Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 231651088 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:45:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f45.google.com (mail-oi0-f45.google.com [209.85.218.45]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CF5B413 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:45:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f45.google.com with SMTP id j188so14186560oib.6 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:45:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=lyOQbVHOTUohRZXpRkU+CravQLuqRY+Xjr5b/ViiHjc=; b=ZfIqw+b+tXk/wRWGosD9AAWaBbZoAu/pfk176TFIHfyQ1Y+6vHvoU6AVtIB/bNS7ZM Sngoy6EKb21hcVeOEptvHtZzh4EsOl8NHtoairhZQn2d/fTl3c3KpH/Ag3wrMfZNXpOQ 8Xs3+cFRKdkmbfoXJFIj9OeNjKyZw3n4br6Dk6NjkfxkDEwCPj/QG/vp30qKorEKm010 tCbFAUvz2EvCUdQLpbuA7r8sGbHU/qVEiDuwUz971Lcn0h7Nm0MGVJpTRzmY1SrWqqQR GI5RdG6bmrjN7jpy9uGplYkZ4MrpnKIJyQsGugrpV4AXuBTzaEny20WAtrtfsd7aMeLA DWnA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=lyOQbVHOTUohRZXpRkU+CravQLuqRY+Xjr5b/ViiHjc=; b=i6SmH0r/dAkeZ2mjrJMsINDx5hw10jlOy8yv7I+uNj2NdqIa4jKiO5xFcTpZxvF0qx /mkbXR5VHs1uhGiXdh5NonNUYKUjykdwR5x28olwxRlfMfSlepqbpfaWLcgN9h7DzWJq v3qmsAC7Bj1DZT5mqGKLwsYB1qdyrzOMfg5YPPN6R3vdllgLI7x4T1GJueqLSmNGSkCh wuBlzE/VuC9wRnR86k50vz5mAjnSRDkvbjWKDCxdMrJm/td3C4l+Pj7JSPEybm/8ks4j IMxixXdEWozafrVMMxPNnaA7+vYtn6xo+x8GA5IKq/6k3D2ThZOWuh2stHHTCMi/ZNSf liMA== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBliU9guW8u+CWOyKETjFqqsXHOOyQvJEdHKBBIVxCXxoFCbEGH wXMw9O0+CWjemnNZG41IRxvy6nc5/7dHwYMSsqWi3g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226RCAaR/2xsiwN2Qg1eHw1pWoN1w3GA0OviZHdEYrMqt739qkFzJkhH2PZCPFnrn8OdyWUYvUaCXup/vdnTkqM= X-Received: by 10.202.204.212 with SMTP id c203mr1123417oig.156.1518536756524; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:45:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.74.129.89 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:45:55 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <65F92B37-48C1-4CD5-8F17-47BF9BD231A9@gmail.com> From: Jameson Lopp Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:45:55 -0500 Message-ID: To: Brian Lockhart Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1134f72ef37b02056519e32d" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , =?UTF-8?Q?JOSE_FEMENIAS_CA=C3=91UELO?= Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:45:58 -0000 --001a1134f72ef37b02056519e32d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Anyone who feels so inclined is free to "pick up the mantle" and defend Bitcoin against perceived social attacks. I don't think that Bitcoin protocol developers have any particular responsibility to do so, and as such this particular discussion is likely going to quickly veer off-topic for this mailing list. On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Brian Lockhart wrote: > > I don't think that Bitcoin should be reliant upon courts or governments > to defend itself against attacks of any form. > > Agree 100%. Plus yeah, lotsa luck getting any success via those channels.= .. > > But assuming the answer to the perceived problem is to =E2=80=9Cfight fir= e with > fire=E2=80=9D (using social / marketing based efforts) who =E2=80=9Cshoul= d=E2=80=9D pick up the > mantle here? Without inciting riots by asking the question, wouldn=E2=80= =99t that > ostensibly be something the Bitcoin Foundation would lead on here? and runs for cover> > > In any case, it=E2=80=99s frustrating to watch the ongoing FUD and scamme= ry going > unanswered in any =E2=80=9Cofficial=E2=80=9D capacity. > > > On February 13, 2018 at 7:25:35 AM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev ( > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org) wrote: > > If I'm understanding the problem being stated correctly: > > "Bitcoin is under a branding attack by fork coins." > > The proposed solution is to disincentivize fork coins from using the word > Bitcoin by altering the license terms. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to = me > that the words of the license are basically useless unless there is an > entity that intends to make use of court systems to threaten noncompliant > projects into submission. > > In my opinion, the perceived attack on Bitcoin here is social / > marketing-based, thus it makes sense that any defense against said attack > should also be social / marketing-based. I don't think that Bitcoin shoul= d > be reliant upon courts or governments to defend itself against attacks of > any form. > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Natanael via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> >> >> Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev "JOSE FEMENIAS CA=C3=91UELO via bitcoin-dev= " < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: >> >> *** >> NO PART OF THIS SOFTWARE CAN BE INCLUDED IN ANY OTHER PROJECT THAT USES >> THE NAME BITCOIN AS PART OF ITS NAME AND/OR ITS MARKETING MATERIAL UNLES= S >> THE SOFTWARE PRODUCED BY THAT PROJECT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE BITCO= IN >> (CORE) BLOCKCHAIN >> *** >> >> >> That's better solved with trademarks. (whoever would be the trademark >> holder - Satoshi?) >> >> This would also prohibit any reimplementation that's not formally >> verified to be perfectly compatible from using the name. >> >> It also adds legal uncertainty. >> >> Another major problem is that it neither affects anybody forking older >> versions of Bitcoin, not people using existing independent blockchain >> implementations and renaming them Bitcoin-Whatsoever. >> >> And what happens when an old version is technically incompatible with a >> future version by the Core team due to not understanding various new >> softforks? Which version wins the right to the name? >> >> Also, being unable to even mention Bitcoin is overkill. >> >> The software license also don't affect the blockchain data. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > --001a1134f72ef37b02056519e32d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Anyone who feels so inclined is free to "pick up the = mantle" and defend Bitcoin against perceived social attacks. I don'= ;t think that Bitcoin protocol developers have any particular responsibilit= y to do so, and as such this particular discussion is likely going to quick= ly veer off-topic for this mailing list.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Brian Lockha= rt <brianlockhart@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think that Bitcoin should be rel= iant upon courts or governments to defend itself against attacks of any for= m.

Agree 100%. Plus yeah, lotsa luck getting any = success via those channels...

But assuming the answer to= the perceived problem is to =E2=80=9Cfight fire with fire=E2=80=9D (using = social / marketing based efforts) who =E2=80=9Cshould=E2=80=9D pick up the = mantle here? Without inciting riots by asking the question, wouldn=E2=80=99= t that ostensibly be something the Bitcoin Foundation would lead on here? &= lt;ducks and runs for cover>

In any case, it=E2=80=99= s frustrating to watch the ongoing FUD and scammery going unanswered in any= =E2=80=9Cofficial=E2=80=9D capacity.


On February 13, 2018 at 7:25:35 AM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev (bit= coin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org) wrote:

If I'm understanding the problem being stated correctly:

"Bitcoin is under a branding attack by fork coins."

The proposed solution is to disincentivize fork coins from using the word Bitcoin by altering the license terms. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the words of the license are basically useless unless there is an entity that intends to make use of court systems to threaten noncompliant projects into submission.

In my opinion, the perceived attack on Bitcoin here is social / marketing-based, thus it makes sense that any defense against said attack should also be social / marketing-based. I don't think that Bitcoin should be reliant upon courts or governments to defend itself against attacks of any form.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Natanael via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundatio= n.org> wrote:

Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev "JOSE FEMENIAS CA=C3=91UELO via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-de= v@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
***
NO PART OF THIS SOFTWARE CAN BE INCLUDED IN ANY OTHER PROJECT THAT USES THE NAME BITCOIN AS PART OF ITS NAME AND/OR ITS MARKETING MATERIAL UNLESS THE SOFTWARE PRODUCED BY THAT PROJECT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE BITCOIN (CORE) BLOCKCHAIN
***

That's better solved with trademarks. (whoever would be the trademark holder - Satoshi?)=C2=A0=C2=A0

This would also prohibit any reimplementation that's not formally verified to be perfectly compatible from using the name.=C2=A0

It also adds legal uncertainty.=C2=A0

Another major problem is that it neither affects anybody forking older versions of Bitcoin, not people using existing independent blockchain implementations and renaming them Bitcoin-Whatsoever.=C2=A0

And what happens when an old version is technically incompatible with a future version by the Core team due to not understanding various new softforks? Which version wins the right to the name?=C2=A0

Also, being unable to even mention Bitcoin is overkill.=C2=A0

The software license also don't affect the blockchain data.=C2=A0


_______________________________________________
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/listin= fo/bitcoin-dev

--001a1134f72ef37b02056519e32d--