Topic: Copycats good for the industry? - page 2. (Read 229 times)
I think all these things just happen because these people wants to keep up with the narrative There is no actual need for burning bnb since the whole essence of it on eth is to lower gas fees which unfortunately nothing happen Bnb have quarterly burns and now I think they want to turn that to regular transaction burns and from the way I see this BNB will one day lol be 1
I prefer that it is an innovation for the project to be better than the other, although their project is almost similar. They can copycat the other project with one condition, and they create a new project that will be better and have the other advantages that they can give to people and can share almost everything about the project with the public.
But most people or investors will not look for details, especially for people who want to search for profit. As long as they can profit from the project, they will use it. Otherwise, they will leave and search for other projects.
But most people or investors will not look for details, especially for people who want to search for profit. As long as they can profit from the project, they will use it. Otherwise, they will leave and search for other projects.
Most projects are open source, and in my opinion, the advantage of open source is that anyone can develop or improve the source code. With open-source, errors or bugs from a code can be found faster because many people see the code. A project copying another project is common. They copy existing code may be intending to save time, no need to write code from scratch; the rest is they developed features that make it unique from the codebase they copy.
You can say that there are legit because they only copy it to make an improvement but at the same time, they will get the credit themselves. They cannot just give something new without getting it to their own full control. so most of the time, they wanted to copy the other project out there just to improve it and claimed the reward for that as soon as investors will use their project instead of the previous one which is kinda hassling right now especially when we look at its unreasonable gas fees.
Actually, it is in my head that if the company doesn't reveal information about its work, it is not trust worthy and I shouldn't invest in it. It is not only about crypto. Even while investigating stock market, I always looked through reports of the company. So when the code is open, it is a sign for me, that this project doesn't hide anything crucial and dangerous. So I can also read a smart-contract so as to check hazardous functions.
There are real pros and cons to having it open and close source. If you want to be liked by the community, you'll choose to be open source so there's no need for them to have long discussions about their source code since it's viewable in the public. And there are those that have their own reason why they want to keep it close sourced, they know that there will be questions about them not disclosing their choice but eventually, they'll just go with their product and service at its best. And the fall back of this is the trust of the community.
this is actually quite reasonable in marketing because the product is definitely the same but the brand is the difference, for example like televisions or gadgets which always provide innovation from time to time and there are so many cellphone manufacturers now that only change the appearance and add something that is lacking in the market. its competitors.
in Crypto it's the same actually because this is a basic step because surely everyone will copy and make something more innovative in it that makes them superior compared to their competitors
in Crypto it's the same actually because this is a basic step because surely everyone will copy and make something more innovative in it that makes them superior compared to their competitors
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.
I personally don’t like the idea of copying other projects hundred percent. You can get any copied idea, but there should be some enhancements should be shown on your platform from the other, it shouldn’t be hundred percent and obvious that you’re copying another, it should be superior at least to an extent from the existing one.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.
If the developers of a particular project decides that they want to keep their source code and everything private, then they should, it’s their choice. They worked hard on it and others should also do the same; work hard and create their own ideas and stop looking for where to copy and paste, and just giving us the same thing over and over again with different names, please
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.
Open source is the way to go and there is no way around it, I understand that the developers may not want to share that information as by doing so they are losing an advantage they could capitalize on, but a cryptocurrency, DEX, wallet or any other service in this market which does not allow you to see the code and what is going behind the scenes could always insert code that allows them to do all kind of malicious things, now the devs could promise to not do that but now you have to trust them, and trust is something that satoshi wanted to eliminate when making any transaction in this ecosystem. 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.
^Snipped
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 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.
Forks and copycats are one of the disadvantages of open sourcing a project as people can easily get this codebase, do a few more little tweaks here and there that gives it an edge vs the original project. Frankly speaking, we'd have to live with these issues while hoping that the bad actors in the space will use these new technological advancement for good use. Limiting access to open source software projects will make people feel like your hiding something from them. There would always been bad actors.
BSC was successful by doing it at the right time.
Customers of Ethereum are having trouble with the expensive fees and the traffic while BSC did the opposite. But, there's a catch. It's just because it's brand new that's why it is the faster one but give it some time and they will deal with the same problem as Ethereum did.
This may be why they change their consensus mechanism because they cannot find any way to deal with it. You want to satisfy your customers do something better instead of just clearing up caches. But it is taking too long for 2.0 to be released, thankfully the supporters never left.
I disagree with copycats.
Customers of Ethereum are having trouble with the expensive fees and the traffic while BSC did the opposite. But, there's a catch. It's just because it's brand new that's why it is the faster one but give it some time and they will deal with the same problem as Ethereum did.
This may be why they change their consensus mechanism because they cannot find any way to deal with it. You want to satisfy your customers do something better instead of just clearing up caches. But it is taking too long for 2.0 to be released, thankfully the supporters never left.
I disagree with copycats.
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.
The tighter the market, the better the competition. Those copycats are free to do whatever they want as long as their app is still adhering to the original license of the source code. No one can't prevent that, and also anyone is free to innovate anything they can imagine, so looking at the bright side, I think it is good for innovation.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.
And also Uniswap v.2 is manually blocking some tokens access on their interface, so it adds up the controversy. But, what do you mean v3 is a closed source? AFAIK, the smart contract is open-sourced, from what I know is that the v3 are now having strict licensing which make other can't copy the code easily.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.
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.
Mostly though, it's not good in the overall market specially if there are a lot of copy-cats in the market.
But for the cases you put, it's the only case that I've seen so far, so the effect is non-existent for the time being unless someone copies BSC and BEP-95.
Open source though is still the way to go, it's a safe practice in the industry and it become the standard or the norm.
That's how really works the open-sourced. You can do anything with it, like customized or whatever you like. Another thing is called "forked", it's like they are basing it on the existing project and customized something, like most of the codes there are almost the same from original.
For example, is Dogecoin or Litecoin, these two projects are forked from Bitcoin.
I agree with the OP, BSC is copy-paste (copycat) of Ethereum but still, a lot of people using it as an alternative to Ethereum.
For example, is Dogecoin or Litecoin, these two projects are forked from Bitcoin.
I agree with the OP, BSC is copy-paste (copycat) of Ethereum but still, a lot of people using it as an alternative to Ethereum.
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.
So far it is, we have seen projects that are copies of existing projects and turn out to be better than the existing ones because they are an upgraded version and they are well supported from the original one, the community prefer an open-sourced project for them to see flaws and bugs, I am not aware of projects that kept their code close-sourced except XRP who I do not consider Cryptocurrency and become successful because it takes out the true meaning of decentralization.
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.
It's not a problem but something that makes me feel strange that if BNB has been doing regular burn and why do it needs to do another burn like ethereum. Ethereum was doing it caused by there's no cap for the maximum supply and prevent the inflation. Did cz wanna burn his BNB to the zero supply? lolBut 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?
Sometimes that's not good to make it being opensource but remember that the blockchain was a protocol for anyone and any solutions that already implemented by ethereum has been starting from the community. Or close the information (for a small period, not forever), so that one can keep a competitive advantage? Food for thought. Discuss.
Just reveal what needs to reveal and keep the important source code privately. 
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.
Jump to: