Here are a few concerns about the upcoming source code release to the public, and why this may be a bad idea.
Darkcoin is a very innovative crypto-currency, we all know it. Among alt-coins, very few have this potential: it’s certainly the most advanced in the anonymity field, it’s quite stable, and instant transactions are a big deal, really. But please don’t be blinded by this, Darkcoin is not unique: other coins like NXT for example do not compete for anonymity, but still have extremely interesting features like their embedded exchange. Moreover Bitcoin still has the media attention, at least two orders of magnitude ahead of any other coin, and it’s not going to change anytime soon.
Features putting Darkcoin ahead in term of innovation are currently closed-source. They are the added value of this coin. If the source code of these features is released to the public, then it won’t be considered as added value anymore. Darkcoin will lose its innovative characteristics until Evan implement something new and worthy, and closed-source again. That’s what happened with DGW and X11. I mean, a mining algorithm which consumes 50% less electricity than Scrypt. Come on, this was a killer feature and should have been kept proprietary.
I really don’t understand what Evan and the community think open-sourcing these features will bring to Darkcoin.
Visibility? Sure, it will be acclaimed by a few open-source gurus. But this won’t get relayed or even noticed by Richard Stallman or the Apache Software Foundation. Sure, it will bring some media attention. People will talk about it on bitcointalk for a few days, and on the World Crypto Network channel on Youtube maybe. An article will be dedicated to this on CoinDesk, and on Forex Minute as well if we’re lucky. Then what? All these media are frequented by people who are already part of the crypto-currency community. Most of them already know Darkcoin. Open-sourcing it won’t get the Huffington Post, the Verge, or even Gizmodo to write an article about it. So, don’t be fooled, this won’t bring new blood, and certainly won’t raise its price to the stars.
Trust? I heard some people or services may be reluctant to use Darkcoin because of its proprietary code that cannot be trusted. This is bullshit. I use Darkcoin because I trust Evan, as I trust a company like Google, or Visa. Or maybe I don't, but I have no choice... Even if Darkcoin is open-source, I won’t review the code every time a commit is made to check if the wallet won’t try to screw me and my coins. Most people here just install and run the program blindly. 10% maybe recompile wallets themselves but they certainly don’t review the code. How many really do review the code? And even if there were people to review the code pushed on the public repository, what’s preventing the owners to build executables with malwares and keep the malicious code out of the repository? Afaik, most of the wallets are built on top of SSL and the Berkeley DB, do we really review the code of these libs too? No, we trust the developers, that’s it. Open-sourcing is reassuring because people think there are other people to review the code all the time, but the fact is nobody does it, that’s just burying our heads in the sand. If this is a matter of trust, then we should probably raise funds and get the code reviewed by a tech company like IBM or Kaspersky. A seal of approval from a company like this would be new for a crypto-currency and I’m sure it would have more media impact than open-sourcing. After this, if some people are still reluctant to adopt Darkcoin because of its proprietary code, you can still release it to them under NDA, exactly like you did with Kristov Atlas I guess.
On the downside, these features will be copied as soon as they get open-source. First by a few shit-coins which will use them to get pumped and dumped. Whales will be thrilled to make money thanks to this, but the whole alt-coin community will get a little more crippled because of it, as usual. But that won’t have a huge impact on Darkcoin. Some people think this won’t happen because setting up another Master Nodes network is structurally difficult (more difficult than just deploying a wallet) and requires a solid community. It’s true for shit-coins but…
…at some point a more serious coin will be proposed, with a serious developer or team of developers, like NXT or Ripple, that’s inevitable. This serious coin will fork Darkcoin and add its own killer features on top of it. Killer features will bring the solid community which will set up this alternative Master Nodes network. Now imagine this serious coin is backed by a company, not a big and “evil” one like Google, Apple, or Facebook, but a little one with a lot of money and hype. Imagine for example a company like Snapchat Inc, or Mojang before they were bought by Microsoft. They would have enough money to put ads everywhere (including on TV) in order to promote their new serious coin, they would instantly reach millions of users, and they are big enough to get exclusive contracts with Paypal or another banking system to bring their coin to the mass on every platform. If this happens, Darkcoin could just sink. Currently the crypto-currency world was relatively preserved from such kind of moves, but it won’t last forever, and even Bitcoin could fall.
Open-sourcing is a big issue because it facilitates the work of anyone or any company who has a killer idea, a lot of resources, or marketing skills, and just have to take the open source software and build its project on top of it. So, except if there are upsides I don’t see, I really think that’s not worth it.
At least this decision should be put up to a vote from the community. Because people who invested thousands of dollars into Master Nodes could be pissed to see another coin, next week, allow its users to get Master Nodes for way less than 1000 DRK. In any case, implementing a secure voting system in the Darkcoin wallet could be a very useful feature.
My two mDRK.
Darkcoin is a very innovative crypto-currency, we all know it. Among alt-coins, very few have this potential: it’s certainly the most advanced in the anonymity field, it’s quite stable, and instant transactions are a big deal, really. But please don’t be blinded by this, Darkcoin is not unique: other coins like NXT for example do not compete for anonymity, but still have extremely interesting features like their embedded exchange. Moreover Bitcoin still has the media attention, at least two orders of magnitude ahead of any other coin, and it’s not going to change anytime soon.
Features putting Darkcoin ahead in term of innovation are currently closed-source. They are the added value of this coin. If the source code of these features is released to the public, then it won’t be considered as added value anymore. Darkcoin will lose its innovative characteristics until Evan implement something new and worthy, and closed-source again. That’s what happened with DGW and X11. I mean, a mining algorithm which consumes 50% less electricity than Scrypt. Come on, this was a killer feature and should have been kept proprietary.
I really don’t understand what Evan and the community think open-sourcing these features will bring to Darkcoin.
Visibility? Sure, it will be acclaimed by a few open-source gurus. But this won’t get relayed or even noticed by Richard Stallman or the Apache Software Foundation. Sure, it will bring some media attention. People will talk about it on bitcointalk for a few days, and on the World Crypto Network channel on Youtube maybe. An article will be dedicated to this on CoinDesk, and on Forex Minute as well if we’re lucky. Then what? All these media are frequented by people who are already part of the crypto-currency community. Most of them already know Darkcoin. Open-sourcing it won’t get the Huffington Post, the Verge, or even Gizmodo to write an article about it. So, don’t be fooled, this won’t bring new blood, and certainly won’t raise its price to the stars.
Trust? I heard some people or services may be reluctant to use Darkcoin because of its proprietary code that cannot be trusted. This is bullshit. I use Darkcoin because I trust Evan, as I trust a company like Google, or Visa. Or maybe I don't, but I have no choice... Even if Darkcoin is open-source, I won’t review the code every time a commit is made to check if the wallet won’t try to screw me and my coins. Most people here just install and run the program blindly. 10% maybe recompile wallets themselves but they certainly don’t review the code. How many really do review the code? And even if there were people to review the code pushed on the public repository, what’s preventing the owners to build executables with malwares and keep the malicious code out of the repository? Afaik, most of the wallets are built on top of SSL and the Berkeley DB, do we really review the code of these libs too? No, we trust the developers, that’s it. Open-sourcing is reassuring because people think there are other people to review the code all the time, but the fact is nobody does it, that’s just burying our heads in the sand. If this is a matter of trust, then we should probably raise funds and get the code reviewed by a tech company like IBM or Kaspersky. A seal of approval from a company like this would be new for a crypto-currency and I’m sure it would have more media impact than open-sourcing. After this, if some people are still reluctant to adopt Darkcoin because of its proprietary code, you can still release it to them under NDA, exactly like you did with Kristov Atlas I guess.
On the downside, these features will be copied as soon as they get open-source. First by a few shit-coins which will use them to get pumped and dumped. Whales will be thrilled to make money thanks to this, but the whole alt-coin community will get a little more crippled because of it, as usual. But that won’t have a huge impact on Darkcoin. Some people think this won’t happen because setting up another Master Nodes network is structurally difficult (more difficult than just deploying a wallet) and requires a solid community. It’s true for shit-coins but…
…at some point a more serious coin will be proposed, with a serious developer or team of developers, like NXT or Ripple, that’s inevitable. This serious coin will fork Darkcoin and add its own killer features on top of it. Killer features will bring the solid community which will set up this alternative Master Nodes network. Now imagine this serious coin is backed by a company, not a big and “evil” one like Google, Apple, or Facebook, but a little one with a lot of money and hype. Imagine for example a company like Snapchat Inc, or Mojang before they were bought by Microsoft. They would have enough money to put ads everywhere (including on TV) in order to promote their new serious coin, they would instantly reach millions of users, and they are big enough to get exclusive contracts with Paypal or another banking system to bring their coin to the mass on every platform. If this happens, Darkcoin could just sink. Currently the crypto-currency world was relatively preserved from such kind of moves, but it won’t last forever, and even Bitcoin could fall.
Open-sourcing is a big issue because it facilitates the work of anyone or any company who has a killer idea, a lot of resources, or marketing skills, and just have to take the open source software and build its project on top of it. So, except if there are upsides I don’t see, I really think that’s not worth it.
At least this decision should be put up to a vote from the community. Because people who invested thousands of dollars into Master Nodes could be pissed to see another coin, next week, allow its users to get Master Nodes for way less than 1000 DRK. In any case, implementing a secure voting system in the Darkcoin wallet could be a very useful feature.
My two mDRK.
