I voted "No" because I want to believe the Waves' lead Sasha is sincere inspite of my points that I think selling an ICO is normally illegal (e.g. if not blacklisting non-accredited USA investors).
However I also think he is trying to get the money from the ICO, so although I don't think it is only/just a money grab, I do think it is a money grab more than it is a serious attempt to achieve all the goals. I believe he would like to hire some devs and achieve the goals but I don't think he will achieve the goals.
So I almost voted yes, except for the word "just" (i.e. 'only') in the poll question.
Topic: Is Waves trying to pull a fast one? (Read 1000 times)
Could be another LISK type situation but we will never know until both are trading after the ICO is over.
Both sound like they could be very useful but the biggest scams are based on a principle that would/could work if not run by a scammer.
Both sound like they could be very useful but the biggest scams are based on a principle that would/could work if not run by a scammer.
not touching it
What if it turns out Charles is right? Kushti is an acquaintance of Sasha that much we know. However representing Kushti as a consultant/advisor was/is misleading. It presumes that Kushti is involved in the decision making process and the coding process. Whereas if you read what Kushti wrote. It is up to Waves people to figure out how to make the platform work. And acording to Kushti the platform IS NOT READY to work, and needs lots in order to vet it.
The Waves thread represented their project as Kushti was working on it. In reality Kushti is an acquaintance of Sasha, and they had a conversation or two about Scorex. That does not equal advising or consulting.
Charles is right to distance his organization from Waves. There could be serious legal issues regarding Waves ICO.
The Waves thread represented their project as Kushti was working on it. In reality Kushti is an acquaintance of Sasha, and they had a conversation or two about Scorex. That does not equal advising or consulting.
Charles is right to distance his organization from Waves. There could be serious legal issues regarding Waves ICO.
Charles,
So, instead of helping the first project that can put Scorex on the map (in some way, already did) you try and sabotage it. (great business decision)
Why? because of a miscommunication that could have been resolved, many weeks before the ICO launch, but instead, found it neccessary to release the information, right at that time.
You say no IOHK employees will be collaborating "IN ANY CAPACITY", yet according to Sasha, Kushti and maybe a one or two others will be advising.
One of you is wrong and if it's you, then you will have misrepresented the facts (lied), with a clear intent to sabotage the WAVES ICO and its' investors. Do you still maintain this position? Show me I am wrong? I really don't like my money being f*cked with.
If it turns out it is you that's wrong, then you owe us WAVES investors an apology.
So, instead of helping the first project that can put Scorex on the map (in some way, already did) you try and sabotage it. (great business decision)
Why? because of a miscommunication that could have been resolved, many weeks before the ICO launch, but instead, found it neccessary to release the information, right at that time.
You say no IOHK employees will be collaborating "IN ANY CAPACITY", yet according to Sasha, Kushti and maybe a one or two others will be advising.
One of you is wrong and if it's you, then you will have misrepresented the facts (lied), with a clear intent to sabotage the WAVES ICO and its' investors. Do you still maintain this position? Show me I am wrong? I really don't like my money being f*cked with.
If it turns out it is you that's wrong, then you owe us WAVES investors an apology.
It's like being around a gaggle of women here sometimes. For me, it's binary.
1 - it will be profitable
0 - I will have a negative ROI
I'm leaning toward 1. Next....
Btw, New Money ICO just launched:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-new-money-the-itunes-of-blockchain-solcert-ico-launch-april-14th-2016-1433069
1 - it will be profitable
0 - I will have a negative ROI
I'm leaning toward 1. Next....
Btw, New Money ICO just launched:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-new-money-the-itunes-of-blockchain-solcert-ico-launch-april-14th-2016-1433069
So bring it back to the Op, this ICO seems rushed.
ICO seems rushed cause Charles Hotkinson posted he doesn't like it
I voted yes just for the fun of it.THIS WAVE IS RUSHED !!
It has came to my attention that project with the most fud have risen the most like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Dash, Waves now etc.
And where is viral, paycoin, etc?
Ok we are getting somewhere. And as evidenced by Charles, there have been claims that were not true.
So bring it back to the Op, this ICO seems rushed. And the fact that they have made some claims without fact checking should be a red flag.
Yeah! Scorex is not production ready. Alex(kushti)'s job is to work on Scorex (through IOHK). As far as I grasp this, Waves is using Scorex (open-source) for their own purpose -- they like the code and the approach. They will have to make it production ready indeed. Sasha and Alex know each other, thus his friend is consulting. Doesn't mean that he has to endorse the/an ICO. He's working for IOHK after all, this is not his main project apparently, and an official collaboration has not been established. Naturally this also means that he has to comply with Charles Hoskinsons' approach.
Lotta noise about... what? ; D
So bring it back to the Op, this ICO seems rushed. And the fact that they have made some claims without fact checking should be a red flag.
Another post from me, now on "production readiness". (...)
Yeah! Scorex is not production ready. Alex(kushti)'s job is to work on Scorex (through IOHK). As far as I grasp this, Waves is using Scorex (open-source) for their own purpose -- they like the code and the approach. They will have to make it production ready indeed. Sasha and Alex know each other, thus his friend is consulting. Doesn't mean that he has to endorse the/an ICO. He's working for IOHK after all, this is not his main project apparently, and an official collaboration has not been established. Naturally this also means that he has to comply with Charles Hoskinsons' approach.
Lotta noise about... what? ; D
It has came to my attention that project with the most fud have risen the most like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Dash, Waves now etc.
Another post from me, now on "production readiness". (...)
Yeah! Scorex is not production ready. Alex(kushti)'s job is to work on Scorex (through IOHK). As far as I grasp this, Waves is using Scorex (open-source) for their own purpose -- they like the code and the approach. They will have to make it production ready indeed.
Sasha and Alex know each other, thus his friend is advising. Doesn't mean that he has to endorse the/an ICO. He's working for IOHK after all, this is not his main project apparently, and an official collaboration has not been established. Naturally this also means that he has to comply with Charles Hoskinsons' approach. If Charles doesn't want him listed as an advisor/whatever, he can't be listed.
Lotta noise about... what? ; D
kushti is here (writing from a some place in Russia, yes).
First, some historical points. Scorex was started in Nov, 2014 as kinda funny project. To that moment, I spent few months working for Nxt. As you may know, Nxt prevents forking with closing code not released into production yet and also by somewhat terrible licensing(since 1.5?). Anyway, it has a lot of forks, and some of them with very interesting ideas (e.g. BURST).
To have thing open to the extreme I've published Scorex under CC0(Public Domain) license, so everyone can do literally anything with the code.
Since last autumn development of Scorex is subsidized by IOHK, and since Feb I'm a Research Fellow and Scorex project director in IOHK Research.
-------
Well, Scorex(as well as papers publicly published) could be used in any project. That surely does not mean collaboration with IOHK. However, we would like to get issues on core functionality to be reported to resolve and also (and especially) pull requests.
Me & Sasha, Charles & Sasha, and three of us had some conversations after Sasha's decision to build Waves on top of Scorex. No any collaboration has been established to the moment as a result. And that is surely up to Charles.
I do not endorse neither oppose Waves ICO. I do not have much technical details, and I'm not competent in other topics.
First, some historical points. Scorex was started in Nov, 2014 as kinda funny project. To that moment, I spent few months working for Nxt. As you may know, Nxt prevents forking with closing code not released into production yet and also by somewhat terrible licensing(since 1.5?). Anyway, it has a lot of forks, and some of them with very interesting ideas (e.g. BURST).
To have thing open to the extreme I've published Scorex under CC0(Public Domain) license, so everyone can do literally anything with the code.
Since last autumn development of Scorex is subsidized by IOHK, and since Feb I'm a Research Fellow and Scorex project director in IOHK Research.
-------
Well, Scorex(as well as papers publicly published) could be used in any project. That surely does not mean collaboration with IOHK. However, we would like to get issues on core functionality to be reported to resolve and also (and especially) pull requests.
Me & Sasha, Charles & Sasha, and three of us had some conversations after Sasha's decision to build Waves on top of Scorex. No any collaboration has been established to the moment as a result. And that is surely up to Charles.
I do not endorse neither oppose Waves ICO. I do not have much technical details, and I'm not competent in other topics.
Another post from me, now on "production readiness".
It is hard to develop a database engine. Jan Kotek is a brilliant dev undoubtly but there's no stable MapDB release around after few years of active development,
Cryptography isn't just hard, its a mess. It is really hard to implement a primitive properly(!) (e.g. a signature scheme). And even a perfect implementation cant' save against improper usage or bad randomness. Things are much harder when we're talking about design and implementation of cryptographic protocols.
A cryptocurrency can dev go nuts. It is a crazy mix of many hard-to-develop things. And if millions of users put billions collectively at stake, software behind that must be polished like a diamond. Unfortunately, amongst thousands of coins(few IPOs to be declared daily on this forum) there are only 1.5 seriously validated systems(so Bitcoin, after few years of issues fixing, see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures, and partly Ethereum).
So Scorex was declared to be not ready for a production use. Since 1.1.0 modular design is there, so a consensus as well as transactional modules are to be injected into core. Since 1.2.0 only core is to be called Scorex, and our first testnet application running on Permacoin consensus protocol is being called Lagonaki.
Let's take a closer look on readiness of modules:
1. Core: no any protection against any DDoS atm. Peer blacklisting is just done(in 1.2.3). Networking layer is quite raw. Other things in the core are seem to be pretty OK.
2. Nxt-like consensus module: unlike Nxt, "effective balance" == balance and that is trivially insecure. There are many small tweaks in Nxt not copied into the module(I am pretty unsure all of them are adding up to the protocol security though).
3. Qora-like consensus module: again "effective balance" == balance. Aside of that, algo is copied pretty precisely.
4. Permacoin consensus module(https://github.com/ScorexProject/Permacoin-consensus): there are some open question in the protocol design itself (see my paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07926 ). Our implementation isn't tested on really huge datasets.
5. Simplest transactional module. Simplest tokens transfers (like Nxt payments) and nothing more. Protection against double-inclusion is quite stupid(account nonces like in Ethereum are needed).
So yes, all the components must not be used as provided in a popular cryptocurrency. And I'll eventually fix only core issues. I'm going to implement next few modules(more innovative this time) and a new testnet application with working name Ergaki (https://scorex-dev.groups.io/g/main/message/3?p=,,,20,0,0,0:Created,0,,20,1,0,1996315 ).
But Waves doesn't need anything except of core probably. They will build own transactional and consensus modules. Then it is Waves business to prove those modules are shine like a diamond.
P.S. On a team's photo, I was offline for those days, so do not really know what happened. I need to have another call with Sasha to clarify.
It is hard to develop a database engine. Jan Kotek is a brilliant dev undoubtly but there's no stable MapDB release around after few years of active development,
Cryptography isn't just hard, its a mess. It is really hard to implement a primitive properly(!) (e.g. a signature scheme). And even a perfect implementation cant' save against improper usage or bad randomness. Things are much harder when we're talking about design and implementation of cryptographic protocols.
A cryptocurrency can dev go nuts. It is a crazy mix of many hard-to-develop things. And if millions of users put billions collectively at stake, software behind that must be polished like a diamond. Unfortunately, amongst thousands of coins(few IPOs to be declared daily on this forum) there are only 1.5 seriously validated systems(so Bitcoin, after few years of issues fixing, see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures, and partly Ethereum).
So Scorex was declared to be not ready for a production use. Since 1.1.0 modular design is there, so a consensus as well as transactional modules are to be injected into core. Since 1.2.0 only core is to be called Scorex, and our first testnet application running on Permacoin consensus protocol is being called Lagonaki.
Let's take a closer look on readiness of modules:
1. Core: no any protection against any DDoS atm. Peer blacklisting is just done(in 1.2.3). Networking layer is quite raw. Other things in the core are seem to be pretty OK.
2. Nxt-like consensus module: unlike Nxt, "effective balance" == balance and that is trivially insecure. There are many small tweaks in Nxt not copied into the module(I am pretty unsure all of them are adding up to the protocol security though).
3. Qora-like consensus module: again "effective balance" == balance. Aside of that, algo is copied pretty precisely.
4. Permacoin consensus module(https://github.com/ScorexProject/Permacoin-consensus): there are some open question in the protocol design itself (see my paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07926 ). Our implementation isn't tested on really huge datasets.
5. Simplest transactional module. Simplest tokens transfers (like Nxt payments) and nothing more. Protection against double-inclusion is quite stupid(account nonces like in Ethereum are needed).
So yes, all the components must not be used as provided in a popular cryptocurrency. And I'll eventually fix only core issues. I'm going to implement next few modules(more innovative this time) and a new testnet application with working name Ergaki (https://scorex-dev.groups.io/g/main/message/3?p=,,,20,0,0,0:Created,0,,20,1,0,1996315 ).
But Waves doesn't need anything except of core probably. They will build own transactional and consensus modules. Then it is Waves business to prove those modules are shine like a diamond.
P.S. On a team's photo, I was offline for those days, so do not really know what happened. I need to have another call with Sasha to clarify.
So was there a claim of kushti support?
Did it turn out to be true?
Did it turn out to be true?
As far as I can see Sasha and Alex(kushti) know themselves IRL, Kushti is consulting them.
Charles has stirred this up to a degree that led to a lot of confusion.
Also, various people: who else?
You can read about this here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/iohk-research-and-scorex-are-not-working-with-waves-1434851 and understand Kushtis word for yourselfs.
So was there a claim of kushti support?
Did it turn out to be true?
Did it turn out to be true?
You know damn well what I'm talking about. You have posted all over the thread by charles H.
But to others wondering what the hell I'm talking about, go read the other thread.
Could you please elaborate on that? Support from whom?
But to others wondering what the hell I'm talking about, go read the other thread.
The bottom line is that they have made claims about support from various people that were not true.
Could you please elaborate on that? Support from whom?
That's exactly why I'm asking, I know what you're referring to but I have no idea what you mean.
I don't know of any claims of support from various people that were not true.
Or I could go buy lotto tickets
If you want a safer investment, get some more Bitcoin. If tou are willing to accept high risk/potential high return scenario, jump on board with something like Waves.
You know damn well what I'm talking about. You have posted all over the thread by charles H.
But to others wondering what the hell I'm talking about, go read the other thread.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14512127
Could you please elaborate on that? Support from whom?
But to others wondering what the hell I'm talking about, go read the other thread.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14512127
The bottom line is that they have made claims about support from various people that were not true.
Could you please elaborate on that? Support from whom?
If you want a safer investment, get some more Bitcoin. If you are willing to accept high risk/potential high return scenario, jump on board with something like Waves.
The bottom line is that they have made claims about support from various people that were not true.
Could you please elaborate on that? Support from whom?
Jump to: