5 ms·

There is also a github repo. https://github.com/buttercoin/buttercoin https://github.com/buttercoin/buttercoin

by VMG 13y ago

throwaway5857 13y ago
that hasn't been updated in NINE MONTHS this was a scam they got a bunch of people to write the software for them and then took it closed source shame on them
- 1qaz2wsx3edc 13y ago
  I understand your point of view, but isn't that sort of the spirit of open source software? To take it and build something with it. I mean, they didn't close the repo, it's still up there, they just made the decision to not contribute back as they decided to build a business around it. Others can too.
  - maaku 13y ago
    Open source, yes. Free software, no. Sadly this was open source, not free.
    - wcoenen 13y ago
      Free software typically doesn't force you to share changes either, as long as you don't distribute the binaries. Patching GPL code and using it in a web application without ever releasing the source is perfectly fine. The Affero GPL was designed to force the release of source even in that case. That's the only license I know which has that property though.
      - maaku 13y ago
        Free software != GPL. One could argue that the Affero GPL represents a continuation of the ideals which gave birth to the GPL, now that more and more applications have moved to being network services (something less common in 80's).
- codys 13y ago
  Which is the reason for the AGPL license. Those people contributed their code under the MIT license. This is absolutely allowed.
  - makomk 13y ago
    It's legal, but that certainly doesn't mean it's ethical or that it inspires trust.
- marcbarbosa 13y ago
  I don't think it's a scam. According to kevin-buttercoin comment a month ago, they are working on Scala based version, and it will be opensourced. Source: https://github.com/buttercoin/buttercoin/issues/65 https://github.com/buttercoin/buttercoin/issues/65
  - 1qaz2wsx3edc 13y ago
    I've actually talked with Kevin before, they do seem to care about open-source & security & scalability. I mean, from what we talked about, I got the sense they do. But for them, I think things are moving fast, and it's hard to please everyone, all the time, especially when you need to prioritize the business. It seems they care about open-source as a reassurance to security. And I think they do want to give back to the community.
- MrBlue 13y ago
  They also took a lot of donations in BTC which they never returned after pivoting their project to a private closed source solution. Shame on them for sure.
  - Raphael 13y ago
    Starting off on the wrong foot.
    - psykovsky 13y ago
      With all the money they already have on the bank I suspect they don't agree with you.
- gfarley 13y ago
  I remember when this project was in hyper-drive on freenode. They were working 18 hour days the first week and made a lot of grand promises. I had doubts as to whether it could last considering how they rebuffed any and everyone who criticized the project's choice of programming language. Time will tell how legit this is
danbruc 13y ago
The security of your funds is our #1 priority. Our team goes above and beyond all banking security best practices to create the world's most secure Bitcoin trading platform. And then they build their system using CoffeeScript, a dynamically typed language? They are kidding me? EDIT: Another comment implies they rebuild the engine using Scala.
- tg3 13y ago
  Excuse my ignorance, but what about a dynamically-typed language makes an application inherently less secure?
  - recursive 13y ago
    It's harder to reason about the behavior of a program running in an environment that allows monkey patching and eval().
    - oh_sigh 13y ago
      You can just have a style guide that disallows those constructs.
      - meddlepal 13y ago
        Which unlike a compiler has a higher chance of being improperly applied or ignored.
  - danbruc 13y ago
    Assuming your design is correct and secure - and that is already really hard to do - you still have to ensure that you implementation matches your design, i.e. contains no defects, and this is harder in a dynamically typed language, because there are classes of defects that the compiler of a statically typed language will catch while they go unnoticed using a dynamically typed language. So dynamically typed languages are not less correct or secure on their own, they just do not prevent you from writing incorrect or insecure code in the same way statically typed languages do. One example I once read about are control systems for rockets and missiles - they use different data types for x, y and z coordinates. They are all just numbers but you really want to make sure that you do not accidentally swap two variables and the missile turns left while it should ascend. And you just can not enforce such constraints in dynamically typed languages.

There is also a github repo. https://github.com/buttercoin/buttercoin https://github.com/buttercoin/buttercoin

by VMG 13y ago

There is also a github repo. https://github.com/buttercoin/buttercoin https://github.com/buttercoin/buttercoin

that hasn't been updated in NINE MONTHS this was a scam they got a bunch of people to write the software for them and then took it closed source shame on them

1qaz2wsx3edc 13y ago
I understand your point of view, but isn't that sort of the spirit of open source software? To take it and build something with it. I mean, they didn't close the repo, it's still up there, they just made the decision to not contribute back as they decided to build a business around it. Others can too.
- maaku 13y ago
  Open source, yes. Free software, no. Sadly this was open source, not free.
  - wcoenen 13y ago
    Free software typically doesn't force you to share changes either, as long as you don't distribute the binaries. Patching GPL code and using it in a web application without ever releasing the source is perfectly fine. The Affero GPL was designed to force the release of source even in that case. That's the only license I know which has that property though.
    - maaku 13y ago
      Free software != GPL. One could argue that the Affero GPL represents a continuation of the ideals which gave birth to the GPL, now that more and more applications have moved to being network services (something less common in 80's).
codys 13y ago
Which is the reason for the AGPL license. Those people contributed their code under the MIT license. This is absolutely allowed.
- makomk 13y ago
  It's legal, but that certainly doesn't mean it's ethical or that it inspires trust.
marcbarbosa 13y ago
I don't think it's a scam. According to kevin-buttercoin comment a month ago, they are working on Scala based version, and it will be opensourced. Source: https://github.com/buttercoin/buttercoin/issues/65 https://github.com/buttercoin/buttercoin/issues/65
- 1qaz2wsx3edc 13y ago
  I've actually talked with Kevin before, they do seem to care about open-source & security & scalability. I mean, from what we talked about, I got the sense they do. But for them, I think things are moving fast, and it's hard to please everyone, all the time, especially when you need to prioritize the business. It seems they care about open-source as a reassurance to security. And I think they do want to give back to the community.
MrBlue 13y ago
They also took a lot of donations in BTC which they never returned after pivoting their project to a private closed source solution. Shame on them for sure.
- Raphael 13y ago
  Starting off on the wrong foot.
  - psykovsky 13y ago
    With all the money they already have on the bank I suspect they don't agree with you.
gfarley 13y ago
I remember when this project was in hyper-drive on freenode. They were working 18 hour days the first week and made a lot of grand promises. I had doubts as to whether it could last considering how they rebuffed any and everyone who criticized the project's choice of programming language. Time will tell how legit this is

danbruc 13y ago

The security of your funds is our #1 priority. Our team goes above and beyond all banking security best practices to create the world's most secure Bitcoin trading platform. And then they build their system using CoffeeScript, a dynamically typed language? They are kidding me? EDIT: Another comment implies they rebuild the engine using Scala.

tg3 13y ago
Excuse my ignorance, but what about a dynamically-typed language makes an application inherently less secure?
- recursive 13y ago
  It's harder to reason about the behavior of a program running in an environment that allows monkey patching and eval().
  - oh_sigh 13y ago
    You can just have a style guide that disallows those constructs.
    - meddlepal 13y ago
      Which unlike a compiler has a higher chance of being improperly applied or ignored.
- danbruc 13y ago
  Assuming your design is correct and secure - and that is already really hard to do - you still have to ensure that you implementation matches your design, i.e. contains no defects, and this is harder in a dynamically typed language, because there are classes of defects that the compiler of a statically typed language will catch while they go unnoticed using a dynamically typed language. So dynamically typed languages are not less correct or secure on their own, they just do not prevent you from writing incorrect or insecure code in the same way statically typed languages do. One example I once read about are control systems for rockets and missiles - they use different data types for x, y and z coordinates. They are all just numbers but you really want to make sure that you do not accidentally swap two variables and the missile turns left while it should ascend. And you just can not enforce such constraints in dynamically typed languages.