Hello bitcoin blockchain and its intrepid explorers

Hello bitcoin blockchain and its intrepid explorers,

I am a scientist and would like to propose something of an experiment. If it succeeds, it may change how science is done. If it fails, well, a negative result is still a result. Whatever the case, hopefully we will all learn something.

First, a little about myself. I'm probably best described as a theoretical physicist and a computer modeler. I have a Ph.D in physical sciences, over 20 years of professional scientific experience, and a substantial number of peer-reviewed publications, including in Science and Nature. I'm involved in fairly high-profile work, but I think I can do a lot better, both in terms of doing cutting-edge science and sharing results with everyone.

To illustrate the problem, please allow me to describe how the process currently works in my field. Suppose I have an idea for a new direction in my research. I would talk it over with my colleagues, put together a project team, and write a research proposal for submission to the relevant funding program of a relevant U.S. government funding agency. The proposal deadlines only happen once a year, so if I just missed one, tough luck – I would have to wait a year. The proposal itself is a substantial document, typically at least 50 single-spaced pages, describing in detail the proposed research, every member of the research team and their background and experience, budgets from every institution involved, and detailed justifications of every item in the budget. It takes weeks to prepare, and when finally submitted, it takes six months to a year to get an answer. Part of the reason why it takes so long to review proposals is because the government needs to assemble large teams of experts, at a time that works for everyone, fly them to a central location, provide a lot of supervision and support services, and then review the results by multiple levels of government bureaucracy.

Attached: a1.jpg (1063x1063, 574K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/dwZvm8xUnvw
blockchain.info/address/17YTpcbD5QrK4BJM35tavyuwNpR9UTm6yG
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Finally, the proposal result comes back, and, surprise, it's almost always rejected the first time around. Funding rates in my field are around 15%, and review panels are looking for any flaws, real or perceived, to sink a proposal. So, I would revise the proposal based on review panel comments, re-submit, wait a year, and it's typically rejected again. And again. It has, on the average, taken me about four years to get a proposal funded. By then, the original idea may not be so fresh and exciting anymore.

The proposals that get funded tend to have the fewest flaws, rather than the most innovative research. In fact, anything innovative is often perceived as risky by the proposal review panels and their government overseers. Their job is to make sure taxpayer dollars are not “misused” on projects that fail to deliver, or anything that the press may ridicule. As a result, the final project that gets funded is usually far more conservative than the original idea.

So, years later, funding is finally secured and we get to work on a watered-down version of the originally conceived project. It's not all about science, though -- research funding usually comes with requirements to serve on panels and committees, travel to and present at conferences, do public outreach activities, press interviews, etc. As research results are slowly generated, despite these distractions, there's the onerous task of writing them up for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Different journals have different requirements for length, organization, formatting, language, figures, tables, references, etc., so getting everything right can easily take weeks. Once the manuscript is submitted to a journal, the lengthy process of peer-review begins, which typically takes months and can range from a positive intellectual experience to a complete waste of time. As with proposals, the more conventional and unexciting the results are, the easier it is to get them through peer review.

Attached: a2.jpg (1008x1008, 456K)

Bump for interest, let the larp continue.

Mr. StoNAY

Finally, results are published, typically in an obscure journal, with an obscure title, and are read by a few hundred people, if that. If a member of the general public tries to access these articles online, they are faced with subscription and/or access fees that are unaffordable to most people.

I think there may be a better way, that's faster, more direct, and more egalitarian, while maintaining the full rigor and integrity of the scientific method. Simply put, you fund me, here and now, to conduct preliminary research, and post all results and source code on this blockchain. This would open them up to public scrutiny that should be more effective than peer review by one to three experts. This is not a scam – I'm doing this because I have some very exciting research ideas that are difficult to fund through conventional channels, and I want to see them realized sooner rather than later. I will not take the money and run – my hope is that when I come back with novel and exciting results, I would get more funding, and open the door for other scientists to do the same.

Attached: a3.jpg (1008x1008, 195K)

Here are the details of what I'm proposing:

* Bypass the proposal stage entirely. Instead, I'm hoping to get some seed funding solely on the merits of this post, deliver novel, scientifically rigorous, and exciting results, and receive subsequent funding based on the merits of completed work.

* Exactly one year from the date of this post, on March 23, 2019, I will post a full report to this blockchain for a permanent record, detailing the funding received, how it was used, results generated, and all source code needed to re-create them. If no funding is received, I will still post the negative result.

* Funding will be used to accomplish project goals as efficiently as possible. No amount of funding received will be used for institutional overheads, and no funds will go to the government.

* I will more than encourage everyone to criticize and find flaws in my research. Think of it as a public peer-review.

* Only open-source third-party software would be used, allowing any interested party to recreate my results.

* I will remain anonymous and have my work judged exclusively on its own merits, unaffected by my name and reputation.

* The projects I have in mind are flexible and scalable, allowing me to efficiently use any level of funding. I will outsource and/or subcontract as project needs require.

* Depending on levels of funding received, I will either work in my spare time or take unpaid leave from my regular job.

* The projects I have in mind have broad appeal, as they address the fundamental nature of reality and human existence.

Attached: a4.jpg (1008x1008, 361K)

If you are interested in directly participating in this experiment, funding can be sent to this address:

Bitcoin Core (BTC): 17YTpcbD5QrK4BJM35tavyuwNpR9UTm6yG

This address is currently empty, and will not be changed in the next year. Any curious parties can track the funds received and withdrawn from this address.

Expect a follow-up post at the same time, same channel, exactly one year from this posting. Until then, thank you, blockchain pioneers, shadow benefactors, science enthusiasts, and everyone else reading this. Let's move humanity forward together.

March 24, 2018
03:09 GMT

All this larping with abstract pictures just to beg for BCASH? holy fuck OP kill yourself you unholy double nigger faggot.

Attached: 1518662510143.png (600x842, 142K)

youtu.be/dwZvm8xUnvw

I like the idea. I think that fundraising through blockchain is great. Maintaining research on a blockchain seems like a great idea too (something like the distributed computing for protein folding done by the Human genome project(?)) By creating an academic database, participation can be incentivized by giving access to papers with nodes & an economy for academic research & evaluation can be created through the use of tokens distributed to nodes. Although some people may receive funding via past merit, many will have to still create proposals which will individually be funded (I don't think the proposal system should be underemphasized). Enjoy fighting your way for adoption when faced with things like the nber and other open resources. I don't think there are blockchains focused on academic research funding with a new economic model, but there are a few projects that are vaguely similar. I look forward to it. Please give us a resource to follow development!