Wake up call: BitShares 2.0 is NOT BitShares

[sittingduck]

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

[Riverhead]

IMO this thread is extremly valuable! Guess, we should wait till the first real license draft is out so we have facts to discuss!

Until such threads and spirited discussion self manifested the training wheels could never come off. In an environment where anyone can have multiple accounts it's hard to recognize what is self manifested and what isn't but the discussion is happening in multiple threads and that's what is important.

[cass]

Valid points have been made in this thread as well as the others related to that subject, but the way some of them were formulated made me feel like they were used more to spread FUD than to start an honest and constructive discussion. I find it hard to believe that there is a benevolent motive behind some posts when they are formulated using an aggressive tone and insinuating that Bitshares is getting ripped off by Cryptonomex.

 

I understand the point, I reacted quite strongly to Newmine's OP.......but then I realized so what?!  His direct and challenging manner/tone helped to generate a discussion (probably that the devs were waiting for) that has been both passionate and constructive.  There is more than enough critically thought out material here to help finalize the future relationship between Cryptonomex & bitshares.  There is no attack that can be made against Bitshares that does not in the end strengthen it.  What does that leave?  Each other.  In working things out, in communicating according to our prevailing style, mood, character, we need to remember context and courtesy so we can continue to work with extremes.  There is certainly ample alignment among us not to feel threatened! 

[cass]

IMO this thread is extremly valuable! Guess, we should wait till the first real license draft is out so we have facts to discuss!
I like the approaches being discussed here and i'm also thinking, klosure bringing valid points that have to get adressed.
I'm also thinking, we should work all together, like we have done it in past, to get the best fitting win-win situation for all of us - BitShares Community - BitShares Delegates - CNX investors - Core devs

[Ben Mason]

Valid points have been made in this thread as well as the others related to that subject, but the way some of them were formulated made me feel like they were used more to spread FUD than to start an honest and constructive discussion. I find it hard to believe that there is a benevolent motive behind some posts when they are formulated using an aggressive tone and insinuating that Bitshares is getting ripped off by Cryptonomex.

 

I understand the point, I reacted quite strongly to Newmine's OP.......but then I realized so what?!  His direct and challenging manner/tone helped to generate a discussion (probably that the devs were waiting for) that has been both passionate and constructive.  There is more than enough critically thought out material here to help finalize the future relationship between Cryptonomex & bitshares.  There is no attack that can be made against Bitshares that does not in the end strengthen it.  What does that leave?  Each other.  In working things out, in communicating according to our prevailing style, mood, character, we need to remember context and courtesy so we can continue to work with extremes.  There is certainly ample alignment among us not to feel threatened! 

[chryspano]

Valid points have been made in this thread as well as the others related to that subject, but the way some of them were formulated made me feel like they were used more to spread FUD than to start an honest and constructive discussion. I find it hard to believe that there is a benevolent motive behind some posts when they are formulated using an aggressive tone and insinuating that Bitshares is getting ripped off by Cryptonomex.

 

[karnal]

^

[Ben Mason]

The art of trolling is to spread FUD with couple of semi-valid points. The OP was so far away from constructive critisism that it can be ignored. It's clear that he didn't want to raise any kind of reasonable discussion on valid points. Declaring that Bitshares will lose "its soul and fundamental raison d'etre" is just bullshit.

The art of cheer-leading is to buy in to everything without applying any critical thinking, dismiss valid concerns frivolously without addressing any of them, and pollute overwise constructive discussions by reactive and fanboyish posts with no actual content.

Remember, we are all on the same side.  Thinking critically is essential but one of the strengths of this forum is it's ability to provide a platform for testing the extremes of our community's points of view, outcomes and solutions.  This is unbelievably valuable.  Within this forum our tolerance of what may appear to be FUD should be extremely high.....despite how difficult that can be due to our emotional attachment to this project.  Emotions are good, they are diverse and interesting.  The are creative and destructive.....you can't build anything without both forces!  If Bitshares is what we all hope it is, then the network must be highly resilient to scrutiny or challenges of any kind.  Bitshares core technology and the principals that built it are the bedrock of the network and they are extremely robust. 

[klosure]

The art of trolling is to spread FUD with couple of semi-valid points. The OP was so far away from constructive critisism that it can be ignored. It's clear that he didn't want to raise any kind of reasonable discussion on valid points. Declaring that Bitshares will lose "its soul and fundamental raison d'etre" is just bullshit.

The art of cheer-leading is to buy in to everything without applying any critical thinking, dismiss valid concerns frivolously without addressing any of them, and pollute overwise constructive discussions by reactive and fanboyish posts with no actual content.

[betax]

But it also seems you have joined recently, hence you have not been involved in PTS then AGS and then the merger.

[betax]

Yes, you are right, lets wait and see the final license, most probably the team are already thinking / drafting a good way to honour everyone.

[Samupaha]

Please don't call this kind of thing FUD - these are legitimate concerns whether you agree with them or not.

C'mon, claiming that the supercoolest proposal ever is going to destroy BitShares is totally absurd.

Anyway, if somebody thinks that BitShares doesn't have a future with now proposed 2.0, then maybe he should just sell his shares. This is DAC, so this is like a company. And what you do when you think that company is doing something stupid? You sell your shares and invest your money to something better.

Good shareholders don't use their empoylees time on discussing on the forum about far-fetched worst case scenarios. Good shareholders let their employees do the job and ship the product.

Well as a matter of fact I did just dump a few dozen thousand. But I still own >100k because I don't think this will definitely destroy Bitshares by any means, but there is a whole lot of ground between 'destroying bitshares' and 'this is total FUD with no valid point' which you seem to just want to ignore.

The art of trolling is to spread FUD with couple of semi-valid points. The OP was so far away from constructive critisism that it can be ignored. It's clear that he didn't want to raise any kind of reasonable discussion on valid points. Declaring that Bitshares will lose "its soul and fundamental raison d'etre" is just bullshit.

[puppies]

These are some of my current questions, I am not making any judgments on anybody's intents:

1. What is the primary purpose in anyone making a claim on IP at all?

2. What is the core legal argument as to whether that IP belongs to Cryptonomex or to Bitshares? My (not-a-lawyer) understanding is that generally an employer will own the intellectual property created by its employees in the course of their employment. This is irrespective of who did the creative work and whether they felt they were paid enough for it.

3. If Cryptonomex did have a valid claim on the IP, is it legally feasible that the liberal terms of that license for BitShares could be altered at any time in the future (irrespective of any current intents)?

4. With regard to future development within Bitshares, such as third party scripting, or other customised builds on top of the core protocol, how would rights around these be arranged to be equitable to all parties?

If I could speculate a little bit about point #1.  It is my opinion that the licensing of the code is not designed to prevent anyone at all from forking the graphene toolkit.  The license is designed to prevent legitimate business partners from building upon any chain other than the official bitshares chain.  This is due to the legal uncertainty that would be present in investing perhaps millions of dollars in a technology that you could be forced by the courts to give up.  I would be shocked if cryptonomex went after individuals ala the MPAA.  My limited understanding of copyright law leads me to believe that even if this is the case cryptonomex would not be able to openly state this as this would weaken their copyright claim, increase the legal fuzziness regarding their ability to provide a blockchain with a solid legal framework for businesses to build upon.  This is pure speculation, and I could be completely wrong.

[Russ Hanneman]

BitShares 2.0 is a balckmail and rape to all BTS holders, BM sold his soul to the devil, went to the dark side:( it's a sad day for BTS community.

You are a BitShares Bulls wet dream my friend!

[BTSdac]

Cryptonomex is giving BitShares the freedom to use everything we have produced without any kind of restriction except that it must remain a SINGLE blockchain.   We are not like Ripple because we do not want to "control" BitShares going forward. 

I think the entire community would be far more upset if the developers simply announced a new chain with new branding and a 20% share drop.

I am very glad to hear this, if Cryptonomex develop great function , then price of bts would rise violently, if price rise violently, delegate income increase much , then there are enough money to support develop , it is a positive cycle.