Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBBA4C001E for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 20:50:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6A0341609 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 20:50:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V9HZZhhefi6F for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 20:50:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-wr1-x42f.google.com (mail-wr1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42f]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DF42415C6 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 20:50:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id e9so12358588wra.2 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 12:50:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=W4HYWYdbRWlWKaw40bpCfPimFNg6SVsYEQxUQPEDTrg=; b=RtUIYl/i7iERh1K/9K/LX19T1kKYykqlu0ZfTyDcdCWm44G+1w8ni+4ixnTsQhPu1T s+9XBt4/0XWmoFnDkS7Ca6F6JbcczccDn4dsl+K+VLmYQuFCgp6LmNv1r6RvIj4EZ6Gt mxh3GvdgdnAlDieIu4jEORvfdahNhO/f6Dq/gHH7zaKjOr91v1de7HCmsNIgY1EDi+QF TMc1b7xT4lt+QpKua4EEDcfIPbk1XsVk1yfjHElr85dGkTG+mmPv8TZO0EgQ6qD/Lv2D bx0n60DT0GPKK9IJ9awx5bIeGnl2cckpw8xXBQrzDzrNF929fCc+8HFcz8kuFNnpkOv1 TDGA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=W4HYWYdbRWlWKaw40bpCfPimFNg6SVsYEQxUQPEDTrg=; b=aMyB7NsV8QPgh3X0g4KmEXoVR8LoyJIhM2mq9t43LnCmdaZUt2rzSQHAE6qED9/T2l C2qmZKq73AimH/I/MZ5xymrh8IUgggZB50QYuEqbC4Uc/GaQd0gBIPSMYLMDpR1L2P+z k8a7q7FYfM3jbeBQiBCUBqpEU+lkNRFEUTAgnBQpkJBop2NULz6pIiyKKU+mT9J9Papy xElPN+CVGD9Iqs6Kga8fjvRvHFWPo1ZWKrBbwWS5B5GCt7AG2msl28zEqPoYOevkD494 d+ySX3ywjqD88s8/ntcwDkCdar7QiPe8ZhUMGa0N4CSSlyPsG45F+U30nEOU0mjK13Mk Oj0g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530jEGuAvYfoI/pONyrNkm+FATfi2XEV7yApG88q2qnTcrM0SSlP jIyC3+/zZ6bruMad3C3CvFzd1mEHRsOg87lGkZU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyV3pnZIn9EiHWS7ZH5ErDUXVVc/OqgQBAJkqW8SCkZmFjv7s3D5KeC2b4IYkg+ZkCuPIIXr5h3sCbUmCHoXPA= X-Received: by 2002:adf:e199:: with SMTP id az25mr2671790wrb.294.1642107020435; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 12:50:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Antoine Riard Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 15:50:08 -0500 Message-ID: To: Jeremy , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a2e53f05d57cd5e9" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 20:53:55 +0000 Cc: Prayank , info@bitcoindefensefund.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 20:50:24 -0000 --000000000000a2e53f05d57cd5e9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > One question I have is how you might describe the differences between what BLDF can accomplish and what e.g. EFF can accomplish. Having been represented by the EFF on more than one occasion, they are fantastic. Do you feel that the Bitcoin-specific focus of BLDF outweighs the more general (but deeper experience/track record) of an organization like the EFF (or others, like Berkman Cyberlaw Clinic, etc)? My main opinion is "the more the merrier", so don't consider it a critique, more a question so that you have the opportunity to highlight the unique strengths of this approach. I think one opportunity could be building legal assistance in a diversity of jurisdictions, beyond the US one. I join the kudos about the EFF, though you won't find the institutional equivalent in term of subjects expertise/readiness-to-assist in most of the other countries. Especially considering the growing number of developers located outside US/Europe and a lot of great ecosystem initiatives nurturing that trend. Cheers, Antoine Le jeu. 13 janv. 2022 =C3=A0 14:06, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> a =C3=A9crit : > A further point -- were it to be a norm if a contributor to something lik= e > this be denied their full capacity for "free speech" by social convention= , > it would either encourage anonymous funding (less accountable) or would > disincentivize creating such initiatives in the future. > > Both of those outcomes would be potentially bad, so I don't see limiting > speech on an unrelated topic as a valid action. > > However, I think the inverse could have merit -- perhaps funders can > somehow commit to 'abstracting' themselves from involvement in cases / th= e > process of accepting prospective clients. As neither Alex nor Jack are > lawyers (afaict?), this should already be true to an extent as the legal > counsel would be bound to attorney client privilege. > > Of course we live in a free country and however Jack and Alex determine > they should spend their own money is their god-given right, as much as it > is unfortunately the right of anyone to sue a developer for some alleged > infringement. I'm personally glad that Jack and Alex are using their mone= y > to help developers and not harass them -- many thanks for that! > > One question I have is how you might describe the differences between wha= t > BLDF can accomplish and what e.g. EFF can accomplish. Having been > represented by the EFF on more than one occasion, they are fantastic. Do > you feel that the Bitcoin-specific focus of BLDF outweighs the more gener= al > (but deeper experience/track record) of an organization like the EFF (or > others, like Berkman Cyberlaw Clinic, etc)? My main opinion is "the more > the merrier", so don't consider it a critique, more a question so that yo= u > have the opportunity to highlight the unique strengths of this approach. > > Best, > > Jeremy > -- > @JeremyRubin > > > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:50 AM Steve Lee via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> I think the word "The" is important. The title of the email and the name >> of the fund is Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund. It is "a" legal defense fund; >> not THE Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund. There is room for other funds and >> strategies and anyone is welcome to create alternatives. >> >> I also don't see why Alex or anyone should be denied the opportunity to >> comment on future soft forks or anything about bitcoin. Alex should have= no >> more or less right to participate and his comments should be judged on >> their merit, just like yours and mine. >> >> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 9:37 AM Prayank via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jack, >>> >>> >>> > The main purpose of this Fund is to defend developers from lawsuits >>> regarding their activities in the Bitcoin ecosystem, including finding = and >>> retaining defense counsel, developing litigation strategy, and paying l= egal >>> bills. This is a free and voluntary option for developers to take advan= tage >>> of if they so wish. The Fund will start with a corps of volunteer and >>> part-time lawyers. The board of the Fund will be responsible for >>> determining which lawsuits and defendants it will help defend. >>> >>> Thanks for helping the developers in legal issues. Appreciate your >>> efforts and I understand your intentions are to help Bitcoin in every >>> possible way. >>> >>> >>> Positives that I see in this initiative: >>> >>> 1.Developers don't need to worry about rich scammers and can focus on >>> development. >>> >>> 2.Financial help for developers as legal issues can end up in wasting >>> lot of time and money. >>> >>> 3.People who have misused courts to affect bitcoin developers will get >>> better response that they deserve. >>> >>> >>> I had few suggestions and feel free to ignore them if they do not make >>> sense: >>> >>> 1.Name of this fund could be anything and 'The Bitcoin Legal Defense >>> Fund' can be confusing or misleading for newbies. There is nothing offi= cial >>> in Bitcoin however people believe things written in news articles and s= ome >>> of them might consider it as an official bitcoin legal fund. >>> >>> 2.It would be better if people involved in such important funds do not >>> comment/influence soft fork related discussions. Example: Alex Morcos h= ad >>> some opinions about activation mechanism during Taproot soft fork IIRC. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Prayank >>> >>> A3B1 E430 2298 178F >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000a2e53f05d57cd5e9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> One question I have is how you might d= escribe the differences between=20 what BLDF can accomplish and what e.g. EFF can accomplish. Having been=20 represented by the EFF on more than one occasion, they are fantastic. Do you feel that the Bitcoin-specific focus of BLDF outweighs the more=20 general (but deeper experience/track record) of an organization like the EFF (or others, like Berkman Cyberlaw Clinic, etc)? My main opinion is=20 "the more the merrier", so don't consider it a critique, more= a question so that you have the opportunity to highlight the unique strengths of=20 this approach.

I think one opportunity could be building = legal assistance in a diversity of jurisdictions, beyond the US one.
I join the kudos about the EFF, though you won't find the i= nstitutional equivalent in term of subjects expertise/readiness-to-assist i= n most of the other countries.
Especially considering the gro= wing number of developers located outside US/Europe and a lot of great ecos= ystem initiatives nurturing that trend.

Cheers,
Antoine

Le=C2=A0jeu. 13 janv. 2022 =C3= =A0=C2=A014:06, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> a = =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
A further point -- w= ere it to be a norm if a contributor to something like this be denied their= full capacity for "free speech" by social convention, it would e= ither encourage anonymous funding (less accountable) or would disincentiviz= e creating such initiatives in the future.

Both of those outcom= es would be potentially bad, so I don't see limiting speech on an unrel= ated topic as a valid action.

=
However, I think the inverse coul= d have merit -- perhaps funders can somehow commit=C2=A0to=C2=A0'abstra= cting' themselves from involvement in cases / the process of accepting = prospective clients. As neither Alex nor Jack are lawyers (afaict?), this s= hould already be true to an extent as the legal counsel would be bound to a= ttorney client privilege.

Of course=C2=A0we live in a free coun= try and however Jack and Alex determine they should spend their own money i= s their god-given right, as much as it is unfortunately the right of anyone= to sue a developer for some alleged infringement. I'm personally glad = that Jack and Alex are using their money to help developers and not harass = them -- many thanks for that!

=
One question I have is how you mi= ght describe the differences between what BLDF can accomplish and what e.g.= EFF can accomplish. Having been represented by the EFF on more than one oc= casion, they are fantastic. Do you feel that the Bitcoin-specific focus of = BLDF outweighs the more general (but deeper experience/track record) of an = organization like the EFF (or others, like Berkman Cyberlaw Clinic, etc)? M= y main opinion is "the more the merrier", so don't consider i= t a critique, more a question so that you have the opportunity to highlight= the unique strengths of this approach.

Best,

Jer= emy


On Th= u, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:50 AM Steve Lee via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists= .linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
I think the word "The" is im= portant. The title of the email and the name of the fund is Bitcoin Legal D= efense Fund. It is "a" legal defense fund; not THE Bitcoin Legal = Defense Fund. There is room for other funds and strategies and anyone is we= lcome to create alternatives.

I also don't see why A= lex or anyone should be denied the opportunity to comment on future soft fo= rks or anything about bitcoin. Alex should have no more or less right to pa= rticipate and his comments should=C2=A0be judged on their merit, just like = yours and mine.

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 9:37 AM Prayank via bitcoin-de= v <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
Hi Jack,


>=C2=A0The main purpose of this Fund is to defend = developers from lawsuits regarding their activities in the Bitcoin ecosyste= m, including finding and retaining defense counsel, developing litigation s= trategy, and paying legal bills. This is a free and voluntary option for de= velopers to take advantage of if they so wish. The Fund will start with a c= orps of volunteer and part-time lawyers. The board of the Fund will be resp= onsible for determining which lawsuits and defendants it will help defend.<= br>

Thanks for helping t= he developers in legal issues. Appreciate your efforts and I understand you= r intentions are to help Bitcoin in every possible way.


Positives= that I see in this initiative:

1.Developers don't need to worry about rich scammers and ca= n focus on development.

2.Financial help for developers as legal issues can end up in wasting l= ot of time and money.

3.People who have misused courts to affect bitcoin developers will get be= tter response that they deserve.


I had few suggestions and feel fre= e to ignore them if they do not make sense:

=
1.Name of this fund could be anything and 'The = Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund' can be confusing or misleading for newbies.= There is nothing official in Bitcoin however people believe things written= in news articles and some of them might consider it as an official bitcoin= legal fund.

2.It wo= uld be better if people involved in such important funds do not comment/inf= luence soft fork related discussions. Example: Alex Morcos had some opinion= s about activation mechanism during Taproot soft fork IIRC.



--
Prayank

A3B1 E430 22= 98 178F
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000a2e53f05d57cd5e9--