Author Topic: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?  (Read 43821 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
Now that you mention it, they should probably GTFO from the US ... and incorporate somewhere else. Like Switzerland.

Some of us have family and kids keeping us here.

The company could be incorporated in Switzerland even if you live in the US .. but these days I do think being an American and/or living in US soil is a big liability on many fronts. In light of recent events it should not be necessary to elaborate.

But yeah, I worry about Cryptonomex being a US company. Among other things, the government there can force you guys not to disclose to us any backdoors they decide to implement, they can lock you all in jail under any pretext, seize laptops and servers on US soil, freely intercept your non-encrypted communications.. plant bugs with near impunity, etc.

BitShares, especially in the 2.0 incarnation (once again, well done.. if the code matches the announcements, it'll be BIG!), is going to majorly piss some old, fat sharks.. sharks with millions of dollars and plenty of friends high up.

Being incorporated in a jurisdiction where frivolous litigation is the rule, a tendency for too much regulation, a clearly established oligarchic system, and to top it off an increasingly totalitarian government with an unhealthy appetite for tax dollars and curbing personal freedom (of which BTS 2.0 with privacy will bring plenty).. you get the picture.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2015, 05:03:14 pm by karnal »

Offline bytemaster

Now that you mention it, they should probably GTFO from the US ... and incorporate somewhere else. Like Switzerland.

Some of us have family and kids keeping us here. 
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
Now that you mention it, they should probably GTFO from the US ... and incorporate somewhere else. Like Switzerland.

Offline bytemaster

This was supposed to be published along with the 2.0 announcement... but due to a desire for perfection it was not published.   I think it is good enough to give you all an idea of how we are thinking and what we are attempting to achieve.    I apologize for any confusion.

Quote
BitShares is first and foremost a protocol based upon a public ledger. Anyone may provide and distribute an alternative implementation of the protocol and use the protocol for any other blockchain. The Graphene Toolkit produced by Cryptonomex, Inc is only one possible implementation of the protocol.

The Graphene Toolkit will be licensed by Cryptonomex, Inc for use with the BitShares (BTS) blockchain. The terms of the license will allow the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof to be used with the BitShares blockchain without any restrictions. Cryptonomex, Inc retains all rights to the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof for any other use. The BitShares blockchain is defined as exactly one global ledger. In the event of a hard-fork only one branch may be considered the official BitShares ledger which will be unambiguously decided as the fork with the highest market capitalization.

This means that from the perspective of BitShares, the Graphene Toolkit is fully open source and its use, distribution, and future cannot be dictated by Cryptonomex or any other entity.

All of the devs are committed to making sure that BitShares is free from the control of any company or person.   
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

All this talk about how PTS/AGS holders should have some kind of shares in Cryptonomex... you all want to get something.. are you willing to take the liabilities that come with it as well?
All this talk?  I mentioned PTS and AGS from my perspective and why I still hold PTS--noone else.  As for liabilities the PTS and, even moreso,  the AGS founders took on said liabilities before anyone else.  But I never said that share-dropping a cryptonomex UIA should not be on BTS. 

Others who talked about the sharedrop idea mentioned pts, ags, and bts. 

So this comment is very confusing.

The commentaries that include the idea that AGS/PTS/BTS holders should have some kind of claim to this private company clearly show that the responsibilities and duties with being a shareholder in a REAL company governed by all the laws and regulations of whatever state in good'ol U S of A.. not this micky-mouse-crypto-we-can-do-what-we-want stuff, have not been considered. Thus my commentary about the liabilities.

It seems everyone is glazing over the fact that they are going into no-mans-land of legal risk with what they are attempting to do. They are attempting to tread as carefully as possible.. but there are very real threats to their enterprise that they are taking all the risk for while the rest of us BTS users enjoy the Vendetta masks and NO LIABILITIES for what may fall upon them in what they are attempting to do.

They are leading by example in an attempt to lay the framework for future companies to follow. I'm proud of this fact. This ultimately is to ALL OUR BENEFITS because it is what will help make BTS grow.

This can be a success and help other companies along to adopting the BTS network in their biz.. or it can piss off the Koch brothers and have their buddies at the SEC/IRS tear it apart. WE, as it stands now, ARE PROTECTED from this. You become a shareholder, and you are exposed and those involved will all have a new kind of scrutiny to their lives.

We are nothing but a spec of dust now to them.. but as our AI friend understood:



Soon as Cryptonomex takes a bite out of one of their pies, you better believe they are going to be put to the test if they can fight with the big dogs, or end up peeing puppies. Everyone here willing to risk your careers, businesses, and families in that fight?

If things don't take off in BTS land, are you all prepared to start paying out of pocket to keep payroll going? To pay the legal expenses? To pay the rent?

So I ask again.. are all of you prepared to take the liabilities? Are you all willing to walk the line without your Vendetta masks? Because that' part of the conversation here if you really understand what is being asked for. Just something to think about in terms of the big picture.

Could they attempt to take measures to mitigate this? Sure.. has that ever protected anyone from the SEC/IRS? Nope.

The phrase 'be careful what you wish for' comes to mind when I read this line of thinking.

Riverhead also stated the obvious in that they have delivered above and beyond and are now stepping up the game of risk for them to boot. The thanks is a FUD thread started by the most notorious FUDer of the forum that some members have seen fit to allow to be fed.

We talk about freedom and liberty.. but when it comes to the developers of bitshares.. this thread suggests they don't have either because they should be doing the bidding of the bitshares community because of a donation made over a year ago that has since been long spent to give you what we have now and in the next few months to come. This communist double standard only drives away any good talent from wanting to join in.

Did anybody else notice how Dan was asking at the hangout for talent to join them? Do you think when FUD threads like this where the community seems to think they should be entitled to a piece of everything come up that real talent out there would want to join us? Course not.. would you?

The 2.0 of BitShares is going to have us in full control of what happens to it via voting.. this in itself is amazing and more than any other crypto project can even dream of right now.. yet here we are.

We haven't seen the licensing but we know Dan and the rest and there is no reason for us to believe that they will not operate in the best interest in growing BitShares. Anyone else would have long abandoned BitShares with the way the market cap went long ago.

Be content and don't let the FUD trolls prey on unfounded fears. <mic dropped>
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline fuzzy

As someone that sees lots of oss licenses, I'd have to see the text before commenting. But I don't see any red flags yet. I think it looks like a good thing to do for long term stability.

Why not just dual license the tech? Gpl but reserve the right to license non-gpl commercially with some fraction of the fees going to buy bts (proportional to "equity" however that's calculated this case). That means if someone else copies it, they will basically do work for you for free.

Now we are talking about potential solutions... can  we continue this by you giving more details?  Solution-oriented thinking is what I like to see...
And what do you do in the real world that gives you this level of experience?  Might be helpful to keep us on track without someone trying to start bashing you and making us lose this focus.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2015, 03:04:51 pm by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
As someone that sees lots of oss licenses, I'd have to see the text before commenting. But I don't see any red flags yet. I think it looks like a good thing to do for long term stability.

Why not just dual license the tech? Gpl but reserve the right to license non-gpl commercially with some fraction of the fees going to buy bts (proportional to "equity" however that's calculated this case). That means if someone else copies it, they will basically do work for you for free.


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 fuzzy

All this talk about how PTS/AGS holders should have some kind of shares in Cryptonomex... you all want to get something.. are you willing to take the liabilities that come with it as well?
All this talk?  I mentioned PTS and AGS from my perspective and why I still hold PTS.  As for liabilities the PTS and, even moreso,  the AGS founders took on said liabilities before anyone else.  But I never said that sharedropping a cryptonomex UIA should not be on BTS. 

Others who talked about the sharedrop idea mentioned pts, ags, and bts.  And let's be honest..each represents a different demographic. So to think they are not legitimate targets isn't exactly true.  To be honest, PLAY and NOTES potentially are other great targets.

So this comment is very confusing to me...and let's face facts. ..it's mostly a pointless discussion anyway because a sharedrop is likely not on the table.

One thing I do know is luckybit old days talking about the gifting economy really got me interested in the potential for sharedropping as a means of thanking those who donate to ensure a risky project stays alive...and Dan's original vision for sharedropping was really the biggest reason I became so interested in this project to the point where I personally worked to help forge a community platform to help display the value of our community and help ensure future projects saw said value as worthy of sharedropping.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2015, 02:25:11 pm by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline Riverhead

All this talk about how PTS/AGS holders should have some kind of shares in Cryptonomex... you all want to get something.. are you willing to take the liabilities that come with it as well?

Agreed. AGS/PTS already has a stake in BTS and the developers have LONG ago earned out their commitment if indeed they ever had one.

They've started a company to earn some money and will continue to support BTS. I don't see how we have any claim to a stake in that. If they IPO on BTS I will be first in line to buy some shares but I don't feel entitled to any for free.

If anything the shoe is on the other foot. What is BTS going to do for them to keep them interested? Pay them.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

All this talk about how PTS/AGS holders should have some kind of shares in Cryptonomex... you all want to get something.. are you willing to take the liabilities that come with it as well?
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline Permie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: krimduss
So for these reasons I would stick with BTS. I would think most people if they have a choice between a BTS chain and a GS chain would choose BTS unless GS hid the fact that their chain is made by GS. Perhaps they could have it look like a community self emergent development and then I could see them taking over.
GS = Goldman Sachs, right?

How do we know that the current chain isn't this GS chain?
I would say that it's impossible to know for sure and that stranger things have happened.

Not that I believe that, but every time I feel like 'BitShares is going to save the world :D :D :D' I am abruptly reminded that plenty of people smarter than me have been fooled before.
What do we really know about anything?
JonnyBitcoin votes for liquidity and simplicity. Make him your proxy?
BTSDEX.COM

Offline betax

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 808
    • View Profile
I would not want to end up like RedHat / MySql / Java (Sun), it seems that the only one that benefit was no the community but companies like Oracle. But if licensing fees were distributed with the community that would support continue development even if contributors are not recognised workers, and just investors supporting their investment and community.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
It looks like we funded the BitShares team to develop a proprietary toolkit software where all profits from this will not benefit the BTS holder but in fact destroy them?

I also found a post by a concerned person that Bytemaster and team could eventually leave Bitshares to work on their for profit company that is going to compete with Bitshares?

I mean wtf? The whole merger was about getting rid of competition and now the Dev team has gone and started a for profit company using the technology we all paid them to develop "open source"

Please explain or direct me to links. Thanks.

Mainly answer where the time came from to develop this new project as we have been waiting for a stable 1.0 for nearly a year? And were you working on this as people were losing their ass while shorting bitAssets because of the fucked rules in place?

Even if that did happen it could end up being a Redhat/Fedora type situation. It really depends on how it plays out.

Redhat and Suse both have commercial businesses yet they still keep the software open source for the community. So you can do it and I don't see why you would have to abandon the community as long as the improvements made in the commercial software are phased into the community software.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit


If tomorrow Goldman Sacs commissions Cryptonomex to build them a full spectrum solution based on the Graphene toolkit, is there a way and intent to benefit the BTS stakeholders in any way?

I like your question. Waiting for the answer...

PS.  In place of Goldman Sachs put any big Company of course.

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

GS would spend 3M to build their own tech if BTS devs didn't cooperate with their requests and then they would compete with BTS anyway.  Once this is understood you realize the devs either "take the deal" or "go down with the ship". 

BTS stakeholders must make do what it takes to retain talent, period.
Developers must do what makes the most sense to maximize their income, period.

BTS has been public domain thus far, which means anyone could take the code and the developers have been independent which means they are "free to leave".   

It really comes down to the community continuing to make "staying" the best option available.   This is FREE MARKET cooperation.

If GS wants to enter the market with a ton of money and produce a product that is compatible with our vision, then it would be stupid for BTS developers to not take them up on a job offer.  It would be stupid for both financial and philosophical reasons, namely, freedom supporting blockchain tech going mainstream is the real goal.   
If GS wants to produce a blockchain that is not compatible with BitShares philosophy, then developers should still take them up on it because it would be a DIFFERENT MARKET and they could use the money earned to improve BTS.

Bottom line the only reason for developers to not take them up on it is if they actually think they could compete head to head with GS when all technology is equal. 

Any stakeholders here want to promise not to sell their BTS if GS decided to compete by reimplementing all of our ideas?

At these prices and at this stage of market immaturity I would hold even if GS did directly compete. I would hold even if GS hired or bribed the lead developers of BTS. The reason is there is no guarantee for the developers that they'd keep the job at BTS for very long.

Remember how Overstock hired the Counterparty developer and then what happened to him? What about that Bitcoin developer who got hired by Reddit and then what happened to him?

From a developers perspective it makes more sense to work for a company you own a lot of equity in than to have just a job. So it really depends on how much equity the developers have in Bitshares and in the timing.

At this point in time it would be like the Google guys quitting to go work for Yahoo or another search engine. At some point they did think about selling the technology but if they had done that they wouldn't have become what they are today. It's understandable in a mature market to focus on the big established companies but in the immature market like this even if Bitshares goes up to a few billion dollars the developers will all be millionaires.

GS could definitely compete and even with that both blockchains would probably still end up with billions in net worth due to how early things are and how few people know about BTS. I also don't think many people would trust the GS chain if it's announced as the GS chain so BTS will definitely have an advantage with a certain demographic of people who don't like or trust GS.

So for these reasons I would stick with BTS. I would think most people if they have a choice between a BTS chain and a GS chain would choose BTS unless GS hid the fact that their chain is made by GS. Perhaps they could have it look like a community self emergent development and then I could see them taking over.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline betax

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 808
    • View Profile
My take on this:

I believe all developers want Bitshares to succeed. They all have huge amounts of BTS and growing, as they get paid in BTS. The bigger the value the better for everyone developers and shareholders.
I do believe that we need a license that won't allow any big company to copy Bitshares and create their own private / public clone and make lots of money screwing both developers and shareholders.
I do believe that when a company licenses Bitshares or the new engine, the fees should be distributed across BTS holders (up to a value we have issues with micro transactions). This way everyone is a winner devs (biggest holders) and shareholders for their continuous investment.
I do not see any legal issues on this, you own a token and have a share on a license.
If the new company decides to spin off a new fork, it will have to pay also licenses fees. This way everyone continuous to benefit (current devs and old devs together with shareholders).
If this happens, we will need to put our dev hats on and compete with each other... worst scenario.

BUT if Stan, BM and co have a much better idea / proposition, great.

edit: final thoughts...
« Last Edit: June 13, 2015, 10:26:59 am by betax »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads