Quote from: b9ron on July 20, 2018, 11:37:26 PM

Quote from: 0x000090 on July 20, 2018, 03:03:28 PM

Quote from: MagicSmoker on July 20, 2018, 12:37:01 PM

I have been arguing heavily in favor of releasing the source code for the version of Atlantis which has been out for ~1 month.

The repo should have all the history, going back to the last public derosuite commit; it would be highly suspicious for that not to be the case. But if it does not, then expect the questions and demands for sources to persist. And, skepticism may well persist regardless, and justifiably so, since unlike in blockchain, it is possible to rewrite history in git.

Let this serve as a lesson for other devs, about closing sources, even for awhile; open source in the crypto space is not about free software, it is about trust; you can trust the code, and/or you can trust the dev, but without fully open code, you are reduced to the latter. That is to say, the question is not about open source, but about open development.

You are wrong.

Open Source means you can check if anything suspicious is hidden and you can still propose modification but at the end your commits will be review by lead dev(s) in charge of project and of course they could be discarded.

When you submit modification to the Linux kernel, at the end is Linus Torvalds that give the approval to your proposition(s).

An other example : Quake 3 is a game product with Open Source like every product from ID Software, but that doesn't mean you could copy/fork the source even partially for your commercial project.

When you fork a Crypto project is always for commercial use even if you have intention to distribute your coins for free.

You say I'm wrong, but then go off on tangents and don't address my main point.

I don't care about your definition of open source when what we are talking about is people using software to replace the function of having a bank account. If, when the public is finally able to inspect the dero source, we find gaps in the history, then that will be a problem, because some code has been running on mainnet all this time. And I think it odd that you would push back on the idea of people to be able to verify what has been running.

It truly is one of those occasions where, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. And it is especially strange for this to even be a question, when we are talking about superseded code, only needed to verify how the software worked during its closed-source period. I really have trouble understanding how someone could argue against this.

And this has nothing to do with whether linus will merge your pull request; ironic example that, since if so, you can go ahead and fork your own version of linux. If the reason it was necessary turns out to be that linus has become toxic to the project, then it may be the community will eventually eject him, perhaps by this very mechanism.