Yet another academic plagiarism scandal: blockchains, medical research, and patents

One must be intrinsically motivated to be ethical and honest. Integrity cannot be imposed by peer review.

This is not another SFYL (sorry for your loss) tale of cryptocurrency scamming. That is merely a grace note. Academic plagiarism can happen, regardless of whether bitcoin, blockchains, or cryptocurrency are involved.

One’s own professional community, and the moral implications of having lied and plagiarized i.e. shame, should be enough to keep scientific and other original researchers (and investigatory work in general) honest. It clearly isn’t. I make that observation based on this passage via Andrew Gelman (emphasis mine): (more…)

Published in: on November 16, 2018 at 6:28 am  Comments (7)  
Tags: , , , , , ,

Just a little bit more Bitcoin trouble

There has been so much tumult in bitcoin and cryptocurrency over the past few days! Interest and concern extends beyond online communities. Motives vary.

screenshot of bitcoin mining in Windows

Bitcoin miner GUI running Windows 7

Anonymous and decentralized

There are two conceptual pillars of trust that uphold bitcoin as being superior to fiat currency. (The fiat currency of reference is primarily the US dollar. Why? Because the US dollar is the world’s reserve currency, for now.)

The first is anonymity. US dollars held as cash are bearer instruments. Ownership and use is anonymous, but only until one wants to use them for commercial transactions of significant size as defined by anti-money laundering rules. Bitcoin does have some anonymity shortcomings, as transactions on the blockchain are actually pseudonymous, but there may be tractable remedies. Further details have been widely covered elsewhere.

The second conceptual pillar of bitcoin is decentralization. The US dollar is highly centralized. As ideological (but not market) confidence in the dollar diminishes, the appeal of an apolitical, alternative currency increases, especially one that is a fungible store of value.

All markets are game theoretic. Bitcoin is too.  I really wish we could ask Professor John Nash what he thinks of bitcoin! Nash wrote a pleasant, accessible article that described bitcoin-like currency, titled “Ideal Money” a few years ago.

I mention game theory because monopolists and cartels can assert control over bitcoin production. This is playing out right now.

Centralization of bitcoin

Currently, Bitcoin’s most acute concern is loss of decentralization. This is due to the documented, persistent existence of a 51% majority mining pool controlled by gHash.io. gHash is owned and operated by private entity cex.io. gHash’s market dominant behavior was noted in March 2014, however the situation was transient. That has since changed. (more…)