I am against a complete copy-past of something. No one canceled plagiarism and copyright. But, if someone copies something and improve it or made it better, specially if he shared the problem and intention with author, then I see nothing bad in copycats. Also I see nothing bad in copying something that is dead or not developing. If you know how to do better, why waste time and wait till someone starts to do something. Wasting moment in business equals death.
Almost no one begins their development from scratch, most developers see what other people are doing and then they implement those ideas on their project, even Satoshi did not develop bitcoin from zero, he was well aware of some of the developments that were occurring back then and use them, the genius of Satoshi was to combine several unrelated ideas in a way that created something completely new, so if someone believes they can do better than a project which is currently in the market they are free to prove it, and if they can then everyone wins as now we will have another good project in the market, something we desperately need taking into account the number of scams we have in place. 
Topic: Copycats good for the industry? (Read 242 times)
As the title states, I was pondering whether the nature of open-source software is the way to go. It appears to me coins copy each other all the time. Example BNB copies ETH with BSC. And now BNB copies ETH with BEP-95 update.
Conversely, you see that Uniswap has a closed V.3 atm. I know this is controversial and I support decentralization through and through.
But given that your own protocol could be at stake if you give up critical information, is it best to therefore share the information and keep it open source? Or close the information (for a small period, not forever), so that one can keep a competitive advantage? Food for thought. Discuss.
Conversely, you see that Uniswap has a closed V.3 atm. I know this is controversial and I support decentralization through and through.
But given that your own protocol could be at stake if you give up critical information, is it best to therefore share the information and keep it open source? Or close the information (for a small period, not forever), so that one can keep a competitive advantage? Food for thought. Discuss.
I am not really sure if copycats are good for the industry or not. In the case of the Binance Smart chain being a pretty blatant copy and paste of the Ethereum chain i would say though that we as the overall cryptospace definitely benefited from it, because the ETH-chain is almost unusable for small and "normal" users that just want to trade ETH-Tokens worth 50 bucks or so because of the high fees. I am happy though that the market still appreciates the fact that it was Ethereum that came up with that whole smart contract functionality that enabled most of the stuff that we are having today with Dexes and dApps.
Copycats are not good for the industry is my answer to your question. You don't reinvent the wheel rather you build on the wheel. What BNB Smartchain should have done is to offer something that is an improvement on the current ETH blockchain rather than just being a Copycat.
It's really good if we do something out of the box because it can make a difference, but something that goes with the current is unfortunately still the desire of many people.BSC, SOL, even Polygon are basically still the same following ETH, only they change a little and remodel so that they can become competitors, one of them is in Gas.
On the other hand, it's not too bad for now because they are the same in the system but they have slightly changed things to be more sophisticated which is essentially the same as building on existing wheels.
The use of open source code allows the community to move faster in solving a large number of problems and the introduction of advanced technologies not only in the cryptocurrency market. And since this is not prohibited by law, any developer can make their own changes to the source code, thanks to which we see a lot of forks.
...For example, is Dogecoin or Litecoin, these two projects are forked from Bitcoin...
Dogecoin is not a fork of Bitcoin. Dogecoin is a fork of Luckycoin, which in turn was a fork of Litecoin. And Litecoin is really a fork of Bitcoin. According to the developers, each fork had a goal to improve the existing blockchain, but looking at the history, not many forks were appreciated by the community.
This is exactly because it has never been done before, and even better if it adds some extra features that can't be found anywhere else. In a way, this is exactly why layer 1/2 solutions and many developer Web3 tools are becoming more and more valuable/popular. Innovation is key to success
If you will see what Binance is doing, they just copied most of the features of the exchange but they are right now one of the most if not the most popular crypto exchange as of the moment and at the top 3 in terms of market cap.
I was wondering if you could tell me which exchange Binance copied. Was it an open source project or did I misunderstand something? This is something I've never heard of before.
That's open source can be used by others who have a better idea than existing, and it's not a problem even many of them are more successful than the original, because developers learn the weaknesses of the project or coin they imitate and this becomes commonplace in the crypt world.
Good or not for the industry it depends on how developers develop theirs project they introduce if their project turns out to be more useful why not
Good or not for the industry it depends on how developers develop theirs project they introduce if their project turns out to be more useful why not
Against or not doesn't matter right now at least for me because most of the projects right now are open-sourced so people can copy it, make their own one and then market it.
If you will see what Binance is doing, they just copied most of the features of the exchange but they are right now one of the most if not the most popular crypto exchange as of the moment and at the top 3 in terms of market cap. Well, if copying the source code will have a big improvement in the crypto space then I have nothing against it and I think that developers know it too that there will be a time that some other developers will copy their code thus creating their own project.
If you will see what Binance is doing, they just copied most of the features of the exchange but they are right now one of the most if not the most popular crypto exchange as of the moment and at the top 3 in terms of market cap. Well, if copying the source code will have a big improvement in the crypto space then I have nothing against it and I think that developers know it too that there will be a time that some other developers will copy their code thus creating their own project.
As the title states, I was pondering whether the nature of open-source software is the way to go. It appears to me coins copy each other all the time. Example BNB copies ETH with BSC. And now BNB copies ETH with BEP-95 update.
Conversely, you see that Uniswap has a closed V.3 atm. I know this is controversial and I support decentralization through and through.
But given that your own protocol could be at stake if you give up critical information, is it best to therefore share the information and keep it open source? Or close the information (for a small period, not forever), so that one can keep a competitive advantage? Food for thought. Discuss.
Conversely, you see that Uniswap has a closed V.3 atm. I know this is controversial and I support decentralization through and through.
But given that your own protocol could be at stake if you give up critical information, is it best to therefore share the information and keep it open source? Or close the information (for a small period, not forever), so that one can keep a competitive advantage? Food for thought. Discuss.
Bitcoin and Ethereum are open sourced they made them open source so people can look for bugs and contribute on how to improve the source code, but in doing so they allow developers to create a copycat coin and token and create them for their own organization or company or the industry that they are working with.
It's not really bad to copy a code and create your token as long as you add some improvement on what you copied and your project has a purpose and will contribute to the betterment of the industry.
As the title states, I was pondering whether the nature of open-source software is the way to go. It appears to me coins copy each other all the time. Example BNB copies ETH with BSC. And now BNB copies ETH with BEP-95 update.
Conversely, you see that Uniswap has a closed V.3 atm. I know this is controversial and I support decentralization through and through.
But given that your own protocol could be at stake if you give up critical information, is it best to therefore share the information and keep it open source? Or close the information (for a small period, not forever), so that one can keep a competitive advantage? Food for thought. Discuss.
Conversely, you see that Uniswap has a closed V.3 atm. I know this is controversial and I support decentralization through and through.
But given that your own protocol could be at stake if you give up critical information, is it best to therefore share the information and keep it open source? Or close the information (for a small period, not forever), so that one can keep a competitive advantage? Food for thought. Discuss.
but many successful projects are due to draft copies of good projects. I think imitating from a great project is only natural as long as it doesn't violate certain conditions. with such a lot of developers vying to be the best
Copycats are not good for the industry is my answer to your question. You don't reinvent the wheel rather you build on the wheel. What BNB Smartchain should have done is to offer something that is an improvement on the current ETH blockchain rather than just being a Copycat.
Most meme coins are copycats that's why we see some of them rug pulling on investors funds easily also this is why I don't like investing my hard earned money in coins that have something to do with doge name or shiba inu names, most of them won't be here anymore once bear market begins
Copying an open-sourced code and launching a similar code is ok as long as there is a development on the code and the developers that are doing the upgrade are capable of upgrading and developing the new project coming from existing code, the technology is dynamic and moving, it should have something to over to what the needs of the time and circumstances.
Their main reason shoud be they see something they can add in that project. Those copycat project sometimes have better marketing team than the original one thats why they are able to outcast the original one. So if the real idea owner should know how to market their project to let investors know tgey are the original. Without proper marketing no matter how good the project is, it will not gave impact.
I believe one of the reasons why some projects prefer making their codes available to the public is because of continuity and development. I don't support the copy cats, but I believe that they must have added something more before coming onboard. It would be unethical to copy hook, line and sinker without adding some modifications to the codes.
As the title states, I was pondering whether the nature of open-source software is the way to go. It appears to me coins copy each other all the time. Example BNB copies ETH with BSC. And now BNB copies ETH with BEP-95 update.
Conversely, you see that Uniswap has a closed V.3 atm. I know this is controversial and I support decentralization through and through.
Depends on how it is used. Open source is very important if you are investing into something, it is not so important when others copy it. For example, if you want to invest into BNB because it copied ETH, that would be wrong, but if you want to invest into ETH and want to check their code, then being open source is an advantage. Plus, it gives smaller projects the chance to be vetted, when the whole code is checked and found to be perfectly fine, then people would feel better about investing into it.Conversely, you see that Uniswap has a closed V.3 atm. I know this is controversial and I support decentralization through and through.
When a code is verified then it would become a lot better to check and we have so many places like CertiK that checks the codes and audit them and give people their opinion. Which is why I honestly believe that open source is important when you want to invest, but it is supbar when others copy yours and make their project based on your code, but that would be figured out eventually if they are open source as well.
Copying an open-sourced code and launching a similar code is ok as long as there is a development on the code and the developers that are doing the upgrade are capable of upgrading and developing the new project coming from existing code, the technology is dynamic and moving, it should have something to over to what the needs of the time and circumstances.
...For example, is Dogecoin or Litecoin, these two projects are forked from Bitcoin...
Dogecoin is not a fork of Bitcoin. Dogecoin is a fork of Luckycoin, which in turn was a fork of Litecoin. And Litecoin is really a fork of Bitcoin. According to the developers, each fork had a goal to improve the existing blockchain, but looking at the history, not many forks were appreciated by the community.
I am against a complete copy-past of something. No one canceled plagiarism and copyright. But, if someone copies something and improve it or made it better, specially if he shared the problem and intention with author, then I see nothing bad in copycats. Also I see nothing bad in copying something that is dead or not developing. If you know how to do better, why waste time and wait till someone starts to do something. Wasting moment in business equals death.
Okay, in this sense copy cat is not really a bad idea but my only concern is that CZ proposes a burn transaction fees same with what is currently happening in Ethereum network which was made possible via London harkfork or the EIP-1559. I don't know if CZ wants BNB to overtake ETH in marketcap which is never going to happen. Currently ETH runs on POW which works are in the pipe line to switch to POS, but BSC is purely POS yet the fees are now very expensive. I don't even know BEP20 validators. BSC developers should put forth a more native and genius proposals and not always follow ETH vision.
Copying is mostly bad except for a couple of cases. As a result the path of copying sushiswap turned out to be good. Copying some piece of code frees up resources and time for people to solve other problems.
The market generally doesn't welcome counterfeits and uses the original product if the counterfeit doesn't have its own unique feature that improves the first product.
The market generally doesn't welcome counterfeits and uses the original product if the counterfeit doesn't have its own unique feature that improves the first product.
Jump to: