Quote from: Chew Kok on June 15, 2015, 09:32:02 AM

Quote from: testz on June 15, 2015, 08:07:42 AM

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on June 15, 2015, 03:56:17 AM

I had a bad feeling about this "Bitshares 2.0" and it turns out after reading your forum I was right (again). Anybody interested should read this thread, Wake Up Call: Bitshares 2.0 is NOT Bitshares. It certainly seems like all your shareholders are being sold down the river so you can profit even more than you already have. Let me see if I have this straight, you convinced all the Bitshares shareholders to fund you and now you're starting a for-profit company with the code.

Keep looking for these threads and one more time more you will see how smart and strong BitShares community is.
It seems that you're just jealous that BitShares has so strong community, and it seems you also get pleasure from the fact that to deal with this community.

testz, I have no problem with your devs wanting to be compensated for their work. Being a contractor, while serving as the core worker for the BTS platform makes perfect business sense. They have bills to pay so only a fuckin hypocrite would object. But didn't the funding to build the toolkit come from the investors? I thought the whole idea of DPoS was to give the shareholders a stake in whatever IP derived from their investment? Why should Cryptonomix receive sole licensing fees?

You are right Testz. The BTS community are a group of bright individuals, so I really don't see them accepting this lying down without more clarification, especially if it's not in their best interest. Or maybe tomorrow this will all of been nothing but BS, and DE will have to find another boogeyman. (Wonder if DE is related to Joseph McCarthy)?

STAN... YOU HAVE SOME SPLAININ TO DO! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ43__Aul3o

I just want to say to DE that he cry too early, the discussion about licensing and Cryptonomix just started, let's see how community will found consensus.