woodstockmerkle: woodstockmerkle: I am concerned that, with the source code available, it would be easy for a set of clones to pop up, confusing the marketplace with too much choice

This is the same argument that people had with bitcoin. They’ve done just fine. Peercoin has been open source from the start, and innovated POS. It’s been the top POS coin until NXT passed it, and even right now the market cap isn’t that different. I think this clone argument is tiring because the history shows that the innovators stay on top if they keep project momentum going.

If someone clones Nu and stays closed source then they’re in the same boat as us with developers losing interest, or not wanting to support a closed source project… If they go open source with their idea (and it’s good) we can merge it into our system and continue on. I’m really not worried about NuLite or NuDoge or NuNXT or whatever pops up.

woodstockmerkle: woodstockmerkle: Second to that, with $75MM recently heading Coinbase’s way, it’s clear that there is capital in the ecosystem. I’d much rather that capital go to building infrastructure around the edge of Nu and the crypto ecosystem, rather than by some VC taking a fork of the code and pumping it by marketing. Money makes people act strangely sometimes.

VC’s aren’t going to take an interest in Nu. At least not in the codebase itself. Relating the Coinbase VC funding (a centralized company that plays the game within regulations, and has proven itself for almost two years) to a codebase that requires a lot of overhead to maintain in a decentralized fashion is not an apples to apples comparison. I would rather see developers build cool projects that VC’s want to invest in that work within the NuBits ecosystem. They can’t do that until we’re open source. There’s more risk than reward in trusting a closed source network.

woodstockmerkle: woodstockmerkle: Third to that, I’d like to keep the attention exclusively on Nu for recruiting / retaining custodians. This precious resource may also be made scarce by clones.

At this point I wouldn’t mind seeing how a competitor attracts custodians. Whatever we’re doing isn’t working. It’s already scarce.

woodstockmerkle: woodstockmerkle: Whereas it may take time, JordanLee and the dev team have proven themselves to have solid talent and the organizational discipline to keep moving ahead. And they are funded and can pay developers at a sensible rate so the time in is being rewarded. I’m willing to wait for this idea to be brought to the next level under a system that seems to be working than to try to accelerate it or add more cooks.

We don’t just need more developers working on the core project. We need developers to take all the cool projects that have been coded for crypto over the past five years and port them over to NuBits, or develop unique projects that would only be possible with a stable coin like NuBits. Open sourcing is not just about development of the core wallet or protocol itself. It allows other projects and services to form around Nu that support it.

woodstockmerkle: woodstockmerkle: a major exchange not taking on Nu because the client is closed source (and in such a case I’d support a motion to sharing the source code under an NDA with them).

This has already happened. When I find the tweet i’ll post it here but a major exchange with deep USD liquidity will not touch NuBits until we’re open source. (bittrex or bitfinex or someting) They’re literally waiting for us to go open source to add us. They’re not going to take a leap of faith on us to help us grow. We, as a project and community, have to take that leap. I monitor twitter constantly and see people complaining about not being interested because we’re closed source. I have messages in my reddit inbox from developers upset because they want to develop things for Nu but they can’t because we’re closed source. Those are only the vocal individuals and many more probably just keep walking by because we have a huge lock and chain wrapped around our door. Individual motions for certain individuals to access the source code doesn’t solve that.

woodstockmerkle: woodstockmerkle: The risk then crosses over to undiscovered flaws / security issues compromising the network as too great a risk, something that open source could mitigate thru peer review.

This is exactly why would should go open source sooner than later. @sigmike and @erasmospunk are both very talented but flaws happen in code. We should allow MANY people to review the code. Especially changes before currency burning are implemented. The more complexity we add to the codebase before it becomes open the more potential flaws can be exploited upon release. To me, the longer we wait to release the code the greater the risk for exploits. At this early stage we would be able to fix the problems and recover quickly without many people being affected. Why everyone keeps listing that big exchanges, or tons of investment money should be involved with Nu before we even have a proper code audit seems totally backwards to me. People have to trust you before they’re going to throw money in your direction. Open sourcing now means we can strengthen the code and improve trust rather than potentially break that trust later if a critical flaw is discovered that impacts many people/businesses.

woodstockmerkle: woodstockmerkle: To that end, before the code is open-sourced, it would be great to send the code out for an audit. It may not catch everything, but could reduce the risk of a day-0 exploit taking down Nu.

I think we can get a far better code audit for free just by going open source anyway. I understand the concern and desire for this though.

woodstockmerkle: woodstockmerkle: Linus Torvalds worked on Linux on his own for a better part of a year, and it wasn’t for about another year after that did he adopt the GNU license. And there weren’t sharks circling in the waters around him.

I think he had different intentions than us when he started that project, and he was working from scratch. We’re a fully released project. Again, I don’t think this is an apples to apples comparison.

cryptog: cryptog: This argument was used by proponents of bitcoin to discard any alt.The danger of open sourcing Nu is giving the basis for someone else to create the next paradigm after Nu as Nu was created based on the source code of bitcoin but i do not think it would happen soon…

As I said in my first reply, crypto-innovations have been favorable to first movers. If we keep project momentum going we’ll be fine. Lack of developer interest or community support is what kills projects. I think we can improve both of those areas significantly if we go open source now.

Cybnate: Cybnate: NuBot : a. multiple-custodians per pair support; b. protection against mirror attacks; c. multiple products

I feel these limitations to NuBot shouldn’t impact our decision to release the main client code. NuBots focus is on crypto exchanges, but opening up the main codebase would allow for projects like the bitcoin lighthouse to be built. Something like that has nothing to do with NuBot and would help give more uses for NuBits right now. NuBot is important to the project, but I don’t think we should live in this binary mindset that Nu can only exist with NuBot. There may be better ways to approach our operation and giving people access to the code could help spark that path to discovery.

Cybnate: Cybnate: I’m concerned about the low numbers, but one can argue that open sourcing may lead to more LPC as it creates trust in the system. Willing to let this one go

Trust goes a long way. We can greatly increase trust by going open source. We can also prevent catastrophic flaws in the system by squashing them early before too many people would be impacted by going open source much later.

Cybnate: Cybnate: Other products : An inflation-adjusted currency active for at least 1 month

I don’t think offering an inflation-adjusted currency provides any benefit to the network, and others on the team have shared this sentiment. Lets focus on doing one think really well right now, and cleanse the codebase through open audits before it gets too complex with all these other currency and asset ideas.

Cybnate: Cybnate: Tools : block-explorer improved

Many more block explorers can be created if people had access to the code.

Cybnate: Cybnate: Tools : at least one working Android NBT wallet

(we have two, and one supports NSR)

Cybnate: Cybnate: Media : a video explaining NuBits

Cybnate: Cybnate: Media coverage : a) at least two major crypto news-site article b) at least one major non-crypto news-site article about us

This is such a weird and arbitrary point. Considering many of the top crypto-news networks are pay to play I don’t think we should let their coverage impact the decision making process of our projects milestones.

Cybnate: Cybnate: Community : 1000 users registered on discourse

Again. Such an arbitrary number. I don’t think this should even be a point of consideration to be honest.

Cybnate: Cybnate: Exchanges : NBT traded on 6 exchange (1 major exchange)

Major exchanges aren’t going to trust binaries they didn’t compile themselves. We’ve already had one exchange tell us this directly on twitter. They have more to lose than they have to gain. It’s in our best interest to make them feel comfortable supporting us by releasing the code.

Cybnate: Cybnate: NuShares : at least 70% of total shares are distributed

This is the only point that I would agree with, but given that the difficult has increased significantly since JL’s last update at 60% distributed I would say we’re at a very comfortable distribution by now. I would be happy with 50%+ but I do understand the desire here.

Cybnate: Cybnate: Nu Client : a) data feeds implemented c) all major bugs known to date fixed c) … (need help here on people aware of the dev roadmap)

TL;DR

Nu is ready to drop the diapers and enjoy running around outside on its own. There may be some bumps and bruises attributed with that, but it’s part of the growing process. Open audit of the code base is the cheapest way to verify we have a secure product before people have a major reliance on Nu that could be impacted through discovered flaws. Through the trust of having an open system and tightening all the loose ends we’ll be able to attract bigger exchanges, more ancillary projects, and in turn allow developers to build a diverse ecosystem of services related to Nu without the core team acting as gatekeepers. Even if the motion passed tomorrow it clearly states that we’ll have up to a month and a half to release the code. That’s ample time to address existing concerns and to prepare for any unknowns that may arise after code release.

I know we all want what is best for the project, but I think many of the existing concerns are either unfounded or have been resolved already. Let’s take the next step for NuBits to grow as a crypo-project and stop living in fear. The potential is great for this to be really bad or really good for Nu, but the outcome will not be based on a coin flip. It will be based on the continued effort of the developers and community to move Nu forward. I think we have enough momentum to reach that really good potential and we can’t do it until we make it past this milestone.