Quote from: xeroc on March 22, 2018, 12:33:38 PM
Assuming that the BBF applied for that hackathon, what reasons would there be for Binance to
not fork the BitShares Code and instead use the existing blockchain?

* forking is not trivial
* skilled and experienced (!) developers are hard to find
* we have an existing ecosystem (community, users) that can't be forked so easily
* BTS already has value, development of codebase basically pays for itself

IMO we have much to gain and little to lose from applying.

IMO, BTS covers all their requirements, if someone created a mockup theme/skin for the web wallet then they'd at least win a runner up reward I'd think.

Convincing them to become a gateway would be the difficult task, though not impossible.

Quote from: Ravid on March 22, 2018, 02:09:20 PM

Quote from: paliboy on March 22, 2018, 01:58:21 PM

Quote from: Ravid on March 22, 2018, 01:41:24 PM
They could agree to use the public bitshares chain if they'd have a spot or two as the comittee members and/or witnesses so that they have some control over the development and general direction.

I'm not saying it's good for us to have a company in the comittee, but the benefits could outweight the cons.

Right now it looks like a very bad idea to me, but it's worth discussing anyway.

There are already companies (directly or indirectly) in the committee. How is it different this time?

The difference is the familiarity with the community and the ecosystem. The fact that they were voted in, not forcibly pushed.


Anyway we might not have a choice. Binance will find some blockchain to migrate to. Then other exchanges will follow.
Every exchange will remain a separate business from us. And we will lose our edge.
At least if we apply and win we can benefit from new features they may develop.
If we don't we get nothing and only lose.


The other issue is that we are so confident we'll win, no one considers the bad publicity if we apply and lose.

Agreed, and I would have no problem with them  being part of the committee if they got voted in. The only way to guarantee they get voted in though is through purchasing enough stake.

At current BTS prices, that would cost them 50-60m USD. Which is why I can't see it happening.

Quote from: paliboy on March 22, 2018, 01:58:21 PM

Quote from: Ravid on March 22, 2018, 01:41:24 PM
They could agree to use the public bitshares chain if they'd have a spot or two as the comittee members and/or witnesses so that they have some control over the development and general direction.

I'm not saying it's good for us to have a company in the comittee, but the benefits could outweight the cons.

Right now it looks like a very bad idea to me, but it's worth discussing anyway.

There are already companies (directly or indirectly) in the committee. How is it different this time?

The difference is the familiarity with the community and the ecosystem. The fact that they were voted in, not forcibly pushed.


Anyway we might not have a choice. Binance will find some blockchain to migrate to. Then other exchanges will follow.
Every exchange will remain a separate business from us. And we will lose our edge.
At least if we apply and win we can benefit from new features they may develop.
If we don't we get nothing and only lose.


The other issue is that we are so confident we'll win, no one considers the bad publicity if we apply and lose.

Quote from: Ravid on March 22, 2018, 01:41:24 PM
They could agree to use the public bitshares chain if they'd have a spot or two as the comittee members and/or witnesses so that they have some control over the development and general direction.

I'm not saying it's good for us to have a company in the comittee, but the benefits could outweight the cons.

Right now it looks like a very bad idea to me, but it's worth discussing anyway.

There are already companies (directly or indirectly) in the committee. How is it different this time?

Quote from: Ravid on March 22, 2018, 01:41:24 PM
They could agree to use the public bitshares chain if they'd have a spot or two as the comittee members and/or witnesses so that they have some control over the development and general direction.

I'm not saying it's good for us to have a company in the comittee, but the benefits could outweight the cons.

Right now it looks like a very bad idea to me, but it's worth discussing anyway.

They are centralized, so they're much more efficient on decision making than us, and probably much faster on development if they have the resources. A spot or two in committee changes nothing. Once they want a new feature, they may want to deploy in one month, which is usually impossible in bitShares due to decentralization.

Quote from: abit on March 22, 2018, 01:43:28 PM
I agree with @clockwork. I think most likely they will fork. So, IMHO we should seeking for convincing them to

* fork BitShares rather than fork another project, and
* fork publicly rather than privately.

Then we'll gain good PR and their future efforts will help the whole ecosystem, for example we can back-port fixes/features from them.

Yeah, I pretty much think a fork is inevitable ....but the publicity would be huge...

We can offer to help them with it if they share stuff back I guess.

Quote from: Ravid on March 22, 2018, 01:41:24 PM
They could agree to use the public bitshares chain if they'd have a spot or two as the comittee members and/or witnesses so that they have some control over the development and general direction.

I'm not saying it's good for us to have a company in the comittee, but the benefits could outweight the cons.

Right now it looks like a very bad idea to me, but it's worth discussing anyway.

Noone would agree to a hf to allow this ( and none of us I think wants that)...so they'd have to manage it on their own stake..which means buying approx 400m BTS...so using the platform doesnt end up quite free after all

They couldnt do it with consumer funds cause that would open a whole can of worms of allowing exchanges to vote with user funds (which would include competitors such as poloniex etc.)

I agree with @clockwork. I think most likely they will fork. So, IMHO we should seeking for convincing them to

* fork BitShares rather than fork another project, and
* fork publicly rather than privately.

Then we'll gain good PR and their future efforts will help the whole ecosystem, for example we can back-port fixes/features from them.

They could agree to use the public bitshares chain if they'd have a spot or two as the comittee members and/or witnesses so that they have some control over the development and general direction.

I'm not saying it's good for us to have a company in the comittee, but the benefits could outweight the cons.

Right now it looks like a very bad idea to me, but it's worth discussing anyway.

I'm guessing their only concern would be sharing parameter control, dev direction etc.

I think they probably care about decentralisation to the extent of p2p atomic trading etc...not entire platform decentralisation

Considering the recent press release of Binance: https://medium.com/binanceexchange/binance-dexathon-845dc0cbfffe
it seems they are looking for a team to reinvent the wheel.

Assuming that the BBF applied for that hackathon, what reasons would there be for Binance to
not fork the BitShares Code and instead use the existing blockchain?

Feedback, please!