It isn't a one month task to reduce storage requirements.  It is a complete redesign.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/83


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No bts is needed as long as the issuer funds the fee pool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dude.  BM is very good at explaining things.   Other journalists seem to get it. 

A journalist should do their own homework prior to writing.    That's their job.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looks outdated and written before 2.0


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think discussion is good , but assuming malice is bad.   When you assume malice the devs have every right to be offended.   If you piss off the devs the may actually turn bad.   In other words what you believe will shape your reality.   

Asking the question about scaling to side chains is legitimate.  Assuming the devs desire to prevent that is not. 

The protocol is open.  Anyone could rewrite the code in a new language and use any license they want.   If bts thought the license was too restrictive it could hire someone to rewrite it.   

The devs were freelance contractors without a contract.  Under law that means they own the ip by default.  Only employee labor is considered work for hire.   Devs are not employees. 

It is a very good thing that there exists a legal entity with clear rights otherwise bts code would be too risky for a business to use. 






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is really a matter of allocating enough bts to pay them full time   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know an ether dev who says it is far to expensive in terms of gas to do anything of the scale of bts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk