Until I receive a formal apology from sasha in this thread for calling me delusional and then telling people to Google my history to see how I'm a "bad actor", there is no possibility of collaboration.

My company and its partners will not work with projects or people who personally attack our personnel or management.

I haven't been following waves closely and wasn't even aware they were about to hold an ICO until a friend sent me a link to the ICO page with Alex on it.

I knew that sasha was planning on holding an ICO, but I assumed it was months off as the project still seems to be immature from a governance and personnel standpoint. When I saw that it was imminent and there was a great degree of confusion about who was involved in it, a statement had to be issued clarifying the matter. I first gave Waves an opportunity to do it.

Instead I was called delusional and for people to Google me as if some dark secrets will be discovered. Furthermore, my statements have been met by pumping accounts saying I'm trying to extort the project or posting links about me getting pushed out of ethereum.

Alex confirmed my statements. So tell me sasha, how am I delusional? Also please tell us what you want people to look for when the Google me? Could you post a list of fact and evidence right here?

Anyone performing DD on this project should take this kind of conduct into consideration before committing. It certainty took me from the friend and love to help out camp to a cease and desist mindset.  

This is why I got so angry. There is no formal relationship. Waves should have not listed Alex as a team member. Alex nor I were consulted in this decision. Using someone's name or work to raise millions of dollars is a serious concern and should not be taken lightly.

Scorex isn't designed to be a full and secure cryptocurrency. It's a great platform for rapid experimentation, which is badly needed in academia and industry. In fact in the announcement of scorex, there was some text criticizing ICOs. It's one of the reasons I loved the project when I found it last year.

This is not a debate about open source. Not once has anyone said scorex cannot be used. It's an argument about iohk personnel being represented as employees or partners of another Venture for the purpose of raising millions of dollars. It is something that I cannot permit. I asked privately for it to stop and then had to escalate after the waves project continued to imply via proxies a relationship.

I assume it will stop now so I wish the project well and the best of luck.

Thanks for posting this. I'll be in corfu in may if you want to see some of the stuff we are working on.

Kushti is a member of the IOHK team and IS NOT a member of the Waves team.

Alex is the core developer of Scorex and an employee of my company. Again as a PSA, Waves has no relationship with Scorex or IOHK. Any representation of this is a lie and if it continues IOHK will send a formal cease and desist.

Your organization first added Alex as a team member of Waves. He was not and I had to ask sasha to remove him from the page. Next your team is posting IOHK whitepapers as technical justification for Waves https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4efc2e/waves_ico_ensures_maximum_transparency_through/

It has come to my attention that Waves is representing the scorex codebase and our whitepapers as their work for the purposes of holding a crowdsale. Iohk has no relationship with Waves. The scorex core developers are iohk employees and will not be collaborating in any capacity with the Waves team. We do NOT endorse their sale or claims.

We cannot stop Waves from using Scorex as a foundation for their project as it is open source; however, none of the Waves team have made any contributions to scorex and again the lead developer of scorex will not collaborate with Waves.

World bitcoin network has some really good youtube guides for noobs

There is an enormous amount of free content online discussing bitcoin from the tutorials on the World Bitcoin Network, my class, the princeton class, the Nicosia MOOC, Andreas's book, Bitcoin meetups holding workshops, and probably a legion of things I'm not even aware of at the moment.

As for services and things like escrow, I have always made it a policy not to endorse any Bitcoin company because then I'd lose my objectivity and second so many of them go rogue that some of my students would eventually use a bad service and their loses were from my recommendation. Furthermore, I'm running a company at the moment and I have very little time to produce CCL content. After our R&D division is fully setup, I will allocate some of my schedule towards the second edition of the Udemy course, but honestly man I have a fiduciary obligation to my company to serve its needs first and foremost before pursuing more open source work.

Thanks guys for the kind
Posts.

Thanks for all the hard work getting this written.

This is why we can't have nice things

http://hoskinsoncharles.blogspot.com/2016/01/goodbye-mike-and-some-thoughts-about.html Enjoy and thoughts.

The Foundation's Response https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3zbswe/bitcoin_foundation_where_did_all_the_money_go/

Thoughts are now on Let's Talk Bitcoin

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/how-to-save-or-destroy-the-bitcoin-foundation

Bruno you do bring up a very valid point about execution and accountability. These skills are among the most lacking in the space.

I think there is extremely strong consensus in the Bitcoin community about this opinion, which is why I stated after an audit the community ought to make proposals for a new form of Foundation.

I always get excited when I read a sentence like this one.



Three questions:

• 1) Where are the businesses and programmers going to be sourced from?
• 2) Define ideas more concretely. It's a very vague term.
• 3) Do you have an example platform in mind already? Something like Bitcointalk or more like stackexchange or Quora? Would we need to build this from the ground up or is there something we could use?

 
So there is a fundraising component? What do you have in mind? Something like debating the merit of an idea or the actual mechanics of sourcing funds? Is this a full funding stack or is a line drawn somewhere?


I assume there is an implicit notion of funding the labor via some new, creative and cool means?


An education component is extremely welcome and something I have argued for three years. MOOCs, youtube videos and tutorials are high impact and low cost to make. Meetup groups make excellent distribution and curation engines.


So there is a hierarchy of information flow. A topic and then a flow of conversation about the topic. I suppose it's like a stackexchange model where one has a question and then there are answers (your forum post idea) and then some connection to a chat service where discussions are had around the topic that won't necessarily be preserved.


So you're talking about a more effective platform to manage a decentralized community, vet their ideas and get good ones funded. I'd also love to see a memory in a sense of ideas that have been explored and tried. This notion extends before the founding of Bitcoin. Many of the cipherpunk ideas from the 80s are being revisited with our new technology and still have great merit. It's evident when you look at the Nakamoto Institute's reading list.

I really like what you're on to and its an example of what happens when you say ok let's try to have a meaningful discussion about solving problems instead of just complaining about them. So say you wanted to do this, what would be the next step?

Wouldn't it be cool if you could vote on that agenda? It's a reasonable proposition and it should be debated. That's my overall point. Either make this possible or kill the thing. In terms of the audit, I feel it's the only way to save the org. It is impossible to continue operations with the past unexplored and potential criminal conduct floating around.

Enjoy:

http://hoskinsoncharles.blogspot.com/2015/12/how-to-save-or-destroy-bitcoin.html

Or if you prefer them in Bitcointalk form:

How to Save (Or Destroy) the Bitcoin Foundation
I've been thinking about the Bitcoin Foundation over the last few months. After I left as the first chairman of the education committee back in late 2013, I dismissed the Foundation as a mostly inept attempt by some business interests in the community to gain an edge over their competitors.

The actions of Peter Vessenes and Mark Karpeles alongside the board's indifference to the Foundation's membership as well as the mainstream Bitcoin community made it seem likely that the Foundation would simply go bankrupt and collapse under its own weight like a great battleship built for a war that would never happen and then left to rust in neglect (see I can be poetic too). Sure enough, they are functionally bankrupt having burnt through about 7 million dollars worth of Bitcoin (they even spent a million dollars on that spiffy Amsterdam conference!).

So why the sudden interest after my self-imposed exile? After traveling extensively throughout the world, I've notice that there is still an impression internationally that the Foundation is relevant and in some way represents Bitcoin- especially among the international press. It's not accurate and probably similar in spirit to the headlines stating Bitcoin's CEO has been arrested.

We also have a larger, but somewhat related problem that the blocksize debate has made blatantly clear- governance. It seems nearly impossible to get the community to agree on anything outside of trying to increase adoption and the underlying value of the bitcoin token.

Hence, I think we have an opportunity to solve two problems at once. The Foundation can be productively reborn preventing another media boondoggle and at the same time we have an excellent opportunity to explore new types of governance, algorithmic regulation and social consensus.

So assuming it's somehow a good idea to rebuild the Foundation (I fully agree that there are solid arguments to simply let it burn), let's explore what it would take to do so. As a side-note, I would be equally happy with seeing the Foundation shutdown if it didn't harm the Bitcoin brand and community.

First, the Foundation has lost any form of legitimacy. It's broke because prior leaders looted it. It's undemocratic by forcing out elected board members and replacing them with appointed ones. It's utterly unable to listen to outside opinions and conduct basic affairs such as managing board meetings, elections or produce a viable road-map.

Thus these issues need to be corrected before any future progress can be made. So let's start with an independent audit of the Foundation's books, relationships and accomplishments. Hire an auditor paid from an outside pool of capital (hell I'll throw some money into that fund) and give him a mandate to do the following:


Build a timeline of all major events since the Foundations inception
Provide detailed financial records on the Foundation's expenses and income
Annotate all business relationships the Foundation has had since its inception and their association (if any) to current and past board members and executive directors
Provide an HR database of all personnel that the foundation has retained and their compensation. Also build a social graph showing the relationship between the Foundation employees and the board members past and present including if they worked for or with the board members in previous or current ventures
List the major efforts the Foundation has embarked upon and rate their success based upon the Auditor's best judgement and whatever objective metrics can be established
Give each executive director- past and present- an opportunity to write an explanation for the findings of the auditor.
Once drafted, then release the report to the general public- unless criminal conduct is discovered, then first release the evidence to the relevant agencies and let them choose when to release it.

Here's what an audit accomplishes:


It divorces the Foundation from its past by bringing everything out into the light and exposing any corruption from past or present leadership. If anyone is responsible for criminal acts, then they will be exposed and I'd hope prosecuted     
It acts as a basis for the Foundation to re-engage the Bitcoin community. The Foundation can say ok this is what we did wrong so tell us how we can be better in the future?
Those who are asking for the Foundation to be shutdown can now have a fair debate. The audit will provide an independent assessment of where the Foundation has been and what it has accomplished given its resources
At the end of this process, my hope would be for the Foundation to work with the Bitcoin community towards either shutting itself down or some form of reconstruction. The point is that its now done with reason, evidence and consensus instead of a shouting match. In my experience, people get angry when they feel like they've been deceived or aren't being heard. There is a very strong perception in the Bitcoin community that the Foundation has been historically dishonest and deaf. An audit strikes at the heart of the anger.

Second, let's say the Foundation somehow survives an audit and the community -or a wealthy patron(s)- seeks to continue the Foundation's existence, then the next step is to solidify the organization behind a new mission and values. This action is a wonderful opportunity to work with several ventures such as Colony and Boardroom focusing on DAOs and other algorithmically enforced structures of governance. 

But it's natural to ask to what end? I don't think Charles Hoskinson should decide that. More to the point, no one person should. Instead let's make proposals and draft a candidate constitution. Then have the Bitcoin community vote on proposals. In my view, the core value proposition for continuing the Foundation is to experiment with technology that allows for decentralized governance. If the Foundation should continue under an unelected or pseudo-elected board, then just shut it down. We created Bitcoin to get away from these things.

This process could be amazingly beneficial. It- like Bitcoin was and still is-  serves as an experiment driven by a well intended community instead of the mandate of an overlord seeking power or control (also drop Satoshi from the board, it's insulting). We would also gain tangible data on how to discuss controversial ideas within a productive framework with the aim of eventually reaching a community consensus (can you think of any debate Bitcoiners are having right now?). Finally, the community can also explore how to regulate a custodial entity using cryptography instead of trusted founders (wow, think of all those smart contracts and prove of solvency proposals that people have been preaching about- someone call Peter Todd!).

And now comes the objection: But Charles there isn't enough money to do this stuff! And I say: Aren't Mirror, Coinprism and other Bitcoin companies incredibly well funded, and don't they need a good showcase for their tech? Wouldn't the good press and community goodwill serve as excellent advertisement for their platforms?

Money is never the issue. It's vision and the ability to forge partnerships around it. If the current board can't accomplish this task, then fire them or shut the whole thing down. I'm extremely tired of hearing that we can't accomplish something. The entire point of Bitcoin has been doing the stuff that people have been saying we can't do on a consistent basis.

The argument above showcases my primary issue with the Foundation. It just doesn't lead. It lacks any notion of a vision or a purpose. Let's not blame them for it. Let's just install one that benefits the entire community.

Third, let's discuss management and global representation. Traveling around the world, I've had the privilege to meet some exceptional people from Switzerland to Japan. I'm headed to Argentina next month and will have a chance to spend some time with one of the most passionate Bitcoin communities that you can find. It utterly disturbing to see the passive level of commitment that the current (and former) members of the Foundation's leadership have outside of Bruce and a few others. 

There are legions of Bitcoiners who would work with the Foundation full or part time with both enthusiasm and zeal if only given a chance. If the Foundation is going to continue existing, then it should reach out to the existing Bitcoin communities. More specifically, the Bitcoin meetup groups. They are run by passionate volunteers who love this space, the technology and its rich philosophical roots.

The Bitcoin meetup groups are also largely responsible for Bitcoin's growth from a novel technology to a global movement. I'd love to see the Foundation serve as a hub connecting them together and recruiting from within their ranks on a global basis. When people are given a great vision and a purpose, they aren't motivated by money to do work. The open source movement has proven this truth time and again.

Alright, so in conclusion, audit the Foundation, turn over any evidence of criminal conduct to the relevant authorities, draft a constitution via community participation, govern using tech from well funded Bitcoin startups, and link all the Bitcoin meetup groups together to act as the execution engine, talent farm and source of great ideas (See Social Physics).

It's really not that hard to accomplish something great. It just takes vision, persistence, honesty and leadership. If the Foundation has it, then it should survive. If it doesn't, then don't worry it will eventually collapse. 

Cheers,
Axiom