š
Original date posted:2016-02-07
š Original message:Patrick,
I would say that a company's terms of service should include their position
on this issue. It does not seem reasonable that they all are required to
provide access to coins on every single fork. Are custodial wallet users
also entitled to Clam, Zcash, and Decred, and others?
Regardless, I think this thread should be about the technical merits of the
BIP. Discussion of hard forks would be better held elsewhere.
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Patrick Strateman via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I would expect that custodians who fail to produce coins on both sides
> of a fork in response to depositor requests will find themselves in
> serious legal trouble.
>
> Especially if the price moves against either fork.
>
> On 02/07/2016 10:55 AM, Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 6, 2016, at 9:21 PM, Jannes Faber via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> >
> >> They *must* be able to send their customers both coins as separate
> >> withdrawals.
> >>
> > Supporting the obsolete chain is unnecessary. Such support has not
> > been offered in any cryptocurrency hard fork before, as far as I know.
> > I do not see why it should start now.
> >>
> >> If not, that amounts to theft of their customers funds.
> >>
> > If they announce their planned behavior before the fork, I do not see
> > any ethical or legal issues.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160207/df1374d3/attachment.html>;
Trevin Hofmann [ARCHIVE] /
npub1pzā¦y7pwu
2023-06-07 17:48:47
in reply to nevent1qā¦9tr0
Author Public Key
npub1pzastcvpumyj8d4a8f542t276utxpres497s45f0lhgmrjrx7p9quy7pwuPublished at
2023-06-07 17:48:47Event JSON
{
"id": "cdf17419ddade9612cfe41217e0b29613815a1e8a5f85f8356fc204f8e4c46a0",
"pubkey": "08bb05e181e6c923b6bd3a69552d5ed716608f30a97d0ad12ffdd1b1c866f04a",
"created_at": 1686160127,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"299dc342b2928a854d3cdebebdfa1b5d7d113553560926ba6670328be5b1c1ce",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"7d6d8aeca0def531e80a3ca6733dc992b260d1d0afaa1107d43f3b719a8c802a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"fc7892eea47289e31dc49660ebe7f00108707eb2ee3b59909accdf0afaa4eb61"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2016-02-07\nš Original message:Patrick,\n\nI would say that a company's terms of service should include their position\non this issue. It does not seem reasonable that they all are required to\nprovide access to coins on every single fork. Are custodial wallet users\nalso entitled to Clam, Zcash, and Decred, and others?\n\nRegardless, I think this thread should be about the technical merits of the\nBIP. Discussion of hard forks would be better held elsewhere.\n\nOn Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Patrick Strateman via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e I would expect that custodians who fail to produce coins on both sides\n\u003e of a fork in response to depositor requests will find themselves in\n\u003e serious legal trouble.\n\u003e\n\u003e Especially if the price moves against either fork.\n\u003e\n\u003e On 02/07/2016 10:55 AM, Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e On Feb 6, 2016, at 9:21 PM, Jannes Faber via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e They *must* be able to send their customers both coins as separate\n\u003e \u003e\u003e withdrawals.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e Supporting the obsolete chain is unnecessary. Such support has not\n\u003e \u003e been offered in any cryptocurrency hard fork before, as far as I know.\n\u003e \u003e I do not see why it should start now.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e If not, that amounts to theft of their customers funds.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e If they announce their planned behavior before the fork, I do not see\n\u003e \u003e any ethical or legal issues.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160207/df1374d3/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "9ed8764fdd9bda7def2129958a4967927df34dcb7aed8e820729162b290a83fca04abc13360e6a02752e866bf9e85a233ce534e355c2e2aa4fdb2d23edf9e5cb"
}