BitShares Forum

Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: NewMine on June 12, 2015, 07:17:05 pm

Title: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: NewMine on June 12, 2015, 07:17:05 pm
It looks like we funded the BitShares team to develop a proprietary toolkit software where all profits from this will not benefit the BTS holder but in fact destroy them?

I also found a post by a concerned person that Bytemaster and team could eventually leave Bitshares to work on their for profit company that is going to compete with Bitshares?

I mean wtf? The whole merger was about getting rid of competition and now the Dev team has gone and started a for profit company using the technology we all paid them to develop "open source"

Please explain or direct me to links. Thanks.

Mainly answer where the time came from to develop this new project as we have been waiting for a stable 1.0 for nearly a year? And were you working on this as people were losing their ass while shorting bitAssets because of the fucked rules in place?
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Ander on June 12, 2015, 07:21:44 pm
You're so good at coming up with new FUD.  Its like your special skill.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Method-X on June 12, 2015, 07:31:37 pm
This news should come as a relief to the market as I believe the low price was a result of future development uncertainty.



Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Riverhead on June 12, 2015, 07:44:40 pm

I shared your concerns however have setting on the following opinion:

1) People need to eat and pay rent. BTS, and the whole crypto space, is in the toilet. Supporting yourself shelling your BTS stake is untenable.

2) No money = no developers = no BTS

[Wild Ass Guessing]

Cryptonomex, and by extension Graphene, is the result of some external infusion of cash (VC). The VC(s) wanted to fund the project but not give what they're paying for away for free except to BitShares. The Dev team has a lot of vested balance, assets, etc. in BTS as well as likely releasing shares of Cryptonomex on the BTS blockchain. That's some serious skin in the game.

[/Wild Ass Guessing]
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Pheonike on June 12, 2015, 07:45:16 pm
You're so good at coming up with new FUD.  Its like your special skill.

Newmine rap name "FUDmaster Flex".

If you you would take half a second to ask a question verse making an accusation things would be so much simpler.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: mike623317 on June 12, 2015, 07:47:12 pm
That's just shameless misinformation.

.. I think you missed your calling sir. You would do well working for the lame stream media.  :D

Read the announcement / listen to the mumble.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: triox on June 12, 2015, 08:26:12 pm
Even though the crypto market cap remains stagnant, everyone in this space is being showered with VC/Bank money. Wall St. is getting heavily involved but not in the way we were originally hoping for. They have no interest in enriching some random nobodies. They want closed solutions that they control.
We shouldn't blame I3 for wanting to get in on the action.

Having said that, I believe we should demand clarification from Cryptonomex whether they intend to honour their relationship with Bitshares community long term.

If tomorrow Goldman Sacs commissions Cryptonomex to build them a full spectrum solution based on the Graphene toolkit, is there a way and intent to benefit the BTS stakeholders in any way?
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: davidpbrown on June 12, 2015, 08:47:21 pm
[Wild Ass Guessing]
The VC(s)
[/Wild Ass Guessing]

bytemaster suggested in the mumble, it was private individuals, so not exactly VCs in the usual sense of companies.

Perhaps I've had too much beer but I wonder that while newmine is always provocative, he asks an important question. Given what's occurred over at CounterParty, it seems there maybe currently more often closed opportunities than ones which necessarily lend themselves to open answers like BitShares ambition has always been. While those closed interests might take advantage of existing blockchains, there is a risk they will push for distinct options.. it would be nice, if the devs could make obvious their commitment to the existing BitShares blockchain to allay such fears once and for all. Those who are simply opportunist, are not always committed enough to fight to the end.. and realistically, existing fintech may opt for middle step private chains, before adopting more open consensus.. I think that much is unclear atm, which is why BitShares needs a clear focus and communication of capability.

Maintaining consensus, is always about having a clear direction, sense of purpose and commitment., which is why I push for roadmaps and milestones beyond just getting 2.0 launched. Robust solutions, should be able to answer tough questions.

Regardless of whether the answer is somewhere in the fine print of the new website, if the defence to such questions, is more dull anti-FUD "You're so good at coming up with new FUD.  Its like your special skill.", then that's not good enough and there needs to do better answers available in the FAQs.

Perhaps whoever are PR/Marketing can provide simple answers to these questions by referencing what is known already. The change to 2.0 is a lot to take in.. it looks good on the face of it.. having devs make obvious to everyone there intention is to continue support for BTS, would be great. There's no good reason not to encourage any fintech interest to use the existing network.. more the merrier. :drunk: :p
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: bytemaster on June 12, 2015, 09:23:24 pm
It boils down to this,  BTS holders must pay the cost of maintaining a development team.    When you pay your developers $500 per month they look for other options.   BTS doesn't OWN the developers for life.

Cryptonomex will continue to build and enhance BitShares so long as BitShares is willing to compensate the developers for their work.   

Over the past 4 months the BitShares community has only funded the developers enough to do basic bug fixing on 0.9.x series (and likely not even enough to do that).

So Cryptonomex has offered the BTS community a "no-dilution" solution which is license the code in a restrictive manner so we can profit in other ways.

We are committed to not diluting BTS, but beyond BitShares 2.0 the only work the developers will do for BTS is work that BTS is willing to pay for via worker positions.

We have a lot of skin in the BTS game so we want it to succeed.   This is "tough love".   

We will not launch blockchains except blockchains that implement behaviors or rules or philosophies that BitShares is unable to "hardfork" over to adopt.   If it is possible for BitShares to "hard fork" in a legitimate manner to a new idea, then that will be our preferred solution... assuming BitShares stakeholders are willing to pay the cost of implementing the features requested.

We should note that we are building a business model that depends upon BTS for the foreseeable future.   Our skin is in the game, we lose significant money if BTS dies.  We all share a common interest.

Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: CLains on June 12, 2015, 09:35:34 pm
We should note that we are building a business model that depends upon BTS for the foreseeable future.  

Our skin is in the game, we lose significant money if BTS dies.  We all share a common interest.

 +5%
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: liondani on June 12, 2015, 09:36:22 pm


If tomorrow Goldman Sacs commissions Cryptonomex to build them a full spectrum solution based on the Graphene toolkit, is there a way and intent to benefit the BTS stakeholders in any way?

I like your question. Waiting for the answer...

PS.  In place of Goldman Sachs put any big Company of course.



Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: davidpbrown on June 12, 2015, 10:01:50 pm
This is "tough love".   

Tough love on both sides.. the community expects a product that will deliver and not just fleece them dry.

It is a fine balance and obviously different enterprises have tried different models to fund development. Getting investment on the back of a promise of gold tomorrow, is easy and we've seem many variations; some IPO's just float the currency and many others bleed the currency dry, hoping to see a return in time to save all. MSC and XCP have fallen short for perhaps underestimating the timelines and they are not making money for us who invested in them.. maybe they will later. It'll be interesting to see Ethereum play out. Perhaps BitShares has it right but as we saw with Mastercoin, it's easy to burn money.. so, all the more important to spend wisely and frugally. I'm no expert but I wonder build one module that can attract new money from either angels or fintech and then develop others.. I don't know, if BitShares has been too ambitions at times, relative to what it really takes to succeed. Hopefully the next step will be a big fish that understands the potential.. perhaps don't be shy with a good idea and pitch to the Barclays' blockchain accelerate and others.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: bytemaster on June 12, 2015, 10:25:34 pm


If tomorrow Goldman Sacs commissions Cryptonomex to build them a full spectrum solution based on the Graphene toolkit, is there a way and intent to benefit the BTS stakeholders in any way?

I like your question. Waiting for the answer...

PS.  In place of Goldman Sachs put any big Company of course.

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

GS would spend 3M to build their own tech if BTS devs didn't cooperate with their requests and then they would compete with BTS anyway.  Once this is understood you realize the devs either "take the deal" or "go down with the ship". 

BTS stakeholders must make do what it takes to retain talent, period.
Developers must do what makes the most sense to maximize their income, period.

BTS has been public domain thus far, which means anyone could take the code and the developers have been independent which means they are "free to leave".   

It really comes down to the community continuing to make "staying" the best option available.   This is FREE MARKET cooperation.

If GS wants to enter the market with a ton of money and produce a product that is compatible with our vision, then it would be stupid for BTS developers to not take them up on a job offer.  It would be stupid for both financial and philosophical reasons, namely, freedom supporting blockchain tech going mainstream is the real goal.   
If GS wants to produce a blockchain that is not compatible with BitShares philosophy, then developers should still take them up on it because it would be a DIFFERENT MARKET and they could use the money earned to improve BTS.

Bottom line the only reason for developers to not take them up on it is if they actually think they could compete head to head with GS when all technology is equal. 

Any stakeholders here want to promise not to sell their BTS if GS decided to compete by reimplementing all of our ideas?
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: lil_jay890 on June 12, 2015, 10:50:19 pm


If tomorrow Goldman Sacs commissions Cryptonomex to build them a full spectrum solution based on the Graphene toolkit, is there a way and intent to benefit the BTS stakeholders in any way?

I like your question. Waiting for the answer...

PS.  In place of Goldman Sachs put any big Company of course.

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

GS would spend 3M to build their own tech if BTS devs didn't cooperate with their requests and then they would compete with BTS anyway.  Once this is understood you realize the devs either "take the deal" or "go down with the ship". 

BTS stakeholders must make do what it takes to retain talent, period.
Developers must do what makes the most sense to maximize their income, period.

BTS has been public domain thus far, which means anyone could take the code and the developers have been independent which means they are "free to leave".   

It really comes down to the community continuing to make "staying" the best option available.   This is FREE MARKET cooperation.

If GS wants to enter the market with a ton of money and produce a product that is compatible with our vision, then it would be stupid for BTS developers to not take them up on a job offer.  It would be stupid for both financial and philosophical reasons, namely, freedom supporting blockchain tech going mainstream is the real goal.   
If GS wants to produce a blockchain that is not compatible with BitShares philosophy, then developers should still take them up on it because it would be a DIFFERENT MARKET and they could use the money earned to improve BTS.

Bottom line the only reason for developers to not take them up on it is if they actually think they could compete head to head with GS when all technology is equal. 

Any stakeholders here want to promise not to sell their BTS if GS decided to compete by reimplementing all of our ideas?

"No matter what we breed we still are made of greed"
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: hadrian on June 12, 2015, 10:54:42 pm
Any stakeholders here want to promise not to sell their BTS if GS decided to compete by reimplementing all of our ideas?

Yes
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: sittingduck on June 12, 2015, 11:01:03 pm
The truth is hard to take.    We must Use greed to our advantage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Ander on June 12, 2015, 11:27:34 pm
The tone of this thread is negative.  I blame Newmine. :P

Lets fix that.


It has always been the case that the Bitshares core dev team needs to be able to make a salary, or development of BTS from them would cease.  For a while we had AGS funding, though sadly Bitcoin declined and it didn't go as far as we would like.   Then paid delegates were implemented to continue funding, but the BTS price crashed in the continued crypto bear market, so this is not enough, barring giving several delegates to each developer, which the community didn't like for centralization reasons.


Workers or the Bitshares 2.0 solution.  Cryptonomex is the 'worker' of the core dev team.  They are going to make proposals of future features to work on.  The community is very likely going to elect them  (I certainly plan to vote for them and encourage others to do so).  This will continue funding the dev team.  The cryptonomex team can also take consulting work from other groups to supplement their income and keep the group going, if the crypto funding market stays dry and BTS stays low. 


The creation of Cryptonomex isn't some sceme to screw BTS holders over.  Its the new worker entity that can be hired by BTS shareholders to build BTS.

Building BTS, the cryptocurrency, has been the dev team's goal all along.  If they simply wanted to make a centralized corporation and own all the equity of it, they would have done that rather than create Protoshares and open up the ability for anyone to get stake in the project.  The creation of Protoshares and subsequent evolution of it into Bitshares shows the developers commitment to creating a decentralized cryptocurrency.


It seems there is some lingering distrust of the dev team, from some people, ever since the merger.  Everyone needs to understand that the dev team is committed to the project but with the caveat that they aren't going to work for free, they need to draw salaries to survive.  This is perfectly fair, imo.  At a couple percent inflation, the BTS community can support having a strong dev team.  A great trade!  Look at how Bitcoin has more inflation and gets nothing, while we buy a dev team working on the project, because DPoS is better than PoW! 

We are going to keep supporting the dev team and they are going to keep working hard on BTS.  I don't see a community rebellion against the developers happening, nor do I see the developers walking away from a community that still supports them, so we should expect things to continue on as they have been.  Hopefully adoption will increase with the 2.0 release and the market cap will increase as well, making funding much easier.  It was getting pretty scary there at .02 CNY, but fortunately big buyers stepped up and we are past that now, and the price chart looks very good at the present.


I promise to keep supporting BTS as long as Bytemaster is working on the project, and I'm pretty sure he plans to keep working on Bitshares as long as he is getting community support. 

So lets all go buy some more BTS while its still in the .04s and below, and toast to the future of Bitshares, with community and developers working together!  (And lets hope Newmine sells :P)
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Ander on June 12, 2015, 11:46:22 pm
One more note:

After the change, I would anticipate that some of the current marketing paid delegates will stop getting funds, anticipating that marketing will be funded by the referral system.  This portion of the worker funding should be directed towards development, imo.  (Either to cryptonomex and/or other development projects the community wants to fund).


Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: merockstar on June 12, 2015, 11:56:30 pm
So at todays prices how many worker delegates is it going to take to keep this project advancing the way it has been?

I guess the community should start negotiating now, right?
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: merockstar on June 12, 2015, 11:59:32 pm
Any stakeholders here want to promise not to sell their BTS if GS decided to compete by reimplementing all of our ideas?

yes, in a heartbeat, if we're able to retain the talent that made this software what it is. (or similarly talented talent- I'm going to go ahead and question whether there's anyone else qualified and willing to step up at this point in time)

GS is closed profit, BTS is profit for everybody who shares the vision- no need to be an accredited investor or a wealthy elite or nothing.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: merockstar on June 13, 2015, 12:23:54 am
Are we sure the project is mature enough to take the training wheels off and let the blockchain fund the whole thing from now on?

This is kind of scary...
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Tuck Fheman on June 13, 2015, 12:27:49 am
Any stakeholders here want to promise not to sell their BTS if GS decided to compete by reimplementing all of our ideas?

Someone should create a BitShares Simple Term Deposit AT (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=731923.msg10933815#msg10933815). ;)
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: sumantso on June 13, 2015, 12:37:09 am
Any stakeholders here want to promise not to sell their BTS if GS decided to compete by reimplementing all of our ideas?

I was initially attracted and went all in due to your vision and philosophy and held through the downtrend even though you kept lurching from one blunder to the next.

Perhaps I was being a naive idiot and maybe I should be reviewing my stance.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: sittingduck on June 13, 2015, 12:42:45 am

Any stakeholders here want to promise not to sell their BTS if GS decided to compete by reimplementing all of our ideas?

Someone should create a BitShares Simple Term Deposit AT (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=731923.msg10933815#msg10933815). ;)

The proposed loyalty rewards was shut down, but addresses this very issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: fuzzy on June 13, 2015, 12:59:43 am
We can have a hangout to talk about this. 

I have always been here for the community and people are concerned, but let's face it guys and girls--the entire community has tried to make the devs live off of a single delegate each for quite awhile now.  How many of you work full time or even part time for this chain and ask only 1 delegate as payment? 

Perhaps this is a good time to do the calculations and see if we can start paying the development team to work full time for bitshares without having to form cryptonomex...(if people are really that upset).

It should be obvious that I don't want the team to have to reach outside bitshares to survive, but let's face it, the wages everyone has been willing to pay them force them to find solutions.

Honestly wish it didn't come to this, but let's look at the reality and move forward appropriately.  I mean would you work for your place of work if they refused to pay you what you are worth? 

And before anyone talks about the beyond bitcoin team working from only a single delegate, please understand that we are all really kind of outliers...and have at least full time jobs outside bitshares that pay more than a single delegate.

-edit-
Method-x imho is 100% correct
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: merivercap on June 13, 2015, 01:01:19 am
I understand the intentions of Bytemaster & the developers, but just want some clarity about the source code and IP.  I think it's fine to have a separate private company, but it seems to me the licensing, source code and IP may cause some issues. 

If Cryptonomex owns the main source code and IP, does that mean the blockchain will be closed-source?  I assume the code will technically still be open-sourced for security audits? 

It would seem to me owning BitShares is like owning a piece of the blockchain and also the code.  After the hard fork into BitShares 2.0, what 'legal rights' will Cryptonomex have over the BitShares 2.0 blockchain?  What 'legal rights' will BitShares holders have to the code and future code if they are developed by Cryptonomex or not?  What 'legal rights' will Cryptonomex have on the future code on BitShares 2.0 if they are developed by Cryptonomex or not?

Cryptonomex is a C-corp owned by shareholders with corporate bylaws and even if articles that are favorable to BitShares are written in the bylaws, bylaws can change. Hence ultimately the owners of Cryptonomex can do whatever they want.   It would seem that if the major shareholders of Cryptonomex are able to maintain control and abide by Bytemaster's intentions there may not be too much to worry about. Even if somehow Cryptonomex was bought out by Goldman Sachs, as long as the BitShares blockchain is independent and BTS owners can be confident they don't have to worry about Cryptonomex's 'legal right' to BitShares in the future everything should be ok. 

I support the formation of Cryptonomex and I don't have a problem with closed-source code as long as it's readily available for security audits.  Anyway this is pretty interesting to think about.   

Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: merockstar on June 13, 2015, 01:32:34 am
We can have a hangout to talk about this. 


if that gets set up will you send me a PM? I'll go out of my way to be in attendance.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Ben Mason on June 13, 2015, 01:44:11 am
Wow. This is hilarious. They work hard, design a better technology with incredible promise and still there are detractors attempting to undermine this project.

For a long time the objective has been to pay for the innovation and maintenance of the Bitshares blockchain via the system itself. One day, we'll all be dead.  Bitshares must live on and simply find the best talent for what it can afford. That or a wealthy benefactor.

Bitshares has the feature set, protocol, community and philosophy to hopefully make it go viral. Let's not pretend that the core devs are doing anything other than what was always mean't to happen, regardless of the price of BTS.

As Ander said, it's probably in our interest to retain as many of the core devs as possible and maybe start offering them some trust and respect for what they've accomplished with some frikin donations.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: merockstar on June 13, 2015, 01:55:08 am
As Ander said, it's probably in our interest to retain as many of the core devs as possible and maybe start offering them some trust and respect for what they've accomplished with some frikin donations.

I haven't panic sold.

I just can't help but consider the possibility that at the current level of adoption we may not be able to afford to hire back the devs. Does that not strike you as a very real possibility? If I'm reading him correctly (and I may not be he did say he has skin in the game that depends on BTS for the foreseeable future, so to a certain extent I feel like there's a mixed message in there), BM just insinuated that he would walk if the price isn't right. This is cause for concern, and I'm not here to undermine this project.

I just can't help but wonder what the necessary conditions are to hang on to the core devs, and can they realistically be met? If not then what happens?

EDIT: In fact, were it not for the immense respect I have for the work done so far, I wouldn't even give a shit.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: carpet ride on June 13, 2015, 01:58:57 am

As Ander said, it's probably in our interest to retain as many of the core devs as possible and maybe start offering them some trust and respect for what they've accomplished with some frikin donations.

I haven't panic sold.

I just can't help but consider the possibility that at the current level of adoption we may not be able to afford to hire back the devs. Does that not strike you as a very real possibility? If I'm reading him correctly (and I may not be he did say he has skin in the game that depends on BTS for the foreseeable future, so to a certain extent I feel like there's a mixed message in there), BM just insinuated that he would walk if the price isn't right. This is cause for concern, and I'm not here to undermine this project.

I just can't help but wonder what the necessary conditions are to hang on to the core devs, and can they realistically be met? If not then what happens?

They want to get paid in BTS and marketing is about to start.  It's gonna be all good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Ben Mason on June 13, 2015, 02:08:34 am
As Ander said, it's probably in our interest to retain as many of the core devs as possible and maybe start offering them some trust and respect for what they've accomplished with some frikin donations.

I haven't panic sold.

I just can't help but consider the possibility that at the current level of adoption we may not be able to afford to hire back the devs. Does that not strike you as a very real possibility? If I'm reading him correctly (and I may not be), BM just insinuated that he would walk if the price isn't right. This is cause for concern, and I'm not here to undermine this project.

I just can't help but wonder what the necessary conditions are to hang on to the core devs, and can they realistically be met? If not then what happens?
BM and the other devs may need to supplement their income and leverage their knowledge and experience. If we are able to use what they've built to grow the network then we'll be able to retain all the devs, including those at cryptonmex. Let's not forget, no-one has invested more of themselves into Bitshares than BM and the core devs. The commitment they've shown, especially to the Bitshares philosophy, is not fickle. It doesn't just go away. As usual they are adapting and in a way that strengthens their ability to continue working on Bitshares and demonstrating the robust autonomous nature of the system...claims we're all frequently making. If we want Bitshares to succeed, we'd better follow the devs example and get to work.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: liondani on June 13, 2015, 02:11:32 am
Over the past 4 months the BitShares community has only funded the developers enough to do basic bug fixing on 0.9.x series (and likely not even enough to do that).

are you considering as funding only the delegate payments? What about the vested funds that all Developers have in place? What about the AGS funds that was used last year?
I have the feeling that the core developers should not complain, it's not the community's fault if they not managed the funds well... (example Brian Page salary etc.)
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Helikopterben on June 13, 2015, 02:37:45 am
Bitshares was launched a little over a year ago with a price of roughly $0.01/bts.  The current price is about $0.007/bts.  While devs have not made much money over the past year, shareholders have lost money.  The whole premise to begin with was for devs to produce more value than they take and by the above metric, that hasn't worked out so well.  So who is to say that GS would hire a dev team that has lost value for its shareholders over the past year?  Sometimes you have to look at it from a shareholders perspective also, not just a devs perspective. 

Now I absolutely don't believe that devs have not produced value over the past year.  Markets can often be irrational and the entire crypto industry has been mired in a bear market over the past year.  Also, re-engineering the entire global financial system is a major undertaking with much trial and error along the way.  Shareholders' only recourse is to attempt to hire a new dev team or allocate their capital elsewhere, which many have done. 

IMO, this project Simply will not succeed without the current dev team.  We are all in this together.  Devs need shareholders and shareholders need devs.  The new design may just be the ticket to significantly reward both shareholders and devs.  In fact, I am confident that at some point, top talent from GS will be flocking to bitshares to be a part of our team, and it may happen sooner than we all think.  We have already seen many defectors from the legacy financial system move into crypto, and many more are sure to follow.  Besides, for GS to develop a system to compete against bitshares, they would either have to create a centralized system, which they already have, or clone bitshares and maybe add in a few tweaks.  In other words, GS can't compete, they can only join the crypto space if they want to survive the upcoming revolution. 
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: merockstar on June 13, 2015, 02:42:32 am
Over the past 4 months the BitShares community has only funded the developers enough to do basic bug fixing on 0.9.x series (and likely not even enough to do that).

are you considering as funding only the delegate payments? What about the vested funds that all Developers have in place? What about the AGS funds that was used last year?
I have the feeling that the core developers should not complain, it's not the community's fault if they not managed the funds well... (example Brian Page salary etc.)

If I recall correctly, I believe there was some sort of legal technicality that forced them to find quick uses for the AGS fund. So I'm willing to offer the benefit of the doubt on that one.

But BM threatened to walk if there was no merger, did he not? And now this (I believe the term "tough love" was used).

I've supported this project for a long time and consistently put as much as I could afford into this because I support the vision of liberation from the banksters. And I've held after losing money from buying in too early.

I rarely ever express doubt in this project, and when I do have some shred of doubt I know my concerns will be assuaged quickly. I've gotten used to that. Perhaps taken it for granted even, yes a certain level of trust has been built. I haven't been able to contribute as much as I'd like to, but I'm working on it. I do feel like an OG here anyway. So without being accused of trying to spread FUD or trolling, cause anyone whose been around knows that's the last thing I'd want to do, I do feel entitled to ask:

BM, in all candor, is your heart still truly in this? This last update was massive. It's understandable if you're a little burnt out.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: puppies on June 13, 2015, 02:53:28 am
I plan on doing exactly that which I feel is in my best interest.  I do not expect that to change.  I would not expect BM nor any of the other members of this community to do that which they feel is not in their best interest at any time.  You are not able to sell your future self into slavery.

If BM or any of the other members of this community promised to do that which is not in their best interest in the future, I would have to assume that they were either a liar or a sociopath.

With that said it must be understood that my best interest does not consist solely or even mostly of material well being.  I like most of you live rather comfortably with the reasonable expectation that I will be comfortable for the rest of my life.  I try hard to be a good person.  I don't hurt other people.  I do not plunder and enslave others.  In short, I attempt to live morally based upon what I believe to be a logical reasonable set of moral principles.  This is worth far more to me than a million dollars.

I believe BM holds a similar set of principles, and is also not motivated primarily by material well being.  I may disagree with him about a great many things, but I know he will not attempt to plunder nor enslave me.  We may have paid him to develop bitshares, but we paid him a year ago in a depreciating currency.  How long would you work for your last paycheck?

Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Ben Mason on June 13, 2015, 02:59:53 am
Bitshares was launched a little over a year ago with a price of roughly $0.01/bts.  The current price is about $0.007/bts.  While devs have not made much money over the past year, shareholders have lost money.  The whole premise to begin with was for devs to produce more value than they take and by the above metric, that hasn't worked out so well.  So who is to say that GS would hire a dev team that has lost value for its shareholders over the past year?  Sometimes you have to look at it from a shareholders perspective also, not just a devs perspective. 

Now I absolutely don't believe that devs have not produced value over the past year.  Markets can often be irrational and the entire crypto industry has been mired in a bear market over the past year.  Also, re-engineering the entire global financial system is a major undertaking with much trial and error along the way.  Shareholders' only recourse is to attempt to hire a new dev team or allocate their capital elsewhere, which many have done. 

IMO, this project Simply will not succeed without the current dev team.  We are all in this together.  Devs need shareholders and shareholders need devs.  The new design may just be the ticket to significantly reward both shareholders and devs.  In fact, I am confident that at some point, top talent from GS will be flocking to bitshares to be a part of our team, and it may happen sooner than we all think.  We have already seen many defectors from the legacy financial system move into crypto, and many more are sure to follow.  Besides, for GS to develop a system to compete against bitshares, they would either have to create a centralized system, which they already have, or clone bitshares and maybe add in a few tweaks.  In other words, GS can't compete, they can only join the crypto space if they want to survive the upcoming revolution.
It really depends on your perspective and mine is that the price of BTS has not yet reflected true value and will not until the medium to long term. Bitcoin has gotten along just fine, despite its flaws, without satoshi.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: bubble789 on June 13, 2015, 03:05:52 am
I also found a post by a concerned person

I guess nm was talking about this post https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16318.msg216006.html#msg216006
and just to clarify, I did not mean to create FUD but wanted a better understanding of the potential issues I foresee. 
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: bubble789 on June 13, 2015, 03:19:20 am
and I thought you were talking about working towards our guiding principles and ideological goals and purposes first then monetary gains will come eventually.
and I thought (after this whole time when the team has been underpaid) BTS developers were working hard towards something bigger than just monetary gains.
but, but I understand your point completely.

BTS stakeholders must make do what it takes to retain talent, period.
Developers must do what makes the most sense to maximize their income, period.


BTS has been public domain thus far, which means anyone could take the code and the developers have been independent which means they are "free to leave".   

It really comes down to the community continuing to make "staying" the best option available.   This is FREE MARKET cooperation.

If GS wants to enter the market with a ton of money and produce a product that is compatible with our vision, then it would be stupid for BTS developers to not take them up on a job offer.  It would be stupid for both financial and philosophical reasons, namely, freedom supporting blockchain tech going mainstream is the real goal.   
If GS wants to produce a blockchain that is not compatible with BitShares philosophy, then developers should still take them up on it because it would be a DIFFERENT MARKET and they could use the money earned to improve BTS.

Bottom line the only reason for developers to not take them up on it is if they actually think they could compete head to head with GS when all technology is equal. 

Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: chryspano on June 13, 2015, 03:21:04 am
It's too late!

It's already happening!

We are doomed!

EVERYONE start selling panic selling NOW!


(http://i.imgur.com/WhIaqdc.jpg)

[EDIT]
This is a JOKE, It seems I have to say the obvious because some people would believe every FUD they could hear
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: bubble789 on June 13, 2015, 03:25:47 am
well we did not ask anyone to be owned by BTS now or at any point in time. we ask for community leaders.

but i guess with Dan insisting on being a contractor now, it is time to rebalancing my BTS position.

cross post:
My opinion is that a distributed community/society *does need* leaders in order to survive and stay focused+competitive. It doesn't have to be the "official" head but a socially-recognised and unanimously-agreed-on leaders who help to lead and serve the community. And again I want to stress that we won't need dictators but capable and devoted leaders.

Dan and co. have been doing that job extremely well and I (and hopefully the community) wish that the team continues to and stays committed in playing these roles in bitshares ecosystem.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: sittingduck on June 13, 2015, 03:58:27 am
Look it is very clear the devs are working to make bitshares better and giving bitshares everything.   It is also equally clear that the devs stake in bts is shrinking or non existent because they have to sell to pay the bills.    Where do you think they are getting the money to pay devs enough to live on?

So it seems really clear to me.  Bitshares needs to give the devs more stake or we will always doubt. 

Think about it,  if they held 80% of bts would we ever doubt their loyalty.   They now control less than ever and people expect them to sell off what they have left while working below market.   At this trajectory devs will have no stake in months.   

Deep down those afraid about dev loyalty need to back the devs and start a campaign for more delegates.  It is those of us that demand devs work for peanuts and remain loyal that are the most greedy and selfish of all.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: montpelerin on June 13, 2015, 04:09:25 am
bytemaster, will the community be able to invest in Cryptonomex directly through a BTS UIA?

It would be great to see Cryptonomex eat the BTS dogfood with something this important.

Additionally, would a sharedrop on the table for BTS, PTS or AGS holders?
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Method-X on June 13, 2015, 04:26:38 am
bytemaster, will the community be able to invest in Cryptonomex directly through a BTS UIA?

It would be great to see Cryptonomex eat the BTS dogfood with something this important.

Additionally, would a sharedrop on the table for BTS, PTS or AGS holders?

Sharedropping on BTS holders is an interesting idea. It would make sense considering our investment is what made all this possible. It would also be another world first.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: mike623317 on June 13, 2015, 04:31:09 am
To me the bottom line is that we have devs who have put us ahead of the technology curve with bitshares 2.0. Personally, i want to keep these devs and would be willing to pay a competitive rate to do so. The devs have to deliver of their proposals too if they want to get paid.

We are blessed with some talented folks as this week has shown.   
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: NewMine on June 13, 2015, 04:49:19 am
bytemaster, will the community be able to invest in Cryptonomex directly through a BTS UIA?

It would be great to see Cryptonomex eat the BTS dogfood with something this important.

Additionally, would a sharedrop on the table for BTS, PTS or AGS holders?

Sharedropping on BTS holders is an interesting idea. It would make sense considering our investment is what made all this possible. It would also be another world first.
This is simply what my post was implying. We funded AGS for a Bitshares toolkit. We got a merger to align all interests, retain the Devs through dilution and stifle competition. We now are told the toolkit is going to be retained as proprietary software for the Devs to sell and profit off after the same Devs crashed the price of BTSX nearly 95% (someone double check) from the highs for a merger so they, the Devs, can get paid.

The tens of millions of shares from AGS and paid dilution  should be plenty of incentive to get at least 1 stable version and a lengthy trial period in the books.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Stan on June 13, 2015, 04:59:40 am
bytemaster, will the community be able to invest in Cryptonomex directly through a BTS UIA?

It would be great to see Cryptonomex eat the BTS dogfood with something this important.

Additionally, would a sharedrop on the table for BTS, PTS or AGS holders?

We would love that, but there are strict rules in the US about who can invest in a private firm before it goes public.
We are working to find ways to bring fresh money into the ecosystem to help grow the value of the stake you are now HODLing!

In that sense, you already own a part of the combined meatspace/cryptospace enterprise in the only way it is legally possible to do so.

Meanwhile, we are working with our legal partners to make Cryptonomex into a test case for how to legally maximize how a flesh and blood company can project itself into cryptospace.  As we learn with ourselves as the guinea pigs, we will be better positioned to consult with other start-ups on how to follow the trail we are blazing.

And we plan to do it all centered on BitShares.  :)


Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Ander on June 13, 2015, 07:24:34 am
2M BTS is a perfectly reasonable amount for this privacy feature development that is Bytemasters 'first proposal'.  Thats less than 0.1% dilution. 
Thats several weeks of pay at current rates for the dev team, for a feature they are probably going to work on for several weeks.  This is a not a major change from how things are working right now.
Its probably a bit of paid worker funds diverted from marketers to devs, which we expect because we dont need marketing workers now with the referral program.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: bitmeat on June 13, 2015, 07:48:52 am
What would be really great is if proposals like this can be vetted and gradually released by the stakeholders.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: testz on June 13, 2015, 08:04:36 am
bytemaster, will the community be able to invest in Cryptonomex directly through a BTS UIA?

It would be great to see Cryptonomex eat the BTS dogfood with something this important.

Additionally, would a sharedrop on the table for BTS, PTS or AGS holders?

Sharedropping on BTS holders is an interesting idea. It would make sense considering our investment is what made all this possible. It would also be another world first.
This is simply what my post was implying. We funded AGS for a Bitshares toolkit. We got a merger to align all interests, retain the Devs through dilution and stifle competition. We now are told the toolkit is going to be retained as proprietary software for the Devs to sell and profit off after the same Devs crashed the price of BTSX nearly 95% (someone double check) from the highs for a merger so they, the Devs, can get paid.

The tens of millions of shares from AGS and paid dilution  should be plenty of incentive to get at least 1 stable version and a lengthy trial period in the books.

Looks like the crypto software development it's an more complicated then you think. Let's compare BitShares to Ethereum? How much they get funded and what they deliver after 1 year?
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Riverhead on June 13, 2015, 08:41:37 am

"If you want something done right you need to do it yourself".

We were all upset (at first) when Overstock.com decided to go with Counterparty. I was there when the announcement was made and the mood was disappointment rather than relief. Of course in hindsight it appears we dodged a bullet rather than miss an opportunity. Overstock.com was never going to IPO on Bitshares.

What better way to create a precedent than to form a company and do it yourself first?

It is much easier to change the system from the top than to be a poor idealogue preaching to the choir of a small group of followers/investors. First and foremost BTS needs to survive to have any chance of bringing meaningful change to the world.

I for one am thrilled with these new developments. It's about damn time the core team got paid!
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: fuzzy on June 13, 2015, 09:01:17 am
bytemaster, will the community be able to invest in Cryptonomex directly through a BTS UIA?

It would be great to see Cryptonomex eat the BTS dogfood with something this important.

Additionally, would a sharedrop on the table for BTS, PTS or AGS holders?

Sharedropping on BTS holders is an interesting idea. It would make sense considering our investment is what made all this possible. It would also be another world first.

Dang method is on fire tonight...
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: karnal on June 13, 2015, 09:04:46 am
What happens if Cryptonomex jumps the boat, someone else wants to continue the project, but CN will now not license graphene to the new group of devs?
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: fuzzy on June 13, 2015, 09:07:41 am

"If you want something done right you need to do it yourself".

We were all upset (at first) when Overstock.com decided to go with Counterparty. I was there when the announcement was made and the mood was disappointment rather than relief. Of course in hindsight it appears we dodged a bullet rather than miss an opportunity. Overstock.com was never going to IPO on Bitshares.

What better way to create a precedent than to form a company and do it yourself first?

It is much easier to change the system from the top than to be a poor idealogue preaching to the choir of a small group of followers/investors. First and foremost BTS needs to survive to have any chance of bringing meaningful change to the world.

I for one am thrilled with these new developments. It's about damn time the core team got paid!

Can't disagree, but at the same time I can honestly understand why people are concerned.


What happens if Cryptonomex jumps the boat, someone else wants to continue the project, but CN will now not license graphene to the new group of devs?

I personally trust dan will not screw over our community like that...but have to admit that this question is well thought out.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Shentist on June 13, 2015, 09:07:53 am
bytemaster, will the community be able to invest in Cryptonomex directly through a BTS UIA?

It would be great to see Cryptonomex eat the BTS dogfood with something this important.

Additionally, would a sharedrop on the table for BTS, PTS or AGS holders?

Sharedropping on BTS holders is an interesting idea. It would make sense considering our investment is what made all this possible. It would also be another world first.

Dang method is on fire tonight...

would make perfect sense to sharedrop Cryptonomex stocks to BTS holders with xx%. Would align every interest on the same pass. Will Cryptonomex get rich, the BTS community will get a share as well. We are only talking the way that BTS will benefit from stuff coded for Cryptonomex clients, but it should be also considered, that many inputs are coming from this community as well, so Crytpnomex will also benefit from it.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Shentist on June 13, 2015, 09:09:08 am
What happens if Cryptonomex jumps the boat, someone else wants to continue the project, but CN will now not license graphene to the new group of devs?

I personally trust dan will not screw over our community like that...but have to admit that this question is well thought out.

Graphene is licensed to the Bitshares Blockchain and not to some coders, so the people taking over code use still the code base, but i assume the future developments of Cryptonomex would be out of this.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: fuzzy on June 13, 2015, 09:18:27 am
it should be also considered, that many inputs are coming from this community as well, so Crytpnomex will also benefit from it.

Except it is always possible that those community members would be asked to join Cryptonomex...

@mr bachman: precisely why I say I trust Dan.  To play devils advocate though, it would be a lie for me to say I've never personally been screwed over by trusting someone who I truly believed deserved said trust.  And let's face it-- the truth of the matter also is that we agreed from very early on that our funding the team was a donation.
Ultimately that means that we need to trust but verify. 
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: fav on June 13, 2015, 09:24:30 am
I have a hard time following your reasoning, OP.

Cryptonomex is just like any other company and they do not have to answer you or anyone else.

It's perfectly fine to charge money for their work, if we do not pay them, they won't work for us.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: fuzzy on June 13, 2015, 09:58:09 am
Seems like we should as a community spend some time finding ways to formulate and forge some agreements with cryptonomex, and should potentially consider the value of PTS/AGS as a means of ensuring competition fights for our community's value.  Let's face it, if there were, for some reason I truly believe will not emerge, an instance where the cryptonomex team leaves the community high and dry, that is the perfect place for competition to come in and sharedrop on us because they understand the value the community represents...and gain one hell of a backing overnight.

This was why I never left PTS.  Because it is silly to never consider the possibility that ANYTHING can happen...some think we shouldn't think about and protect against the worst possible situation but I am aways thinking we should. 

Take away? PTS and AGS remain very potent means of protecting investors...but only if the people who originally loved it remember why it was there in the first place.  Heck even BM and Stan told people a long time ago that PTS and AGS should still be seen as sharedropping targets.
 
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: betax on June 13, 2015, 10:23:01 am
My take on this:

I believe all developers want Bitshares to succeed. They all have huge amounts of BTS and growing, as they get paid in BTS. The bigger the value the better for everyone developers and shareholders.
I do believe that we need a license that won't allow any big company to copy Bitshares and create their own private / public clone and make lots of money screwing both developers and shareholders.
I do believe that when a company licenses Bitshares or the new engine, the fees should be distributed across BTS holders (up to a value we have issues with micro transactions). This way everyone is a winner devs (biggest holders) and shareholders for their continuous investment.
I do not see any legal issues on this, you own a token and have a share on a license.
If the new company decides to spin off a new fork, it will have to pay also licenses fees. This way everyone continuous to benefit (current devs and old devs together with shareholders).
If this happens, we will need to put our dev hats on and compete with each other... worst scenario.

BUT if Stan, BM and co have a much better idea / proposition, great.

edit: final thoughts...
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: luckybit on June 13, 2015, 10:48:09 am


If tomorrow Goldman Sacs commissions Cryptonomex to build them a full spectrum solution based on the Graphene toolkit, is there a way and intent to benefit the BTS stakeholders in any way?

I like your question. Waiting for the answer...

PS.  In place of Goldman Sachs put any big Company of course.

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

GS would spend 3M to build their own tech if BTS devs didn't cooperate with their requests and then they would compete with BTS anyway.  Once this is understood you realize the devs either "take the deal" or "go down with the ship". 

BTS stakeholders must make do what it takes to retain talent, period.
Developers must do what makes the most sense to maximize their income, period.

BTS has been public domain thus far, which means anyone could take the code and the developers have been independent which means they are "free to leave".   

It really comes down to the community continuing to make "staying" the best option available.   This is FREE MARKET cooperation.

If GS wants to enter the market with a ton of money and produce a product that is compatible with our vision, then it would be stupid for BTS developers to not take them up on a job offer.  It would be stupid for both financial and philosophical reasons, namely, freedom supporting blockchain tech going mainstream is the real goal.   
If GS wants to produce a blockchain that is not compatible with BitShares philosophy, then developers should still take them up on it because it would be a DIFFERENT MARKET and they could use the money earned to improve BTS.

Bottom line the only reason for developers to not take them up on it is if they actually think they could compete head to head with GS when all technology is equal. 

Any stakeholders here want to promise not to sell their BTS if GS decided to compete by reimplementing all of our ideas?

At these prices and at this stage of market immaturity I would hold even if GS did directly compete. I would hold even if GS hired or bribed the lead developers of BTS. The reason is there is no guarantee for the developers that they'd keep the job at BTS for very long.

Remember how Overstock hired the Counterparty developer and then what happened to him? What about that Bitcoin developer who got hired by Reddit and then what happened to him?

From a developers perspective it makes more sense to work for a company you own a lot of equity in than to have just a job. So it really depends on how much equity the developers have in Bitshares and in the timing.

At this point in time it would be like the Google guys quitting to go work for Yahoo or another search engine. At some point they did think about selling the technology but if they had done that they wouldn't have become what they are today. It's understandable in a mature market to focus on the big established companies but in the immature market like this even if Bitshares goes up to a few billion dollars the developers will all be millionaires.

GS could definitely compete and even with that both blockchains would probably still end up with billions in net worth due to how early things are and how few people know about BTS. I also don't think many people would trust the GS chain if it's announced as the GS chain so BTS will definitely have an advantage with a certain demographic of people who don't like or trust GS.

So for these reasons I would stick with BTS. I would think most people if they have a choice between a BTS chain and a GS chain would choose BTS unless GS hid the fact that their chain is made by GS. Perhaps they could have it look like a community self emergent development and then I could see them taking over.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: luckybit on June 13, 2015, 10:51:08 am
It looks like we funded the BitShares team to develop a proprietary toolkit software where all profits from this will not benefit the BTS holder but in fact destroy them?

I also found a post by a concerned person that Bytemaster and team could eventually leave Bitshares to work on their for profit company that is going to compete with Bitshares?

I mean wtf? The whole merger was about getting rid of competition and now the Dev team has gone and started a for profit company using the technology we all paid them to develop "open source"

Please explain or direct me to links. Thanks.

Mainly answer where the time came from to develop this new project as we have been waiting for a stable 1.0 for nearly a year? And were you working on this as people were losing their ass while shorting bitAssets because of the fucked rules in place?

Even if that did happen it could end up being a Redhat/Fedora type situation. It really depends on how it plays out.

Redhat and Suse both have commercial businesses yet they still keep the software open source for the community. So you can do it and I don't see why you would have to abandon the community as long as the improvements made in the commercial software are phased into the community software.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: betax on June 13, 2015, 11:04:23 am
I would not want to end up like RedHat / MySql / Java (Sun), it seems that the only one that benefit was no the community but companies like Oracle. But if licensing fees were distributed with the community that would support continue development even if contributors are not recognised workers, and just investors supporting their investment and community.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Permie on June 13, 2015, 01:01:08 pm
So for these reasons I would stick with BTS. I would think most people if they have a choice between a BTS chain and a GS chain would choose BTS unless GS hid the fact that their chain is made by GS. Perhaps they could have it look like a community self emergent development and then I could see them taking over.
GS = Goldman Sachs, right?

How do we know that the current chain isn't this GS chain?
I would say that it's impossible to know for sure and that stranger things have happened.

Not that I believe that, but every time I feel like 'BitShares is going to save the world :D :D :D' I am abruptly reminded that plenty of people smarter than me have been fooled before.
What do we really know about anything?
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on June 13, 2015, 01:57:08 pm
All this talk about how PTS/AGS holders should have some kind of shares in Cryptonomex... you all want to get something.. are you willing to take the liabilities that come with it as well?
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Riverhead on June 13, 2015, 02:09:29 pm
All this talk about how PTS/AGS holders should have some kind of shares in Cryptonomex... you all want to get something.. are you willing to take the liabilities that come with it as well?

Agreed. AGS/PTS already has a stake in BTS and the developers have LONG ago earned out their commitment if indeed they ever had one.

They've started a company to earn some money and will continue to support BTS. I don't see how we have any claim to a stake in that. If they IPO on BTS I will be first in line to buy some shares but I don't feel entitled to any for free.

If anything the shoe is on the other foot. What is BTS going to do for them to keep them interested? Pay them.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: fuzzy on June 13, 2015, 02:11:13 pm
All this talk about how PTS/AGS holders should have some kind of shares in Cryptonomex... you all want to get something.. are you willing to take the liabilities that come with it as well?
All this talk?  I mentioned PTS and AGS from my perspective and why I still hold PTS.  As for liabilities the PTS and, even moreso,  the AGS founders took on said liabilities before anyone else.  But I never said that sharedropping a cryptonomex UIA should not be on BTS. 

Others who talked about the sharedrop idea mentioned pts, ags, and bts.  And let's be honest..each represents a different demographic. So to think they are not legitimate targets isn't exactly true.  To be honest, PLAY and NOTES potentially are other great targets.

So this comment is very confusing to me...and let's face facts. ..it's mostly a pointless discussion anyway because a sharedrop is likely not on the table.

One thing I do know is luckybit old days talking about the gifting economy really got me interested in the potential for sharedropping as a means of thanking those who donate to ensure a risky project stays alive...and Dan's original vision for sharedropping was really the biggest reason I became so interested in this project to the point where I personally worked to help forge a community platform to help display the value of our community and help ensure future projects saw said value as worthy of sharedropping.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: maqifrnswa on June 13, 2015, 02:38:12 pm
As someone that sees lots of oss licenses, I'd have to see the text before commenting. But I don't see any red flags yet. I think it looks like a good thing to do for long term stability.

Why not just dual license the tech? Gpl but reserve the right to license non-gpl commercially with some fraction of the fees going to buy bts (proportional to "equity" however that's calculated this case). That means if someone else copies it, they will basically do work for you for free.


Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: fuzzy on June 13, 2015, 03:02:53 pm
As someone that sees lots of oss licenses, I'd have to see the text before commenting. But I don't see any red flags yet. I think it looks like a good thing to do for long term stability.

Why not just dual license the tech? Gpl but reserve the right to license non-gpl commercially with some fraction of the fees going to buy bts (proportional to "equity" however that's calculated this case). That means if someone else copies it, they will basically do work for you for free.

Now we are talking about potential solutions... can  we continue this by you giving more details?  Solution-oriented thinking is what I like to see...
And what do you do in the real world that gives you this level of experience?  Might be helpful to keep us on track without someone trying to start bashing you and making us lose this focus.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on June 13, 2015, 03:08:46 pm
All this talk about how PTS/AGS holders should have some kind of shares in Cryptonomex... you all want to get something.. are you willing to take the liabilities that come with it as well?
All this talk?  I mentioned PTS and AGS from my perspective and why I still hold PTS--noone else.  As for liabilities the PTS and, even moreso,  the AGS founders took on said liabilities before anyone else.  But I never said that share-dropping a cryptonomex UIA should not be on BTS. 

Others who talked about the sharedrop idea mentioned pts, ags, and bts. 

So this comment is very confusing.

The commentaries that include the idea that AGS/PTS/BTS holders should have some kind of claim to this private company clearly show that the responsibilities and duties with being a shareholder in a REAL company governed by all the laws and regulations of whatever state in good'ol U S of A.. not this micky-mouse-crypto-we-can-do-what-we-want stuff, have not been considered. Thus my commentary about the liabilities.

It seems everyone is glazing over the fact that they are going into no-mans-land of legal risk with what they are attempting to do. They are attempting to tread as carefully as possible.. but there are very real threats to their enterprise that they are taking all the risk for while the rest of us BTS users enjoy the Vendetta masks and NO LIABILITIES for what may fall upon them in what they are attempting to do.

They are leading by example in an attempt to lay the framework for future companies to follow. I'm proud of this fact. This ultimately is to ALL OUR BENEFITS because it is what will help make BTS grow.

This can be a success and help other companies along to adopting the BTS network in their biz.. or it can piss off the Koch brothers and have their buddies at the SEC/IRS tear it apart. WE, as it stands now, ARE PROTECTED from this. You become a shareholder, and you are exposed and those involved will all have a new kind of scrutiny to their lives.

We are nothing but a spec of dust now to them.. but as our AI friend understood:

(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/26/26078b013a35717b73e9ebecbf1f49c546bed2ac29f7976e503b14d2e867ed1f.jpg)

Soon as Cryptonomex takes a bite out of one of their pies, you better believe they are going to be put to the test if they can fight with the big dogs, or end up peeing puppies. Everyone here willing to risk your careers, businesses, and families in that fight?

If things don't take off in BTS land, are you all prepared to start paying out of pocket to keep payroll going? To pay the legal expenses? To pay the rent?

So I ask again.. are all of you prepared to take the liabilities? Are you all willing to walk the line without your Vendetta masks? Because that' part of the conversation here if you really understand what is being asked for. Just something to think about in terms of the big picture.

Could they attempt to take measures to mitigate this? Sure.. has that ever protected anyone from the SEC/IRS? Nope.

The phrase 'be careful what you wish for' comes to mind when I read this line of thinking.

Riverhead also stated the obvious in that they have delivered above and beyond and are now stepping up the game of risk for them to boot. The thanks is a FUD thread started by the most notorious FUDer of the forum that some members have seen fit to allow to be fed.

We talk about freedom and liberty.. but when it comes to the developers of bitshares.. this thread suggests they don't have either because they should be doing the bidding of the bitshares community because of a donation made over a year ago that has since been long spent to give you what we have now and in the next few months to come. This communist double standard only drives away any good talent from wanting to join in.

Did anybody else notice how Dan was asking at the hangout for talent to join them? Do you think when FUD threads like this where the community seems to think they should be entitled to a piece of everything come up that real talent out there would want to join us? Course not.. would you?

The 2.0 of BitShares is going to have us in full control of what happens to it via voting.. this in itself is amazing and more than any other crypto project can even dream of right now.. yet here we are.

We haven't seen the licensing but we know Dan and the rest and there is no reason for us to believe that they will not operate in the best interest in growing BitShares. Anyone else would have long abandoned BitShares with the way the market cap went long ago.

Be content and don't let the FUD trolls prey on unfounded fears. <mic dropped>
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: bytemaster on June 13, 2015, 04:39:09 pm
This was supposed to be published along with the 2.0 announcement... but due to a desire for perfection it was not published.   I think it is good enough to give you all an idea of how we are thinking and what we are attempting to achieve.    I apologize for any confusion.

Quote
BitShares is first and foremost a protocol based upon a public ledger. Anyone may provide and distribute an alternative implementation of the protocol and use the protocol for any other blockchain. The Graphene Toolkit produced by Cryptonomex, Inc is only one possible implementation of the protocol.

The Graphene Toolkit will be licensed by Cryptonomex, Inc for use with the BitShares (BTS) blockchain. The terms of the license will allow the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof to be used with the BitShares blockchain without any restrictions. Cryptonomex, Inc retains all rights to the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof for any other use. The BitShares blockchain is defined as exactly one global ledger. In the event of a hard-fork only one branch may be considered the official BitShares ledger which will be unambiguously decided as the fork with the highest market capitalization.

This means that from the perspective of BitShares, the Graphene Toolkit is fully open source and its use, distribution, and future cannot be dictated by Cryptonomex or any other entity.

All of the devs are committed to making sure that BitShares is free from the control of any company or person.   
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: karnal on June 13, 2015, 04:45:38 pm
Now that you mention it, they should probably GTFO from the US ... and incorporate somewhere else. Like Switzerland.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: bytemaster on June 13, 2015, 04:48:55 pm
Now that you mention it, they should probably GTFO from the US ... and incorporate somewhere else. Like Switzerland.

Some of us have family and kids keeping us here. 
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: karnal on June 13, 2015, 05:00:08 pm
Now that you mention it, they should probably GTFO from the US ... and incorporate somewhere else. Like Switzerland.

Some of us have family and kids keeping us here.

The company could be incorporated in Switzerland even if you live in the US .. but these days I do think being an American and/or living in US soil is a big liability on many fronts. In light of recent events it should not be necessary to elaborate.

But yeah, I worry about Cryptonomex being a US company. Among other things, the government there can force you guys not to disclose to us any backdoors they decide to implement, they can lock you all in jail under any pretext, seize laptops and servers on US soil, freely intercept your non-encrypted communications.. plant bugs with near impunity, etc.

BitShares, especially in the 2.0 incarnation (once again, well done.. if the code matches the announcements, it'll be BIG!), is going to majorly piss some old, fat sharks.. sharks with millions of dollars and plenty of friends high up.

Being incorporated in a jurisdiction where frivolous litigation is the rule, a tendency for too much regulation, a clearly established oligarchic system, and to top it off an increasingly totalitarian government with an unhealthy appetite for tax dollars and curbing personal freedom (of which BTS 2.0 with privacy will bring plenty).. you get the picture.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Stan on June 13, 2015, 05:03:17 pm
Now that you mention it, they should probably GTFO from the US ... and incorporate somewhere else. Like Switzerland.

Some of us have family and kids keeping us here.

The company could be incorporated in Switzerland even if you live in the US .. but these days I do think being an American and/or living in US soil is a big liability on many fronts. In light of recent events it should not be necessary to elaborate.

But yeah, I worry about Cryptonomex being a US company. Among other things, the government there can force you guys not to disclose to us any backdoors they decide to implement, they can lock you all in jail under any pretext, seize laptops and servers on US soil, freely intercept your non-encrypted communications.. plant bugs with near impunity, etc.

BitShares, especially in the 2.0 incarnation (once again, well done.. if the code matches the announcements, it'll be BIG!), is going to majorly piss some old, fat sharks.

Being incorporated in a jurisdiction where frivolous litigation is the rule, a tendency for too much regulation, a clearly established oligarchic system, and to top it off an increasingly totalitarian government with an unhealthy appetite for tax dollars and curbing personal freedom (of which BTS 2.0 with privacy will bring plenty.. you get the picture.

I'm sure glad we've got all those government guys defending our freedom here in the Land of the Free!

Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: yellowecho on June 13, 2015, 05:22:23 pm
I don't understand why anyone would be butt hurt by Cryptononex. As stated, the devastating have substantial skin in the game for BTS so it'd be detrimental for them to do anything counter of their position.  Also, BM has stated in previous proposals that they'd code releases for BTS so they're bullish and acquiring more not less. Further, this approach empowers the BitShares community as they can choose the exact direction of the network on a project by project basis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: robrigo on June 13, 2015, 05:31:16 pm
Now that you mention it, they should probably GTFO from the US ... and incorporate somewhere else. Like Switzerland.

Some of us have family and kids keeping us here.

The company could be incorporated in Switzerland even if you live in the US .. but these days I do think being an American and/or living in US soil is a big liability on many fronts. In light of recent events it should not be necessary to elaborate.

But yeah, I worry about Cryptonomex being a US company. Among other things, the government there can force you guys not to disclose to us any backdoors they decide to implement, they can lock you all in jail under any pretext, seize laptops and servers on US soil, freely intercept your non-encrypted communications.. plant bugs with near impunity, etc.

BitShares, especially in the 2.0 incarnation (once again, well done.. if the code matches the announcements, it'll be BIG!), is going to majorly piss some old, fat sharks.. sharks with millions of dollars and plenty of friends high up.

Being incorporated in a jurisdiction where frivolous litigation is the rule, a tendency for too much regulation, a clearly established oligarchic system, and to top it off an increasingly totalitarian government with an unhealthy appetite for tax dollars and curbing personal freedom (of which BTS 2.0 with privacy will bring plenty).. you get the picture.

They've already started... https://twitter.com/robrig0/status/606674745241837568

I agree that living in the United States seems risky, why else would I be paranoid (I've never been a "worry wort") just from my participation in cryptocurrency projects and statements of belief? As you mentioned, the proof of plans to invade privacy in the spirit of control are laid bare with all of the information whistle-blowers have released.

Luckily, others will always be able to read the open source code on github, to hopefully ensure any potential future back-doors would be blatant and noticed.

It's hard to stand by and watch a large number of people succumb to the delusion that we have choice. Systemic discrimination is all a part of the plan to create "rules" that perpetuates suffering, neglects the common good, and divides and conquers diverse peoples. Hopefully none of us become the next JFK, MLK, or Fred Hampton.

A measure we can take is toward adopting a privacy focused set of end to end encryption and distributed communications tools. Peer-to-peer forums (RetroShare (http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/), Aether (http://getaether.net/#what-why)) end to end encrypted chats (Tox (https://tox.im/), OpenWhisperSystems (https://whispersystems.org/),  CryptoCat (https://crypto.cat/)) and peer-to-peer collaboration tools such as Friends (https://github.com/moose-team/friends) (Slack imitator) is a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: fuzzy on June 13, 2015, 06:01:44 pm
Now that you mention it, they should probably GTFO from the US ... and incorporate somewhere else. Like Switzerland.

Some of us have family and kids keeping us here.

The company could be incorporated in Switzerland even if you live in the US .. but these days I do think being an American and/or living in US soil is a big liability on many fronts. In light of recent events it should not be necessary to elaborate.

But yeah, I worry about Cryptonomex being a US company. Among other things, the government there can force you guys not to disclose to us any backdoors they decide to implement, they can lock you all in jail under any pretext, seize laptops and servers on US soil, freely intercept your non-encrypted communications.. plant bugs with near impunity, etc.

BitShares, especially in the 2.0 incarnation (once again, well done.. if the code matches the announcements, it'll be BIG!), is going to majorly piss some old, fat sharks.

Being incorporated in a jurisdiction where frivolous litigation is the rule, a tendency for too much regulation, a clearly established oligarchic system, and to top it off an increasingly totalitarian government with an unhealthy appetite for tax dollars and curbing personal freedom (of which BTS 2.0 with privacy will bring plenty.. you get the picture.

I'm sure glad we've got all those government guys defending our freedom here in the Land of the Free!

LOL...

Sooooooo true. 

And @data understood. Thanks for clarifying man...no disagreements there.  But let's remember that this thread HAS VALUE whether or not we like the premise of it because it is a moment where we can all teach and learn and...come to a final consensus.  I personally feel I can find consensus with most of your points...which I would have never heard had it not been for good ol newmine s doing what all Pyro maniacs like to do...and setting a fire.  Does it keep me from sighing everytime he does it? Nope...but then again I have to grudgingly admit he has does occasionally at least have points worth talking about. 

I see it this way...he brings FUD, we being fans of free speech and critical assessment take a deep breath, dive into the mud and clean it up.  Sometimes it gets heated, but if we do it right, we all end up better off for it...if for no other reason because we have all been trained to deal with that line of FUD slinging in a safe place before we have to deal with it in the outside world.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: brainbug on June 13, 2015, 06:14:05 pm
If Switzerland becomes an option, someone should pm me.

With love from Zurich.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: cass on June 13, 2015, 06:15:12 pm
If Switzerland becomes an option, someone should pm me.

With love from Zurich.

 +5%

Maybe there is a way to have a european dependence  on in switzeland ...?
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on June 13, 2015, 06:20:31 pm
All this get out of U.S. talk is counterproductive to what they need to accomplish. If they can make it in the U.S. then they can make it anywhere. If there is anyone who has enough gumption and ethical and moral integrity to make it through, it's the Larimers.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: jtme on June 13, 2015, 06:23:57 pm
This was supposed to be published along with the 2.0 announcement... but due to a desire for perfection it was not published.   I think it is good enough to give you all an idea of how we are thinking and what we are attempting to achieve.    I apologize for any confusion.

Quote
BitShares is first and foremost a protocol based upon a public ledger. Anyone may provide and distribute an alternative implementation of the protocol and use the protocol for any other blockchain. The Graphene Toolkit produced by Cryptonomex, Inc is only one possible implementation of the protocol.

The Graphene Toolkit will be licensed by Cryptonomex, Inc for use with the BitShares (BTS) blockchain. The terms of the license will allow the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof to be used with the BitShares blockchain without any restrictions. Cryptonomex, Inc retains all rights to the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof for any other use. The BitShares blockchain is defined as exactly one global ledger. In the event of a hard-fork only one branch may be considered the official BitShares ledger which will be unambiguously decided as the fork with the highest market capitalization.

This means that from the perspective of BitShares, the Graphene Toolkit is fully open source and its use, distribution, and future cannot be dictated by Cryptonomex or any other entity.

All of the devs are committed to making sure that BitShares is free from the control of any company or person.

BTS will be at complete mercy of Cryptonomex, partialy or completely funding the developement of
Graphene, but whenever Cryptonomex will see it more profitable, it can launch any number
of compteting chains and kill or criple BTS ( imagine if tomorrow Cryptonomex gets 50mil funding offer
to launch competing blockchain ). So it is a WIN-WIN for Cryptonomex but very uncertain future for
BTS chain. Who is going to invest in BTS in such circumstances ? 
I'd prefer to invest in Cryptonomex because they hold all the cards now if that would be possible.
BTS owners should have a stake in the IP ownership of the code too.
There should be some social consensus about it. For example there should be a rule that
whenever a private chain is launched based on Graphene, the owners of the private chain should
burn X amout of BTS to get the licensing. For a publicly launched chain, they shoud airdrop
X% amount on BTS shareholders.
Just my few bitshares.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: fuzzy on June 13, 2015, 06:31:47 pm
This was supposed to be published along with the 2.0 announcement... but due to a desire for perfection it was not published.   I think it is good enough to give you all an idea of how we are thinking and what we are attempting to achieve.    I apologize for any confusion.

Quote
BitShares is first and foremost a protocol based upon a public ledger. Anyone may provide and distribute an alternative implementation of the protocol and use the protocol for any other blockchain. The Graphene Toolkit produced by Cryptonomex, Inc is only one possible implementation of the protocol.

The Graphene Toolkit will be licensed by Cryptonomex, Inc for use with the BitShares (BTS) blockchain. The terms of the license will allow the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof to be used with the BitShares blockchain without any restrictions. Cryptonomex, Inc retains all rights to the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof for any other use. The BitShares blockchain is defined as exactly one global ledger. In the event of a hard-fork only one branch may be considered the official BitShares ledger which will be unambiguously decided as the fork with the highest market capitalization.

This means that from the perspective of BitShares, the Graphene Toolkit is fully open source and its use, distribution, and future cannot be dictated by Cryptonomex or any other entity.

All of the devs are committed to making sure that BitShares is free from the control of any company or person.

BTS will be at complete mercy of Cryptonomex, partialy or completely funding the developement of
Graphene, but whenever Cryptonomex will see it more profitable, it can launch any number
of compteting chains and kill or criple BTS ( imagine if tomorrow Cryptonomex gets 50mil funding offer
to launch competing blockchain ). So it is a WIN-WIN for Cryptonomex but very uncertain future for
BTS chain. Who is going to invest in BTS in such circumstances ? 
I'd prefer to invest in Cryptonomex because they hold all the cards now if that would be possible.
BTS owners should have a stake in the IP ownership of the code too.
There should be some social consensus about it. For example there should be a rule that
whenever a private chain is launched based on Graphene, the owners of the private chain should
burn X amout of BTS to get the licensing. For a publicly launched chain, they shoud airdrop
X% amount on BTS shareholders.
Just my few bitshares.

Solution-oriented.  +5%

Is this possible?
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Riverhead on June 13, 2015, 06:35:33 pm
BTS has always been at the mercy of the core devs; especially BM. I don't see how that's changed with them banding together under one company so they make some money. The other alternative would be for them to all get jobs elsewhere and let bts wither on the vine while the community either sells or tries to find new core devs willing to work for next to nothing.

I say when a new chain uses the Graphene toolkit they sharedrop on Cryptonomex. This lifetime entitlement mentality needs to stop.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: fuzzy on June 13, 2015, 06:39:30 pm
BTS has always been at the mercy of the core devs; especially BM. I don't see how that's changed with them banding together under one company so they make some money. The other alternative would be for them to all get jobs elsewhere and let bts wither on the vine while the community either sells or tries to find new core devs willing to work for next to nothing.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

I don't think that is what he is saying.  I think he is saying it is entirely possible that a situation could arise wherein the devs have no choice but to leave bts.  Am I mistaken on his point? 

As far as the devs deserving acceptable pay...100% agreed.

Edit--As far as entitlement mentality, I think that there are many people in this community who feel a sense of entitlement, but then there are definitely others who truly care about and work for these projects. It's hard to know where I stand on this...because on one end those who originally joined the cause because they thought that was a promise--which makes sense that they would feel upset about the terms changing.  I also can say that there are many people who have continued buying bts even when they had already lost substantial sums of cash for being in on it early.  But then there is the fact that sometimes the world just isn't fair.  This can be said as much for the devs as those who invested early. 
Regardless, I have to really say that is agree with data when he says that BM and Stan always have the best intentions and try their best for all parties to benefit.  Should be an interesting part of our history to cover regardless!

Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Riverhead on June 13, 2015, 06:42:27 pm
BTS has always been at the mercy of the core devs; especially BM. I don't see how that's changed with them banding together under one company so they make some money. The other alternative would be for them to all get jobs elsewhere and let bts wither on the vine while the community either sells or tries to find new core devs willing to work for next to nothing.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

I don't think that is what he is saying.  I think he is saying it is entirely possible that a situation could arise wherein the devs have no choice but to leave bts.  Am I mistaken on his point? 

As far as the devs deserving acceptable pay...100% agreed.
That is always a risk. People move from job to job all the time. Giving them a hard time about Cryptonomex and suggesting bts holders should get a piece of their action is not a good retention plan :).

Sent from my Timex Sinclair
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on June 13, 2015, 06:59:01 pm
BTS has always been at the mercy of the core devs; especially BM. I don't see how that's changed with them banding together under one company so they make some money. The other alternative would be for them to all get jobs elsewhere and let bts wither on the vine while the community either sells or tries to find new core devs willing to work for next to nothing.

I say when a new chain uses the Graphene toolkit they sharedrop on Cryptonomex. This lifetime entitlement mentality needs to stop.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair
THANK YOU!  +5%
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: merivercap on June 13, 2015, 08:14:26 pm
bytemaster, will the community be able to invest in Cryptonomex directly through a BTS UIA?

It would be great to see Cryptonomex eat the BTS dogfood with something this important.

Additionally, would a sharedrop on the table for BTS, PTS or AGS holders?

We would love that, but there are strict rules in the US about who can invest in a private firm before it goes public.
We are working to find ways to bring fresh money into the ecosystem to help grow the value of the stake you are now HODLing!

In that sense, you already own a part of the combined meatspace/cryptospace enterprise in the only way it is legally possible to do so.

Meanwhile, we are working with our legal partners to make Cryptonomex into a test case for how to legally maximize how a flesh and blood company can project itself into cryptospace.  As we learn with ourselves as the guinea pigs, we will be better positioned to consult with other start-ups on how to follow the trail we are blazing.

And we plan to do it all centered on BitShares.  :)

You guys can do a Reg A+ mini-IPO.  I initially was a bit skeptical about the costs, but you can probably do it on the cheap.  The official requirements should be out in a couple weeks, but it may just require a simplified version of an S-1 and also some regular filings.  Not sure what they are, but maybe instead of quarterly filings they'll just require it twice per year or maybe just annual filings and not require as much detail? 

Anyways the A+ seems more and more viable.  We're heading this route for a Bitshares Wallet startup.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: merivercap on June 13, 2015, 08:16:07 pm
Oh and of course you can use the UIA to represent the shares you sell.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: jtme on June 13, 2015, 08:52:07 pm
BTS has always been at the mercy of the core devs; especially BM. I don't see how that's changed with them banding together under one company so they make some money. The other alternative would be for them to all get jobs elsewhere and let bts wither on the vine while the community either sells or tries to find new core devs willing to work for next to nothing.

I say when a new chain uses the Graphene toolkit they sharedrop on Cryptonomex. This lifetime entitlement mentality needs to stop.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

It has nothing to do with lifetime entitelment. They were paid from AGS/PTS,
are paid as delegates and will be paid as workers in the future.

If Cryptonomex can claim that every single line of Graphene code was not funded
by AGS or BTS delegate income, then well they have the moral right to
get it all sharedroped on Cryptonomex, but can they ?

If Graphene was partialy developed using BTS delagete funding,
BTS should have a stake in owning the code too or no ?

Lets take this two scenarios:

100% sharedrop on CN  , 0% sharedrop on BTS

 Potential BTS investors are in doubt or scared of Cryptonomex owning all the rights and profits,
 BTS marktetcap stagnates, large institutions will develop or adapt other protocols, BTS dies, Graphene dies
 no one profits

50% sharedrop on CN , 50% sharedrop on BTS

  BTS investors are confident in the technology and that they will profit from other potential chains
  and not eventualy betrayed or sold out by Cryptonomex.
  BTS marketcap surges. Graphene is adopted by other institutions. Everyone profits.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: infovortice2013 on June 13, 2015, 09:09:15 pm

50% sharedrop on CN , 50% sharedrop on BTS

  BTS investors are confident in the technology and that they will profit from other potential chains
  and not eventualy betrayed or sold out by Cryptonomex.
  BTS marketcap surges. Graphene is adopted by other institutions. Everyone profits.

best option
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Riverhead on June 13, 2015, 09:13:44 pm
A plausible set of scenarios.

Another perspective: BTS is in the public domain. Cryptonomex forked it hired all the bts core developers to make massive improvements. To encourage BTS holders to leave bts and adopt Graphene they share drop 100% of tokens 1:1 on bts holders in exchange for the Bitshares name and their support 8).

BTS 1.0 can live on, without developers, if some of the delegates don't upgrade.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: infovortice2013 on June 13, 2015, 09:21:47 pm
A plausible set of scenarios.

Another perspective: BTS is in the public domain. Cryptonomex forked it hired all the bts core developers to make massive improvements. To encourage BTS holders to leave bts and adopt Graphene they share drop 100% of tokens 1:1 on bts holders in exchange for the Bitshares name and their support 8).

BTS 1.0 can live on, without developers, if some of the delegates don't upgrade.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

beter than best option   ;D
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: fuzzy on June 13, 2015, 09:57:51 pm
A plausible set of scenarios.

Another perspective: BTS is in the public domain. Cryptonomex forked it hired all the bts core developers to make massive improvements. To encourage BTS holders to leave bts and adopt Graphene they share drop 100% of tokens 1:1 on bts holders in exchange for the Bitshares name and their support 8).

BTS 1.0 can live on, without developers, if some of the delegates don't upgrade.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

beter than best option   ;D

So glad to see people focusing on solutions on a thread that was meant to ignite a flame war...

Much ♡ everyone...
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: fav on June 13, 2015, 10:24:35 pm
A plausible set of scenarios.

Another perspective: BTS is in the public domain. Cryptonomex forked it hired all the bts core developers to make massive improvements. To encourage BTS holders to leave bts and adopt Graphene they share drop 100% of tokens 1:1 on bts holders in exchange for the Bitshares name and their support 8).

BTS 1.0 can live on, without developers, if some of the delegates don't upgrade.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

beter than best option   ;D

So glad to see people focusing on solutions on a thread that was meant to ignite a flame war...

Much ♡ everyone...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%E2%99%A1&ia=about are you fuzzy? :D
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: merivercap on June 13, 2015, 10:32:32 pm
This was supposed to be published along with the 2.0 announcement... but due to a desire for perfection it was not published.   I think it is good enough to give you all an idea of how we are thinking and what we are attempting to achieve.    I apologize for any confusion.

Quote
BitShares is first and foremost a protocol based upon a public ledger. Anyone may provide and distribute an alternative implementation of the protocol and use the protocol for any other blockchain. The Graphene Toolkit produced by Cryptonomex, Inc is only one possible implementation of the protocol.

The Graphene Toolkit will be licensed by Cryptonomex, Inc for use with the BitShares (BTS) blockchain. The terms of the license will allow the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof to be used with the BitShares blockchain without any restrictions. Cryptonomex, Inc retains all rights to the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof for any other use. The BitShares blockchain is defined as exactly one global ledger. In the event of a hard-fork only one branch may be considered the official BitShares ledger which will be unambiguously decided as the fork with the highest market capitalization.

This means that from the perspective of BitShares, the Graphene Toolkit is fully open source and its use, distribution, and future cannot be dictated by Cryptonomex or any other entity.

All of the devs are committed to making sure that BitShares is free from the control of any company or person.

That's great to hear.  The main goal of the licensing is to protect Bitshares technology from frivolous copycatting right?  BTW what do you mean by protocol?   I think it's good to be conservative early on and protective with the technology and finding a good solution is not easy.   I'm not a fan of using government institutions for protecting IP and I'm against IP in general.    I think using social pressures and norms to discourage copycatting can help.  You might also think of a smart-contract based licensing system in the future.

Anyways, it's the community that will add the ultimate value to the network and protect the technology.  If you look at Bitcoin there are thousands of frivolous and even non-frivolous copycats, but none of them are a serious threat.  Anyways.  Totally understand the situation you and the developers are in.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Stan on June 13, 2015, 11:37:12 pm
bytemaster, will the community be able to invest in Cryptonomex directly through a BTS UIA?

It would be great to see Cryptonomex eat the BTS dogfood with something this important.

Additionally, would a sharedrop on the table for BTS, PTS or AGS holders?

We would love that, but there are strict rules in the US about who can invest in a private firm before it goes public.
We are working to find ways to bring fresh money into the ecosystem to help grow the value of the stake you are now HODLing!

In that sense, you already own a part of the combined meatspace/cryptospace enterprise in the only way it is legally possible to do so.

Meanwhile, we are working with our legal partners to make Cryptonomex into a test case for how to legally maximize how a flesh and blood company can project itself into cryptospace.  As we learn with ourselves as the guinea pigs, we will be better positioned to consult with other start-ups on how to follow the trail we are blazing.

And we plan to do it all centered on BitShares.  :)

You guys can do a Reg A+ mini-IPO.  I initially was a bit skeptical about the costs, but you can probably do it on the cheap.  The official requirements should be out in a couple weeks, but it may just require a simplified version of an S-1 and also some regular filings.  Not sure what they are, but maybe instead of quarterly filings they'll just require it twice per year or maybe just annual filings and not require as much detail? 

Anyways the A+ seems more and more viable.  We're heading this route for a Bitshares Wallet startup.

Thanks.  We will be looking at it from a number of angles.


Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: puppies on June 14, 2015, 12:07:59 am
The devs have taken nothing from us.  They have created something new, and given us exclusive rights to use it.  Being upset because they reserve the right to license it to others in the future is a bit petty.  Believing that you deserve a portion of their new company a bit pretentious. 

In regards to IP.  I am pretty sure I understand and share BM's opinion on IP.  While I find its use a little distasteful, I think I understand the reasoning.  I am not of the opinion that it is motivated by personal greed, but rather by the honest wish to protect the toolkit, and promote bitshares.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: merivercap on June 14, 2015, 01:06:42 am
Thanks.  We will be looking at it from a number of angles.

Cool.  Yeah it would be fitting to eventually have your share mgmt on the BitShares blockchain.  For practical purposes it might be easier to use a company like Eshares at: https://esharesinc.com/

That company really makes managing restricted stock, options, warrants, convertibles, tender offers much easier.. as well as cap table mgmt.  The CEO had a couple of interesting blog posts:

Broken cap tables
https://medium.com/@henrysward/broken-cap-tables-bbf84574a76a

Scalable Employee Liquidity
https://medium.com/@henrysward/part-2-scalable-employee-liquidity-cc32ca4a8086

Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on June 14, 2015, 02:12:56 am
The devs have taken nothing from us.  They have created something new, and given us exclusive rights to use it.  Being upset because they reserve the right to license it to others in the future is a bit petty.  Believing that you deserve a portion of their new company a bit pretentious. 

In regards to IP.  I am pretty sure I understand and share BM's opinion on IP.  While I find its use a little distasteful, I think I understand the reasoning.  I am not of the opinion that it is motivated by personal greed, but rather by the honest wish to protect the toolkit, and promote bitshares.

 +5%
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: bubble789 on June 14, 2015, 03:35:24 am
Quote
BitShares is first and foremost a protocol based upon a public ledger. Anyone may provide and distribute an alternative implementation of the protocol and use the protocol for any other blockchain. The Graphene Toolkit produced by Cryptonomex, Inc is only one possible implementation of the protocol.

The Graphene Toolkit will be licensed by Cryptonomex, Inc for use with the BitShares (BTS) blockchain. The terms of the license will allow the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof to be used with the BitShares blockchain without any restrictions. Cryptonomex, Inc retains all rights to the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof for any other use. The BitShares blockchain is defined as exactly one global ledger. In the event of a hard-fork only one branch may be considered the official BitShares ledger which will be unambiguously decided as the fork with the highest market capitalization.

This means that from the perspective of BitShares, the Graphene Toolkit is fully open source and its use, distribution, and future cannot be dictated by Cryptonomex or any other entity.

After further contemplation, I think that the business model you guys are building is good for everyone.
However, I believe certain tweaks and mods could be done to make it a better presentation for people. Remember one of the things we learnt from 0.9.x system where we did not "phrase/present" out "inflation system" well enough compared to Nushares?

I understand that the devs meant good for everyone with the conception of Cryptonomex, but I believe this time we can learn from Ripple for the business model. Cryptonomex and Bitshares can be analogous to RippleLabs and Ripple, with the difference that Cryptonomex controlling everything else it can but not Bitshares (hence no liabilities or whatsoever). RippleLabs has value because of all the ripple they still control, Cryptonomex will have value because of the license and talents it possess. Cryptonomex can receive fundings in a traditional way (seed, round ABC..), and everything else you guys have planned still basically can work as intended.

I may have missed something and not considered as many angles as you guys did but hope this option is considered.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Stan on June 14, 2015, 04:09:11 am
Quote
BitShares is first and foremost a protocol based upon a public ledger. Anyone may provide and distribute an alternative implementation of the protocol and use the protocol for any other blockchain. The Graphene Toolkit produced by Cryptonomex, Inc is only one possible implementation of the protocol.

The Graphene Toolkit will be licensed by Cryptonomex, Inc for use with the BitShares (BTS) blockchain. The terms of the license will allow the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof to be used with the BitShares blockchain without any restrictions. Cryptonomex, Inc retains all rights to the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof for any other use. The BitShares blockchain is defined as exactly one global ledger. In the event of a hard-fork only one branch may be considered the official BitShares ledger which will be unambiguously decided as the fork with the highest market capitalization.

This means that from the perspective of BitShares, the Graphene Toolkit is fully open source and its use, distribution, and future cannot be dictated by Cryptonomex or any other entity.

After further contemplation, I think that the business model you guys are building is good for everyone.
However, I believe certain tweaks and mods could be done to make it a better presentation for people. Remember one of the things we learnt from 0.9.x system where we did not "phrase/present" out "inflation system" well enough compared to Nushares?

I understand that the devs meant good for everyone with the conception of Cryptonomex, but I believe this time we can learn from Ripple for the business model. Cryptonomex and Bitshares can be analogous to RippleLabs and Ripple, with the difference that Cryptonomex controlling everything else it can but not Bitshares (hence no liabilities or whatsoever). RippleLabs has value because of all the ripple they still control, Cryptonomex will have value because of the license and talents it possess. Cryptonomex can receive fundings in a traditional way (seed, round ABC..), and everything else you guys have planned still basically can work as intended.

I may have missed something and not considered as many angles as you guys did but hope this option is considered.

Its after midnight and we've already established that I'm at least as dumb as Toast, but I couldn't spot the tweaks and mods to be considered...

:O)

Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Riverhead on June 14, 2015, 04:11:22 am

I'm at least as dumb as Toast

If only I could be so lucky.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: bubble789 on June 14, 2015, 04:18:02 am

Its after midnight and we've already established that I'm at least as dumb as Toast, but I couldn't spot the tweaks and mods to be considered...

:O)

so you are saying *by nature* these are analogous ?
if so, i believe you may have failed again in presenting it in such a way that people will like it..
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: vegolino on June 14, 2015, 08:00:02 am
The devs have taken nothing from us.  They have created something new, and given us exclusive rights to use it.  Being upset because they reserve the right to license it to others in the future is a bit petty.  Believing that you deserve a portion of their new company a bit pretentious. 

In regards to IP.  I am pretty sure I understand and share BM's opinion on IP.  While I find its use a little distasteful, I think I understand the reasoning.  I am not of the opinion that it is motivated by personal greed, but rather by the honest wish to protect the toolkit, and promote bitshares.

 +5%
  +5%
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Riverhead on June 14, 2015, 08:27:31 am
In regards to IP.  I am pretty sure I understand and share BM's opinion on IP.  While I find its use a little distasteful, I think I understand the reasoning.  I am not of the opinion that it is motivated by personal greed, but rather by the honest wish to protect the toolkit, and promote bitshares.

Be it musician, author, or inventor, each have their own reasons to protect, and monetize, what they have created. Where IP becomes distasteful is when someone else claims ownership of the same without having contributed to the creative process.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: pc on June 14, 2015, 11:03:54 am

BTS will be at complete mercy of Cryptonomex, partialy or completely funding the developement of
Graphene, [...]
BTS owners should have a stake in the IP ownership of the code too.

+1

IMO the danger is that while BTS will (at least partially) fund development of Graphene, BTS will (?) only be licensed to use Graphene as-is. I. e. if at some point in the future Cryptonomex decides to no longer license future versions of Graphere to BTS, then BTS will be stuck with an old client and no (legal) way for other developers to update/enhance it in accordance with BTS shareholders' interests.

Of course right now this point is somewhat academic, because without BM/Cryptonomex BTS will be dead anyway.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: puptothekit on June 14, 2015, 12:40:19 pm
A lot of ground has been covered on this thread, and it seems that multiple issues are being conflated.  But let's look at things logically.  For starters, I take it as a given that the devs want BTS to succeed.  I also understand that the devs need to be paid for their work.  And we should be looking to ensure they can devote as much time as possible to continuing the development of Bitshares.  If there are enough funds currently available to sustain every dev, great.  If not, it is understandable that they would need to supplement their incomes.  Whether they do so as individuals or as a company is really none of our business. However, what does NOT seem appropriate is for Cryptonomex to separate the intellectual property from Bitshares considering BTS shareholders have funded the development. Not to mention, in that case we'd have a divergence of interests between the devs and BTS shareholders.  This does not imply there are any nefarious intentions on the part of the devs.  But the realignment of interests would be undeniable and problematic.  I think this should be addressed ASAP as uncertainty around this issue can't possibly be helpful.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: karnal on June 14, 2015, 12:46:36 pm
One can't help but wonder though. The devs are saying the licensing exists so that they can make money from it, because the income derived from BitShares has not been enough to sustain the dev team.

So, who else will be using graphene? And wouldn't most of these licensees then go on to develop direct competitors to BitShares?

Looks to me that for the devs it's a win-win situation, while for us, not so much.  [bitshares goes to the moon = win for devs, win for us | graphene sees mad adoption = win for devs, lose for bitshares/us]


What do you think Cryptonomex would do if tomorrow someone comes with $10mil to have them implement a direct competitor to BitShares ?
And could you really blame them for taking the offer?
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: wallace on June 14, 2015, 01:01:36 pm
One can't help but wonder though. The devs are saying the licensing exists so that they can make money from it, because the income derived from BitShares has not been enough to sustain the dev team.

So, who else will be using graphene? And wouldn't most of these licensees then go on to develop direct competitors to BitShares?

Looks to me that for the devs it's a win-win situation, while for us, not so much.  [bitshares goes to the moon = win for devs, win for us | graphene sees mad adoption = win for devs, lose for bitshares/us]


What do you think Cryptonomex would do if tomorrow someone comes with $10mil to have them implement a direct competitor to BitShares ?
And could you really blame them for taking the offer?

"believe" is different from "have to believe", but now it seems we have no choice. that is the reality.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Riverhead on June 14, 2015, 01:36:51 pm
One can't help but wonder though. The devs are saying the licensing exists so that they can make money from it, because the income derived from BitShares has not been enough to sustain the dev team.

So, who else will be using graphene? And wouldn't most of these licensees then go on to develop direct competitors to BitShares?

Looks to me that for the devs it's a win-win situation, while for us, not so much.  [bitshares goes to the moon = win for devs, win for us | graphene sees mad adoption = win for devs, lose for bitshares/us]


What do you think Cryptonomex would do if tomorrow someone comes with $10mil to have them implement a direct competitor to BitShares ?
And could you really blame them for taking the offer?

"believe" is different from "have to believe", but now it seems we have no choice. that is the reality.

The talent is the talent regardless of how they self organize. This risk has always been there IMHO.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: karnal on June 14, 2015, 01:42:49 pm
What I'm saying is that the statement 'we will depend on licensing graphene to get paid' essentially translates to 'we will help competitors get technology which is a direct competitor to BitShares, for personal financial gain'.

There seems to be a conflict of interests of sorts here.


And I do trust in Stan & Dan and the others, but that is not the point. I do believe a healthy and long debate about this is necessary.

When the way forward is funding competitors for personal gain from royalties from software that was essentially sponsored by shareholders, and such licensing goes against shareholders best interests, I say the situation needs to be pondered..
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on June 14, 2015, 02:07:31 pm
What I'm saying is that the statement 'we will depend on licensing graphene to get paid' essentially translates to 'we will help competitors get technology which is a direct competitor to BitShares, for personal financial gain'.

There seems to be a conflict of interests of sorts here.


And I do trust in Stan & Dan and the others, but that is not the point. I do believe a healthy and long debate about this is necessary.

When the way forward is funding competitors for personal gain from royalties from software that was essentially sponsored by shareholders, and such licensing goes against shareholders best interests, I say the situation needs to be pondered..

It also translates into.. it's the only way we were able to secure VC funding so we could get paid.

It could be translated into it was a security that was necessary to move forward.

Nobody wants to put money into something that someone else can just walk away with. Kinda the whole point of whats being built here. :)
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Riverhead on June 14, 2015, 02:10:34 pm
Your concerns aren't unfounded. I just feel they really didn't have a choice if BTS is to survive this bear market.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: sittingduck on June 14, 2015, 02:22:23 pm
It is really a matter of allocating enough bts to pay them full time   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: santaclause102 on June 14, 2015, 02:31:00 pm
A lot of ground has been covered on this thread, and it seems that multiple issues are being conflated.  But let's look at things logically.  For starters, I take it as a given that the devs want BTS to succeed.  I also understand that the devs need to be paid for their work.  And we should be looking to ensure they can devote as much time as possible to continuing the development of Bitshares.  If there are enough funds currently available to sustain every dev, great.  If not, it is understandable that they would need to supplement their incomes.  Whether they do so as individuals or as a company is really none of our business. However, what does NOT seem appropriate is for Cryptonomex to separate the intellectual property from Bitshares considering BTS shareholders have funded the development. Not to mention, in that case we'd have a divergence of interests between the devs and BTS shareholders.  This does not imply there are any nefarious intentions on the part of the devs.  But the realignment of interests would be undeniable and problematic.  I think this should be addressed ASAP as uncertainty around this issue can't possibly be helpful.
This was well weighted.
AGS donators and indirectly PTS holders have funded the developement of what Bitshares  is today respectively what it will be when 2.0 is implemented. Graphene may have been developed while AGS funds had already run out but without the experience (mistakes, testing in real markets, lots of contemplation) that resulted from the development work when the dev team was paid through AGS donations we wouldn't be were we are today.
Like always with AGS/PTS and BTS nothing is legally binding as the donations were no strings attached but such a "soft justice discussion" makes sense in the spirit of the no strings attached fundraiser.
Another argument, PC pointed out above, is that new code that is funded by the Bitshares DAC would be "owned" by cryptonomex instead of who is funding it. Or did I get this wrong?

To determine who should own the graphene code (of copyright restrictions are not debated), the logical answer would be: Whoever put in the "capital" (that is money as well as intellectual capital). Maybe graphene was founded for one year through AGS and for half a year through private efforts. Plus founders have contributed intellectual capital.

I just want to point out that this
If GS wants to enter the market with a ton of money and produce a product that is compatible with our vision, then it would be stupid for BTS developers to not take them up on a job offer.  It would be stupid for both financial and philosophical reasons, namely, freedom supporting blockchain tech going mainstream is the real goal.   
seems like a contradiction to prior statements that Cryptonomex will not work on chains that would compete with Bitshares.
Interests could be aligned through sharedropping on AGS/PTS holders which again would be an interesting legal case :)

This is also true!
Your concerns aren't unfounded. I just feel they really didn't have a choice if BTS is to survive this bear market.
Sent from my Timex Sinclair

No simple answers here. Let's keep up the open and honest discussion.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Riverhead on June 14, 2015, 03:09:30 pm
It is really a matter of allocating enough bts to pay them full time   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not in this market :'(. A salary of 108k annually would require 1.3MM BTS a month per person. That would be an insane amount of sell pressure.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: fuzzy on June 14, 2015, 03:14:47 pm
The devs have taken nothing from us.  They have created something new, and given us exclusive rights to use it.  Being upset because they reserve the right to license it to others in the future is a bit petty.  Believing that you deserve a portion of their new company a bit pretentious. 

In regards to IP.  I am pretty sure I understand and share BM's opinion on IP.  While I find its use a little distasteful, I think I understand the reasoning.  I am not of the opinion that it is motivated by personal greed, but rather by the honest wish to protect the toolkit, and promote bitshares.

 +5%
  +5%

I really dislike the tone and calling people "pretentious".  Most people who have been here loyally from day one are very familiar with the battle scars that come from supporting only BTS (at a time when the rest of crypto would have gladly seen it die) It has been very difficult for many to continue holding through the toughest times and they are the strongest roots on the tree, so to use such a tone seems like putting them down for being concerned.

This concerns me because although the people taking this stance have been around awhile, I also intimately know they have worked with other crypto projects and likely continue planning on doing so...and the ones who are concerned are of the demographic who literally have endured the brunt of the bad times with a loyalty to bitshares on a level that deserves the highest degree of respect.  Why? Because without their sacrifices, bitshares would likely not even be known to exist...aand likely would not have recovered from any of the terrible falls along the way.

I love bitshares and appreciate the roots of this community--you guys/girls are amazing.  And more than anything you do not deserve to be called pretentious. 

I sincerely hope data will try to choose his words more carefully next time for his sake as much as anyone elses.   

And @data, I love you bro, but please try to consider the words before they are typed.
*edit* Sorry data...it was puppies. Slap me please.

@delulo 100% agree with your other statements, but not the +5% to the consideration of people who are concerned being pretentious.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: puppies on June 14, 2015, 04:00:15 pm
The devs have taken nothing from us.  They have created something new, and given us exclusive rights to use it.  Being upset because they reserve the right to license it to others in the future is a bit petty.  Believing that you deserve a portion of their new company a bit pretentious. 

In regards to IP.  I am pretty sure I understand and share BM's opinion on IP.  While I find its use a little distasteful, I think I understand the reasoning.  I am not of the opinion that it is motivated by personal greed, but rather by the honest wish to protect the toolkit, and promote bitshares.

 +5%
  +5%

I really dislike the tone and calling people "pretentious".  Most people who have been here loyally from day one are very familiar with the battle scars that come from supporting only BTS (at a time when the rest of crypto would have gladly seen it die) It has been very difficult for many to continue holding through the toughest times and they are the strongest roots on the tree, so to use such a tone seems like putting them down for being concerned.

This concerns me because although the people taking this stance have been around awhile, I also intimately know they have worked with other crypto projects and likely continue planning on doing so...and the ones who are concerned are of the demographic who literally have endured the brunt of the bad times with a loyalty to bitshares on a level that deserves the highest degree of respect.  Why? Because without their sacrifices, bitshares would likely not even be known to exist...aand likely would not have recovered from any of the terrible falls along the way.

I love bitshares and appreciate the roots of this community--you guys/girls are amazing.  And more than anything you do not deserve to be called pretentious. 

I sincerely hope data will try to choose his words more carefully next time for his sake as much as anyone elses.   

And @data, I love you bro, but please try to consider the words before they are typed.

@delulo 100% agree with your other statements, but not the +5% to the consideration of people who are concerned being pretentious.

I was not attempting to offend anyone.  I said it was a bit pretentious, and I felt as if I chose a less offensive descriptor than I could have.  It seems as though pretentious is a much greater insult to some than others.  I was trying to get across, that we do not own the dev team, nor the fruits of their labor.  Even if we helped them get here.

(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E1u1vHFZ9NY/hqdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Ben Mason on June 14, 2015, 04:08:58 pm
Having thought long and hard about the OP and the situation, I now feel I understand Newmine's concerns better and apologise for reacting as though he was being over the top. There is potential for a conflict of interest here, although I firmly believe that the core devs left the situation open for the community to discover and help resolve intentionally.

BM has always shown a very clear understanding of the importance of aligning economic incentives and from this project's inception, the core dev team have led the way in collaboration, innovation, adaptation and integrity. Whatever model is implemented, I believe it will be as fair as it possibly can be. More importantly, the model will be as supportive and robust for Bitshares as possible.

We need to know if Graphene is community owned. If it is, everything built with it should be  joint owned. If not, well if Bitshares has unrestricted access to all Graphene developments, then we just have competing networks to deal with. Although, BM has already stated that cryptonomex will not develop competing networks so I can only assume he's thought of other ways to use the toolkit to build profitable services. If that's the case, that should be fine.....the devs get to monetise their development efforts while we do everything we can to build network effect.

Protecting the Graphene toolkit from rampant replication whilst keeping it open-source is a very sensible idea. The freedom comes to the individual who uses the Bitshares network to secure life, liberty and property.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Riverhead on June 14, 2015, 04:34:45 pm

This meme is actually fairly appropriate. It captures taking a sound bite fragment out of context, as he was referring to the roads and bridges infrastructure that makes doing business possible that is funded by the tax payers, but also the concept that many people contribute to what otherwise appears to be an independent business.

So while we contributed to the circumstances that allowed Cryptonomex and Graphene to exist it doesn't mean we get a piece of their pie beyond what they've already stated they'll be doing for BitShares (upgrading it to the Graphene toolkit and continued support).


(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E1u1vHFZ9NY/hqdefault.jpg)

Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: fuzzy on June 14, 2015, 04:45:52 pm
The devs have taken nothing from us.  They have created something new, and given us exclusive rights to use it.  Being upset because they reserve the right to license it to others in the future is a bit petty.  Believing that you deserve a portion of their new company a bit pretentious. 

In regards to IP.  I am pretty sure I understand and share BM's opinion on IP.  While I find its use a little distasteful, I think I understand the reasoning.  I am not of the opinion that it is motivated by personal greed, but rather by the honest wish to protect the toolkit, and promote bitshares.

 +5%
  +5%

I really dislike the tone and calling people "pretentious".  Most people who have been here loyally from day one are very familiar with the battle scars that come from supporting only BTS (at a time when the rest of crypto would have gladly seen it die) It has been very difficult for many to continue holding through the toughest times and they are the strongest roots on the tree, so to use such a tone seems like putting them down for being concerned.

This concerns me because although the people taking this stance have been around awhile, I also intimately know they have worked with other crypto projects and likely continue planning on doing so...and the ones who are concerned are of the demographic who literally have endured the brunt of the bad times with a loyalty to bitshares on a level that deserves the highest degree of respect.  Why? Because without their sacrifices, bitshares would likely not even be known to exist...aand likely would not have recovered from any of the terrible falls along the way.

I love bitshares and appreciate the roots of this community--you guys/girls are amazing.  And more than anything you do not deserve to be called pretentious. 

I sincerely hope data will try to choose his words more carefully next time for his sake as much as anyone elses.   

And @data, I love you bro, but please try to consider the words before they are typed.

@delulo 100% agree with your other statements, but not the +5% to the consideration of people who are concerned being pretentious.

I was not attempting to offend anyone.  I said it was a bit pretentious, and I felt as if I chose a less offensive descriptor than I could have.  It seems as though pretentious is a much greater insult to some than others.  I was trying to get across, that we do not own the dev team, nor the fruits of their labor.  Even if we helped them get here.

(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E1u1vHFZ9NY/hqdefault.jpg)

This is not the same thing.  Many of the people who are concerned are not coders but did provide a great deal of value and also served as a shield against multiple attacks that came, pushed through to help b the devs build the reputation that got them to where they are today.  They joined because of something they considered a promise during the days of pts/ags and gave of themselves, sacrificing for a vision that seemed necessary to help change our current paradigm (isn't that why we are here after all?). 
It was their distrust in the current system and trust toward BM and the team that made them willing to say "we will accept that AGS are now donations as opposed to being a legally-binding promise".

Why though? Because they have wanted to protect those who started out this project to change the system and create upheaval of the current corrupt regimes instead of giving them more validity by begging them to ensure the original team abided by their original promise. 

Now to some it feels that there are going to be potential conflicts of interest.  Are they wrong? It all depends on what the cryptonomex team (and their VC?) comes up with to ensure the community who protected the team and the project (and many of whom who did so with great personal sacrifice) is not left high and dry for their efforts.  Because I can assure you if bitshares was left up to those who run solely on greed would have sold their massive stakes long ago.

The community expecting this is not in any way like Obama saying "you didn't build this business"... it is more like him saying that the tax payers didn't fund Congress.  That international banking cartels did  (which ironically these days may be the case).
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Ben Mason on June 14, 2015, 04:48:41 pm
Well put fuzzy
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: puppies on June 14, 2015, 04:58:09 pm
I think this pretty clearly states that BitShares owns the right to use the graphene toolkit in perpetuity.  From a competitive standpoint this makes our situation better not worse.  Previously anyone could clone us and fork us at will.  GS could fork 0.9.2 into EvilShares and cut all of us out, to use the threat from earlier in the thread.  I would like to see a more robust definition of what the current official chain is though.  I think straight up market cap could be abused in the short run, if a fork didn't have a high proportion of shares circulating.

This was supposed to be published along with the 2.0 announcement... but due to a desire for perfection it was not published.   I think it is good enough to give you all an idea of how we are thinking and what we are attempting to achieve.    I apologize for any confusion.

Quote
BitShares is first and foremost a protocol based upon a public ledger. Anyone may provide and distribute an alternative implementation of the protocol and use the protocol for any other blockchain. The Graphene Toolkit produced by Cryptonomex, Inc is only one possible implementation of the protocol.

The Graphene Toolkit will be licensed by Cryptonomex, Inc for use with the BitShares (BTS) blockchain. The terms of the license will allow the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof to be used with the BitShares blockchain without any restrictions. Cryptonomex, Inc retains all rights to the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof for any other use. The BitShares blockchain is defined as exactly one global ledger. In the event of a hard-fork only one branch may be considered the official BitShares ledger which will be unambiguously decided as the fork with the highest market capitalization.

This means that from the perspective of BitShares, the Graphene Toolkit is fully open source and its use, distribution, and future cannot be dictated by Cryptonomex or any other entity.

All of the devs are committed to making sure that BitShares is free from the control of any company or person.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: puppies on June 14, 2015, 05:14:22 pm
I think its exactly the same fuzzy.  To Riverheads point, that quote is clearly taken out of context.  If you read it in context Obama seems to be saying that You've gotten a lot of help along the way, and you wouldn't possibly be where you are without that help.  That is all very true.  Now Obama wants to use that as an excuse to promote communal ownership of the property that has been created.  Whether that consists of a portion of earnings, or outright control of the property.  That's the part I reject. 

In practice it is a really good idea to remember that you have had help along the way and you wouldn't be where you are without it.  Perhaps to pay back some of that help when needed, and to pay it forward whenever possible.

It would be really nice if the dev team gave me a portion of their new company.  I haven't done nearly as much as you fuzzy, but I have been a long time supporter.  It would make my day. 

There are lots of other really nice things the dev team could do for me.  For example I have really been thinking about building a sonex aircraft.  Getting me one of those would be really really nice.

I don't feel as if I am entitled to any of this though.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: fuzzy on June 14, 2015, 05:16:36 pm
I think this pretty clearly states that BitShares owns the right to use the graphene toolkit in perpetuity.  From a competitive standpoint this makes our situation better not worse.  Previously anyone could clone us and fork us at will.  GS could fork 0.9.2 into EvilShares and cut all of us out, to use the threat from earlier in the thread.  I would like to see a more robust definition of what the current official chain is though.  I think straight up market cap could be abused in the short run, if a fork didn't have a high proportion of shares circulating.

This was supposed to be published along with the 2.0 announcement... but due to a desire for perfection it was not published.   I think it is good enough to give you all an idea of how we are thinking and what we are attempting to achieve.    I apologize for any confusion.

Quote
BitShares is first and foremost a protocol based upon a public ledger. Anyone may provide and distribute an alternative implementation of the protocol and use the protocol for any other blockchain. The Graphene Toolkit produced by Cryptonomex, Inc is only one possible implementation of the protocol.

The Graphene Toolkit will be licensed by Cryptonomex, Inc for use with the BitShares (BTS) blockchain. The terms of the license will allow the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof to be used with the BitShares blockchain without any restrictions. Cryptonomex, Inc retains all rights to the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof for any other use. The BitShares blockchain is defined as exactly one global ledger. In the event of a hard-fork only one branch may be considered the official BitShares ledger which will be unambiguously decided as the fork with the highest market capitalization.

This means that from the perspective of BitShares, the Graphene Toolkit is fully open source and its use, distribution, and future cannot be dictated by Cryptonomex or any other entity.

All of the devs are committed to making sure that BitShares is free from the control of any company or person.

That is not from my reading the primary concern.  The main concern is a potential for conflicts of interest that will eventually pull the devs away from bitshares, or worse to put them in direct competition with it.  Why is this important? 
Because the most dangerous threat is a friend turned foe...because they know all the weaknesses that help ensure their own victory and have the advantage of monetary backing after they know the capital of the other side has been exhausted.

I'm not sure what is going to happen so those people's concerns may prove to be completely unfounded...but it doesn't mean I won't try to protect them from perceived attacks that make seem at first glance to be leeches who expect everything and deserve nothing.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: fuzzy on June 14, 2015, 05:22:04 pm
I think its exactly the same fuzzy.  To Riverheads point, that quote is clearly taken out of context.  If you read it in context Obama seems to be saying that You've gotten a lot of help along the way, and you wouldn't possibly be where you are without that help.  That is all very true.  Now Obama wants to use that as an excuse to promote communal ownership of the property that has been created.  Whether that consists of a portion of earnings, or outright control of the property.  That's the part I reject. 

In practice it is a really good idea to remember that you have had help along the way and you wouldn't be where you are without it.  Perhaps to pay back some of that help when needed, and to pay it forward whenever possible.

It would be really nice if the dev team gave me a portion of their new company.  I haven't done nearly as much as you fuzzy, but I have been a long time supporter.  It would make my day. 

There are lots of other really nice things the dev team could do for me.  For example I have really been thinking about building a sonex aircraft.  Getting me one of those would be really really nice.

I don't feel as if I am entitled to any of this though.

One request: change "as much as you" to "as much as the beyond bitcoin team and volunteers"--in which Dan (aka Bytemaster) also has played a role.

I'm not egotistical enough to think I did anything alone--which is why I don't even get paid by the delegate.  In fact the power of what beyond bitcoin is becoming is expressly due to my original recognition of all people's value...and even moreso that said value only grows when it is recognized and appreciated. 

Ironically that is the true foundation of most arguments in the current paradigm of artificial scarcity in which we currently reside.

Beyond Bitcoins success will prove a perfect case study in the future for showing how enabling others benefits all.


Now this is the perfect place to really hit home the quote that Stan my brought out the other day:
Quote
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
~Thomas Jefferson~

Do we think that it requires actual blood or does it mean something more?  Like perhaps willingly sacrificing to ensure the greatest common good for all...in the face of monopolistic, dictatorial intent? We ALL really need to all take a deep breath and seriously consider why we are here...including both sides of this equation (devs and community both).

Now here is where I WILL take some credit...for walking the walk and just not talking the talk (Imagine if everyone just tried it for a bit...)

Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: bytemaster on June 14, 2015, 05:43:19 pm
Here is the deal, "BitShares" as not a legal entity and cannot "own" IP.    I personally do not recognize IP, but most people do including some of those who have contributed to BTS source code.   

I will not do anything that will turn BTS into a security and that means I will not recognize or create any promises with respect to BTS.   If I were to do that it would compromise the entire BTS project.   

Those looking for anything resembling a promise or profit sharing or royalty will be disappointed.   

Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: fuzzy on June 14, 2015, 05:53:22 pm
Here is the deal, "BitShares" as not a legal entity and cannot "own" IP.    I personally do not recognize IP, but most people do including some of those who have contributed to BTS source code.   

I will not do anything that will turn BTS into a security and that means I will not recognize or create any promises with respect to BTS.   If I were to do that it would compromise the entire BTS project.   

Those looking for anything resembling a promise or profit sharing or royalty will be disappointed.

I certainly appreciate the clarity from your vantage point.  Now with that said, what is the lay of the land everywhere else? 

This is why, as much as I dislike how newmine brought it up, I am glad he did...because it IS  something the entire community has to consider for themselves.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Ben Mason on June 14, 2015, 06:12:49 pm
Here is the deal, "BitShares" as not a legal entity and cannot "own" IP.    I personally do not recognize IP, but most people do including some of those who have contributed to BTS source code.   

I will not do anything that will turn BTS into a security and that means I will not recognize or create any promises with respect to BTS.   If I were to do that it would compromise the entire BTS project.   

Those looking for anything resembling a promise or profit sharing or royalty will be disappointed.
BM, who owns the Graphene source code? Please can I check....

So Bitshares will be upgraded to  Graphene but will retain the name Bitshares with the identical ledger/network and its non legal entity status. Cryptonomex will develop the Graphene toolkit amongst other things. Bitshares will have unrestricted access to anything developed for or from Graphene?
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: bytemaster on June 14, 2015, 06:16:18 pm
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

Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Ben Mason on June 14, 2015, 06:34:24 pm
Ok so from the dev point of view, commitments to develop a decentralised exchange was honoured, perhaps exceeded. The resource used to develop Graphene was not funded by Bitshares, therefore it's only natural that the team who developed it wanted to form a company to exploit it and generate an income.

I have two issues, one, I think the Bitshares community should have been told when the plan was first conceived. Two, if you make Bitshares have to pay for new features, you immediately put us on the back foot. Cryptonomex owns the code plus the new features and the ability to sell it elsewhere. It wouldn't take much for a new network to be born that superceeded Bitshares. Obviously the existing network/community has value and composition that's not easily replicated but still....(have you defo said this won't happen?)

 That being said, I trust you and I think I can see what you and Stan are hoping for. If Graphene delivers and a tsunami of developers start building on the Bitshares network then although you and the other devs are good, you're not that good ;)). Then you guys are free to live your lives and do other things that interest you....like satoshi without the anonymity!
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: bytemaster on June 14, 2015, 06:41:46 pm
Our intention isn't to put BTS on the "back foot", we are counting on BTS being a successful and having the resources to hire us to maintain and upgrade and enhance.



Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Ben Mason on June 14, 2015, 06:49:25 pm
Our intention isn't to put BTS on the "back foot", we are counting on BTS being a successful and having the resources to hire us to maintain and upgrade and enhance.
I get that, I really do. Nothing worth having is easy. I genuinely believe we can do it once the new features are in.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: pc on June 14, 2015, 07:56:22 pm
BitShares may use the code we release for 2.0 without restrictions
BitShares may develop extra features and use them without restriction

Very good, thanks for the clarification!
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: onceuponatime on June 14, 2015, 08:46:45 pm
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

Does the "purchase" of features that BitShares will vote on and pay for come with those licensing rights?
In other words, if any other Cryptonomex customer wants to then buy  those (bought and paid for) features when they see how great they are working on BitShares, does the fee go to BitShares (who will be ordering and paying for them) or to Cryptomex?
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: betax on June 14, 2015, 08:50:12 pm
I assume the intention is that Cryptonomex will own all ip and I assume will be able to license it to anyone.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: karnal on June 14, 2015, 08:50:21 pm
^^ pertinent question.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: fuzzy on June 14, 2015, 08:53:14 pm
BitShares may use the code we release for 2.0 without restrictions
BitShares may develop extra features and use them without restriction

Very good, thanks for the clarification!
+5%
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Shentist on June 14, 2015, 08:57:58 pm
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

Does the "purchase" of features that BitShares will vote on and pay for come with those licensing rights?
In other words, if any other Cryptonomex customer wants to then buy  those (bought and paid for) features when they see how great they are working on BitShares, does the fee go to BitShares (who will be ordering and paying for them) or to Cryptomex?

I would prefer that anything Cryptonomex will develop with BitShares worker payment and a new customer needs this feature they buy and burn BTS as a buyback program with some of the recieved license money.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: onceuponatime on June 14, 2015, 09:00:23 pm
I assume the intention is that Cryptonomex will own all ip and I assume will be able to license it to anyone.

Not wise to "assume".  It needs to be specifically stated as to what the policy will be.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: betax on June 14, 2015, 09:05:22 pm
I assume the intention is that Cryptonomex will own all ip and I assume will be able to license it to anyone.

Not wise to "assume".  It needs to be specifically stated as to what the policy will be.

I know, I would prefer that licenses fees are distributed with Bitshares but my hopes are all gone now, so I assume the worst, I might be surprised.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: brainbug on June 14, 2015, 09:08:08 pm
BitShares may use the code we release for 2.0 without restrictions
BitShares may develop extra features and use them without restriction

Very good, thanks for the clarification!
+5%

I believe the whole new, upcoming setting now is just AWESOME +10 and extremely well planned.

As far as I can tell from history it is highly important to have an industry-scale support at hand; just like CNX. That is also the only reason why Ripple still exists. CNX is committed to BitShares, and they love it.

Recall further that CNX is only one of the parents of BitShares, the AGS/PTS community is the other of course. We all know that two supporting, caring and patient parents are the very best for the successful development of any child. I'm going to support CNX by heart and hope you too! They have shown capable of the job and do have all the knowledge! What else could we (the BitShares community) dream of? Right, a CNX-like competitor, hehe.

Just remember: competition is the natural engine of any great economy. This is how it starts and works, NOW :-)

Looking forward to see bts2.0 flying.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: cass on June 14, 2015, 09:43:49 pm
CNX is committed to BitShares, and they love it.

 +5%
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: maqifrnswa on June 14, 2015, 10:48:15 pm
reference:
license description...

and:
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

I like and see what is trying to be done, actually looks pretty good. May I suggest a minor change?

...The Graphene Toolkit will be licensed by Cryptonomex, Inc for use with the BitShares (BTS) blockchain. The terms of the license will allow the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof to be used with the BitShares blockchain without any restrictions.

Cryptonomex should explicitly grant explicit rights

Language: Cryptonomex grants an irrevocable license for unrestricted modification and distribution in both source and binary form provided that modifications are solely for use within the BitShares community and will be used solely with the BitShares blockchain.

This is an open source license with a restriction on the freedom-of-use. Not that uncommon. For example, see:
http://www.json.org/license.html
The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
But doesn't define what is Good or Evil behviour, so people hate it, legally.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: fuzzy on June 14, 2015, 10:53:18 pm
reference:
license description...

and:
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

I like and see what is trying to be done, actually looks pretty good. May I suggest a minor change?

...The Graphene Toolkit will be licensed by Cryptonomex, Inc for use with the BitShares (BTS) blockchain. The terms of the license will allow the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof to be used with the BitShares blockchain without any restrictions.

Cryptonomex should explicitly grant explicit rights

Language: Cryptonomex grants an irrevocable license for unrestricted modification and distribution in both source and binary form provided that modifications are solely for use within the BitShares community and will be used solely with the BitShares blockchain.

This is an open source license with a restriction on the freedom-of-use. Not that uncommon. For example, see:
http://www.json.org/license.html
The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
But doesn't define what is Good or Evil behviour, so people hate it, legally.

Oh man you are such a breath of fresh air every single time you speak.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Riverhead on June 15, 2015, 12:22:41 am
If we're looking at Bitshares purely as a protocol then Bitshares can run on any toolkit that fully implements it. A great example of this is Crypti. They have reimplemented Bitshares in Javascript.

While Graphene is clearly the best choice right now that may not always be the case. It could happen that Toast and Vikram decide to take some of their skills and create BitChains, Inc to build a better toolkit.

At that point we'll be back here again. This is important because it means that Bitshares is not married to Cryptonomex and Graphene. They are just currently the best gig in town right now and for the foreseeable future.

riverhead-del-server-1 and backbone.riverhead will be making the switch.  Presumably bm.payroll.riverhead as well but that isn't my choice even if it's obvious.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: bubble789 on June 15, 2015, 12:50:48 am
@Dan and Stan:
We just hope that you can consider a "better" aligning of interest between BTS, the devs and cryptonomex. A great example is RippleLabs, the legal entity's success is closely tied to the success of the protocol. RippleLabs helps integrations, consults partners and trains more devs. They actively seek deals and partnerships to expand the ecosystem. So their aim is to make Ripple successful so their (the legal entity's) stash will be worth billions. On the other hand, i was given the impression that cryptonomex (the devs) and BTS's interests have never been less aligned. In the last hangout, fuzzy asked whether cryptonomex will be holding fund in BTS because of this concern i believe, but Dan didn't see it.

All the issues with IP and licenses aside, I hope cryptonomex reconsiders its business strategy and direction. Let's try to work out a relationship analogous to Ripple - RippleLabs, because it seems like it works (big partners coming in, better prospect of mainstream adoption, millions of funding, all the mistakes that can be learnt from). The details should be of course modified to fit our ecosystem here at BTS.

All in all, I am not saying that cryptonomex and the devs are abandoning BTS, and not that they are not bringing in deals and partnerships; but a better alignment of interests and goals would be even better.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Stan on June 15, 2015, 12:57:53 am
@Dan and Stan:
We just hope that you can consider a "better" aligning of interest between BTS, the devs and cryptonomex. A great example is RippleLabs, the legal entity's success is closely tied to the success of the protocol. RippleLabs helps integrations, consults partners and trains more devs. They actively seek deals and partnerships to expand the ecosystem. So their aim is to make Ripple successful so their (the legal entity's) stash will be worth billions. On the other hand, i was given the impression that cryptonomex (the devs) and BTS's interests have never been less aligned. In the last hangout, fuzzy asked whether cryptonomex will be holding fund in BTS because of this concern i believe, but Dan didn't see it.

All the issues with IP and licenses aside, I hope cryptonomex reconsiders its business strategy and direction. Let's try to work out a relationship analogous to Ripple - RippleLabs, because it seems like it works (big partners coming in, better prospect of mainstream adoption, millions of funding, all the mistakes that can be learnt from). The details should be of course modified to fit our ecosystem here at BTS.


All in all, I am not saying that cryptonomex and the devs are abandoning BTS, and not that they are not bringing in deals and partnerships; but a better alignment of interests and goals would be even better.

Watch the rest of our announcements this summer, then make up your minds.  :)
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: maqifrnswa on June 15, 2015, 01:20:32 am
Oh man you are such a breath of fresh air every single time you speak.

BM and the devs are trying to navigate a crazy space of the existing legal structures/regulations and BitShares, which figuratively breaks the mold. This takes creative licensing, IP, corporate structures - all things that are against anarcho-capitalistic motivations that drives many people to cryptocurrency.

Honestly, if the devs didn't do this, bitshares would be more likely to fail to reach its goals.

This is the economic/business development equivalent of using copyrights to prevent IP restrictions
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Copyleft

It's still an experiment, the ideal mode is unknown - but as long as all the actors are true believers, they can work together to find a local (if not global) optimum.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: puppies on June 15, 2015, 01:36:35 am
Oh man you are such a breath of fresh air every single time you speak.

BM and the devs are trying to navigate a crazy space of the existing legal structures/regulations and BitShares, which figuratively breaks the mold. This takes creative licensing, IP, corporate structures - all things that are against anarcho-capitalistic motivations that drives many people to cryptocurrency.

Honestly, if the devs didn't do this, bitshares would be more likely to fail to reach its goals.

This is the economic/business development equivalent of using copyrights to prevent IP restrictions
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Copyleft

It's still an experiment, the ideal mode is unknown - but as long as all the actors are true believers, they can work together to find a local (if not global) optimum.

I'm opposed to copyleft as well.  It's just using the power of the state to force people to distribute openly, rather than preventing them from distributing. 

In a real work scenario I understand why patents and copyrights/copylefts would be used.  I don't consider copyleft any more justifiable than copyright from a moral perspective though.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: ebit on June 15, 2015, 01:59:04 am
 +5% +5% +5%
 
@Dan and Stan:
We just hope that you can consider a "better" aligning of interest between BTS, the devs and cryptonomex. A great example is RippleLabs, the legal entity's success is closely tied to the success of the protocol. RippleLabs helps integrations, consults partners and trains more devs. They actively seek deals and partnerships to expand the ecosystem. So their aim is to make Ripple successful so their (the legal entity's) stash will be worth billions. On the other hand, i was given the impression that cryptonomex (the devs) and BTS's interests have never been less aligned. In the last hangout, fuzzy asked whether cryptonomex will be holding fund in BTS because of this concern i believe, but Dan didn't see it.

All the issues with IP and licenses aside, I hope cryptonomex reconsiders its business strategy and direction. Let's try to work out a relationship analogous to Ripple - RippleLabs, because it seems like it works (big partners coming in, better prospect of mainstream adoption, millions of funding, all the mistakes that can be learnt from). The details should be of course modified to fit our ecosystem here at BTS.

All in all, I am not saying that cryptonomex and the devs are abandoning BTS, and not that they are not bringing in deals and partnerships; but a better alignment of interests and goals would be even better.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: mike623317 on June 15, 2015, 02:59:40 am
Our intention isn't to put BTS on the "back foot", we are counting on BTS being a successful and having the resources to hire us to maintain and upgrade and enhance.

Got it.
.. now lets move the debate on to the new feature set we have.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: fuzzy on June 15, 2015, 03:07:20 am
Oh man you are such a breath of fresh air every single time you speak.

BM and the devs are trying to navigate a crazy space of the existing legal structures/regulations and BitShares, which figuratively breaks the mold. This takes creative licensing, IP, corporate structures - all things that are against anarcho-capitalistic motivations that drives many people to cryptocurrency.

Honestly, if the devs didn't do this, bitshares would be more likely to fail to reach its goals.

This is the economic/business development equivalent of using copyrights to prevent IP restrictions
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Copyleft

It's still an experiment, the ideal mode is unknown - but as long as all the actors are true believers, they can work together to find a local (if not global) optimum.

Trust me I fully trust BM, Stan and the team.  I just also really think it is important to play devils advocate because there are some things that are too complex to simply boil down to trust...because trust might not be the problem.

I prefer the solution-oriented approach though as opposed to the original OP because although it does bring up valid points it does so in a way that draws the focus away from actually establishing solutions.  Thus my breath of fresh air comment....which I genuinely mean.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: yiminh on June 15, 2015, 04:22:01 am
@Dan and Stan:
We just hope that you can consider a "better" aligning of interest between BTS, the devs and cryptonomex. A great example is RippleLabs, the legal entity's success is closely tied to the success of the protocol. RippleLabs helps integrations, consults partners and trains more devs. They actively seek deals and partnerships to expand the ecosystem. So their aim is to make Ripple successful so their (the legal entity's) stash will be worth billions. On the other hand, i was given the impression that cryptonomex (the devs) and BTS's interests have never been less aligned. In the last hangout, fuzzy asked whether cryptonomex will be holding fund in BTS because of this concern i believe, but Dan didn't see it.

All the issues with IP and licenses aside, I hope cryptonomex reconsiders its business strategy and direction. Let's try to work out a relationship analogous to Ripple - RippleLabs, because it seems like it works (big partners coming in, better prospect of mainstream adoption, millions of funding, all the mistakes that can be learnt from). The details should be of course modified to fit our ecosystem here at BTS.

All in all, I am not saying that cryptonomex and the devs are abandoning BTS, and not that they are not bringing in deals and partnerships; but a better alignment of interests and goals would be even better.

Ripple labs has a huge sake in ripple, thus their interest are aligned, I3 has a good stake in PTS then BTS, but the greedy stan and BM are not happy, they tried everything in the books to increase their stake, AGS/PTS, DPOS, Merger and paid delegate, still not enough, now Cryptonomex and toolkit, how many ways to fleece the BTS holders? take your buggy toolkit and leave please! BTS community should kick them out, byebye BM!
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: montpelerin on June 15, 2015, 04:34:02 am
@Dan and Stan:
We just hope that you can consider a "better" aligning of interest between BTS, the devs and cryptonomex. A great example is RippleLabs, the legal entity's success is closely tied to the success of the protocol. RippleLabs helps integrations, consults partners and trains more devs. They actively seek deals and partnerships to expand the ecosystem. So their aim is to make Ripple successful so their (the legal entity's) stash will be worth billions. On the other hand, i was given the impression that cryptonomex (the devs) and BTS's interests have never been less aligned. In the last hangout, fuzzy asked whether cryptonomex will be holding fund in BTS because of this concern i believe, but Dan didn't see it.

All the issues with IP and licenses aside, I hope cryptonomex reconsiders its business strategy and direction. Let's try to work out a relationship analogous to Ripple - RippleLabs, because it seems like it works (big partners coming in, better prospect of mainstream adoption, millions of funding, all the mistakes that can be learnt from). The details should be of course modified to fit our ecosystem here at BTS.

All in all, I am not saying that cryptonomex and the devs are abandoning BTS, and not that they are not bringing in deals and partnerships; but a better alignment of interests and goals would be even better.

Ripple labs has a huge sake in ripple, thus their interest are aligned, I3 has a good stake in PTS then BTS, but the greedy stan and BM are not happy, they tried everything in the books to increase their stake, AGS/PTS, DPOS, Merger and paid delegate, still not enough, now Cryptonomex and toolkit, how many ways to fleece the BTS holders? take your buggy toolkit and leave please! BTS community should kick them out, byebye BM!

For some reason, I get the feeling this guy would sit LeBron after tonight because the Cavs are losing the Finals.

Anybody else with me?
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: mike623317 on June 15, 2015, 04:35:50 am
@Dan and Stan:
We just hope that you can consider a "better" aligning of interest between BTS, the devs and cryptonomex. A great example is RippleLabs, the legal entity's success is closely tied to the success of the protocol. RippleLabs helps integrations, consults partners and trains more devs. They actively seek deals and partnerships to expand the ecosystem. So their aim is to make Ripple successful so their (the legal entity's) stash will be worth billions. On the other hand, i was given the impression that cryptonomex (the devs) and BTS's interests have never been less aligned. In the last hangout, fuzzy asked whether cryptonomex will be holding fund in BTS because of this concern i believe, but Dan didn't see it.

All the issues with IP and licenses aside, I hope cryptonomex reconsiders its business strategy and direction. Let's try to work out a relationship analogous to Ripple - RippleLabs, because it seems like it works (big partners coming in, better prospect of mainstream adoption, millions of funding, all the mistakes that can be learnt from). The details should be of course modified to fit our ecosystem here at BTS.

All in all, I am not saying that cryptonomex and the devs are abandoning BTS, and not that they are not bringing in deals and partnerships; but a better alignment of interests and goals would be even better.

Ripple labs has a huge sake in ripple, thus their interest are aligned, I3 has a good stake in PTS then BTS, but the greedy stan and BM are not happy, they tried everything in the books to increase their stake, AGS/PTS, DPOS, Merger and paid delegate, still not enough, now Cryptonomex and toolkit, how many ways to fleece the BTS holders? take your buggy toolkit and leave please! BTS community should kick them out, byebye BM!

WTF?! .... now that's gratitude for you.

The way i see it is the devs have given us a technical advantage with this Bitshares 2.0. Now they are will consult with other firms to supplement their incomes and use the profits to help grow and innovate Bitshares. Why are you pushing this message that somehow BM is trying to sabotage Bitshares. Has it ever occurred to you that he and the devs will follow through and keep innovating? Perhaps they will become part-time bitshares evangelists and spread the word far and wide.

You asked BM to take his toolkit and leave. May i suggest that you instead go and develop something better and if you can't then take a hike  :P
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Russ Hanneman on June 15, 2015, 04:55:37 am
Ripple labs has a huge sake in ripple, thus their interest are aligned, I3 has a good stake in PTS then BTS, but the greedy stan and BM are not happy, they tried everything in the books to increase their stake, AGS/PTS, DPOS, Merger and paid delegate, still not enough, now Cryptonomex and toolkit, how many ways to fleece the BTS holders? take your buggy toolkit and leave please! BTS community should kick them out, byebye BM!

After reading yiminh's very convincing argument and since I claim to own 51% of BitShares, I've decided to vote yiminh in as lead dev.

BITN Members : Once the price hits 1000 sats (which shoudn't take long) we can just vote Dan & Stan back in after we've cornered the market.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: svk on June 15, 2015, 05:05:42 am
So I thought that overall the announcement went really well but unfortunately it only took newmine and his new brother in arms klosure a couple posts to get the pitchforks out.

I think it's pretty crazy how ready people can be to read the worst into every statement and look for conspiracies everywhere. If you actually think BM and the rest of the team are looking for ways to stab BTS in the back then I'm not sure what planet you're from. Not only do they have lots of stake (though fortunately nowhere near what Ripple Labs has for Ripple), it's also their baby, the fruit of their vision and blood and sweat, and the future showcase of their technology. I reckon the interests of Bitshares and its main devs have never been as well aligned as this.

BM has said BTS will get full use of the Graphene toolkit, and all this talk of multiledgers for "demultiplexing" is just a strawman, if it ever comes to to that it means BTS is successful enough to pay for it itself.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: cube on June 15, 2015, 05:12:28 am
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

Does the "purchase" of features that BitShares will vote on and pay for come with those licensing rights?
In other words, if any other Cryptonomex customer wants to then buy  those (bought and paid for) features when they see how great they are working on BitShares, does the fee go to BitShares (who will be ordering and paying for them) or to Cryptomex?

I believe if there is a 'purchase' of feature by BitShares community, it means that that we purchase the rights to 'USE' and NOT to 'RESELL' those features.  Any proceeds from the sales of new 2.0 codes (ie USE and/or RESELL licenses) go to Cryptomex.

I think it's pretty crazy how ready people can be to read the worst into every statement and look for conspiracies everywhere. If you actually think BM and the rest of the team are looking for ways to stab BTS in the back then I'm not sure what planet you're from.

I think this is more than a matter of 'trust BM and team'.  We are talking about a real legal corporate entity called 'Cryptomex'.  It has its own set of Directors and Sharesholders.  We do not know if BM is a major sharesholder (with voting rights) in Cryptomex and therefore has a major say in it.  Nor do we know if BM would continue to keep his major stake in Cryptomex (and not sell his shares) if he was indeed a major shareholder.  Any other external person who takes over as a major shareholder can vote out BM and team, and change the direction of Cryptomex.  There is nothing to stop Cryptomex to develop a competing chain, or chains, since it owns all the rights to bitshares.  We need clarity on the structure of Cryptomex.

Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: merockstar on June 15, 2015, 05:22:34 am
@ entire dev team

I want to apologize for my overreaction to this earlier.

even in a worst case scenario where all you guys just throw up your hands and say "fuck it, we work for the banks now." all the pieces are out here floating around, able to be picked up and expanded upon by any of a huge and talented crypto-community of potential devs.

upon reflection, I don't think that's going to be the case. all the work that's been done so far represents a huge advancement forward for liberty anyway you spin it. regardless of which version of bitshares we're talking about.

it's understandable that you guys don't want to be expected to work for free or very little, and the idea that you should may stem from philosophical differences about what the project represents or should represent.

I worry about whether the market is mature enough to stand on it's own without the devs behind it working for free and treating it as a hobbyist/pet project/revolutionary mantlepiece whose value means more than their own comfort, but it's your baby, and you would know better whether or not it's ready. this is an issue of trust, and I have no reason no to doubt your intentions based upon what the trust involved with AGS being donations has resulted in so far.

i think there's a lot of details about this plan left to be unveiled, and that is where a lot of the insecurities expressed in the preceding posts stem from.

3 amazing sharedrop targets still exist, and the world now has market pegged assets.

it will be fascinating to see how this plays out this summer, and in the long term. I'm glad I didn't run and sell.

this thread has shown me that i'm too emotionally invested in this project, especially for being somebody so very limited in how I can contribute. I'm going to try to plant my feet more firmly on the ground, and view this project as more of a possible catalyst for the change we all know is so very necessary in this world, rather than the last hope for that change to happen.

however it pans out, this project's existence has filled me with more hope for the future of the world than my cynical ass had upon discovering it.
thank you for that.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: arhag on June 15, 2015, 05:22:48 am
BM has said BTS will get full use of the Graphene toolkit, and all this talk of multiledgers for "demultiplexing" is just a strawman, if it ever comes to to that it means BTS is successful enough to pay for it itself.

Also, by that point it might even be time for a rewrite of the technology (potentially even in a new language, e.g. Rust). Cryptonomex doesn't (and cannot) own the protocol. At that point BTS could easily fund some talented devs (maybe these would be devs who formerly worked for the company Cryptonomex, or maybe they are just other talented devs) to write a copyfree licensed implementation of the protocol (or a slightly modified protocol we hard fork to that is better suited to the improvements in the technology) and at that point whatever license Cryptonomex has with Graphene would be irrelevant.

I would love it if Graphene was copyfree licensed already (even with the added risk of making it easier for clones to copy our technology and try to compete with better marketing). But from what I understand, BitShares is not large enough yet for that strategy to increase our chances of BitShares becoming successful. Our low market cap means we cannot afford to pay the devs their fair market rate (even when we take into account that we can fire all marketing delegates because they can now be compensated with the referral system that is supported with higher fees). So the license structure Cryptonomex came up with seems to be a compromise that lets us stakeholders still have a lot of control over the future of BitShares but also allows the devs to get other sources of revenue so that they can continue to innovate on the technology at full speed. I find this compromise to be pragmatic and acceptable. Although, I would like it if we could eventually transition to something like a copyfree license when BitShares is larger (bigger market cap, bigger network effect) without needing to work around Cryptonomex by hiring other devs to reimplement the protocol from scratch (however having multiple implementations of the same protocol is a good thing to eventually do anyway for multiple reasons).
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: brainbug on June 15, 2015, 05:48:57 am
I would like to see the calculation of what has been made/done with the AGS/PTS funding and what with delegate funding, etc. In my opinion, if Graphene was built with AGS/PTS funding, then it has to be open source without any restrictions (well, at least the portion of code that was funded that way). I'm pretty sure CNX will do exactly that as anything else would be a hit on their reputation (any maybe a legal problem). Anyway, the business plan of CNX is logical from any perspective, and I would probably not do things differently.

Don't forget BitShares is such a tasty piece of software, because it is decentralized (in every way) ;-)
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Thom on June 15, 2015, 06:13:01 am
however it pans out, this project's existence has filled me with more hope for the future of the world than my cynical ass had upon discovering it.
thank you for that.

+5% That was so well said!
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on June 15, 2015, 06:15:25 am
So I thought that overall the announcement went really well but unfortunately it only took newmine and his new brother in arms klosure a couple posts to get the pitchforks out.

I think it's pretty crazy how ready people can be to read the worst into every statement and look for conspiracies everywhere. If you actually think BM and the rest of the team are looking for ways to stab BTS in the back then I'm not sure what planet you're from. Not only do they have lots of stake (though fortunately nowhere near what Ripple Labs has for Ripple), it's also their baby, the fruit of their vision and blood and sweat, and the future showcase of their technology. I reckon the interests of Bitshares and its main devs have never been as well aligned as this.

BM has said BTS will get full use of the Graphene toolkit, and all this talk of multiledgers for "demultiplexing" is just a strawman, if it ever comes to to that it means BTS is successful enough to pay for it itself.

 +5%
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: puppies on June 15, 2015, 06:17:25 am
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

Does the "purchase" of features that BitShares will vote on and pay for come with those licensing rights?
In other words, if any other Cryptonomex customer wants to then buy  those (bought and paid for) features when they see how great they are working on BitShares, does the fee go to BitShares (who will be ordering and paying for them) or to Cryptomex?

I believe if there is a 'purchase' of feature by BitShares community, it means that that we purchase the rights to 'USE' and NOT to 'RESELL' those features.  Any proceeds from the sales of new 2.0 codes (ie USE and/or RESELL licenses) go to Cryptomex.

I think it's pretty crazy how ready people can be to read the worst into every statement and look for conspiracies everywhere. If you actually think BM and the rest of the team are looking for ways to stab BTS in the back then I'm not sure what planet you're from.

I think this is more than a matter of 'trust BM and team'.  We are talking about a real legal corporate entity called 'Cryptomex'.  It has its own set of Directors and Sharesholders.  We do not know if BM is a major sharesholder (with voting rights) in Cryptomex and therefore has a major say in it.  Nor do we know if BM would continue to keep his major stake in Cryptomex (and not sell his shares) if he was indeed a major shareholder.  Any other external person who takes over as a major shareholder can vote out BM and team, and change the direction of Cryptomex.  There is nothing to stop Cryptomex to develop a competing chain, or chains, since it owns all the rights to bitshares.  We need clarity on the structure of Cryptomex.

I am also curious about the legal structure of cryptonomex (does anyone else think fireproof crypto when they say that)  My viewpoint is once again that the position of bitshares is made stronger by the license.  As of 0.9.2 if Toast of Vikram or BM or any of the other developers got fed up they could fork the code, and directly compete.  Perhaps attempt to bring in some corporate sponsors.  After 2.0, they would not be able to do that without the permission of cryptonomex.  This makes knowing who is ultimately responsible for making licensing decisions on behalf of cryptonomex very important.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: wallace on June 15, 2015, 06:25:24 am

I think it's pretty crazy how ready people can be to read the worst into every statement and look for conspiracies everywhere. If you actually think BM and the rest of the team are looking for ways to stab BTS in the back then I'm not sure what planet you're from.

I think this is more than a matter of 'trust BM and team'.  We are talking about a real legal corporate entity called 'Cryptomex'.  It has its own set of Directors and Sharesholders.  We do not know if BM is a major sharesholder (with voting rights) in Cryptomex and therefore has a major say in it.  Nor do we know if BM would continue to keep his major stake in Cryptomex (and not sell his shares) if he was indeed a major shareholder.  Any other external person who takes over as a major shareholder can vote out BM and team, and change the direction of Cryptomex.  There is nothing to stop Cryptomex to develop a competing chain, or chains, since it owns all the rights to bitshares.  We need clarity on the structure of Cryptomex.

 +5%
personally I will always trust BM, but Cryptonomex is a company, it will have complex conflicts of interest in future.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: betax on June 15, 2015, 08:33:33 am

I think it's pretty crazy how ready people can be to read the worst into every statement and look for conspiracies everywhere. If you actually think BM and the rest of the team are looking for ways to stab BTS in the back then I'm not sure what planet you're from.

I think this is more than a matter of 'trust BM and team'.  We are talking about a real legal corporate entity called 'Cryptomex'.  It has its own set of Directors and Sharesholders.  We do not know if BM is a major sharesholder (with voting rights) in Cryptomex and therefore has a major say in it.  Nor do we know if BM would continue to keep his major stake in Cryptomex (and not sell his shares) if he was indeed a major shareholder.  Any other external person who takes over as a major shareholder can vote out BM and team, and change the direction of Cryptomex.  There is nothing to stop Cryptomex to develop a competing chain, or chains, since it owns all the rights to bitshares.  We need clarity on the structure of Cryptomex.

 +5%
personally I will always trust BM, but Cryptonomex is a company, it will have complex conflicts of interest in future.

Exactly, I believe Cryptonomex should be able to do consultancy, but the license fees should be distributed to Bitshare holders, this should be part of the license / contract. Even better all license fees (as somebody mentioned) should be in BTS and burnt later on, this will ensure the future of Bitshares and everybody's including devs which have the biggest stake.

If a company would ever want to start a private chain, they will pay consultancy fees from Cryptonomex and buy a license using BTS (burning) win / win situation. Any improvements on the code / new features could be offset of the license fee (as workers). This will also encourage improvements for generic parts and a market for new features.

Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: cass on June 15, 2015, 09:08:44 am
BM has said BTS will get full use of the Graphene toolkit, and all this talk of multiledgers for "demultiplexing" is just a strawman, if it ever comes to to that it means BTS is successful enough to pay for it itself.

Also, by that point it might even be time for a rewrite of the technology (potentially even in a new language, e.g. Rust). Cryptonomex doesn't (and cannot) own the protocol. At that point BTS could easily fund some talented devs (maybe these would be devs who formerly worked for the company Cryptonomex, or maybe they are just other talented devs) to write a copyfree licensed implementation of the protocol (or a slightly modified protocol we hard fork to that is better suited to the improvements in the technology) and at that point whatever license Cryptonomex has with Graphene would be irrelevant.

I would love it if Graphene was copyfree licensed already (even with the added risk of making it easier for clones to copy our technology and try to compete with better marketing). But from what I understand, BitShares is not large enough yet for that strategy to increase our chances of BitShares becoming successful. Our low market cap means we cannot afford to pay the devs their fair market rate (even when we take into account that we can fire all marketing delegates because they can now be compensated with the referral system that is supported with higher fees). So the license structure Cryptonomex came up with seems to be a compromise that lets us stakeholders still have a lot of control over the future of BitShares but also allows the devs to get other sources of revenue so that they can continue to innovate on the technology at full speed. I find this compromise to be pragmatic and acceptable. Although, I would like it if we could eventually transition to something like a copyfree license when BitShares is larger (bigger market cap, bigger network effect) without needing to work around Cryptonomex by hiring other devs to reimplement the protocol from scratch (however having multiple implementations of the same protocol is a good thing to eventually do anyway for multiple reasons).

 +5%
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: klosure on June 15, 2015, 09:18:58 am
Here is the deal, "BitShares" as not a legal entity and cannot "own" IP.    I personally do not recognize IP, but most people do including some of those who have contributed to BTS source code.
The public domain is the legal entity that owns BitShares IP. It's a very real legal entity and you are infringing on its rights by trying to alienate its enjoyment of the intellectual properties it owns.

Beside your stance regarding BitShares legal status is inconsistent and changes depending on the point you are trying to make. It's not a legal entity when it's about stripping it from it's intellectual property. But when you are pitching BitShares 2.0 BitShares is a well defined entity that can be the legal recipient of a software license with all the guarantees that this implies. That doesn't add up. If BitShares is not a legal entity, there is no way that you can make a software licence that will legally entitle BitShares to unlimited use of Graphene since BitShares is something that can't quite be define legally. That means that the exclusive license is a castle of cards that won't stand in court.

So let's be clear here and stop sugar coating.

BitShares not being a legal entity doesn't own the intellectual property but that doesn't mean that the core developers own it instead. As per the original license under which BitShares was released, the property rights to the work belong to the public domain. Authors retain only the moral rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights).

BitShares not being a legal entity cannot be protected by any software license whatsoever, so all the reassuring guarantees of exclusive and illimited licensing are hollow promises that can be revoked on a whim by Cryptonomex and won't stand in court.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Riverhead on June 15, 2015, 09:35:38 am
The public domain is the legal entity that owns BitShares IP. It's a very real legal entity and you are infringing on its rights by trying to alienate its enjoyment of the intellectual properties it owns.

BitShares is an overloaded term. There is BitShares the protocol (1), BitShares the toolkit (2), and BitShares the populated blockchain (3) which is the store of value for this community.

1. BitShares the protocol: Public Domain
2. BitShares the toolkit: Public Domain?
3. BitShares the blockchain: ???

Cryptonomex is pitching a better (2) that fully implements (1) in the hopes that (3) will adopt it. Is it not the case that someone else in the future could implement a different (2) and try to sell it to (3)? It would be the community's job at that point to decide what to do, again, and the delegate's job (and by extension the witnesses) to either follow the desires of the shareholders or get fired.

edits: Typos and grammar.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: klosure on June 15, 2015, 10:22:10 am
The public domain is the legal entity that owns BitShares IP. It's a very real legal entity and you are infringing on its rights by trying to alienate its enjoyment of the intellectual properties it owns.

BitShares is an overloaded term. There is BitShares the protocol (1), BitShares the toolkit (2), and BitShares the populated blockchain (3) which is the store of value for this community.

1. BitShares the protocol: Public Domain
2. BitShares the toolkit: Public Domain?
3. BitShares the blockchain: ???

Cryptonomex is pitching a better (2) that fully implements (1) in the hopes that (3) will adopt it. Is it not the case that someone else in the future could implement a different (2) and try to sell it to (3)? It would be the community's job at that point to decide what to do, again, and the delegate's job (and by extension the witnesses) to either follow the desires of the shareholders or get fired.

edits: Typos and grammar.


Quote
https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares
The BitShares source code is in the public domain under the Unlicense. See the LICENSE for more information.

Regarding ownership of intellectual property, there are three cases out of which two are straightforward:
- All the code and ideas that are implemented in the code of the current BitShares project belong to the public domain as per the terms of the Unlicence under which it has been released. There is no way back on that, so Cryptonomex can't claim any particular rights on that code and set of ideas, and can't patent anything that makes the current BitShares protocol what it is since BitShares stands as prior art. The public keeps all rights of reuse of the existing code and owes nothing to Cryptonomex regardless of the claims they may make.
- All the code and ideas that are developped independently by Cryptonomex using its own funds and its own resources belongs to Cryptonomex and they may use and license it as they see fit.
- For all the code and ideas that hasn't been put in the public domain but has been developed prior to the incorporation of Cryptonomex or by individuals not affiliated to Cryptonomex at that time, and in particular when it could be shown that all funds meant to fund the development of BitShares hadn't been used yet, the ownership isn' clear. It may belong to its respective authors or to BitShares and therefore the public domain depending on exact circumstances. Although there really isn't much legal guidance about that case since BitShares isn't a legal entity and hasn't signed non-compete and disclosure of conflict of interests agreements, it would still be easy to show that appropriation by Cryptonomex of code which development was funded by the public for the purpose of releae in the  public domain would be unethical, so the outcome of an eventual judgement on the matter is anything but clear.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on June 15, 2015, 12:20:46 pm
The public domain is the legal entity that owns BitShares IP. It's a very real legal entity and you are infringing on its rights by trying to alienate its enjoyment of the intellectual properties it owns.

BitShares is an overloaded term. There is BitShares the protocol (1), BitShares the toolkit (2), and BitShares the populated blockchain (3) which is the store of value for this community.

1. BitShares the protocol: Public Domain
2. BitShares the toolkit: Public Domain?
3. BitShares the blockchain: ???

Cryptonomex is pitching a better (2) that fully implements (1) in the hopes that (3) will adopt it. Is it not the case that someone else in the future could implement a different (2) and try to sell it to (3)? It would be the community's job at that point to decide what to do, again, and the delegate's job (and by extension the witnesses) to either follow the desires of the shareholders or get fired.

edits: Typos and grammar.

I was thinking this myself this morning. I have seen about 99% of the negative stuff be due to mostly people jumping to foregone conclusions. They get focused on one sprocket and don't see how the others that drive it make it work the way it needs to. There is a lot to gasp, and for a lot of people all it takes is one person to come along with over the top fear loaded words to spark cries that the whole system doesn't work out of analysis of one sprocket. So it gets wrapped up in the loaded term 'BitShares' and we all see people go on about it without really going on about it.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: maqifrnswa on June 15, 2015, 01:29:03 pm
Here is the deal, "BitShares" as not a legal entity and cannot "own" IP.    I personally do not recognize IP, but most people do including some of those who have contributed to BTS source code.
The public domain is the legal entity that owns BitShares IP. It's a very real legal entity and you are infringing on its rights by trying to alienate its enjoyment of the intellectual properties it owns.

Public domain is not a legal entity, nor is it even a license granted to anyone. It is just the relinquishing of copyright. It is impossible to infringe on the rights of the public domain. You can't prosecute anyone for violating anything because there is nothing to violate and no one with standing to enforce. It is perfectly legal to take public domain software and charge people $100 to download it from you.

Quote
Beside your stance regarding BitShares legal status is inconsistent and changes depending on the point you are trying to make. It's not a legal entity when it's about stripping it from it's intellectual property. But when you are pitching BitShares 2.0 BitShares is a well defined entity that can be the legal recipient of a software license with all the guarantees that this implies. That doesn't add up. If BitShares is not a legal entity, there is no way that you can make a software licence that will legally entitle BitShares to unlimited use of Graphene since BitShares is something that can't quite be define legally. That means that the exclusive license is a castle of cards that won't stand in court.

You are right here, this needs to be cleaned up. Graphene should NOT be licensed to BitShares since BitShares doesn't exist. instead, it should be licensed to the end users/future developers/anyone that downloads the code who are free to modify, distribute, and use with no restriction provided it is used with the longest bitshares blockchain. That is fine, and will stand up in court.

Quote
So let's be clear here and stop sugar coating.

BitShares not being a legal entity doesn't own the intellectual property but that doesn't mean that the core developers own it instead. As per the original license under which BitShares was released, the property rights to the work belong to the public domain. Authors retain only the moral rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights).

Yes, that is correct - but I don't see what the problem is. No one is claiming ownsership of the original bitshares code, just the as-of-yet unreleased modifications. That is perfectly legal (provided the funding came from independent sources and development)

Quote
BitShares not being a legal entity cannot be protected by any software license whatsoever, so all the reassuring guarantees of exclusive and illimited licensing are hollow promises that can be revoked on a whim by Cryptonomex and won't stand in court.

You are correct, the license is not TO bitshares but given to the users and future developers of bitshares. Those are not hollow promises and those do stand up in court.


Regarding ownership of intellectual property, there are three cases out of which two are straightforward:
- All the code and ideas that are implemented in the code of the current BitShares project belong to the public domain as per the terms of the Unlicence under which it has been released. There is no way back on that, so Cryptonomex can't claim any particular rights on that code and set of ideas, and can't patent anything that makes the current BitShares protocol what it is since BitShares stands as prior art. The public keeps all rights of reuse of the existing code and owes nothing to Cryptonomex regardless of the claims they may make.
Yes
Quote
- All the code and ideas that are developped independently by Cryptonomex using its own funds and its own resources belongs to Cryptonomex and they may use and license it as they see fit.
Yes
Quote
- For all the code and ideas that hasn't been put in the public domain but has been developed prior to the incorporation of Cryptonomex or by individuals not affiliated to Cryptonomex at that time, and in particular when it could be shown that all funds meant to fund the development of BitShares hadn't been used yet, the ownership isn' clear. It may belong to its respective authors or to BitShares and therefore the public domain depending on exact circumstances. Although there really isn't much legal guidance about that case since BitShares isn't a legal entity and hasn't signed non-compete and disclosure of conflict of interests agreements, it would still be easy to show that appropriation by Cryptonomex of code which development was funded by the public for the purpose of releae in the  public domain would be unethical, so the outcome of an eventual judgement on the matter is anything but clear.
(highlighting by me) That is where the problem can exist. Usually companies set up systems to not contaminate development of one funding source with another. I'm assuming that the reason cryptonomex was set up was to isolate I3's work (public domain) from the new work (cryptonomex)
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: klosure on June 15, 2015, 04:00:12 pm
I was thinking this myself this morning. I have seen about 99% of the negative stuff be due to mostly people jumping to foregone conclusions. They get focused on one sprocket and don't see how the others that drive it make it work the way it needs to. There is a lot to gasp, and for a lot of people all it takes is one person to come along with over the top fear loaded words to spark cries that the whole system doesn't work out of analysis of one sprocket. So it gets wrapped up in the loaded term 'BitShares' and we all see people go on about it without really going on about it.

That's what you get when you make people face a fait accompli instead of consulting them in early stage.
The fact no comprehensive information has been released together with the announcement doesn't make things any better.
It's a bit desingenuous to complain that people focus on one sprocket when all there is to see is that sprocket.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: d3adh3ad on June 15, 2015, 04:21:30 pm
Cryptonomex is about to show the world that the problems that plague Bitcoin (paralysis in block size debate and inability to move forward) do not affect Bitshares. Relax everyone. Current system allows you to either adopt the change or not and you will. It will be fine.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Thom on June 15, 2015, 05:10:51 pm
Actually I believe much of this discussion is a recurrence of the same issue the Larimers have repeatedly demonstrated a weakness in: PR.

If Stan / Dan had selected a trusted subset of delegates from the community to act as a PR review board, rather than put the responsibility for making that happen on someone else, this discussion could have been diffused into the community in a much smoother fashion or avoided altogether, given enough time to process the interests of the various parties involved.

I keep harping on this point b/c it isn't acknowledged or discussed, yet it is central to every major decision (merger, going silent, abandoning old code base and moving to graphene, the creation of Cryptonomex to fund core devs, using IP licensing as a means of protecting the BitShares ecosystem...) where controversy arises.

The core dev team needs a solution to this problem, and I see no changes in the short term to correct it. After 2.0 is released and the core devs abdicate their delegate positions and the leadership of this ecosystem becomes truly and 100% transparent, there will be no such surprises. Not saying there will be no controversy after 2.0, only that all issues will be out in the open.

Until then we'll just have to discuss / react / negotiate with Cryptonomex, now that they have disclosed their intentions. What is still undisclosed is the influences at work (i.e. investors) within Cryptonomex. Are there other options we haven't explored to achieve protection without IP? Would those option be acceptable to Cryptonomex's investors?

At some point we need to hear from BM (Does he represent Cryptonomex?) to address the concerns raised by the community. Perhaps it's too early and they are waiting for the discussion to subside to come to a consensus on what the issues are before they engage.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: Agent86 on June 15, 2015, 05:44:29 pm
Maybe something like copyright respective authors, licensed for use with Bitshares is a step in right direction?... that way other people can contribute code to the project for the specific benefit of BitShares while they retain their own right to use their own code that they contributed rather than giving it all to Cryptonomex which seems harsh.
Title: Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
Post by: bobmaloney on June 15, 2015, 06:18:03 pm
So I thought that overall the announcement went really well but unfortunately it only took newmine and his new brother in arms klosure a couple posts to get the pitchforks out.

I think it's pretty crazy how ready people can be to read the worst into every statement and look for conspiracies everywhere. If you actually think BM and the rest of the team are looking for ways to stab BTS in the back then I'm not sure what planet you're from. Not only do they have lots of stake (though fortunately nowhere near what Ripple Labs has for Ripple), it's also their baby, the fruit of their vision and blood and sweat, and the future showcase of their technology. I reckon the interests of Bitshares and its main devs have never been as well aligned as this.

BM has said BTS will get full use of the Graphene toolkit, and all this talk of multiledgers for "demultiplexing" is just a strawman, if it ever comes to to that it means BTS is successful enough to pay for it itself.

I don't see it that way.

I think most people here with legitimate concerns (by now I think most of us know who to read, who to consider and who to skip) are over Cryptonomex as a company.

We don't know the ownership percentages - what little we do know is from the mumble - that bytemaster doesn't own 51%.

But how much do the angels own? Who are they?  What are their goals? Interests? Alignment?  This matters.

bytemaster's claim that they plan to diversify holdings is somewhat bothersome as well and a lot of that part of the mumble came off as kind of like - (not a quote) 'well, things are different now - we are Cryptonomex, you're not - so it's none of your business'

Yes, that is bothersome - and this is coming from someone who has been here since the beginning and trusted in the devs through every minor crisis to date.

If the diversification is short term, to pay for rather immediate expenses - OK, but if Cryptonomex is truly all-in on BTS - their holdings should reflect that.

Also - who is Cryptonomex?

What makes the team? I've been looking for a team page and have yet to find it.

Is Toast part of Cryptonomex? Vikram? Agent86? theoretical? who? - is there a link I'm not seeing?

Again, I think most concerned here have a tremendous amount of trust and faith in the Larimer's and the rest of the dev team, but we have yet to be convinced that Cryptonomex is not something that can run away from them.

I really hope to get some reassuring answers soon. We have our first Bay Area meetup on Thursday and I'm sure most of us have had enough of a hard time trying to get up to speed with the technical and operational 2.0 changes - I really would like this issue to be worked out before being blindsided by a newb with interest and not having an answer.

Lastly, thanks again to everybody in this community - from the devs to the lurkers who show up for 1 or 2 important posts. The last 18 months have been the most optimistic I have ever been that the next 100 years will be one of enlightenment and abundance.