Cryptonomex? WTF is this?

[Thom]

however it pans out, this project's existence has filled me with more hope for the future of the world than my cynical ass had upon discovering it.
thank you for that.

That was so well said!

[brainbug]

I would like to see the calculation of what has been made/done with the AGS/PTS funding and what with delegate funding, etc. In my opinion, if Graphene was built with AGS/PTS funding, then it has to be open source without any restrictions (well, at least the portion of code that was funded that way). I'm pretty sure CNX will do exactly that as anything else would be a hit on their reputation (any maybe a legal problem). Anyway, the business plan of CNX is logical from any perspective, and I would probably not do things differently.

Don't forget BitShares is such a tasty piece of software, because it is decentralized (in every way) ;-)

[arhag]

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).

[merockstar]

@ entire dev team

I want to apologize for my overreaction to this earlier.

even in a worst case scenario where all you guys just throw up your hands and say "fuck it, we work for the banks now." all the pieces are out here floating around, able to be picked up and expanded upon by any of a huge and talented crypto-community of potential devs.

upon reflection, I don't think that's going to be the case. all the work that's been done so far represents a huge advancement forward for liberty anyway you spin it. regardless of which version of bitshares we're talking about.

it's understandable that you guys don't want to be expected to work for free or very little, and the idea that you should may stem from philosophical differences about what the project represents or should represent.

I worry about whether the market is mature enough to stand on it's own without the devs behind it working for free and treating it as a hobbyist/pet project/revolutionary mantlepiece whose value means more than their own comfort, but it's your baby, and you would know better whether or not it's ready. this is an issue of trust, and I have no reason no to doubt your intentions based upon what the trust involved with AGS being donations has resulted in so far.

i think there's a lot of details about this plan left to be unveiled, and that is where a lot of the insecurities expressed in the preceding posts stem from.

3 amazing sharedrop targets still exist, and the world now has market pegged assets.

it will be fascinating to see how this plays out this summer, and in the long term. I'm glad I didn't run and sell.

this thread has shown me that i'm too emotionally invested in this project, especially for being somebody so very limited in how I can contribute. I'm going to try to plant my feet more firmly on the ground, and view this project as more of a possible catalyst for the change we all know is so very necessary in this world, rather than the last hope for that change to happen.

however it pans out, this project's existence has filled me with more hope for the future of the world than my cynical ass had upon discovering it.
thank you for that.

[cube]

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.

[svk]

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.

[Russ Hanneman]

Ripple labs has a huge sake in ripple, thus their interest are aligned, I3 has a good stake in PTS then BTS, but the greedy stan and BM are not happy, they tried everything in the books to increase their stake, AGS/PTS, DPOS, Merger and paid delegate, still not enough, now Cryptonomex and toolkit, how many ways to fleece the BTS holders? take your buggy toolkit and leave please! BTS community should kick them out, byebye BM!

After reading yiminh's very convincing argument and since I claim to own 51% of BitShares, I've decided to vote yiminh in as lead dev.

BITN Members : Once the price hits 1000 sats (which shoudn't take long) we can just vote Dan & Stan back in after we've cornered the market.

[mike623317]

@Dan and Stan:
We just hope that you can consider a "better" aligning of interest between BTS, the devs and cryptonomex. A great example is RippleLabs, the legal entity's success is closely tied to the success of the protocol. RippleLabs helps integrations, consults partners and trains more devs. They actively seek deals and partnerships to expand the ecosystem. So their aim is to make Ripple successful so their (the legal entity's) stash will be worth billions. On the other hand, i was given the impression that cryptonomex (the devs) and BTS's interests have never been less aligned. In the last hangout, fuzzy asked whether cryptonomex will be holding fund in BTS because of this concern i believe, but Dan didn't see it.

All the issues with IP and licenses aside, I hope cryptonomex reconsiders its business strategy and direction. Let's try to work out a relationship analogous to Ripple - RippleLabs, because it seems like it works (big partners coming in, better prospect of mainstream adoption, millions of funding, all the mistakes that can be learnt from). The details should be of course modified to fit our ecosystem here at BTS.

All in all, I am not saying that cryptonomex and the devs are abandoning BTS, and not that they are not bringing in deals and partnerships; but a better alignment of interests and goals would be even better.

Ripple labs has a huge sake in ripple, thus their interest are aligned, I3 has a good stake in PTS then BTS, but the greedy stan and BM are not happy, they tried everything in the books to increase their stake, AGS/PTS, DPOS, Merger and paid delegate, still not enough, now Cryptonomex and toolkit, how many ways to fleece the BTS holders? take your buggy toolkit and leave please! BTS community should kick them out, byebye BM!

WTF?! .... now that's gratitude for you.

The way i see it is the devs have given us a technical advantage with this Bitshares 2.0. Now they are will consult with other firms to supplement their incomes and use the profits to help grow and innovate Bitshares. Why are you pushing this message that somehow BM is trying to sabotage Bitshares. Has it ever occurred to you that he and the devs will follow through and keep innovating? Perhaps they will become part-time bitshares evangelists and spread the word far and wide.

You asked BM to take his toolkit and leave. May i suggest that you instead go and develop something better and if you can't then take a hike 

[montpelerin]

@Dan and Stan:
We just hope that you can consider a "better" aligning of interest between BTS, the devs and cryptonomex. A great example is RippleLabs, the legal entity's success is closely tied to the success of the protocol. RippleLabs helps integrations, consults partners and trains more devs. They actively seek deals and partnerships to expand the ecosystem. So their aim is to make Ripple successful so their (the legal entity's) stash will be worth billions. On the other hand, i was given the impression that cryptonomex (the devs) and BTS's interests have never been less aligned. In the last hangout, fuzzy asked whether cryptonomex will be holding fund in BTS because of this concern i believe, but Dan didn't see it.

All the issues with IP and licenses aside, I hope cryptonomex reconsiders its business strategy and direction. Let's try to work out a relationship analogous to Ripple - RippleLabs, because it seems like it works (big partners coming in, better prospect of mainstream adoption, millions of funding, all the mistakes that can be learnt from). The details should be of course modified to fit our ecosystem here at BTS.

All in all, I am not saying that cryptonomex and the devs are abandoning BTS, and not that they are not bringing in deals and partnerships; but a better alignment of interests and goals would be even better.

Ripple labs has a huge sake in ripple, thus their interest are aligned, I3 has a good stake in PTS then BTS, but the greedy stan and BM are not happy, they tried everything in the books to increase their stake, AGS/PTS, DPOS, Merger and paid delegate, still not enough, now Cryptonomex and toolkit, how many ways to fleece the BTS holders? take your buggy toolkit and leave please! BTS community should kick them out, byebye BM!

For some reason, I get the feeling this guy would sit LeBron after tonight because the Cavs are losing the Finals.

Anybody else with me?

[yiminh]

@Dan and Stan:
We just hope that you can consider a "better" aligning of interest between BTS, the devs and cryptonomex. A great example is RippleLabs, the legal entity's success is closely tied to the success of the protocol. RippleLabs helps integrations, consults partners and trains more devs. They actively seek deals and partnerships to expand the ecosystem. So their aim is to make Ripple successful so their (the legal entity's) stash will be worth billions. On the other hand, i was given the impression that cryptonomex (the devs) and BTS's interests have never been less aligned. In the last hangout, fuzzy asked whether cryptonomex will be holding fund in BTS because of this concern i believe, but Dan didn't see it.

All the issues with IP and licenses aside, I hope cryptonomex reconsiders its business strategy and direction. Let's try to work out a relationship analogous to Ripple - RippleLabs, because it seems like it works (big partners coming in, better prospect of mainstream adoption, millions of funding, all the mistakes that can be learnt from). The details should be of course modified to fit our ecosystem here at BTS.

All in all, I am not saying that cryptonomex and the devs are abandoning BTS, and not that they are not bringing in deals and partnerships; but a better alignment of interests and goals would be even better.

Ripple labs has a huge sake in ripple, thus their interest are aligned, I3 has a good stake in PTS then BTS, but the greedy stan and BM are not happy, they tried everything in the books to increase their stake, AGS/PTS, DPOS, Merger and paid delegate, still not enough, now Cryptonomex and toolkit, how many ways to fleece the BTS holders? take your buggy toolkit and leave please! BTS community should kick them out, byebye BM!

[fuzzy]

Oh man you are such a breath of fresh air every single time you speak.

BM and the devs are trying to navigate a crazy space of the existing legal structures/regulations and BitShares, which figuratively breaks the mold. This takes creative licensing, IP, corporate structures - all things that are against anarcho-capitalistic motivations that drives many people to cryptocurrency.

Honestly, if the devs didn't do this, bitshares would be more likely to fail to reach its goals.

This is the economic/business development equivalent of using copyrights to prevent IP restrictions
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Copyleft

It's still an experiment, the ideal mode is unknown - but as long as all the actors are true believers, they can work together to find a local (if not global) optimum.

Trust me I fully trust BM, Stan and the team.  I just also really think it is important to play devils advocate because there are some things that are too complex to simply boil down to trust...because trust might not be the problem.

I prefer the solution-oriented approach though as opposed to the original OP because although it does bring up valid points it does so in a way that draws the focus away from actually establishing solutions.  Thus my breath of fresh air comment....which I genuinely mean.

[mike623317]

Our intention isn't to put BTS on the "back foot", we are counting on BTS being a successful and having the resources to hire us to maintain and upgrade and enhance.

Got it.
.. now lets move the debate on to the new feature set we have.

[ebit]

 
 

@Dan and Stan:
We just hope that you can consider a "better" aligning of interest between BTS, the devs and cryptonomex. A great example is RippleLabs, the legal entity's success is closely tied to the success of the protocol. RippleLabs helps integrations, consults partners and trains more devs. They actively seek deals and partnerships to expand the ecosystem. So their aim is to make Ripple successful so their (the legal entity's) stash will be worth billions. On the other hand, i was given the impression that cryptonomex (the devs) and BTS's interests have never been less aligned. In the last hangout, fuzzy asked whether cryptonomex will be holding fund in BTS because of this concern i believe, but Dan didn't see it.

All the issues with IP and licenses aside, I hope cryptonomex reconsiders its business strategy and direction. Let's try to work out a relationship analogous to Ripple - RippleLabs, because it seems like it works (big partners coming in, better prospect of mainstream adoption, millions of funding, all the mistakes that can be learnt from). The details should be of course modified to fit our ecosystem here at BTS.

All in all, I am not saying that cryptonomex and the devs are abandoning BTS, and not that they are not bringing in deals and partnerships; but a better alignment of interests and goals would be even better.

[puppies]

Oh man you are such a breath of fresh air every single time you speak.

BM and the devs are trying to navigate a crazy space of the existing legal structures/regulations and BitShares, which figuratively breaks the mold. This takes creative licensing, IP, corporate structures - all things that are against anarcho-capitalistic motivations that drives many people to cryptocurrency.

Honestly, if the devs didn't do this, bitshares would be more likely to fail to reach its goals.

This is the economic/business development equivalent of using copyrights to prevent IP restrictions
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Copyleft

It's still an experiment, the ideal mode is unknown - but as long as all the actors are true believers, they can work together to find a local (if not global) optimum.

I'm opposed to copyleft as well.  It's just using the power of the state to force people to distribute openly, rather than preventing them from distributing. 

In a real work scenario I understand why patents and copyrights/copylefts would be used.  I don't consider copyleft any more justifiable than copyright from a moral perspective though.

[maqifrnswa]

Oh man you are such a breath of fresh air every single time you speak.

BM and the devs are trying to navigate a crazy space of the existing legal structures/regulations and BitShares, which figuratively breaks the mold. This takes creative licensing, IP, corporate structures - all things that are against anarcho-capitalistic motivations that drives many people to cryptocurrency.

Honestly, if the devs didn't do this, bitshares would be more likely to fail to reach its goals.

This is the economic/business development equivalent of using copyrights to prevent IP restrictions
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Copyleft

It's still an experiment, the ideal mode is unknown - but as long as all the actors are true believers, they can work together to find a local (if not global) optimum.