Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revisiting BIP 125 RBF policy.

On February 13, 2018 1:40 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > Yeah, sorry, I just misread what scenario you guys were talking about. IIRC > the > term "pinned" may have even been invented by myself, as IIRC I noticed the > issue when the RBF patch was being developed years ago. I

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license

This is ridiculous. We shouldn't bastardize open source principals because someone hurt your feelings. This is how open source works, stop using it if you don't like it. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license

I agree that this is a bad idea. When trying to work around a social issue for a highly technical project, a legal hack is certainly not the answer. As Daniel pointed out, the result of such a change would simply be that 100% of all Bitcoin companies would be told by their legal teams to use the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Total fees have almost crossed the block reward

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 08:41:39PM +0100, Christian Decker wrote: > Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev > writes: > > Does shabang.io say anywhere how it determines whether or not a transaction > > funded a Lightning channel? > > My guess they simply collect the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revisiting BIP 125 RBF policy.

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 06:23:12PM -0500, rha...@protonmail.com wrote: > > On February 12, 2018 5:58 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > > I don't actually see where the problem is here. First of all, suppose we > > have a > > transaction T_a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license

I'd call the license change an attack on bitcoin if its code license prohibited me to play around with it and call it whatever I the fud I want. Other entities like companies, goverments and whoknowswhat might prohibit that (in some countries of the world), but the nature of the source and

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license

This would give too much power to Bitcoin Core, and implies falsely that Bitcoin and Bitcoin Core are the same thing. On Tuesday 13 February 2018 12:25:53 PM JOSE FEMENIAS CAÑUELO via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hi, > > Bitcoin is licensed under the MIT license >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license

Custom open-source licenses are basically never a good idea. Every deviation in wording from universally-accepted open-source licensing terms is a major compliance headache from the perspective of any organization trying to use the software. You don’t want users having to clear their use of

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license

I agree with the opposition on changing the license, because of the branding attacks. However having two coins with the same Proof Of Work is a zero sum game from a security point of view. It may not be a bad idea to consider changing the license in a way that only limits cryptocurrencies with

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license

This is a poor idea, and agree that it’s largely off-topic. So without wasting too much of anyone’s time here, I’d point out the following. It is pretty clear that any developer who is subject to a lawsuit from someone using Bitcoin Core software could point to the license (among other things)

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license

> 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 /

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license

Hello, The use of name Bitcoin cannot be avoided due to it's nature of being a Protocol. Prohibition of usage of it as a "brand name" is just like prohibiting the word "Linux", which is the name of the kernel, being used as a brand name or part of a brand name. If that had happened, systems based

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license

No, the problem is not bitcoin being under any kind of attack by the forks for me, but the forks fooling people because, again, reusing the bitcoin core code is too easy I don't know if there can be a legal solution to this which would keep some open source aspect of the code, but at least it

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license

I was thinking to post something very similar on this list but not sure that it would get some kind of interest Not sure how and if it can be done (ie license modification) but the reuse of the bitcoin core code can allow even a child to launch a fork and this mess should stop, maybe people like

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license

Den 13 feb. 2018 15:07 skrev "JOSE FEMENIAS CAÑUELO via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@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

[bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license

Hi, Bitcoin is licensed under the MIT license (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/COPYING ) which is one of the most permissive licenses widely in use. While this almost restriction-less license has proved useful to many