Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F2A7C001E for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 19:28:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48F7A6FC19 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 19:28:46 +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: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h_MaQV7LZsrK for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 19:28:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-il1-x133.google.com (mail-il1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::133]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 298C860AF5 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 19:28:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-il1-x133.google.com with SMTP id x15so6565812ilc.5 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 11:28:45 -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=tZ7uSYbHxSFstugWfTK6UcGF0BZwGXnAfdj7T5CmnNE=; b=J2FPxGpe0YFSTs13ilmEfT+sl0PDP1c/h0a9tSsNe95ADH6mNK5IYjVgCNJUN/V+5W jA85bsytpkz1mmDshZjyFMFHSPOle+uSMZgf0d0KVqu+1olhyGuQeLPhzZ9Oe8XxPsfy 0LLp1x5hulSVNpQ5oBGyjdXYxE2Y0sKY9ySYI3O8JGAvD0N1jny7Y6Q1QqWfsEhsjzAM MTf+3KnGWT3Bf4fYFytXqV5JUJTxLt0k5uHkE+9jaImFRqMubjM2dPcYjCRTRGEDuFZM Ta3SxO92IQM/pOEAJZJ5ZlbIWfE8u9MT4QINcrSqonNH2f5ON9qbGjKrwlmXuuI4HSzu QkjA== 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=tZ7uSYbHxSFstugWfTK6UcGF0BZwGXnAfdj7T5CmnNE=; b=vgxjkV4ax+N4z6EAuvoSxUF/8WOMsSzqB5esrGMsJFSvbeVGZMG2z7hS2q9gQRUIFh Wh2u/pu094L84KYy2emnRARohzKButHoTmDRZeTvTAeGnWPKj/GEhlFHEFnw3WFMKLOp JLE4AulbDRF0T4fJ8E5kxO2AhybLyce3cdqE+qKRXFXR86SYX8uNgvZGYGp8RXtUF5PB mp5x05ipfsMfdzFwcDSLRPOC3FFD4PqbFdrfFYIa9Q/UbojL7JEaoUBUrKDAL7rhgNzB uZ8iJrtRuhQYYy0loXxkgT0se3hBriAOQTukYRfwDfFcmUOmhEMGseM5F9H9sO0AGDQL uLbA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Xvqb8vANgfX9EhbhKvm2ss13XZcLokHDKI8UGV4nKswJFDnod hIcubhhYRK6H0AJEhfK9MBTF7sPlmkg11aYooZI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz8CFRGjbE1AuHSDhik62EM+t99Uz6YjGDYpLqKMxJ3Yhf5gV2DO45NgVhud0GoWYJm2HHtkahUh6tcQHe4urs= X-Received: by 2002:a92:ca07:: with SMTP id j7mr3333204ils.197.1642102123961; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 11:28:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Steve Lee Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 11:28:32 -0800 Message-ID: To: Alex Schoof Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c8a36405d57bb145" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 19:32:59 +0000 Cc: Prayank , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , 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 19:28:46 -0000 --000000000000c8a36405d57bb145 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" That's a good point. Agree! On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:54 AM Alex Schoof wrote: > > 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. > > I think the concern is something like: "I disagree with a board member of > the defense fund about [insert contentious issue]. If I disagree with them > publicly (especially if there are clear economic implications in that > disagreement), am I putting myself at risk in the future where I won't be > able to get support from the fund because I spoke out against a board > member?" That kind of concern can be mitigated through policy and > governance, but is the kind of thing you want to tackle before it becomes > an issue. > > Cheers, > > (a different) Alex > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 1:49 PM 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 legal >>> bills. This is a free and voluntary option for developers to take advantage >>> 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 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 would be better if people involved in such important funds do not >>> comment/influence soft fork related discussions. Example: Alex Morcos had >>> 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 >> > > > -- > > > Alex Schoof > --000000000000c8a36405d57bb145 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
That's a good point. Agree!

On T= hu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:54 AM Alex Schoof <alex.schoof@gmail.com> wrote:
>=C2=A0I also don'= t see why Alex or anyone should be denied the opportunity to comment on fut= ure soft forks or anything about bitcoin. Alex should have no more or less = right to participate and his comments should=C2=A0be judged on their merit,= just like yours and mine.

I think the concern is someth= ing like: "I disagree with a board member of the defense fund about [i= nsert contentious issue]. If I disagree with them publicly (especially if t= here are clear economic implications in that disagreement), am I putting my= self at risk in the future where I won't be able to get support from th= e fund because I spoke out against a board member?" That kind of conce= rn can be mitigated through policy and governance, but is the kind of thing= you want to tackle before it becomes an issue.

Ch= eers,

(a different) Alex

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022= at 1:49 PM Steve Lee via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation= .org> wrote:
I think the word "The" is important. The tit= le 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. Th= ere is room for other funds and strategies and anyone is welcome to create = alternatives.

I also don't see why Alex or anyone sh= ould 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 hi= s comments should=C2=A0be judged on their merit, just like yours and mine.<= /div>

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 9:37 AM Prayank via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-de= v@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


--


Alex Schoof
--000000000000c8a36405d57bb145--