Topic: RadixDLT (formerly eMunie) Discussion (Read 23504 times)

Exactly right, this is a very smart rear guard action it will make it soooo much easier to being "shut" down by legal threats.

See Banks even if they have little grounds can bury you with the costs of a law suits and perhaps stop you in the intermi with injunctions.

So this is a very *very* smart move by Dan inmho.

everything you need to know is posted on telegram channel. thats enough for now

It's in alpha on a testnet. Why and what would they announce? BTW you can find plenty of announcement/beta announcement topics for eMunie here on BTT, so just pick one .

Probably this is the oldest: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-emunie-emu-not-a-bitcoin-forkclone-call-for-beta-testers-220530

No official BCT ANN Thread?

Filed, but not yet granted. 

Patents can take years to grant (yet another broken/slow process looking for potential disruption).

Why are you giving this example? Although you say 'assume it isnt granted' i am confused. The radix technology is patented not?

Having an open source code base released prior to their patent is a pretty dead-to-rights prior art defense.

I've been watching the progress on this a little so I don't know all the details. Is it going to be open source, i.e. following the spirit of what crypto is supposed to be about? If yes, than you can then hit anyone that takes the code to start their own coin with a lawsuit and/or blackmail them to pay you a fee. Basically, it all just looks like greed like any other bank/corporation out there and not in the spirit of crypto.

There's a 3rd reason for that patent that everyone misses...it's called a pinch, and is probably the most important of the 3.

Assume that our patent ISN'T granted.

Later some bank, or corporation, files a patent that infringes on our tech, and it DOES get granted.  It happens, maybe they worded something slightly differently, had better lawyers due to more money, etc

Then they decide "Hey, lets go sue those Radix guys and destroy the business they have built, cus, y'know, we own their tech now!"

So they come along with a law suit and they have us dead to rights...

But they don't, we can show our patent submission and it's refusal.  So if we really are infringing on their patent, then our patent should have been granted as it has an earlier date and theirs should have been refused.

Law suit dismissed!

With so many banks and corps filling patents and getting them granted, with tech that is arguably public domain in some cases, it made total sense as a defense.

I don't know why so many people have an issue with the patent, it's clearly defensive and allows us to monetise the tech to continue development long term from private licenses, regardless of the open source status for public, non-profit deployments.

I think the fear of this is a tad overblown. Ripple has 1 clone, NXT I think has 1 clone, ETH I believe has no clones and 1 fork. I'm out of the loop so I could be way wrong. On top of that, since Radix intends on not having a pyramid distribution, the incentive for cloning is much less. If there isn't a step by step manual of how to clone and make $$$billions$$$, not many will put up the effort when they can just market some "industry breaking tech" on a bitcoin clone or ETH token with a 2 or 3 page whitepaper describing how random industry XYZ needs the blockchain, and needs it baaaad and this token is named after that industry so $$$.


They presumably would only have to pay for whatever service your implying while the code is closed source. Centralization was hinted at before in some chat log leak about "users not caring about centralization" or some such in another emunie thread. This is hinting at it again. It's fine if Radix wants to go some centralized-ish route, though I don't personally see how it's a sustainable model if the code will be open sourced later.

What d5000 is not seeing is that most known and valuable Microsoft or Apple products are closed source, but it looks like everyone doesn't have any problems with that... But why is Radix closed source? They've patented the technology so:
1. others can't just steal their idea and a working product they've put so much time and work into for the past 5 years and this is an absolutely healthy move in my opinion;
2. banks can't copycat a superior tech to use it for their purposes (for free) but instead they will have to pay, which is very important, thus increasing the power of the Radix team and the ability to contribute further to the existing tech and mass adoption of it.

But unlike these Microsoft or Apple products Radix is going to become opensource once it reaches some level of adoption and then everyone can verify its code is legit.

As to the point that if the company goes bankrupt and the value of the coin will drop to zero: Radix will be a fully working product, so, from what I've learned, once a mainnet (aka the Universe) is launched you cannot modify (fork) or develop it any further, unless we're talking about modules like Marketplace, ChatRooms, WebBrowser, etc. which can just plug into an existing software.


The real incentive to buy RDX tokens when the platform goes live is not to wait for the price increase but instead for the distribution of the newly generated by the system RDX tokens to the existing holders when demand increases (read the FAQ on their website).
It won't be x100 ROI due to marketcap increase by the factor of x100, because:
1. RDX holders receive 50% of the new tokens (this number is not final yet though);
2. the system will everytime recalculate how much of the total number of tokens you have, decreasing the % of new tokens you receive.
You can find a formula in a telegram chat if you wish to. Each boat rises equally.

Just keep in mind that Radix is a complex solution for scalability-volatility-centralization-ease-of-use-adoption problems, everyone's been waiting for soooo long!

Peace!

Radix when launched will have its own integrated Decentralized EXchange (DEX). So you will be able to purchase as many Radix Tokens at $1 each as you want, using any of several top CMC coins or a select few of the fiat currencies. Granted the Radix native token is designed to be relatively stable, but you can earn additional tokens in 3 ways.  The new supply is split 50/50 between account hodlers and nodes providing various services to the main Radix network. The 3rd way is you also earn fees for doing work with your nodes.  So as you can see there are incentives to both hodl and run service nodes.

I do not fully agree with your worries. If the company goes bankrupt the company will be forced to sell all its assets, including the patented technology, to pay its debts. So the development would continue in a (probably centralised) way. If nobody wants to buy it. The patent technology would be sold very cheaply. I could buy it to make it open source.

I read at their website that the patented technology would be made open source after the platform reaches a certain adaption rate.

And i am not certain that you can invest in radix. You can buy the native stable coin, but why would you buy something that is not going to appreciate in value (1 token is approximately 1 usd)?

1) Don't compare an altcoin developer with Satoshi. The problem Satoshi solved is much larger than any contribution an altcoin can make.
2) Patenting, closed-source licenses and similar techniques do mainly one thing: they centralize development on one team/company. The downsides are not so obvious, but they exist:

- What happens if the company goes bankrupt and nobody wants to "save" it, and they refuse to "liberate" the technology? The value of the coin would drop instantly to ZERO, because nobody could develop it anymore.
- The innovation rate would be lower than in other competing, open technologies, because no developers from outside the team are incentived to participate (why should someone join a team where almost the whole profit has been made by others?). So even if the coin has some interesting feature, it will most likely be one of the "old, outdated" projects in short time.
- There would be compatibility problems with open projects. The project would not benefit from the open technology stack, and it could only use a subset of potentially interesting and useful technologies.
- Software patents are only valid in certain countries. A cloner would only have to move to a country where software patents are not accepted. So the whole effort of patenting some parts of the technology becomes futile.

Thus, I would never recommend anyone to invest in a patented cryptocurrency.

here
https://forum.radix.global/

Patents stop people copying the tech before Radix is ready to open source the lot, if third parties develop tech & apps for Radix ecosystem I'm sure they wont be hit by patent infringement notices, but if bad actors try nefarious things they would.

When Radix has been developed by basically one guy, it's obviously centralised (i.e. if he goes under a bus before completion things would be grim), but that's exactly the same situation as bitcoin circa 2007/8, everything was centralised around Satoshi until he finished and released a viable version.

The difference between bitcoin/satoshi and radix/fuserleer is in Satoshi's time people were not thinking of ICO's, but today the chances of someone launching a cynical clone of Radix with scam ICO is near 100%, and that would damage Radix a lot.

My view is those who don't like patents should hold off investing until they're comfortable.

Trying to patent (and thus, totally centralize) a cryptocurrency. Nobody would use that crap. You could simply use Paypal or Visa.

What do you mean?
The patenting won't work or the technology won't work?

Sorry, will never work. (BTW: I was one of the first alpha testers.)

Hi Fuserleer
I finally found time to read up on your project. Good to see it's moving forward. As I have been working on BitBay's peg for the last three years, this is an area of particular interest to me. One of my conclusions has been that a peg that relies on incentives instead of being enforcable, is vulnarable (ref. NUBITS). Do you disagree? I'm aware you avoid using the term pegging, but what you are describing is in reality an attempted hard peg upwards. But you seem to have chosen a very weak peg downwards. Is that correct, or am I missing something. If it is correct, I find it very interesting. That would mean you have made the opposite choice we did. Our peg is very strong and enforcable downwards, but weaker upwards. Why did you make that choice? I would love to hear you elaborate a little on this. (I perfectly understand if you don't want to reveal all details yet. We are also holding back a lot of detail for now.)