Cryptonomex? WTF is this?

[Ben Mason]

Wow. This is hilarious. They work hard, design a better technology with incredible promise and still there are detractors attempting to undermine this project.

For a long time the objective has been to pay for the innovation and maintenance of the Bitshares blockchain via the system itself. One day, we'll all be dead.  Bitshares must live on and simply find the best talent for what it can afford. That or a wealthy benefactor.

Bitshares has the feature set, protocol, community and philosophy to hopefully make it go viral. Let's not pretend that the core devs are doing anything other than what was always mean't to happen, regardless of the price of BTS.

As Ander said, it's probably in our interest to retain as many of the core devs as possible and maybe start offering them some trust and respect for what they've accomplished with some frikin donations.

[merockstar]

We can have a hangout to talk about this. 

if that gets set up will you send me a PM? I'll go out of my way to be in attendance.

[merivercap]

I understand the intentions of Bytemaster & the developers, but just want some clarity about the source code and IP.  I think it's fine to have a separate private company, but it seems to me the licensing, source code and IP may cause some issues. 

If Cryptonomex owns the main source code and IP, does that mean the blockchain will be closed-source?  I assume the code will technically still be open-sourced for security audits? 

It would seem to me owning BitShares is like owning a piece of the blockchain and also the code.  After the hard fork into BitShares 2.0, what 'legal rights' will Cryptonomex have over the BitShares 2.0 blockchain?  What 'legal rights' will BitShares holders have to the code and future code if they are developed by Cryptonomex or not?  What 'legal rights' will Cryptonomex have on the future code on BitShares 2.0 if they are developed by Cryptonomex or not?

Cryptonomex is a C-corp owned by shareholders with corporate bylaws and even if articles that are favorable to BitShares are written in the bylaws, bylaws can change. Hence ultimately the owners of Cryptonomex can do whatever they want.   It would seem that if the major shareholders of Cryptonomex are able to maintain control and abide by Bytemaster's intentions there may not be too much to worry about. Even if somehow Cryptonomex was bought out by Goldman Sachs, as long as the BitShares blockchain is independent and BTS owners can be confident they don't have to worry about Cryptonomex's 'legal right' to BitShares in the future everything should be ok. 

I support the formation of Cryptonomex and I don't have a problem with closed-source code as long as it's readily available for security audits.  Anyway this is pretty interesting to think about.   

[fuzzy]

We can have a hangout to talk about this. 

I have always been here for the community and people are concerned, but let's face it guys and girls--the entire community has tried to make the devs live off of a single delegate each for quite awhile now.  How many of you work full time or even part time for this chain and ask only 1 delegate as payment? 

Perhaps this is a good time to do the calculations and see if we can start paying the development team to work full time for bitshares without having to form cryptonomex...(if people are really that upset).

It should be obvious that I don't want the team to have to reach outside bitshares to survive, but let's face it, the wages everyone has been willing to pay them force them to find solutions.

Honestly wish it didn't come to this, but let's look at the reality and move forward appropriately.  I mean would you work for your place of work if they refused to pay you what you are worth? 

And before anyone talks about the beyond bitcoin team working from only a single delegate, please understand that we are all really kind of outliers...and have at least full time jobs outside bitshares that pay more than a single delegate.

-edit-
Method-x imho is 100% correct

[sittingduck]

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

Someone should create a BitShares Simple Term Deposit AT.

The proposed loyalty rewards was shut down, but addresses this very issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sumantso]

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

I was initially attracted and went all in due to your vision and philosophy and held through the downtrend even though you kept lurching from one blunder to the next.

Perhaps I was being a naive idiot and maybe I should be reviewing my stance.

[Tuck Fheman]

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

Someone should create a BitShares Simple Term Deposit AT.

[merockstar]

Are we sure the project is mature enough to take the training wheels off and let the blockchain fund the whole thing from now on?

This is kind of scary...

[merockstar]

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

yes, in a heartbeat, if we're able to retain the talent that made this software what it is. (or similarly talented talent- I'm going to go ahead and question whether there's anyone else qualified and willing to step up at this point in time)

GS is closed profit, BTS is profit for everybody who shares the vision- no need to be an accredited investor or a wealthy elite or nothing.

[merockstar]

So at todays prices how many worker delegates is it going to take to keep this project advancing the way it has been?

I guess the community should start negotiating now, right?

[Ander]

One more note:

After the change, I would anticipate that some of the current marketing paid delegates will stop getting funds, anticipating that marketing will be funded by the referral system.  This portion of the worker funding should be directed towards development, imo.  (Either to cryptonomex and/or other development projects the community wants to fund).

[Ander]

The tone of this thread is negative.  I blame Newmine.

Lets fix that.


It has always been the case that the Bitshares core dev team needs to be able to make a salary, or development of BTS from them would cease.  For a while we had AGS funding, though sadly Bitcoin declined and it didn't go as far as we would like.   Then paid delegates were implemented to continue funding, but the BTS price crashed in the continued crypto bear market, so this is not enough, barring giving several delegates to each developer, which the community didn't like for centralization reasons.


Workers or the Bitshares 2.0 solution.  Cryptonomex is the 'worker' of the core dev team.  They are going to make proposals of future features to work on.  The community is very likely going to elect them  (I certainly plan to vote for them and encourage others to do so).  This will continue funding the dev team.  The cryptonomex team can also take consulting work from other groups to supplement their income and keep the group going, if the crypto funding market stays dry and BTS stays low. 


The creation of Cryptonomex isn't some sceme to screw BTS holders over.  Its the new worker entity that can be hired by BTS shareholders to build BTS.

Building BTS, the cryptocurrency, has been the dev team's goal all along.  If they simply wanted to make a centralized corporation and own all the equity of it, they would have done that rather than create Protoshares and open up the ability for anyone to get stake in the project.  The creation of Protoshares and subsequent evolution of it into Bitshares shows the developers commitment to creating a decentralized cryptocurrency.


It seems there is some lingering distrust of the dev team, from some people, ever since the merger.  Everyone needs to understand that the dev team is committed to the project but with the caveat that they aren't going to work for free, they need to draw salaries to survive.  This is perfectly fair, imo.  At a couple percent inflation, the BTS community can support having a strong dev team.  A great trade!  Look at how Bitcoin has more inflation and gets nothing, while we buy a dev team working on the project, because DPoS is better than PoW! 

We are going to keep supporting the dev team and they are going to keep working hard on BTS.  I don't see a community rebellion against the developers happening, nor do I see the developers walking away from a community that still supports them, so we should expect things to continue on as they have been.  Hopefully adoption will increase with the 2.0 release and the market cap will increase as well, making funding much easier.  It was getting pretty scary there at .02 CNY, but fortunately big buyers stepped up and we are past that now, and the price chart looks very good at the present.


I promise to keep supporting BTS as long as Bytemaster is working on the project, and I'm pretty sure he plans to keep working on Bitshares as long as he is getting community support. 

So lets all go buy some more BTS while its still in the .04s and below, and toast to the future of Bitshares, with community and developers working together!  (And lets hope Newmine sells )

[sittingduck]

The truth is hard to take.    We must Use greed to our advantage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hadrian]

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

Yes

[lil_jay890]

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?

"No matter what we breed we still are made of greed"