BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: klosure on June 14, 2015, 06:23:02 pm
-
Just catching up on the announcement of BitShares 2.0.
Edit by Bytemaster: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16953.0.html BitShares 2.0 will be licensed for use with BitShares under a BSD-style license, all code up till the announcement has been released under CC0 (Public Domain) license.
This thread has been locked because inaccurate claims.
I am baffled that people are being caught in the thick of thin things about secondary matters like the ownership of Cryptonomex, and fail to see the elephant in the room: BitShares without its free-software community funded core is not BitShares anymore! It cannot be as per the very nature of BitShares. The whole point and philosophy of BitShares is to be an open toolkit allowing anyone to leverage on the technology to create all sorts of innovative DACs, and in return sharedrop some of the new DAC's tokens to BitShares holders under what we call the "social consensus".
What you are being pitched as BitShares 2.0 is an attempt to strip from the real BitShare immensely valuable assets such as its community, its brand name, its place in the crypto space and slap them on top of a proprietary non-free-software technology to increase it's appeal. Bitshares 2.0 is not an upgrade, it's a corporate dismantelment.
Under the BitShares 2.0 "proposall "announcement", BitShares becomes a trade show exhibit for the exclusive benefit of Cryptonomex Inc. Bitshares 2.0 and the BitShares community will be used as:
- A lab rat to test Graphene before it's used for real clients, and to test future new features before they are added to the professional toolkit.
- A display to show to Cryptonomex's clients that Graphene works as intended
- A live testnet for Graphene prospects and users to test their applications
- An exhibit model for sales and fund raising pitches as well as presentations
- A social sandbox in which Cryptonomexand its clients can test new marketing and product ideas before trying them in the wild
- A free source of consulting, features proposals, feedback, bug reports, bug fixes and contributions
- An army of volunteers to help promoting Graphene
- A complementary source of funds
BitShares loses everything. Under the new model:
- It cannot anymore be forked and loses the benefit of sharedrops by third party DAC developers.
- Its allowed scope of evolution becomes restricted by the use cases allowed by the Graphene licence.
- It loses the control of the BitShares brand
- It loses its reputation on the crypto scene: even Ripple is free software with no strings attached!
- It loses its soul and fundamental raison d'etre
Meanwhile since BitShares is still around and may even do well for a while after the upgrade when it's not yet too apparent that it has lost its purpose and independance, BitShares core developers can continue to sell their BTS.
It's time to wake up: we do not have to accept the upgrade to BitShares 2.0 and the subsequent disparition of the free software BitShares we have funded. Nothing justifies such an extreme solution. From an organizational perspective, if the core developers are going to walk away, it would be very poor decision making to accept an upgrade to new code that only they understand and control. No organization in their right mind would migrate to a system developed by an employee who is leaving, BitShares is no exception. From a technical perspective nothing justifies a migration either: the Graphene based chain will be launched in parallel as a BitShares fork, why not just let it be a BitShares fork? The rules so far have been that anyone forking BitShares was going to do it under her own brand and was expected to respect the social consensus. I don't see any reason to change the rules.
Don't let yourself impressed by people telling you that BitShares is in a dead end, that developments have stalled, and that selling our soul by accepting a faustian pledge is the only solution. BitShares price may be low, but this has happened quite a few times to Bitcoin, Ripple and NXT to name only a few, and they are still doing fine. The whole crypto industry is in a bear market so things are looking gloomy, but like any bear market, this is only temporary. Better days will come when the market reverses, and these days may not be that far away given the fact Bitcoin's price has stabilized. Developments may have stalled as a consequence of the price drop, but will resume when the price rises again, and BitShares isn't going to die because developments have slowed down: if that was the case Bitcoin wouldn't be around anymore.
There is no reason to rush and accept a bad deal. Cryptonomex may have timelines but we don't. Let's take the time to discuss and campain and see what the community really thinks about the upgrade.
edit: replaced "closed source" by "non free software" and "open source" by "free software"
-
Cryptonomex is giving BitShares the freedom to use everything we have produced without any kind of restriction except that it must remain a SINGLE blockchain. We are not like Ripple because we do not want to "control" BitShares going forward.
I think the entire community would be far more upset if the developers simply announced a new chain with new branding and a 20% share drop.
-
Uhh, so much FUD.
But I have to say that I'm not really surprised. This is what you get when you choose to use IP. It's unethical and typically used in harmful and evil ways so people will assume that there is something bad also this time.
-
BTS cannot be "our lab rat" because we will not control its future, all hard forks will be voted on by stakeholders.
Sure, CNX gets many benefits by having a public demonstration of our tech, but BTS gets many benefits as well including subsidized development and support.
-
OP, please read some more threads before you write a tl;dr wall of text full of wild guesses.
-
Uhh, so much FUD.
But I have to say that I'm not really surprised. This is what you get when you choose to use IP. It's unethical and typically used in harmful and evil ways so people will assume that there is something bad also this time.
This is why I hate IP.
-
Uhh, so much FUD.
But I have to say that I'm not really surprised. This is what you get when you choose to use IP. It's unethical and typically used in harmful and evil ways so people will assume that there is something bad also this time.
This is why I hate IP.
completely 2nd that!
-
I'm really going back and forth on this.
On the one hand, the changes make Bitshares a fully fledged DAC rather than being fully controlled by BM etc. in terms of its code.
On the other hand, the end of open source and the social consensus make the whole thing less appealing to me, and unless other developers do come along to compete with Cryptonomex (which I hope does happen) its hard to see how BTS can succeed when its developers could be working for the competition at any given moment (and wouldn't even have to tell us about it). Also it does feel a bit like the devs have given up on this thing succeeding and now want to strip its assets to move on to other things.
Uhh, so much FUD.
But I have to say that I'm not really surprised. This is what you get when you choose to use IP. It's unethical and typically used in harmful and evil ways so people will assume that there is something bad also this time.
Please don't call this kind of thing FUD - these are legitimate concerns whether you agree with them or not.
-
These threads are doign a great job of fudding the price down.
There are lots of bitcoin companies! Bitcoin companies arent in competition with bitcoin.
Cryptonomex is a bitshares company. Like Moonstone, and others to come.
Having bitshares companies improves the value of the bitshares ecosystem. Also, the devs receiving some funding from non bitshares sources reduces the burden on bitshares holders to support them (aka less inflation needed).
Stop bitching at the devs you guys!
-
There are lots of bitcoin companies! Bitcoin companies arent in competition with bitcoin.
Cryptonomex is a bitshares company. Like Moonstone, and others to come.
Bitcoin companies do not own the Bitcoin code.
Bitshares is a company (if you want to consider it as such, which I do because I consider myself a shareholder in it) whose only product is a piece of software. A separate company just announced IP ownership over that piece of software. That is not just FUD.
-
Cryptonomex is just another entity working for BitShares like all the other delegates we had so far.
-
The term "Open Source" is once again misunderstood. Open Source does not mean "free as in speech" or "free as in beer". It means the code can be reviewed, audited, and compiled independently.
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene
-
Cryptonomex is just another entity working for BitShares like all the other delegates we had so far.
If Cryptonomex owns the IP to the software which Bitshares uses then Cryptonomex doesn't work for Bitshares, if anything Bitshares works for Cryptonomex.
After a while the community may not even have the option to get other developers if they don't like what Cryptonomex is doing, without stripping back to 0.9 and starting over. As soon as BTS moves to 2.0, it no longer owns the product which its business model is built on.
-
Cryptonomex is just another entity working for BitShares like all the other delegates we had so far.
If Cryptonomex owns the IP to the software which Bitshares uses then Cryptonomex doesn't work for Bitshares, if anything Bitshares works for Cryptonomex.
After a while the community may not even have the option to get other developers if they don't like what Cryptonomex is doing, without stripping back to 0.9 and starting over. As soon as BTS moves to 2.0, it no longer owns the product which its business model is built on.
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 thought everything in BitShares 2.0 would be open source ?
Surely this is just FUD. It can be licensed AND open sourced, I believe that's where it stands.
-
I thought everything in BitShares 2.0 would be open source ?
Surely this is just FUD. It can be licensed AND open sourced, I believe that's where it stands.
Wrong terminology, but its clear what was meant. Not sure what the correct terminology is but in media we call it creative commons.
-
Please don't call this kind of thing FUD - these are legitimate concerns whether you agree with them or not.
C'mon, claiming that the supercoolest proposal ever is going to destroy BitShares is totally absurd.
Anyway, if somebody thinks that BitShares doesn't have a future with now proposed 2.0, then maybe he should just sell his shares. This is DAC, so this is like a company. And what you do when you think that company is doing something stupid? You sell your shares and invest your money to something better.
Good shareholders don't use their empoylees time on discussing on the forum about far-fetched worst case scenarios. Good shareholders let their employees do the job and ship the product.
-
Please don't call this kind of thing FUD - these are legitimate concerns whether you agree with them or not.
C'mon, claiming that the supercoolest proposal ever is going to destroy BitShares is totally absurd.
Anyway, if somebody thinks that BitShares doesn't have a future with now proposed 2.0, then maybe he should just sell his shares. This is DAC, so this is like a company. And what you do when you think that company is doing something stupid? You sell your shares and invest your money to something better.
Good shareholders don't use their empoylees time on discussing on the forum about far-fetched worst case scenarios. Good shareholders let their employees do the job and ship the product.
or fork and run 0.9. anyways, +5% comment.
-
These threads are doign a great job of fudding the price down.
There are lots of bitcoin companies! Bitcoin companies arent in competition with bitcoin.
Cryptonomex is a bitshares company. Like Moonstone, and others to come.
Having bitshares companies improves the value of the bitshares ecosystem. Also, the devs receiving some funding from non bitshares sources reduces the burden on bitshares holders to support them (aka less inflation needed).
Stop bitching at the devs you guys!
Lol I doubt this thread is the cause of large dumping on btc38 it's been going on for few weeks now
-
Cryptonomex is giving BitShares the freedom to use everything we have produced without any kind of restriction except that it must remain a SINGLE blockchain.
Being restricted to being a single blockchain is tantamount to a death toll. Demultiplexing of chain data is the only way forward once we hit bandwidth and storage blottlenecks, which is coming very fast. If that wasn't the case you wouldn't have had to optimize the channel capacity in graphene. Now, there are only two ways of demultiplexing:
1) forking the network => forbidden by the license
2) using multiple ledgers => forbidden by the license
A single ledger is already border line suitable for a distributed asset exchange, and we may struggle with that only when the volumes pick up. So preventing BitShares from scaling beyond a single ledger effectively prevents us from exploring other venues such as smart contracts, media distribution, distributed storage, IoT (something your clients must be very interested in),
So we gain a technical optimization that isn't critical and that we could achieve ourselves by hiring developers, and in exchange we are locked in a cage that effectively prevents us from scaling beyond our current scope. Doesn't sound like a good deal at all.
We are not like Ripple because we do not want to "control" BitShares going forward.
You are conflating the technology and the network.
Ripple (the technology) is free software and is provided and maintained by Ripple Labs without any strings attached. Ripple (the network) is currently controlled by Ripple Labs in exchange of which Ripple Labs is commited to growing its value and market regardless of whether the market conditions allow them to derive revenue from the network. Ripple Labs also commited to relinquish control once the technology is mature enough and allow other entitites to become validators. The way things are set, there are no conflict of interests and Ripple's objectives, the Ripple community objectives and Ripple Labs objectives are perfectly aligned.
BitShares 2.0 (the technology) on the other hand is architectured around a framework that isn't free software and licensed to BitShares (the network and community) with so many strings attached that Cryptonomex pretty much ends up controlling the network by controlling it's life support system. But unlike Ripple Cryptonomex doesn't commit to grow the network, contribute to its technological evolution or increase its market share. On the other hand it still stands to benefit from the network which it case use as an trade show exhibit, lab, live test net, and source of funding. There is so much potential for conflicts of interests that the mind boggles.
I think the entire community would be far more upset if the developers simply announced a new chain with new branding and a 20% share drop.
This has been a possibility all along and we are ready for that. At least this is playing within the rules. Now as the spearhead of the project who doubles as the one who has been raising the funds initially to launch BitShares, you know that you are held to a higher standard of accountability and that your reputation would take a huge hit if people start feeling betrayed so I guess doing that wouldn't be in your best interest.
Now, there is a third possibility where you could fork BitShares under your own brand, but sharedrop more than the minimum 20% (ideally 100% but the community may be fine with less TBC) as a recognition that Graphene and Cryptonomex wouldn't have been possible without the community funding all these years of research at I3. This solution allows BitShares and the new network to compete sainly on their own merits. And since we are all onboard of both, we will be fine no matter what.
edit: replaced "open source" by "free software"
-
1 point to discuss
The ability for BitShares to get forked and sharedroped is after 2.0 - 0%
So, this is clearly a big change for the social consensus.
But, after the merger this chance was already down to a small percentage.
I think the advantage is higher than what we loose so i am supporting this decision. I would love if Cryptonomex will also consider to buy BTS with their licensed project if they use feature who are funded and paid with "worker" money from this community. Then this will a fair agreement.
-
Please don't call this kind of thing FUD - these are legitimate concerns whether you agree with them or not.
C'mon, claiming that the supercoolest proposal ever is going to destroy BitShares is totally absurd.
Anyway, if somebody thinks that BitShares doesn't have a future with now proposed 2.0, then maybe he should just sell his shares. This is DAC, so this is like a company. And what you do when you think that company is doing something stupid? You sell your shares and invest your money to something better.
Good shareholders don't use their empoylees time on discussing on the forum about far-fetched worst case scenarios. Good shareholders let their employees do the job and ship the product.
Well as a matter of fact I did just dump a few dozen thousand. But I still own >100k because I don't think this will definitely destroy Bitshares by any means, but there is a whole lot of ground between 'destroying bitshares' and 'this is total FUD with no valid point' which you seem to just want to ignore.
And the idea of 'good shareholders' is very strange to me. Shareholders are self-interested parties, not members of some kind of cult who must adhere to rules laid down by someone else. There are no good or bad shareholders, other than that shareholders who make a profit are good at being a shareholder and those who don't, aren't.
-
BTS cannot be "our lab rat" because we will not control its future, all hard forks will be voted on by stakeholders.
BitShares2.0 is based on Graphene. If Graphene changes, BitShares changes unless we stop pulling changes from the Graphene repo.
It makes no sense to introduce an dependency on Graphene if we are not ready to accept subsequent changes on Graphene.
Mixed approaches with cherry picking will create a growing gap between the code base, make merges nightmerish and cost us much more in developer resources than if we had chosen the path of doing our own optimizations.
-
OP, please read some more threads before you write a tl;dr wall of text full of wild guesses.
I have read all the threads there are to read on the subject.
If you disagree about anything I have said, feel free to quote and reply.
-
There are lots of bitcoin companies! Bitcoin companies arent in competition with bitcoin.
Cryptonomex is a bitshares company. Like Moonstone, and others to come.
Bitcoin companies don't attempt to change Bitcoin's terms of licensing to prevent it from being forked or extended in new directions.
Having bitshares companies improves the value of the bitshares ecosystem.
The problem is not the company. The problem is to try to force BitShares to use that company's non free software product and accept the major restrictions that come with it.
Stop bitching at the devs you guys!
There is a reason this thread is called "wake up call".
There are no technical reasons for forbidding Bitshares from evolving beyond a single ledger model.
The only reason is to prevent BitShares from growing too much and competing with Cryptonomex's clients.
This definitely isn't in the interest of BitShares.
So far I have seen half a dozen posts implying Ithat this is fud, but none has actually addressed any of the points I raised.
edit: replaced "closed source" by "non free software"
-
So far I have seen half a dozen posts implying Ithat this is fud, but none has actually addressed any of the points I raised.
Graphene is open source, which was answered already in this thread.
The term "Open Source" is once again misunderstood. Open Source does not mean "free as in speech" or "free as in beer". It means the code can be reviewed, audited, and compiled independently.
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene
-
I thought everything in BitShares 2.0 would be open source ?
Surely this is just FUD. It can be licensed AND open sourced, I believe that's where it stands.
Wrong terminology, but its clear what was meant. Not sure what the correct terminology is but in media we call it creative commons.
Thanks. I meant "free software", not "open source". Typo. Fixed in the original post.
-
couldn't find the license! Can someone point me where i can read it?
-
Good shareholders don't use their empoylees time on discussing on the forum about far-fetched worst case scenarios. Good shareholders let their employees do the job and ship the product.
Good shareholders vote on major changes of direction in the company's strategy.
Please show me where we have been consulted before this "announcement".
-
couldn't find the license! Can someone point me where i can read it?
here's the discussion: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16806.0.html
-
Let's us assume 2.0 delivers on the features outlined, the product is there and live, doing what it needs to do. Can we grow the network? If you believe the answer is yes, then Bitshares can pay for workers to enhance and maintain the product, including CMX.
I took BM's commitment to enabling a single blockchain not to be about creating a dependency on CMX but to protect Bitshares from clones.
I think we should value the community and our ability to take this project to the next level. Everything hinges on that.
-
Good shareholders don't use their empoylees time on discussing on the forum about far-fetched worst case scenarios. Good shareholders let their employees do the job and ship the product.
Good shareholders vote on major changes of direction in the company's strategy.
Please show me where we have been consulted before this "announcement".
+5%
-
couldn't find the license! Can someone point me where i can read it?
here's the discussion: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16806.0.html
thanks fav, but no license to read!
so we are talking about something no one knows what it look likes? Great!
here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16806.msg214962.html#msg214962 says bytemaster that the sharedrop is possible like before
So if you want to use the toolkit to build a service or company within the existing Bitshares network (on the same blockchain) then you can use it for free. If you want to build a new network (on a different blockchain) and you sharedrop according to the social consensus, then you can use it for free. If you want to steal (overzealous) use other people's hard work and turn your back on the community and existing network, then you can contribute to the development, build on the existing technology and pay for a license. If that is the idea then i'm all for it. Network effect is everything because if the network can mature, anything is possible.
That is it (more or less).
-
couldn't find the license! Can someone point me where i can read it?
here's the discussion: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16806.0.html
thanks fav, but no license to read!
so we are talking about something no one knows what it look likes? Great!
here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16806.msg214962.html#msg214962 says bytemaster that the sharedrop is possible like before
So if you want to use the toolkit to build a service or company within the existing Bitshares network (on the same blockchain) then you can use it for free. If you want to build a new network (on a different blockchain) and you sharedrop according to the social consensus, then you can use it for free. If you want to steal (overzealous) use other people's hard work and turn your back on the community and existing network, then you can contribute to the development, build on the existing technology and pay for a license. If that is the idea then i'm all for it. Network effect is everything because if the network can mature, anything is possible.
That is it (more or less).
indeed, there's no final license.
anyways, voting is not possible that's one of the reasons we need 2.0. we will be able to vote on everything.
-
So far I have seen half a dozen posts implying Ithat this is fud, but none has actually addressed any of the points I raised.
Graphene is open source, which was answered already in this thread.
This isn't addressing my points but nitpicking on terminology. It should be obvious from context that I meant "free software" / "non free software".
Anyway, I fixed this typo in posts, but this doesn't change the core of the argument.
Because of the license restrictions of Graphene, Bitshares cannot be forked or extended to a multiledger model, which means that it will not be able to evolve to fill other niches. The reuse restriction is a classic with proprietary licenses, but preventing Bitshares from evolving beyond a single ledger is novel and was added there for some reason. Now, if someone who cries "fud" may please explain why this restriction is necessary?
-
So far I have seen half a dozen posts implying Ithat this is fud, but none has actually addressed any of the points I raised.
Graphene is open source, which was answered already in this thread.
This isn't addressing my points but nitpicking on terminology. It should be obvious from context that I meant "free software" / "non free software".
Anyway, I fixed this typo in posts, but this doesn't change the core of the argument.
Because of the license restrictions of Graphene, Bitshares cannot be forked or extended to a multiledger model, which means that it will not be able to evolve to fill other niches. The reuse restriction is a classic with proprietary licenses, but preventing Bitshares from evolving beyond a single ledger is novel and was added there for some reason. Now, if someone who cries "fud" may please explain why this restriction is necessary?
https://voat.co/v/smartcoin/comments/127598
"we" can do whatever we want with the code.
-
Klosure is making good points that need to be discussed not dismissed. This is a community that discusses what's best for BitShares not a cheer leading squad for anything that comes out of Blacksburg.
While I support the new product, as do many others, the decision should not be so fragile as to not be able to stand up to some serious questions by a clearly knowledgeable member of the community.
-
So far I have seen half a dozen posts implying Ithat this is fud, but none has actually addressed any of the points I raised.
Graphene is open source, which was answered already in this thread.
This isn't addressing my points but nitpicking on terminology. It should be obvious from context that I meant "free software" / "non free software".
Anyway, I fixed this typo in posts, but this doesn't change the core of the argument.
Because of the license restrictions of Graphene, Bitshares cannot be forked or extended to a multiledger model, which means that it will not be able to evolve to fill other niches. The reuse restriction is a classic with proprietary licenses, but preventing Bitshares from evolving beyond a single ledger is novel and was added there for some reason. Now, if someone who cries "fud" may please explain why this restriction is necessary?
You have a good point about a possible future multi ledger model being prevented. I of course want to see the license, but it is my understanding that we will be able to do whatever we want with the code. We still have the option to modify it without BM.
-
Klosure is making good points that need to be discussed not dismissed. This is a community that discusses what's best for BitShares not a cheer leading squad for anything that comes out of Blacksburg.
While I support the new product, as do many others, the decision should not be so fragile as to not be able to stand up to some serious questions by a clearly knowledgeable member of the community.
I agree!
so, i would love to read the new license
in my opinion the intention of the license is to prefend a commercial use of Graphene. I think this is just fine! So in my understanding this license needs to make this points possible
1. no commercial use without license from Cryptonomex
2. the BitShares Blockchain got a unrestricted license for any feature in the future. Cryptonomex will get all commercial rights for stuff who is coded for the BitShares community.
3. BitShares Community can make multiple chains as long as the BitShares community is a stakeholder of 100% of the new chain.
It would give BitShares the possibility to make more chains in the future if needed, but would give Crytponomex the possibility to sell it to companys as well! And in fact the only ones who will make a 2,3 chains for the BitShares Community is the Cryptonomex team.
-
Furthermore this is a thread or discussion that all delegates should be paying attention to very closely. There are basically three options on the table for a delegate:
1) Shutdown the 0.9.x delegate node after the Graphene based chain is up and running.
- This is basically accepting the upgrade to 2.0 verbatim and what will be doing with the delegates I run unless directed otherwise by their owners.
2) Reject Cryptonomex's proposal outright and continue to run the 0.9.2 client.
- This could take the form of an attempt to renegotiate the terms of BitShare's use of the Graphene toolkit.
- It would also mean hunting for a new dev team to basically work for free.
3) Run both blockchains at the same time.
- This would likely be a fireable offense on both networks.
-
Klosure is making good points that need to be discussed not dismissed. This is a community that discusses what's best for BitShares not a cheer leading squad for anything that comes out of Blacksburg.
While I support the new product, as do many others, the decision should not be so fragile as to not be able to stand up to some serious questions by a clearly knowledgeable member of the community.
+5%
We also have to remember that everything is not set in stone. They announced everything so that it COULD be discussed and gain feedback and input from the community on various matters.
I think what they are doing first is getting the test version out so people can actually test it out and understand first hand what we are dealing with instead of a lot of assumptive conclusions brought about from old ways of thinking or understanding how things work or could work.
So with all that in mind, I think a great deal of forgiveness and space should be extended to them to figure out exactly how to handle this new alien thing we call 2.0.
I understand the desire to want everything instantly and now also... but I might suggest this expectation is unrealistic for some of the reasons I have stated, and others I have not.
So I suggest that patience be the word of the day.. and proceed in a constructive manner to build on what bold brush strokes have already been put to canvas and offer how we may bring more colours lines and textures to it all to bring about what we all want to be (most of us anyways) a masterpiece.
-
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.
-
I do hope that this:
BitShares may use the code we release for 2.0 without restrictions
BitShares may develop extra features and use them without restriction
Along with the stuff about others being able to get a free license as long as they sharedrop and a proviso about side chains or this 'multi-chain model' if that's something different, is explicitly included within the text of the license. That would require a custom written license and not just copy & paste from a standard template.
-
https://voat.co/v/smartcoin/comments/127598
"we" can do whatever we want with the code.
Cryptonomex is giving BitShares the freedom to use everything we have produced without any kind of restriction except that it must remain a SINGLE blockchain.
License is restricted to a single blockchain. This creates the following limitations:
- If we want to add features without adding more bloat to the current blockchain so that clients interested only in one feature don't need to get all the bloat of all the features, we need multiple blockchains.
- If we want to demultiplex the current blockchain to make it easier to process, for example have decentralized exchange transactions on one blockchain and transfers on another
- If we want to acquire and merge with other DACs that already have a blockchain
- If we want to have hierarchical blockchains
License doesn't allow code reuse. This creates the following limitations:
- Third party DACs developers won't be able to fork Bitshares so Bitshares based DACs are something of the past and we lose the benefit of sharedrops. This is a huge change of the BitShares philosophy and business model that shouldn't be pushed without first being discussed. The whole point of the merger with PTS was for BTS to become the default sharedrop target and this merger yielded threads and threads of heated discussion.
-
1) Shutdown the 0.9.x delegate node after the Graphene based chain is up and running.
- This is basically accepting the upgrade to 2.0 verbatim and what will be doing with the delegates I run unless directed otherwise by their owners.
2) Reject Cryptonomex's proposal outright and continue to run the 0.9.2 client.
- This could take the form of an attempt to renegotiate the terms of BitShare's use of the Graphene toolkit.
- It would also mean hunting for a new dev team to basically work for free.
3) Run both blockchains at the same time.
- This would likely be a fireable offense on both networks.
+5%
-
I understand that developers need to be paid. And the more they are paid the better. What is odd to me is they are paid by Bitshres to produce something and after this thing is produced they end up being the owners of the product. Kind of like someone paying you to build a house and after you are done you become the owner of the house.
In this regard I see the logic in the proposed solutions - using some of the funds received by CNX to buy and burn BTS shares. As far as such a scheme working in practice - I have serious doubts...
Regarding the rest of the issues discussed - For me the correct thing to do is not restrict the free license to only one chain BTS, but to "BTS and any other chain that is 100% snapshot of BTS"
And 'yes' discussing this issues is a good thing. Actually I do not quite understand why this needed to be kept secret for months before 06/08, just do not see what was/is the benefit from hiding it it?
-
so, i would love to read the new license
in my opinion the intention of the license is to prefend a commercial use of Graphene. I think this is just fine! So in my understanding this license needs to make this points possible
1. no commercial use without license from Cryptonomex
2. the BitShares Blockchain got a unrestricted license for any feature in the future. Cryptonomex will get all commercial rights for stuff who is coded for the BitShares community.
3. BitShares Community can make multiple chains as long as the BitShares community is a stakeholder of 100% of the new chain.
Fully agree on the above.
Some more points that need to be addressed:
4. Software that is not a blockchain based peer-to-peer network but needs to read or manipulate the BitShares or affiliated DACs blockchain(s) or listen to transactions on the network and interface with the network at peer protocol level should be allowed to reuse BitShares code and therefore Graphene without being subject to the commercial licence. This is to allow the creation of APIs to allow third party tools, exchanges, bridges and other services to interact directly with the network or the blockchain without having to rewrite the whole object serialization and signing code already handled by Graphene.
5. Third party developers (community) who contribute code to Graphene should retain all rights of distribution, reproduction and modification on the code they contributed. Cryptonomex can specify that developers accept to grant them unrestrictive commercial license on the code by submitting it to the Graphene repo. But the point is that contributing back code shouldn't affect the rights of the contributor to use the code as he sees fit.
Other points that don't belong to the software license, but are important anyway
6. Cryptonomex must disclose to the BitShares community if they own or registered any patents on the code of Graphene and grant unrestricted license of usage of the patents to BitShares.
7. Cryptonomex should clarify how changes to Graphene framework will be tested and confirm if they intend ot use BitShares as a test bed for new features and in which circumstances they would do so. They should also commit to only integrate features on BitShares that are needed by BitShares so that BitShares doesn't become a public test net for Graphene.
A last point that has nothing to do with the upgrade:
8. Are community members who are accredited investors welcome to participate in next funding round of Cryptonomex and will this be announced on the forum?
-
Bitshares 2.0 has been designed and coded without any funding from the Bitshares DAC. As stated by BM in another thread, the fact is the salary the devs made in the last few months was barely enough to pay for bug fixing on the 0.9.x versions.
That being said, if Cryptonomex paid its employees to develop the Graphene toolkit using its own money, it's only normal that Crypthonomex owns the rights to that toolkit.
So basically Bitshares can now benefit for all that work it didn't really pay for (or only partially) by getting unlimited use of the Graphene toolkit, as long as Bitshares stays on a single chain. Am I the only one that sees this as good thing? Anyone who tells me that Bitshares owns every core developers' ass for less than a 1000$ per month is hypocritical. The devs are free to work for any company they want as long as they deliver more value than the salary they are paid for by Bitshares.
The only thing I would like to hear from BM is that every feature that Cryptonomex will develop for Bitshares (and paid by Bitshares) is going to be used solely by the DAC. Pretty much the same as if you work as a consultant for a company, the company retains the rights of what you developed for them. So if Bitshares allow let's say a budget of 3M BTS for the development of a special feature, then Cryptonomex cannot retain the rights to that part of the work and thus cannot license and sell that part of the code to other companies. It should be either open sourced and free to use or licensed by Bitshares or closed source, the decision being made by the Bitshares shareholders.
With that kind of confirmation I feel totally comfortable with the model BM came up with. For example, if Bitshares shareholders don't want to pay for any development at some point because they feel the product they have is good enough, I think it's only fair that the core devs find other sources of revenue by working for other clients.
Valid points have been made in this thread as well as the others related to that subject, but the way some of them were formulated made me feel like they were used more to spread FUD than to start an honest and constructive discussion. I find it hard to believe that there is a benevolent motive behind some posts when they are formulated using an aggressive tone and insinuating that Bitshares is getting ripped off by Cryptonomex.
BM and the core dev team have everything to win if Bitshares is successful, and they have a lot to lose if it fails. They already have a lot of skin in the game, so I wouldn't be too much concerned about the fact that they have the success of Bitshares as their utmost priority.
-
I understand that developers need to be paid. And the more they are paid the better. What is odd to me is they are paid by Bitshres to produce something and after this thing is produced they end up being the owners of the product. Kind of like someone paying you to build a house and after you are done you become the owner of the house.
In this regard I see the logic in the proposed solutions - using some of the funds received by CNX to buy and burn BTS shares. As far as such a scheme working in practice - I have serious doubts...
Regarding the rest of the issues discussed - For me the correct thing to do is not restrict the free license to only one chain BTS, but to "BTS and any other chain that is 100% snapshot of BTS"
And 'yes' discussing this issues is a good thing. Actually I do not quite understand why this needed to be kept secret for months before 06/08, just do not see what was/is the benefit from hiding it it?
The only benefits I see from it are:
- It allowed the dev team to produce a disclosure plan and documentation to support it
- It satisfies the a requirement imposed by one or more of Cryptonomex's funders (just guessing)
I am literally disillusioned by what I've read today here on the forums, and although living without illusions is a good thing it also comes with a bit of sadness and feelings of loss for the optimistic future I assumed was on the way.
I started the day highly motivated to begin a new book series, and spent a good number of hours researching bytemaster's posts on the bitcointalk forum, going back to his first one on July 27th, 2010 and the most recent one being on May 21st of this year. This was research I started to support the series that I'm tentatively calling The BitShares Saga. I have 5 books in the making, starting with part 1: The Genesis of a Revolution. The 30 page start that was to become The Coming BitShares Revolution will not go to waste but will be revised and become part 3: Experiments for a Revolution. That was the plan I started to formulate and put into action today.
But now, I am just not sure. My doubts are growing about this project. As strongly as I'm convinced of bytemaster's drive and conviction, his passion to create an ecosystem with teeth that empowers individuals and disrupts the corrupt mainstream financial systems, I can't help feeling like another stomach ache is coming upon me from too much sugar in the koolaid.
I am just being honest. I think this thread and the one newmine started have surfaced many issues that need to be discussed. Hindsight is 20/20 and I wonder if the Larimers, the dev team and their new investors saw this controversy coming. I think not, or they would have probably chosen a different way to disclose the new business approach that is Cyptonomex.
I can see the situation from at least 3 angles (dev team+Larimers, Cryptonomex's investors and the BitShares community), and all have a vested interest in how this plays out. How BitShares and the community will come out of this when the dust settles is difficult to say right now.
It's gonna take some calm voices, some rational thinking and wisdom on everybody's part to hash this out. Let's strive for respectful consideration, a check on our emotions and a measure of empathy and cooperation with all parties, aiming to work out a positive outcome where everyone benefits.
I have seen some really great people in this community voice similar perspectives, some of whom have distanced themselves from participation. I truly hope we work out a solution that will also bring them back into the fold and restore their confidence in the future of BitShares.
-
I understand that developers need to be paid. And the more they are paid the better. What is odd to me is they are paid by Bitshres to produce something and after this thing is produced they end up being the owners of the product. Kind of like someone paying you to build a house and after you are done you become the owner of the house.
In this regard I see the logic in the proposed solutions - using some of the funds received by CNX to buy and burn BTS shares. As far as such a scheme working in practice - I have serious doubts...
Regarding the rest of the issues discussed - For me the correct thing to do is not restrict the free license to only one chain BTS, but to "BTS and any other chain that is 100% snapshot of BTS"
And 'yes' discussing this issues is a good thing. Actually I do not quite understand why this needed to be kept secret for months before 06/08, just do not see what was/is the benefit from hiding it it?
The only benefits I see from it are:
- It allowed the dev team to produce a disclosure plan and documentation to support it
- It satisfies the a requirement imposed by one or more of Cryptonomex's funders (just guessing)
I am literally disillusioned by what I've read today here on the forums, and although living without illusions is a good thing it also comes with a bit of sadness and feelings of loss for the optimistic future I assumed was on the way.
I started the day highly motivated to begin a new book series, and spent a good number of hours researching bytemaster's posts on the bitcointalk forum, going back to his first one on July 27th, 2010 and the most recent one being on May 21st of this year. This was research I started to support the series that I'm tentatively calling The BitShares Saga. I have 5 books in the making, starting with part 1: The Genesis of a Revolution. The 30 page start that was to become The Coming BitShares Revolution will not go to waste but will be revised and become part 3: Experiments for a Revolution. That was the plan I started to formulate and put into action today.
But now, I am just not sure. My doubts are growing about this project. As strongly as I'm convinced of bytemaster's drive and conviction, his passion to create an ecosystem with teeth that empowers individuals and disrupts the corrupt mainstream financial systems, I can't help feeling like another stomach ache is coming upon me from too much sugar in the koolaid.
I am just being honest. I think this thread and the one newmine started have surfaced many issues that need to be discussed. Hindsight is 20/20 and I wonder if the Larimers, the dev team and their new investors saw this controversy coming. I think not, or they would have probably chosen a different way to disclose the new business approach that is Cyptonomex.
I can see the situation from at least 3 angles (dev team+Larimers, Cryptonomex's investors and the BitShares community), and all have a vested interest in how this plays out. How BitShares and the community will come out of this when the dust settles is difficult to say right now.
It's gonna take some calm voices, some rational thinking and wisdom on everybody's part to hash this out. Let's strive for respectful consideration, a check on our emotions and a measure of empathy and cooperation with all parties, aiming to work out a positive outcome where everyone benefits.
I have seen some really great people in this community voice similar perspectives, some of whom have distanced themselves from participation. I truly hope we work out a solution that will also bring them back into the fold and restore their confidence in the future of BitShares.
Your voice is much appreciated. I hope you stick around for a long while.
Tomorrow is a new day, let's hope we get some positive clarification.
-
Just catching up on the announcement of BitShares 2.0.
I am baffled that people are being caught in the thick of thin things about secondary matters like the ownership of Cryptonomex, and fail to see the elephant in the room: BitShares without its free-software community funded core is not BitShares anymore! It cannot be as per the very nature of BitShares. The whole point and philosophy of BitShares is to be an open toolkit allowing anyone to leverage on the technology to create all sorts of innovative DACs, and in return sharedrop some of the new DAC's tokens to BitShares holders under what we call the "social consensus".
What you are being pitched as BitShares 2.0 is an attempt to strip from the real BitShare immensely valuable assets such as its community, its brand name, its place in the crypto space and slap them on top of a proprietary non-free-software technology to increase it's appeal. Bitshares 2.0 is not an upgrade, it's a corporate dismantelment.
Under the BitShares 2.0 "proposall "announcement", BitShares becomes a trade show exhibit for the exclusive benefit of Cryptonomex Inc. Bitshares 2.0 and the BitShares community will be used as:
- A lab rat to test Graphene before it's used for real clients, and to test future new features before they are added to the professional toolkit.
- A display to show to Cryptonomex's clients that Graphene works as intended
- A live testnet for Graphene prospects and users to test their applications
- An exhibit model for sales and fund raising pitches as well as presentations
- A social sandbox in which Cryptonomexand its clients can test new marketing and product ideas before trying them in the wild
- A free source of consulting, features proposals, feedback, bug reports, bug fixes and contributions
- An army of volunteers to help promoting Graphene
- A complementary source of funds
BitShares loses everything. Under the new model:
- It cannot anymore be forked and loses the benefit of sharedrops by third party DAC developers.
- Its allowed scope of evolution becomes restricted by the use cases allowed by the Graphene licence.
- It loses the control of the BitShares brand
- It loses its reputation on the crypto scene: even Ripple is free software with no strings attached!
- It loses its soul and fundamental raison d'etre
Meanwhile since BitShares is still around and may even do well for a while after the upgrade when it's not yet too apparent that it has lost its purpose and independance, BitShares core developers can continue to sell their BTS.
It's time to wake up: we do not have to accept the upgrade to BitShares 2.0 and the subsequent disparition of the free software BitShares we have funded. Nothing justifies such an extreme solution. From an organizational perspective, if the core developers are going to walk away, it would be very poor decision making to accept an upgrade to new code that only they understand and control. No organization in their right mind would migrate to a system developed by an employee who is leaving, BitShares is no exception. From a technical perspective nothing justifies a migration either: the Graphene based chain will be launched in parallel as a BitShares fork, why not just let it be a BitShares fork? The rules so far have been that anyone forking BitShares was going to do it under her own brand and was expected to respect the social consensus. I don't see any reason to change the rules.
Don't let yourself impressed by people telling you that BitShares is in a dead end, that developments have stalled, and that selling our soul by accepting a faustian pledge is the only solution. BitShares price may be low, but this has happened quite a few times to Bitcoin, Ripple and NXT to name only a few, and they are still doing fine. The whole crypto industry is in a bear market so things are looking gloomy, but like any bear market, this is only temporary. Better days will come when the market reverses, and these days may not be that far away given the fact Bitcoin's price has stabilized. Developments may have stalled as a consequence of the price drop, but will resume when the price rises again, and BitShares isn't going to die because developments have slowed down: if that was the case Bitcoin wouldn't be around anymore.
There is no reason to rush and accept a bad deal. Cryptonomex may have timelines but we don't. Let's take the time to discuss and campain and see what the community really thinks about the upgrade.
edit: replaced "closed source" by "non free software" and "open source" by "free software"
BitShares 2.0 is a balckmail and rape to all BTS holders, BM sold his soul to the devil, went to the dark side:( it's a sad day for BTS community.
-
These are some of my current questions, I am not making any judgments on anybody's intents:
1. What is the primary purpose in anyone making a claim on IP at all?
2. What is the core legal argument as to whether that IP belongs to Cryptonomex or to Bitshares? My (not-a-lawyer) understanding is that generally an employer will own the intellectual property created by its employees in the course of their employment. This is irrespective of who did the creative work and whether they felt they were paid enough for it.
3. If Cryptonomex did have a valid claim on the IP, is it legally feasible that the liberal terms of that license for BitShares could be altered at any time in the future (irrespective of any current intents)?
4. With regard to future development within Bitshares, such as third party scripting, or other customised builds on top of the core protocol, how would rights around these be arranged to be equitable to all parties?
-
These are some of my current questions, I am not making any judgments on anybody's intents:
1. What is the primary purpose in anyone making a claim on IP at all?
2. What is the core legal argument as to whether that IP belongs to Cryptonomex or to Bitshares? My (not-a-lawyer) understanding is that generally an employer will own the intellectual property created by its employees in the course of their employment. This is irrespective of who did the creative work and whether they felt they were paid enough for it.
3. If Cryptonomex did have a valid claim on the IP, is it legally feasible that the liberal terms of that license for BitShares could be altered at any time in the future (irrespective of any current intents)?
4. With regard to future development within Bitshares, such as third party scripting, or other customised builds on top of the core protocol, how would rights around these be arranged to be equitable to all parties?
https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/lessons-learned-from-bitshares-0.x/#copyright-reserved
-
Cryptonomex is giving BitShares the freedom to use everything we have produced without any kind of restriction except that it must remain a SINGLE blockchain. We are not like Ripple because we do not want to "control" BitShares going forward.
I think the entire community would be far more upset if the developers simply announced a new chain with new branding and a 20% share drop.
I am very glad to hear this, if Cryptonomex develop great function , then price of bts would rise violently, if price rise violently, delegate income increase much , then there are enough money to support develop , it is a positive cycle.
-
BitShares 2.0 is a balckmail and rape to all BTS holders, BM sold his soul to the devil, went to the dark side:( it's a sad day for BTS community.
You are a BitShares Bulls wet dream my friend!
-
These are some of my current questions, I am not making any judgments on anybody's intents:
1. What is the primary purpose in anyone making a claim on IP at all?
2. What is the core legal argument as to whether that IP belongs to Cryptonomex or to Bitshares? My (not-a-lawyer) understanding is that generally an employer will own the intellectual property created by its employees in the course of their employment. This is irrespective of who did the creative work and whether they felt they were paid enough for it.
3. If Cryptonomex did have a valid claim on the IP, is it legally feasible that the liberal terms of that license for BitShares could be altered at any time in the future (irrespective of any current intents)?
4. With regard to future development within Bitshares, such as third party scripting, or other customised builds on top of the core protocol, how would rights around these be arranged to be equitable to all parties?
If I could speculate a little bit about point #1. It is my opinion that the licensing of the code is not designed to prevent anyone at all from forking the graphene toolkit. The license is designed to prevent legitimate business partners from building upon any chain other than the official bitshares chain. This is due to the legal uncertainty that would be present in investing perhaps millions of dollars in a technology that you could be forced by the courts to give up. I would be shocked if cryptonomex went after individuals ala the MPAA. My limited understanding of copyright law leads me to believe that even if this is the case cryptonomex would not be able to openly state this as this would weaken their copyright claim, increase the legal fuzziness regarding their ability to provide a blockchain with a solid legal framework for businesses to build upon. This is pure speculation, and I could be completely wrong.
-
Please don't call this kind of thing FUD - these are legitimate concerns whether you agree with them or not.
C'mon, claiming that the supercoolest proposal ever is going to destroy BitShares is totally absurd.
Anyway, if somebody thinks that BitShares doesn't have a future with now proposed 2.0, then maybe he should just sell his shares. This is DAC, so this is like a company. And what you do when you think that company is doing something stupid? You sell your shares and invest your money to something better.
Good shareholders don't use their empoylees time on discussing on the forum about far-fetched worst case scenarios. Good shareholders let their employees do the job and ship the product.
Well as a matter of fact I did just dump a few dozen thousand. But I still own >100k because I don't think this will definitely destroy Bitshares by any means, but there is a whole lot of ground between 'destroying bitshares' and 'this is total FUD with no valid point' which you seem to just want to ignore.
The art of trolling is to spread FUD with couple of semi-valid points. The OP was so far away from constructive critisism that it can be ignored. It's clear that he didn't want to raise any kind of reasonable discussion on valid points. Declaring that Bitshares will lose "its soul and fundamental raison d'etre" is just bullshit.
-
Yes, you are right, lets wait and see the final license, most probably the team are already thinking / drafting a good way to honour everyone.
-
But it also seems you have joined recently, hence you have not been involved in PTS then AGS and then the merger.
-
The art of trolling is to spread FUD with couple of semi-valid points. The OP was so far away from constructive critisism that it can be ignored. It's clear that he didn't want to raise any kind of reasonable discussion on valid points. Declaring that Bitshares will lose "its soul and fundamental raison d'etre" is just bullshit.
The art of cheer-leading is to buy in to everything without applying any critical thinking, dismiss valid concerns frivolously without addressing any of them, and pollute overwise constructive discussions by reactive and fanboyish posts with no actual content.
-
The art of trolling is to spread FUD with couple of semi-valid points. The OP was so far away from constructive critisism that it can be ignored. It's clear that he didn't want to raise any kind of reasonable discussion on valid points. Declaring that Bitshares will lose "its soul and fundamental raison d'etre" is just bullshit.
The art of cheer-leading is to buy in to everything without applying any critical thinking, dismiss valid concerns frivolously without addressing any of them, and pollute overwise constructive discussions by reactive and fanboyish posts with no actual content.
Remember, we are all on the same side. Thinking critically is essential but one of the strengths of this forum is it's ability to provide a platform for testing the extremes of our community's points of view, outcomes and solutions. This is unbelievably valuable. Within this forum our tolerance of what may appear to be FUD should be extremely high.....despite how difficult that can be due to our emotional attachment to this project. Emotions are good, they are diverse and interesting. The are creative and destructive.....you can't build anything without both forces! If Bitshares is what we all hope it is, then the network must be highly resilient to scrutiny or challenges of any kind. Bitshares core technology and the principals that built it are the bedrock of the network and they are extremely robust.
-
^ +5%
-
Valid points have been made in this thread as well as the others related to that subject, but the way some of them were formulated made me feel like they were used more to spread FUD than to start an honest and constructive discussion. I find it hard to believe that there is a benevolent motive behind some posts when they are formulated using an aggressive tone and insinuating that Bitshares is getting ripped off by Cryptonomex.
+5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
-
Valid points have been made in this thread as well as the others related to that subject, but the way some of them were formulated made me feel like they were used more to spread FUD than to start an honest and constructive discussion. I find it hard to believe that there is a benevolent motive behind some posts when they are formulated using an aggressive tone and insinuating that Bitshares is getting ripped off by Cryptonomex.
+5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
I understand the point, I reacted quite strongly to Newmine's OP.......but then I realized so what?! His direct and challenging manner/tone helped to generate a discussion (probably that the devs were waiting for) that has been both passionate and constructive. There is more than enough critically thought out material here to help finalize the future relationship between Cryptonomex & bitshares. There is no attack that can be made against Bitshares that does not in the end strengthen it. What does that leave? Each other. In working things out, in communicating according to our prevailing style, mood, character, we need to remember context and courtesy so we can continue to work with extremes. There is certainly ample alignment among us not to feel threatened! :)
-
IMO this thread is extremly valuable! Guess, we should wait till the first real license draft is out so we have facts to discuss!
I like the approaches being discussed here and i'm also thinking, klosure bringing valid points that have to get adressed.
I'm also thinking, we should work all together, like we have done it in past, to get the best fitting win-win situation for all of us - BitShares Community - BitShares Delegates - CNX investors - Core devs
-
Valid points have been made in this thread as well as the others related to that subject, but the way some of them were formulated made me feel like they were used more to spread FUD than to start an honest and constructive discussion. I find it hard to believe that there is a benevolent motive behind some posts when they are formulated using an aggressive tone and insinuating that Bitshares is getting ripped off by Cryptonomex.
+5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
I understand the point, I reacted quite strongly to Newmine's OP.......but then I realized so what?! His direct and challenging manner/tone helped to generate a discussion (probably that the devs were waiting for) that has been both passionate and constructive. There is more than enough critically thought out material here to help finalize the future relationship between Cryptonomex & bitshares. There is no attack that can be made against Bitshares that does not in the end strengthen it. What does that leave? Each other. In working things out, in communicating according to our prevailing style, mood, character, we need to remember context and courtesy so we can continue to work with extremes. There is certainly ample alignment among us not to feel threatened! :)
+5%
-
IMO this thread is extremly valuable! Guess, we should wait till the first real license draft is out so we have facts to discuss!
Until such threads and spirited discussion self manifested the training wheels could never come off. In an environment where anyone can have multiple accounts it's hard to recognize what is self manifested and what isn't but the discussion is happening in multiple threads and that's what is important.
-
I think discussion is good , but assuming malice is bad. When you assume malice the devs have every right to be offended. If you piss off the devs the may actually turn bad. In other words what you believe will shape your reality.
Asking the question about scaling to side chains is legitimate. Assuming the devs desire to prevent that is not.
The protocol is open. Anyone could rewrite the code in a new language and use any license they want. If bts thought the license was too restrictive it could hire someone to rewrite it.
The devs were freelance contractors without a contract. Under law that means they own the ip by default. Only employee labor is considered work for hire. Devs are not employees.
It is a very good thing that there exists a legal entity with clear rights otherwise bts code would be too risky for a business to use.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It is a very good thing that there exists a legal entity with clear rights otherwise bts code would be too risky for a business to use.
^^ +5%
-
Lol...I sometimes wonder if newmine uses his FUD posts to try to create sell offs after good news so he can sell high, cause drama (instead of discussion) and then buy back in cheaper. I mean...otherwise, why would he still be around?
I am pumped to see the community discussing all this though because one thing I can say is that BM and the initial devs were never supposed to always be the sole devs of the chain. I think they are trying to step back and let it become more "autonomous" and "decentralized", which means it requires a community willing to help support it.
@thom...perhaps your 3rd or 4th book should be called "daddy takes off the training wheels"
-
IMO this thread is extremly valuable! Guess, we should wait till the first real license draft is out so we have facts to discuss!
Until such threads and spirited discussion self manifested the training wheels could never come off. In an environment where anyone can have multiple accounts it's hard to recognize what is self manifested and what isn't but the discussion is happening in multiple threads and that's what is important.
True enough... we also have to keep in mind that front runners of "discussions" on certain topics may have ulterior motives wrapped in 'good point discussion'.
For example.. someone who had 'plans' to use bitshares code base in some other way to effectively steel it to go on to build something else would be pretty pissed about the copyright protection that stopped them from getting their free ride.
If I was them, I would start threads and go into all discussions raising the same things about this point in a attempt to break down the community trust and resolve. I would wrap it in scary words like 'lost soul' and 'devil' and the like. Nobody would know my real motivation is that I had plans to take the bitshares code for my own to do something that wasn't going to benefit BitShares.. and if there is some kind of licensing in place where I have to reveal that, well damn... we need to get rid of that.
Since this thread is all about suppositions and maybes and whatifs... we can have this fantasy land discussion too right? :)
-
Totally right, that is why we need a license ^^^^.
-
IMO this thread is extremly valuable! Guess, we should wait till the first real license draft is out so we have facts to discuss!
Until such threads and spirited discussion self manifested the training wheels could never come off. In an environment where anyone can have multiple accounts it's hard to recognize what is self manifested and what isn't but the discussion is happening in multiple threads and that's what is important.
True enough... we also have to keep in mind that front runners of "discussions" on certain topics may have ulterior motives wrapped in 'good point discussion'.
For example.. someone who had 'plans' to use bitshares code base in some other way to effectively steel it to go on to build something else would be pretty pissed about the copyright protection that stopped them from getting their free ride.
If I was them, I would start threads and go into all discussions raising the same things about this point in a attempt to break down the community trust and resolve. I would wrap it in scary words like 'lost soul' and 'devil' and the like. Nobody would know my real motivation is that I had plans to take the bitshares code for my own to do something that wasn't going to benefit BitShares.. and if there is some kind of licensing in place where I have to reveal that, well damn... we need to get rid of that.
Since this thread is all about suppositions and maybes and whatifs... we can have this fantasy land discussion too right? :)
+5% :D
-
IMO this thread is extremly valuable! Guess, we should wait till the first real license draft is out so we have facts to discuss!
Until such threads and spirited discussion self manifested the training wheels could never come off. In an environment where anyone can have multiple accounts it's hard to recognize what is self manifested and what isn't but the discussion is happening in multiple threads and that's what is important.
True enough... we also have to keep in mind that front runners of "discussions" on certain topics may have ulterior motives wrapped in 'good point discussion'.
For example.. someone who had 'plans' to use bitshares code base in some other way to effectively steel it to go on to build something else would be pretty pissed about the copyright protection that stopped them from getting their free ride.
If I was them, I would start threads and go into all discussions raising the same things about this point in a attempt to break down the community trust and resolve. I would wrap it in scary words like 'lost soul' and 'devil' and the like. Nobody would know my real motivation is that I had plans to take the bitshares code for my own to do something that wasn't going to benefit BitShares.. and if there is some kind of licensing in place where I have to reveal that, well damn... we need to get rid of that.
This is kind of what I sometimes think about newmine...because he complains, complains, complains...yet somehow still never just gives up and leaves. So I think he is a secret bull. :P
Then I think there are people who get really emotional in the moment and truly freak out a little bit.
-
Stupid question: What is IP?
-
intellectual property
-
Thanks
-
Valid points have been made in this thread as well as the others related to that subject, but the way some of them were formulated made me feel like they were used more to spread FUD than to start an honest and constructive discussion. I find it hard to believe that there is a benevolent motive behind some posts when they are formulated using an aggressive tone and insinuating that Bitshares is getting ripped off by Cryptonomex.
In case you haven't realized yet, I'm deliberately playing the devil's advocate here to force people out of blind faith and get them to evaluate objetively the situation under a more rational perspective and find arguments to counter my diatribe. Ultimately, what I want is people to ask themselves if they support this operation because they trust the core develpers, or if they support this operation because they understand what it's about and believe that it's the right thing to do.
So far, I have read a lot of knee-jerk "this is FUD" reactions but very little in terms of actually addressing the concerns I have raised. If the BitShares community takes the Cryptonomex deal, it must do so because it is convinced after careful and objective evaluation of all aspects of the deal that this is in BitShares' best interest, not because it believes blindly in some of the people involved in the deal. And before people can be convinced, things have to be tested and challenged.
One very important thing that people don't realize is that this time around we are not dealing with the core developers directly but with Cryptonomex, a company funded by private investors which primary objective, as any company, is to produce value for its shareholders. How much you trust Dan and Stan personally is irrelevant because Dan and Stan are not the only persons in command. As founders they certainly have a majority stake at this stage, but they already have to report to and take into account their investors opinion and make decisions that make business sense and put company growth as first priority even if it diverges from their philosphical ideals. They don't have the choice if they want to convince investors to get in for other rounds of funding. And even if they manage to keep their commitment to BitShares while they are majority stake holders, at some point they will exit, sell some of their holdings or let seasonned executives steer the company and lose control of what the company is doing. There is no way to guarantee that Cryptonomex will remain supportive to BitShares, and that's really a big concern considering that under current deal, Cryptonomex is controlling BitShares' life support system. It will take a single board decision for Cryptonomere to pull the plug on BitShares, try to steer it in a different direction or revoke whatever non-legally-binding agreement that has been made initially. If you think this is fud, you are extremely naive and have no experience of the world of business.
-
The devs were freelance contractors without a contract. Under law that means they own the ip by default. Only employee labor is considered work for hire. Devs are not employees.
It is a very good thing that there exists a legal entity with clear rights otherwise bts code would be too risky for a business to use.
BitShares code has been released under Unlicense, which puts the code in the public domain.
Dev don't own the property rights of the existing BitShares code.
-
Valid points have been made in this thread as well as the others related to that subject, but the way some of them were formulated made me feel like they were used more to spread FUD than to start an honest and constructive discussion. I find it hard to believe that there is a benevolent motive behind some posts when they are formulated using an aggressive tone and insinuating that Bitshares is getting ripped off by Cryptonomex.
In case you haven't realized yet, I'm deliberately playing the devil's advocate here to force people out of blind faith and get them to evaluate objetively the situation under a more rational perspective and find arguments to counter my diatribe. Ultimately, what I want is people to ask themselves if they support this operation because they trust the core develpers, or if they support this operation because they understand what it's about and believe that it's the right thing to do.
So far, I have read a lot of knee-jerk "this is FUD" reactions but very little in terms of actually addressing the concerns I have raised. If the BitShares community takes the Cryptonomex deal, it must do so because it is convinced after careful and objective evaluation of all aspects of the deal that this is in BitShares' best interest, not because it believes blindly in some of the people involved in the deal. And before people can be convinced, things have to be tested and challenged.
One very important thing that people don't realize is that this time around we are not dealing with the core developers directly but with Cryptonomex, a company funded by private investors which primary objective, as any company, is to produce value for its shareholders. How much you trust Dan and Stan personally is irrelevant because Dan and Stan are not the only persons in command. As founders they certainly have a majority stake at this stage, but they already have to report to and take into account their investors opinion and make decisions that make business sense and put company growth as first priority even if it diverges from their philosphical ideals. They don't have the choice if they want to convince investors to get in for other rounds of funding. And even if they manage to keep their commitment to BitShares while they are majority stake holders, at some point they will exit, sell some of their holdings or let seasonned executives steer the company and lose control of what the company is doing. There is no way to guarantee that Cryptonomex will remain supportive to BitShares, and that's really a big concern considering that under current deal, Cryptonomex is controlling BitShares' life support system. It will take a single board decision for Cryptonomere to pull the plug on BitShares, try to steer it in a different direction or revoke whatever non-legally-binding agreement that has been made initially. If you think this is fud, you are extremely naive and have no experience of the world of business.
Raising concerns is perfectly normal. I find it reassuring that people are asking pertinent and tough questions, particularly when it has everything to do with the survival and success of Bitshares in the long term.
What I'm much les comfortable with is seeing it formulated in a way that suggests that those concerns are facts only to get a reaction out of people. The problem is that anyone who comes here on the forum and read your OP will be left with the impression that Cryptonomex is ripping off Bitshares, which as far as I know is currently not the case. Your accusations will ring as truth to those that don't take the time to go through the whole thread, while your claims are still unsubstantiated. That is FUD by definition.
Back your claims with proofs and I'll be behind you. Ask tough but respectful questions and I'll be behind you.
The business world is definitely not forgiving. But throwing accusations around in the real world without these accusations being verified is called defamation.
-
It's not FUD it's just people reacting with emotions because IP is a "political/ideological" issue and it all suddenly becomes a matter of good and evil. Even Vitalik got heated with this announcement, and though I think he reacted childishly we all know this is how the climate is. I suggest BM and co think hard about their choice and wording of the license, so as not to spark further instinctive shunning. We've continually made huge damage to our reputation with things like this; and often the tech socialites do similar things they just are able to clothe it in the fashion of the day, for instance their subtle rhetoric with regard to mining still makes it sound like they have the moral high ground when this has been foolish on its face for years now.
Two redeeming factors on restrictive use is if it is possible to avoid the restriction by 1) being a non-profit or small business, 2) doing a sharedrop, like the current 20% social consensus.
-
Some product protection would be good at least during the bootstrapping phase, so that competitors with a better brand image and potentially more funding can't just cannibalise all the code & innovations that BM & co have come up with. BitShares would be a lot more valuable if it's done right.
At the same time, considering we can't do things like blockchain based gambling on BTS, there's definitely areas where new graphene blockchains that sharedropped on us could be very profitable and we wouldn't want to limit our options there.
.
-
What I'm much les comfortable with is seeing it formulated in a way that suggests that those concerns are facts only to get a reaction out of people. The problem is that anyone who comes here on the forum and read your OP will be left with the impression that Cryptonomex is ripping off Bitshares, which as far as I know is currently not the case. Your accusations will ring as truth to those that don't take the time to go through the whole thread, while your claims are still unsubstantiated. That is FUD by definition.
Yes this. In both this thread and the newmine thread, the tone of the OP is purely about reducing the community's confidence in the value of BTS, implying that it is a scam and that we are being screwed over by the devs. Rather than trying to be constructive, the goal of the posts seems to be to get people to sell BTS or be too afraid to buy BTS.
They also gave DecentralizedEconomics a good excuse to attack bitshares again in the Bitcointalk thread.