Topic: [ANN] CatoCoin : The Next Generation of Masternode Coins with NextGen Technology - page 20. (Read 64271 times)

CatoCoin network difficulty tends to rise again, it might surpass 1k soon.
http://explorer.catocoin.info/

74 active CatoCoin masternodes for now.
The network has come closer to the point of scheduled automatic block-reward increase (when the 91st active masternode kick off).

It is very interesting to watch the serious discussion between Catocoin dev and ttook.
The discussion gives me valuable information, something I have ever not known.
Personally, I will give the Catocoin project more time to show its potential off.

Fair enough.

I'm still not convinced, though. I think the patent system as a whole is broken, especially when it comes to code, and not in line with the Cypherpunk ethos anyway. As someone who has been (actively) observing the blockchain space since early 2016, it is disheartening to see how the basic principles Bitcoin was built upon fell to the wayside. EOS and their ridiculous 21 block producers scheme is an example. Using patents – well, there's another one. I guess with the massive instream of users and money, something like that was bound to happen at some point.

But you do you.
As I said, I don't assume malicious intent from your side. But to me, you are not part of what I understand to be a cypherpunk ecosystem.


Source: https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html

I'm out.

Got it, CatoCoin.
This one might help to stop the serious discussion on CatoCoin Patent and why the project need this one.

here's an excellent article on the topic. They can co-exist but there are specific limits which we clearly understood before embarking on this path.

https://www.fenwick.com/FenwickDocuments/Patent_Rights.pdf

I am not sure about how correct you are discussing, but the fact is most (or all) of crypto projects are open-sourced ones.
However, it doesn't mean that we all don't know where are original sources of breaking ideas, right?
We all know that bitcoin is the king, the start (almost like this) of crypto world.
Addtitionally, CatoCoin stated that the coin based on codes of others, Bitcoin, DASH, PIVX, and adjusted with their own breaking ideas, codes to make Catocoin source codes and lauched the project weeks ago.
Patent or without patent, it doesn't make sense (at least in my stance), but the CatoCoin team have done great works till now, honestly.
 

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. No ad hominems and stuff. Great! Let me state from the beginning that I don't assume malicious intent from your side. I just don't understand your reasoning.


Well, I am not a professional, I am a private person. I don't have a business under which I operate here, I have little reason to be professional. You do on the other hand. I know this is unfair, but that's how it is


It looks like all your answers boil down to "we want other users to conform to the GPL". Fair enough. I just don't understand what additional protection a patent serves in that case. Could you clear that up? Because as far as I am aware, the GPL is enforcable without a patent. Why do you need a patent on top of that?


If they don't conform to the GPL, they are already breaking a contract and can be sanctioned. Or can't they?

I mean, that is why the GPL exists in the first place. You say so yourself:


See, maybe I am wrong here, but from what I am seeing, the patent system and the GPL actually contradict each other in some terms. And in case of a legal dispute, I am pretty sure that a court would side with the patent side, due to it being a state sanctioned set of rules, while the GPL is not. I am admittedly no expert in this field, though.

Also, what I am seeing is an ecosystem in which the use of patents is extremely rare, as far as i know. This makes you an exception to the rule and puts you in the position explain your actions to your users.

To begin with you called patents a 'plague' - it our eyes that's not very professional if you want to start using that term. You made your position quite clear on your view of patents.

1. What exactly are you planning to enforce with the patent AND the GNU-GPL?

>>>>as stated right int he press release: "We've done this in order to assert our patent rights against redistributors who do not conform to the GPL license terms."

Why do you think you need both?
What are the conditions under which others are allowed to use your code?

>>>> as stated right int he press release: :conform to the GPL license terms".  We encourage everyone to uses our codebase. We just want them to conform to the same License that we did.

How can we be sure that you will be true to your word?

>>>> This is not really a question, because by conforming to the GPL license terms we are legally bound by the terms. We think that's pretty straight forward

And, probably the most complex, but most important point when it comes to blockchain tech:
What means do you have in place which prevent centralization around the patent holder in case of a dispute?

Let's take the Ethereum hard fork as an example: should something like that happen on your network, what would be your course of action? would you allow a hardfork? Would you try to prevent it?

>>>> No we would not UNLESS  the hard fork code did not conform to the GPL License terms


Let me be clear here: I am absolutely in favor of giving credit where credit is due and paying content creators for their work. However, blockchain tech operates in a realm in which traditional payment structures are not easily applied, because they pose the danger of centralization via legal enforcement.


>>>> I get what you're saying completely, what's important here to us is the protection of 'original thought IP from exploitation by commercial enterprises or those who lurk in the shadows' and ignore GPL license terms


>>>> I believe you asked about 'developing from scratch' and that answer is no.  We,  like most coin developers used exiting code bases and we make full disclosure of those codebases in our Help>About screen in the wallet and pay homage to them for their hard work.

Catocoin Core version v2.0.1.0-3bc4db3-dirty (32-bit)

Copyright (C) 2009-2017 The Bitcoin Core Developers

Copyright (C) 2014-2017 The Dash Core Developers

Copyright (C) 2015-2017 The PIVX Core Developers

Copyright (C) 2018-2019 The Awesome Catocoin Core Developers

Wow.

So, because I am critial of your approach, I automatically have malicious intent? Not exactly a professional answer. I have no intent to take your code (or pieces of it) and use it for my own personal gains. You can keep your insults.

By the way, did you write all the code you are using from scratch, or did you take code from other projects? Because, even if your premine is "incredibly low", I would still argue that this is a "personal gain" in some way. This would not exactly be in line with the views you expressed, would it. But I don't really want to go there, because I don't know and I don't care that much. Plus, generally, cheap shots are not my style.


No, that is not "correct". You go look at Bcash and what Craig Wright and nChain are doing with their patents. Do you think that is a good idea? If you are in their corner, you can go fuck yourselves anyway.

But since you share the views of 24 million devs who use GNU-GPL, I guess you are not and you find it just as awful as most of us do.

Now, since you want the GNU-GPL and patents, here is a paragraph from the GNU-GPL:


Source:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

So basically, when you have GNU-GPL in place and are willing to follow it, you can't really prevent others from using your code, as long as they follow the GNU-GPL. Having a patent seems extremely redundant, since both (the patent and the GNU-GPL) are supposed to do the exact same thing: providing a legal framework which defines under which circumstances code may be used.

This leads me back to a part of my post you decided not to address:


To put it a bit differently:

What exactly are you planning to enforce with the patent AND the GNU-GPL?

Why do you think you need both?

What are the conditions under which others are allowed to use your code?

How can we be sure that you will be true to your word?

And, probably the most complex, but most important point when it comes to blockchain tech:
What means do you have in place which prevent centralization around the patent holder in case of a dispute?

Let's take the Ethereum hard fork as an example: should something like that happen on your network, what would be your course of action? would you allow a hardfork? Would you try to prevent it?

Let me be clear here: I am absolutely in favor of giving credit where credit is due and paying content creators for their work. However, blockchain tech operates in a realm in which traditional payment structures are not easily applied, because they pose the danger of centralization via legal enforcement.

So, let us get this straight?

You do not like patents because thy restrict your ability to take someone's original code published under the GNU General Public License and then incorporate that code into your code which you will sell or provide publicly or privately for your personal gain while choosing TO NOT publish your work product under the GNU General Public License because you do not want people to find out where the routines actually came from? is that correct?

In terms of 'sharing our personal views', please remember that our personal views are the same as over 24 million others developers working across 67 million repositories who have chosen to make their codebase's public under the GNU General Public License and share freely with anyone else who will adhere to the GNU General Public License.

A patent? Really? I mean, I can read and I see what you are claiming, but really, patents are a plague, especially when it comes to blockchain tech. Imagine Satoshi patenting Bitcoins technology, you might not even be here.

From what you are writign above, it seems like you are trying to fight fire with fire. Fair enough, but that puts a lot of power in the hands of whoever holds the patent. Unless the holder sets up a legally binding contract which specifies under which circumstances the holder is willing to assert their power, I am out.

Having the leagal power to punish users who don't share your personal views or whatever is way too centralized for my taste.

https://twitter.com/catocoin/status/1020397006571925504

when we have time we will - we're not ignoring you - many things happening with mobile staking wallet, portal, etc... thanks for the follow up. Please feel free to join our discord channel where your question can be answered immediately by the many members - most of them do not frequent BTT.

Do the devs even care to answer the questions posted several days ago ?

Thanks to the author for his efforts in the project, this is a surprise project.

I chose CatoCoin and hopefully soon will start my node , but look at the coin LPC when I bought it had no volume and sellers . But after a couple of weeks, the excitement began and the price of the coin reached 0.003 BTC . CatoCoin has all the chances to overtake LPC . Good luck everyone !

total fud and you know it.

A Dump is defined as More Sellers than Buyers - 4 times as many buyers  as sellers here.
Everyone is looking for a deal - it's buy low sell high. It's that way on every traded coin.
Buyers are always looking for weak handed sellers. The good part about weak handed sellers is they run out of coins quickly and move on.