Getting fired from Ethereum is a blessing in disguise.
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.
