Didn't look into it but wouldn't that (IN THEORY) be a case for the bitshares license if they really use I3 code? If not it is not viable anyway or it is just very very unlike that it is.
*in theory because there will not be a medium/long term value to it... But what if it would be a serious attempt and have value, would I3 sue people if they dont honor PTS/AGS?
EDIT: Just read it and it's funny. The bad english... It is more than obviously a scam.
Bytemaster has decided not to have a license. This means it's up to the community to defend the social contract aggressively and relentlessly. Time to build a website which highlights all of these scams so they can be immediately flagged from the womb. Then reverse engineered, discredited, and forked.
Failure to do this will be the failure of Bitshares (which is what many of these scamshares alternatives are trying to promote).
I am offering my post which is (unfortunatelly) at the second page. Who can give me some nice text to post in order to prevent that scam and make people more interested in Bitshares!?
technically it's not a scam ...... bytemaster did allow people to fork the code .
But,em,I don't think anyone is going to pay for that thing.
Forks with a purpose and social benefit are fine. For example if you fork in the right direction, you would actually try to give a better deal to the community. Or maybe if you don't support the social contract you would come up with something better for your own community.
You can fork Bitshares without trying to destroy the business model and suppress the growth of the industry. You can do it in a way which grows the industry and if you plan to actually develop it, contribute new code rather than just jack it, then you can get away with not supporting the social contract even though you could expect your code and ideas to be harvested and borrowed.
Example, if you came up with Byteshares and it's exactly like Bitshares but it has different commodities, slightly different parameters, that kind of work would be useful because it would allow for experimentation which benefits everyone. And you could do it with far less shares, 1 million instead of 4 million.
My guess is that isn't what they are doing and they just put a new logo on Bitshares code. That means they aren't contributing anything at all. The parameters they are changing is the sort of parameters you would expect from a centralized bank, dilute the shares, promising total equality, but the real purpose of this clone seems to me to be a naked short of Bitshares as a project. Since that damages all shareholders in proportion to how much money you spent getting Bitshares, there should be a policy in place.
Since legal license based policies were decided against, it's time for a set of social and technical policies. What should the consequence be for hostile forks? How should the community enforce it?