Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D100C001E for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 18:54:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6471E84CCF for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 18:54:51 +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: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ja_8ZTgmiKu2 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 18:54:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-lf1-x129.google.com (mail-lf1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::129]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1310484CCC for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 18:54:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-x129.google.com with SMTP id g11so22897441lfu.2 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 10:54:49 -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=XjS7Te3uPYLhWEedyJy5Q6IHO1qJSNTuFAJyZNI/HJs=; b=DkBq6yCvmbUZm4Soy3j705fwUmIfIL+RVUoiT5wqWiPMoa9DvFMWaj3kT4XLshc/SA 5hCZpWJqZRxpeMJpP/0RNTL+N71jRmwqB1fW6CFAIlZEr6KxhHk05P81F8KExavXqH4w G/jDTOuITSpl3V3EkN6a4Adx1eH6LO8OA7EcKZHdtYQ4l4OYT+yREWNpV1SmsRQROI/4 ItBsDqFDTL5Zj1sHXJiE9afQYh5F09XbApzqk9w5LhyJ4cH/EC3J63HiBdZc969tXWTM yRg0SxSB6hm0dvBFouZNhdpkMdtj+3Idmfg8T0khi3r8zl6V79lyDpoJRYLB7aXlMbR6 N0Ew== 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=XjS7Te3uPYLhWEedyJy5Q6IHO1qJSNTuFAJyZNI/HJs=; b=6A8kzz+GHmF6aNxdGP7v3VRymQo3LhfHlxoZfoTIko7r594koqFN9XdguuFyjPiY2z +/o0XMvdt/udN+djqjCGIOJr8+GTyjFmaXBV9puComzg9ToOvSVeZ1K/ZgJJMwJfpqrH m7Kh6ug+wCwnvHYz7m1BEyW4wj8DccGBUxrHjMA6NT5RaDb1KeVMz2YlgyMtmvr7w6WV RdEbJSkP4QgD3JiUjuAA2BrLjssaZzCuX5kRLjXtS8H3PFLHknNgXn3k2dwEfSVfG87J 1qZ7vHtZLxKVVLJadUO/DHgc1Wy1ZexN3pIkHiKY6YRk9ObTcVryU0puPZ5uT2pEU1EG YPyA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531DXflZfyVcRXpuPXe2uWjCkHguvbh9mYtXLKyBwk2MEKufIXqF rr4dpX/9XChovKGlHTvigf/yyMCwFGCLAgo3gT4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxBM33g18Y2TtTf4VEEZCAPTxi40nzTIqMEgeALSHgel4TDx4yfZGv1Kgg32Qv2kc/fAA9/QHpKMlbL3+eC2+U= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9011:: with SMTP id h17mr4099328ljg.528.1642100087859; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 10:54:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Alex Schoof Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:54:35 -0500 Message-ID: To: Steve Lee , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006c2ea105d57b38f6" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 19:11:59 +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 18:54:51 -0000 --0000000000006c2ea105d57b38f6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > 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 --0000000000006c2ea105d57b38f6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=C2=A0I also don't see why Alex or anyone should b= e 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 comm= ents should=C2=A0be 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 di= sagree with them publicly (especially if there are clear economic implicati= ons 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 agains= t a board member?" That kind of concern can be mitigated through polic= y and governance, but is the kind of thing you want to tackle before it bec= omes an issue.

Cheers,

(a= different) Alex

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 1:49 PM Steve Lee via bitcoin= -dev <bitcoin-d= ev@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 ro= om for other funds and strategies and anyone is welcome to create alternati= ves.

I also don't see why Alex or anyone should be d= enied the opportunity to comment on future soft forks or anything about bit= coin. Alex should have no more or less right to participate and his comment= s should=C2=A0be judged on their merit, just like yours and mine.

On T= hu, Jan 13, 2022 at 9:37 AM Prayank via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.l= inuxfoundation.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
--0000000000006c2ea105d57b38f6--