0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
Quote from: Chuckone on June 15, 2015, 12:42:52 amValid 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Riverhead on June 15, 2015, 11:25:47 amQuote from: cass on June 15, 2015, 11:22:05 amIMO 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.
Quote from: cass on June 15, 2015, 11:22:05 amIMO 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.
IMO this thread is extremly valuable! Guess, we should wait till the first real license draft is out so we have facts to discuss!
Quote from: Riverhead on June 15, 2015, 11:25:47 amQuote from: cass on June 15, 2015, 11:22:05 amIMO 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?
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.
Quote from: chryspano on June 15, 2015, 11:08:27 amQuote from: Chuckone on June 15, 2015, 12:42:52 amValid 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. I understand the point, I reacted quite strongly to Newmine's OP.......but then I realized so what?! His direct and challenging manner/tone helped to generate a discussion (probably that the devs were waiting for) that has been both passionate and constructive. There is more than enough critically thought out material here to help finalize the future relationship between Cryptonomex & bitshares. There is no attack that can be made against Bitshares that does not in the end strengthen it. What does that leave? Each other. In working things out, in communicating according to our prevailing style, mood, character, we need to remember context and courtesy so we can continue to work with extremes. There is certainly ample alignment among us not to feel threatened!
Quote from: Chuckone on June 15, 2015, 12:42:52 amValid 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.
Quote from: Samupaha on June 15, 2015, 08:46:29 amThe art of trolling is to spread FUD with couple of semi-valid points. The OP was so far away from constructive critisism that it can be ignored. It's clear that he didn't want to raise any kind of reasonable discussion on valid points. Declaring that Bitshares will lose "its soul and fundamental raison d'etre" is just bullshit.The art of cheer-leading is to buy in to everything without applying any critical thinking, dismiss valid concerns frivolously without addressing any of them, and pollute overwise constructive discussions by reactive and fanboyish posts with no actual content.
The art of trolling is to spread FUD with couple of semi-valid points. The OP was so far away from constructive critisism that it can be ignored. It's clear that he didn't want to raise any kind of reasonable discussion on valid points. Declaring that Bitshares will lose "its soul and fundamental raison d'etre" is just bullshit.
Quote from: Samupaha on June 14, 2015, 08:04:59 pmQuote from: profitofthegods on June 14, 2015, 07:26:11 pmPlease 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.
Quote from: profitofthegods on June 14, 2015, 07:26:11 pmPlease 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.
Please don't call this kind of thing FUD - these are legitimate concerns whether you agree with them or not.
These are some of my current questions, I am not making any judgments on anybody's intents:1. What is the primary purpose in anyone making a claim on IP at all?2. What is the core legal argument as to whether that IP belongs to Cryptonomex or to Bitshares? My (not-a-lawyer) understanding is that generally an employer will own the intellectual property created by its employees in the course of their employment. This is irrespective of who did the creative work and whether they felt they were paid enough for it. 3. If Cryptonomex did have a valid claim on the IP, is it legally feasible that the liberal terms of that license for BitShares could be altered at any time in the future (irrespective of any current intents)? 4. With regard to future development within Bitshares, such as third party scripting, or other customised builds on top of the core protocol, how would rights around these be arranged to be equitable to all parties?
BitShares 2.0 is a balckmail and rape to all BTS holders, BM sold his soul to the devil, went to the dark side:( it's a sad day for BTS community.
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. We are not like Ripple because we do not want to "control" BitShares going forward. 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.
Just catching up on the announcement of BitShares 2.0.I am baffled that people are being caught in the thick of thin things about secondary matters like the ownership of Cryptonomex, and fail to see the elephant in the room: BitShares without its free-software community funded core is not BitShares anymore! It cannot be as per the very nature of BitShares. The whole point and philosophy of BitShares is to be an open toolkit allowing anyone to leverage on the technology to create all sorts of innovative DACs, and in return sharedrop some of the new DAC's tokens to BitShares holders under what we call the "social consensus". What you are being pitched as BitShares 2.0 is an attempt to strip from the real BitShare immensely valuable assets such as its community, its brand name, its place in the crypto space and slap them on top of a proprietary non-free-software technology to increase it's appeal. Bitshares 2.0 is not an upgrade, it's a corporate dismantelment.Under the BitShares 2.0 "proposall "announcement", BitShares becomes a trade show exhibit for the exclusive benefit of Cryptonomex Inc. Bitshares 2.0 and the BitShares community will be used as:- A lab rat to test Graphene before it's used for real clients, and to test future new features before they are added to the professional toolkit.- A display to show to Cryptonomex's clients that Graphene works as intended- A live testnet for Graphene prospects and users to test their applications- An exhibit model for sales and fund raising pitches as well as presentations- A social sandbox in which Cryptonomexand its clients can test new marketing and product ideas before trying them in the wild- A free source of consulting, features proposals, feedback, bug reports, bug fixes and contributions- An army of volunteers to help promoting Graphene- A complementary source of fundsBitShares loses everything. Under the new model:- It cannot anymore be forked and loses the benefit of sharedrops by third party DAC developers.- Its allowed scope of evolution becomes restricted by the use cases allowed by the Graphene licence.- It loses the control of the BitShares brand- It loses its reputation on the crypto scene: even Ripple is free software with no strings attached!- It loses its soul and fundamental raison d'etreMeanwhile since BitShares is still around and may even do well for a while after the upgrade when it's not yet too apparent that it has lost its purpose and independance, BitShares core developers can continue to sell their BTS.It's time to wake up: we do not have to accept the upgrade to BitShares 2.0 and the subsequent disparition of the free software BitShares we have funded. Nothing justifies such an extreme solution. From an organizational perspective, if the core developers are going to walk away, it would be very poor decision making to accept an upgrade to new code that only they understand and control. No organization in their right mind would migrate to a system developed by an employee who is leaving, BitShares is no exception. From a technical perspective nothing justifies a migration either: the Graphene based chain will be launched in parallel as a BitShares fork, why not just let it be a BitShares fork? The rules so far have been that anyone forking BitShares was going to do it under her own brand and was expected to respect the social consensus. I don't see any reason to change the rules.Don't let yourself impressed by people telling you that BitShares is in a dead end, that developments have stalled, and that selling our soul by accepting a faustian pledge is the only solution. BitShares price may be low, but this has happened quite a few times to Bitcoin, Ripple and NXT to name only a few, and they are still doing fine. The whole crypto industry is in a bear market so things are looking gloomy, but like any bear market, this is only temporary. Better days will come when the market reverses, and these days may not be that far away given the fact Bitcoin's price has stabilized. Developments may have stalled as a consequence of the price drop, but will resume when the price rises again, and BitShares isn't going to die because developments have slowed down: if that was the case Bitcoin wouldn't be around anymore.There is no reason to rush and accept a bad deal. Cryptonomex may have timelines but we don't. Let's take the time to discuss and campain and see what the community really thinks about the upgrade.edit: replaced "closed source" by "non free software" and "open source" by "free software"
Quote from: tonyk on June 14, 2015, 10:29:58 pm I understand that developers need to be paid. And the more they are paid the better. What is odd to me is they are paid by Bitshres to produce something and after this thing is produced they end up being the owners of the product. Kind of like someone paying you to build a house and after you are done you become the owner of the house. In this regard I see the logic in the proposed solutions - using some of the funds received by CNX to buy and burn BTS shares. As far as such a scheme working in practice - I have serious doubts...Regarding the rest of the issues discussed - For me the correct thing to do is not restrict the free license to only one chain BTS, but to "BTS and any other chain that is 100% snapshot of BTS"And 'yes' discussing this issues is a good thing. Actually I do not quite understand why this needed to be kept secret for months before 06/08, just do not see what was/is the benefit from hiding it it?The only benefits I see from it are:It allowed the dev team to produce a disclosure plan and documentation to support itIt satisfies the a requirement imposed by one or more of Cryptonomex's funders (just guessing) I am literally disillusioned by what I've read today here on the forums, and although living without illusions is a good thing it also comes with a bit of sadness and feelings of loss for the optimistic future I assumed was on the way. I started the day highly motivated to begin a new book series, and spent a good number of hours researching bytemaster's posts on the bitcointalk forum, going back to his first one on July 27th, 2010 and the most recent one being on May 21st of this year. This was research I started to support the series that I'm tentatively calling The BitShares Saga. I have 5 books in the making, starting with part 1: The Genesis of a Revolution. The 30 page start that was to become The Coming BitShares Revolution will not go to waste but will be revised and become part 3: Experiments for a Revolution. That was the plan I started to formulate and put into action today.But now, I am just not sure. My doubts are growing about this project. As strongly as I'm convinced of bytemaster's drive and conviction, his passion to create an ecosystem with teeth that empowers individuals and disrupts the corrupt mainstream financial systems, I can't help feeling like another stomach ache is coming upon me from too much sugar in the koolaid.I am just being honest. I think this thread and the one newmine started have surfaced many issues that need to be discussed. Hindsight is 20/20 and I wonder if the Larimers, the dev team and their new investors saw this controversy coming. I think not, or they would have probably chosen a different way to disclose the new business approach that is Cyptonomex. I can see the situation from at least 3 angles (dev team+Larimers, Cryptonomex's investors and the BitShares community), and all have a vested interest in how this plays out. How BitShares and the community will come out of this when the dust settles is difficult to say right now.It's gonna take some calm voices, some rational thinking and wisdom on everybody's part to hash this out. Let's strive for respectful consideration, a check on our emotions and a measure of empathy and cooperation with all parties, aiming to work out a positive outcome where everyone benefits.I have seen some really great people in this community voice similar perspectives, some of whom have distanced themselves from participation. I truly hope we work out a solution that will also bring them back into the fold and restore their confidence in the future of BitShares.
I understand that developers need to be paid. And the more they are paid the better. What is odd to me is they are paid by Bitshres to produce something and after this thing is produced they end up being the owners of the product. Kind of like someone paying you to build a house and after you are done you become the owner of the house. In this regard I see the logic in the proposed solutions - using some of the funds received by CNX to buy and burn BTS shares. As far as such a scheme working in practice - I have serious doubts...Regarding the rest of the issues discussed - For me the correct thing to do is not restrict the free license to only one chain BTS, but to "BTS and any other chain that is 100% snapshot of BTS"And 'yes' discussing this issues is a good thing. Actually I do not quite understand why this needed to be kept secret for months before 06/08, just do not see what was/is the benefit from hiding it it?
so, i would love to read the new licensein my opinion the intention of the license is to prefend a commercial use of Graphene. I think this is just fine! So in my understanding this license needs to make this points possible1. no commercial use without license from Cryptonomex2. the BitShares Blockchain got a unrestricted license for any feature in the future. Cryptonomex will get all commercial rights for stuff who is coded for the BitShares community. 3. BitShares Community can make multiple chains as long as the BitShares community is a stakeholder of 100% of the new chain.
1) Shutdown the 0.9.x delegate node after the Graphene based chain is up and running. - This is basically accepting the upgrade to 2.0 verbatim and what will be doing with the delegates I run unless directed otherwise by their owners.2) Reject Cryptonomex's proposal outright and continue to run the 0.9.2 client. - This could take the form of an attempt to renegotiate the terms of BitShare's use of the Graphene toolkit. - It would also mean hunting for a new dev team to basically work for free.3) Run both blockchains at the same time. - This would likely be a fireable offense on both networks.
https://voat.co/v/smartcoin/comments/127598"we" can do whatever we want with the code.
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.
BitShares may use the code we release for 2.0 without restrictionsBitShares may develop extra features and use them without restriction
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.
Quote from: fav on June 14, 2015, 08:41:11 pmQuote from: klosure on June 14, 2015, 08:37:00 pmSo 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?
Quote from: klosure on June 14, 2015, 08:37:00 pmSo 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.
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.
Quote from: fav on June 14, 2015, 08:46:46 pmQuote from: Shentist on June 14, 2015, 08:45:06 pmcouldn'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.htmlthanks 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 beforeQuote from: bytemaster on June 09, 2015, 01:08:53 pmQuote from: Ben Mason on June 09, 2015, 12:59:20 pmSo 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).
Quote from: Shentist on June 14, 2015, 08:45:06 pmcouldn'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
couldn't find the license! Can someone point me where i can read it?
Quote from: Ben Mason on June 09, 2015, 12:59:20 pmSo 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).
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.
Quote from: Samupaha on June 14, 2015, 08:04:59 pmGood 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".
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.
Quote from: karnal on June 14, 2015, 07:58:28 pmI 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.
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.
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
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.
Stop bitching at the devs you guys!
OP, please read some more threads before you write a tl;dr wall of text full of wild guesses.
BTS cannot be "our lab rat" because we will not control its future, all hard forks will be voted on by stakeholders.
We are not like Ripple because we do not want to "control" BitShares going forward.
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.
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!
Quote from: Akado on June 14, 2015, 07:34:11 pmCryptonomex 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.
Cryptonomex is just another entity working for BitShares like all the other delegates we had so far.
Graphene source code is owned by Cryptonomex.BitShares may use the code we release for 2.0 without restrictionsBitShares may develop extra features and use them without restrictionBItSHares may purchase extra features from Cryptonomex
Uhh, so much FUD.But I have to say that I'm not really surprised. This is what you get when you choose to use IP. It's unethical and typically used in harmful and evil ways so people will assume that there is something bad also this time.
Quote from: Samupaha on June 14, 2015, 07:08:51 pmUhh, so much FUD.But I have to say that I'm not really surprised. This is what you get when you choose to use IP. It's unethical and typically used in harmful and evil ways so people will assume that there is something bad also this time.This is why I hate IP.