From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB893C001E for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 19:06:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E0A6FC4B for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 19:06:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NfH-DPAkypYL for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 19:05:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73F9660A79 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 19:05:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lf1-f51.google.com (mail-lf1-f51.google.com [209.85.167.51]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as jlrubin@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 20DJ5reM025039 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 14:05:56 -0500 Received: by mail-lf1-f51.google.com with SMTP id o12so6254244lfu.12 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 11:05:56 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530BaTUUCT3St39ungntE9UXzr24dvpDuVL7sR2KK1iEPD0qifOy M4hw3vGTn/doeHYBaG5NysDezZEPyZWq31+XnBM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzTUFbKHz2dQqM0xzSyRlPxMT8hNLiPof3cvZ8l1swJWj4hDnna9LnZwnY3s2x/iAGxpQXCfbyhCGjbqw6Kx14= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:33ce:: with SMTP id d14mr3236445lfg.516.1642100753417; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 11:05:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Jeremy Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 11:05:42 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Steve Lee , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000017ca5a05d57b6020" 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 19:06:00 -0000 --00000000000017ca5a05d57b6020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 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 > --00000000000017ca5a05d57b6020 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
A further point -- were i= t 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 cre= ating 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 -- p= erhaps funders can somehow commit=C2=A0to=C2=A0'abstracting' themse= lves from involvement in cases / the process of accepting prospective clien= ts. 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 pr= ivilege.

Of course=C2=A0we live in a free country and however Jack an= d 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 b= een represented by the EFF on more than one occasion, they are fantastic. D= o you feel that the Bitcoin-specific focus of BLDF outweighs the more gener= al (but deeper experience/track record) of an organization like the EFF (or= others, like Berkman Cyberlaw Clinic, etc)? My main opinion is "the m= ore 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

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 a= nd 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 o= ther funds and strategies and anyone is welcome to create alternatives.
I also don't see why Alex or anyone should be denied th= e opportunity to comment on future soft forks or anything about bitcoin. Al= ex should have no more or less right to participate and his comments should= =C2=A0be 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.linuxfoun= dation.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
--00000000000017ca5a05d57b6020--