TODOs: help the public understand BitClout end to end

[scottstirling]

TODO: please investigate and document, maybe create separate issues for:

1. There’s a “Sell” link shown next to “Buy” in the Bitclout web UI that I can never seem to find again after registering an account. How is this handled in the code and styling? What conditions determine the presence of the Sell link?

UPDATE 4/10/2021: BitClout code in main.js was updated again since yesterday. The "Sell" functionality has changed and shows up under Creator Coin tab ... works partially, and not going to mess with it more til I update the code here again. Working on it ... DONE. Latest main.js is formatted and checked in.

2. What factors determine the ranking of posted content updates in BitClout’s Global content feed to users?

3. Users of Bitclout often assume (easily observable on Reddit, clubhouse and WhatsApp discussions) that all their posts, content and personal account information is stored in BitClout’s blockchain. According to @HPaulson’s analysis via the explorer API, there are only cryptocurrency transactions between wallets’ public keys. Image data is saved on Imgur. Unsure where the post contents are saved yet.

[scottstirling]

Today I figured out the "Terms of Service" issue - extracting that from the TODOs.

The Terms of Service display on screen 2 of the Signup flow if users click on the link. There's also an absolute path available to them at: https://bitclout.com/terms-of-service

Annotated screenshot attached.

[scottstirling]

please note that you are violating applicable US copyright law by relicensing the software copied here. As the website code is not directly licensed, the owners reserve all rights to the software -- even if specified otherwise in the white paper. Due to that, relicensing the software as MIT is illegal, and I strongly recommend you remove the relicensing which you've added.

So I guess that’s a no to my contributor invite!

I openly invite the owners of the unlicensed public assets who declared them open source to contact my attorney to protect their copyright. They’re the only ones with legal standing to do so. I consider the likelihood of that so low as to be worth the risk to take, which is my right. If you want to report me to GitHub, go ahead, maybe they will take a different position than me.

Kind regards,
Scott S

[scottstirling]

To whom it may concern, including all due to respect to @HPaulson, the open source license for this project is MIT license. All documentation, versioned history, issues and issues log, discussions other original content and metadata are licensed as part of this project.

Unformatted,,gzipped copies of unmodified HTTP response messages and embedded code payloads from bitclout.com and explorer.botclout.con will be identified in their own clearly indicated section / directories with an uppercase README.md and LICENSE file declaring non-MIT unlicensed terms.

I started this project to track the version history of BitClout’s code while it was still changing daily, and as a way to radiate documentation and analysis of the technical aspects and architecture of BitClout. GitHub is a great tool for exactly what was needed for a public information station around it.

To the best of my knowledge there’s no problem having mixed / multiple licenses in an open source project, and even unlicensed code, as long as the different licenses and applicable project areas are reasonably clear.

Please check out the responses in this thread as an example of reasonable compromises: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/304874/declaring-multiple-licences-in-a-github-project

Thank you,
Scott S

[JessicaMulein]

making a note so I can watch this.
cela advised
@github

scotts view seems to work for me, but there may be small minutiae in the repo that need fixing as far as where license files go and what they say? I don't have a ton of time to look into this.

Also, I can't take sides from an employee perspective, but I came here from a personal perspective- so from that perspective I'll add that HPaulson wasn't exactly polite with me when we spoke, but even that aside I was inclined to go with scotts interpretation of the licensing- provided it is all marked appropriately.

Either way... beware. Exercise caution with your money.