RE: Wherein I ramble along, trying to think about putting genomes on blockchains
I don't have much to say, to be honest. Data preservation is an important topic in many field, and ideas are being discussed, rejected, improved, etc. One important thing is having the data public. But another important thing os to have a way to access and manipulate them easily. For a given field, this should be standardized first before even mentioning the word blockchain.
Now, using blockchain for science? Well, I don't know. There are non-blockchain ideas all around the place, and I would first like to be convinced of the added value in using a blockchain. For the moment, I cannot foresee it, at least in physics.
Just one extra comment: replace monetary rewards by a reputation system. Much better for science. :)
Sorry for the shitty comment. :/
I'd hardly call it a shitty comment, and I hope I didn't make you feel put on the spot.
I think this is an important point which I didn't do a really good job of making clear. It's also one of the reasons why I'm more favorable towards offchain references than onchain stuff.
I mentioned it was shitty because I had just written down what was going through my mind without taking the time to organize it clearly. It was late at night ;)
But to sum up, both of us agree, I guess, on this one ^^
I was thinking this while I was reading the article. I wonder what this implies about financial rewards in general. I mean, if giving money to scientists per paper is bad, and appreciating their work without paying them is good, that's tantamount to communism or something! haha! ... I guess steemit tries to equate appreciation with monetary reward using the concept of the vote. .... Anyways, long discussion.
Yeah, any money is always good. However, in the context of scientific work, money is never the first incentive (one definitely does not get rich by working in academia...). So... :)