📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01
📝 Original message:I have read the proposal. I think you missed my point: every existing
transaction author would be required to agree to your proposals for
them to be legal, and that's clearly impossible. You'd also need every
single miner who published a block. You're much better taking the line
that actually, the data is public domain and unrestricted based on
various assumptions.
You make some assumptions that transaction authors use Bitcoin Core to
"contract with the network", but in fact transactions are written and
broadcast by a number of means, arguably very few are created by
Bitcoin Core these days. How exactly do you expect to get a legally
binding agreement from all future transaction authors agreeing to your
terms? How would you prove Alice agreed 10 years later? If it was a
proprietary system like Paypal who can force you to agree or close
your account, the Bitcoin protocol is permissionless and anyone can
author a transaction using any means they like, not just Bitcoin Core.
So again I come back to the point your proposal would have to get
permission from all existing authors, and all future authors to work.
Overall I think the proposal is trying to fix something that doesn't
need fixing and get into a quagmire in the process. In fact, I see it
as an impossible task.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Ahmed Zsales <ahmedzsales18 at gmail.com> wrote:
> To avoid repetition, we have actually covered the general points and
> questions you have raised in the draft BIP, which includes a draft licence
> to assist discussions:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=sharing
>
> Regards,
>
> Ahmed
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:02 PM, Btc Drak <btcdrak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think it gets worse. Who are the copyright owners (if this actually
>> applies). You've got people publishing transaction messages, you've
>> got miners reproducing them and publishing blocks. Who are all the
>> parties involved? Then to take pedantry to the next level, does a
>> miner have permission to republish messages? How do you know? What if
>> the messages are reproducing others copyright/licensed material? It's
>> not possible to license someone else's work. There are plenty rabbit
>> holes to go down with this train of thought.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > That is a very good point.
>> >
>> > We considered whether data existing before a licence change would be
>> > covered, but we hadn't factored the potential need for gaining
>> > permissions
>> > for a change to be considered effective.
>> >
>> > We have proposed that miners be the main beneficiaries of licensing and
>> > there is a consideration on whether they should vote to adopt the new
>> > terms.
>> > While not the preferred route, that would overcome any issues to what is
>> > an
>> > otherwise honest 'error and omission.' There doesn't seem to be anyone
>> > who
>> > could claim to have suffered any economic losses so this may not be an
>> > issue. It merits further investigation.
>> >
>> > The block chain is in perpetual change, so the sooner a change is agreed
>> > upon, if at all, the more data it will cover without any reservations.
>> > At
>> > any rate, we believe the changes would be considered effective on a
>> > retrospective basis.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Btc Drak <btcdrak at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Without commenting on your proposal at all, the general problem with
>> >> licensing after the fact is you require the permission of every
>> >> copyright holder in order to make the change.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev
>> >> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >> > Hello,
>> >> >
>> >> > We believe the network requires a block chain licence to supplement
>> >> > the
>> >> > existing MIT Licence which we believe only covers the core reference
>> >> > client
>> >> > software.
>> >> >
>> >> > Replacing or amending the existing MIT Licence is beyond the scope of
>> >> > this
>> >> > draft BIP.
>> >> >
>> >> > Rationale and details of our draft BIP for discussion and evaluation
>> >> > are
>> >> > here:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=sharing
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards,
>> >> >
>> >> > Ahmed
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> >> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> >> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> >
>
>
Btc Drak [ARCHIVE] /
npub1lh…zg7ed
2023-06-07 17:39:04
in reply to nevent1q…fy3m
Author Public Key
npub1lhe3qfx2q5m7mq5d39waepf9lzhsy0cdey66svn63fyk6rt6n7ps7zg7edSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 17:39:04Event JSON
{
"id": "31e843c2e533754677ed8d7a89a2320c9bd86da19ec82980afa3e45fabc02e02",
"pubkey": "fdf31024ca0537ed828d895ddc8525f8af023f0dc935a8327a8a496d0d7a9f83",
"created_at": 1686159544,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"89a8564b0381eb9568c793c79e358089ddd2d980a31babc3b47efd374cf7b99e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"58f50e419203eac0df76f0409bb40b89c8265186cd2b1d9c0e5fa938db6779e1",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7d32854c9e442b53f36bfc2759c2b0fe2808c32770662bac6a548f04346c503d"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-09-01\n📝 Original message:I have read the proposal. I think you missed my point: every existing\ntransaction author would be required to agree to your proposals for\nthem to be legal, and that's clearly impossible. You'd also need every\nsingle miner who published a block. You're much better taking the line\nthat actually, the data is public domain and unrestricted based on\nvarious assumptions.\n\nYou make some assumptions that transaction authors use Bitcoin Core to\n\"contract with the network\", but in fact transactions are written and\nbroadcast by a number of means, arguably very few are created by\nBitcoin Core these days. How exactly do you expect to get a legally\nbinding agreement from all future transaction authors agreeing to your\nterms? How would you prove Alice agreed 10 years later? If it was a\nproprietary system like Paypal who can force you to agree or close\nyour account, the Bitcoin protocol is permissionless and anyone can\nauthor a transaction using any means they like, not just Bitcoin Core.\nSo again I come back to the point your proposal would have to get\npermission from all existing authors, and all future authors to work.\n\nOverall I think the proposal is trying to fix something that doesn't\nneed fixing and get into a quagmire in the process. In fact, I see it\nas an impossible task.\n\nOn Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Ahmed Zsales \u003cahmedzsales18 at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e To avoid repetition, we have actually covered the general points and\n\u003e questions you have raised in the draft BIP, which includes a draft licence\n\u003e to assist discussions:\n\u003e\n\u003e https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=sharing\n\u003e\n\u003e Regards,\n\u003e\n\u003e Ahmed\n\u003e\n\u003e On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:02 PM, Btc Drak \u003cbtcdrak at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I think it gets worse. Who are the copyright owners (if this actually\n\u003e\u003e applies). You've got people publishing transaction messages, you've\n\u003e\u003e got miners reproducing them and publishing blocks. Who are all the\n\u003e\u003e parties involved? Then to take pedantry to the next level, does a\n\u003e\u003e miner have permission to republish messages? How do you know? What if\n\u003e\u003e the messages are reproducing others copyright/licensed material? It's\n\u003e\u003e not possible to license someone else's work. There are plenty rabbit\n\u003e\u003e holes to go down with this train of thought.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e That is a very good point.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e We considered whether data existing before a licence change would be\n\u003e\u003e \u003e covered, but we hadn't factored the potential need for gaining\n\u003e\u003e \u003e permissions\n\u003e\u003e \u003e for a change to be considered effective.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e We have proposed that miners be the main beneficiaries of licensing and\n\u003e\u003e \u003e there is a consideration on whether they should vote to adopt the new\n\u003e\u003e \u003e terms.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e While not the preferred route, that would overcome any issues to what is\n\u003e\u003e \u003e an\n\u003e\u003e \u003e otherwise honest 'error and omission.' There doesn't seem to be anyone\n\u003e\u003e \u003e who\n\u003e\u003e \u003e could claim to have suffered any economic losses so this may not be an\n\u003e\u003e \u003e issue. It merits further investigation.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e The block chain is in perpetual change, so the sooner a change is agreed\n\u003e\u003e \u003e upon, if at all, the more data it will cover without any reservations.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e At\n\u003e\u003e \u003e any rate, we believe the changes would be considered effective on a\n\u003e\u003e \u003e retrospective basis.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Btc Drak \u003cbtcdrak at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e Without commenting on your proposal at all, the general problem with\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e licensing after the fact is you require the permission of every\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e copyright holder in order to make the change.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e Hello,\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e We believe the network requires a block chain licence to supplement\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e the\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e existing MIT Licence which we believe only covers the core reference\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e client\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e software.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e Replacing or amending the existing MIT Licence is beyond the scope of\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e this\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e draft BIP.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e Rationale and details of our draft BIP for discussion and evaluation\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e are\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e here:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=sharing\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e Regards,\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e Ahmed\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e",
"sig": "f6775589a50a1df5fa4f5d5f648659c18b8375289918233423aaa161f2328204ab71b5af1d4b4d607927f501c93e65b7d832a24558bd875427e4f997fd45e024"
}