BitShares Forum

Main => Technical Support => Topic started by: bytemaster on June 15, 2015, 08:46:28 pm

Title: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: bytemaster on June 15, 2015, 08:46:28 pm
There have been some concerns about what Cryptonomex is doing so I thought I would start a thread to discuss them.   I will start by enumerating some of them:

1. Share-drop Theory is Dead
2. Toolkit is Dead
3. Software is Proprietary
4. Cryptonomex is forcing Bitshares to upgrade.

With every change comes concerns and fears.  So lets be very clear.

1. Share Drops are still possible using the old toolkit
2. Share Drops are still possible using the new Graphene Toolkit, with CNX permission
3. Every blockchain we license will have terms defined by the customer limited for use with that one individual blockchain
4. BitShares community doesn't *have* to upgrade.  It just needs to find new devs if it doesn't.
5. Graphene is a newer, better toolkit.  A free (Public Domain) version is available.
6. When used for BitShares the software is effectively BSD licensed.

So there is only one thing that has changed:  the developers have stopped working for free / low wages and have found a way to continue improving BitShares without increasing allowed dilution.   
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: MrJeans on June 15, 2015, 08:56:27 pm
This all makes perfect sense for sustainable development going forward.

I think the going solo feels a bit scary for some. We just need to keep reassuring the community and ensuring they understand the concepts.

Cant wait for Bitshares 2.0 launch.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: arubi on June 15, 2015, 08:58:29 pm
Here's to hoping we don't end up with another one of those..
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/04/oracle-acquires-sun-ars-explores-the-impact-on-open-source/


All the best, Daniel and team. I'll either want to hug you all or forget all your names after this is all over and done.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: fav on June 15, 2015, 09:00:46 pm
Without BM & team BitShares is probably dead, and we can't blame them if they want to get paid for their work.

Cryptonomex is the best move in my opinion.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: CryptoPrometheus on June 15, 2015, 09:12:59 pm
Something I have noticed is that a lot of people don't have any idea what "decentralized" really means or how it should operate. They seem to have some fanciful ideas that aren't based in social or economic realism and often seek to arbitrarily restrict certain parameters based on lack of true understanding about their nature. They go around projecting their limited understanding onto the world "outside", and end up either making a fool of themselves, or more often catalyzing others (who are equally unsure) towards greater chaos and confusion.

For people who truly understand the situation and aren't blinded by greed or self interest, the actions of Cryptonomix are only reinforcing something we already know. I had no problem with the original Cryptonomex proposal, hell I didn't even really object to the November merger, but no doubt I will be accused of being a blind and "uncritical" fanboy.

I would like to encourage everyone to consider that none of us "deserve" or are "entitled" to anything from our devs. Really, the only thing any of us "deserve" is the right to be compensated for our efforts. In BitShares history, they have never taken any of our money and explicitly offered something in return. Yet, once again they are now demonstrating a willingness to sacrifice their own time and energy (releasing all coding up to June 1st into public domain) for the greater good of the ecosystem. Are we ready to recognize that they, like the rest of us, have the right to be compensated for their labor?



Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: klosure on June 15, 2015, 09:30:42 pm
It hits my as paradoxical to create a thread to discuss concerns after you have summarily locked all the threads that were already actively discussing said concerns. So are we or not welcome to voice concerns? Should we stick to 1 ~ 4 or discussing other concerns is also allowed?

1. Share Drops are still possible using the old toolkit
Isn't the original Bitshares going be phased out?
If it is phased out, what sense does that make to use the old toolkit to perform sharedrops?

2. Share Drops are still possible using the new Graphene Toolkit, with CNX permission
The problem isn't the sharedrop itself but the fact of forking Bitshares to create a DAC which under current conditions doesn't allow the DAC creator to be entitled to a license of Graphene. Please specify what conditions would allow a DAC developer to receive CNX permission to use Graphene.

4. BitShares community doesn't *have* to upgrade.  It just needs to find new devs if it doesn't.
Glad you mention that because nothing in the way things have been announced and the way criticism has been handled suggests that we are entitled to a choice. Such a major change should have been discussed much earlier, and the community consulted. Here you are making us face a fait accompli. This isn't showing much respect to this community's freedom to choose.

Now if we have a choice, will you please unlock the discussion threads that you have locked where we were actually debating the question of whether we want to accept your deal and let us converge to a decision. Some more information about cryptonomex, the license etc. will need to be released before this community can make an informed decision.

5. Graphene is a newer, better toolkit.  A free (Public Domain) version is available.
Where is the git repo? Will the new chain launch with the exact version that has been released to the Public Domain so that we have at least a starting point to move away from the commercial Graphene if things are getting to a rupture point between BitShares and Cryptonomex?

6. When used for BitShares the software is effectively BSD licensed.
It's BSD licensed "with clause" which means it's not really BSD licensed in the sense that "BSD licensed" normally refers to (i.e. free to reuse in any sort of application including commercial applications). A custom BSD license that doesn't allow reuse is pointless. The name is nice and reassuring, but let's call a spade a space: that doesn't make it free software.

Now one question that you haven't addressed: why not launch the new chain under a new brand name (I've read some references to SmartCoin), all other things being equal? This wpuld allow the original Bitshare to keep going and fulfill its mission of enabling the development of an ecosystem of DACs so everyone is happy and we don't have to make an impossible choice.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: MrJeans on June 15, 2015, 09:34:30 pm
Something I have noticed is that a lot of people don't have any idea what "decentralized" really means or how it should operate. They seem to have some fanciful ideas that aren't based in social or economic realism and often seek to arbitrarily restrict certain parameters based on lack of true understanding about their nature. They go around projecting their limited understanding onto the world "outside", and end up either making a fool of themselves, or more often catalyzing others (who are equally unsure) towards greater chaos and confusion.

For people who truly understand the situation and aren't blinded by greed or self interest, the actions of Cryptonomix are only reinforcing something we already know. I had no problem with the original Cryptonomex proposal, hell I didn't even really object to the November merger, but no doubt I will be accused of being a blind and "uncritical" fanboy.

I would like to encourage everyone to consider that none of us "deserve" or are "entitled" to anything from our devs. Really, the only thing any of us "deserve" is the right to be compensated for our efforts. In BitShares history, they have never taken any of our money and explicitly offered something in return. Yet, once again they are now demonstrating a willingness to sacrifice their own time and energy (releasing all coding up to June 1st into public domain) for the greater good of the ecosystem. Are we ready to recognize that they, like the rest of us, have the right to be compensated for their labor?
  +5%
(http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2014/003/e/1/he_s_right_you_know_by_nightdemon12-d70r777.jpg)
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: Ander on June 15, 2015, 09:34:59 pm
Without BM & team BitShares is probably dead, and we can't blame them if they want to get paid for their work.

Yes.  It was always the case that if BM and team announced "we are done with Bitshares, goodbye", then the project would be pretty much done for.  Bitshares is not at bitcoin levels of adoption where many others could arise and carry on.

It has been quite worrying for months now that the price level of BTS is so low that it cannot pay a competitive developer wage to the team at these price levels and allowed dilution levels.  (And more dilution is not a good answer either, it just hurts the price).  Given this, the dev team securing funding is an excellent occurrence for Bitshares.  When I read that in the announcement, my initial reaction was to gain a lot more confidence.  This is a solution to a problem that Bitshares was facing: How are we going to retain the developers that we need to keep Bitshares growing to what it needs to be?


What are we giving up in order to get this developer funding WITHOUT having to dilute BTS for it?  Well, it seems the developers could license some Bitshares technology features they develop to other blockchains. 

How is this different form before?  Previously any other blockchain could just steal bitshares code base. 

Cryptonomex has given us the assurance that they will license to the Bitshares 2.0 blockchain.  Other chains can't get that guarantee.  Bitshares is in a privileged position here.



Yes, it is a risk that someone will try to poach the Bitshares devs and give them a ton of money to leave Bitshares, and that would suck for the project.  That was ALREADY a risk.  Nothing about that changed when they formed Cryptonomex.    How is Cryptonomex different in this regard than I3 was?


We need Bytemaster and team's continued support of Bitshares in order for the project to be a success (or at least to be a success without a massive amount of pain and time waiting for someoen else to appear and step up to develop it).  This fact was true in version 0.x and is true in version 2.0.  If the newmine posts are the first time you woke up and saw this fact, then I guess you might be scared by it, but you should have understood this earlier.


Hopefully Bitshares will grow in time to reach a point where it could survive even the core team leaving.  For this we need adoption!  Lots more adoption.  We need many more Bitshares companies to grow up in the ecosystem.  Even then, hopefully Bytemaster and team will remain working on Bitshares as one of those companies - Cryptonomex.  It would hurt to lose them, just as Bitcoin is hurt by the loss of Satoshi.  (I think if Satoshi were still around, he could probably fix this bitcoin block size/TPS issue a lot more easily than the current team, because peopel would rally around his proposal). 



Also, would the community really not want to accept Bitshares 2.0?  I think there is no way at all that the community would want to stay with the slow 0.9 client, instead of moving to the 2.0 client that has been designed to fix the current problems.  Some people act like this is being forced upon us, when actually this is what we have been clamoring for the devs to release for months.  This is a silly complaint.  Of course we want 2.0!  We have desperately wanted these features for over 6 months!  We want a fast web client, we want users to not need to sync a blockchain for 24 hours and use a memory hogging client to use Bitshares!   And we want our potential 100000 TPS, that is amazing!


Just as the dot com bust in 2000 was very hard on all those new internet companies, the crypto bear makret of 2014-2015 has been very hard on all cryptocurrenncy companies.  It has been a tough market to survive in, but Bitshares will survive, and this is part of that.  Great job core team/Cryptonomex for managing to secure some funding so that the project can continue.  Thank you for committing to license your works to the Bitshares blockchain.  Please continue working on Bitshares and supporting it, forever!  We, the Bitshares community, need you and your efforts, and will try to support you.

Hopefully we can grow the size of the community by 10x with the release of the new, much superior product, and then supporting you will become far easier. :)
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: Ander on June 15, 2015, 09:37:32 pm
It hits my as paradoxical to create a thread to discuss concerns after you have summarily locked all the threads that were already actively discussing said concerns. So are we or not welcome to voice concerns? Should we stick to 1 ~ 4 or discussing other concerns is also allowed?

I wish they hadnt locked your threads.  Even if I was annoyed by the tone of the threads, I hate censorship and the locking appeared like an attempt to silence you. 

We need to continue to discuss things until the community is reassured.  Clearly these posts showed that a segment of the community was very worried about things, so the discussion is needed.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: Ander on June 15, 2015, 09:40:10 pm
Now one question that you haven't addressed: why not launch the new chain under a new brand name (I've read some references to SmartCoin), all other things being equal? This wpuld allow the original Bitshare to keep going and fulfill its mission of enabling the development of an ecosystem of DACs so everyone is happy and we don't have to make an impossible choice.

I think this would cause more headaches.  We already have so much confusion from the change from Protoshares to Bitshares. 

If Bitshares 2.0 was released with the name SmartCoin or Graphene, it would be the same thing all over again.   (Though Graphene is a cool name, it reminds me of Ethereum.  But I think we are fine keeping our current name for the tokens that represent stake in the blockchain: Bitshares, and using Graphene as the name of the toolkit.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: sumantso on June 15, 2015, 09:52:01 pm
Pretty rough post from BM, sounds more like a veiled threat than anything.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: Ander on June 15, 2015, 09:54:26 pm
Pretty rough post from BM, sounds more like a veiled threat than anything.

The threat is "we won't work for free"?
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: Pheonike on June 15, 2015, 10:00:16 pm


Why is reality a threat? 
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: CLains on June 15, 2015, 10:05:21 pm
This is just the same procedure as every time. To critics: Be real, offer a viable alternative otherwise you're just resenting reality.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: klosure on June 15, 2015, 10:11:25 pm
I would like to encourage everyone to consider that none of us "deserve" or are "entitled" to anything from our devs. Really, the only thing any of us "deserve" is the right to be compensated for our efforts.
The debate isn't at all about who owns the code produced by Cryptonomex independently. We didn't even know that this code existed two weeks ago. The real debate is whether the proposed technical optimizations and continued support model justify losing our sovereignty on the code and straying away from our philosophical foundations and mission statement when it would be as easy to create a new chain and have the best of both worlds. This debate, the full disclosure of relevant information and the freedom to choose, that is what we are asking here, and this we are definitely entitled to it.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: klosure on June 15, 2015, 10:19:40 pm
Pretty rough post from BM, sounds more like a veiled threat than anything.

The threat is "we won't work for free"?
If that's really the bottom of the question there was a much better way to handle the problem than decide everything alone and try to push it on the community. The obvious first step would have been to announce that the core developers were not going to be able to continue the effort with that level of funding, and ask the community to brainstorm on the question or try to find other developers who would be willing to take over. This wasn't even done.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: klosure on June 15, 2015, 10:22:04 pm
To critics: Be real, offer a viable alternative otherwise you're just resenting reality.
How can we propose viable alternatives if there is no debate in first place?
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: MrJeans on June 15, 2015, 10:23:41 pm
I see a lot of positive in the new ideas for moving forward.
I'm very excited to start using 2.0.
I believe it will allow for increased adoption.

If we get greater adoption and price rises, well then Bitshares blockchain could start affording to hire the core developers full time. Thus adding more value causing share price to rise and freeing up even more funds to add more value. SNOWBALL!
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: Riverhead on June 15, 2015, 10:27:50 pm
e question that you haven't addressed: why not launch the new chain under a new brand name (I've read some references to SmartCoin), all other things being equal? This wpuld allow the original Bitshare to keep going and fulfill its mission of enabling the development of an ecosystem of DACs so everyone is happy and we don't have to make an impossible choice.

It isn't BM you need to convince. It's the delegates that have the choice to switch toolkits or not. If the delegates all decide to switch to the new licensed software you can find new delegates. Non-Graphene BitShares isn't going anywhere. Find some delegates to run the nodes and some developers to address the issues.

The choice I see the crew in Blacksburg had was go public early and completely crash the price down to a few Satoshi or come up with a completely thought out plan. Either choice would have its detractors and supporters.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: CLains on June 15, 2015, 10:28:52 pm
To critics: Be real, offer a viable alternative otherwise you're just resenting reality.
How can we propose viable alternatives if there is no debate in first place?

Yeah that was a mistake, and for my part I have no doubt that you express a genuine concern. Now that you have expressed, from what I can tell, the alternative that they launch a new chain and give us 20% or something like that in it, here is how I see it: This alternative solution will remind people of the situation before the merger, with a lot of fragmentation, liquidity lost between cracks, a confusing mess for marketers and a lot of uncertainty. I doubt more than 5-10% of the stakeholders in this project would like this idea, but let us see what people think.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: klosure on June 15, 2015, 10:29:34 pm
If we get greater adoption and price rises, well then Bitshares blockchain could start affording to hire the core developers full time. Thus adding more value causing share price to rise and freeing up even more funds to add more value. SNOWBALL!
Price will recover naturally when we get out of this bear market. We don't need Graphene for that.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: klosure on June 15, 2015, 10:38:57 pm
e question that you haven't addressed: why not launch the new chain under a new brand name (I've read some references to SmartCoin), all other things being equal? This wpuld allow the original Bitshare to keep going and fulfill its mission of enabling the development of an ecosystem of DACs so everyone is happy and we don't have to make an impossible choice.

It isn't BM you need to convince. It's the delegates that have the choice to switch toolkits or not. If the delegates all decide to switch to the new licensed software you can find new delegates. Non-Graphene BitShares isn't going anywhere. Find some delegates to run the nodes and some developers to address the issues.
That's the theory, but in practice it's going to be much more complicated than that. Unless the question has been debated well enough and gained enough traction to lead to a consensus at community level, supporters of the new chain will be hostile to the old chain that they will perceive as a parasite eating on the market share. The survival of PTS after the merger is a good example of that kind of thing occuring. There is also the question of the brand, and the existing ecosystem bindings: who will get to be BitShares, and what network will the exchanges pick when people withdraw their balance of BTS and bitAssets? Obviously there will be a huge lobbying from the new chain to be recognized as the one real BitShares. If we are going to keep two chains, they must carry different brands so that there won't be any confusion and the new chain must create its own ecosystem. This is something we must decide now.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: Ander on June 15, 2015, 10:42:46 pm
The community ending up split between two chains would be a disaster, imo.  It looks bad to outsiders, its very confusing, and it means that people are needlessly duplicating effort instead of working together.

Lets avoid that.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: CryptoPrometheus on June 15, 2015, 10:43:34 pm
I would like to encourage everyone to consider that none of us "deserve" or are "entitled" to anything from our devs. Really, the only thing any of us "deserve" is the right to be compensated for our efforts.
The debate isn't at all about who owns the code produced by Cryptonomex independently. We didn't even know that this code existed two weeks ago. The real debate is whether the proposed technical optimizations and continued support model justify losing our sovereignty on the code and straying away from our philosophical foundations and mission statement when it would be as easy to create a new chain and have the best of both worlds. This debate, the full disclosure of relevant information and the freedom to choose, that is what we are asking here, and this we are definitely entitled to it.

Sovereignty means "having supreme power of authority over a domain". How exactly would we (the holders of BTS) be losing our sovereignty when we have never had "sovereignty" over the BTS code to begin with?  BitShares code, up to this point, has always been public domain. Nobody has sovereignty over it, anyone can use it for any reason, that's the whole point of public domain. Cryptonomix gave us a choice: rather than using our current "inferior" but fully public domain software we could accept their gracious offering to give us a free license to the (still fully open-source) code that they have written over the last 4 months. [actually, today they amended the original offering and decided "public domain" everything written before June 1]. Additionally, they have outlined their terms for continuing to code for BitShares if we want them to. What's more, the code they have written will allow us to vote on discarding any or all of the current code for something different at any time in the future.

As far as potential opportunities for other projects sharedropping on BTS, I guess we have to make the decision, as shareholders, as to whether the superior feature set of the Graphene toolkit under the given license agreement is a reasonable trade-off for the possible decrease in likelihood of BTS being the recipient of future sharedrops. As for what you mean by "philosophical foundations", I suppose I would ask you to be more specific, because this area of debate often leads to unproductive mudslinging due to both sides attacking a straw man they have erected in place of their actual opponent.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: klosure on June 15, 2015, 10:48:27 pm
To critics: Be real, offer a viable alternative otherwise you're just resenting reality.
How can we propose viable alternatives if there is no debate in first place?

Yeah that was a mistake, and for my part I have no doubt that you express a genuine concern. Now that you have expressed, from what I can tell, the alternative that they launch a new chain and give us 20% or something like that in it, here is how I see it: This alternative solution will remind people of the situation before the merger, with a lot of fragmentation, liquidity lost between cracks, a confusing mess for marketers and a lot of uncertainty. I doubt more than 5-10% of the stakeholders in this project would like this idea, but let us see what people think.
Who said the sharedrop should be 20%?
The reason I'm asking the question to Bytemaster is that if he is doing this migration for Bitshares and not out of self interest to recover the brand, community and ecosystem on his new chain, he shouldn't mind creating a second chain and sharedrop 100% of the stake on BitShares. This won't change his stake in the new chain that will be based on his original BTS stake and he will stand to benefit too from a potential coming back of the original BitShares. The only entity that stands to lose from BitShares surviving and coming back to the fore front is Cryptonomex, but since the whole purpose of creating Cryptonomex was to help BitShares (or so we have been told), that shouldn't be a problem.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: Thom on June 15, 2015, 10:49:01 pm
Without BM & team BitShares is probably dead, and we can't blame them if they want to get paid for their work.
^THIS.
However, the OP of this new thread avoids many other issues being discussed.

EDIT: For the record I started drafting this post prior to the 20 that were posted before this one appeared!

AGS / PTS
For those that claim AGS / PTS investors have an expectation of ownership I say they shouldn't. It was all a donation based contribution to fund the creation of the BitShares ecosystem. You can split hairs on whether that has been accomplished but in my book it was. Is it perfect? No. Could it be improved? Of course, but that's always true. So what?
Have all of those funds been spent? If so when did they run out, before or after work on graphene was well underway?

This issue keeps coming up. Many never really backed the merger and many have since changed their minds about it. Although all funds collected through AGS / PTS had no contractual, official obligations, we all know that was necessary to keep the dev staff legal. That made it an issue of trust and integrity that I3 would do what they claimed. If the trust wasn't there the investments wouldn't have been either. The way people measure integrity is subjective. Some people feel that trust was violated. That is one reason why this issue keeps recurring.

Current Funding of Dev Staff
What about the delegate pay the devs are receiving right now? Is that bonus money to develop 2.0? Is it repaying a perceived deficit from low marketcap? Going towards 0.9.x expenses? Just what are those exactly? Some may feel they are subsidizing proprietary software development. Full disclosure about this doesn't seem unreasonable, but this issue hasn't been explicitly addressed.

Controlling Interests of Cryptonomex
The community has not been fully informed about Cryptonomex's obligations. CNX is a new entity but we are largely in the dark about it and that makes some people nervous. What conditions did the investors of Cryptonomex require to fund the company? Are those obligations in conflict with past expectations (implied) for BitShares?

To say the community should have a strong sense of gratitude towards BM & the core devs for the very existence of this ecosystem is a major understatement. Are they being generous towards this community or only trying to protect their own investments of time & money? I think it's a bit of both, and I see nothing wrong with that.

I am surprised by the lack of depth of the OP in dealing with the issues raised in various threads, including these.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: klosure on June 15, 2015, 10:54:08 pm
The community ending up split between two chains would be a disaster, imo.  It looks bad to outsiders, its very confusing, and it means that people are needlessly duplicating effort instead of working together.

Lets avoid that.
That happened between Ripple and Stellar. It wasn't at all a disaster.
If each chain has a well identifiable brand, people will just perceive SmartCoin/Graphene/CryptonomexCoin as a new currency from the award winning creators of BitShares and learn to like it for its own merits and hate it for its own defaults.

The problem in that partiular case of BitShares is that BitShares always defined itself as a free software project with libertarian leanings so doing a 180 degree turn to become a proprietary project with commercial endeavour is likely to get it red flagged beyond repair in the crypto community. Look at the amount of flak Ripple got for doing things not remotely as controverrsial as what we are discussing now...
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: klosure on June 15, 2015, 11:26:30 pm
Sovereignty means "having supreme power of authority over a domain". How exactly would we (the holders of BTS) be losing our sovereignty when we have never had "sovereignty" over the BTS code to begin with?  BitShares code, up to this point, has always been public domain. Nobody has sovereignty over it, anyone can use it for any reason, that's the whole point of public domain.
Sovereignty isn't usually a concept used with code so it should be obvious that its usage was rhetorical and not meant to lead to ethimological debate. Using code which property rights we don't own and that we aren't allowed to license and reuse is very much akin to a loss of sovereignty as compared to the current situation where we can do as we see fit with the code base.

Cryptonomix gave us a choice: rather than using our current "inferior" but fully public domain software we could accept their gracious offering to give us a free license to the (still fully open-source) code that they have written over the last 4 months.
"choice" and "gracious" are not the words that come to mind first to describe what effectively amounts to an ultimatum.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: Ander on June 15, 2015, 11:50:33 pm
klosure, the dev team has never intended to develop Bitshares for free, while they starve.  They have always planned to develop Bitshares for a reasonable salary so that they can survive while doing it.

Part 1 2013 - Nov 2014: AGS funding via bitcoin donations.  It was initially hoped that this would last as long as needed (until Bitshares grew big).  But instead of continuing to increase, Bitcoin crashed.

Part 2: Nov 2014 - May 2015: Paid delegates.  It was then hoped that for a couple percent inflaiton a year, Bitshares could support its own development through the paid delegate system.  However, the bitshares market cap dropped another 80%, and what could have been a workable wage became very small.

Part 3: June 2015 on: Cryptonomex.  The developers make money with their new software/consulting company to pay the bills.  While they do this, they also give all the software they make to Bitshares, to continue to develop it.



That was my understanding of this whole thing.
You and Newmine seem to have instead interpreted this as "they are trying to steal everything and screw us all". 

I will admit I'm not an expert in licenses, so it would be good to have a legal expert tell us whats up. 



If you don't like the idea of developers making any money while they develop a cryptocurrency, then maybe you should go join an altcoin community where devs work for free?  There are plenty of them out there.  However, most of them struggle.


The most promising projects in crypto space, such as Ripple, Bitshares, Stellar, and Ethereum, have found a way to have funding and thus pay developers.  (As far as I know).  Since the original Bitshares funding money ran out they have had to improvise and this is part of that improvisation.  The great thing about Cryptonomex, imo, is that it gets them funding without diluting BTS. 
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: Helikopterben on June 16, 2015, 12:03:36 am
Both bitshares and ethereum have nearly run out of development money, the bitcoin foundation is effectively bankrupt, and we have seen an endless stream of exchange failures.  This bear market has been brutal on everyone, but the silver lining is that the weakest projects and scams have been weeded out for the most part.  Only the strongest survive.  Bear markets are necessary for that. 

As an investor in this space, I try to keep up with most of the projects in the top 10 on coinmarketcap, which is difficult at times considering how dynamic this space is.  IMO, bitshares has a really good chance of being one of the dominant chains coming out of this.  Bitshares and dash are the only two projects that have clear plans on how to pay devs indefinitely by revenue generated from the blockchain.  Ripple appears to have plenty of XRP in reserves and bitcoin has received the bulk of VC money, so they should be fine for a while.  Sidechains in bitcoin could be a game changer if they are able to create secure revenue-generating models. 

However, bitshares has the potential to become the first self-sustained blockchain thankfully now that the core devs have secured additional funding to make it through until the blockchain does start producing significant revenue.  I think fears about cmx being a conflict of interest are overblown just as fears of blockstream being a conflict of interest in bitcoin is overblown. 

As far as IP, core devs face a catch-22 situation with the code they write.  If they don't open source it, then nobody will trust it.  If they do open source it, then anyone else is free to copy and use it, and licensing and copywriting will largely be irrelevant in this space IMO.  Remember, these systems are global and decentralized in nature.  It will be very difficult for legacy IP laws to be enforced.  You can't sue a blockchain.  If someone from a different country decides to copy your code and put it into another blockchain and do it all anonymously, you are not going to stop them, no matter how many lawyers you employ.  What would truly be fascinating is if someone came up with a way to make code both open source and restrictive at the same time through code and/or cryptography, not through legacy IP laws.  I don't see how this would be possible, but I am continually amazed at the ingenuity that comes out of this space. 
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: NewMine on June 16, 2015, 12:03:50 am
klosure, the dev team has never intended to develop Bitshares for free, while they starve.  They have always planned to develop Bitshares for a reasonable salary so that they can survive while doing it.

Part 1 2013 - Nov 2014: AGS funding via bitcoin donations.  It was initially hoped that this would last as long as needed (until Bitshares grew big).  But instead of continuing to increase, Bitcoin crashed.

Part 2: Nov 2014 - May 2015: Paid delegates.  It was then hoped that for a couple percent inflaiton a year, Bitshares could support its own development through the paid delegate system.  However, the bitshares market cap dropped another 80%, and what could have been a workable wage became very small.

Part 3: June 2015 on: Cryptonomex.  The developers make money with their new software/consulting company to pay the bills.  While they do this, they also give all the software they make to Bitshares, to continue to develop it.



That was my understanding of this whole thing.
You and Newmine seem to have instead interpreted this as "they are trying to steal everything and screw us all". 

I will admit I'm not an expert in licenses, so it would be good to have a legal expert tell us whats up. 



If you don't like the idea of developers making any money while they develop a cryptocurrency, then maybe you should go join an altcoin community where devs work for free?  There are plenty of them out there.  However, most of them struggle.


The most promising projects in crypto space, such as Ripple, Bitshares, Stellar, and Ethereum, have found a way to have funding and thus pay developers.  (As far as I know).  Since the original Bitshares funding money ran out they have had to improvise and this is part of that improvisation.  The great thing about Cryptonomex, imo, is that it gets them funding without diluting BTS.
You are like Kurt Russell's character at the end of Vanilla Sky.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: Ander on June 16, 2015, 12:08:55 am
klosure, the dev team has never intended to develop Bitshares for free, while they starve.  They have always planned to develop Bitshares for a reasonable salary so that they can survive while doing it.

Part 1 2013 - Nov 2014: AGS funding via bitcoin donations.  It was initially hoped that this would last as long as needed (until Bitshares grew big).  But instead of continuing to increase, Bitcoin crashed.

Part 2: Nov 2014 - May 2015: Paid delegates.  It was then hoped that for a couple percent inflaiton a year, Bitshares could support its own development through the paid delegate system.  However, the bitshares market cap dropped another 80%, and what could have been a workable wage became very small.

Part 3: June 2015 on: Cryptonomex.  The developers make money with their new software/consulting company to pay the bills.  While they do this, they also give all the software they make to Bitshares, to continue to develop it.



That was my understanding of this whole thing.
You and Newmine seem to have instead interpreted this as "they are trying to steal everything and screw us all". 

I will admit I'm not an expert in licenses, so it would be good to have a legal expert tell us whats up. 



If you don't like the idea of developers making any money while they develop a cryptocurrency, then maybe you should go join an altcoin community where devs work for free?  There are plenty of them out there.  However, most of them struggle.


The most promising projects in crypto space, such as Ripple, Bitshares, Stellar, and Ethereum, have found a way to have funding and thus pay developers.  (As far as I know).  Since the original Bitshares funding money ran out they have had to improvise and this is part of that improvisation.  The great thing about Cryptonomex, imo, is that it gets them funding without diluting BTS.
You are like Kurt Russell's character at the end of Vanilla Sky.

Sorry, I dont know that movie.

If I am simply naively mistaken due to lack of understanding of licenscing, and Newmine is actually our savior who will prevent the value of BTS from being stolen from us by evil developers, well, then I am sorry. :)

But I dont think that is the case, and I would like to see the community united and growing together, and not always being upset over everything. 
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: starspirit on June 16, 2015, 12:09:24 am
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems sensible on the surface that CNX would have a right to own and license the work it self-funds from this point on, just like any other business. What I'd like to see at some point in the future is for BitShares to be resilient enough so that our entire ecosystem is not functionally tied to any third party work or license arrangement, including CNX. I'd imagine we would need a much broader development community and a more modular (plug-and-play) approach to the protocol, all of which will require more growth. For now, I think it would make the community more comfortable in following the development team and CNX to know who CNX is exactly.

With regard to the scope of the license, what will be the treatment of protocol additions that are to be funded by BitShares? So for example, if third parties in our ecosystem designed new markets, and the community voted to contractually engage CNX to add this code to the protocol, would these "modules" be subject to CNX licensing terms? I'm not sure of the best answer here.

I find it a bit confusing that bitShares would be funding Cryptonomex's employees individually within the system - why not just a single payment to Cryptonomex that they can distribute as they see fit?

Why couldn't we have discussed internal  bitShares solutions to the issue of developer pay? For example, there may have been (and still may be) ways to use donor funds, or internally backed project ventures with profit-driven outcomes. Maybe this discussion was had, and no other viable options found for now, but it would be nice to open these ideas up.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: eagleeye on June 16, 2015, 12:15:40 am
This is the worst timing in the world, where is moonstone, and how can we start promoting indexes with this trauma.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: fuzzy on June 16, 2015, 12:24:56 am
The community ending up split between two chains would be a disaster, imo.  It looks bad to outsiders, its very confusing, and it means that people are needlessly duplicating effort instead of working together.

Lets avoid that.
That happened between Ripple and Stellar. It wasn't at all a disaster.
If each chain has a well identifiable brand, people will just perceive SmartCoin/Graphene/CryptonomexCoin as a new currency from the award winning creators of BitShares and learn to like it for its own merits and hate it for its own defaults.

The problem in that partiular case of BitShares is that BitShares always defined itself as a free software project with libertarian leanings so doing a 180 degree turn to become a proprietary project with commercial endeavour is likely to get it red flagged beyond repair in the crypto community. Look at the amount of flak Ripple got for doing things not remotely as controverrsial as what we are discussing now...

I'm actually of the belief that we should have the ability to disagree and fork bitshares so that these chains generally represent the spectrum of philosophical leanings. In fact that is what I loved about the concept of Sharedropping from the very beginning.  I actually have expected for a long time that the community and maybe even some of the devs would split off and form different chains, sharedropping a % on BTS/AGS/PTS  holders in a way that enables them to have ownership in each chain and the underlying philosophy each one represents. 

Then the stakeholders currently here can decide which chains to divest in and which to buy into further.  Over time you'd have chains that started out with similar foundational technology but that would compete based on philosophy (communist, capitalist, socialist...etc). 

So if you believe that BM and the team are going to do something that is outside of your philosophical comfort zone...or that you think will make the chain value far less...you sell your stake in that chain and buy fully into the one that sharedropped 100% on you and has a development team with a philosophy more in line with your own. 

It would be akin to having the ability to easily move from country  to country FREELY without having to worry about anything except whether or not you think your original country is worth keeping a second home there...

Some might be uncertain and thus would keep equal stake in all of them thinking "I'm going to play it safe because I want to AT LEAST have a house in these countries in the case all the others are proven to become failed states..."

While others might say "I KNOW this chain represents the philosophy that guarantees value creation and the others will no doubt fail...so I'm selling all my property in those countries and buying a mansion in the country whose driving philosophy most believe in.  I will be very very wealthy in this kingdom when I'm proven correct."

In this way the earlier you invest in building the toolkit that changed the crypto world, the better off you are...as a reward for your vision. 

I want bitshares to someday have as many forks as bitcoin...why? Because it is superior technology to bitcoin and at the moment we have as many legitimate alt chains as bitcoin is the moment when DPOS as a foundational protocol is accepted by the broader world as the crypto gold standard.  The only differences would be slight changes in how consensus is reached (ie--will the roles of delegate, witness, worker...exist separately? Or will they remain combined? Will the dpos chain innovate in ensuring anonymity as a foundational philosophy? ...etc)

The more I think about it, the more I think we should create two separate chains and leave one with the name bts(2.0) and a second one to something else (like graphene)...then let everyone decide where they prefer to stay.  At that point it is THEIR decision...not BM's...so they can't complain about because it is their own free will and good decisions that are rewarded. 

It would also be a very newsworthy event that we enable EVERYONE to decide where they will participate...and will make many original bitcoin holders wonder why the heck they are constantly buying into new altcoins when they could just join the buy into any of the bitshares-powered iterations.







Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: cylonmaker2053 on June 16, 2015, 12:27:31 am
As a shareholder i prefer to see supreme effort focused on core value propositions, which in our case as BTS is a p2p asset exchange. That's what the DAC does well, and if this merger brings better tech to make the user/customer experience better, then i fully support it. it sounds like there's potential to reduce added value propositions as the org grows, but i'd take better focus and resources on the core capability any day over losing options for future tangential ventures...ESPECIALLY when we're in a bear market that kicked the shyt out of our market cap. It's time to buckle down, scrape for available synergistic resources (like CNX), and press hard on making our core business better. After trolling all these heated threads today, i'd just like to say i think the merger looks like the right move. There's no reason why other DAC ventures can't evolve from this same community after BTS really succeeds and we can pay for our lattes w/bitUSD!
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: CryptoPrometheus on June 16, 2015, 12:31:15 am
Sovereignty means "having supreme power of authority over a domain". How exactly would we (the holders of BTS) be losing our sovereignty when we have never had "sovereignty" over the BTS code to begin with?  BitShares code, up to this point, has always been public domain. Nobody has sovereignty over it, anyone can use it for any reason, that's the whole point of public domain.
Sovereignty isn't usually a concept used with code so it should be obvious that its usage was rhetorical and not meant to lead to ethimological debate. Using code which property rights we don't own and that we aren't allowed to license and reuse is very much akin to a loss of sovereignty as compared to the current situation where we can do as we see fit with the code base.

Who is this "we" that should have the right to license or re-use the Graphene toolkit? Holders of BTS? Anybody in the world? Are you saying that currently, holders of BTS are allowed to license the BTS code? That is not true. Sure, anybody can freely copy or re-use the BTS toolkit - but what does that have to do with BTS? Does this benefit the holders of BTS? No, it only benefits others who want to freely use something that they have not worked, paid for or contributed to, for their own potential benefit. Perhaps they may choose to sharedrop, perhaps not.

Furthermore, are you suggesting that somehow BTS users will not be allowed to alter the Graphene toolkit for the future benefit of the BTS chain? That is also not true, since BTS will be licensed to do so. The reality is, the only people that this does not benefit are people that want to copy and re-use the BTS code for free and then compete directly with BTS.

Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: fuzzy on June 16, 2015, 12:33:21 am
I mean...let's face it.  Even PTS still is in the top 65 of all altcoins...so just imagine what people will begin thinking about bitcoin's fate when there are 20-30 different bitshares-powered chains in the top 100 on coinmarketcap...and one is very similar to their own philosophies...

My belief is that people should be free to exist in the system they feel best matches their personality.  If they are an anarchist, they should have a bitshares version that reflects that...as long as they have devs who will support it.  If they are communist...or socialist.. the same applies.

Why? Because the MOST value comes from synergies between PEOPLE with like minds and similar passions...not a given system of belief that forces everyone to join or face punishment.

Do the devs really think this would hurt them in the long run?  I can't see how it could...because ultimately they are going to all want to be snatched up and paid large sums of money for being capable of innovating to the level this team has accomplished...so even if there are 100 dpos chains like bitshares...but with different devs and philosophies...guess who is going to be in the history books for creating the crypto gold standard DPOS would become?  You got it....the devs!  I'm sure they will find work making plenty of money...and will be able to look at these days as "paying their dues" to earn a reputation of gold in a very lucrative industry.

What did Bruce Lee say again?  Oh yeh..."Be like Linux, my friend"...or something like that :P
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: mint chocolate chip on June 16, 2015, 01:09:17 am
So I listened to the mumble, and I have to say one thing struck me as something that seems rather important but was quickly brought to consensus based on the okays of two or three people in attendance.

Migration comes up around the 40:00 mark of https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts/beyond-bitcoin-06-12-2015-dev-hangout-s3 and someone asks about the default referrer for all current account holders.

BM states that that has been an internal discussion topic with only two options, mark each account as either Null or mark each account as CMX as the referrer, since that would reward the developers for setting up the faucet, for their development efforts, and that they "in practice referred everyone that is here today".

I am not sure that my account was setup with the faucet, in fact it and many others were setup before the faucet existed and I think I and others paid our own registration fee via a transfer from an exchange or from onceuponatime or other members.

Regardless, this is a very big decision to give all the referral income to CMX, a company that did not exist until recently. I would think that if the referrals were marked as null, that possibly six or seven digit referral revenue would flow back into BitShares (as a burn or the worker pool). I do not want to not reward the developers who have done an amazing job and have created a truly brilliant system that will provide plenty of referral opportunities for us all going forward, but I do not think something of this level of importance should be glossed over either. Frankly, there were a lot of other people who referred users to the system, and arbitrarily giving 100% of all current account holders referral revenue to CMX is something we should be discussing.

In the future, there possibly may be other non-referred users, who is given that referral credit, is it given to CMX automatically or is it null... for example, I asked about BitShares.org after Stan posted about it being public and have distanced themselves from it, and have not gotten a response https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16889.msg216043.html#msg216043 so maybe this is something we should be discussing as this is a potential opportunity for the BitShares DAC to profit as there will be a large percentage of users who land on the website as their first exposure to BitShares via links or search.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: Stan on June 16, 2015, 01:15:58 am
Without BM & team BitShares is probably dead, and we can't blame them if they want to get paid for their work.
^THIS.
However, the OP of this new thread avoids many other issues being discussed.

EDIT: For the record I started drafting this post prior to the 20 that were posted before this one appeared!

AGS / PTS
For those that claim AGS / PTS investors have an expectation of ownership I say they shouldn't. It was all a donation based contribution to fund the creation of the BitShares ecosystem. You can split hairs on whether that has been accomplished but in my book it was. Is it perfect? No. Could it be improved? Of course, but that's always true. So what?
Have all of those funds been spent? If so when did they run out, before or after work on graphene was well underway?

This issue keeps coming up. Many never really backed the merger and many have since changed their minds about it. Although all funds collected through AGS / PTS had no contractual, official obligations, we all know that was necessary to keep the dev staff legal. That made it an issue of trust and integrity that I3 would do what they claimed. If the trust wasn't there the investments wouldn't have been either. The way people measure integrity is subjective. Some people feel that trust was violated. That is one reason why this issue keeps recurring.

Current Funding of Dev Staff
What about the delegate pay the devs are receiving right now? Is that bonus money to develop 2.0? Is it repaying a perceived deficit from low marketcap? Going towards 0.9.x expenses? Just what are those exactly? Some may feel they are subsidizing proprietary software development. Full disclosure about this doesn't seem unreasonable, but this issue hasn't been explicitly addressed.

Controlling Interests of Cryptonomex
The community has not been fully informed about Cryptonomex's obligations. CNX is a new entity but we are largely in the dark about it and that makes some people nervous. What conditions did the investors of Cryptonomex require to fund the company? Are those obligations in conflict with past expectations (implied) for BitShares?

To say the community should have a strong sense of gratitude towards BM & the core devs for the very existence of this ecosystem is a major understatement. Are they being generous towards this community or only trying to protect their own investments of time & money? I think it's a bit of both, and I see nothing wrong with that.

I am surprised by the lack of depth of the OP in dealing with the issues raised in various threads, including these.

Let me try to clear a few of these up:

1.  Invictus ran out of donated BTC at the end of last year.  All PTS was returned on advice of our accountants.
2.  During recent months 100% delegates have earned about 4277 BTS * $0.006 = $25 per day.  (BitShares paid for 1/2 hour every day)
(Enough for them to answer a few questions or fix a simple bug every day or so.)
3.  By dipping into our BTS reserves set aside for legal, accounting, and government contingencies, I3 was able to provide a small stipend for some of them amounting to about 3 paid hours per day.  To meet the rest of their living expenses, they were forced to live off their savings from last year.
4.  This left them somewhere around 8 unpaid hours a day as independent agents.  With this time, the team continued to provide essential updates for BitShares and worked on Graphene with the hope of producing something of value that could be used to recover all their sacrificed pay.  This was a huge gamble.  It would have been smarter to take a job at Google, use their new salaries to buy up cheap BTS.  Instead they stuck with it.   Net cash flow during all this time was from the developers to BitShares, not the other way around.
5.  When it became clear that Graphene would be a success, the team decided to build a new company to monetize it and recover their painful losses.
6.  ALL of the current stakeholders in Cryptonomex are members of the global BitShares community who invested their own time and/or money to make Graphene possible.
7.  It is CNX intention to use the results of these risky investments to raise additional capital and capture new revenue streams.  To do that, we need to have a company that owns something that merits such investment.  That's why we have the license structure you see.  Failure to assert those IP rights would mean that BitShares would need to find developers able to take Graphene the rest of the way for $25/day.  We were, alas, not able to find anybody willing to continue doing that.
8.  For the foreseeable future we expect to continue using such outside investments to grow the BitShares ecosystem in a way that incentivizes investment in CNX.
9.  Please observe the complete series of announcements we make this summer before you judge our commitment to BitShares success.  :)







Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: cylonmaker2053 on June 16, 2015, 01:24:51 am
Let me try to clear a few of these up:

1.  Invictus ran out of donated BTC at the end of last year.  All PTS was returned on advice of our accountants.
2.  During recent months 100% delegates have earned about 4277 BTS * $0.006 = $25 per day.  (BitShares paid for 1/2 hour every day)
(Enough for them to answer a few questions or fix a simple bug every day or so.)
3.  By dipping into our BTS reserves set aside for legal, accounting, and government contingencies, I3 was able to provide a small stipend for some of them amounting to about 3 paid hours per day.  To meet the rest of their living expenses, they were forced to live off their savings from last year.
4.  This left them somewhere around 8 unpaid hours a day as independent agents.  With this time, the team continued to provide essential updates for BitShares and worked on Graphene with the hope of producing something of value that could be used to recover all their sacrificed pay.  This was a huge gamble.  It would have been smarter to take a job at Google, use their new salaries to buy up cheap BTS.  Instead they stuck with it.   Net cash flow during all this time was from the developers to BitShares, not the other way around.
5.  When it became clear that Graphene would be a success, the team decided to build a new company to monetize it and recover their painful losses.
6.  ALL of the current stakeholders in Cryptonomex are members of the global BitShares community who invested their own time and/or money to make Graphene possible.
7.  It is CNX intention to use the results of these risky investments to raise additional capital and capture new revenue streams.  To do that, we need to have a company that owns something that merits such investment.  That's why we have the license structure you see.  Failure to assert those IP rights would mean that BitShares would need to find developers able to take Graphene the rest of the way for $25/day.  We were, alas, not able to find anybody willing to continue doing that.
8.  For the foreseeable future we expect to continue using such outside investments to grow the BitShares ecosystem in a way that incentivizes investment in CNX.
9.  Please observe the complete series of announcements we make this summer before you judge our commitment to BitShares success.  :)

 +5% +5% +5%
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: fuzzy on June 16, 2015, 01:34:39 am
Let me try to clear a few of these up:

1.  Invictus ran out of donated BTC at the end of last year.  All PTS was returned on advice of our accountants.
2.  During recent months 100% delegates have earned about 4277 BTS * $0.006 = $25 per day.  (BitShares paid for 1/2 hour every day)
(Enough for them to answer a few questions or fix a simple bug every day or so.)
3.  By dipping into our BTS reserves set aside for legal, accounting, and government contingencies, I3 was able to provide a small stipend for some of them amounting to about 3 paid hours per day.  To meet the rest of their living expenses, they were forced to live off their savings from last year.
4.  This left them somewhere around 8 unpaid hours a day as independent agents.  With this time, the team continued to provide essential updates for BitShares and worked on Graphene with the hope of producing something of value that could be used to recover all their sacrificed pay.  This was a huge gamble.  It would have been smarter to take a job at Google, use their new salaries to buy up cheap BTS.  Instead they stuck with it.   Net cash flow during all this time was from the developers to BitShares, not the other way around.
5.  When it became clear that Graphene would be a success, the team decided to build a new company to monetize it and recover their painful losses.
6.  ALL of the current stakeholders in Cryptonomex are members of the global BitShares community who invested their own time and/or money to make Graphene possible.
7.  It is CNX intention to use the results of these risky investments to raise additional capital and capture new revenue streams.  To do that, we need to have a company that owns something that merits such investment.  That's why we have the license structure you see.  Failure to assert those IP rights would mean that BitShares would need to find developers able to take Graphene the rest of the way for $25/day.  We were, alas, not able to find anybody willing to continue doing that.
8.  For the foreseeable future we expect to continue using such outside investments to grow the BitShares ecosystem in a way that incentivizes investment in CNX.
9.  Please observe the complete series of announcements we make this summer before you judge our commitment to BitShares success.  :)

 +5% +5% +5%

I'm actually sometimes thinking maybe the devs should have taken the lucrative jobs working for google, purchased bts, worked on it part time and recruited other talented devs from Google to work with them.  I mean isn't that kind of how mozilla came to be? 
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: Riverhead on June 16, 2015, 01:36:41 am
I mean...let's face it.  Even PTS still is in the top 65 of all altcoins...so just imagine what people will begin thinking about bitcoin's fate when there are 20-30 different bitshares-powered chains in the top 100 on coinmarketcap...and one is very similar to their own philosophies...

My belief is that people should be free to exist in the system they feel best matches their personality.  If they are an anarchist, they should have a bitshares version that reflects that...as long as they have devs who will support it.  If they are communist...or socialist.. the same applies.

Why? Because the MOST value comes from synergies between PEOPLE with like minds and similar passions...not a given system of belief that forces everyone to join or face punishment.

Do the devs really think this would hurt them in the long run?  I can't see how it could...because ultimately they are going to all want to be snatched up and paid large sums of money for being capable of innovating to the level this team has accomplished...so even if there are 100 dpos chains like bitshares...but with different devs and philosophies...guess who is going to be in the history books for creating the crypto gold standard DPOS would become?  You got it....the devs!  I'm sure they will find work making plenty of money...and will be able to look at these days as "paying their dues" to earn a reputation of gold in a very lucrative industry.

What did Bruce Lee say again?  Oh yeh..."Be like Linux, my friend"...or something like that :P
Now is not the time to divide.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: fuzzy on June 16, 2015, 02:02:25 am
I mean...let's face it.  Even PTS still is in the top 65 of all altcoins...so just imagine what people will begin thinking about bitcoin's fate when there are 20-30 different bitshares-powered chains in the top 100 on coinmarketcap...and one is very similar to their own philosophies...

My belief is that people should be free to exist in the system they feel best matches their personality.  If they are an anarchist, they should have a bitshares version that reflects that...as long as they have devs who will support it.  If they are communist...or socialist.. the same applies.

Why? Because the MOST value comes from synergies between PEOPLE with like minds and similar passions...not a given system of belief that forces everyone to join or face punishment.

Do the devs really think this would hurt them in the long run?  I can't see how it could...because ultimately they are going to all want to be snatched up and paid large sums of money for being capable of innovating to the level this team has accomplished...so even if there are 100 dpos chains like bitshares...but with different devs and philosophies...guess who is going to be in the history books for creating the crypto gold standard DPOS would become?  You got it....the devs!  I'm sure they will find work making plenty of money...and will be able to look at these days as "paying their dues" to earn a reputation of gold in a very lucrative industry.

What did Bruce Lee say again?  Oh yeh..."Be like Linux, my friend"...or something like that :P
Now is not the time to divide.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

The problem with this is that people think we would only be dividing a finite community that currently holds bts.  I assure you new people who hate the current path of bitshares would likely invest in a chain with technological benefits of dpos, but a philosophy that is counter to it. 

Also, I'm getting a good few posts from people who are longtime supporters who are either giving up on this project or seriously considering it.  So if you think my thoughts on the way forward are going to divide the community you may be right...but the division is happening regardless. 
Regardless, you or I don't get to choose anyway :/
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: Tuck Fheman on June 16, 2015, 02:18:52 am
Let me try to clear a few of these up:

1.  Invictus ran out of donated BTC at the end of last year.  All PTS was returned on advice of our accountants.
2.  During recent months 100% delegates have earned about 4277 BTS * $0.006 = $25 per day.  (BitShares paid for 1/2 hour every day)
(Enough for them to answer a few questions or fix a simple bug every day or so.)
3.  By dipping into our BTS reserves set aside for legal, accounting, and government contingencies, I3 was able to provide a small stipend for some of them amounting to about 3 paid hours per day.  To meet the rest of their living expenses, they were forced to live off their savings from last year.
4.  This left them somewhere around 8 unpaid hours a day as independent agents.  With this time, the team continued to provide essential updates for BitShares and worked on Graphene with the hope of producing something of value that could be used to recover all their sacrificed pay.  This was a huge gamble.  It would have been smarter to take a job at Google, use their new salaries to buy up cheap BTS.  Instead they stuck with it.   Net cash flow during all this time was from the developers to BitShares, not the other way around.
5.  When it became clear that Graphene would be a success, the team decided to build a new company to monetize it and recover their painful losses.
6.  ALL of the current stakeholders in Cryptonomex are members of the global BitShares community who invested their own time and/or money to make Graphene possible.

(http://i.imgur.com/JvELyow.png)
In case you don't watch the show, it's a good thing.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: CLains on June 16, 2015, 02:27:48 am
Let me try to clear a few of these up:

1.  Invictus ran out of donated BTC at the end of last year.  All PTS was returned on advice of our accountants.
2.  During recent months 100% delegates have earned about 4277 BTS * $0.006 = $25 per day.  (BitShares paid for 1/2 hour every day)
(Enough for them to answer a few questions or fix a simple bug every day or so.)
3.  By dipping into our BTS reserves set aside for legal, accounting, and government contingencies, I3 was able to provide a small stipend for some of them amounting to about 3 paid hours per day.  To meet the rest of their living expenses, they were forced to live off their savings from last year.
4.  This left them somewhere around 8 unpaid hours a day as independent agents.  With this time, the team continued to provide essential updates for BitShares and worked on Graphene with the hope of producing something of value that could be used to recover all their sacrificed pay.  This was a huge gamble.  It would have been smarter to take a job at Google, use their new salaries to buy up cheap BTS.  Instead they stuck with it.   Net cash flow during all this time was from the developers to BitShares, not the other way around.
5.  When it became clear that Graphene would be a success, the team decided to build a new company to monetize it and recover their painful losses.
6.  ALL of the current stakeholders in Cryptonomex are members of the global BitShares community who invested their own time and/or money to make Graphene possible.

(http://i.imgur.com/JvELyow.png)
In case you don't watch the show, it's a good thing.

 :D
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: Riverhead on June 16, 2015, 02:34:23 am
6.  ALL of the current stakeholders in Cryptonomex are members of the global BitShares community who invested their own time and/or money to make Graphene possible.

 +5%
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: mike623317 on June 16, 2015, 02:35:00 am
What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0? - ... leave

I cant help but feel there are some here that are trying to stir things up and be overly negative. Personally i think BM have been pretty clear in his response to the questions. We have had great news and by looking at the forum no one is really talking about these - multisig, bonds etc.

I think we should draw a line under this and move on. Lets focus on having a successful marketing push in a couple of months.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: fuzzy on June 16, 2015, 03:18:45 am
What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0? - ... leave

Can't deny it. This is actually not a bad way of responding if people don't like it.

I'm not going to tell anyone to leave though because this community is one of the best in crypto...at least to me it is.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: arhag on June 16, 2015, 03:18:53 am
Without BM & team BitShares is probably dead, and we can't blame them if they want to get paid for their work.

Yes.  It was always the case that if BM and team announced "we are done with Bitshares, goodbye", then the project would be pretty much done for.  Bitshares is not at bitcoin levels of adoption where many others could arise and carry on.

...

 +5%


Let me try to clear a few of these up:

...

 +5%


(http://i.imgur.com/JvELyow.png)
In case you don't watch the show, it's a good thing.

Hah, +5% . Let's just hope the non-dev investors in Cryptonomex aren't able to use their voting power as shareholders in Cryptonomex to oust people we trust (like bytemaster) from important decision making roles.
Spoiler (apparently SMF doesn't have a spoiler tag): [spoiler] Then again Richard makes a pretty incompetent CEO and probably should just stick to the tech. [/spoiler]

I trust bytemaster's interests to be aligned with BitShares. I just hope the other mysterious investors' interests are/remain aligned with BitShares as well. Well, at least long enough for BitShares to grow big enough that we are no longer dependent on Cryptonomex anyway. At that point the BitShares community would be capable of funding devs, potentially poaching Cryptonomex devs (you guys aren't signing a non-compete clause that would prevent you from working on similar technology after leaving the company, right?), to fork off the most recent free software licensed version of Graphene and continue development of features with a new implementation that is also free software licensed and that Cryptonomex has no claim to.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: rgcrypto on June 16, 2015, 03:30:41 am
I am in full support of the current proposal and will buy more bts this week.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: Thom on June 16, 2015, 03:35:46 am
9.  Please observe the complete series of announcements we make this summer before you judge our commitment to BitShares success.  :)

Thanks for your post Stan. For the record I have never questioned your devotion to BitShares success.

The I3 team has a weakness in the PR department, and have made a few bad decisions IMO. I don't expect perfection, but the same type of mistakes are being repeated. It would instill more confidence if we would see an acknowledgement and that steps are being taken to correct them, but I don't expect that's going to happen.

The project is extremely challenging to manage, I recognize that. All I can do is offer my personal perspective. What you do with it is your choice. The collective voice of the community will indicate whether you have chosen well, if you are able to hear it.

It's not clear to me that I3 values or respects the voice of the community, based on the lack of discussion on important topics prior to asserting a position. That's not always the case tho. I recall a tremendous amount of discussion and debate concerning the merger back in Nov. before it was final. You and BM were quite active in the discussions.

Regarding the current 2.0 roll out I see it as a mixed bag. It doesn't seem as well thought out as I thought it would be. Being thought out is not the same thing as having every last detail settled and decided, but it does mean that the majority of the uncertainties are at least identified. I would like to see a more systematic approach to what is settled and what remains to be settled, in an organized, prioritized format. You know, like engineers like to do. Well, most engineers anyway.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: btswildpig on June 16, 2015, 03:44:09 am
i maybe dumb ....but what if I change every written code to achieve the same function while there is no way that you can call me copy , will that still be IP violation ? while copying all the idea .
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: arhag on June 16, 2015, 03:47:35 am
i maybe dumb ....but what if I change every written code to achieve the same function while there is no way that you can call me copy , will that still be IP violation ? while copying all the idea .

The true answer is who the eff really knows. But this is likely very relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc.).
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: Stan on June 16, 2015, 03:48:24 am
9.  Please observe the complete series of announcements we make this summer before you judge our commitment to BitShares success.  :)

Thanks for your post Stan. For the record I have never questioned your devotion to BitShares success.

The I3 team has a weakness in the PR department, and have made a few bad decisions IMO. I don't expect perfection, but the same type of mistakes are being repeated. It would instill more confidence if we would see an acknowledgement and that steps are being taken to correct them, but I don't expect that's going to happen.

The project is extremely challenging to manage, I recognize that. All I can do is offer my personal perspective. What you do with it is your choice. The collective voice of the community will indicate whether you have chosen well, if you are able to hear it.

It's not clear to me that I3 values or respects the voice of the community, based on the lack of discussion on important topics prior to asserting a position. That's not always the case tho. I recall a tremendous amount of discussion and debate concerning the merger back in Nov. before it was final. You and BM were quite active in the discussions.

Regarding the current 2.0 roll out I see it as a mixed bag. It doesn't seem as well thought out as I thought it would be. Being thought out is not the same thing as having every last detail settled and decided, but it does mean that the majority of the uncertainties are at least identified. I would like to see a more systematic approach to what is settled and what remains to be settled, in an organized, prioritized format. You know, like engineers like to do. Well, most engineers anyway.

It's an over-constrained problem requiring the balancing of many, many factors.
When you do such tradeoffs no single "design parameter" can be maximized.

Those who don't live this 24x7 often point out where individual parameters are not maximized.
We look at where we are as pretty near optimum given everything that had to be balanced.

And its going to be a great summer!

Announcement 2 is coming up tomorrow.   :)


Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: mike623317 on June 16, 2015, 03:53:28 am
What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0? - ... leave

Can't deny it. This is actually not a bad way of responding if people don't like it.

I'm not going to tell anyone to leave though because this community is one of the best in crypto...at least to me it is.

I agree fuzzy, I think its time to move on though. We know where we stand and i personally I would like to better understand some of these new features, discuss the user interface for 2.0 and get ready for the marketing push in a couple of months.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on June 16, 2015, 04:16:19 am
You can't do anything if you don't like it.

Soon it will be EVERYWHERE!!

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16960.0.html

Aaaaand BOOM goes the dynamite!
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: oco101 on June 16, 2015, 04:27:32 am
9.  Please observe the complete series of announcements we make this summer before you judge our commitment to BitShares success.  :)

Thanks for your post Stan. For the record I have never questioned your devotion to BitShares success.

The I3 team has a weakness in the PR department, and have made a few bad decisions IMO. I don't expect perfection, but the same type of mistakes are being repeated. It would instill more confidence if we would see an acknowledgement and that steps are being taken to correct them, but I don't expect that's going to happen.

The project is extremely challenging to manage, I recognize that. All I can do is offer my personal perspective. What you do with it is your choice. The collective voice of the community will indicate whether you have chosen well, if you are able to hear it.

It's not clear to me that I3 values or respects the voice of the community, based on the lack of discussion on important topics prior to asserting a position. That's not always the case tho. I recall a tremendous amount of discussion and debate concerning the merger back in Nov. before it was final. You and BM were quite active in the discussions.

Regarding the current 2.0 roll out I see it as a mixed bag. It doesn't seem as well thought out as I thought it would be. Being thought out is not the same thing as having every last detail settled and decided, but it does mean that the majority of the uncertainties are at least identified. I would like to see a more systematic approach to what is settled and what remains to be settled, in an organized, prioritized format. You know, like engineers like to do. Well, most engineers anyway.

It's an over-constrained problem requiring the balancing of many, many factors.
When you do such tradeoffs no single "design parameter" can be maximized.

Those who don't live this 24x7 often point out where individual parameters are not maximized.
We look at where we are as pretty near optimum given everything that had to be balanced.

And its going to be a great summer!

Announcement 2 is coming up tomorrow.   :)

Really ?? I would wait for any announcement, until this forum drama  created by this Newmine clown dies down.
I'm impressed how many forum member fall for Newmine crap again and again, for some reason all of the sudden all his crap is finding unexpected support, luckily only  few forum members tend to agree with his nonsense . For  starter he never answer to any replay to his fuding  he just put up some FUD and he's laughing his ass off watching the forum unfold. It is amazing with one line comment  he managed  to drop atomic bombs all over and completely turn upside down the community   Ohh wait if you respond to his stupidities then his favorite answer to that is :  you are just fanboy blinded by bytemaster manipulations that's it. Attacking is the best defense and he know that very well.
He even dare to say that he's not fuding .... the reality is that  besides a few good funny posts  in the past he's basically just making fun of this forum that's all !! What amaze me the most he got the balls to pretend he got skin in the game ..what a joke !! So my  point this is no time for good news,  it will be wasted in this negative vibe that is happening right now. In fact I don't think this community deserves any good news right now !!!!
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: Tuck Fheman on June 16, 2015, 04:59:00 am
Yes.  It was always the case that if BM and team announced "we are done with Bitshares, goodbye", then the project would be pretty much done for.  Bitshares is not at bitcoin levels of adoption where many others could arise and carry on.

Qora has a tiny fraction of the BitShares market cap and when their founder and only dev up and left for personal reasons, Qora became many times stronger in a very short time.

Qora has a dev "team" now, working for free or off donations from random hodlers or they hodl Qora themselves.

I don't think BitShares would have any problems obtaining a new, very competent, dev team if Dan left and I'll assume one or two other current devs would stick around regardless.

That being said, I wouldn't choose to replace Dan with anyone else I currently know.

Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: klosure on June 16, 2015, 07:08:42 am
Yes.  It was always the case that if BM and team announced "we are done with Bitshares, goodbye", then the project would be pretty much done for.  Bitshares is not at bitcoin levels of adoption where many others could arise and carry on.

Qora has a tiny fraction of the BitShares market cap and when their founder and only dev up and left for personal reasons, Qora became many times stronger in a very short time.

Qora has a dev "team" now, working for free or off donations from random hodlers or they hodl Qora themselves.

I don't think BitShares would have any problems obtaining a new, very competent, dev team if Dan left and I'll assume one or two other current devs would stick around regardless.
^ This exactly. No one is irreplaceable. If the current dev team decides to move on, the right thing to do as an organization is to accept it and start looking for other developers, not denature the project in a desperate attempt to keep them onboard. It doesn't cost anything to start calling for volunteers to form a new dev team so why not give it a shot before making a decision that we could regret?

That being said, I wouldn't choose to replace Dan with anyone else I currently know.
Dan has a lot of skin in the game so he'd probably decide to stay in the loop anyway to advise on the developments.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: Tuck Fheman on June 16, 2015, 07:47:25 am
Once 2.0 is launched, immediately propose reverting back to 9.2

then see what happens.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ce/9c/94/ce9c949d6c73dbfb889f6036bac022dd.gif)
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: Pheonike on June 16, 2015, 09:35:41 am
That's the problem, find "volunteers". I don't won't volunteers at this stage. I want paid professionals who know what the fuck they are doing and have the time and focus to do it!
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: mangou007 on June 16, 2015, 11:19:05 am
But are you guys kidding????
I mean I freaking could not sleep all this night because of some nonsense I saw on this thread... and even worse... for some of the people that say "huh yeah yeah..."
We are all here for a reason, we basically all want BitShares to succeed (but I am not sure this point is unanimous)... and instead of sticking together you just go in every direction because the "BAD" dev team want to get paid for making a revolutionary tool????

REALLY?

You guys work in the real life right? To pay the bills... What about the dev team, they have to do it for free of course, it is logical... It is not like every single fucking company in the centralized world is looking to pay BIG money for good dev no?

Some of you should really really open their eyes, and I am sorry, in time of crisis, you have to take measures to survive! The share going down, made it tough to just survive, and they found a FUCKING good solution for them (of course) but ALSO for us stakeholders...
Did they ask each and every one of you for money? No
Did they announce a FREAKING awesome product? HELL yeah!!!!!

DO THE MATH.... You cannot follow a recipe exactly how it is written, you always add some salt and spice... It is the same in here, to make the recipe you have to remove a little bit of this and that... But that is part of the game, and if you really want BitShares to succeed and be able to bring and follow its purpose, you should not even write a message in reply of some FUD threads... I am not saying names, but you all know the first one, and strangely a new person to this forum come and just exploit and exploit and exploit the weakness spot he found.

WAKE UP guys, I am new here, but it is by far the best community I found... After all you have been through, you should not even consider "NOT TO" like cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0 you shall no doubt.... You shall thank them for not having turn down the HUGE WORK done, they NEVER let us down!!!

We have such an edge on ALL the cryptocurrency world and some of you just want to flush it down the toilet ... you are insane!!!!!!!!!!!!

As for me,
Thank you BM, Long Life Cryptonomex, AND WELCOME BITSHARES 2.0!
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: Musewhale on June 16, 2015, 11:20:25 am
+5% great, good idea, i like it, just do it!
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: allseeinguy on June 16, 2015, 11:34:05 am
Thank you BM, Long Life Cryptonomex, AND WELCOME BITSHARES 2.0!

 +5%
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: cass on June 16, 2015, 11:34:28 am
Quote
you guys aren't signing a non-compete clause that would prevent you from working on similar technology after leaving the company, right?

i like that approach if that is possible, go for … (if this job is one in  competitive blockchain project)
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: fuzzy on June 16, 2015, 12:31:07 pm
Once 2.0 is launched, immediately propose reverting back to 9.2

then see what happens.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ce/9c/94/ce9c949d6c73dbfb889f6036bac022dd.gif)

That damn gif...is probably the best I've ever seen.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: fuzzy on June 16, 2015, 12:46:49 pm
WAKE UP guys, I am new here, but it is by far the best community I found... After all you have been through, you should not even consider "NOT TO" like cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0 you shall no doubt.... You shall thank them for not having turn down the HUGE WORK done, they NEVER let us down!!!

We have such an edge on ALL the cryptocurrency world and some of you just want to flush it down the toilet ... you are insane!!!!!!!!!!!!

As for me,
Thank you BM, Long Life Cryptonomex, AND WELCOME BITSHARES 2.0!

Definitely agree with this. And I can assure everyone in going nowhere.  But please let's all understand that every big change Comes with a "storming" and "norming" phase.  This is 100% understandable...and healthy!

I'm still a bull, but I have to admit I'm also a bit of an idealogue so when there is a discussion I try my best to see both sides--I mean anyone can see that from my chosen format for our hangouts! ;)

In my mind,  approaching these issues without putting others down. ..and trying to be solution oriented is important.  It will make our community stronger. Ironically it isn't all that different from a marriage...if a couple doesn't work through the elephant in the room,  the elephant just grows until it gets dangerous for all involved. ..and far harder to remove later. 

So let's be willing to work through our frustrations because ultimately like Stan said, they have MANY more announcements coming this summer. ..and he said it with a giddy smile.  :)
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: karnal on June 16, 2015, 01:31:20 pm
Once 2.0 is launched, immediately propose reverting back to 9.2

then see what happens.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ce/9c/94/ce9c949d6c73dbfb889f6036bac022dd.gif)

That damn gif...is probably the best I've ever seen.

Wait 'til the acid kicks in. :D
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: mangou007 on June 16, 2015, 01:45:28 pm

I'm still a bull, but I have to admit I'm also a bit of an idealogue so when there is a discussion I try my best to see both sides--I mean anyone can see that from my chosen format for our hangouts! ;)

In my mind,  approaching these issues without putting others down. ..and trying to be solution oriented is important.  It will make our community stronger. Ironically it isn't all that different from a marriage...if a couple doesn't work through the elephant in the room,  the elephant just grows until it gets dangerous for all involved. ..and far harder to remove later. 

So let's be willing to work through our frustrations because ultimately like Stan said, they have MANY more announcements coming this summer. ..and he said it with a giddy smile.  :)

Fuzzy, I immediately felt your ideologic side, and that is great, because BitShares is so much more for me than a cash machine. But holding back when we have to go full throttle...I don't think it is a good idea.

As said in the hangout with BM on the 8th of june, they have done an IMPRESSIVE job, and he said "then it is up to you at the end of summer". That does not mean control or anything.
We have cutting edge technology, and the good thing is that we do not even pray to make it happen... We have it!

And whatever other option are, we have to follow this path, we will have plenty of time to discuss it later on!
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: jakub on June 18, 2015, 08:32:31 am
No one is irreplaceable. If the current dev team decides to move on, the right thing to do as an organization is to accept it and start looking for other developers, not denature the project in a desperate attempt to keep them onboard. It doesn't cost anything to start calling for volunteers to form a new dev team so why not give it a shot before making a decision that we could regret?
That's the biggest gap in your reasoning.
Finding another dev team matching the experience and quality of the current team would be extremely difficult and time consuming.
Title: Re: What if I don't like Cryptonomex and BitShares 2.0?
Post by: cass on June 18, 2015, 08:35:09 am
Once 2.0 is launched, immediately propose reverting back to 9.2

then see what happens.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ce/9c/94/ce9c949d6c73dbfb889f6036bac022dd.gif)

That damn gif...is probably the best I've ever seen.

Wait 'til the acid kicks in. :D


http://huehuehuehue.com

;)