Wake up call: BitShares 2.0 is NOT BitShares

[klosure]

BTS cannot be "our lab rat" because we will not control its future, all hard forks will be voted on by stakeholders.   

BitShares2.0 is based on Graphene. If Graphene changes, BitShares changes unless we stop pulling changes from the Graphene repo.
It makes no sense to introduce an dependency on Graphene if we are not ready to accept subsequent changes on Graphene.
Mixed approaches with cherry picking will create a growing gap between the code base, make merges nightmerish and cost us much more in developer resources than if we had chosen the path of doing our own optimizations.

[profitofthegods]

Please don't call this kind of thing FUD - these are legitimate concerns whether you agree with them or not.

C'mon, claiming that the supercoolest proposal ever is going to destroy BitShares is totally absurd.

Anyway, if somebody thinks that BitShares doesn't have a future with now proposed 2.0, then maybe he should just sell his shares. This is DAC, so this is like a company. And what you do when you think that company is doing something stupid? You sell your shares and invest your money to something better.

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.

Well as a matter of fact I did just dump a few dozen thousand. But I still own >100k because I don't think this will definitely destroy Bitshares by any means, but there is a whole lot of ground between 'destroying bitshares' and 'this is total FUD with no valid point' which you seem to just want to ignore.

And the idea of 'good shareholders' is very strange to me. Shareholders are self-interested parties, not members of some kind of cult who must adhere to rules laid down by someone else. There are no good or bad shareholders, other than that shareholders who make a profit are good at being a shareholder and those who don't, aren't.

[Shentist]

1 point to discuss

The ability for BitShares to get forked and sharedroped is after 2.0 - 0%

So, this is clearly a big change for the social consensus.

But, after the merger this chance was already down to a small percentage.

I think the advantage is higher than what we loose so i am supporting this decision. I would love if Cryptonomex will also consider to buy BTS with their licensed project if they use feature who are funded and paid with "worker" money from this community. Then this will a fair agreement.

[klosure]

Cryptonomex is giving BitShares the freedom to use everything we have produced without any kind of restriction except that it must remain a SINGLE blockchain.

Being restricted to being a single blockchain is tantamount to a death toll. Demultiplexing of chain data is the only way forward once we hit bandwidth and storage blottlenecks, which is coming very fast. If that wasn't the case you wouldn't have had to optimize the channel capacity in graphene. Now, there are only two ways of demultiplexing:
1) forking the network => forbidden by the license
2) using multiple ledgers => forbidden by the license
A single ledger is already border line suitable for a distributed asset exchange, and we may struggle with that only when the volumes pick up. So preventing BitShares from scaling beyond a single ledger effectively prevents us from exploring other venues such as smart contracts, media distribution, distributed storage, IoT (something your clients must be very interested in),

So we gain a technical optimization that isn't critical and that we could achieve ourselves by hiring developers, and in exchange we are locked in a cage that effectively prevents us from scaling beyond our current scope. Doesn't sound like a good deal at all.

We are not like Ripple because we do not want to "control" BitShares going forward. 

You are conflating the technology and the network.
Ripple (the technology) is free software and is provided and maintained by Ripple Labs without any strings attached. Ripple (the network) is currently controlled by Ripple Labs in exchange of which Ripple Labs is commited to growing its value and market regardless of whether the market conditions allow them to derive revenue from the network. Ripple Labs also commited to relinquish control once the technology is mature enough and allow other entitites to become validators. The way things are set, there are no conflict of interests and Ripple's objectives, the Ripple community objectives and Ripple Labs objectives are perfectly aligned.

BitShares 2.0 (the technology) on the other hand is architectured around a framework that isn't free software and licensed to BitShares (the network and community) with so many strings attached that Cryptonomex pretty much ends up controlling the network by controlling it's life support system. But unlike Ripple Cryptonomex doesn't commit to grow the network, contribute to its technological evolution or increase its market share. On the other hand it still stands to benefit from the network which it case use as an trade show exhibit, lab, live test net, and source of funding. There is so much potential for conflicts of interests that the mind boggles.

I think the entire community would be far more upset if the developers simply announced a new chain with new branding and a 20% share drop.

This has been a possibility all along and we are ready for that. At least this is playing within the rules. Now as the spearhead of the project who doubles as the one who has been raising the funds initially to launch BitShares, you know that you are held to a higher standard of accountability and that your reputation would take a huge hit if people start feeling betrayed so I guess doing that wouldn't be in your best interest.

Now, there is a third possibility where you could fork BitShares under your own brand, but sharedrop more than the minimum 20% (ideally 100% but the community may be fine with less TBC) as a recognition that Graphene and Cryptonomex wouldn't have been possible without the community funding all these years of research at I3. This solution allows BitShares and the new network to compete sainly on their own merits. And since we are all onboard of both, we will be fine no matter what.

edit: replaced "open source" by "free software"

[jsidhu]

These threads are doign a great job of fudding the price down.




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

Having bitshares companies improves the value of the bitshares ecosystem.  Also, the devs receiving some funding from non bitshares sources reduces the burden on bitshares holders to support them (aka less inflation needed).


Stop bitching at the devs you guys!

Lol I doubt this thread is the cause of large dumping on btc38 it's been going on for few weeks now

[fav]

Please don't call this kind of thing FUD - these are legitimate concerns whether you agree with them or not.

C'mon, claiming that the supercoolest proposal ever is going to destroy BitShares is totally absurd.

Anyway, if somebody thinks that BitShares doesn't have a future with now proposed 2.0, then maybe he should just sell his shares. This is DAC, so this is like a company. And what you do when you think that company is doing something stupid? You sell your shares and invest your money to something better.

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.

or fork and run 0.9. anyways,  +5% comment.

[Samupaha]

Please don't call this kind of thing FUD - these are legitimate concerns whether you agree with them or not.

C'mon, claiming that the supercoolest proposal ever is going to destroy BitShares is totally absurd.

Anyway, if somebody thinks that BitShares doesn't have a future with now proposed 2.0, then maybe he should just sell his shares. This is DAC, so this is like a company. And what you do when you think that company is doing something stupid? You sell your shares and invest your money to something better.

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.

[profitofthegods]

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.

[karnal]

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.

[fav]

Cryptonomex is just another entity working for BitShares like all the other delegates we had so far.

If Cryptonomex owns the IP to the software which Bitshares uses then Cryptonomex doesn't work for Bitshares, if anything Bitshares works for Cryptonomex.

After a while the community may not even have the option to get other developers if they don't like what Cryptonomex is doing, without stripping back to 0.9 and starting over. As soon as BTS moves to 2.0, it no longer owns the product which its business model is built on.

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

[profitofthegods]

Cryptonomex is just another entity working for BitShares like all the other delegates we had so far.

If Cryptonomex owns the IP to the software which Bitshares uses then Cryptonomex doesn't work for Bitshares, if anything Bitshares works for Cryptonomex.

After a while the community may not even have the option to get other developers if they don't like what Cryptonomex is doing, without stripping back to 0.9 and starting over. As soon as BTS moves to 2.0, it no longer owns the product which its business model is built on.

[Riverhead]

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

[Akado]

Cryptonomex is just another entity working for BitShares like all the other delegates we had so far.

[profitofthegods]

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 do not own the Bitcoin code.

Bitshares is a company (if you want to consider it as such, which I do because I consider myself a shareholder in it) whose only product is a piece of software. A separate company just announced IP ownership over that piece of software. That is not just FUD.

[Ander]

These threads are doign a great job of fudding the price down.




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

Having bitshares companies improves the value of the bitshares ecosystem.  Also, the devs receiving some funding from non bitshares sources reduces the burden on bitshares holders to support them (aka less inflation needed).


Stop bitching at the devs you guys!