Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?  (Read 1969 times)

Offline bytemaster

What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
« on: June 15, 2015, 08:46:28 PM »

There have been some concerns about what Cryptonomex is doing so I thought I would start a thread to discuss them.   I will start by enumerating some of them:

1. Share-drop Theory is Dead
2. Toolkit is Dead
3. Software is Proprietary
4. Cryptonomex is forcing Bitshares to upgrade.

With every change comes concerns and fears.  So lets be very clear.

1. Share Drops are still possible using the old toolkit
2. Share Drops are still possible using the new Graphene Toolkit, with CNX permission
3. Every blockchain we license will have terms defined by the customer limited for use with that one individual blockchain
4. BitShares community doesn't *have* to upgrade.  It just needs to find new devs if it doesn't.
5. Graphene is a newer, better toolkit.  A free (Public Domain) version is available.
6. When used for BitShares the software is effectively BSD licensed.

So there is only one thing that has changed:  the developers have stopped working for free / low wages and have found a way to continue improving BitShares without increasing allowed dilution.   
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline MrJeans

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
    • View Profile
  • BTS: mrjeans
Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2015, 08:56:27 PM »
This all makes perfect sense for sustainable development going forward.

I think the going solo feels a bit scary for some. We just need to keep reassuring the community and ensuring they understand the concepts.

Cant wait for Bitshares 2.0 launch.

Offline arubi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 209
    • View Profile
Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2015, 08:58:29 PM »
Here's to hoping we don't end up with another one of those..
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/04/oracle-acquires-sun-ars-explores-the-impact-on-open-source/


All the best, Daniel and team. I'll either want to hug you all or forget all your names after this is all over and done.


Offline CryptoPrometheus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2015, 09:12:59 PM »
Something I have noticed is that a lot of people don't have any idea what "decentralized" really means or how it should operate. They seem to have some fanciful ideas that aren't based in social or economic realism and often seek to arbitrarily restrict certain parameters based on lack of true understanding about their nature. They go around projecting their limited understanding onto the world "outside", and end up either making a fool of themselves, or more often catalyzing others (who are equally unsure) towards greater chaos and confusion.

For people who truly understand the situation and aren't blinded by greed or self interest, the actions of Cryptonomix are only reinforcing something we already know. I had no problem with the original Cryptonomex proposal, hell I didn't even really object to the November merger, but no doubt I will be accused of being a blind and "uncritical" fanboy.

I would like to encourage everyone to consider that none of us "deserve" or are "entitled" to anything from our devs. Really, the only thing any of us "deserve" is the right to be compensated for our efforts. In BitShares history, they have never taken any of our money and explicitly offered something in return. Yet, once again they are now demonstrating a willingness to sacrifice their own time and energy (releasing all coding up to June 1st into public domain) for the greater good of the ecosystem. Are we ready to recognize that they, like the rest of us, have the right to be compensated for their labor?



"Power and law are not synonymous. In fact, they are often in opposition and irreconcilable."
- Cicero

Offline klosure

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2015, 09:30:42 PM »
It hits my as paradoxical to create a thread to discuss concerns after you have summarily locked all the threads that were already actively discussing said concerns. So are we or not welcome to voice concerns? Should we stick to 1 ~ 4 or discussing other concerns is also allowed?

1. Share Drops are still possible using the old toolkit
Isn't the original Bitshares going be phased out?
If it is phased out, what sense does that make to use the old toolkit to perform sharedrops?

2. Share Drops are still possible using the new Graphene Toolkit, with CNX permission
The problem isn't the sharedrop itself but the fact of forking Bitshares to create a DAC which under current conditions doesn't allow the DAC creator to be entitled to a license of Graphene. Please specify what conditions would allow a DAC developer to receive CNX permission to use Graphene.

4. BitShares community doesn't *have* to upgrade.  It just needs to find new devs if it doesn't.
Glad you mention that because nothing in the way things have been announced and the way criticism has been handled suggests that we are entitled to a choice. Such a major change should have been discussed much earlier, and the community consulted. Here you are making us face a fait accompli. This isn't showing much respect to this community's freedom to choose.

Now if we have a choice, will you please unlock the discussion threads that you have locked where we were actually debating the question of whether we want to accept your deal and let us converge to a decision. Some more information about cryptonomex, the license etc. will need to be released before this community can make an informed decision.

5. Graphene is a newer, better toolkit.  A free (Public Domain) version is available.
Where is the git repo? Will the new chain launch with the exact version that has been released to the Public Domain so that we have at least a starting point to move away from the commercial Graphene if things are getting to a rupture point between BitShares and Cryptonomex?

6. When used for BitShares the software is effectively BSD licensed.
It's BSD licensed "with clause" which means it's not really BSD licensed in the sense that "BSD licensed" normally refers to (i.e. free to reuse in any sort of application including commercial applications). A custom BSD license that doesn't allow reuse is pointless. The name is nice and reassuring, but let's call a spade a space: that doesn't make it free software.

Now one question that you haven't addressed: why not launch the new chain under a new brand name (I've read some references to SmartCoin), all other things being equal? This wpuld allow the original Bitshare to keep going and fulfill its mission of enabling the development of an ecosystem of DACs so everyone is happy and we don't have to make an impossible choice.

Offline MrJeans

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
    • View Profile
  • BTS: mrjeans
Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2015, 09:34:30 PM »
Something I have noticed is that a lot of people don't have any idea what "decentralized" really means or how it should operate. They seem to have some fanciful ideas that aren't based in social or economic realism and often seek to arbitrarily restrict certain parameters based on lack of true understanding about their nature. They go around projecting their limited understanding onto the world "outside", and end up either making a fool of themselves, or more often catalyzing others (who are equally unsure) towards greater chaos and confusion.

For people who truly understand the situation and aren't blinded by greed or self interest, the actions of Cryptonomix are only reinforcing something we already know. I had no problem with the original Cryptonomex proposal, hell I didn't even really object to the November merger, but no doubt I will be accused of being a blind and "uncritical" fanboy.

I would like to encourage everyone to consider that none of us "deserve" or are "entitled" to anything from our devs. Really, the only thing any of us "deserve" is the right to be compensated for our efforts. In BitShares history, they have never taken any of our money and explicitly offered something in return. Yet, once again they are now demonstrating a willingness to sacrifice their own time and energy (releasing all coding up to June 1st into public domain) for the greater good of the ecosystem. Are we ready to recognize that they, like the rest of us, have the right to be compensated for their labor?
  +5%

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3488
    • View Profile
  • BTS: Ander
Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2015, 09:34:59 PM »
Without BM & team BitShares is probably dead, and we can't blame them if they want to get paid for their work.

Yes.  It was always the case that if BM and team announced "we are done with Bitshares, goodbye", then the project would be pretty much done for.  Bitshares is not at bitcoin levels of adoption where many others could arise and carry on.

It has been quite worrying for months now that the price level of BTS is so low that it cannot pay a competitive developer wage to the team at these price levels and allowed dilution levels.  (And more dilution is not a good answer either, it just hurts the price).  Given this, the dev team securing funding is an excellent occurrence for Bitshares.  When I read that in the announcement, my initial reaction was to gain a lot more confidence.  This is a solution to a problem that Bitshares was facing: How are we going to retain the developers that we need to keep Bitshares growing to what it needs to be?


What are we giving up in order to get this developer funding WITHOUT having to dilute BTS for it?  Well, it seems the developers could license some Bitshares technology features they develop to other blockchains. 

How is this different form before?  Previously any other blockchain could just steal bitshares code base. 

Cryptonomex has given us the assurance that they will license to the Bitshares 2.0 blockchain.  Other chains can't get that guarantee.  Bitshares is in a privileged position here.



Yes, it is a risk that someone will try to poach the Bitshares devs and give them a ton of money to leave Bitshares, and that would suck for the project.  That was ALREADY a risk.  Nothing about that changed when they formed Cryptonomex.    How is Cryptonomex different in this regard than I3 was?


We need Bytemaster and team's continued support of Bitshares in order for the project to be a success (or at least to be a success without a massive amount of pain and time waiting for someoen else to appear and step up to develop it).  This fact was true in version 0.x and is true in version 2.0.  If the newmine posts are the first time you woke up and saw this fact, then I guess you might be scared by it, but you should have understood this earlier.


Hopefully Bitshares will grow in time to reach a point where it could survive even the core team leaving.  For this we need adoption!  Lots more adoption.  We need many more Bitshares companies to grow up in the ecosystem.  Even then, hopefully Bytemaster and team will remain working on Bitshares as one of those companies - Cryptonomex.  It would hurt to lose them, just as Bitcoin is hurt by the loss of Satoshi.  (I think if Satoshi were still around, he could probably fix this bitcoin block size/TPS issue a lot more easily than the current team, because peopel would rally around his proposal). 



Also, would the community really not want to accept Bitshares 2.0?  I think there is no way at all that the community would want to stay with the slow 0.9 client, instead of moving to the 2.0 client that has been designed to fix the current problems.  Some people act like this is being forced upon us, when actually this is what we have been clamoring for the devs to release for months.  This is a silly complaint.  Of course we want 2.0!  We have desperately wanted these features for over 6 months!  We want a fast web client, we want users to not need to sync a blockchain for 24 hours and use a memory hogging client to use Bitshares!   And we want our potential 100000 TPS, that is amazing!


Just as the dot com bust in 2000 was very hard on all those new internet companies, the crypto bear makret of 2014-2015 has been very hard on all cryptocurrenncy companies.  It has been a tough market to survive in, but Bitshares will survive, and this is part of that.  Great job core team/Cryptonomex for managing to secure some funding so that the project can continue.  Thank you for committing to license your works to the Bitshares blockchain.  Please continue working on Bitshares and supporting it, forever!  We, the Bitshares community, need you and your efforts, and will try to support you.

Hopefully we can grow the size of the community by 10x with the release of the new, much superior product, and then supporting you will become far easier. :)
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3488
    • View Profile
  • BTS: Ander
Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2015, 09:37:32 PM »
It hits my as paradoxical to create a thread to discuss concerns after you have summarily locked all the threads that were already actively discussing said concerns. So are we or not welcome to voice concerns? Should we stick to 1 ~ 4 or discussing other concerns is also allowed?

I wish they hadnt locked your threads.  Even if I was annoyed by the tone of the threads, I hate censorship and the locking appeared like an attempt to silence you. 

We need to continue to discuss things until the community is reassured.  Clearly these posts showed that a segment of the community was very worried about things, so the discussion is needed.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3488
    • View Profile
  • BTS: Ander
Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2015, 09:40:10 PM »
Now one question that you haven't addressed: why not launch the new chain under a new brand name (I've read some references to SmartCoin), all other things being equal? This wpuld allow the original Bitshare to keep going and fulfill its mission of enabling the development of an ecosystem of DACs so everyone is happy and we don't have to make an impossible choice.

I think this would cause more headaches.  We already have so much confusion from the change from Protoshares to Bitshares. 

If Bitshares 2.0 was released with the name SmartCoin or Graphene, it would be the same thing all over again.   (Though Graphene is a cool name, it reminds me of Ethereum.  But I think we are fine keeping our current name for the tokens that represent stake in the blockchain: Bitshares, and using Graphene as the name of the toolkit.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

sumantso

  • Guest
Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2015, 09:52:01 PM »
Pretty rough post from BM, sounds more like a veiled threat than anything.

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3488
    • View Profile
  • BTS: Ander
Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2015, 09:54:26 PM »
Pretty rough post from BM, sounds more like a veiled threat than anything.

The threat is "we won't work for free"?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Pheonike

Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2015, 10:00:16 PM »


Why is reality a threat? 


Offline klosure

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2015, 10:11:25 PM »
I would like to encourage everyone to consider that none of us "deserve" or are "entitled" to anything from our devs. Really, the only thing any of us "deserve" is the right to be compensated for our efforts.
The debate isn't at all about who owns the code produced by Cryptonomex independently. We didn't even know that this code existed two weeks ago. The real debate is whether the proposed technical optimizations and continued support model justify losing our sovereignty on the code and straying away from our philosophical foundations and mission statement when it would be as easy to create a new chain and have the best of both worlds. This debate, the full disclosure of relevant information and the freedom to choose, that is what we are asking here, and this we are definitely entitled to it.

 

Google+