.  This is why things like defeating ASICs is important, yet maybe impossible.

5)  The ability for people to do things like mine silver will always be far more accesible in the end game than any cryptocurrency, meaning the superior altcoin everyone is trying to create already exists in the real world and it's called silver.

6)  As I stated before, the best example of an optimal currency that isn't just an instrument of debt or IOU would be "energon" from the transformers cartoon - blocks of energy that can be redeemed at full face value at any time regardless of externalities.  This is why in lieu of such a system, the world converged on the oil dollar.  The ideal currency will always have metastability, the ability to do work.  Without such high metastibility, the world would converge on just blocks of scarce matter, since matter is also energy, and that's where you get gold and silver.

7)  Once you read the above statement, the fact that we are dumping energy into cryptocurrency instead of extracing it to do work really makes you scratch your head.

In the video, Charles explains the range of use case tradeoffs, which may justify in some cases the deployment of proof-of-stake. I don't think I can refute him unequivocally. I think this is an ongoing R&D issue. Charles did absolutely agree that some use cases require a trustless, decentralized model (even though yet afaik no one has shown how to achieve one with block chain consensus long-term due to the power-law distribution in nature ... but I am hoping to show an innovation in that area).

This is a high level academic discussion. I applaud it and wish we all could lift ourselves up to such a level.

Didn't watch the video yet, but since proof of stake is a permissioned ledger and not a valid decentralized network, there is technically no "blockchain 2.0" yet, let alone a 3.0.  There was my idea for the next evolution forward for decentralized coins:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/an-idea-for-a-bitcoin-scaling-alternative-to-ln-1550027

I'll quote you instead of the troll who insists on spamming every thread with blue text (which in Internet etiquette is the same as shouting with ALL CAPS).

He wasn't fired. Per his own explanation, an approximate summary is he founded the company and when his ideas for the funding of the development and governance were at odds with Vitalik at al, they mutually decided he would resign in the best interests of not having ongoing stifling dissension or that Charles could not allow himself to be a party to the lack of governance. Reading between the lines, I am under the impression that the boys wanted all the control and they didn't want their budget to be under strict scrutiny by a governance model similar to a board of directors.

Charles is a very good speaker, conceptualizer, and organizer. His IOHK attempting to do important research and development in block chain technology and models. That he was involved in the early stages of Bitshares and Ethereum is not objectively a correlation to what those projects became after he was gone. And those projects have not been entirely a waste (and it is not 100% certain/objective they've failed), as some important knowledge has come out of them.

To those who have no respect at all for what Charles is doing, then I think you have no respect at all for a meritocracy (and you're probably a jealous asshat, lol). Although some might feel jaded that he gained some wealth on the residual tokens he may have held from those two major projects, it is not clear to me that Charles was the one driving the stages of those projects (even in a derivative sense) that some might disagree with.

I was actually quite impressed with this recent video because Charles explained he is very rational on the issue of trustless decentralization. The only issue I had with the video is him talking down to Mark Lamb, calling him 'son' when it was clear that Mark had a strong point that at least deserved mutual respect while being debated. Perhaps Charles had a counter point also, but I think the debate needed more calm interaction to get more clarity. At one point Charles did offer Mark the choice that seemed to fit Mark's model, but somehow both of them veered away from the opportunity to form an agreement and spiraled off into a shouting match. That was unfortunate but these misunderstandings can happen in the heat of the moment. Nobody is immune.

I was also impressed with his use of the vocabulary word 'extemporaneous'. Caused me to remember my father the attorney. Charles appears to have a sharp mind and cross-discipline (polymathy) ability. I can't make any judgement yet about his skills in actual coding or the coordination thereof, because I don't have enough interaction and data.

That Charles has he claims amassed and is coordinating a development group of 27 experts, is a potentially very valuable resource for block chain research and development. I say 'potentially' because I have very limited interaction with his company so far (only the messages on this forum and including some with kushti), so I can't really form any judgement one way or the other.

No one is perfectly skilled in all areas, and most certainly including myself. We learn how to complement each others' skill set. Perhaps the most valuable trait, is the ability to learn from our mistakes and admit them to ourself. It is hard to do, but it the most productive. I am thinking specifically of some mistakes I've made in past months on these forums in terms of forming rash judgements out of frustration. It is much easier to have an open constructive mind when not being continually frustrated by the medium and/or circumstances. I bet even a troll could benefit from this, if he/she hasn't shattered his/her mirror. Mutually respectful, cordial, and not disingenuous disagreement/debate can be a constructive activity.

disingenuous
 adjective dis·in·gen·u·ous \ˌdis-in-ˈjen-yə-wəs, -yü-əs-\
: not truly honest or sincere : giving the false appearance of being honest or sincere

In the context of a technical debate, disingenuous means to not be sincere in acknowledging the valid technical points of the other side. It means using trolling tactics to pretend the other side hasn't made any valid point whatsoever. It often is objectively visible when the troll is SHOUTING that all the experts are wrong and unable to make an absolutely convincing argument to justify such an unlikely slamdunk. Typically someone who knows confidently that all the experts are wrong, will not feel a need to shout and will be quite smug and content with simply stating their case calmly once (and let time do the job of teaching). It can also be a side-effect of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome.


P.S. when professional athletes become too old to compete and become a liability to their team, they retire. When old programmers become too old to code, perhaps we should also retire and not hang on as frustrated trolls. Linus said, "talk is cheap, show me the code". In this context, I am thinking that if one has stopped coding, they too far removed from the details. Being productive producing code has a way of satiating one's sense of accomplishment, eliminating the need to say something when one really had nothing to say of value.

Lol, you know the warm welcoming attitude of this forum is why I post here. Thanks guys for all the kind words.