If Qora was not rescued by @Vrontis and the CIYAM Developers we wouldn't even be having this discussion (the coin would have already died).

So if you want to start calling me names then don't be surprised if I simply decide to no longer care about the project (insulting the people that made you money is not generally considered a wise move).

As soon as the public realise that the AT support has gone then Qora will die - so better do your pump and dump quickly.

If you didn't realise it I own *zero* QORA and so I simply would not be affected if its value went to zero.

There is a legal document that talks about IP rights is there not (a license)?

Yet you don't seem to want any lawyer to look at it to determine if there could be any problem (that is rather suspicious in my mind). Instead you'd rather just go ahead and sign the agreement because you read some non-lawyer on IRC say "it'll be fine".

Microsoft are not a charity so why do you think they are doing this?

If you worked for Netscape then I think you'd have a very different opinion about Microsoft (and for that shit alone I would never, ever co-operate with such a despicable company).

Decentralisation is not helped at all by such cloud services as they can be shut down (every single node) with a single phone call.

This is about control and keeping it out of the hands of greedy corporations.

I would ask that Qora please remove AT from the coin before going to the Azure platform.

Note that the copyright to AT is clearly marked as CIYAM Developers and we will not be signing anything to ever change that (and we'll be providing no further support to Qora should the project decide to proceed without retaining full rights to the IP).

You are showing your ignorance now - this is not true as only the libconsensus code can be used to mine Bitcoin (without risk of forking) and that code only exists in C++.

Other implementations can be used for wallets and for blockchain explorers, etc. but not for mining Bitcoin (so such other implementations are *not Bitcoin* in any true sense).

It is becoming very clear that you have an agenda if you keep on insisting that Bitcoin wallet software is the same thing as Bitcoin itself.

It is not Bitcoin software (which is written in C++)  it is node.js software (written in Javascript) and if you don't know the difference then that just shows the sort of problem that we have here.

That MS is against open source software is no conspiracy theory.

http://techrights.org/2010/09/17/microsoft-management-mocks-open-source/

If you're so confident that Azure will pose no threat then please hire a law firm to check into it.

That is not Bitcoin - that is BitPay's Bitcore (please check the content of your link before typing next time unless it is your intention to mislead of course).

It's strange that suddenly this topic is starting to become "trollish" with a lot of MS supporters now appearing.

I do hope that the original dev is noticing this and what is happening to Qora.

Exactly what I want - but unfortunately we have a community that seemingly can't even raise enough funds for that so they rely upon stuff posted in IRC as their proof that Microsoft (who are well known to be against open source) are not going to be any threat.

You do notice that Bitcoin is not on Azure do you not?

Anyway - as stated previously if Qora goes down this path then CIYAM and Qora will be parting ways.

It really doesn't bother me to move AT development elsewhere (it has happened before).

Also - from a marketing point of view once it has become public knowledge that "scam coins" are on Azure then I don't think it is going to be such a benefit (and in fact Microsoft may end up being embarrassed).

I'm afraid that some IRC from a "fluffypony" isn't acceptable as "proof" to myself (please hire an actual lawyer if you want to convince me).

We'll see what happens in regards to the poll but if Qora goes Azure then AT development (from CIYAM) will be ceased.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1358722.msg14417641#msg14417641

(there are some links in that post)

Except that Microsoft are not allowing clones to use it - so Qora would be ineligible if it were cloned prior to signing up (at least that's how I interpreted the rules).


I have zero interest in having to deal with any legal issue with Microsoft (even if I would win any lawsuit) so put simply no further AT development would happen for Qora would this transpire (from the CIYAM Developers).

Note that this will likely affect the work on the new ACCT code as well (I will have to discuss this with @vbcs but will be recommending that he cease work until this is sorted out).

If they join Azure BAAS without paying then indeed they would be giving up the IP rights (that is in the legal contract for using the service for free).

From what I gather if you pay for said service then you can retain the IP rights (that would of course need to be verified) so if going down this path at all then I hope that it is going to be funded.

I would hope that if Qora decides to go down the path of giving up its rights to Microsoft that they first remove AT from the software as I will never agree for Microsoft to have any IP rights to AT (which was invented by myself and coded entirely by CIYAM Developers).

So to be clear - there will be no assistance for the AT code in Qora from the CIYAM Developers if any such change of software license takes place.

Whilst I don't doubt that Microsoft would lose any lawsuit over a clone prior to the change of license that certainly doesn't mean that they wouldn't try it and my point was the bug fixes made after the change of license could not be applied to the clones (unless written in a different manner which is another potential lawsuit).

Microsoft (and other such companies) spend many millions per year on lawyers and are always in court and quite simply CIYAM does not have the funds to be involved in any lawsuit with the likes of them.

Personally I would hope that the Qora team come up with the funds to retain ownership of the IP if they decide to go down this path.

Regardless of the actual legality of the license agreement Microsoft are very fond of fighting law suits (even when they are likely to lose them) so I won't be permitting CIYAM to be involved with any situation that might end up in a potential law suit with Microsoft.

Imagine if every bug fix (published in a future version) could not be applied to a clone for fear of a lawsuit with Microsoft for merging the commit (you just aren't going to risk the trouble IMO).

Personally I would not risk cloning software that then ends up under the control of Microsoft (who have had a long track record of trying to put down open source projects and trying to hinder their progress as they know it spells the end of their closed source software model).

If Qora goes down this path I do hope that they pay so that the intellectual property remains under the MIT license - but if they elect not to then CIYAM won't be involved with any clone of it (and for sure Ethereum would have paid to keep their IP open).

In regards to the development talent unfortunately one of the main developers (@agran) is already leaving the project and @vbcs has been primarily a CIYAM developer since starting work on AT (well before AT was added to Qora).

IMO if he is working on a clone of the Qora project then actually it should benefit Qora as he will become more familiar with the source code and be able to contribute more to the project.

From what I gather it was actually the vision of @Vrontis to split Qora into several blockchains that each specialised in one area (in this case the social network area) but if the community is going to become divided over this then we won't pursue it.

The intention behind this idea is to eventually have numerous blockchains that all specialise in different things but can be bound together with AT being the "glue" (and ACCT for moving coins between them).

That is the Bitcoin "address" of the new owner - and the reason it is a hash of their public key is for added security (so that their public key is not exposed until the coins are transferred by a newer tx).

This might be relevant if say quantum computers are able to work out private keys from public keys (but not instantly so).

Although no such details have even yet been discussed it is likely that offers for initial minting accounts would be taking that into consideration (ability to run a node 24x7 will be a key factor also).

Also note that any "coins" that comes from blocks that I personally mint in such a clone will be donated back to other minters (probably via an infinite loop AT or maybe an AT that results in some sort of random extra minting reward).

I've been asked by a few forum members about how a Qora fork would differ from Qora itself and I think that is a very important point to consider (as to whether this should be supported or not and I'm not going to be pushing for this but just providing some ideas).

My thinking is along the lines of perhaps addressing the gap that was left after the basic failure of the Diaspora project (so maybe have the focus being on the "social network" aspect).

IMO charging fees for posting blog entries isn't going to work so the fork would be support a different approach that would allow blog entries to be created without fees (anti-spamming would be handled in another way). The concept of private blogs (with subscriptions being controlled by the creator) is something I think would be useful to add.

Also I think it would be nice to have a decentralised forum - so that might be another key aspect.

I also don't think that such a fork would bother with Assets or Names and its voting system would be according to minting accounts rather than POS (so it should end up being quite a different beast).