Author Topic: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?  (Read 43819 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
The devs have taken nothing from us.  They have created something new, and given us exclusive rights to use it.  Being upset because they reserve the right to license it to others in the future is a bit petty.  Believing that you deserve a portion of their new company a bit pretentious. 

In regards to IP.  I am pretty sure I understand and share BM's opinion on IP.  While I find its use a little distasteful, I think I understand the reasoning.  I am not of the opinion that it is motivated by personal greed, but rather by the honest wish to protect the toolkit, and promote bitshares.

 +5%
  +5%

I really dislike the tone and calling people "pretentious".  Most people who have been here loyally from day one are very familiar with the battle scars that come from supporting only BTS (at a time when the rest of crypto would have gladly seen it die) It has been very difficult for many to continue holding through the toughest times and they are the strongest roots on the tree, so to use such a tone seems like putting them down for being concerned.

This concerns me because although the people taking this stance have been around awhile, I also intimately know they have worked with other crypto projects and likely continue planning on doing so...and the ones who are concerned are of the demographic who literally have endured the brunt of the bad times with a loyalty to bitshares on a level that deserves the highest degree of respect.  Why? Because without their sacrifices, bitshares would likely not even be known to exist...aand likely would not have recovered from any of the terrible falls along the way.

I love bitshares and appreciate the roots of this community--you guys/girls are amazing.  And more than anything you do not deserve to be called pretentious. 

I sincerely hope data will try to choose his words more carefully next time for his sake as much as anyone elses.   

And @data, I love you bro, but please try to consider the words before they are typed.

@delulo 100% agree with your other statements, but not the +5% to the consideration of people who are concerned being pretentious.

I was not attempting to offend anyone.  I said it was a bit pretentious, and I felt as if I chose a less offensive descriptor than I could have.  It seems as though pretentious is a much greater insult to some than others.  I was trying to get across, that we do not own the dev team, nor the fruits of their labor.  Even if we helped them get here.

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline fuzzy

The devs have taken nothing from us.  They have created something new, and given us exclusive rights to use it.  Being upset because they reserve the right to license it to others in the future is a bit petty.  Believing that you deserve a portion of their new company a bit pretentious. 

In regards to IP.  I am pretty sure I understand and share BM's opinion on IP.  While I find its use a little distasteful, I think I understand the reasoning.  I am not of the opinion that it is motivated by personal greed, but rather by the honest wish to protect the toolkit, and promote bitshares.

 +5%
  +5%

I really dislike the tone and calling people "pretentious".  Most people who have been here loyally from day one are very familiar with the battle scars that come from supporting only BTS (at a time when the rest of crypto would have gladly seen it die) It has been very difficult for many to continue holding through the toughest times and they are the strongest roots on the tree, so to use such a tone seems like putting them down for being concerned.

This concerns me because although the people taking this stance have been around awhile, I also intimately know they have worked with other crypto projects and likely continue planning on doing so...and the ones who are concerned are of the demographic who literally have endured the brunt of the bad times with a loyalty to bitshares on a level that deserves the highest degree of respect.  Why? Because without their sacrifices, bitshares would likely not even be known to exist...aand likely would not have recovered from any of the terrible falls along the way.

I love bitshares and appreciate the roots of this community--you guys/girls are amazing.  And more than anything you do not deserve to be called pretentious. 

I sincerely hope data will try to choose his words more carefully next time for his sake as much as anyone elses.   

And @data, I love you bro, but please try to consider the words before they are typed.
*edit* Sorry data...it was puppies. Slap me please.

@delulo 100% agree with your other statements, but not the +5% to the consideration of people who are concerned being pretentious.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2015, 04:12:28 pm by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline Riverhead

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not in this market :'(. A salary of 108k annually would require 1.3MM BTS a month per person. That would be an insane amount of sell pressure.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair


Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
A lot of ground has been covered on this thread, and it seems that multiple issues are being conflated.  But let's look at things logically.  For starters, I take it as a given that the devs want BTS to succeed.  I also understand that the devs need to be paid for their work.  And we should be looking to ensure they can devote as much time as possible to continuing the development of Bitshares.  If there are enough funds currently available to sustain every dev, great.  If not, it is understandable that they would need to supplement their incomes.  Whether they do so as individuals or as a company is really none of our business. However, what does NOT seem appropriate is for Cryptonomex to separate the intellectual property from Bitshares considering BTS shareholders have funded the development. Not to mention, in that case we'd have a divergence of interests between the devs and BTS shareholders.  This does not imply there are any nefarious intentions on the part of the devs.  But the realignment of interests would be undeniable and problematic.  I think this should be addressed ASAP as uncertainty around this issue can't possibly be helpful.
This was well weighted.
AGS donators and indirectly PTS holders have funded the developement of what Bitshares  is today respectively what it will be when 2.0 is implemented. Graphene may have been developed while AGS funds had already run out but without the experience (mistakes, testing in real markets, lots of contemplation) that resulted from the development work when the dev team was paid through AGS donations we wouldn't be were we are today.
Like always with AGS/PTS and BTS nothing is legally binding as the donations were no strings attached but such a "soft justice discussion" makes sense in the spirit of the no strings attached fundraiser.
Another argument, PC pointed out above, is that new code that is funded by the Bitshares DAC would be "owned" by cryptonomex instead of who is funding it. Or did I get this wrong?

To determine who should own the graphene code (of copyright restrictions are not debated), the logical answer would be: Whoever put in the "capital" (that is money as well as intellectual capital). Maybe graphene was founded for one year through AGS and for half a year through private efforts. Plus founders have contributed intellectual capital.

I just want to point out that this
If GS wants to enter the market with a ton of money and produce a product that is compatible with our vision, then it would be stupid for BTS developers to not take them up on a job offer.  It would be stupid for both financial and philosophical reasons, namely, freedom supporting blockchain tech going mainstream is the real goal.   
seems like a contradiction to prior statements that Cryptonomex will not work on chains that would compete with Bitshares.
Interests could be aligned through sharedropping on AGS/PTS holders which again would be an interesting legal case :)

This is also true!
Your concerns aren't unfounded. I just feel they really didn't have a choice if BTS is to survive this bear market.
Sent from my Timex Sinclair

No simple answers here. Let's keep up the open and honest discussion.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2015, 02:45:30 pm by delulo »

Offline sittingduck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 246
    • View Profile
It is really a matter of allocating enough bts to pay them full time   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Riverhead

Your concerns aren't unfounded. I just feel they really didn't have a choice if BTS is to survive this bear market.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair


Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

What I'm saying is that the statement 'we will depend on licensing graphene to get paid' essentially translates to 'we will help competitors get technology which is a direct competitor to BitShares, for personal financial gain'.

There seems to be a conflict of interests of sorts here.


And I do trust in Stan & Dan and the others, but that is not the point. I do believe a healthy and long debate about this is necessary.

When the way forward is funding competitors for personal gain from royalties from software that was essentially sponsored by shareholders, and such licensing goes against shareholders best interests, I say the situation needs to be pondered..

It also translates into.. it's the only way we were able to secure VC funding so we could get paid.

It could be translated into it was a security that was necessary to move forward.

Nobody wants to put money into something that someone else can just walk away with. Kinda the whole point of whats being built here. :)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
What I'm saying is that the statement 'we will depend on licensing graphene to get paid' essentially translates to 'we will help competitors get technology which is a direct competitor to BitShares, for personal financial gain'.

There seems to be a conflict of interests of sorts here.


And I do trust in Stan & Dan and the others, but that is not the point. I do believe a healthy and long debate about this is necessary.

When the way forward is funding competitors for personal gain from royalties from software that was essentially sponsored by shareholders, and such licensing goes against shareholders best interests, I say the situation needs to be pondered..

Offline Riverhead

One can't help but wonder though. The devs are saying the licensing exists so that they can make money from it, because the income derived from BitShares has not been enough to sustain the dev team.

So, who else will be using graphene? And wouldn't most of these licensees then go on to develop direct competitors to BitShares?

Looks to me that for the devs it's a win-win situation, while for us, not so much.  [bitshares goes to the moon = win for devs, win for us | graphene sees mad adoption = win for devs, lose for bitshares/us]


What do you think Cryptonomex would do if tomorrow someone comes with $10mil to have them implement a direct competitor to BitShares ?
And could you really blame them for taking the offer?

"believe" is different from "have to believe", but now it seems we have no choice. that is the reality.

The talent is the talent regardless of how they self organize. This risk has always been there IMHO.

Offline wallace

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
One can't help but wonder though. The devs are saying the licensing exists so that they can make money from it, because the income derived from BitShares has not been enough to sustain the dev team.

So, who else will be using graphene? And wouldn't most of these licensees then go on to develop direct competitors to BitShares?

Looks to me that for the devs it's a win-win situation, while for us, not so much.  [bitshares goes to the moon = win for devs, win for us | graphene sees mad adoption = win for devs, lose for bitshares/us]


What do you think Cryptonomex would do if tomorrow someone comes with $10mil to have them implement a direct competitor to BitShares ?
And could you really blame them for taking the offer?

"believe" is different from "have to believe", but now it seems we have no choice. that is the reality.
give me money, I will do...

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
One can't help but wonder though. The devs are saying the licensing exists so that they can make money from it, because the income derived from BitShares has not been enough to sustain the dev team.

So, who else will be using graphene? And wouldn't most of these licensees then go on to develop direct competitors to BitShares?

Looks to me that for the devs it's a win-win situation, while for us, not so much.  [bitshares goes to the moon = win for devs, win for us | graphene sees mad adoption = win for devs, lose for bitshares/us]


What do you think Cryptonomex would do if tomorrow someone comes with $10mil to have them implement a direct competitor to BitShares ?
And could you really blame them for taking the offer?

Offline puptothekit

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
A lot of ground has been covered on this thread, and it seems that multiple issues are being conflated.  But let's look at things logically.  For starters, I take it as a given that the devs want BTS to succeed.  I also understand that the devs need to be paid for their work.  And we should be looking to ensure they can devote as much time as possible to continuing the development of Bitshares.  If there are enough funds currently available to sustain every dev, great.  If not, it is understandable that they would need to supplement their incomes.  Whether they do so as individuals or as a company is really none of our business. However, what does NOT seem appropriate is for Cryptonomex to separate the intellectual property from Bitshares considering BTS shareholders have funded the development. Not to mention, in that case we'd have a divergence of interests between the devs and BTS shareholders.  This does not imply there are any nefarious intentions on the part of the devs.  But the realignment of interests would be undeniable and problematic.  I think this should be addressed ASAP as uncertainty around this issue can't possibly be helpful.

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano

BTS will be at complete mercy of Cryptonomex, partialy or completely funding the developement of
Graphene, [...]
BTS owners should have a stake in the IP ownership of the code too.

+1

IMO the danger is that while BTS will (at least partially) fund development of Graphene, BTS will (?) only be licensed to use Graphene as-is. I. e. if at some point in the future Cryptonomex decides to no longer license future versions of Graphere to BTS, then BTS will be stuck with an old client and no (legal) way for other developers to update/enhance it in accordance with BTS shareholders' interests.

Of course right now this point is somewhat academic, because without BM/Cryptonomex BTS will be dead anyway.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline Riverhead

In regards to IP.  I am pretty sure I understand and share BM's opinion on IP.  While I find its use a little distasteful, I think I understand the reasoning.  I am not of the opinion that it is motivated by personal greed, but rather by the honest wish to protect the toolkit, and promote bitshares.

Be it musician, author, or inventor, each have their own reasons to protect, and monetize, what they have created. Where IP becomes distasteful is when someone else claims ownership of the same without having contributed to the creative process.

Offline vegolino

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Reality is Information
    • View Profile
The devs have taken nothing from us.  They have created something new, and given us exclusive rights to use it.  Being upset because they reserve the right to license it to others in the future is a bit petty.  Believing that you deserve a portion of their new company a bit pretentious. 

In regards to IP.  I am pretty sure I understand and share BM's opinion on IP.  While I find its use a little distasteful, I think I understand the reasoning.  I am not of the opinion that it is motivated by personal greed, but rather by the honest wish to protect the toolkit, and promote bitshares.

 +5%
  +5%