Author Topic: Worker proposals  (Read 2715 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
I'm just wondering who other than crytponomex will ever submit a worker proposal to add a feature to the code.  Would the community ever support someone else modifying the code? Maybe if toast offered, but I highly doubt anyone from the outside would be voted in.  It's like cnx has a monopoly over all code changes, and I don't see that changing.  How long would it take an outsider to decipher and understand the code well enough to make productive changes?

Well, the Maker guys (including Toast) recently announced their intent to do just that, becoming a second source for the BitShares community.  I'm sure you will see more.

Shanghai Maker-Cryptonomex Summit and Beer Analysis Meeting:

Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Reasonable question.
We'll give it some thought.
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Another problem I see is that nobody would even attempt to make open source changes to the BTSUI wallet since it's not exactly open, it cannot be freely used by everyone.

So unless someone creates a proposal to create a all new open source web-based wallet, we're probably not going to see much activity on the frontend side except from CNX, and this kind of defeats the open market we've been all looking for.

For example, I've toyed with the idea to add features ontop of the bts ui wallet, but decided against it after the license was changed. The community including web wallet hosters cannot use my added features without actually paying commissions to CNX. I understand that CNX needs a revenue model, but this revenue model kind of killed the open source movement for the BTS ui frontend, so it's not exactly the best solution.

So basically cnx has a monopoly on the UI, but refuses to do changes unless they are pay via worker proposal?  And no one else can do changes because of cnx licensing?
I might be wrong, but:

 you can make as many changes as you would like.

 But you have to start from scratch to NOT pay  CNX to use it commercially. even if you changes amount to 51% of all code you still have to pay.

"If the skyscraper you are building on our mountain gets taller than our mountain, we will renegotiate a better deal for you."

And on the topic of the price of buying the right to use commercially and change your half working binoculars (for observing your mountain), the answer is?
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Another problem I see is that nobody would even attempt to make open source changes to the BTSUI wallet since it's not exactly open, it cannot be freely used by everyone.

So unless someone creates a proposal to create a all new open source web-based wallet, we're probably not going to see much activity on the frontend side except from CNX, and this kind of defeats the open market we've been all looking for.

For example, I've toyed with the idea to add features ontop of the bts ui wallet, but decided against it after the license was changed. The community including web wallet hosters cannot use my added features without actually paying commissions to CNX. I understand that CNX needs a revenue model, but this revenue model kind of killed the open source movement for the BTS ui frontend, so it's not exactly the best solution.

So basically cnx has a monopoly on the UI, but refuses to do changes unless they are pay via worker proposal?  And no one else can do changes because of cnx licensing?

You can read the whole github discussion on this topic here:  https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-2-ui/commit/9c396f1dbda06d032c4b8f25b08ab05ea51a2905#commitcomment-13956912

...or I'll save you the trouble of clicking on that link and just cut to the chase:

Quote
Well, first, Dan's succinct response:

We will be providing a faucet you can use if you don't want to write your own, but no need to use CNX faucet for registration. We are not the registrar. Our fees are simply 50% of whatever they register via what ever faucet software they want to use.

Then Stan's more verbose response:

We just ask that if you build your skyscraper on top of our mountain, you split the revenue with us. If your skyscraper gets taller than our mountain, then we’ll renegotiate.

You can put together all kinds of software using our software as an internal component. We don't restrict you from developing arbitrary improvements, including modifications to our original code to produce your own better product built on top of it. It's all about creating added white-label value by wrapping your own mystique around our basic application.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19239.msg249462.html#msg249462

So nothing about this license should hold up any growth of the Greater BitShares Ecosystem. If you are worried that the language in the general license is stopping you from doing something insanely great, but still fair to everybody, then contact me and we'll arrange a special license just for you!
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
I'm just wondering who other than crytponomex will ever submit a worker proposal to add a feature to the code.  Would the community ever support someone else modifying the code? Maybe if toast offered, but I highly doubt anyone from the outside would be voted in.  It's like cnx has a monopoly over all code changes, and I don't see that changing.  How long would it take an outsider to decipher and understand the code well enough to make productive changes?

Well, the Maker guys (including Toast) recently announced their intent to do just that, becoming a second source for the BitShares community.  I'm sure you will see more.
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Another problem I see is that nobody would even attempt to make open source changes to the BTSUI wallet since it's not exactly open, it cannot be freely used by everyone.

So unless someone creates a proposal to create a all new open source web-based wallet, we're probably not going to see much activity on the frontend side except from CNX, and this kind of defeats the open market we've been all looking for.

For example, I've toyed with the idea to add features ontop of the bts ui wallet, but decided against it after the license was changed. The community including web wallet hosters cannot use my added features without actually paying commissions to CNX. I understand that CNX needs a revenue model, but this revenue model kind of killed the open source movement for the BTS ui frontend, so it's not exactly the best solution.

So basically cnx has a monopoly on the UI, but refuses to do changes unless they are pay via worker proposal?  And no one else can do changes because of cnx licensing?
I might be wrong, but:

 you can make as many changes as you would like.

 But you have to start from scratch to NOT pay  CNX to use it commercially. even if you changes amount to 51% of all code you still have to pay.

"If the skyscraper you are building on our mountain gets taller than our mountain, we will renegotiate a better deal for you."
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Another problem I see is that nobody would even attempt to make open source changes to the BTSUI wallet since it's not exactly open, it cannot be freely used by everyone.

So unless someone creates a proposal to create a all new open source web-based wallet, we're probably not going to see much activity on the frontend side except from CNX, and this kind of defeats the open market we've been all looking for.

For example, I've toyed with the idea to add features ontop of the bts ui wallet, but decided against it after the license was changed. The community including web wallet hosters cannot use my added features without actually paying commissions to CNX. I understand that CNX needs a revenue model, but this revenue model kind of killed the open source movement for the BTS ui frontend, so it's not exactly the best solution.

So basically cnx has a monopoly on the UI, but refuses to do changes unless they are pay via worker proposal?  And no one else can do changes because of cnx licensing?
I might be wrong, but:

 you can make as many changes as you would like.

 But you have to start from scratch to NOT pay  CNX to use it commercially. even if you changes amount to 51% of all code you still have to pay.

On this note, I have a related question:

If I want to pay upfront, instead of sharing profits what is the price I have to pay. Ballpark?
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Another problem I see is that nobody would even attempt to make open source changes to the BTSUI wallet since it's not exactly open, it cannot be freely used by everyone.

So unless someone creates a proposal to create a all new open source web-based wallet, we're probably not going to see much activity on the frontend side except from CNX, and this kind of defeats the open market we've been all looking for.

For example, I've toyed with the idea to add features ontop of the bts ui wallet, but decided against it after the license was changed. The community including web wallet hosters cannot use my added features without actually paying commissions to CNX. I understand that CNX needs a revenue model, but this revenue model kind of killed the open source movement for the BTS ui frontend, so it's not exactly the best solution.

So basically cnx has a monopoly on the UI, but refuses to do changes unless they are pay via worker proposal?  And no one else can do changes because of cnx licensing?
I might be wrong, but:

 you can make as many changes as you would like.

 But you have to start from scratch to NOT pay  CNX to use it commercially. even if you changes amount to 51% of all code you still have to pay.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
    • View Profile
There are already other people building alternate UIs, and those I think make more sense to be paid for by referral income rather than by worker proposals.

If I was going to start contributing to the node, I would start by making some minor requests, pull requesting them, and simultaneously requesting payment with a worker proposal.  The shareholders should be smart enough to know that just taking updates without paying for them isn't sustainable, and developers should recognize that they need some established reputation in order to get prefunded worker proposals passed.

Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
Another problem I see is that nobody would even attempt to make open source changes to the BTSUI wallet since it's not exactly open, it cannot be freely used by everyone.

So unless someone creates a proposal to create a all new open source web-based wallet, we're probably not going to see much activity on the frontend side except from CNX, and this kind of defeats the open market we've been all looking for.

For example, I've toyed with the idea to add features ontop of the bts ui wallet, but decided against it after the license was changed. The community including web wallet hosters cannot use my added features without actually paying commissions to CNX. I understand that CNX needs a revenue model, but this revenue model kind of killed the open source movement for the BTS ui frontend, so it's not exactly the best solution.

So basically cnx has a monopoly on the UI, but refuses to do changes unless they are pay via worker proposal?  And no one else can do changes because of cnx licensing?

Offline mindphlux

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile
Another problem I see is that nobody would even attempt to make open source changes to the BTSUI wallet since it's not exactly open, it cannot be freely used by everyone.

So unless someone creates a proposal to create a all new open source web-based wallet, we're probably not going to see much activity on the frontend side except from CNX, and this kind of defeats the open market we've been all looking for.

For example, I've toyed with the idea to add features ontop of the bts ui wallet, but decided against it after the license was changed. The community including web wallet hosters cannot use my added features without actually paying commissions to CNX. I understand that CNX needs a revenue model, but this revenue model kind of killed the open source movement for the BTS ui frontend, so it's not exactly the best solution.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2015, 11:10:18 am by mindphlux »
Please consider voting for my witness mindphlux.witness and my committee user mindphlux. I will not vote for changes that affect witness pay.

Offline fuzzy

I'm just wondering who other than crytponomex will ever submit a worker proposal to add a feature to the code.  Would the community ever support someone else modifying the code? Maybe if toast offered, but I highly doubt anyone from the outside would be voted in.  It's like cnx has a monopoly over all code changes, and I don't see that changing.  How long would it take an outsider to decipher and understand the code well enough to make productive changes?


Hehehe...
Little hint about how we can get that accomplished---the leadership of sharedropping chains could be committee committee members and as such be able to leverage their teams as well to add to the codebase...because if it works on the flagship...it will be far more likely to be workable for many other chains. :)
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
I'm just wondering who other than crytponomex will ever submit a worker proposal to add a feature to the code.  Would the community ever support someone else modifying the code? Maybe if toast offered, but I highly doubt anyone from the outside would be voted in.  It's like cnx has a monopoly over all code changes, and I don't see that changing.  How long would it take an outsider to decipher and understand the code well enough to make productive changes?