Not just another decentralized web whitepaper?

Yes this is not a paid article, it is just the usual lies in comments for soem reason. Who knows why folk do that, but they do and always will I think :smiley:

16 Likes

However more bulletproof than most I have seen so far. Some papers and projects do not even say how they implement a coin and others do have significant synchronicity. Don’t sell yourself short here, you and Pierre did an amazing job proving so deeply. As I said to Natasha (the author), A poor critique method (more fud like) is to keep demanding proofs till there are no assumptions. So pick an assumption, such as a weak sync assumption as we have, which is better than many who have a strong sync assumption and ask to prove it. That is good for us as we like detail, but can be determinantal. The logical conclusion is we have to prove the big bang and work forward from there to PARSEC :smiley: :smiley:

Now in saying that Vlad did have a few points that were helpful indeed and we will take them, but also some less useful points that were teetering on insulting or poorly researched. Those are the areas I generally jump a little to make sure the team is not being ill-treated as the MaidSafe devs are too nice sometimes and people can try and point score politically. That is the part that I feel I have to stop and try to. Botton line though we got some good feedback and even still have more, so that is great.

Vlad never put forward Casper for instance, but some have, the first sentence of that paper says Casper is a partial consensus system … (POS BFT combination etc. etc.) I would really like all the projects to do what we do, come clean and humbly and honestly put forward detail and get decent peer review (Vald helps there for sure). I see HBBFT and Algorand as good examples in this space.

32 Likes

Great article. Top work Maidsafe and Nick.

Also posted here:

13 Likes

And on /r/SiliconValleyHBO too, apparently :smiley: https://www.reddit.com/r/SiliconValleyHBO/comments/8o32p4/looks_like_the_pipernet_may_be_a_real_thing/

11 Likes

If ethereum or any other coin would have made such a progress and good work, it would moon like hell, but maid is stagnating. Haha so funny but anyway it is like it is. Maidsafe really good work!

EDIT:
Nonetheless they have to buy Maidsafecoins sooner or later. Now they could get in at a low price. In a few weeks or maybe months, they have to pay a lot more than now. You will see the I should have / I could have sayers will be around everywhere :smiley:

9 Likes

Tried a summary of the twitter highlights between Vlad and Maidsafe, with some slight
scaling problems in “paint”.

In the begining Vlad was quite arogant and condescending, it seemd he had some problem
to behave like a big boy.

He was honest about that he is heavily biased towards Ethereum.

With his compliment I think it is was his way of saying, excellent work, but he did not use exactly those words. :slight_smile:

A few people challenged him, which was very good, and together with the replies from the
team he finaly started acting like a big boy and gave some usefull criticism. Rigor and liveness was his main critcism besides from some early comments which seemed like quite weak arguments about names and so on.

@bart , @dirvine . @pierrechevalier83, What do you guys think where the most interesting about the critcism and what, if something, will be improved upon and what did you guys feel was just cheap shoots from Vlad.

I read about “statistics rigor” on wikipedia and the mentioned that there is some programs for testing mathematical rigor, Mizar system, HOL Light, and Metamath, is that something you guys have done or thinking about doing in the future. When it comes to review of Parsec, is there people you guys have have in mind that you think can help, is it possible that there are any professors in math, computer science or other that could help, maybe possible for Maidsafe to give a free lecture or something, if a university would help out. :wink:

8 Likes

He had a good point that our proof of the termination property needed polishing. It depends on the synchrony assumptions, and it’s not immediately clear that they are enough to guarantee termination - and without it, malicious nodes can stall the algorithm. So this was certainly well-founded, and we are looking at that part of the algorithm closer.

If I were to choose a “cheap shot”, it would be the part about “randomly synchronous [sic]” - come on, it was just a name and was defined later, maybe not the best one, but still :stuck_out_tongue:

It is something that would be worth doing, but I’m not sure if we have someone with experience with such things. I guess we’ll just try to learn, if it’s necessary :wink:

This part I’ll leave for others to answer, but it would certainly be nice to get some proper peer review at some point. For now there are just others from crypto space like Vlad reading and commenting, but it’s also very valuable, as these people certainly know what they are talking about.

15 Likes

I think I can somewhat relate to that being something important to look at. :slight_smile:

Yeah, there was definatly some quite weak arguments from his side, It felt kind of good to read those weak arguments because to me it felt like, - Is that all you got Vlad then you ain’t really got much at all. :stuck_out_tongue:

It feels like there must be a way to find for example professors that can help out with testing for rigor and similar. From my experience there are atleast some professors that love to look into new things, tech, and are probably willing to help out. There got to be forums for these people or other way to find them, throw some hooks out and see if possible to get a catch.

Also need to mentioned how I love to witness David Irvine engage in conversations, he dont fall for traps and are allways a few steps ahead, he sees the bigger picture and reaching the goals with example getting important information. :slight_smile:

11 Likes

That twitter discussion actually turned far more fruitful than represented in the article imo. It would be nice if that was linked in the article or represented/addressed by us community members.

14 Likes

How greatly will this stall development!? :thinking:

My erection has fallen! :scream:
God no! The consequence was severe! Check your international news. It was devastating! :fearful: 4 city blocks reduced to rubble. No power for several hours and at least 20 humans are no longer animated. :tired_face:

Where do we go from here Datman!? :hushed:

Keep kickin ass :facepunch: :smirk:

5 Likes

First Vlad, now Andrew Miller is joining the convo on Twitter.

(For the ones that don’t know who Andrew is, he is an advisor to Zcash, chair of the Zcash foundation, and he is co-author of ‘Hawk’, the paper that proposed to use zk-snarks in for instance Ethereum)

Great to see these bright minds engaging.

24 Likes

Here is a more critical, non technical, reaction to the article.

6 Likes

Hmmm, IOTA-bashing article, with a reference to MaidSafe for ‘not delivering’ so far.

If someone in crypto says something’s coming soon, that’s nice, but it should absolutely not be treated as “exciting news” until they have a product — and the product doesn’t fail in some hilariously obvious manner.

No white paper without a product should be taken as “exciting news” unless you are actually a mathematician or a computer scientist and have a direct professional interest.

Jeez, thanks Einstein. Duly noted. He should’ve said so before I tattood PARSEC on my forehead though.

16 Likes

Andrew Miller is also one of the authors of Honey Badger BFT which is an open source ABFT protocol that we considered for our use case, but didn’t use in the end because it seemed that the challenges to adapt it to dynamic membership would be too high.
Very nice to hear that he is interested in PARSEC and to hear his feedback. The problem we have to solve (an asynchronous concrete coin or a highly asynchronous concrete coin with rigorous proof using a precise synchrony assumption) would definitely help simplify Honey Badger in addition to improving PARSEC, so collaboration would definitely help everyone.
I would love it if we ended up collaborating with them :smiley:

28 Likes

And from what I understood you and @bart are already working on this. :+1:

I reckon it won’t be long before you guys have 20k followers on twitter and others hoping to get a proper peer review of their whitepapers from you. :wink:

5 Likes

I always wonder what these people have been doing for hell 10+ years that could be remarkable enough to underestimate what MaidSafe has been trying to do in the same period of time and accomplishing so many things in the process.

31 Likes

Haters gonna hate. I think most can’t really shake their love for blockchain. Would love to see them hurt even more when Safenet reaches critical adoption rate.

3 Likes

This is an awesome attitude. This is the way @maidsafe will succeed. Collaborating with the braintrust of thousands of other developers across all the technologies including blockchain. Interoperability of the Safenet to bitcoin to ethereum and all blockchains is the killer app and guarantee rapid adoption.

12 Likes

Let’s just get on with it, move to Alpha 3 and show them that Parsec works. All the guff in the world is just a distraction

1 Like

It must be hard for the developers who have worked on blockchain projects for years to come across the safenetwork and things like PARSEC. They are bound to look for and pick holes where they can (Similar to Edison telling Tesla Direct Current was a better option ) To me it’s just a matter of time before they have to bite the bullet and realise they were barking up the wrong tree. Obviously blockchain has its uses but I think there will be a lot of developers looking for a way to be part of the maidsafe team the nearer we get to a live network.

6 Likes