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 <brianlockh...@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 ( > email@example.com) 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 < > firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >> >> >> Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev "JOSE FEMENIAS CAÑUELO via bitcoin-dev" < >> email@example.com>: >> >> *** >> 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 >> firstname.lastname@example.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > email@example.com > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev