Shelley to come out in Q1 2019?

So in the latest AMA, CH said that we are likely to have full decentralization in Q12019. He also mentioned that the incentives paper was submitted to a conference that’s scheduled for mid December.

If the paper isn’t accepted to the conference, will this postpone the deployment of Shelley?

If the paper’s rejected, there’ll be feedback about why. Then it can be iteratively improved.


This papers (incentives and delegation) are quite a bit related and contain awesome thoughts and ideas.

I haven’t fully understood the very whole idea yet, it’s pretty complex with a lot of variables who imo need some testnet feedback.

Very interesting stuff to come :hugs:


Even if it was finally rejected following iterated negotiation, I’d think a delay to deployment would depend on the reason. Something that was fatal to publication might not be such a major problem in practice. But PR aspects might also have to be considered. Anyway, there are so many unknowns here I’m not sure such speculation is very useful.

1 Like

Conferences usually have lots of papers submitted and they have to choose a subset for inclusion. This is not normally an indication that the content of papers is not correct and only that the conference perhaps deemed the content not novel enough. Peer-review will happen within the industry circles regardless of whether is is presented at a conference or not.

Unless it is submitted to a conference or Journal and reviewed double-blindly by expert academics, how is this considered scientific peer-review? Are you suggesting that peer-review refers to your friends in industry that review your work? This sounds more like something Vitalik might say…


Yeah. I lost all my respect for him after he sank low to make some twisted logic arguments to counter the work of prominent scientists at Cardano.

He is deeply flawed and I am not talking about his appearance.

1 Like

The point was referring to scientific peer-review not being solely reliant on submission to conferences. Agree, publishing in relevant Journals is part of the normal process, regardless of whether it is presented at a conference or not.

Publishing in journals or appearing on a conference largely depends on the field itself. In IACR community specifically (afaik) - conferences and workshops (small conferences) are the main source of review, discussion, and innovation, partially because the community is not that big. After each conference something like an almanach (really fat journal) is published, containing all the works presented on the conference. Most of the review is happening pre-conference where all works have to pass strict verification in order to be accepted. Apart from it, as far as I know, journal publications are not that popular in the IACR community. That’s why IOHK is making this emphasis on conferences, because the company consists of actual cryptographers, and they are excited to be accepted. In medical, for example, (afaik) as in some other fields too - journals is the prevailing way of getting your work published. Journals have editors and they ask community members for reviews, or rely on a review committee, and conferences are not that popular at all.

In IACR big conferences (where IOHK are targeting with their major papers) are not that often, but they are a source of major reputation, so they attract top people from the community who serve as a review committee and feel obliged to reject as many papers as they can, first to protect the community from all the hype and amateurism they can’t stand and because passing a bad paper would mean they get blamed for a bad review later when other serious people start to look into it after the publication :slight_smile:

Just as a note on why conferences are important specifically in the cryptography.


Yes, there are differences. Conferences in the medical/health related fields are venues to present abstracts and preliminary data. They are in fact popular because they give scientists opportunities to discuss their findings with others, gain exposure and insight into current/future directions and establish much-needed collaborations. While abstracts are published in Supplemental (i.e. sort of special ) issues of the official Journal associated with a particular conference, data published in abstracts are rarely cited until they are actually published in the form of a manuscript in a peer-reviewed Journal.

1 Like

A full year delay? That is disappointing considering they moved from Q1 to Q2/3 and then Q4. I wonder if they have an overview of their issues with current deployed items which seems to occupy them more and more.

Ah was wrong then about the medical-confos in particular, messed it up with some other field :grimacing: But yeah, in general in different fields the main approach to the whole review and publication process can differ noticeably :slight_smile: Sorry for that and thank you for the clarifications! :raised_hands: