Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund

[Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4652 bytes --]

A further point -- were it to be a norm if a contributor to something like
this be denied their full capacity for "free speech" by social convention,
it would either encourage anonymous funding (less accountable) or would
disincentivize creating such initiatives in the future.

Both of those outcomes would be potentially bad, so I don't see limiting
speech on an unrelated topic as a valid action.

However, I think the inverse could have merit -- perhaps funders can
somehow commit to 'abstracting' themselves from involvement in cases / the
process of accepting prospective clients. As neither Alex nor Jack are
lawyers (afaict?), this should already be true to an extent as the legal
counsel would be bound to attorney client privilege.

Of course we live in a free country and however Jack and Alex determine
they should spend their own money is their god-given right, as much as it
is unfortunately the right of anyone to sue a developer for some alleged
infringement. I'm personally glad that Jack and Alex are using their money
to help developers and not harass them -- many thanks for that!

One question I have is how you might describe the differences between what
BLDF can accomplish and what e.g. EFF can accomplish. Having been
represented by the EFF on more than one occasion, they are fantastic. Do
you feel that the Bitcoin-specific focus of BLDF outweighs the more general
(but deeper experience/track record) of an organization like the EFF (or
others, like Berkman Cyberlaw Clinic, etc)? My main opinion is "the more
the merrier", so don't consider it a critique, more a question so that you
have the opportunity to highlight the unique strengths of this approach.

Best,

Jeremy
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>


On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:50 AM 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8013 bytes --]