Topic: Is Qora a fork of NXT or completely new code? (Read 1661 times)

That's an interesting question. I would say that a modified version of the Bitcoin source code (let's call it X) where you have a wallet and play the Flappy Birds game to earn coins would be a Bitcoin fork. And if X were forked (let's call it Y) so that the wallet and the ability to earn coins were removed but everything else remained, Y would still be a fork of X, and thus, technically a fork of Bitcoin even though Y and Bitcoin would otherwise have nothing in common.

It's just a clone of NXT with different language.

If Qora would have the same bugs ("undocumented features")  as other coins I think you could call it a clone. Otherwise I would say it is new code

I agree.

The only side-note here: I would rather see developer would clone the software AND join the existing network using/extending the protocol INSTEAD of creating their own network.

Which wheels?

I like refactoring, too. But from time to time I feel like creating new stuff not managing old code.

why, don't you feel painful to reinvent the wheels?

This clone/not clone argument may be meaningless.

The notion of having open source is, "clone me, please !!! "

Presumed innocent until proven guilty

Nice. I for one like to create new things instead. We could work together - I create shitty code and you make it beautiful.

No. Because the features of HelloWorld are well.... restricted?

can you look at the code we can see and give an opinion if its a clone or not?

Refactoring is how I make my (comfortable) living.   sad, isn't it?  

If one has the ability to refactor the code and make the original unnoticeable, I'd say that's not a clone.

Otherwise you can argue every program "theoretically" is a clone of HelloWorld.

Not true. Not from a theoretical and not a practical point of view.

Have ever done a refactoring session?

This shouldn't be a difficult question to answer, if both projects are truly open source...

If it's a clone, then it should be easy just point out the common code, or design.

I do not see a difference here. Maybe, because I am software engineer.

If you copy an idea or code.. That is basically the same. The code is an idea written down in such a way that even a machine can understand it. So, no difference at all.

To me it does cause it would mean Qora is lying. When he says it's not based on any other coin then I either believe him or assume he's full of shit. So far I'm going for the first one. Like I said he will release the source code at some point so he must be confident it won't be taken as NXT early code.

The other factor at least worth a mention is if he is BCNext then he can copy as use as much of NXT ideas as he wants.  .

I share his point, after having a look into it. But the 0.4.x is long ago. So, does it matter if it is the same base or not?

I think people are reading more into JLP's statement ("It is more likely a good java developer who started from the original Nxt 0.4.x code like I did, but then continued his own way into a completely different implementation") than they should, or at least focussing on the wrong things and reaching the wrong conclusions.

You should think about what it means to be a clone/fork, and why you think that's a good or bad thing.

If someone takes the Bitcoin source code, forks the repository, and spends a few weeks editing it file by file until it's a complete Flappy Birds implementation, is it still a fork of Bitcoin? Technically, maybe, but for all practical purposes it's not.

We don't know if Qora was ever forked from Nxt code. I believe it wasn't. It certainly shares concepts with Nxt and Bitcoin, and it probably shares libraries (this isn't the 70's). But right now it's a complete new implementation of a crypto currency, with little or no code in common, and you should focus on that.

Is that a good thing?

Yes, in that we now have a developer who has already shown his mettle, who has ambitions plans for the future, and who has free rein to pursue those plans. Nxt has a strong competitor in the v2 crypto race, and this sort of competition is a good thing for everyone.

You could say the developer is lying but we already know Qora is built from scratch not relying on any other coin. Actually the developer was planning quite an early release of the source code but the community voiced an opinion that we shouldn't release too early until Qora had been established.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-qora-released-16-may-100-pos-new-source-522102

Remember guys this coin is only a few weeks old and has moved way quicker than NXT did. And the last few weeks have been upset by the Sharexcoin running off with early buyers of Qora, something that no one saw coming.

I'm not sure the penny has dropped in regard to Qora honestly. new sources are very rare. people are just starting to wake up to Qora.


"This is a completely new source that is not a fork of any other crypto-currency.
Although there are some similarities in the features the implementation will be different." Qora

I do not know if Qora has been completely rewritten, but it is at the moment one of the best coins on the market. 

This is a quote from one of the devs in the NXT forum:


If you start from an already existing code and modify it, then it is technically a fork/clone and not completely new code, right? Even if you add new features. Dogecoin is based on Litecoin (via Luckycoin) which is based on Bitcoin, Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu which is based on Debian, and LibreOffice is based on OpenOffice.org. These are all forks/clones but they all add something new to the table.

So is Qora based on NXT (i.e. a fork) or is it completely new code written from scratch?

As someone who owns a small amount of DOGE and LTC, uses LibreOffice, and occasionally boots up Ubuntu, I'm not saying that forking/cloning is a bad thing. But I'm just curious. It seems that coins with completely new code written from the ground up such as NXT is a very rare thing in the altcoin world.