The project is currently at a stage where I could fork it and release the code for others to clone and use. Before I make Bitmark specific alterations.
Are you thinking of setting up a github org to host the source so that maintenance can be devolved to a group rather than a single-owner, single-dev model?
...
We're happy to work with
named devs to help them set up a reliable, robust and contemporaneous codebase but we won't be doing any commercial work with coin developers who operate behind a pseudonym - for us, the loss of transparency is profoundly unsupportable.
I hope that as the project grows more people will contribute and maintenance will be devolved. I have consulted the community and worked out a self supporting development budget so team members would be remunerated for their work done by the project itself.
I am aware of the pseudonym issue and have weighed it up. This is a programming project in beta mode, not an IPO or an organization seeking start up investment, looking to get on to exchanges, or anything like that. Merit of the project should be entirely based on work done and it's own value proposition. I am committed to the project completely, but I do not want it to define my identity forever.
To quote from the bitmark wiki:
Stable Development: To incentivize long term active development a small 0.250% tax on each block generated will be used to fund development and pay for resources.
Team: Initially there is one core developer, hopefully supported by the community, with others coming on board as the project grows.
Satoshi's Right: The initial developer reserves the right to follow Satoshi's lead, anonymously maturing the Bitmark Project and development team over the period of some years before bowing out gracefully and leaving it to the community proven team to carry on as they see fit.
My rationale is that people will clone coins anyway, so I may as well do what I can to ensure those clones are based on new tested and safe code, rather than old copied and modified code which hasn't been updated and has had god knows how many bugs introduced.
We share your thinking on i) explicitly recognising and accepting the current reality & ii) the desirability of making high-quality templates available so that (the inevitable) investors get at least some basic support from a reliable and checkable codebase as a foundation.
We have ambitions for a future where investors show a marked preference for coins based on established, branded, open source templates of assured quality --
Part of the Bitmark project also includes merging tagged releases of the Bitcoin project, I will be creating a semi automated patching process which allows the development team to sanely update the codebase. It must be semi automated as the codebase isn't a direct clone, it's a fork with alternative functionality and changes.
The RI release discussed in this thread will have patches pushed to it from both Bitmark and Bitcoin. I will automate this process as much as is feasible.
I'd like to thank you Graham for the work you have done for the alternative coin community, for your well thought out feedback regarding my own project, and for hosting a test node.
Mark Pfennig
