0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: fuzzy on June 16, 2015, 12:31:07 pmQuote from: Tuck Fheman on June 16, 2015, 07:47:25 amQuote from: BitcoinJesus2.O on June 16, 2015, 04:03:01 amOnce 2.0 is launched, immediately propose reverting back to 9.2then see what happens.That damn gif...is probably the best I've ever seen.Wait 'til the acid kicks in.
Quote from: Tuck Fheman on June 16, 2015, 07:47:25 amQuote from: BitcoinJesus2.O on June 16, 2015, 04:03:01 amOnce 2.0 is launched, immediately propose reverting back to 9.2then see what happens.That damn gif...is probably the best I've ever seen.
Quote from: BitcoinJesus2.O on June 16, 2015, 04:03:01 amOnce 2.0 is launched, immediately propose reverting back to 9.2then see what happens.
Once 2.0 is launched, immediately propose reverting back to 9.2then see what happens.
No one is irreplaceable. If the current dev team decides to move on, the right thing to do as an organization is to accept it and start looking for other developers, not denature the project in a desperate attempt to keep them onboard. It doesn't cost anything to start calling for volunteers to form a new dev team so why not give it a shot before making a decision that we could regret?
I'm still a bull, but I have to admit I'm also a bit of an idealogue so when there is a discussion I try my best to see both sides--I mean anyone can see that from my chosen format for our hangouts! In my mind, approaching these issues without putting others down. ..and trying to be solution oriented is important. It will make our community stronger. Ironically it isn't all that different from a marriage...if a couple doesn't work through the elephant in the room, the elephant just grows until it gets dangerous for all involved. ..and far harder to remove later. So let's be willing to work through our frustrations because ultimately like Stan said, they have MANY more announcements coming this summer. ..and he said it with a giddy smile.
WAKE UP guys, I am new here, but it is by far the best community I found... After all you have been through, you should not even consider "NOT TO" like cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0 you shall no doubt.... You shall thank them for not having turn down the HUGE WORK done, they NEVER let us down!!!We have such an edge on ALL the cryptocurrency world and some of you just want to flush it down the toilet ... you are insane!!!!!!!!!!!!As for me,Thank you BM, Long Life Cryptonomex, AND WELCOME BITSHARES 2.0!
you guys aren't signing a non-compete clause that would prevent you from working on similar technology after leaving the company, right?
Thank you BM, Long Life Cryptonomex, AND WELCOME BITSHARES 2.0!
Quote from: Ander on June 15, 2015, 09:34:59 pmYes. It was always the case that if BM and team announced "we are done with Bitshares, goodbye", then the project would be pretty much done for. Bitshares is not at bitcoin levels of adoption where many others could arise and carry on.Qora has a tiny fraction of the BitShares market cap and when their founder and only dev up and left for personal reasons, Qora became many times stronger in a very short time. Qora has a dev "team" now, working for free or off donations from random hodlers or they hodl Qora themselves. I don't think BitShares would have any problems obtaining a new, very competent, dev team if Dan left and I'll assume one or two other current devs would stick around regardless.
Yes. It was always the case that if BM and team announced "we are done with Bitshares, goodbye", then the project would be pretty much done for. Bitshares is not at bitcoin levels of adoption where many others could arise and carry on.
That being said, I wouldn't choose to replace Dan with anyone else I currently know.
Quote from: Thom on June 16, 2015, 03:35:46 amQuote from: Stan on June 16, 2015, 01:15:58 am9. Please observe the complete series of announcements we make this summer before you judge our commitment to BitShares success. Thanks for your post Stan. For the record I have never questioned your devotion to BitShares success. The I3 team has a weakness in the PR department, and have made a few bad decisions IMO. I don't expect perfection, but the same type of mistakes are being repeated. It would instill more confidence if we would see an acknowledgement and that steps are being taken to correct them, but I don't expect that's going to happen.The project is extremely challenging to manage, I recognize that. All I can do is offer my personal perspective. What you do with it is your choice. The collective voice of the community will indicate whether you have chosen well, if you are able to hear it. It's not clear to me that I3 values or respects the voice of the community, based on the lack of discussion on important topics prior to asserting a position. That's not always the case tho. I recall a tremendous amount of discussion and debate concerning the merger back in Nov. before it was final. You and BM were quite active in the discussions.Regarding the current 2.0 roll out I see it as a mixed bag. It doesn't seem as well thought out as I thought it would be. Being thought out is not the same thing as having every last detail settled and decided, but it does mean that the majority of the uncertainties are at least identified. I would like to see a more systematic approach to what is settled and what remains to be settled, in an organized, prioritized format. You know, like engineers like to do. Well, most engineers anyway.It's an over-constrained problem requiring the balancing of many, many factors.When you do such tradeoffs no single "design parameter" can be maximized.Those who don't live this 24x7 often point out where individual parameters are not maximized.We look at where we are as pretty near optimum given everything that had to be balanced.And its going to be a great summer!Announcement 2 is coming up tomorrow.
Quote from: Stan on June 16, 2015, 01:15:58 am9. Please observe the complete series of announcements we make this summer before you judge our commitment to BitShares success. Thanks for your post Stan. For the record I have never questioned your devotion to BitShares success. The I3 team has a weakness in the PR department, and have made a few bad decisions IMO. I don't expect perfection, but the same type of mistakes are being repeated. It would instill more confidence if we would see an acknowledgement and that steps are being taken to correct them, but I don't expect that's going to happen.The project is extremely challenging to manage, I recognize that. All I can do is offer my personal perspective. What you do with it is your choice. The collective voice of the community will indicate whether you have chosen well, if you are able to hear it. It's not clear to me that I3 values or respects the voice of the community, based on the lack of discussion on important topics prior to asserting a position. That's not always the case tho. I recall a tremendous amount of discussion and debate concerning the merger back in Nov. before it was final. You and BM were quite active in the discussions.Regarding the current 2.0 roll out I see it as a mixed bag. It doesn't seem as well thought out as I thought it would be. Being thought out is not the same thing as having every last detail settled and decided, but it does mean that the majority of the uncertainties are at least identified. I would like to see a more systematic approach to what is settled and what remains to be settled, in an organized, prioritized format. You know, like engineers like to do. Well, most engineers anyway.
9. Please observe the complete series of announcements we make this summer before you judge our commitment to BitShares success.
Quote from: mike623317 on June 16, 2015, 02:35:00 amWhat if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0? - ... leaveCan't deny it. This is actually not a bad way of responding if people don't like it. I'm not going to tell anyone to leave though because this community is one of the best in crypto...at least to me it is.
What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0? - ... leave
i maybe dumb ....but what if I change every written code to achieve the same function while there is no way that you can call me copy , will that still be IP violation ? while copying all the idea .
Quote from: fav on June 15, 2015, 09:00:46 pmWithout BM & team BitShares is probably dead, and we can't blame them if they want to get paid for their work. Yes. It was always the case that if BM and team announced "we are done with Bitshares, goodbye", then the project would be pretty much done for. Bitshares is not at bitcoin levels of adoption where many others could arise and carry on....
Without BM & team BitShares is probably dead, and we can't blame them if they want to get paid for their work.
Let me try to clear a few of these up:...
In case you don't watch the show, it's a good thing.
6. ALL of the current stakeholders in Cryptonomex are members of the global BitShares community who invested their own time and/or money to make Graphene possible.
Quote from: Stan on June 16, 2015, 01:15:58 amLet me try to clear a few of these up:1. Invictus ran out of donated BTC at the end of last year. All PTS was returned on advice of our accountants.2. During recent months 100% delegates have earned about 4277 BTS * $0.006 = $25 per day. (BitShares paid for 1/2 hour every day)(Enough for them to answer a few questions or fix a simple bug every day or so.)3. By dipping into our BTS reserves set aside for legal, accounting, and government contingencies, I3 was able to provide a small stipend for some of them amounting to about 3 paid hours per day. To meet the rest of their living expenses, they were forced to live off their savings from last year.4. This left them somewhere around 8 unpaid hours a day as independent agents. With this time, the team continued to provide essential updates for BitShares and worked on Graphene with the hope of producing something of value that could be used to recover all their sacrificed pay. This was a huge gamble. It would have been smarter to take a job at Google, use their new salaries to buy up cheap BTS. Instead they stuck with it. Net cash flow during all this time was from the developers to BitShares, not the other way around.5. When it became clear that Graphene would be a success, the team decided to build a new company to monetize it and recover their painful losses.6. ALL of the current stakeholders in Cryptonomex are members of the global BitShares community who invested their own time and/or money to make Graphene possible.In case you don't watch the show, it's a good thing.
Let me try to clear a few of these up:1. Invictus ran out of donated BTC at the end of last year. All PTS was returned on advice of our accountants.2. During recent months 100% delegates have earned about 4277 BTS * $0.006 = $25 per day. (BitShares paid for 1/2 hour every day)(Enough for them to answer a few questions or fix a simple bug every day or so.)3. By dipping into our BTS reserves set aside for legal, accounting, and government contingencies, I3 was able to provide a small stipend for some of them amounting to about 3 paid hours per day. To meet the rest of their living expenses, they were forced to live off their savings from last year.4. This left them somewhere around 8 unpaid hours a day as independent agents. With this time, the team continued to provide essential updates for BitShares and worked on Graphene with the hope of producing something of value that could be used to recover all their sacrificed pay. This was a huge gamble. It would have been smarter to take a job at Google, use their new salaries to buy up cheap BTS. Instead they stuck with it. Net cash flow during all this time was from the developers to BitShares, not the other way around.5. When it became clear that Graphene would be a success, the team decided to build a new company to monetize it and recover their painful losses.6. ALL of the current stakeholders in Cryptonomex are members of the global BitShares community who invested their own time and/or money to make Graphene possible.
Quote from: fuzzy on June 16, 2015, 12:33:21 amI mean...let's face it. Even PTS still is in the top 65 of all altcoins...so just imagine what people will begin thinking about bitcoin's fate when there are 20-30 different bitshares-powered chains in the top 100 on coinmarketcap...and one is very similar to their own philosophies...My belief is that people should be free to exist in the system they feel best matches their personality. If they are an anarchist, they should have a bitshares version that reflects that...as long as they have devs who will support it. If they are communist...or socialist.. the same applies.Why? Because the MOST value comes from synergies between PEOPLE with like minds and similar passions...not a given system of belief that forces everyone to join or face punishment.Do the devs really think this would hurt them in the long run? I can't see how it could...because ultimately they are going to all want to be snatched up and paid large sums of money for being capable of innovating to the level this team has accomplished...so even if there are 100 dpos chains like bitshares...but with different devs and philosophies...guess who is going to be in the history books for creating the crypto gold standard DPOS would become? You got it....the devs! I'm sure they will find work making plenty of money...and will be able to look at these days as "paying their dues" to earn a reputation of gold in a very lucrative industry.What did Bruce Lee say again? Oh yeh..."Be like Linux, my friend"...or something like that Now is not the time to divide. Sent from my Timex Sinclair
I mean...let's face it. Even PTS still is in the top 65 of all altcoins...so just imagine what people will begin thinking about bitcoin's fate when there are 20-30 different bitshares-powered chains in the top 100 on coinmarketcap...and one is very similar to their own philosophies...My belief is that people should be free to exist in the system they feel best matches their personality. If they are an anarchist, they should have a bitshares version that reflects that...as long as they have devs who will support it. If they are communist...or socialist.. the same applies.Why? Because the MOST value comes from synergies between PEOPLE with like minds and similar passions...not a given system of belief that forces everyone to join or face punishment.Do the devs really think this would hurt them in the long run? I can't see how it could...because ultimately they are going to all want to be snatched up and paid large sums of money for being capable of innovating to the level this team has accomplished...so even if there are 100 dpos chains like bitshares...but with different devs and philosophies...guess who is going to be in the history books for creating the crypto gold standard DPOS would become? You got it....the devs! I'm sure they will find work making plenty of money...and will be able to look at these days as "paying their dues" to earn a reputation of gold in a very lucrative industry.What did Bruce Lee say again? Oh yeh..."Be like Linux, my friend"...or something like that
Quote from: Stan on June 16, 2015, 01:15:58 amLet me try to clear a few of these up:1. Invictus ran out of donated BTC at the end of last year. All PTS was returned on advice of our accountants.2. During recent months 100% delegates have earned about 4277 BTS * $0.006 = $25 per day. (BitShares paid for 1/2 hour every day)(Enough for them to answer a few questions or fix a simple bug every day or so.)3. By dipping into our BTS reserves set aside for legal, accounting, and government contingencies, I3 was able to provide a small stipend for some of them amounting to about 3 paid hours per day. To meet the rest of their living expenses, they were forced to live off their savings from last year.4. This left them somewhere around 8 unpaid hours a day as independent agents. With this time, the team continued to provide essential updates for BitShares and worked on Graphene with the hope of producing something of value that could be used to recover all their sacrificed pay. This was a huge gamble. It would have been smarter to take a job at Google, use their new salaries to buy up cheap BTS. Instead they stuck with it. Net cash flow during all this time was from the developers to BitShares, not the other way around.5. When it became clear that Graphene would be a success, the team decided to build a new company to monetize it and recover their painful losses.6. ALL of the current stakeholders in Cryptonomex are members of the global BitShares community who invested their own time and/or money to make Graphene possible.7. It is CNX intention to use the results of these risky investments to raise additional capital and capture new revenue streams. To do that, we need to have a company that owns something that merits such investment. That's why we have the license structure you see. Failure to assert those IP rights would mean that BitShares would need to find developers able to take Graphene the rest of the way for $25/day. We were, alas, not able to find anybody willing to continue doing that.8. For the foreseeable future we expect to continue using such outside investments to grow the BitShares ecosystem in a way that incentivizes investment in CNX.9. Please observe the complete series of announcements we make this summer before you judge our commitment to BitShares success.
Let me try to clear a few of these up:1. Invictus ran out of donated BTC at the end of last year. All PTS was returned on advice of our accountants.2. During recent months 100% delegates have earned about 4277 BTS * $0.006 = $25 per day. (BitShares paid for 1/2 hour every day)(Enough for them to answer a few questions or fix a simple bug every day or so.)3. By dipping into our BTS reserves set aside for legal, accounting, and government contingencies, I3 was able to provide a small stipend for some of them amounting to about 3 paid hours per day. To meet the rest of their living expenses, they were forced to live off their savings from last year.4. This left them somewhere around 8 unpaid hours a day as independent agents. With this time, the team continued to provide essential updates for BitShares and worked on Graphene with the hope of producing something of value that could be used to recover all their sacrificed pay. This was a huge gamble. It would have been smarter to take a job at Google, use their new salaries to buy up cheap BTS. Instead they stuck with it. Net cash flow during all this time was from the developers to BitShares, not the other way around.5. When it became clear that Graphene would be a success, the team decided to build a new company to monetize it and recover their painful losses.6. ALL of the current stakeholders in Cryptonomex are members of the global BitShares community who invested their own time and/or money to make Graphene possible.7. It is CNX intention to use the results of these risky investments to raise additional capital and capture new revenue streams. To do that, we need to have a company that owns something that merits such investment. That's why we have the license structure you see. Failure to assert those IP rights would mean that BitShares would need to find developers able to take Graphene the rest of the way for $25/day. We were, alas, not able to find anybody willing to continue doing that.8. For the foreseeable future we expect to continue using such outside investments to grow the BitShares ecosystem in a way that incentivizes investment in CNX.9. Please observe the complete series of announcements we make this summer before you judge our commitment to BitShares success.
Quote from: fav on June 15, 2015, 09:00:46 pmWithout BM & team BitShares is probably dead, and we can't blame them if they want to get paid for their work. ^THIS.However, the OP of this new thread avoids many other issues being discussed.EDIT: For the record I started drafting this post prior to the 20 that were posted before this one appeared!AGS / PTSFor those that claim AGS / PTS investors have an expectation of ownership I say they shouldn't. It was all a donation based contribution to fund the creation of the BitShares ecosystem. You can split hairs on whether that has been accomplished but in my book it was. Is it perfect? No. Could it be improved? Of course, but that's always true. So what?Have all of those funds been spent? If so when did they run out, before or after work on graphene was well underway?This issue keeps coming up. Many never really backed the merger and many have since changed their minds about it. Although all funds collected through AGS / PTS had no contractual, official obligations, we all know that was necessary to keep the dev staff legal. That made it an issue of trust and integrity that I3 would do what they claimed. If the trust wasn't there the investments wouldn't have been either. The way people measure integrity is subjective. Some people feel that trust was violated. That is one reason why this issue keeps recurring.Current Funding of Dev StaffWhat about the delegate pay the devs are receiving right now? Is that bonus money to develop 2.0? Is it repaying a perceived deficit from low marketcap? Going towards 0.9.x expenses? Just what are those exactly? Some may feel they are subsidizing proprietary software development. Full disclosure about this doesn't seem unreasonable, but this issue hasn't been explicitly addressed. Controlling Interests of CryptonomexThe community has not been fully informed about Cryptonomex's obligations. CNX is a new entity but we are largely in the dark about it and that makes some people nervous. What conditions did the investors of Cryptonomex require to fund the company? Are those obligations in conflict with past expectations (implied) for BitShares? To say the community should have a strong sense of gratitude towards BM & the core devs for the very existence of this ecosystem is a major understatement. Are they being generous towards this community or only trying to protect their own investments of time & money? I think it's a bit of both, and I see nothing wrong with that.I am surprised by the lack of depth of the OP in dealing with the issues raised in various threads, including these.
Quote from: klosure on June 15, 2015, 10:11:25 pmSovereignty means "having supreme power of authority over a domain". How exactly would we (the holders of BTS) be losing our sovereignty when we have never had "sovereignty" over the BTS code to begin with? BitShares code, up to this point, has always been public domain. Nobody has sovereignty over it, anyone can use it for any reason, that's the whole point of public domain. Sovereignty isn't usually a concept used with code so it should be obvious that its usage was rhetorical and not meant to lead to ethimological debate. Using code which property rights we don't own and that we aren't allowed to license and reuse is very much akin to a loss of sovereignty as compared to the current situation where we can do as we see fit with the code base.
Sovereignty means "having supreme power of authority over a domain". How exactly would we (the holders of BTS) be losing our sovereignty when we have never had "sovereignty" over the BTS code to begin with? BitShares code, up to this point, has always been public domain. Nobody has sovereignty over it, anyone can use it for any reason, that's the whole point of public domain.
Quote from: Ander on June 15, 2015, 10:42:46 pmThe community ending up split between two chains would be a disaster, imo. It looks bad to outsiders, its very confusing, and it means that people are needlessly duplicating effort instead of working together.Lets avoid that.That happened between Ripple and Stellar. It wasn't at all a disaster.If each chain has a well identifiable brand, people will just perceive SmartCoin/Graphene/CryptonomexCoin as a new currency from the award winning creators of BitShares and learn to like it for its own merits and hate it for its own defaults.The problem in that partiular case of BitShares is that BitShares always defined itself as a free software project with libertarian leanings so doing a 180 degree turn to become a proprietary project with commercial endeavour is likely to get it red flagged beyond repair in the crypto community. Look at the amount of flak Ripple got for doing things not remotely as controverrsial as what we are discussing now...
The community ending up split between two chains would be a disaster, imo. It looks bad to outsiders, its very confusing, and it means that people are needlessly duplicating effort instead of working together.Lets avoid that.
Quote from: Ander on June 15, 2015, 11:50:33 pmklosure, the dev team has never intended to develop Bitshares for free, while they starve. They have always planned to develop Bitshares for a reasonable salary so that they can survive while doing it.Part 1 2013 - Nov 2014: AGS funding via bitcoin donations. It was initially hoped that this would last as long as needed (until Bitshares grew big). But instead of continuing to increase, Bitcoin crashed.Part 2: Nov 2014 - May 2015: Paid delegates. It was then hoped that for a couple percent inflaiton a year, Bitshares could support its own development through the paid delegate system. However, the bitshares market cap dropped another 80%, and what could have been a workable wage became very small.Part 3: June 2015 on: Cryptonomex. The developers make money with their new software/consulting company to pay the bills. While they do this, they also give all the software they make to Bitshares, to continue to develop it.That was my understanding of this whole thing.You and Newmine seem to have instead interpreted this as "they are trying to steal everything and screw us all". I will admit I'm not an expert in licenses, so it would be good to have a legal expert tell us whats up. If you don't like the idea of developers making any money while they develop a cryptocurrency, then maybe you should go join an altcoin community where devs work for free? There are plenty of them out there. However, most of them struggle.The most promising projects in crypto space, such as Ripple, Bitshares, Stellar, and Ethereum, have found a way to have funding and thus pay developers. (As far as I know). Since the original Bitshares funding money ran out they have had to improvise and this is part of that improvisation. The great thing about Cryptonomex, imo, is that it gets them funding without diluting BTS. You are like Kurt Russell's character at the end of Vanilla Sky.
klosure, the dev team has never intended to develop Bitshares for free, while they starve. They have always planned to develop Bitshares for a reasonable salary so that they can survive while doing it.Part 1 2013 - Nov 2014: AGS funding via bitcoin donations. It was initially hoped that this would last as long as needed (until Bitshares grew big). But instead of continuing to increase, Bitcoin crashed.Part 2: Nov 2014 - May 2015: Paid delegates. It was then hoped that for a couple percent inflaiton a year, Bitshares could support its own development through the paid delegate system. However, the bitshares market cap dropped another 80%, and what could have been a workable wage became very small.Part 3: June 2015 on: Cryptonomex. The developers make money with their new software/consulting company to pay the bills. While they do this, they also give all the software they make to Bitshares, to continue to develop it.That was my understanding of this whole thing.You and Newmine seem to have instead interpreted this as "they are trying to steal everything and screw us all". I will admit I'm not an expert in licenses, so it would be good to have a legal expert tell us whats up. If you don't like the idea of developers making any money while they develop a cryptocurrency, then maybe you should go join an altcoin community where devs work for free? There are plenty of them out there. However, most of them struggle.The most promising projects in crypto space, such as Ripple, Bitshares, Stellar, and Ethereum, have found a way to have funding and thus pay developers. (As far as I know). Since the original Bitshares funding money ran out they have had to improvise and this is part of that improvisation. The great thing about Cryptonomex, imo, is that it gets them funding without diluting BTS.
Cryptonomix gave us a choice: rather than using our current "inferior" but fully public domain software we could accept their gracious offering to give us a free license to the (still fully open-source) code that they have written over the last 4 months.
Quote from: klosure on June 15, 2015, 10:22:04 pmQuote from: CLains on June 15, 2015, 10:05:21 pmTo critics: Be real, offer a viable alternative otherwise you're just resenting reality.How can we propose viable alternatives if there is no debate in first place?Yeah that was a mistake, and for my part I have no doubt that you express a genuine concern. Now that you have expressed, from what I can tell, the alternative that they launch a new chain and give us 20% or something like that in it, here is how I see it: This alternative solution will remind people of the situation before the merger, with a lot of fragmentation, liquidity lost between cracks, a confusing mess for marketers and a lot of uncertainty. I doubt more than 5-10% of the stakeholders in this project would like this idea, but let us see what people think.
Quote from: CLains on June 15, 2015, 10:05:21 pmTo critics: Be real, offer a viable alternative otherwise you're just resenting reality.How can we propose viable alternatives if there is no debate in first place?
To critics: Be real, offer a viable alternative otherwise you're just resenting reality.
Quote from: CryptoPrometheus on June 15, 2015, 09:12:59 pmI would like to encourage everyone to consider that none of us "deserve" or are "entitled" to anything from our devs. Really, the only thing any of us "deserve" is the right to be compensated for our efforts.The debate isn't at all about who owns the code produced by Cryptonomex independently. We didn't even know that this code existed two weeks ago. The real debate is whether the proposed technical optimizations and continued support model justify losing our sovereignty on the code and straying away from our philosophical foundations and mission statement when it would be as easy to create a new chain and have the best of both worlds. This debate, the full disclosure of relevant information and the freedom to choose, that is what we are asking here, and this we are definitely entitled to it.
I would like to encourage everyone to consider that none of us "deserve" or are "entitled" to anything from our devs. Really, the only thing any of us "deserve" is the right to be compensated for our efforts.
Quote from: klosure on June 15, 2015, 09:30:42 pme question that you haven't addressed: why not launch the new chain under a new brand name (I've read some references to SmartCoin), all other things being equal? This wpuld allow the original Bitshare to keep going and fulfill its mission of enabling the development of an ecosystem of DACs so everyone is happy and we don't have to make an impossible choice.It isn't BM you need to convince. It's the delegates that have the choice to switch toolkits or not. If the delegates all decide to switch to the new licensed software you can find new delegates. Non-Graphene BitShares isn't going anywhere. Find some delegates to run the nodes and some developers to address the issues.
e question that you haven't addressed: why not launch the new chain under a new brand name (I've read some references to SmartCoin), all other things being equal? This wpuld allow the original Bitshare to keep going and fulfill its mission of enabling the development of an ecosystem of DACs so everyone is happy and we don't have to make an impossible choice.
If we get greater adoption and price rises, well then Bitshares blockchain could start affording to hire the core developers full time. Thus adding more value causing share price to rise and freeing up even more funds to add more value. SNOWBALL!
Quote from: sumantso on June 15, 2015, 09:52:01 pmPretty rough post from BM, sounds more like a veiled threat than anything.The threat is "we won't work for free"?
Pretty rough post from BM, sounds more like a veiled threat than anything.
Now one question that you haven't addressed: why not launch the new chain under a new brand name (I've read some references to SmartCoin), all other things being equal? This wpuld allow the original Bitshare to keep going and fulfill its mission of enabling the development of an ecosystem of DACs so everyone is happy and we don't have to make an impossible choice.
It hits my as paradoxical to create a thread to discuss concerns after you have summarily locked all the threads that were already actively discussing said concerns. So are we or not welcome to voice concerns? Should we stick to 1 ~ 4 or discussing other concerns is also allowed?
Something I have noticed is that a lot of people don't have any idea what "decentralized" really means or how it should operate. They seem to have some fanciful ideas that aren't based in social or economic realism and often seek to arbitrarily restrict certain parameters based on lack of true understanding about their nature. They go around projecting their limited understanding onto the world "outside", and end up either making a fool of themselves, or more often catalyzing others (who are equally unsure) towards greater chaos and confusion.For people who truly understand the situation and aren't blinded by greed or self interest, the actions of Cryptonomix are only reinforcing something we already know. I had no problem with the original Cryptonomex proposal, hell I didn't even really object to the November merger, but no doubt I will be accused of being a blind and "uncritical" fanboy.I would like to encourage everyone to consider that none of us "deserve" or are "entitled" to anything from our devs. Really, the only thing any of us "deserve" is the right to be compensated for our efforts. In BitShares history, they have never taken any of our money and explicitly offered something in return. Yet, once again they are now demonstrating a willingness to sacrifice their own time and energy (releasing all coding up to June 1st into public domain) for the greater good of the ecosystem. Are we ready to recognize that they, like the rest of us, have the right to be compensated for their labor?
1. Share Drops are still possible using the old toolkit
2. Share Drops are still possible using the new Graphene Toolkit, with CNX permission
4. BitShares community doesn't *have* to upgrade. It just needs to find new devs if it doesn't.
5. Graphene is a newer, better toolkit. A free (Public Domain) version is available.
6. When used for BitShares the software is effectively BSD licensed.