Wake up call: BitShares 2.0 is NOT BitShares

[puppies]

So far I have seen half a dozen posts implying Ithat this is fud, but none has actually addressed any of the points I raised.

Graphene is open source, which was answered already in this thread.

This isn't addressing my points but nitpicking on terminology. It should be obvious from context that I meant "free software" / "non free software".
Anyway, I fixed this typo in posts, but this doesn't change the core of the argument.

Because of the license restrictions of Graphene, Bitshares cannot be forked or extended to a multiledger model, which means that it will not be able to evolve to fill other niches. The reuse restriction is a classic with proprietary licenses, but preventing Bitshares from evolving beyond a single ledger is novel and was added there for some reason. Now, if someone who cries "fud" may please explain why this restriction is necessary?

You have a good point about a possible future multi ledger model being prevented.  I of course want to see the license, but it is my understanding that we will be able to do whatever we want with the code.  We still have the option to modify it without BM. 

[Riverhead]

Klosure is making good points that need to be discussed not dismissed. This is a community that discusses what's best for BitShares not a cheer leading squad for anything that comes out of Blacksburg.

While I support the new product, as do many others, the decision should not be so fragile as to not be able to stand up to some serious questions by a clearly knowledgeable member of the community.

[fav]

So far I have seen half a dozen posts implying Ithat this is fud, but none has actually addressed any of the points I raised.

Graphene is open source, which was answered already in this thread.

This isn't addressing my points but nitpicking on terminology. It should be obvious from context that I meant "free software" / "non free software".
Anyway, I fixed this typo in posts, but this doesn't change the core of the argument.

Because of the license restrictions of Graphene, Bitshares cannot be forked or extended to a multiledger model, which means that it will not be able to evolve to fill other niches. The reuse restriction is a classic with proprietary licenses, but preventing Bitshares from evolving beyond a single ledger is novel and was added there for some reason. Now, if someone who cries "fud" may please explain why this restriction is necessary?

https://voat.co/v/smartcoin/comments/127598

"we" can do whatever we want with the code.

[klosure]

So far I have seen half a dozen posts implying Ithat this is fud, but none has actually addressed any of the points I raised.

Graphene is open source, which was answered already in this thread.

This isn't addressing my points but nitpicking on terminology. It should be obvious from context that I meant "free software" / "non free software".
Anyway, I fixed this typo in posts, but this doesn't change the core of the argument.

Because of the license restrictions of Graphene, Bitshares cannot be forked or extended to a multiledger model, which means that it will not be able to evolve to fill other niches. The reuse restriction is a classic with proprietary licenses, but preventing Bitshares from evolving beyond a single ledger is novel and was added there for some reason. Now, if someone who cries "fud" may please explain why this restriction is necessary?

[fav]

couldn't find the license! Can someone point me where i can read it?

here's the discussion: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16806.0.html

thanks fav, but no license to read!

so we are talking about something no one knows what it look likes? Great!


here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16806.msg214962.html#msg214962 says bytemaster that the sharedrop is possible like before

So if you want to use the toolkit to build a service or company within the existing Bitshares network (on the same blockchain) then you can use it for free.  If you want to build a new network (on a different blockchain) and you sharedrop according to the social consensus, then you can use it for free.  If you want to steal (overzealous) use other people's hard work and turn your back on the community and existing network, then you can contribute to the development, build on the existing technology and pay for a license.  If that is the idea then i'm all for it.  Network effect is everything because if the network can mature, anything is possible.

That is it (more or less).

indeed, there's no final license.

anyways, voting is not possible that's one of the reasons we need 2.0. we will be able to vote on everything.

[Shentist]

couldn't find the license! Can someone point me where i can read it?

here's the discussion: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16806.0.html

thanks fav, but no license to read!

so we are talking about something no one knows what it look likes? Great!


here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16806.msg214962.html#msg214962 says bytemaster that the sharedrop is possible like before

So if you want to use the toolkit to build a service or company within the existing Bitshares network (on the same blockchain) then you can use it for free.  If you want to build a new network (on a different blockchain) and you sharedrop according to the social consensus, then you can use it for free.  If you want to steal (overzealous) use other people's hard work and turn your back on the community and existing network, then you can contribute to the development, build on the existing technology and pay for a license.  If that is the idea then i'm all for it.  Network effect is everything because if the network can mature, anything is possible.

That is it (more or less).

[karnal]

Good shareholders don't use their empoylees time on discussing on the forum about far-fetched worst case scenarios. Good shareholders let their employees do the job and ship the product.

Good shareholders vote on major changes of direction in the company's strategy.
Please show me where we have been consulted before this "announcement".

+5%

[Ben Mason]

Let's us assume 2.0 delivers on the features outlined, the product is there and live, doing what it needs to do. Can we grow the network? If you believe the answer is yes, then Bitshares can pay for workers to enhance and maintain the product, including CMX.

I took BM's commitment to enabling a single blockchain not to be about creating a dependency on CMX but to protect Bitshares from clones.

I think we should value the community and our ability to take this project to the next level. Everything hinges on that.

[fav]

couldn't find the license! Can someone point me where i can read it?

here's the discussion: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16806.0.html

[klosure]

Good shareholders don't use their empoylees time on discussing on the forum about far-fetched worst case scenarios. Good shareholders let their employees do the job and ship the product.

Good shareholders vote on major changes of direction in the company's strategy.
Please show me where we have been consulted before this "announcement".

[Shentist]

couldn't find the license! Can someone point me where i can read it?

[klosure]

I thought everything in BitShares 2.0 would be open source ?

Surely this is just FUD. It can be licensed AND open sourced, I believe that's where it stands.

Wrong terminology, but its clear what was meant. Not sure what the correct terminology is but in media we call it creative commons.

Thanks. I meant "free software", not "open source". Typo. Fixed in the original post.

[fav]

So far I have seen half a dozen posts implying Ithat this is fud, but none has actually addressed any of the points I raised.

Graphene is open source, which was answered already in this thread.

The term "Open Source" is once again misunderstood. Open Source does not mean "free as in speech" or "free as in beer". It means the code can be reviewed, audited, and compiled independently.

https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene

[klosure]

There are lots of bitcoin companies!  Bitcoin companies arent in competition with bitcoin.
Cryptonomex is a bitshares company.  Like Moonstone, and others to come.

Bitcoin companies don't attempt to change Bitcoin's terms of licensing to prevent it from being forked or extended in new directions.

Having bitshares companies improves the value of the bitshares ecosystem.

The problem is not the company. The problem is to try to force BitShares to use that company's non free software product and accept the major restrictions that come with it.

Stop bitching at the devs you guys!

There is a reason this thread is called "wake up call".
There are no technical reasons for forbidding Bitshares from evolving beyond a single ledger model.
The only reason is to prevent BitShares from growing too much and competing with Cryptonomex's clients.
This definitely isn't in the interest of BitShares.

So far I have seen half a dozen posts implying Ithat this is fud, but none has actually addressed any of the points I raised.

edit: replaced "closed source" by "non free software"

[klosure]

OP, please read some more threads before you write a tl;dr wall of text full of wild guesses.

I have read all the threads there are to read on the subject.
If you disagree about anything I have said, feel free to quote and reply.