Topic: -- Miner's Official Coin LAUNCH - NUGGETS (NUGS) -- - page 76. (Read 121524 times)

You gave legal permission to everyone on the planet to "modify and publish copies" of NUG.  This permission is binding and irrevocable.  You have no legal authority to restrict anyone's access to the source code, or prevent them from making changes you don't like.  In the future you may want to learn among a list of other things about open source licensing before "developing" anything.

All that license talk is interesting and I've learned a lot! So basically, once it's sent into the wild, there's no turning back eh?

And I stand corrected, I misunderstood.  Cidel didn't work on the original bitcoin code.

It has one of the major projects he he to do for his PhD last year and he said it was the hardest thing he ever has to do.

... So I, gonna try to parter with him cause if was able to complete a bitcoin programming project ...

At first he said he wouldn't help me for any money but when I tell him is 98% cut an paste he launched and said:  why would anyone do that?  

aren't you guys sick of scammers?  Give me a chance, I've been honest about everything so for so give me a chance to get my coin back and mak it into a real cin just like I promised.  Thanks.

How can I do a fork when I can't get into my repo files?  He hijacked my coin.  Don't you get it, I can't do anything he changed the password.  I'm gonna give bitcointalk another few hours then I'm forwarding the screen shots to the Feds and attorney general's office. 

And I shouldn't have to do a fork cause bitcointalk bans people for offensive language but theft end blackmail is ok.  These people are opening themselves up to a massive lawsuit.  I aced all the emails and I emailed over a dozen mods and admins.  From this point on any theft or crimes committed falls on bitcointalk since they are now aware and they are now grossly neglecting their fiduciary duties to stop any type of crimes and right now wrong which they are made aware of.  Big lawsuit coming and I'm sure they have way more money than monkey boy r3.  I wanted to email so many people with some kind of control to stop this so there is no denial later they didn't know. 

And the best part they can't delete any of my emails.  New law by the government.   I love it.  If they do nothing then they set themselves up for a huge lawsuit.

Has anyone found any lucky blocks yet?

Is the percent chance of finding one actually correctly calibrated to result in one every two hours on the average?

As far as I can tell all the nodes have been running the corrected code that includes the pre-mine and the correct logic for having the lucky blocks happen starting after block 250, but I do not know whether they have actually been happening, if not maybe most of that hashing power is not afterall using the corrected code.

Oh and Vlad, git is all about cloning and forking. Everyone has full access to the entire repo, they just cannot change someone else's copy of it, because the way to do changes is to make a clone or fok and do the changes on your own clone or fork. The blackmailer has the clone or fork that you had posted in the original post, all you need do is put the URL of some other clone or fork into the original post instead so people will use the one your post is pointing to not the one the blackmailer controls.

Who cares what changes the blackmailer puts into the copy they control? Each miner gets to put whatever changes they choose into their own copy.

-MarkM-

Woooow..... This is hilarious... I love how you judge everyone because they tried to give you proper criticism. It's sad that we live in a day and age when people complain about not having help when really there were at least 3 reply's trying to help you. You are one of the most idiotic coin devs. I have ever seen. And this coming from the guy who messed up the addnodes on his own coin. But wait... you can't even be called a dev because you are way too incompetent to understand how to make a copy/paste coin. You have some delirious visions that make you seem schizophrenic. You make contradictory statements and they go on calling people idiots and liars when they point it out. Tbh you're an idiotic jerk who is wasting so much money on a shitcoin that has no future. You shouldn't even be allowed to handle money if this is what you consider a "good, long term investment."  

If you're that desperate to add more, you should just make a fork since it looks like you're not getting control of that back.

You read my mind

and vlad just make yourself a github account please...

Fork the nugget code that you do not have full rights over...

Update the OP in this thread and there u go u have control of your coin back...

Definitely better than any movie

It's correct for any license, even for AGPL. If you are not an author, then you can't release copyleft code under restrictive license. But if you are author, then copyleft don't affect you and you can release the new versions under any license whatever you like. That's why oracle has all rights to release commersial versions of mysql, for example.

With MIT situation will be different... It has no copyleft, so you are able to release it under restrictive license even if you are not Satoshi, but you can't do anything with copyright messages in application

What is "copyleft"? Is it the same as "open source"?
"Copyleft" refers to licenses that allow derivative works but require them to use the same license as the original work. For example, if you write some software and release it under the GNU General Public License (a widely-used copyleft license), and then someone else modifies that software and distributes their modified version, the modified version must be licensed under the GNU GPL too — including any new code written specifically to go into the modified version. Both the original and the new work are Open Source; the copyleft license simply ensures that property is perpetuated to all downstream derivatives. (There is at least one copyleft license, the Affero GPL, that even requires you to offer the source code, under the AGPL, to anyone to whom you make the software's functionality available as a network service — however, most copyleft licenses activate their share-and-share-alike requirement on distribution of a copy of the software itself. You should read the license to understand its requirements for source code distribution.)

Most copyleft licenses are Open Source, but not all Open Source licenses are copyleft. When an Open Source license is not copyleft, that means software released under that license can be used as part of programs distributed under other licenses, including proprietary (non-open-source) licenses. For example, the BSD license [and MIT license] is a non-copyleft Open Source license. Such licenses are usually called either "non-copyleft" or "permissive" open source licenses

Copyleft provisions apply only to actual derivatives, that is, cases where an existing copylefted work was modified. Merely distributing a copyleft work alongside a non-copyleft work does not cause the latter to fall under the copyleft terms.

What is a "permissive" Open Source license?
A "permissive" license is simply a non-copyleft open source license — one that guarantees the freedoms to use, modify, and redistribute, but that permits proprietary derivative works. See the copyleft entry for more information.

only because MIT lacks a "copyleft" provision

Let's get back on topic here, shall we?

github readme changed again:


"innovative"   hahahaha