- Jul 2018
-
europepmc.org europepmc.org
-
On 2017 May 24, Jordan Anaya commented:
This paper has been retracted: http://retractionwatch.com/2017/05/24/authors-retract-much-debated-blockchain-paper-f1000/
This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY. -
On 2017 Mar 09, Daniel Himmelstein commented:
Irreproducible Timestamps
Please see my blog post describing why Irving & Holden's timestamping implementation is broken. According to Carlisle's method, there is no record in the Bitcoin blockchain proving the existence of the clinical trial protocol from this study.
WARNING: Users should not rely on Irving & Holden's method for producing blockchain-verifiable timestamps. Doing so could expose them to invalid timestamps, accusations of fraud or misconduct, financial loss, and sabotage. As discussed in my blog post, there are several established solutions for Blockchain timestamping that have been reviewed by expert cryptographers. I strongly encourage users to rely on one of these methods and to disregard this study from Irving & Holden.
Feel free to reference my blog post:
Daniel S. Himmelstein (2017) "The most interesting case of scientific irreproducibility?" Satoshi Village. http://blog.dhimmel.com/irreproducible-timestamps/
Or the GitHub analysis behind it:
Daniel Himmelstein (2017) "dhimmel/irreproducible-timestamps v1.0: Initial replication analysis for the Satoshi Village blog post" Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.375952 https://doi.org/b2tz
I will update this comment if Irving & Holden provide cryptographic proof of their timestamp and the validity of their method. Until then, I strongly urge readers to avoid advertising or building on this study.
This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY. -
On 2016 Jul 20, Jordan Anaya commented:
Readers of this article may be interested in this post at Retraction Watch or this post by Neuroskeptic.
This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.
-
- Feb 2018
-
europepmc.org europepmc.org
-
On 2016 Jul 20, Jordan Anaya commented:
Readers of this article may be interested in this post at Retraction Watch or this post by Neuroskeptic.
This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY. -
On 2017 Mar 09, Daniel Himmelstein commented:
Irreproducible Timestamps
Please see my blog post describing why Irving & Holden's timestamping implementation is broken. According to Carlisle's method, there is no record in the Bitcoin blockchain proving the existence of the clinical trial protocol from this study.
WARNING: Users should not rely on Irving & Holden's method for producing blockchain-verifiable timestamps. Doing so could expose them to invalid timestamps, accusations of fraud or misconduct, financial loss, and sabotage. As discussed in my blog post, there are several established solutions for Blockchain timestamping that have been reviewed by expert cryptographers. I strongly encourage users to rely on one of these methods and to disregard this study from Irving & Holden.
Feel free to reference my blog post:
Daniel S. Himmelstein (2017) "The most interesting case of scientific irreproducibility?" Satoshi Village. http://blog.dhimmel.com/irreproducible-timestamps/
Or the GitHub analysis behind it:
Daniel Himmelstein (2017) "dhimmel/irreproducible-timestamps v1.0: Initial replication analysis for the Satoshi Village blog post" Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.375952 https://doi.org/b2tz
I will update this comment if Irving & Holden provide cryptographic proof of their timestamp and the validity of their method. Until then, I strongly urge readers to avoid advertising or building on this study.
This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY. -
On 2017 May 24, Jordan Anaya commented:
This paper has been retracted: http://retractionwatch.com/2017/05/24/authors-retract-much-debated-blockchain-paper-f1000/
This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.
-