Why is it always Ethereum and never Bitshares.
Where is Ethereum anyway? This is not a rhetorical question.

Do they have a client?
I went to www.ethereum.org but couldnt find anything there.

I recall looking at their website and they had a huge page of consultants etc... IIRC dozens.

 I visited it recently and noticed they only have a small group of like 6-7 people listed.

I'm deleting this post because I find it hard to state my opinion without negativity emanating from every key I press. That isn't good for the project.

Abbreviating Cryptonomex as CMX.  (Should it be CNX?)

1) Could BTS holders get revenue from licensing the Bitshares toolkit?   
* Before CMX: No, it was open source.
* After CMX: Still no.
Verdict: Same as before.

No, there was this whole theory of sharedropping from new chains.  Your verdict is wrong.

2) Can the dev team get revenue from licensing the bitshares toolkit?
* Before CMX: No, it was open source.
* After CMX: Yes.  If the core dev team generates revenue from this, then less dilution of BTS is required to support the dev team.
Verdict: Probably improves funding situation of Bitshares.

Your verdict is right but the way you got there is questionable.

3) Could competitors steal/copy Bitshares toolkit?
* Before CMX: Yes.
* After CMX: No, unless CMX lets them, which they *probably* wont do without getting compensation for BTS in some way.  Unless you believe CMX will just completely screw over BTS holders.  Which by the way, CMX collectively is a huge one of.
Verdict: Either the same as before if you dont trust that CMX cares about the future of Bitshares, or better if you do.

Well they have to steal it from pre-1.0 or they could always do it anonymously from bts 2.0 if their opsec is good and they find it worth their time. I've never heard that crytonomex will pay licensing fees back to BTS but I don't follow so closely anymore. It isn't that CMX doesn't care about Bitshares, I'm sure they do, but there are other things going on that have to be considered.

4) Can independent developers build new projects on the Bitshares toolkit?
* Before CMX: Yes.  Hopefully they would sharedrop on BTS if they did, but there was no guarantee of this.
* After CMX:  If they get permission of CMX.  Hopefully CMX would ask for compensation ot BTS holders, such as a sharedrop.
Verdict: The same or better if CMX acts to benefit Bitshares.  However, could potentially be worse if an independent developer is turned off by this, and chooses not to develop something and sharedrop on BTS?

With all the switching around directions etc it would appear the social consensus was effectively buried in the ground. The .9.2 codebase is probably decent enough for some things, but a toolkit it is not. The whole FC fiasco. I've never heard anyone speak positively about it. Yea, lets build a distributed p2p consensus toolkit/stack on software that is poorly documented and only one guy in the whole world promotes usage. .... really?  yes!

5) Will dev team abandon Bitshares to pursue better opportunities?  (Ex. 'job at google', 'build blockchain platform for goldman sachs', and other ideas of varying realisticness). 
* Before CMX:  This was always a possibility, especially when the funding situation was very dire.  Which it still is at current prices, if their only revenue source was BTS dilution.
* After CMX:  Still possible.
Verdict: If Goldman Sachs wanted to hire the Bitshares dev team away to work on a platform for them, then it doesnt really matter if they are referred to as 'The Bitshares Dev team' or 'Cryptonomex'.  Its the same result.

Agreed.

Overall the change improves the funding situation significantly.  It also prevents competitors from copying Bitshares.  It might hurt the potential for third party development efforts.

Some people worry that the existence of Cryptonomex could make the dev team abandon Bitshares.  That risk was present before, its not new.  I don't think the new situation increases the risk at all.  The best way to diminish this risk is for the crypto bear market to end.

I think cryptonomex is a definite positive for BTS but not for the original vision which the family pushed and us suckers ate it up. I'm glad that the developers are being paid more. I want to see BTS succeed, as I rebought at some point. If this is what needs to happen then so be it, but this putting lipstick on a pig is too much at times.

I do have a question though. I could swear devs were given 50k bonuses at the end of the year. Now I read 36k is all they've been paid. Is that 36k + 50k bonus or what? Is my memory wrong? Not that I care I've just learned to really question the family when they speak. I personally aided in chasing off some critics which I have grown to regret, but there is fair criticism and there is nonsense. Newmines jumps around between the 2.

I really think that Dan & crew have likely came up with a good set of functionality. I believe they learned a LOT from pre 1.0. This will add a lot of value to the project. It has far more potential than most all other crypto projects, yet the potential is still not what I felt it was a year ago.

I was hoping VC money came through and we got a new captain of sorts. When that PR thing was just blindly cut and pasted to the blog it showed the maturity of the Bitshares leader. I mean, if you know me well you know I can get all druuunnnk and send off crazy emails (even if the content is very wise , so no one is perfect. However when you're the public leader and people have invested a lot of their time and effort then they deserve better, regardless of how you might feel about their altruism.

Quote from: jsidhu on June 24, 2015, 05:05:46 am

Quote from: bitmeat on June 23, 2015, 09:43:52 am

Another one that's actually used a lot is http://getclef.com

That one is centralized

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting using getclef. But I was thinking that SQRL could probably be made cool if it worked similar to CLEF.

By the way most people DO need a centralized solution, because they are just terrible at keeping their own keys. I'm not a proponent of that, but I just don't see the average Joe really taking care of their own private keys in a manner that won't bite them in the ass.

yes you are right and this will forever limit crypto currenciess to some extent. most people prefer chargebacks/fraud control that is in place because most people live ordinary average lives and dont come across a chance to double their life savings in a prediction market but are shutout.... i can give you 1/2 a dozen ways how capital control fucked me and i have to pay taxes to support it.  Most 9-5ers never deal with such things. i'm not even talking about illegal stuff,  just dealing with $$ markets.  capital control is the single best way to control citizens. this is not a tax rant either.

Cloud mining is lol from the start.  One would be much better off gambling their money at a casino IMO and I'm not kidding.  It is a similar system...  hashes are like bets powered by electricity but the chances of winning are .. well I won't try to calculate.  Thats assuming it is all on the up and up to begin with and even those odds are small.

Seriously haven't seen any of those movies. Not sure why.  I guess I don't watch many movies period. lol.

Quote from: gamey on June 15, 2015, 05:27:13 pm

Lets take for example Feudalism.  How was this not Capitalism?  How was this so great? The Lords/Kings owned the property which likely their family earned, and the serfs worked for their wages.

That is not my understanding. I think that the Lords/Kings of feudalism gained their property through violence/conquest - not any type of free market process.

There are, however, prior examples of societies where the Kings ruled through consensus, and of tribal societies where the "headman" was more of an adviser than a ruler and had no actual power to compel.

And how did Americans (as in USA!)  receive their property !?!

All FUD is not based on falsehoods or illegitimate concerns.  Understandably the experiment has come across some technical challenges (perhaps I'm wrong) and the dev team needs a bit of a startover.  They also need to be able to fund themselves. I don't know, I'm sore about a half a dozen other things and in general have moved on. I actually like Newmine at times, because even though he takes things too far on occasion he also has a lot of valid points. Karnal's points are valid too. Dan has a track record of going back on things he puts forth as his vision, so if you are sharp at all you should take not take his word as gospel anymore.

One thing about VC money is that it typically means that the person/entity funding wants to have some say so on the management of the project. In that regards I hope someone who had abilities beyond being a dev team leader would be brought on board, even if it is kept silent.

Dan & Co. have pivoted and went back on what they were selling to people so many times it is hard to keep track. At least they are going to get a Bitshares 1.0 out that is a valid basis for a DAC if someone wants to use the technology.

The question is how much of the Bitshares 1.0 codebase will be reused? Although I suppose it doesn't really matter .. It isn't like they can sharedrop back on BTS for using it and AFAIK the license doesn't restrict graphene from using parts of it.

I'm sorta sickened by the complete abandonment of the toolkit idea, this does seem to likely be in the best interest of Bitshares going forward as a viable product.  The wallet is just far too heavy and the pruning has made no progress.  The whole thing needs to be rearchitected to remain viable longterm.