According to a recent study conducted by the Chinese company Netta Lab in collaboration with researchers from Xi’an Jiaotong University, the vast majority of producers of old coins and tokens have taken at least 90 percent of their source code from the competition. For some alternatives to Bitcoin, the plagiarism rate was even higher. All stolen?
Bitcoin trader vs. Innovation?
The fact that this does not come as a surprise to industry experts is likely to offend most external observers. The programmers of most Bitcoin trader projects as in the review by onlinebetrug have not done much else in the creation of their tokens than to take over the intellectual property of third parties in the copy and paste process.
The basic idea of open source software, however, is to make one’s intellectual work available to the public. In this way, a better end result is to be achieved in the course of time. Therefore, it is not surprising that the authors of many Altcoins have used the competition with pleasure and abundance. The Bitcoin also uses an open source protocol. This openness and the invitation to the community to work together on a safer and better software explains, among other things, the success of Bitcoin. This openness is also responsible for the triumph of the Firefox browser, the Debian Linux distribution, the Apache Open Office office software, the PostgreSQL database system or, for example, the VLC and Kodi media players. To really name all successful software projects based on the open source principle would go beyond the scope of this article.
Crypto trader – make me the Gutenberg!
The researchers from Xi’an Jiaotong University and Netta Lab jointly analyzed the source code of 488 tokens. The crypto trader study revealed according to onlinebetrug that in 405 cases at least 90 percent of the code had been stolen. This means that about four out of five tokens are nothing more than copies.
In 324 cases, even matches were discovered in 95 percent to 100 percent of the code. Only 38 projects found overlaps of less than 80 percent of the source code. This corresponds to a share of 7.8 percent. To the surprise of the researchers, none of these coins or tokens was praised as an original by the creators.
Netta Lab’s study offers critics a lot of scope for attack
So few crypto projects with a unique selling proposition or any innovative features naturally bring some problems with them. For critics this fact offers a lot of potential for attack. They can rightly blame the creators of many supposedly new coins for merely trying to make as much sales as possible with the old wine in new tubes. If this hype also flattens out, one could try to make a little profit from the next “new” coin. Of course, this will then also be created according to the copy and paste principle.
To say it in the words of the Cree Indians: At the latest when the last unsuspecting investor was deprived of his savings with the unimaginative copy coins, the reputation of the entire community was plagiarized. Conclusion: Netta Lab’s study is a clear warning to all active members of the coin community, who should be taken very seriously.