Quote from: rtrtcrypto on May 30, 2016, 01:09:14 PM

There is an implied threat, sure. That there will be a fork and that what we have as software will be useless. I would also say that this would appear to me to be a breach of the terms of sale of said software.

If this software is no longer part of the tangle we were supposed to be a part of, then I'm not quite sure what it is that we have bought. This would feel a little like being sold a car and then told "AHA! Only problem is that you can't drive it on any roads, but still, you got what you paid for". Problem is, the software sale is attached to the idea of the tangle itself - if you fork the tangle and just go on your merry way, I'm not sure how that will look (well, yes i do).

ps. if this "threat" is not what is implied by "company driven consortium" then I apologize before hand.

Implied threat? No. What is the 'threat' here? I feel like I am taking crazy pills.

What did we sell? Software. What have we created? Software.
The software will perform as advertised. What we want to do outside of that is 100% up to us as individuals and as a company. Do you actually think that you own us because you purchased a product from us?

What is being discussed here is a Foundation, it's a separate entity from our company altogether. It's a proposed entity that will work to ensure IOTA adoption. What is ambiguous about this? Where in your software purchase did you see that we promised to work for free to ensure your software adoption? What is this insanity?

We never sold exclusive rights to our usage of the tangle for all eternity. We made IOTA because we need it in the tech stack for our company, just like you bought it because you presumably need it for some IoT / ledger project. In that regard we are equals. *If* this community is unable to ensure what OUR vision is, then we will simply take another route for OUR vision. That's our right as human beings, we are not slaves that owe anyone anything beyond the software.

To put this into the perspective of your own metaphor: you purchased a car, yes, not a road. We have not built a road, the road is community effort, that's what open source communities is all about. What we are *proposing* to the community now is that we can create a group of focused and dedicated individuals to build the most crucial parts of said road, but of course it's not free. Why would you expect 10 people to work full time for free? I can't fathom this line of thinking.

Only in crypto can you do everything right, be 100% explicit, make people profit and people will still twist your words and make false accusations, even after they themselves have profited from your volunteer work. Astonishing.