@lookfirst To me that’s the least interesting part of what happened — the other stuff is more interesting. E.g. why did it take so long to get paid? Why was it on him to follow up? Why was there no response?
Of course... but we can ask lots of questions about the processes of the EF. Such as the original part of his blog post about ProgPoW and the lack of funding there. We can call out the EF on 'the right thing to do' (TM) in 500 different ways, but that doesn't get anywhere either. To conflate the two issues together just feels like attention gathering. At the end of the day, he got lucky that ETH went up in price and he had something to complain about. If it had gone down, maybe there would have been no comment? He got paid after complaining in public because someone dropped the ball. Good. End of story.
Canonizer seeks to collaborate with everyone, including Kialo, especially since they have such a nice user interface, something Canonizer could use some help with. But it hasn’t been a priority since like everything else on the internet, it just polarizes people. At every level of the T-Bar structure they use, there is nothing but polarizing to one side or the other. Whereas with Canonizer’ s camp tree structure, you can push the polarizing issues to lower level sub camps that are still supporting the super camp, keeping the important consensus stuff at the top. Since everyone only talks about what they disagree on, everywhere else this is completely lost, as a collateral damage from continuous arguments on lessor important issues. At canonizer you discover that on almost every polarizing issue, there is far more important stuff that can be found that everyone agrees on.
Take the flat earth topic, for example. There are many arguments listed on the “flat” side of the argument, including any that anyone can collect, regardless of whether anyone values them or not, so it gets more weight than it should. At canonizer, you can measure the value of the argument or results, by how many people they convert. The best ones rise to the top.
Also, there is no real measure of consensus for any of the sides or arguments. There is no way to find out if anyone’s beliefs have been falsified (as can be measured on Canonizer when people jump camps) and so on. You need to find out, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone wants, when working to build and track consensus, so you can work to win everyone over to the same camp. It’s all about falsifiability, at Canonizer.com, we get each side to focus on what it would take to ‘falsify their side’ or get them ‘on board’. Then it is up to the experimentalists to do the experiment, forcing “scientific consensus’ that can rigorously be tracked. (Did they all actually jump camps or what else may still be required?)
@adamschmideg , Canonizer is still fairly new/prototype so not a lot of content yet. The well developed proof of concept topic is the one on “Theories of Consciousness. About the closest topic to this on Kialo is the one on “Are ghosts real”.
With canonizer you can see there is a surprizing amount of consensus forming around the new falsifiable state of the art “expert consensus” “Representational Qualia Theory”. Notice that this topic shows there is a near unanimous consensus defining ghosts, or at least “conscious knowledge of ghosts” in an approachable via science way. Where as on kialo you get ghost are not real arguments like: “There is no scientific evidence for ghosts” which many people would reject, and arguments that are just clearly wrong like “There is no mainstream religions that says ghosts are real.
At canonizer the focus is on falsifiability. Each camp is encouraged to describe what could falsify their camp (or negotiate what would be required to get them on board). This is what makes it such a powerful theoretical tool. Once the experimentalists do the experiment, it forces a scientific consensus. You can see just how powerful arguments and evidence are by how many people they definitively convert. For example we’ve seen people abandon theories of consciousness camps due to data coming out of the large hadron collider.
Something which came out of this for me was how strongly I feel that we are missing safegrounds around the EIP process which are common for mature client codebases. For example, Hyperledger Besu, like all other Linux Foundation projects uses DCO (Developer Certificate of Origin) declarations for all contribution. And those are with real legal names, not pseudonyms.
For EIPs, all we have are required CC0 licensing. No patent protection.
There was a proposal on the patent part, which is good:
But I think we do need to get a lot more risk-focussed, and recognize that the EIP process will be an attack vector for bad actors. Is that the case for ProgPOW? Some people think so, some do not, but the fact is that we don't have consistent armor in our process to defend against these social and political attacks.
Aren't the stakes even higher for the protocol definition than for implementations of that protocol?
INAL, but the protocol doesn’t “belong” to anybody. It’s not a product, it’s a spec.
The nightmare scenario is for patents to get inserted into the protocol.
Lesser scenarios, but which are entirely plausible is for proposals which economically favor particular parties to be inserted by them.
I understand that this stuff is "the whole game" for bodies like the ISO, with companies like IBM being masters at playing it. Pushing "their thing" as a standard, because they have a huge business built on top of that or whatever.
It would be naive to think, with the sums of money at stake around Ethereum, that everybody is going to play fair here. You absolutely will see parties gaming the EIP process.