" * That's Dan Larimer doing what Dan Larimer does best * Claiming he invented everything and everything else is junk * Bonus points if you guys can find the article he wrote about ethereum on bitsharestalk.org * Back in 2014 * Where he called us an interesting computer science project * That won't go anywhere * Because he somehow still has influence we will write a proper rebuttal * But basically here is the quick rebuttal * Protocol design when you're talking about secure protocols starts with security definitions * https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/765 * This is the initial Foundation upon which all consensus protocols ought to be judged in our space * It defines what a secure Ledger is * Next you need to prove that proof Works satisfy this so you have a benchmark * Then you need to prove proof of stake satisfies this * From that point it's a game of taking unrealistic assumptions and gradually making them practical and performant * And this is what we have been doing for a year-and-a-half * In an extremely systematic way * As can be demonstrated by all the revisions that we've pushed to ePrint * For both Ouroboros and Ouroboros praos * The section on random number generation is just plain wrong * The threshold is 50% and we are using a multi-party computation protocol * Which is the gold standard * We even invented a new protocol specifically for this task * Called scrape * 216.pdf * it's just extraordinary to me how people can be so profoundly naive about the process upon which one has to follow to ensure a protocol is properly designed * This is not a subjective process * This is a well-understood process which has given us modern cryptography * There are standards and benchmarks you have to adhere to * As for citations our protocol is distinctly different * Delegated proof of stake is basically paxos with a voting system bolted on * Somehow Dan forgot to cite Leslie Lamport * He stoled work from the 1970s * We have nothing in common with this idea * I honestly try very hard to avoid commenting on his work * But when I see things like this it just makes me sad * Noticed there was absolutely no discussion about the network side of things * Let's go ahead and talk about a million transactions per second but have absolutely no strategy to store or to move that data"
"Where he called us an interesting computer science project * That won't go anywhere"
Well, IMO, he was right. A couple additionnal cryptokitties projects should convince you. Regarding the "stolen work from the 1970s", I assume this could be a humoristic description of any current blockchain technology.
Here is the complete reply from Charles:
" * That's Dan Larimer doing what Dan Larimer does best * Claiming he invented everything and everything else is junk * Bonus points if you guys can find the article he wrote about ethereum on bitsharestalk.org * Back in 2014 * Where he called us an interesting computer science project * That won't go anywhere * Because he somehow still has influence we will write a proper rebuttal * But basically here is the quick rebuttal * Protocol design when you're talking about secure protocols starts with security definitions * https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/765 * This is the initial Foundation upon which all consensus protocols ought to be judged in our space * It defines what a secure Ledger is * Next you need to prove that proof Works satisfy this so you have a benchmark * Then you need to prove proof of stake satisfies this * From that point it's a game of taking unrealistic assumptions and gradually making them practical and performant * And this is what we have been doing for a year-and-a-half * In an extremely systematic way * As can be demonstrated by all the revisions that we've pushed to ePrint * For both Ouroboros and Ouroboros praos * The section on random number generation is just plain wrong * The threshold is 50% and we are using a multi-party computation protocol * Which is the gold standard * We even invented a new protocol specifically for this task * Called scrape * 216.pdf * it's just extraordinary to me how people can be so profoundly naive about the process upon which one has to follow to ensure a protocol is properly designed * This is not a subjective process * This is a well-understood process which has given us modern cryptography * There are standards and benchmarks you have to adhere to * As for citations our protocol is distinctly different * Delegated proof of stake is basically paxos with a voting system bolted on * Somehow Dan forgot to cite Leslie Lamport * He stoled work from the 1970s * We have nothing in common with this idea * I honestly try very hard to avoid commenting on his work * But when I see things like this it just makes me sad * Noticed there was absolutely no discussion about the network side of things * Let's go ahead and talk about a million transactions per second but have absolutely no strategy to store or to move that data"
"Where he called us an interesting computer science project * That won't go anywhere"
Well, IMO, he was right. A couple additionnal cryptokitties projects should convince you. Regarding the "stolen work from the 1970s", I assume this could be a humoristic description of any current blockchain technology.
Found at
In my experience ETH software is just horrible, the worst, and I won't let my family use it...