Author Topic: Merger of STEEM and BTS  (Read 11334 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cryptillionaire

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
I'm afraid there is some kind of misunderstanding here.

Bytemaster never said to merge steem and bitshares together... What he has talked about is the fact that the new types of elements that have been created in steem are not compatible with the current bitshares codebase.

In order for Bitshares to adopt the improvements that have been made in what we know as Steem today.. the best way to do it would be to create basically a bitshares 3.0 .. similar to how we went from 1.0 to 2.0.. in the new network it would have the new features etc.

There is, and never will be, some weird plan to 'merge' bitshares with steem.. it is technically impossible.

Here is the thing.. the codebase that bitshares run on is Graphene and is MIT licensed which means anybody can do what they like with it... which means Bytemaster has a choice.. he can come back to Bitshares and have the community vote and then implement this Bitshares 3.0 plan that incorporates new innovations that were gained from what was done on Steem.. OR.. can create a whole new decentralized exchange and call it something else. I highly doubt that will ever happen though.

Hope this helps clarify some things.
My post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22317.msg292330.html#msg292330

Post where BM clearly mentions his intent to merge STEEM into BTS: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22317.msg290945.html#msg290945
I think the future is pretty clear for BTS:

1. work out the kinks with Steem
2. merge best parts of steem + BTS into a next generation DEX
3. sharedrop + dev allocation

It is just a much longer roadmap.
His post reads like he's proposing a merger of BTS+STEEM & dilution of the current coin supply than a snapshot to a new blockchain with no change to share allocations. His non-participation in discussion after this post doesn't help to clear up any misunderstandings his post has caused.

It's worth reading STEEM's licence (not MIT license): https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/master/LICENSE.md
Quote
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
4. The STEEMIT_INIT_PUBLIC_KEY_STR is not changed from STM8GC13uCZbP44HzMLV6zPZGwVQ8Nt4Kji8PapsPiNq1BK153XTX, and the software is not modified in any way that would bypass the need for the coresponding private to start a new blockchain.
5. The software is not used with any forks of the Steem blockchain that are not recognized by Steemit, Inc in writing.
One cannot adopt any of the code implemented in STEEM, their license expressly forbids it.

If BM intends to take STEEM's ideas without using any of their code then that may work around their extremely prohibitive license, but I still don't see how a digg clone has any place within a decentralized exchange..

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I totally agree with svk here!
The nice thing about steem is that any improvements they make can be ported over to bts fairly easy bc its the same code base.
Let them improve and prove their stuff and then just assimilate the best parts.

Offline bitsharesbrazil

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
Hi svk, where I can fallow these developments? Excited. Thanks.
bitcointalk ANN https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1084460.0
chat, post, promote it!!!!!!!! Stan help to improve OP!

Offline svk

A straight merger will never happen, just forget about that. What could happen however is Bitshares deciding to adopt some of the features developed for Steem once they've proven that they work, like rate limited free transactions, market maker incentives and possibly the new pegged asset model.

One of the main issues Bitshares faces right now is the lack of interest around the market pegged assets; although the peg works fairly well the generation process through shorting/borrowing is failing to generate enough supply to make the assets viable. Steem has a new solution for this problem that could be ported to Bitshares if it turns out to be more successful. Bitshares currently does not have an ETH asset, perhaps a bitasset 2.0 could be implemented first using ETH, that could generate a lot of interest and would make it very easy for ETH holders to come trade on Bitshares. Anyway, we first need to see the new model in action in Steem, which will happen after the 4th of July..

Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline sudo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: ags

Offline bitsharesbrazil

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
I think.we have too.keep going funding development whatever is th outcome, we have the.model,.we.can keep developing things with tbis model, bitshares is not cript that became lisk, bitshares is far greater n stabilished, nas a market, has a product, has a.model, has projects, n it didnt stop, that is.the point...
I believe is.important to have dan n family on board if we can reach a good deal.for everybody not a problem for me.......everything for the greatness of.bitshates the facebook of criptoworld
« Last Edit: May 30, 2016, 06:50:22 am by bitsharesbrazil »
bitcointalk ANN https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1084460.0
chat, post, promote it!!!!!!!! Stan help to improve OP!

Offline okidoki

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
Thanks for your comment. This clarifies it well. But in general would you say that Bitshares is in its current state independent from Cryptonomex? I mean it seems like everything is in place... even a Bitshares Android app... I do not think that developement has to be paid for anymore... look at Bitcoin, they are stagnant for the last 7 years... and no one complains...

Although I like the original interest vision for BitUSD from the beginning... would be nice to have "such a" BitUSD as an option in the system...

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

I'm afraid there is some kind of misunderstanding here.

Bytemaster never said to merge steem and bitshares together... What he has talked about is the fact that the new types of elements that have been created in steem are not compatible with the current bitshares codebase.

In order for Bitshares to adopt the improvements that have been made in what we know as Steem today.. the best way to do it would be to create basically a bitshares 3.0 .. similar to how we went from 1.0 to 2.0.. in the new network it would have the new features etc.

There is, and never will be, some weird plan to 'merge' bitshares with steem.. it is technically impossible.

Here is the thing.. the codebase that bitshares run on is Graphene and is MIT licensed which means anybody can do what they like with it... which means Bytemaster has a choice.. he can come back to Bitshares and have the community vote and then implement this Bitshares 3.0 plan that incorporates new innovations that were gained from what was done on Steem.. OR.. can create a whole new decentralized exchange and call it something else. I highly doubt that will ever happen though.

Hope this helps clarify some things.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline okidoki

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
I would like to know, has the Bitshares community to accept this? I have not read the license or whatever of Bitshares, I suppose that Cryptonomex has a hand on this, as I would suppose...

Offline okidoki

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
The last merger of BTSX and DNS and Vote only diluted BTSX-holders.
Cryptillionaire has brought up a great point: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22517.msg293211.html#msg293211

Bytemaster, you want to merge Steem and BTS together?? Valuing Steem at the fake market cap of 30 million and depressing BTS to new low levels by talking in past tense in your article about "The DAO", and that the project has failed? So that BTS holders would get perhaps at a 5 million market cap a 20% stake in the next generation DEX?

I mean, you have to exclude this possibility, retracting your earlier statement that you see clearly the future for BTS in a merger with STEEM.

I think there are many people here who would be really not satisfied by this.