Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: What are the forks of BitShares being legitimately developed?  (Read 718 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline vikram

What are the forks of BitShares being legitimately developed?
« on: December 14, 2014, 10:03:26 PM »


Who else?

I do not expect any forks to keep their codebases in sync with our upstream project due to how rapidly we are developing, but it would be good to have a list that we can notify of important security fixes and other important changes.

sumantso

  • Guest
Re: What are the forks of BitShares being legitimately developed?
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2014, 10:24:12 PM »
PTS-DPOS is not legitimately developed as they went against the social consensus. They should be removed and no support provided.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12057
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BTS: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: What are the forks of BitShares being legitimately developed?
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2014, 10:35:57 PM »
PTS-DPOS is not legitimately developed as they went against the social consensus. They should be removed and no support provided.
I am sure that is "hell" of a discussion .. can you link me there? I have an opinion on that one too!
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

sumantso

  • Guest
Re: What are the forks of BitShares being legitimately developed?
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2014, 10:38:55 PM »
PTS-DPOS is not legitimately developed as they went against the social consensus. They should be removed and no support provided.
I am sure that is "hell" of a discussion .. can you link me there? I have an opinion on that one too!

I should clarify, thats my opinion. You can follow the discussion here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11980.msg158979#msg158979

I will be doing my part in warning potential projects who want to sharedrop about how this DPOS-PTS itself didn't follow the consensus. If this PTS fails it would be a shining example of what not following the consensus would do.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2014, 10:41:24 PM by sumantso »

Offline slacking

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: What are the forks of BitShares being legitimately developed?
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2014, 10:40:32 PM »
PTS-DPOS is not legitimately developed as they went against the social consensus. They should be removed and no support provided.
I am sure that is "hell" of a discussion .. can you link me there? I have an opinion on that one too!

Boycott PTS-DPOS! They are impostors.

Offline robrigo

Re: What are the forks of BitShares being legitimately developed?
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2014, 11:35:53 PM »
Since that thread is locked , I am going to continue the discussion here. I would like to hear what the BitShares team thinks about requiring an airdrop of AGS to PTS to maintain the favor of the community.

I feel that DPOS PTS deserves consideration by the community to give it a pass here but I can see how people would take the opinion that it is a violation of the social consensus.

DPOS PTS is cheaper to maintain and the discussion of moving PTS has been long going, even before the superDAC merger. I don't see why we should tilt the PTS / AGS split in favor of AGS instead of maintaining the current split other than semantics. Moving PTS to DPOS is beneficial for the whole community because it will cost us less to maintain. Of course it will still cost more than killing PTS; but I personally would like to see it live on for future DACs to snapshot. Combining AGS / PTS into one user issued asset and making that the new consensus tool would be my preferred option but I will support DPOS PTS in case that doesn't happen. In some ways DPOS PTS is the simpler upgrade path, because nobody has to step up to be the GENESIS issuer.

What do you think vikram?

Offline toast

Re: What are the forks of BitShares being legitimately developed?
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2014, 12:22:28 AM »
Well complaining that DPOS-PTS doesn't honor the social consensus when it is an attempt to upgrade (replace) PTS is pretty dumb IMO. If it did, it wouldn't be serving its stated purpose, which would mean it would be ignored by default.

DPOS-PTS with AGS as a user asset would be fine.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline robrigo

Re: What are the forks of BitShares being legitimately developed?
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2014, 12:25:42 AM »
Well complaining that DPOS-PTS doesn't honor the social consensus when it is an attempt to upgrade (replace) PTS is pretty dumb IMO. If it did, it wouldn't be serving its stated purpose, which would mean it would be ignored by default.

DPOS-PTS with AGS as a user asset would be fine.

Thanks for your opinion toast. Do you see any legal considerations that would be necessary food for thought for the issuer of UIA AGS? Or a combined token?

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12057
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BTS: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: What are the forks of BitShares being legitimately developed?
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2014, 12:30:42 AM »
Well complaining that DPOS-PTS doesn't honor the social consensus when it is an attempt to upgrade (replace) PTS is pretty dumb IMO. If it did, it wouldn't be serving its stated purpose, which would mean it would be ignored by default.

DPOS-PTS with AGS as a user asset would be fine.
I fully agree ... airdropping DPOS-PTS onto AGS holders does not make sense regarding the 10%/10% consensus ... either not airdrop on AGS or change the consensus ..

disclaimer: I am a AGS holder and do only hold a few PTS ..
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline vikram

Re: What are the forks of BitShares being legitimately developed?
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2014, 12:48:09 AM »
Since that thread is locked , I am going to continue the discussion here. I would like to hear what the BitShares team thinks about requiring an airdrop of AGS to PTS to maintain the favor of the community.

I feel that DPOS PTS deserves consideration by the community to give it a pass here but I can see how people would take the opinion that it is a violation of the social consensus.

DPOS PTS is cheaper to maintain and the discussion of moving PTS has been long going, even before the superDAC merger. I don't see why we should tilt the PTS / AGS split in favor of AGS instead of maintaining the current split other than semantics. Moving PTS to DPOS is beneficial for the whole community because it will cost us less to maintain. Of course it will still cost more than killing PTS; but I personally would like to see it live on for future DACs to snapshot. Combining AGS / PTS into one user issued asset and making that the new consensus tool would be my preferred option but I will support DPOS PTS in case that doesn't happen. In some ways DPOS PTS is the simpler upgrade path, because nobody has to step up to be the GENESIS issuer.

What do you think vikram?

I have not followed any discussion relating to PTS, but at an initial glance I suppose I can see why people could argue for either side when it comes to using the BitShares code--previously the BitShares Toolkit which was developed using AGS funds.

However, my initial reaction is that: at the end of the day, the BitShares source code is public domain and people are free to use it however they want. The PTS project has been abandoned by its original developers, so some community members have decided to adopt the project and release an upgrade which moves it onto the BitShares architecture. Performing a pure upgrade without reallocating ownership like this does not bother me.

I do not intend to provide support for this chain or any other forks, with the exception that I am willing to notify downstream developers of important security holes or consensus bugs. This is an act of courtesy that requires very little effort, but could help save some DACs some serious pain. I would expect good downstream developers to give me the same courtesy and warn of any security issues they discover.

With respect, I do not want to discuss which chains the community should or should not support in this thread. I just want a list of real projects that are using our codebase purely for the above purpose of sharing security vulnerabilities.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Re: What are the forks of BitShares being legitimately developed?
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2014, 12:58:32 AM »
Well complaining that DPOS-PTS doesn't honor the social consensus when it is an attempt to upgrade (replace) PTS is pretty dumb IMO. If it did, it wouldn't be serving its stated purpose, which would mean it would be ignored by default.

DPOS-PTS with AGS as a user asset would be fine.
I fully agree ... airdropping DPOS-PTS onto AGS holders does not make sense regarding the 10%/10% consensus ... either not airdrop on AGS or change the consensus ..

disclaimer: I am a AGS holder and do only hold a few PTS ..

 +5%

As for the question Ron Paul Money may do a BitShares fork

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=848182.0

Offline Riverhead

Re: What are the forks of BitShares being legitimately developed?
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2014, 08:57:08 PM »
So far the list, in chronological order, is:

MUSIC
PLAY
PTS
SPARKLE

I'll update this post if I think of any others.

As an aside AGS as a UIA on the PTS chain may kill a few birds with one stone.

Offline luckybit

Re: What are the forks of BitShares being legitimately developed?
« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2014, 09:17:50 PM »
Since that thread is locked , I am going to continue the discussion here. I would like to hear what the BitShares team thinks about requiring an airdrop of AGS to PTS to maintain the favor of the community.

I feel that DPOS PTS deserves consideration by the community to give it a pass here but I can see how people would take the opinion that it is a violation of the social consensus.

DPOS PTS is cheaper to maintain and the discussion of moving PTS has been long going, even before the superDAC merger. I don't see why we should tilt the PTS / AGS split in favor of AGS instead of maintaining the current split other than semantics. Moving PTS to DPOS is beneficial for the whole community because it will cost us less to maintain. Of course it will still cost more than killing PTS; but I personally would like to see it live on for future DACs to snapshot. Combining AGS / PTS into one user issued asset and making that the new consensus tool would be my preferred option but I will support DPOS PTS in case that doesn't happen. In some ways DPOS PTS is the simpler upgrade path, because nobody has to step up to be the GENESIS issuer.

What do you think vikram?

I have not followed any discussion relating to PTS, but at an initial glance I suppose I can see why people could argue for either side when it comes to using the BitShares code--previously the BitShares Toolkit which was developed using AGS funds.

However, my initial reaction is that: at the end of the day, the BitShares source code is public domain and people are free to use it however they want. The PTS project has been abandoned by its original developers, so some community members have decided to adopt the project and release an upgrade which moves it onto the BitShares architecture. Performing a pure upgrade without reallocating ownership like this does not bother me.

I do not intend to provide support for this chain or any other forks, with the exception that I am willing to notify downstream developers of important security holes or consensus bugs. This is an act of courtesy that requires very little effort, but could help save some DACs some serious pain. I would expect good downstream developers to give me the same courtesy and warn of any security issues they discover.

With respect, I do not want to discuss which chains the community should or should not support in this thread. I just want a list of real projects that are using our codebase purely for the above purpose of sharing security vulnerabilities.

If they aren't following the social consensus how can you trust the code or the binaries?

It's one thing to trust Bytemaster and the developers around him. It's another to trust "alien" developers who don't follow the social consensus.


https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1012
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BTS: cyrano
  • Witness: cyrano
  • Payrate: 100%
Re: What are the forks of BitShares being legitimately developed?
« Reply #13 on: December 15, 2014, 09:32:31 PM »
If they aren't following the social consensus how can you trust the code or the binaries?

It's one thing to trust Bytemaster and the developers around him. It's another to trust "alien" developers who don't follow the social consensus.

You can examine the code and *then* trust it. You can trust the binaries if you build them yourself.

(And note that the original PTS wasn't developed by bm or i3 either.)
Please vote for my BitShares witness "cyrano" and for my STEEM witness "cyrano.witness"!
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline fluxer555

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 601
    • View Profile
Re: What are the forks of BitShares being legitimately developed?
« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2014, 09:37:42 PM »
It's one thing to trust Bytemaster and the developers around him. It's another to trust "alien" developers who don't follow the social consensus.

I think people are not defining "legitimately" in the sense that Vikram means or wants. People are mixing up different things, and need to keep them separate. Not following the social consensus does not mean the fork's code is illegitimate, and following the social consensus does not make the fork's code automatically legitimate.

If there is a fork of BitShares with competent developers, it doesn't matter if they followed the social consensus or not, in terms of the legitimacy of the code in their fork. There may be other illegitimate aspects to the fork, but I assume Vikram also wants to keep an eye on any and all actively/seriously developed forks for any innovation or bug fixes or anything else that could potentially help BTS.

It's also better for DPOS, and in turn better for BitShares, if all DPOS chains are stable and secure.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2014, 09:41:08 PM by fluxer555 »
BTS: flux-tips

 

Google+