In his Reddit response to Dan's post, Charles refers to the EOS ERC-20 token distribution as an ICO, which is completely wrong.

In his cardano telegram response that has been posted to Reddit, he comments thus in response to the outrage at his failure to acknowledge his use of Dan's ideas without citation.....

• As for citations our protocol is distinctly different * Delegated proof of stake is basically paxos with a voting system bolted on * Somehow Dan forgot to cite Leslie Lamport * He stoled work from the 1970s * We have nothing in common with this idea *

This response, clearly rushed, reveals Charles's inconsistency. He says his protocol is distinctly different, then says DPOS is paxos with a voting system....so very similar other than voting then.

Then he accuses Dan of the same failure to cite, without any proof....which is what he is guilty of himself with respect to Dan's DPOS innovation.

Finally, he claims there is nothing in common between the ideas when he's just said DPOS is paxos with a voting system.

Dan isn't the one stealing ideas. He doesn't claim to have invented everything and does not claim everything else is junk.

Ethereum is an interesting computer science experiment. Does it scale without becoming something else entirely? No.

Instead of deflecting, I hope Charles can accept fair criticism and start acknowledging that he isnt the fountain of authority in this space. The world doesn't need any more egotistical academics, it needs real solutions to real problems as quickly as possible.

That Charles has no respect for Dan is clear. Why is that? What has Dan done other than what he said he would. Build tools that protect life liberty and property. Bitshares and Steem....two of the very best tools for accomplishing that. Yea, nothing to respect there.