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.
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: