BitShares Forum
Other => Random Discussion => Topic started by: Tuck Fheman on June 09, 2015, 04:44:52 am
-
"Yet another anarchocapitalist bites the dust" https://bitshares.github.io/blog/2015/0 (https://t.co/HEZalEkOUV) - Vitalik Buterin (https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/608106120326963200)
-
"Yet another anarchocapitalist bites the dust" https://bitshares.github.io/blog/2015/0 (https://bitshares.github.io/blog/2015/0) - Vitalik Buterin (https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/608106120326963200)
I'm afraid that I don't get what Mr. Buterin is trying to say, although it does seem to be negative.
-
"Yet another anarchocapitalist bites the dust" https://bitshares.github.io/blog/2015/0 (https://bitshares.github.io/blog/2015/0) - Vitalik Buterin (https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/608106120326963200)
I'm afraid that I don't get what Mr. Buterin is trying to say, although it does seem to be negative.
Wow, that is quite the twitter thread. I guess no mini-golf games in their future.
Anarchocapitalists are anti-copyright according to the various articles published in PDF format indicate :P .
-
It is a question worth pondering as to whether copyright is needed.
Suppose somebody made an exact replica of bitShares. There would be no point in establishing a new network from scratch unless they wanted to take it in a different strategic direction. And if they go different strategic directions, they will develop different features and specialise in different things to bitShares, at the expense of things that bitShares would continue to develop and improve. Both businesses could theoretically outsource their non-core services to the other - are they then still competitors?
Without copyrights, we not only enhance the rate of external innovation in our world for everybody's benefit, but we create synergy benefits for the entire ecosystem in which we all operate.
-
I have such little respect for knee-jerk commentary.....Vitalik should know or do better. In order for Bitshares to deliver on it's most important goal of setting humanity free from the tyranny of systemic corruption, it must be able to protect itself from the initial clone wars and all the vaporware it produces in order to preserve and build network effect. It is still possible for anyone to copy or use the code and develop something different and the code remains transparent, but there is an incentive to operate within the fledgling network and to benefit from that. There has been no departure from key, moral principals. No departure from Bitshares core of integrity & innovation.
There is so much narrow, disingenuous thinking in crypto and people tend to hide behind language that doesn't go far enough in articulating context. Tyranny is the absence of nuance.....
-
Doesn't this new licence mean there can be no more DACs based on the new code base?
-
It is a question worth pondering as to whether copyright is needed.
Suppose somebody made an exact replica of bitShares. There would be no point in establishing a new network from scratch unless they wanted to take it in a different strategic direction. And if they go different strategic directions, they will develop different features and specialise in different things to bitShares, at the expense of things that bitShares would continue to develop and improve. Both businesses could theoretically outsource their non-core services to the other - are they then still competitors?
Without copyrights, we not only enhance the rate of external innovation in our world for everybody's benefit, but we create synergy benefits for the entire ecosystem in which we all operate.
this +5%
-
Doesn't this new licence mean there can be no more DACs based on the new code base?
nope AFAIK it means , that communities who want to use same code base have to buy a license! </wildguess>
-
Ignore others, just focus on our product. It's still open source, so there is nothing wrong with it. We need to protect what's ours and proceed, to where the big money is. Anarchocaps and all that libertarian philosophy, although pretty, isn't going to attract money. Not to mention the amount of times ideas were stolen with 0 credit given.
-
Doesn't this new licence mean there can be no more DACs based on the new code base?
nope AFAIK it means , that communities who want to use same code base have to buy a license! </wildguess>
Do you know what the license will cost please Cass?
-
Doesn't this new licence mean there can be no more DACs based on the new code base?
nope AFAIK it means , that communities who want to use same code base have to buy a license! </wildguess>
Do you know what the license will cost please Cass?
Sry idk any details about at this time! Guess we will reveal more details soon. Due the legal progress this have to go trough this will need a bit more time!
Please correct me if i'm totally wrong here...
-
Doesn't this new licence mean there can be no more DACs based on the new code base?
nope AFAIK it means , that communities who want to use same code base have to buy a license! </wildguess>
Do you know what the license will cost please Cass?
Sry idk any details about at this time! Guess we will reveal more details soon. Due the legal progress this have to go trough this will need a bit more time!
Please correct me if i'm totally wrong here...
no worries. Just another point....didn't BM imply that no licence would be necessary if a new project demonstrated a commitment to the community and network by sharedropping on existing participants?
-
Ignore others, just focus on our product. It's still open source, so there is nothing wrong with it. We need to protect what's ours and proceed, to where the big money is. Anarchocaps and all that libertarian philosophy, although pretty, isn't going to attract money. Not to mention the amount of times ideas were stolen with 0 credit given.
Yup. Exactly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Doesn't this new licence mean there can be no more DACs based on the new code base?
nope AFAIK it means , that communities who want to use same code base have to buy a license! </wildguess>
Do you know what the license will cost please Cass?
(http://memecrunch.com/meme/59RZG/100-trillion-dollars/image.jpg)
-
It is a question worth pondering as to whether copyright is needed.
Suppose somebody made an exact replica of bitShares. There would be no point in establishing a new network from scratch unless they wanted to take it in a different strategic direction. And if they go different strategic directions, they will develop different features and specialise in different things to bitShares, at the expense of things that bitShares would continue to develop and improve. Both businesses could theoretically outsource their non-core services to the other - are they then still competitors?
Without copyrights, we not only enhance the rate of external innovation in our world for everybody's benefit, but we create synergy benefits for the entire ecosystem in which we all operate.
It's not the small projects that could bootstrap with Graphene that's the problem imho. For me it's the big players like IBM, Sun, Apple, Google, etc. that could come along, steal it, and then crush us by putting more money into marketing "their" innovation than Cryptonomex could dream of having total in the short term.
Sent from my Timex Sinclair
-
He doesn't know that if others sharedrop on BitShares, they can use it. This is just to keep big players away, exactly the opposite of what he is thinking
-
The license is valid, as we know the rumour is that IBM is trying to build bitUSD. https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/ibm-federal-reserve-want-create-bitcoin-knock-off/ I do not believe that they will be so "altruistic" as they are planning to do with Ethereum, mainly become the PaaS / SaaS IoT bluemix service for Ethererum and funnel all the consumers through their cloud.
It will be similar to Oracle and other super vendors profiting from all the open source work paying peanuts.
So a good open license, but fee paying is a great idea. Even better if they fees are share dropped to every holder of BTS. (PTS, AGS :) )