Wake up call: BitShares 2.0 is NOT BitShares

[Ander]

What I'm much les comfortable with is seeing it formulated in a way that suggests that those concerns are facts only to get a reaction out of people. The problem is that anyone who comes here on the forum and read your OP will be left with the impression that Cryptonomex is ripping off Bitshares, which as far as I know is currently not the case. Your accusations will ring as truth to those that don't take the time to go through the whole thread, while your claims are still unsubstantiated. That is FUD by definition.

Yes this.  In both this thread and the newmine thread, the tone of the OP is purely about reducing the community's confidence in the value of BTS, implying that it is a scam and that we are being screwed over by the devs.  Rather than trying to be constructive, the goal of the posts seems to be to get people to sell BTS or be too afraid to buy BTS. 

They also gave DecentralizedEconomics a good excuse to attack bitshares again in the Bitcointalk thread.

[Empirical1.2]

Some product protection would be good at least during the bootstrapping phase, so that competitors with a better brand image and potentially more funding can't just cannibalise all the code & innovations that BM & co have come up with.  BitShares would be a lot more valuable if it's done right.

At the same time, considering we can't do things like blockchain based gambling on BTS, there's definitely areas where new graphene blockchains that sharedropped on us could be very profitable and we wouldn't want to limit our options there.
.

[CLains]

It's not FUD it's just people reacting with emotions because IP is a "political/ideological" issue and it all suddenly becomes a matter of good and evil. Even Vitalik got heated with this announcement, and though I think he reacted childishly we all know this is how the climate is. I suggest BM and co think hard about their choice and wording of the license, so as not to spark further instinctive shunning. We've continually made huge damage to our reputation with things like this; and often the tech socialites do similar things they just are able to clothe it in the fashion of the day, for instance their subtle rhetoric with regard to mining still makes it sound like they have the moral high ground when this has been foolish on its face for years now.

Two redeeming factors on restrictive use is if it is possible to avoid the restriction by 1) being a non-profit or small business, 2) doing a sharedrop, like the current 20% social consensus.

[Chuckone]

Valid points have been made in this thread as well as the others related to that subject, but the way some of them were formulated made me feel like they were used more to spread FUD than to start an honest and constructive discussion. I find it hard to believe that there is a benevolent motive behind some posts when they are formulated using an aggressive tone and insinuating that Bitshares is getting ripped off by Cryptonomex.

In case you haven't realized yet, I'm deliberately playing the devil's advocate here to force people out of blind faith and get them to evaluate objetively the situation under a more rational perspective and find arguments to counter my diatribe. Ultimately, what I want is people to ask themselves if they support this operation because they trust the core develpers, or if they support this operation because they understand what it's about and believe that it's the right thing to do.

So far, I have read a lot of knee-jerk "this is FUD" reactions but very little in terms of actually addressing the concerns I have raised. If the BitShares community takes the Cryptonomex deal, it must do so because it is convinced after careful and objective evaluation of all aspects of the deal that this is in BitShares' best interest, not because it believes blindly in some of the people involved in the deal. And before people can be convinced, things have to be tested and challenged.

One very important thing that people don't realize is that this time around we are not dealing with the core developers directly but with Cryptonomex, a company funded by private investors which primary objective, as any company, is to produce value for its shareholders. How much you trust Dan and Stan personally is irrelevant because Dan and Stan are not the only persons in command. As founders they certainly have a majority stake at this stage, but they already have to report to and take into account their investors opinion and make decisions that make business sense and put company growth as first priority even if it diverges from their philosphical ideals. They don't have the choice if they want to convince investors to get in for other rounds of funding. And even if they manage to keep their commitment to BitShares while they are majority stake holders, at some point they will exit, sell some of their holdings or let seasonned executives steer the company and lose control of what the company is doing. There is no way to guarantee that Cryptonomex will remain supportive to BitShares, and that's really a big concern considering that under current deal, Cryptonomex is controlling BitShares' life support system. It will take a single board decision for Cryptonomere to pull the plug on BitShares, try to steer it in a different direction or revoke whatever non-legally-binding agreement that has been made initially. If you think this is fud, you are extremely naive and have no experience of the world of business.

Raising concerns is perfectly normal. I find it reassuring that people are asking pertinent and tough questions, particularly when it has everything to do with the survival and success of Bitshares in the long term.

What I'm much les comfortable with is seeing it formulated in a way that suggests that those concerns are facts only to get a reaction out of people. The problem is that anyone who comes here on the forum and read your OP will be left with the impression that Cryptonomex is ripping off Bitshares, which as far as I know is currently not the case. Your accusations will ring as truth to those that don't take the time to go through the whole thread, while your claims are still unsubstantiated. That is FUD by definition.

Back your claims with proofs and I'll be behind you. Ask tough but respectful questions and I'll be behind you.
The business world is definitely not forgiving. But throwing accusations around in the real world without these accusations being verified is called defamation.

[klosure]

The devs were freelance contractors without a contract.  Under law that means they own the ip by default.  Only employee labor is considered work for hire.   Devs are not employees.
It is a very good thing that there exists a legal entity with clear rights otherwise bts code would be too risky for a business to use. 

BitShares code has been released under Unlicense, which puts the code in the public domain.
Dev don't own the property rights of the existing BitShares code.

[klosure]

Valid points have been made in this thread as well as the others related to that subject, but the way some of them were formulated made me feel like they were used more to spread FUD than to start an honest and constructive discussion. I find it hard to believe that there is a benevolent motive behind some posts when they are formulated using an aggressive tone and insinuating that Bitshares is getting ripped off by Cryptonomex.

In case you haven't realized yet, I'm deliberately playing the devil's advocate here to force people out of blind faith and get them to evaluate objetively the situation under a more rational perspective and find arguments to counter my diatribe. Ultimately, what I want is people to ask themselves if they support this operation because they trust the core develpers, or if they support this operation because they understand what it's about and believe that it's the right thing to do.

So far, I have read a lot of knee-jerk "this is FUD" reactions but very little in terms of actually addressing the concerns I have raised. If the BitShares community takes the Cryptonomex deal, it must do so because it is convinced after careful and objective evaluation of all aspects of the deal that this is in BitShares' best interest, not because it believes blindly in some of the people involved in the deal. And before people can be convinced, things have to be tested and challenged.

One very important thing that people don't realize is that this time around we are not dealing with the core developers directly but with Cryptonomex, a company funded by private investors which primary objective, as any company, is to produce value for its shareholders. How much you trust Dan and Stan personally is irrelevant because Dan and Stan are not the only persons in command. As founders they certainly have a majority stake at this stage, but they already have to report to and take into account their investors opinion and make decisions that make business sense and put company growth as first priority even if it diverges from their philosphical ideals. They don't have the choice if they want to convince investors to get in for other rounds of funding. And even if they manage to keep their commitment to BitShares while they are majority stake holders, at some point they will exit, sell some of their holdings or let seasonned executives steer the company and lose control of what the company is doing. There is no way to guarantee that Cryptonomex will remain supportive to BitShares, and that's really a big concern considering that under current deal, Cryptonomex is controlling BitShares' life support system. It will take a single board decision for Cryptonomere to pull the plug on BitShares, try to steer it in a different direction or revoke whatever non-legally-binding agreement that has been made initially. If you think this is fud, you are extremely naive and have no experience of the world of business.

[Helikopterben]

Thanks

[betax]

intellectual property

[Helikopterben]

Stupid question:  What is IP?

[fuzzy]

IMO this thread is extremly valuable! Guess, we should wait till the first real license draft is out so we have facts to discuss!

Until such threads and spirited discussion self manifested the training wheels could never come off. In an environment where anyone can have multiple accounts it's hard to recognize what is self manifested and what isn't but the discussion is happening in multiple threads and that's what is important.

True enough... we also have to keep in mind that front runners of "discussions" on certain topics may have ulterior motives wrapped in 'good point discussion'.

For example.. someone who had 'plans' to use bitshares code base in some other way to effectively steel it to go on to build something else would be pretty pissed about the copyright protection that stopped them from getting their free ride.

If I was them, I would start threads and go into all discussions raising the same things about this point in a attempt to break down the community trust and resolve. I would wrap it in scary words like 'lost soul' and 'devil' and the like. Nobody would know my real motivation is that I had plans to take the bitshares code for my own to do something that wasn't going to benefit BitShares.. and if there is some kind of licensing in place where I have to reveal that, well damn... we need to get rid of that.

This is kind of what I sometimes think about newmine...because he complains, complains, complains...yet somehow still never just gives up and leaves.  So I think he is a secret bull. 

Then I think there are people who get really emotional in the moment and truly freak out a little bit.

[svk]

IMO this thread is extremly valuable! Guess, we should wait till the first real license draft is out so we have facts to discuss!

Until such threads and spirited discussion self manifested the training wheels could never come off. In an environment where anyone can have multiple accounts it's hard to recognize what is self manifested and what isn't but the discussion is happening in multiple threads and that's what is important.

True enough... we also have to keep in mind that front runners of "discussions" on certain topics may have ulterior motives wrapped in 'good point discussion'.

For example.. someone who had 'plans' to use bitshares code base in some other way to effectively steel it to go on to build something else would be pretty pissed about the copyright protection that stopped them from getting their free ride.

If I was them, I would start threads and go into all discussions raising the same things about this point in a attempt to break down the community trust and resolve. I would wrap it in scary words like 'lost soul' and 'devil' and the like. Nobody would know my real motivation is that I had plans to take the bitshares code for my own to do something that wasn't going to benefit BitShares.. and if there is some kind of licensing in place where I have to reveal that, well damn... we need to get rid of that.

Since this thread is all about suppositions and maybes and whatifs... we can have this fantasy land discussion too right?

 

[betax]

Totally right, that is why we need a license ^^^^.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

IMO this thread is extremly valuable! Guess, we should wait till the first real license draft is out so we have facts to discuss!

Until such threads and spirited discussion self manifested the training wheels could never come off. In an environment where anyone can have multiple accounts it's hard to recognize what is self manifested and what isn't but the discussion is happening in multiple threads and that's what is important.

True enough... we also have to keep in mind that front runners of "discussions" on certain topics may have ulterior motives wrapped in 'good point discussion'.

For example.. someone who had 'plans' to use bitshares code base in some other way to effectively steel it to go on to build something else would be pretty pissed about the copyright protection that stopped them from getting their free ride.

If I was them, I would start threads and go into all discussions raising the same things about this point in a attempt to break down the community trust and resolve. I would wrap it in scary words like 'lost soul' and 'devil' and the like. Nobody would know my real motivation is that I had plans to take the bitshares code for my own to do something that wasn't going to benefit BitShares.. and if there is some kind of licensing in place where I have to reveal that, well damn... we need to get rid of that.

Since this thread is all about suppositions and maybes and whatifs... we can have this fantasy land discussion too right?

[fuzzy]

Lol...I sometimes wonder if newmine uses his FUD posts to try to create sell offs after good news so he can sell high, cause drama (instead of discussion) and then buy back in cheaper.  I mean...otherwise, why would he still be around?

I am pumped to see the community discussing all this though because one thing I can say is that BM and the initial devs were never supposed to always be the sole devs of the chain.  I think they are trying to step back and let it become more "autonomous" and "decentralized", which means it requires a community willing to help support it. 

@thom...perhaps your 3rd or 4th book should be called "daddy takes off the training wheels"

[Riverhead]

It is a very good thing that there exists a legal entity with clear rights otherwise bts code would be too risky for a business to use. 

^^