Quote from: barwizi on January 13, 2014, 01:30:19 pm

Well....game theory. I have been working on this and trying to fit it into the document. There are developments however that create problems..., fact is that by disallowing third parties to post their own bounties, the only customer is III. Now, bytemaster and i crafted the document with default trust to III meaning some parts no longer apply in this scenario. In order to keep the field clean I want to know if you will be maintaining that position. With III being the only customer by default, and III having default trust with regards to payment and assessment, it becomes a moot point to try and structure the document in a mutually beneficial way since all the power is already centralized by III. At best we can put applicants in a work together or fail situation but somehow i think it will introduce the cut-throat competition that bytemaster said should be discouraged at all cost.

Correct me if i am wrong.

You have the right idea here.  I will push Stan to follow up on this.     

please do so post haste, more bounties are being completed and although people appear to be following this format, we need to make it official for it to have any weight.

I am increasing the bounty on this to 1500 PTS.

lol, thanks.

Sorry for the delay getting this up. Also, I apologize for making my edits offline, it was simply easier for me to make the changes starting with a clean sheet of paper.  Barwiki, I used your draft as a starting point, fleshed out some of the concepts, and tried to polish the language.  The one issue that still needs to be addressed is the result of someone releasing a derivative DAC without honoring the social consensus.

This can be accessed by anyone with the link.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efD-6j2pGEech1o_rh24_wdj6fW71IemwSpqE0kErMw/edit?usp=sharing

I do not have permission to comment on the doc, so i'll post the comments here for the time being, please allow me to comment so we can keep this thread clean. 

“Decentralized Autonomous Corporation”, may be abbreviated as “DAC”, and shall mean a decentralized software program that employs blockchain technology to perform a traditionally centralized business function.

This definition is limiting in nature, by stating block chain you have limited the apllications useable with DACs. We use but are not limited to the block chain tech, some DACs will use a ledger system similar to ripple and i am working on a Posax implementation (still conceptual). Perhaps you can change it to be less limiting, the technologies we employ are various.

“Supply” refers to the maximum number of transferable units of a DAC, including but not limited to: shares, coins, tokens, or other units of value generally recognized as representing a quantifiable stake in a DAC.

This statement may require re-wording unless we change the consensus, the word used in the concensus is "money supply" and i think keeping the terms of reference makes the linked documents coherent.

note to bytemaster---- the website calls it the Bitshares Social Concensus, lets get our terms of reference in order.

Social Consensus
 
The DAC shall, in the genesis block, allocate the Supply as follows:
           
           at least 10%, proportionally to the holders of Protoshares, and
           at least 10%, proportionally to the holders of Angelshares
           
The allocation of the remaining Supply shall be determined by the developer(s) of the DAC, but shall be specified prior to the genesis of the DAC.

This is only part of the consensus, the consensus has two clauses, one applicable to AGS funded DACs and another for third party DACs. You need to add the other clause.

I'm curious as to why in your licensing and restrictions you chose to model it after the Peer Production License. In my version I made a clear distinction between commons and non-commons use of the product to meet these requirements.

1) Preventing copycats that believe in intellectual property from using our code to launch derivative DACs that fail to honour our social consensus. (done)
2) Not preventing businesses from using any DAC that honours SCSL, even if they support IP... we don't want to restrict the use of DACs that follow the SCSL in any way shape or form. ( clearly stated in my non-commons section)
3) Preventing businesses that believe in intellectual property from using any DAC that doesn't honour the SCSL (done and covered)
4) Define the AngelShares social consensus in as clear and unambiguous terms as possible. (done)
5) Frees the developers of DACs from any liability resulting from the use of the code or failures in the code.(done)

I tried to limit the legalese to make it readable by anyone.

"Fog in the law and legal writing is often blamed on the complex topics being tackled. Yet when legal texts are closely examined, their complexity seems to arise far less from this than from unusual language, tortuous sentence construction, and disorder in the arrangement of points. So the complexity is largely linguistic and structural smoke created by poor writing practices."

(Martin Cutts, Oxford Guide to Plain English, 3rd ed. Oxford Univ. Press, 2009)

 

Quote from: isaacgoldbourne on January 13, 2014, 01:57:47 pm

Not too much of a big deal, still functional. Although well done for pointing it out I'm sure he will appreciate it

Yup, It's just a comment typo.    It just makes it a little harder to understand the PoW function when reading the source.

the typo can affect how devs perceive the PoW

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SQ59LWyNdqZZmmVGJX_R55-kRf8XfebcauIQl4vXkJU/edit?usp=sharing

you can comment on the document, so that we get a clearer picture.

pass your mail address and i will give editing permissions.

Quote from: barwizi on January 13, 2014, 07:10:05 am

The guide is short and simple, and i'm sure can be followed easily.

feedback please?

Short and simple, fit's the description perfectly. If I got some time this week I'll create a tool derived from this guide to create the genesis block online and export to various (db) formats.

Ground breaking idea!!
thanks for the feedback , please check your inbox.

So many people taking time to read the license, perhaps leave a comment here?

more and more bounties are being completed, can we get this document in place now? The structures we are putting forward encourage an orderly business fashion and delays offer us no benefits. Institutions are built on material such as this, it is refined and adjusted to conform to changes in culture in atmosphere. For now the document fits the purpose, it should be adopted and we can have clarity in how we conduct Bounties.