Author Topic: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?  (Read 43845 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bobmaloney

So I thought that overall the announcement went really well but unfortunately it only took newmine and his new brother in arms klosure a couple posts to get the pitchforks out.

I think it's pretty crazy how ready people can be to read the worst into every statement and look for conspiracies everywhere. If you actually think BM and the rest of the team are looking for ways to stab BTS in the back then I'm not sure what planet you're from. Not only do they have lots of stake (though fortunately nowhere near what Ripple Labs has for Ripple), it's also their baby, the fruit of their vision and blood and sweat, and the future showcase of their technology. I reckon the interests of Bitshares and its main devs have never been as well aligned as this.

BM has said BTS will get full use of the Graphene toolkit, and all this talk of multiledgers for "demultiplexing" is just a strawman, if it ever comes to to that it means BTS is successful enough to pay for it itself.

I don't see it that way.

I think most people here with legitimate concerns (by now I think most of us know who to read, who to consider and who to skip) are over Cryptonomex as a company.

We don't know the ownership percentages - what little we do know is from the mumble - that bytemaster doesn't own 51%.

But how much do the angels own? Who are they?  What are their goals? Interests? Alignment?  This matters.

bytemaster's claim that they plan to diversify holdings is somewhat bothersome as well and a lot of that part of the mumble came off as kind of like - (not a quote) 'well, things are different now - we are Cryptonomex, you're not - so it's none of your business'

Yes, that is bothersome - and this is coming from someone who has been here since the beginning and trusted in the devs through every minor crisis to date.

If the diversification is short term, to pay for rather immediate expenses - OK, but if Cryptonomex is truly all-in on BTS - their holdings should reflect that.

Also - who is Cryptonomex?

What makes the team? I've been looking for a team page and have yet to find it.

Is Toast part of Cryptonomex? Vikram? Agent86? theoretical? who? - is there a link I'm not seeing?

Again, I think most concerned here have a tremendous amount of trust and faith in the Larimer's and the rest of the dev team, but we have yet to be convinced that Cryptonomex is not something that can run away from them.

I really hope to get some reassuring answers soon. We have our first Bay Area meetup on Thursday and I'm sure most of us have had enough of a hard time trying to get up to speed with the technical and operational 2.0 changes - I really would like this issue to be worked out before being blindsided by a newb with interest and not having an answer.

Lastly, thanks again to everybody in this community - from the devs to the lurkers who show up for 1 or 2 important posts. The last 18 months have been the most optimistic I have ever been that the next 100 years will be one of enlightenment and abundance.
"The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
- Jack Handey (SNL)

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
Maybe something like copyright respective authors, licensed for use with Bitshares is a step in right direction?... that way other people can contribute code to the project for the specific benefit of BitShares while they retain their own right to use their own code that they contributed rather than giving it all to Cryptonomex which seems harsh.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2015, 05:50:23 pm by Agent86 »

Offline Thom

Actually I believe much of this discussion is a recurrence of the same issue the Larimers have repeatedly demonstrated a weakness in: PR.

If Stan / Dan had selected a trusted subset of delegates from the community to act as a PR review board, rather than put the responsibility for making that happen on someone else, this discussion could have been diffused into the community in a much smoother fashion or avoided altogether, given enough time to process the interests of the various parties involved.

I keep harping on this point b/c it isn't acknowledged or discussed, yet it is central to every major decision (merger, going silent, abandoning old code base and moving to graphene, the creation of Cryptonomex to fund core devs, using IP licensing as a means of protecting the BitShares ecosystem...) where controversy arises.

The core dev team needs a solution to this problem, and I see no changes in the short term to correct it. After 2.0 is released and the core devs abdicate their delegate positions and the leadership of this ecosystem becomes truly and 100% transparent, there will be no such surprises. Not saying there will be no controversy after 2.0, only that all issues will be out in the open.

Until then we'll just have to discuss / react / negotiate with Cryptonomex, now that they have disclosed their intentions. What is still undisclosed is the influences at work (i.e. investors) within Cryptonomex. Are there other options we haven't explored to achieve protection without IP? Would those option be acceptable to Cryptonomex's investors?

At some point we need to hear from BM (Does he represent Cryptonomex?) to address the concerns raised by the community. Perhaps it's too early and they are waiting for the discussion to subside to come to a consensus on what the issues are before they engage.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline d3adh3ad

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Cryptonomex is about to show the world that the problems that plague Bitcoin (paralysis in block size debate and inability to move forward) do not affect Bitshares. Relax everyone. Current system allows you to either adopt the change or not and you will. It will be fine.

Offline klosure

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
I was thinking this myself this morning. I have seen about 99% of the negative stuff be due to mostly people jumping to foregone conclusions. They get focused on one sprocket and don't see how the others that drive it make it work the way it needs to. There is a lot to gasp, and for a lot of people all it takes is one person to come along with over the top fear loaded words to spark cries that the whole system doesn't work out of analysis of one sprocket. So it gets wrapped up in the loaded term 'BitShares' and we all see people go on about it without really going on about it.

That's what you get when you make people face a fait accompli instead of consulting them in early stage.
The fact no comprehensive information has been released together with the announcement doesn't make things any better.
It's a bit desingenuous to complain that people focus on one sprocket when all there is to see is that sprocket.

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
Here is the deal, "BitShares" as not a legal entity and cannot "own" IP.    I personally do not recognize IP, but most people do including some of those who have contributed to BTS source code.
The public domain is the legal entity that owns BitShares IP. It's a very real legal entity and you are infringing on its rights by trying to alienate its enjoyment of the intellectual properties it owns.

Public domain is not a legal entity, nor is it even a license granted to anyone. It is just the relinquishing of copyright. It is impossible to infringe on the rights of the public domain. You can't prosecute anyone for violating anything because there is nothing to violate and no one with standing to enforce. It is perfectly legal to take public domain software and charge people $100 to download it from you.

Quote
Beside your stance regarding BitShares legal status is inconsistent and changes depending on the point you are trying to make. It's not a legal entity when it's about stripping it from it's intellectual property. But when you are pitching BitShares 2.0 BitShares is a well defined entity that can be the legal recipient of a software license with all the guarantees that this implies. That doesn't add up. If BitShares is not a legal entity, there is no way that you can make a software licence that will legally entitle BitShares to unlimited use of Graphene since BitShares is something that can't quite be define legally. That means that the exclusive license is a castle of cards that won't stand in court.

You are right here, this needs to be cleaned up. Graphene should NOT be licensed to BitShares since BitShares doesn't exist. instead, it should be licensed to the end users/future developers/anyone that downloads the code who are free to modify, distribute, and use with no restriction provided it is used with the longest bitshares blockchain. That is fine, and will stand up in court.

Quote
So let's be clear here and stop sugar coating.

BitShares not being a legal entity doesn't own the intellectual property but that doesn't mean that the core developers own it instead. As per the original license under which BitShares was released, the property rights to the work belong to the public domain. Authors retain only the moral rights.

Yes, that is correct - but I don't see what the problem is. No one is claiming ownsership of the original bitshares code, just the as-of-yet unreleased modifications. That is perfectly legal (provided the funding came from independent sources and development)

Quote
BitShares not being a legal entity cannot be protected by any software license whatsoever, so all the reassuring guarantees of exclusive and illimited licensing are hollow promises that can be revoked on a whim by Cryptonomex and won't stand in court.

You are correct, the license is not TO bitshares but given to the users and future developers of bitshares. Those are not hollow promises and those do stand up in court.


Regarding ownership of intellectual property, there are three cases out of which two are straightforward:
- All the code and ideas that are implemented in the code of the current BitShares project belong to the public domain as per the terms of the Unlicence under which it has been released. There is no way back on that, so Cryptonomex can't claim any particular rights on that code and set of ideas, and can't patent anything that makes the current BitShares protocol what it is since BitShares stands as prior art. The public keeps all rights of reuse of the existing code and owes nothing to Cryptonomex regardless of the claims they may make.
Yes
Quote
- All the code and ideas that are developped independently by Cryptonomex using its own funds and its own resources belongs to Cryptonomex and they may use and license it as they see fit.
Yes
Quote
- For all the code and ideas that hasn't been put in the public domain but has been developed prior to the incorporation of Cryptonomex or by individuals not affiliated to Cryptonomex at that time, and in particular when it could be shown that all funds meant to fund the development of BitShares hadn't been used yet, the ownership isn' clear. It may belong to its respective authors or to BitShares and therefore the public domain depending on exact circumstances. Although there really isn't much legal guidance about that case since BitShares isn't a legal entity and hasn't signed non-compete and disclosure of conflict of interests agreements, it would still be easy to show that appropriation by Cryptonomex of code which development was funded by the public for the purpose of releae in the  public domain would be unethical, so the outcome of an eventual judgement on the matter is anything but clear.
(highlighting by me) That is where the problem can exist. Usually companies set up systems to not contaminate development of one funding source with another. I'm assuming that the reason cryptonomex was set up was to isolate I3's work (public domain) from the new work (cryptonomex)
« Last Edit: June 15, 2015, 01:33:06 pm by maqifrnswa »
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

The public domain is the legal entity that owns BitShares IP. It's a very real legal entity and you are infringing on its rights by trying to alienate its enjoyment of the intellectual properties it owns.

BitShares is an overloaded term. There is BitShares the protocol (1), BitShares the toolkit (2), and BitShares the populated blockchain (3) which is the store of value for this community.

1. BitShares the protocol: Public Domain
2. BitShares the toolkit: Public Domain?
3. BitShares the blockchain: ???

Cryptonomex is pitching a better (2) that fully implements (1) in the hopes that (3) will adopt it. Is it not the case that someone else in the future could implement a different (2) and try to sell it to (3)? It would be the community's job at that point to decide what to do, again, and the delegate's job (and by extension the witnesses) to either follow the desires of the shareholders or get fired.

edits: Typos and grammar.

I was thinking this myself this morning. I have seen about 99% of the negative stuff be due to mostly people jumping to foregone conclusions. They get focused on one sprocket and don't see how the others that drive it make it work the way it needs to. There is a lot to gasp, and for a lot of people all it takes is one person to come along with over the top fear loaded words to spark cries that the whole system doesn't work out of analysis of one sprocket. So it gets wrapped up in the loaded term 'BitShares' and we all see people go on about it without really going on about it.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline klosure

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
The public domain is the legal entity that owns BitShares IP. It's a very real legal entity and you are infringing on its rights by trying to alienate its enjoyment of the intellectual properties it owns.

BitShares is an overloaded term. There is BitShares the protocol (1), BitShares the toolkit (2), and BitShares the populated blockchain (3) which is the store of value for this community.

1. BitShares the protocol: Public Domain
2. BitShares the toolkit: Public Domain?
3. BitShares the blockchain: ???

Cryptonomex is pitching a better (2) that fully implements (1) in the hopes that (3) will adopt it. Is it not the case that someone else in the future could implement a different (2) and try to sell it to (3)? It would be the community's job at that point to decide what to do, again, and the delegate's job (and by extension the witnesses) to either follow the desires of the shareholders or get fired.

edits: Typos and grammar.


Quote
https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares
The BitShares source code is in the public domain under the Unlicense. See the LICENSE for more information.

Regarding ownership of intellectual property, there are three cases out of which two are straightforward:
- All the code and ideas that are implemented in the code of the current BitShares project belong to the public domain as per the terms of the Unlicence under which it has been released. There is no way back on that, so Cryptonomex can't claim any particular rights on that code and set of ideas, and can't patent anything that makes the current BitShares protocol what it is since BitShares stands as prior art. The public keeps all rights of reuse of the existing code and owes nothing to Cryptonomex regardless of the claims they may make.
- All the code and ideas that are developped independently by Cryptonomex using its own funds and its own resources belongs to Cryptonomex and they may use and license it as they see fit.
- For all the code and ideas that hasn't been put in the public domain but has been developed prior to the incorporation of Cryptonomex or by individuals not affiliated to Cryptonomex at that time, and in particular when it could be shown that all funds meant to fund the development of BitShares hadn't been used yet, the ownership isn' clear. It may belong to its respective authors or to BitShares and therefore the public domain depending on exact circumstances. Although there really isn't much legal guidance about that case since BitShares isn't a legal entity and hasn't signed non-compete and disclosure of conflict of interests agreements, it would still be easy to show that appropriation by Cryptonomex of code which development was funded by the public for the purpose of releae in the  public domain would be unethical, so the outcome of an eventual judgement on the matter is anything but clear.

Offline Riverhead

The public domain is the legal entity that owns BitShares IP. It's a very real legal entity and you are infringing on its rights by trying to alienate its enjoyment of the intellectual properties it owns.

BitShares is an overloaded term. There is BitShares the protocol (1), BitShares the toolkit (2), and BitShares the populated blockchain (3) which is the store of value for this community.

1. BitShares the protocol: Public Domain
2. BitShares the toolkit: Public Domain?
3. BitShares the blockchain: ???

Cryptonomex is pitching a better (2) that fully implements (1) in the hopes that (3) will adopt it. Is it not the case that someone else in the future could implement a different (2) and try to sell it to (3)? It would be the community's job at that point to decide what to do, again, and the delegate's job (and by extension the witnesses) to either follow the desires of the shareholders or get fired.

edits: Typos and grammar.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2015, 09:45:33 am by Riverhead »

Offline klosure

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Here is the deal, "BitShares" as not a legal entity and cannot "own" IP.    I personally do not recognize IP, but most people do including some of those who have contributed to BTS source code.
The public domain is the legal entity that owns BitShares IP. It's a very real legal entity and you are infringing on its rights by trying to alienate its enjoyment of the intellectual properties it owns.

Beside your stance regarding BitShares legal status is inconsistent and changes depending on the point you are trying to make. It's not a legal entity when it's about stripping it from it's intellectual property. But when you are pitching BitShares 2.0 BitShares is a well defined entity that can be the legal recipient of a software license with all the guarantees that this implies. That doesn't add up. If BitShares is not a legal entity, there is no way that you can make a software licence that will legally entitle BitShares to unlimited use of Graphene since BitShares is something that can't quite be define legally. That means that the exclusive license is a castle of cards that won't stand in court.

So let's be clear here and stop sugar coating.

BitShares not being a legal entity doesn't own the intellectual property but that doesn't mean that the core developers own it instead. As per the original license under which BitShares was released, the property rights to the work belong to the public domain. Authors retain only the moral rights.

BitShares not being a legal entity cannot be protected by any software license whatsoever, so all the reassuring guarantees of exclusive and illimited licensing are hollow promises that can be revoked on a whim by Cryptonomex and won't stand in court.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2015, 09:31:57 am by klosure »

Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile
BM has said BTS will get full use of the Graphene toolkit, and all this talk of multiledgers for "demultiplexing" is just a strawman, if it ever comes to to that it means BTS is successful enough to pay for it itself.

Also, by that point it might even be time for a rewrite of the technology (potentially even in a new language, e.g. Rust). Cryptonomex doesn't (and cannot) own the protocol. At that point BTS could easily fund some talented devs (maybe these would be devs who formerly worked for the company Cryptonomex, or maybe they are just other talented devs) to write a copyfree licensed implementation of the protocol (or a slightly modified protocol we hard fork to that is better suited to the improvements in the technology) and at that point whatever license Cryptonomex has with Graphene would be irrelevant.

I would love it if Graphene was copyfree licensed already (even with the added risk of making it easier for clones to copy our technology and try to compete with better marketing). But from what I understand, BitShares is not large enough yet for that strategy to increase our chances of BitShares becoming successful. Our low market cap means we cannot afford to pay the devs their fair market rate (even when we take into account that we can fire all marketing delegates because they can now be compensated with the referral system that is supported with higher fees). So the license structure Cryptonomex came up with seems to be a compromise that lets us stakeholders still have a lot of control over the future of BitShares but also allows the devs to get other sources of revenue so that they can continue to innovate on the technology at full speed. I find this compromise to be pragmatic and acceptable. Although, I would like it if we could eventually transition to something like a copyfree license when BitShares is larger (bigger market cap, bigger network effect) without needing to work around Cryptonomex by hiring other devs to reimplement the protocol from scratch (however having multiple implementations of the same protocol is a good thing to eventually do anyway for multiple reasons).

 +5%
█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█

Offline betax

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 808
    • View Profile

I think it's pretty crazy how ready people can be to read the worst into every statement and look for conspiracies everywhere. If you actually think BM and the rest of the team are looking for ways to stab BTS in the back then I'm not sure what planet you're from.

I think this is more than a matter of 'trust BM and team'.  We are talking about a real legal corporate entity called 'Cryptomex'.  It has its own set of Directors and Sharesholders.  We do not know if BM is a major sharesholder (with voting rights) in Cryptomex and therefore has a major say in it.  Nor do we know if BM would continue to keep his major stake in Cryptomex (and not sell his shares) if he was indeed a major shareholder.  Any other external person who takes over as a major shareholder can vote out BM and team, and change the direction of Cryptomex.  There is nothing to stop Cryptomex to develop a competing chain, or chains, since it owns all the rights to bitshares.  We need clarity on the structure of Cryptomex.

 +5%
personally I will always trust BM, but Cryptonomex is a company, it will have complex conflicts of interest in future.

Exactly, I believe Cryptonomex should be able to do consultancy, but the license fees should be distributed to Bitshare holders, this should be part of the license / contract. Even better all license fees (as somebody mentioned) should be in BTS and burnt later on, this will ensure the future of Bitshares and everybody's including devs which have the biggest stake.

If a company would ever want to start a private chain, they will pay consultancy fees from Cryptonomex and buy a license using BTS (burning) win / win situation. Any improvements on the code / new features could be offset of the license fee (as workers). This will also encourage improvements for generic parts and a market for new features.

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

Offline wallace

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile

I think it's pretty crazy how ready people can be to read the worst into every statement and look for conspiracies everywhere. If you actually think BM and the rest of the team are looking for ways to stab BTS in the back then I'm not sure what planet you're from.

I think this is more than a matter of 'trust BM and team'.  We are talking about a real legal corporate entity called 'Cryptomex'.  It has its own set of Directors and Sharesholders.  We do not know if BM is a major sharesholder (with voting rights) in Cryptomex and therefore has a major say in it.  Nor do we know if BM would continue to keep his major stake in Cryptomex (and not sell his shares) if he was indeed a major shareholder.  Any other external person who takes over as a major shareholder can vote out BM and team, and change the direction of Cryptomex.  There is nothing to stop Cryptomex to develop a competing chain, or chains, since it owns all the rights to bitshares.  We need clarity on the structure of Cryptomex.

 +5%
personally I will always trust BM, but Cryptonomex is a company, it will have complex conflicts of interest in future.
give me money, I will do...

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
Graphene source code is owned by Cryptonomex.
BitShares may use the code we release for 2.0 without restrictions
BitShares may develop extra features and use them without restriction
BItSHares may purchase extra features from Cryptonomex

Does the "purchase" of features that BitShares will vote on and pay for come with those licensing rights?
In other words, if any other Cryptonomex customer wants to then buy  those (bought and paid for) features when they see how great they are working on BitShares, does the fee go to BitShares (who will be ordering and paying for them) or to Cryptomex?

I believe if there is a 'purchase' of feature by BitShares community, it means that that we purchase the rights to 'USE' and NOT to 'RESELL' those features.  Any proceeds from the sales of new 2.0 codes (ie USE and/or RESELL licenses) go to Cryptomex.

I think it's pretty crazy how ready people can be to read the worst into every statement and look for conspiracies everywhere. If you actually think BM and the rest of the team are looking for ways to stab BTS in the back then I'm not sure what planet you're from.

I think this is more than a matter of 'trust BM and team'.  We are talking about a real legal corporate entity called 'Cryptomex'.  It has its own set of Directors and Sharesholders.  We do not know if BM is a major sharesholder (with voting rights) in Cryptomex and therefore has a major say in it.  Nor do we know if BM would continue to keep his major stake in Cryptomex (and not sell his shares) if he was indeed a major shareholder.  Any other external person who takes over as a major shareholder can vote out BM and team, and change the direction of Cryptomex.  There is nothing to stop Cryptomex to develop a competing chain, or chains, since it owns all the rights to bitshares.  We need clarity on the structure of Cryptomex.

I am also curious about the legal structure of cryptonomex (does anyone else think fireproof crypto when they say that)  My viewpoint is once again that the position of bitshares is made stronger by the license.  As of 0.9.2 if Toast of Vikram or BM or any of the other developers got fed up they could fork the code, and directly compete.  Perhaps attempt to bring in some corporate sponsors.  After 2.0, they would not be able to do that without the permission of cryptonomex.  This makes knowing who is ultimately responsible for making licensing decisions on behalf of cryptonomex very important.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

So I thought that overall the announcement went really well but unfortunately it only took newmine and his new brother in arms klosure a couple posts to get the pitchforks out.

I think it's pretty crazy how ready people can be to read the worst into every statement and look for conspiracies everywhere. If you actually think BM and the rest of the team are looking for ways to stab BTS in the back then I'm not sure what planet you're from. Not only do they have lots of stake (though fortunately nowhere near what Ripple Labs has for Ripple), it's also their baby, the fruit of their vision and blood and sweat, and the future showcase of their technology. I reckon the interests of Bitshares and its main devs have never been as well aligned as this.

BM has said BTS will get full use of the Graphene toolkit, and all this talk of multiledgers for "demultiplexing" is just a strawman, if it ever comes to to that it means BTS is successful enough to pay for it itself.

 +5%
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+