Well the truth is Cardano has lots of engineers, and I have work with lots of academics that are top engineers. And computer science academics do protocols, that is their sole purpose. So I don't know why not include them. I think Cardano approach is a standard setter compared to a lot of crappy coins. Don't know why Dan is picking on Charles, probably sees a good competitor, or a threat.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Certainly the project has a lot of engineers. Lots of projects have lots of engineers :) I used to work for an education company that had a strong bias to academic purity over Getting Things Done. What I'm reading from these two guys is the perspective of two organizations that bias towards academic rigor versus delivery and iteration (or heuristic/experience based if you prefer).
Well but looking at the product, they already have mainnet and wallet out in the wild unlike 99% of other ERC20 tokens. Cardano already has delivery and iteration, working with exchanges, wallet problems so I would say it is the other way around. Results kinda differ from your observation. It is one thing to just talk but results are seen in the wild. Also just take a look at their github branches, commits.
Hmmm I think maybe the important distinction is getting lost which means I haven't communicated as clearly as I'd hoped :)
Cardano has a basis in formal research and Charles makes clear statements that they value that approach to deliver their platform.
Dan Larimer just as clearly wants to put platforms into production and relies on good instincts and heuristic/"practical" definitions of security.
Both are delivering software, just from very different perspectives. There would be an easy test to run here ...
What would happen if there were some security flaw found in Ouroboros? The primary claim on which Cardano is founded is that they have "provable security". My prediction is that they would pull the brakes until the flaw was rectified or disproven. They would have to because it undermines their primary claim. If someone pushed a similar flaw in the threat model or ways to break the security properties of EOS, Dan would laugh and say it was an unrealistic threat or the large pool of voters/stakeholders would defuse the problem and push forward with delivery. Rigorous process is not the underpinning of EOS.