Wake up call: BitShares 2.0 is NOT BitShares

[profitofthegods]

I'm really going back and forth on this.

On the one hand, the changes make Bitshares a fully fledged DAC rather than being fully controlled by BM etc. in terms of its code.

On the other hand, the end of open source and the social consensus make the whole thing less appealing to me, and unless other developers do come along to compete with Cryptonomex (which I hope does happen) its hard to see how BTS can succeed when its developers could be working for the competition at any given moment (and wouldn't even have to tell us about it). Also it does feel a bit like the devs have given up on this thing succeeding and now want to strip its assets to move on to other things.

Uhh, so much FUD.

But I have to say that I'm not really surprised. This is what you get when you choose to use IP. It's unethical and typically used in harmful and evil ways so people will assume that there is something bad also this time.

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

[cass]

Uhh, so much FUD.

But I have to say that I'm not really surprised. This is what you get when you choose to use IP. It's unethical and typically used in harmful and evil ways so people will assume that there is something bad also this time.

This is why I hate IP.

completely 2nd that!

[bytemaster]

Uhh, so much FUD.

But I have to say that I'm not really surprised. This is what you get when you choose to use IP. It's unethical and typically used in harmful and evil ways so people will assume that there is something bad also this time.

This is why I hate IP.   

[fav]

OP, please read some more threads before you write a tl;dr wall of text full of wild guesses.

[bytemaster]

BTS cannot be "our lab rat" because we will not control its future, all hard forks will be voted on by stakeholders.   

Sure, CNX gets many benefits by having a public demonstration of our tech, but BTS gets many benefits as well including subsidized development and support.

[Samupaha]

Uhh, so much FUD.

But I have to say that I'm not really surprised. This is what you get when you choose to use IP. It's unethical and typically used in harmful and evil ways so people will assume that there is something bad also this time.

[bytemaster]

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. 

[klosure]

Just catching up on the announcement of BitShares 2.0.

Edit by Bytemaster:   https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16953.0.html     BitShares 2.0 will be licensed for use with BitShares under a BSD-style license, all code up till the announcement has been released under CC0 (Public Domain) license. 

This thread has been locked because inaccurate claims.

I am baffled that people are being caught in the thick of thin things about secondary matters like the ownership of Cryptonomex, and fail to see the elephant in the room: BitShares without its free-software community funded core is not BitShares anymore! It cannot be as per the very nature of BitShares. The whole point and philosophy of BitShares is to be an open toolkit allowing anyone to leverage on the technology to create all sorts of innovative DACs, and in return sharedrop some of the new DAC's tokens to BitShares holders under what we call the "social consensus".

What you are being pitched as BitShares 2.0 is an attempt to strip from the real BitShare immensely valuable assets such as its community, its brand name, its place in the crypto space and slap them on top of a proprietary non-free-software technology to increase it's appeal. Bitshares 2.0 is not an upgrade, it's a corporate dismantelment.

Under the BitShares 2.0 "proposall "announcement", BitShares becomes a trade show exhibit for the exclusive benefit of Cryptonomex Inc. Bitshares 2.0 and the BitShares community will be used as:
- A lab rat to test Graphene before it's used for real clients, and to test future new features before they are added to the professional toolkit.
- A display to show to Cryptonomex's clients that Graphene works as intended
- A live testnet for Graphene prospects and users to test their applications
- An exhibit model for sales and fund raising pitches as well as presentations
- A social sandbox in which Cryptonomexand its clients can test new marketing and product ideas before trying them in the wild
- A free source of consulting, features proposals, feedback, bug reports, bug fixes and contributions
- An army of volunteers to help promoting Graphene
- A complementary source of funds

BitShares loses everything. Under the new model:
- It cannot anymore be forked and loses the benefit of sharedrops by third party DAC developers.
- Its allowed scope of evolution becomes restricted by the use cases allowed by the Graphene licence.
- It loses the control of the BitShares brand
- It loses its reputation on the crypto scene: even Ripple is free software with no strings attached!
- It loses its soul and fundamental raison d'etre

Meanwhile since BitShares is still around and may even do well for a while after the upgrade when it's not yet too apparent that it has lost its purpose and independance, BitShares core developers can continue to sell their BTS.

It's time to wake up: we do not have to accept the upgrade to BitShares 2.0 and the subsequent disparition of the free software BitShares we have funded. Nothing justifies such an extreme solution. From an organizational perspective, if the core developers are going to walk away, it would be very poor decision making to accept an upgrade to new code that only they understand and control. No organization in their right mind would migrate to a system developed by an employee who is leaving, BitShares is no exception. From a technical perspective nothing justifies a migration either: the Graphene based chain will be launched in parallel as a BitShares fork, why not just let it be a BitShares fork? The rules so far have been that anyone forking BitShares was going to do it under her own brand and was expected to respect the social consensus. I don't see any reason to change the rules.

Don't let yourself impressed by people telling you that BitShares is in a dead end, that developments have stalled, and that selling our soul by accepting a faustian pledge is the only solution. BitShares price may be low, but this has happened quite a few times to Bitcoin, Ripple and NXT to name only a few, and they are still doing fine. The whole crypto industry is in a bear market so things are looking gloomy, but like any bear market, this is only temporary. Better days will come when the market reverses, and these days may not be that far away given the fact Bitcoin's price has  stabilized. Developments may have stalled as a consequence of the price drop, but will resume when the price rises again, and BitShares isn't going to die because developments have slowed down: if that was the case Bitcoin wouldn't be around anymore.

There is no reason to rush and accept a bad deal. Cryptonomex may have timelines but we don't. Let's take the time to discuss and campain and see what the community really thinks about the upgrade.

edit: replaced "closed source" by "non free software" and "open source" by "free software"