Why You Can not Believe White Paper Crypto Projects

Today, there are so many questionable White Paper that scientists have already developed an accelerated assessment method based on characteristic symptoms. We tell why even an expert evaluation is not a panacea, and how to correct the situation of absolute mistrust.

In 2008, a mysterious person hiding behind the pseudonym of Satoshi Nakamoto uploaded a pdf-file to the Internet with a guide for creating a scheme that allows exchanging payments in a digital currency without the involvement of centralized banks.
The work was included in the list of cryptographic mailing. This gave birth to bitcoin (Bitcoin) and its constant companion companion. Who would have thought that those 9 pages would lay the foundation of an entire industry, the capitalization of which in just 10 years will fly to $ 300 billion.

For many in the cryptographic world, this turn was completely unexpected. Alejandro Hévia, a computer scientist at the University of Chile, says:

"When we first heard about bitcoin, many of us, experts in cryptography (including myself), decided that this would not work."
Nakamoto did not include in his work a detailed analysis of the architecture of bitcoin, as is customary in scientific circles. And he did not spread his ideas through the usual channels: at cryptographic conferences or through the arXiv site, where scientists load their latest work for analysis and evaluation by the community. Specialist in the field of computer science Emin Gün Sierer from Cornell University says:

"This has become an example for many people: you can write down your ideas and put it on public display on your website."
Today, the market has about 1600 crypto-currencies, and the appearance of each was accompanied by a document explaining its uniqueness and necessity of existence. Developers publish these White Paper with the goal to tell about the merits of their project and attract investors.

But without formal verification it is difficult to create a work comparable in scale to Nakamoto's. Some White Paper are outright frauds written in pseudo-technical language and often have no meaning. Sierer says:

"Perhaps they asked a friend to read them on Saturday night, and called it all an expert assessment. These works will not undergo a real scientific check. "
The most famous example of such an approach is connected with the Tron platform. Its developers have published White Paper with pieces of text from other works. In some cases, the phrases were duplicated word for word, without any reference to the original. In response to the accusations, the project removed White Paper from its site, and its founder wrote on Twitter that the "copied" text was caused by a translation error (the original work of Tron is written in Chinese).

Tron is not the only example. There are so many questionable White Paper that experts have already developed an accelerated assessment method based on characteristic symptoms. So, one of the signs of weak work is the lack of references to previous studies. It is unlikely that the brilliant idea emerged from the vacuum and is not based on any existing concepts, stresses Chris Wilmer of the University of Pittsburgh, who is the editor of Ledger, a magazine devoted to the development of the blockade. Alejandro Hévía says:

"The problem is that people are too eager to announce the creation of something new."
Many of the basic concepts of block-cryptography appeared in 1980-1990, notes Arvind Narayanan, an expert in computer science at Princeton University.

In other words, crypto-developers - the community, ironically trying to eliminate centralized control - could use more traditional methods of verification. To this end, in 2014, and was created Ledger - the first academic journal, related to the blockbuster. Previously, a survey was conducted in the crypto community and scientific circles. Wilmer, editor of Ledger, says:

"Everyone reacted with great enthusiasm to the appearance of the magazine, but until now we periodically receive work without references and sources."
Today Ledger receives 2-4 works every week. Many of them do not pass an expert evaluation.

This method of evaluation has several advantages. Reviewers send feedback directly to the editor, so they must be backed up by serious logical arguments. Academic journals usually require authors to report potential conflicts of interest.

However, expert evaluation is not a panacea. It has its list of shortcomings: the scientific community usually slowly adopts new ideas, threatening potentially promising innovations. The process takes months, and sometimes years. Heavia says:

"It took a long time for bitcoins to be evaluated by experts. If Satoshi Nakamoto were waiting for their feedback before publishing their work, she would have seen the light only four years later. "
So it's useful to be able to publish your ideas right away, without waiting for verification. Support in this can provide such sites as arXiv and other academic servers.

The solution will not be simple. Wilmer believes that researchers should not simultaneously develop and sell ideas. He says:

"When you say that you have a wonderful idea, you immediately have suspicions of financial interest."
Sirer is convinced that investors will benefit from hiring technical consultants - perhaps senior students who would check whether the crypto currency is based on serious scientific principles. The community, which seeks to eliminate intermediaries, can still come in handy.