Cryptonomex? WTF is this?

[Ben Mason]

Our intention isn't to put BTS on the "back foot", we are counting on BTS being a successful and having the resources to hire us to maintain and upgrade and enhance.

I get that, I really do. Nothing worth having is easy. I genuinely believe we can do it once the new features are in.

[bytemaster]

Our intention isn't to put BTS on the "back foot", we are counting on BTS being a successful and having the resources to hire us to maintain and upgrade and enhance.

[Ben Mason]

Ok so from the dev point of view, commitments to develop a decentralised exchange was honoured, perhaps exceeded. The resource used to develop Graphene was not funded by Bitshares, therefore it's only natural that the team who developed it wanted to form a company to exploit it and generate an income.

I have two issues, one, I think the Bitshares community should have been told when the plan was first conceived. Two, if you make Bitshares have to pay for new features, you immediately put us on the back foot. Cryptonomex owns the code plus the new features and the ability to sell it elsewhere. It wouldn't take much for a new network to be born that superceeded Bitshares. Obviously the existing network/community has value and composition that's not easily replicated but still....(have you defo said this won't happen?)

 That being said, I trust you and I think I can see what you and Stan are hoping for. If Graphene delivers and a tsunami of developers start building on the Bitshares network then although you and the other devs are good, you're not that good ). Then you guys are free to live your lives and do other things that interest you....like satoshi without the anonymity!

[bytemaster]

Graphene source code is owned by Cryptonomex.
BitShares may use the code we release for 2.0 without restrictions
BitShares may develop extra features and use them without restriction
BItSHares may purchase extra features from Cryptonomex

[Ben Mason]

Here is the deal, "BitShares" as not a legal entity and cannot "own" IP.    I personally do not recognize IP, but most people do including some of those who have contributed to BTS source code.   

I will not do anything that will turn BTS into a security and that means I will not recognize or create any promises with respect to BTS.   If I were to do that it would compromise the entire BTS project.   

Those looking for anything resembling a promise or profit sharing or royalty will be disappointed.

BM, who owns the Graphene source code? Please can I check....

So Bitshares will be upgraded to  Graphene but will retain the name Bitshares with the identical ledger/network and its non legal entity status. Cryptonomex will develop the Graphene toolkit amongst other things. Bitshares will have unrestricted access to anything developed for or from Graphene?

[fuzzy]

Here is the deal, "BitShares" as not a legal entity and cannot "own" IP.    I personally do not recognize IP, but most people do including some of those who have contributed to BTS source code.   

I will not do anything that will turn BTS into a security and that means I will not recognize or create any promises with respect to BTS.   If I were to do that it would compromise the entire BTS project.   

Those looking for anything resembling a promise or profit sharing or royalty will be disappointed.

I certainly appreciate the clarity from your vantage point.  Now with that said, what is the lay of the land everywhere else? 

This is why, as much as I dislike how newmine brought it up, I am glad he did...because it IS  something the entire community has to consider for themselves.

[bytemaster]

Here is the deal, "BitShares" as not a legal entity and cannot "own" IP.    I personally do not recognize IP, but most people do including some of those who have contributed to BTS source code.   

I will not do anything that will turn BTS into a security and that means I will not recognize or create any promises with respect to BTS.   If I were to do that it would compromise the entire BTS project.   

Those looking for anything resembling a promise or profit sharing or royalty will be disappointed.   

[fuzzy]

I think its exactly the same fuzzy.  To Riverheads point, that quote is clearly taken out of context.  If you read it in context Obama seems to be saying that You've gotten a lot of help along the way, and you wouldn't possibly be where you are without that help.  That is all very true.  Now Obama wants to use that as an excuse to promote communal ownership of the property that has been created.  Whether that consists of a portion of earnings, or outright control of the property.  That's the part I reject. 

In practice it is a really good idea to remember that you have had help along the way and you wouldn't be where you are without it.  Perhaps to pay back some of that help when needed, and to pay it forward whenever possible.

It would be really nice if the dev team gave me a portion of their new company.  I haven't done nearly as much as you fuzzy, but I have been a long time supporter.  It would make my day. 

There are lots of other really nice things the dev team could do for me.  For example I have really been thinking about building a sonex aircraft.  Getting me one of those would be really really nice.

I don't feel as if I am entitled to any of this though.

One request: change "as much as you" to "as much as the beyond bitcoin team and volunteers"--in which Dan (aka Bytemaster) also has played a role.

I'm not egotistical enough to think I did anything alone--which is why I don't even get paid by the delegate.  In fact the power of what beyond bitcoin is becoming is expressly due to my original recognition of all people's value...and even moreso that said value only grows when it is recognized and appreciated. 

Ironically that is the true foundation of most arguments in the current paradigm of artificial scarcity in which we currently reside.

Beyond Bitcoins success will prove a perfect case study in the future for showing how enabling others benefits all.


Now this is the perfect place to really hit home the quote that Stan my brought out the other day:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
~Thomas Jefferson~

Do we think that it requires actual blood or does it mean something more?  Like perhaps willingly sacrificing to ensure the greatest common good for all...in the face of monopolistic, dictatorial intent? We ALL really need to all take a deep breath and seriously consider why we are here...including both sides of this equation (devs and community both).

Now here is where I WILL take some credit...for walking the walk and just not talking the talk (Imagine if everyone just tried it for a bit...)

[fuzzy]

I think this pretty clearly states that BitShares owns the right to use the graphene toolkit in perpetuity.  From a competitive standpoint this makes our situation better not worse.  Previously anyone could clone us and fork us at will.  GS could fork 0.9.2 into EvilShares and cut all of us out, to use the threat from earlier in the thread.  I would like to see a more robust definition of what the current official chain is though.  I think straight up market cap could be abused in the short run, if a fork didn't have a high proportion of shares circulating.

This was supposed to be published along with the 2.0 announcement... but due to a desire for perfection it was not published.   I think it is good enough to give you all an idea of how we are thinking and what we are attempting to achieve.    I apologize for any confusion.

BitShares is first and foremost a protocol based upon a public ledger. Anyone may provide and distribute an alternative implementation of the protocol and use the protocol for any other blockchain. The Graphene Toolkit produced by Cryptonomex, Inc is only one possible implementation of the protocol.

The Graphene Toolkit will be licensed by Cryptonomex, Inc for use with the BitShares (BTS) blockchain. The terms of the license will allow the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof to be used with the BitShares blockchain without any restrictions. Cryptonomex, Inc retains all rights to the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof for any other use. The BitShares blockchain is defined as exactly one global ledger. In the event of a hard-fork only one branch may be considered the official BitShares ledger which will be unambiguously decided as the fork with the highest market capitalization.

This means that from the perspective of BitShares, the Graphene Toolkit is fully open source and its use, distribution, and future cannot be dictated by Cryptonomex or any other entity.

All of the devs are committed to making sure that BitShares is free from the control of any company or person.

That is not from my reading the primary concern.  The main concern is a potential for conflicts of interest that will eventually pull the devs away from bitshares, or worse to put them in direct competition with it.  Why is this important? 
Because the most dangerous threat is a friend turned foe...because they know all the weaknesses that help ensure their own victory and have the advantage of monetary backing after they know the capital of the other side has been exhausted.

I'm not sure what is going to happen so those people's concerns may prove to be completely unfounded...but it doesn't mean I won't try to protect them from perceived attacks that make seem at first glance to be leeches who expect everything and deserve nothing.

[puppies]

I think its exactly the same fuzzy.  To Riverheads point, that quote is clearly taken out of context.  If you read it in context Obama seems to be saying that You've gotten a lot of help along the way, and you wouldn't possibly be where you are without that help.  That is all very true.  Now Obama wants to use that as an excuse to promote communal ownership of the property that has been created.  Whether that consists of a portion of earnings, or outright control of the property.  That's the part I reject. 

In practice it is a really good idea to remember that you have had help along the way and you wouldn't be where you are without it.  Perhaps to pay back some of that help when needed, and to pay it forward whenever possible.

It would be really nice if the dev team gave me a portion of their new company.  I haven't done nearly as much as you fuzzy, but I have been a long time supporter.  It would make my day. 

There are lots of other really nice things the dev team could do for me.  For example I have really been thinking about building a sonex aircraft.  Getting me one of those would be really really nice.

I don't feel as if I am entitled to any of this though.

[puppies]

I think this pretty clearly states that BitShares owns the right to use the graphene toolkit in perpetuity.  From a competitive standpoint this makes our situation better not worse.  Previously anyone could clone us and fork us at will.  GS could fork 0.9.2 into EvilShares and cut all of us out, to use the threat from earlier in the thread.  I would like to see a more robust definition of what the current official chain is though.  I think straight up market cap could be abused in the short run, if a fork didn't have a high proportion of shares circulating.

This was supposed to be published along with the 2.0 announcement... but due to a desire for perfection it was not published.   I think it is good enough to give you all an idea of how we are thinking and what we are attempting to achieve.    I apologize for any confusion.

BitShares is first and foremost a protocol based upon a public ledger. Anyone may provide and distribute an alternative implementation of the protocol and use the protocol for any other blockchain. The Graphene Toolkit produced by Cryptonomex, Inc is only one possible implementation of the protocol.

The Graphene Toolkit will be licensed by Cryptonomex, Inc for use with the BitShares (BTS) blockchain. The terms of the license will allow the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof to be used with the BitShares blockchain without any restrictions. Cryptonomex, Inc retains all rights to the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof for any other use. The BitShares blockchain is defined as exactly one global ledger. In the event of a hard-fork only one branch may be considered the official BitShares ledger which will be unambiguously decided as the fork with the highest market capitalization.

This means that from the perspective of BitShares, the Graphene Toolkit is fully open source and its use, distribution, and future cannot be dictated by Cryptonomex or any other entity.

All of the devs are committed to making sure that BitShares is free from the control of any company or person.

[Ben Mason]

Well put fuzzy

[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.

 

 

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 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.

This is not the same thing.  Many of the people who are concerned are not coders but did provide a great deal of value and also served as a shield against multiple attacks that came, pushed through to help b the devs build the reputation that got them to where they are today.  They joined because of something they considered a promise during the days of pts/ags and gave of themselves, sacrificing for a vision that seemed necessary to help change our current paradigm (isn't that why we are here after all?). 
It was their distrust in the current system and trust toward BM and the team that made them willing to say "we will accept that AGS are now donations as opposed to being a legally-binding promise".

Why though? Because they have wanted to protect those who started out this project to change the system and create upheaval of the current corrupt regimes instead of giving them more validity by begging them to ensure the original team abided by their original promise. 

Now to some it feels that there are going to be potential conflicts of interest.  Are they wrong? It all depends on what the cryptonomex team (and their VC?) comes up with to ensure the community who protected the team and the project (and many of whom who did so with great personal sacrifice) is not left high and dry for their efforts.  Because I can assure you if bitshares was left up to those who run solely on greed would have sold their massive stakes long ago.

The community expecting this is not in any way like Obama saying "you didn't build this business"... it is more like him saying that the tax payers didn't fund Congress.  That international banking cartels did  (which ironically these days may be the case).

[Riverhead]

This meme is actually fairly appropriate. It captures taking a sound bite fragment out of context, as he was referring to the roads and bridges infrastructure that makes doing business possible that is funded by the tax payers, but also the concept that many people contribute to what otherwise appears to be an independent business.

So while we contributed to the circumstances that allowed Cryptonomex and Graphene to exist it doesn't mean we get a piece of their pie beyond what they've already stated they'll be doing for BitShares (upgrading it to the Graphene toolkit and continued support).

[Ben Mason]

Having thought long and hard about the OP and the situation, I now feel I understand Newmine's concerns better and apologise for reacting as though he was being over the top. There is potential for a conflict of interest here, although I firmly believe that the core devs left the situation open for the community to discover and help resolve intentionally.

BM has always shown a very clear understanding of the importance of aligning economic incentives and from this project's inception, the core dev team have led the way in collaboration, innovation, adaptation and integrity. Whatever model is implemented, I believe it will be as fair as it possibly can be. More importantly, the model will be as supportive and robust for Bitshares as possible.

We need to know if Graphene is community owned. If it is, everything built with it should be  joint owned. If not, well if Bitshares has unrestricted access to all Graphene developments, then we just have competing networks to deal with. Although, BM has already stated that cryptonomex will not develop competing networks so I can only assume he's thought of other ways to use the toolkit to build profitable services. If that's the case, that should be fine.....the devs get to monetise their development efforts while we do everything we can to build network effect.

Protecting the Graphene toolkit from rampant replication whilst keeping it open-source is a very sensible idea. The freedom comes to the individual who uses the Bitshares network to secure life, liberty and property.