Hoskinson's interview on Lisk

[charleshoskinson]

Enjoy all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIMk-A7L8S4&feature=youtu.be

[1713565837]

1713565837

[1713565837]

1713565837

[1713565837]

1713565837

[tokeweed]

Hello sir.  Lisk has certainly earned some street cred when you came on board.  This is a good for crypto overall.  Ethereum needs the competition.

I hope you guys come with good apps and services in Lisk.  Good luck!

One question tho...  In what ways is Lisk better than Ethereum.

[charleshoskinson]

Haha watch the interview

[tokeweed]

Ok.  Will do that when I get back home.  Things got pretty exciting in crypto again.  ICO's got bigger and bigger and known people are starting to gravitate towards the new and interesting plaforms.

[iamnotback]

Charles, great to see/hear @25min how you bounced back from your partings from both Bitshares and Ethereum, and to see you smiling about it in retrospect. The beach house gathering in Miami that instigated the ETH crowdsale and being hosted in a nice beach house in Bermuda for the TEDtalk sounds fun.

I didn't realize @26min you are doing CC consulting and have cryptographers in-house. I might be seeking a cryptography consultant, and perhaps other CC r&d contracts to offer.

Btw, you may remember from your discussions on BCT in 2013 (with Daniel as well) where AnonyMint was pushing for using Scala, and you mention @27min using Haskell and Scala. Well Shelby now looks somewhat negatively on both of those languages and has been doing some research on creating a new PL:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg14868851#msg14868851
https://gist.github.com/shelby3/3829dbad408c9c043695e006a1581d19

One of the key breakthoughs Shelby designed what he believes is the first solution to Wadler's famous Expression Problem with first-class union types (which Scala doesn't support, but maybe Scala 3 and Haskell can't support as it breaks global type inference).

Btw, proof-of-retrieveably @28:30 looks to be insecure no matter how you design it. It is a fundamentally insoluble proposition that it can't be Sybil attacked. Latency is noisy. TPTB_need_war posted more detailed analysis of why. Any way, I don't have time to dig that up nor go off on that tangent right now.

So @29min Waves raised $15 million just by reselling your open source code.  

Regarding your comments about Lisk @38min, having an M-of-N model of delegates signing a chain seems to me the only way to get consensus on external data feeds without breaking Nash equilibrium. I don't think Ethereum will ever be able to get their consensus to work right and scale. Btw, I recently invented/conceived a new concept for jl777 to check point the M-of-N on the Bitcoin block chain (or any PoW chain). But frankly, I think the game theory for Blockchain 2.0 capabilities is a "can of worms" if there are any external data feeds. This was discussed in great detail in for example the Ethereuem Paradox thread and I am not interested in going off on that tangential discussion now. Suffice that I am thinking Smart Contracts are going to be a clusterfuck of corner cases.

The concept you are proposing for Lisk of modularizing block chain services for apps is interesting. Seems somewhat conceptually technologically related to my vaporware JAMBOX project, although very different marketing demographics strategy.

I really appreciate the marketing tip about meet up groups @ 52:30.

@56min well you know (or maybe you don't) who is almost at Vitalik's level of math/science, and I think more importantly is far beyond Vitalik as an accomplished coder, so I don't think I agree that Lisk can do this without a CEO/CTO of a certain caliber.  I don't know Max, so I can't comment about his capabilities. Apparently someone at Lisk understands how to market a crowdsale. Did you say they raised $10 million? That statement was garbled.

@61min, as for reasons to want to be involved with Lisk, I think you also alluded to earlier that you want to get a chance to do some work on the things you were thought were interesting for Bitshares and Ethereum but weren't able to because you parted. I bet there is also just a slight bit of competitiveness as well, which is a good thing.

@63min I agree we do it for ideological/technological motivation, not just to generate personal wealth. If the leader is not passionate about his project and is only focused on pumping up the market cap, then he won't succeed in producing something that changes the world.

Edit: good to see you are excited and interested in the projects IOHK is working on. We do our best work when we were are inspired. Will be interesting to see your upcoming announcements.

If I had $10 million, I don't know if I would be going to Ukraine to find coders. One thing I learned before from working in the s/w industry in the USA in the past, was to hire the best. Because of the Mythical Man Month communication load, it is always best to have very tight knit group of core devs. I think culture plays a big factor in integration of work styles. But I am open to learning I am wrong. I see Toptal has many programmers from all over the world and certifies them. I think other than open source contributions, choosing a co-developer is like choosing a wife or girl friend. You really need to click. Don't get me wrong, as I live outside the USA currently and I have fantasized about collaborating with programmers outside the USA, but I haven't found the same mindset yet abroad (perhaps closest so far has been UK) as I had experienced working with top developers in the USA in the 1980s and 1990s. Maybe I just haven't been exposed to the cream of the crop abroad yet.

I couldn't imagine managing 27 developers as you do at IOHK. I'd never get any coding done myself. It would be managerial and code review overhead. Perhaps it is better to contract out certain tasks.

Oh btw, it is nice to finally learn in retrospect that you were against the high burn rate of Ethereum. I had thought you were along for the gluttony ride. And I was also happy to learn from this video and more explicitly in another video I saw some months ago, where you made it clear that you were against them selling ICO to non-accredited USA investors. Note my understanding of what is an investment security has morphed somewhat since the last heated discussion on the Waves thread. Here is my latest understanding:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1218399.msg15121763#msg15121763

[Spoetnik]

Hello sir.  Lisk has certainly earned some street cred when you came on board.  This is a good for crypto overall.  Ethereum needs the competition.

I hope you guys come with good apps and services in Lisk.  Good luck!

One question tho...  In what ways is Lisk better than Ethereum.

A pointless hyped up spammed ICO coin #4,023 with "Street Cred" ?

..hold on while i piss myself laughing !

You really have come out of the dark with your hidden shitcoin support last few months.
For a long time you did a good job hiding it..

By the way ICO douche bags every time i here the name LISK
i think of a fucking retard with a lisp.

Another gay scammy pointless shit coin token (one of thousands) with a horribly gay name.
About as gay as the name "Monero"  

EDIT:
By the way what is a "Hoskinson's" and WHY should i give two fucking shits ?

[Shrikez]

Please make it your first task as adviser to hire a coder who fixes the LSK wallet so it can take exchange Level volume without dying all the time.

Disclaimer: I don't own LSK or any other ICO coin but unfortunately I am one of the people who have to deal with it on a daily basis.

Less PR more coding, thank you.

[iamnotback]

Charles you mentioned CounterParty and Sergio's RootStock supporting Ethereum contracts on the Bitcoin block chain. Hmmm, are you sure you've thought this out (Edit: I see RootStock is a side-chain thus it avoids the following problems, but side-chains have other problems):

What would this forum be without AnonyMint  

The technical weakness of CounterParty is that Bitcoin can't verify the CounterParty transactions, thus there is no record of the consensus about which CounterParty transactions are valid:

https://counterpartytalk.org/t/questions-about-counterparty-consensus-and-validation/688

http://counterparty.io/docs/faq/#how-do-smart-contracts-form-a-consensus

This presents some technically insoluble problems (they are fundamental and can never be fixed):

1. No one can determine if there was consensus about an external data feed after the fact. Some of the ramifications of this include that if someone hacks the sources of a data feed temporarily, then no one will be able to reach consensus about which set of transactions on the Bitcoin block chain are valid, except by creating a hardfork of the CounterParty chain and writing a new protocol which makes that decision. And this would need to be done every time one of these attacks occurs. So basically CounterParty will be toast if it supports external data feeds and becomes popular enough to be worth attacking. Edit: voting via signatures can substitute for external data feeds, thus this issue may be solvable.

2. Double-spends in the same Bitcoin block can't be differentiated. Thus the only possible action is to ignore both (all) of them. Thus 0-confirmation transactions are absolutely impossible in CounterParty. Thus CounterParty will always be slow (10 min confirmations).

3. Ordering of transactions can't be enforced within a block, thus contracts can not be written which depend on such ordering. I haven't really thought about the impact this has yet. CounterParty doesn't seem to acknowledge this as one of the differences when running Ethereum scripts on CounterParty, so maybe they are not even aware of this flaw.

4. The Bitcoin block chain can't handle the increased scaling load to be a database server.

There are probably many other corner cases and problems. I haven't really thought about it too deeply.

Seems very kludgey and I would avoid it. Non-starter to build smart contracts on the Bitcoin block chain.

[NattyLiteCoin]

great Vision and insight, Thanks for sharing! Makes me want to buy some
Lisk.

[TravelsAsia]

Thank you for sharing, it was worth viewing.

[bitfish]

Enjoy all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIMk-A7L8S4&feature=youtu.be

As a Lisk advisor my 1st advice would be:
"Hire some devs. Because no coin can survive without developers." 

[iamnotback]

Charles please contribute to this thread, "Valid uses cases for Smart Contracts, Dapps, and DAOs?".

[Moneroman88]

Has Charles Hoskinson achieved anything in the crypto-currency-platform sphere?

He seems to have left / was fired from several institutions before he founded a small unknown company located Hong Kong. That does not seem successful to me.

Is there anything that justifies his huge ego?

[charleshoskinson]

And people wonder why bitcointalk talk is so hated. A 27 person company with millions in funding becomes small and unsuccessful . We have two products coming out this year alone and they are fairly revolutionary. But hey believe whatever you want man.

[Moneroman88]

And people wonder why bitcointalk talk is so hated. A 27 person company with millions in funding becomes small and unsuccessful . We have two products coming out this year alone and they are fairly revolutionary. But hey believe whatever you want man.

Hello Charles! Interesting. Seems like I greatly underestimated your company! Do you have more info on the two revolutionary products? You got me interested. Is it safe to say that you are a cryptoproject manager?

[Spoetnik]

And people wonder why bitcointalk talk is so hated. A 27 person company with millions in funding becomes small and unsuccessful . We have two products coming out this year alone and they are fairly revolutionary. But hey believe whatever you want man.

Hello Charles! Interesting. Seems like I greatly underestimated your company! Do you have more info on the two revolutionary products? You got me interested. Is it safe to say that you are a cryptoproject manager?

Guys in Crypto all think they are big shots..

Remember Marshall Long who claimed he was the Co-Founder & CTFO of Cryptsy ?
His legendary cred was filing a patent for a two handed shake-weight (like the exercise thing on TV)

LOL

Or how about Craig Wright ?
Compare his resume with this guys.. they sound an awful lot alike !

[charleshoskinson]

Hello Charles! Interesting. Seems like I greatly underestimated your company! Do you have more info on the two revolutionary products? You got me interested. Is it safe to say that you are a cryptoproject manager?

Several announcements will be made. One in late July and the other likely in September. We've already done some fun side things, which have had some unintended effects. First, we built scorex and Waves used it for their crowdsale: https://iohk.io/projects/scorex/. Second, we are the first team to implement RSCoin and it was done in Haskell:  https://github.com/input-output-hk/rscoin-haskell. RSCoin seems to be a really good platform for cryptoequity issuance.

[iamnotback]

Charles in the video you mentioned Stellar's Paxos concensus. AnonyMint made some critical comments about it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13778110#msg13778110

[Gerolamo]

charleshoskinson　is Scammer.
Steal money from Japanese people.

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


Everyone Do not be fooled.

charles
Go to Hell! Sayonara.

[iamnotback]

Charles, you stated in the video that your IOHK group might be interested in formalizing DPOS.

Here are some of my thoughts:

And what about DPOS? Lisk uses DPOS with 101 nodes only with high performance each one wich permits faster transactions and i believe it is able to scale much better than any existing blockchain.

1. Since the chosen single node for each block is deterministic, then in theory it could be very vulnerable to botnet DDoS attack. More generally it lacks fault tolerance, which is critically needed in real world systems. A redesign to have simultaneous disjoint blocks from multiple delegates can't be allowed because there could be double-spends in the presumed disjoint blocks.

2. For DPOS, this is not decentralized control, because the minority has to accept the will of the majority on the election of delegate DPOS nodes, i.e. the permissionless attribute can be lost such as ChainAnchor being planned for ButtCON. No one can just standup a full node at-will. This also means there isn't really competition in terms of a free market rate for transaction fees.

Btw, Bitcoin-NG accomplishes basically the same deterministic node per block and with decentralized control over the selection of the delegate in real-time employing PoW, yet with chain reorganization issues.

3. The maximum speed (minimum delay) of confirmations is lower bounded by the slowest latency of block propagation to every DPOS node, because otherwise some nodes can't keep up. This can be reasonably fast say several seconds if you've got a very organized set of delegate nodes (but then you really don't have decentralized control), but this is not fast enough for some types of instant microtransactions.

4. Zero-confirmation double-spend transactions (aka Finney Attack) are even more plausible, because a colluding delegate node knows deterministically when it will win the block. Note block periods can be reasonably fast in DPOS, so 0-conf is probably not needed although not fast enough for some types of instant microtransactions, although such probably wouldn't be Finney attacked due to their small values.

5. Proof-of-stake is not a secure consensus algorithm, because for example the nothing-at-stake problem. We compiled a laundry list of flaws in proof-of-stake. Note I recently made a suggestion to jl777 and we mutually designed how to record check points for DPoS coins in a PoW block chain.


Edit: Steemit is pioneering combining PoW and DPOS in another way, and do take note that this doesn't seem to fix the issues I enumerated above although it mitigates somewhat issue #2 except doesn't solve the economics of centralization of PoW issue:

Consensus in Steem

...

With Steem, block production is done in rounds. Each round 21 witnesses are selected to
create and sign blocks of transactions. Nineteen (19) of these witnesses are selected by
approval voting, one is selected by a computational proof-of-work, and one is timeshared
by every witness that didn’t make it into the top 19 proportional to their total votes. The 21
active witnesses are shuffled every round to prevent any one witness from constantly
ignoring blocks produced by the same witness placed before.

This process is designed to provide the best reliability while ensuring that everyone has the
potential to participate in block production regardless of whether they are popular enough
to get voted to the top. People have three options to overcome censorship by the top 19
elected witnesses: patiently wait in line with everyone else not in the top 19, purchase
enough computational power to solve a proof of work faster than others, or purchase more
SP to improve voting power. Generally speaking, applying censorship is a good way for
elected witnesses to lose their job and therefore, it is unlikely to be a real problem on the
Steem network.

Because the active witnesses are known in advance, Steem is able to schedule witnesses to
produce blocks every 3 seconds. Witnesses synchronize their block production via the NTP
protocol. A variation of this algorithm has been in use by the BitShares network for over a
year where it has been proven to be reliable.

Mining in Steem

Traditional proof of work blockchains combine block production with the solving of a proof
of work. Because the process of solving a proof of work takes an unpredictable amount of
time, the result is unpredictable block production times. Steem aims to have consistent and
reliable block production every 3 seconds with almost no potential for forks.
To achieve this Steem separates block production from solving of proof of work. When a
miner solves a proof of work for Steem, they broadcast a transaction containing the work.
The next scheduled witness includes the transaction into the blockchain. When the
transaction is included the miner is added to the queue of miners scheduled to produce

blocks. Each round one miner is popped from the queue and included in the active set of
witnesses. The miner gets paid when they produce a block at the time they are scheduled.
The difficulty of the proof of work doubles every time the queue length grows by 4. Because
one miner is popped from the queue every round, and each round takes 21 * 3 = 63 seconds,
the difficulty automatically halves if no proof of work is found in no more than 21 * 3 * 4 =
252 seconds.