đź“… Original date posted:2018-02-13
đź“ť Original message: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 <brianlockhart at gmail.com>
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 “fight fire with
> fire” (using social / marketing based efforts) who “should” pick up the
> mantle here? Without inciting riots by asking the question, wouldn’t that
> ostensibly be something the Bitcoin Foundation would lead on here? <ducks
> and runs for cover>
>
> In any case, it’s frustrating to watch the ongoing FUD and scammery going
> unanswered in any “official” capacity.
>
>
> On February 13, 2018 at 7:25:35 AM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev (
> bitcoin-dev at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev "JOSE FEMENIAS CAĂ‘UELO via bitcoin-dev" <
>> bitcoin-dev at 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?)
>>
>> 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 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/20180213/f4d389bf/attachment.html>;
Jameson Lopp [ARCHIVE] /
npub1gh…akqmn
2023-06-07 18:10:49
in reply to nevent1q…6p0c
Author Public Key
npub1ghgfr3aumwuxwnwghywxpaejxpf6k9pjcnyg9lfdnztlu5pwa0ksyakqmnPublished at
2023-06-07 18:10:49Event JSON
{
"id": "6eeef5986ea74b89c816656a13b254d66ca175f88257330ffb3784bb6e9b7fa8",
"pubkey": "45d091c7bcdbb8674dc8b91c60f7323053ab1432c4c882fd2d9897fe502eebed",
"created_at": 1686161449,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ecf4011d16456cd371a66df3430f1140a2e38ad8a614da16d50f2f93cda8e487",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1dabe11b53570a8f830be727e892083490fbd26aae3c8ca7d4d2ef63fd80c920",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-02-13\n📝 Original message:Anyone who feels so inclined is free to \"pick up the mantle\" and defend\nBitcoin against perceived social attacks. I don't think that Bitcoin\nprotocol developers have any particular responsibility to do so, and as\nsuch this particular discussion is likely going to quickly veer off-topic\nfor this mailing list.\n\nOn Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Brian Lockhart \u003cbrianlockhart at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e \u003e I don't think that Bitcoin should be reliant upon courts or governments\n\u003e to defend itself against attacks of any form.\n\u003e\n\u003e Agree 100%. Plus yeah, lotsa luck getting any success via those channels...\n\u003e\n\u003e But assuming the answer to the perceived problem is to “fight fire with\n\u003e fire” (using social / marketing based efforts) who “should” pick up the\n\u003e mantle here? Without inciting riots by asking the question, wouldn’t that\n\u003e ostensibly be something the Bitcoin Foundation would lead on here? \u003cducks\n\u003e and runs for cover\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e In any case, it’s frustrating to watch the ongoing FUD and scammery going\n\u003e unanswered in any “official” capacity.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On February 13, 2018 at 7:25:35 AM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev (\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org) wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e If I'm understanding the problem being stated correctly:\n\u003e\n\u003e \"Bitcoin is under a branding attack by fork coins.\"\n\u003e\n\u003e The proposed solution is to disincentivize fork coins from using the word\n\u003e Bitcoin by altering the license terms. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me\n\u003e that the words of the license are basically useless unless there is an\n\u003e entity that intends to make use of court systems to threaten noncompliant\n\u003e projects into submission.\n\u003e\n\u003e In my opinion, the perceived attack on Bitcoin here is social /\n\u003e marketing-based, thus it makes sense that any defense against said attack\n\u003e should also be social / marketing-based. I don't think that Bitcoin should\n\u003e be reliant upon courts or governments to defend itself against attacks of\n\u003e any form.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Natanael via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev \"JOSE FEMENIAS CAÑUELO via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e ***\n\u003e\u003e NO PART OF THIS SOFTWARE CAN BE INCLUDED IN ANY OTHER PROJECT THAT USES\n\u003e\u003e THE NAME BITCOIN AS PART OF ITS NAME AND/OR ITS MARKETING MATERIAL UNLESS\n\u003e\u003e THE SOFTWARE PRODUCED BY THAT PROJECT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE BITCOIN\n\u003e\u003e (CORE) BLOCKCHAIN\n\u003e\u003e ***\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e That's better solved with trademarks. (whoever would be the trademark\n\u003e\u003e holder - Satoshi?)\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e This would also prohibit any reimplementation that's not formally\n\u003e\u003e verified to be perfectly compatible from using the name.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e It also adds legal uncertainty.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Another major problem is that it neither affects anybody forking older\n\u003e\u003e versions of Bitcoin, not people using existing independent blockchain\n\u003e\u003e implementations and renaming them Bitcoin-Whatsoever.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e And what happens when an old version is technically incompatible with a\n\u003e\u003e future version by the Core team due to not understanding various new\n\u003e\u003e softforks? Which version wins the right to the name?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Also, being unable to even mention Bitcoin is overkill.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e The software license also don't affect the blockchain data.\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\u003e\n\u003e\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\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180213/f4d389bf/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "80899414257e159fb6538532fb51f24cf011a30b30da70d8c4270493df5615b4ea8bf16975e939c65bdd01f8675ee06bd270827122b25abef2159ed5be02207f"
}