Bitcoin Forum

What's happening?

squidnet have one server down in hosting company. Nothing with DMCA.

I mean this
https://github.com/solidcoin/solidcoin/commits/

https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2012-01-09-bitcoin.markdown

The takedown notice was sent by tekkub.

Teaches him right, there actually was a thread about this before.

So does this up the value of SolidCoin's because it is a collectors item now  :D

About time.

owned!

I pointed this out to King RealScam over two months ago.

BTW ScamCoin is also in violation of Berkeley DB license from Oracle.  While I doubt Oracle will be enforcing their claim a crypto-currency based on pirated and stolen software has a very shaky foundation.

It's the first time I ever heard about an open-source developer making use of DMCA (https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2012-01-09-bitcoin.markdown). I don't really like the idea of DMCA at all, but now it pwnd SC and made me laugh.

This video is related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsLuIipny88

Generally most people using open source software aren't stupid enough to violate the license.  I mean the MIT license is trivial to follow and yet King RealScam fucked it up because he dishonestly wanted to pass ScamCoin off as an original creation.

This is part of Luke Dash Jr's latest conquest.
He had made threats in BTC-e chat, in regards to having Solidcoin taken down due to license violations and the fact that Realsolid used some of his (Dash's) code to create Solidcoin without maintaining the license.

you sure?

apperently it was a person called tekkub who sent the takedown notice.

EDIT: it seems that luke-jr did file the complaint.

It doesn't matter who's name is attached to the official notice.
This could have happened ages ago, but only as of late has Doosh-Jr been spouting off about it.

im seeing your faulty skills in logic.

but i do agree that dash-jr idiotic person.

Yes, I filed the DMCA takedown. If you have a problem with that, that's your problem for supporting plagerism and copyright infringement. The MIT license is not very hard to comply with. It has a single requirement: maintain the copyright line(s) and license text as-is. It is impossible to "accidentally" violate as RealSolid is supposedly claiming.

CoinHunter/RealSolid had to purposely remove those copyright notices. He actually put work into removing those lines of text to violate the license. Why would anyone do that? What an idiot.

He wants to pretend that SolidCoin is a unique creation.  Remember it is "ready for the bitcoin collapse".  Kinda hard to sell that when it is 99% copied Bitcoin code. 

TL/DR version he has a huge ego and he could never accept giving credit to anyone else.  He has been notified of this multiple times on this forum and on the ScamCoin forum so any claim of "accident" is dubious.  Kinda like accidentaly not realizing your are driving drunk .... for 9 months ... after getting pulled over multiple times.

No MINE FÜHRER......no problem.

I think it is less about credit, and more about control. With full copyright control and via the Solidcoin license.txt, Coinhunter can revoke the right for anyone to use Solidcoin if he feels they are negatively impacting Solidcoin. If most of the source files had the MIT license as required, he would only control a small amount of code comprising the Solidcoin client. An enterprising fellow could re-implement the bits of code that turn Bitcoin into Solidcoin, and then there would be a Solidcoin client which Coinhunter did not control via license.

Someone could do that now.  Of course reverse engineering the solidcoin "bits" would be a violation of his closed source license.  MIT license doesn't prohibit proprietary implementations of derivative works. 

Scamcoin is so much fail, i totally agree.


Speaking about law, how "lawful" is using the hashing power of your pool to perform an attack? Without informing the users mining there?

Reverse engineering is a fair use right under US law. As is interoperability (including overriding trademark law).

I'm late on the subject but oh my, this almost too rich XD

If only the gestapo trusted nodes could get the same special treatment...
What boggles my mind is, there apparently still are people mining ScamCoin.

He had it coming. It came.

Now I'm just waiting for the Oracle lawsuit for BDB copyright infringement. One of the only things Oracle is good for nowadays is annoying people with lawsuits.

I thought the BDB issue was that the solidcoin source was unavailable? It was on github, and its still on solidcoin.info as a download.

And released under a proprietary license which restricts the usage of said software and prohibits derivative works unless approved by the author.  

Open source =/= source code available.  If it did then windows is "open source".

He was bragging about it and its covered here : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56791.0



edit - also did solidcoin get any notice of the dmca notice? was the license requested to be put back in? i know ignorance is no excuse for the law and i am certainly not standing up for solidcoin but i dislike luke, and i think the DMCA is a PoS, this could have been dealt with better i think.

It's slander, nothing more.

How should theft of copyrighted material be dealt with.  Especially given the generous terms it is licensed under.  There is pretty much no "looser" licensing than MIT license.  Failure to comply was intentional.

If it were me I would have done a takedown notice against the website also not just the github.  The website exists to facilitate the theft of copyrighted material.

I'm saying the DMCA should be the last resort, and it may have been, i was just asking if they got any notice of the infringement, maybe one person did it and all involved are being punished...

Depends.. RealSolid had all the time in the world to undo his "mistakingly removing of copyright notices" and everything would have been settled.
Also its not exactly easy to violate MIT licence... someone really has to do an effort to violate it. Also besides not readding the copyrights he claimed often enough authorship of said code hence claiming himself owner of all rights which is copyright infringement...

Also, i was told by a close supporter of him in BTC-E chat, that RS already knew for a while that this takedown would come and didnt do anything to prevent it.. so, well deserved. DMCA takedown might be a bit much, but then again, better than a lawsuit from oracle i'd say...

The author has been notified multiple times by multiple parties on multiple forums.  To paraphrase his attitude; "I don't give a fuck."provide the copyright.

You don't accidentally violate the MIT license license.  You don't accidentally remove someone elses copyright and then copyright something you didn't create.

Likewise solid coin is in violation of the berkeley db license and the attitude is simply that Oracle won't ever care enough to come after a project like SolidCoin.  The reality is it may not given how pathetically small and crippled the project is.  That doesn't change the fact that the author has engaged in willful piracy of copyrighted material.  

When the person in question is willfully non-compliance what action should be taken?  "Pretty please"?  Honest question what should happen in a case of WILLFUL non-compliance.

Good riddance.  Shame it wasn't done months ago.

No, this is still Libel. Pickup a fucking dictionary,
Slander is what many of us will be doing, when calling up your Church and Bible thumping buddies to inform them of your (QUOTED) views on the Pope and Catholicism.

For the moment I got scared and believed that actually Luke-Jr wrote the bool SelectCoinsMinConf(). But, thank God, no, it was just another symptom of Luke-Jr's inferiority complex. Satoshi wrote the original knapsack solver SelectCoins() and added the iterative modification to prefer aged coins.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/e2a186af10d81a0e27b2e7c34783711d65caeae7

s_nakamoto authored November 09, 2010

The world is back in order.

Obviously I was referring to commit a14bf1946dfade7c615cd41924c7cd41abdbc119 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a14bf1946dfade7c615cd41924c7cd41abdbc119)

Dear Luke-Jr:





You should print those and take the printouts to your Confessor. He will explain to you which of the Seven Deadly Sins you committed and what is the appropriate penance. If you are going to be honest, the penance will not involve inserting Christian and Marian graffiti into the coinbases. I'm positive that there are Catholic priests who'll understand what you did to CoiledCoin and prescribe the penance appropriate to your deeds. What you did to yourself is much worse than what you did to CoiledCoin.

You were given free will and you know what you need to do.

And then your torment will cease.

Ok, I guess that more than makes it up for the bad karma you got from blowing that other coin a few days ago.  ;D

His hashing algorithm also (used for proof of work) includes this little gem. In the light of the recent events the "real programmers" part is very ironic.


In case you people thought he was being honest with creating a Bitcoin killer.

Hello everyone,

as you might know, I'm writing a new pool software. Being pretty much unaware of any history and consequences, I've also incorporated SolidCoin support by using parts of CoinHunter/RealSolid's code.

As I'm now seeing this DMCA going on, I'm worried about my project (it is licensed under the GPLv3). Should I remove SolidCoin support and related code in order to comply with the laws?

Please state your answer as neutral as possible. I know everyone hates RS and SC is wrong and whatnot, but I don't care so much for that personal opinions. I'm offering a neutral software; you can decide yourself if, for which chain, and for what reason you want to use it.

p2k

EDIT: The parts that got incorporated only involve the hashing algorithms, that is a sha256 implementation, blake512 and a modified version of rshash (it's modified so the ridiculous texts/insults can't be seen).

I say make the most useful product you can and dont worry about this BS.

simple: put the licensing back in and stop fretting about shit :p

A takedown notice is simply that.  A notice to takedown the code.  Worse case scenario (and it is incredibly unlikely) that is all you realistically face.  ScamCoin had months to restore the proper license & copyright before the takedown. 

If you restore the proper MIT license & copyright notice then it is unlikely you will even face a takedown.

One thing I would caution is that King RealScam's 'license' essentially gives him unlimited power to revoke it at any time and for any reason he sees fit.  I would design your code to be modular so you can drop the ScamCoin portion easily should that happen.   Would hate to see entire project crippled at the whims of the mad king.

I would also caution that it is unlikely that ScamCoins proprietary license meets the requires for Berkeley DB license.  I doubt a pool server would need to make use of Berkeley DB but you if you do you should consider that complication in licensing.  You could be compliant w/ Bitcoin MIT license, King RealScam's crazy-man license and still non-compliant w/ Oracle.

This requirement is non-free and cannot be used with free software.

Well it can be used w/ MIT license as MIT has no copyleft provision.  It is most definitely incompatible w/ Oracle's license though.

Mixed with MIT, would still make the final program non-free.

The best & easiest solution:
You can't GPL Solidcoin code (the GPL won't stick in court). Realsolid's license.txt claims the rights to it. So you shouldn't put any of his code in a file with your code.
Put the Solidcoin code in it's own library with it's own license file. Do not static link it into your binary.

True.  I misunderstood what you were saying.

This is the library I use for ecoinpool. It incorporates several C files by different authors and with different licenses:
https://github.com/p2k/ecoinpool/tree/master/apps/ecoinpool/c_src

I've just removed the unknown SHA256 implementation that came along with rs_hash.c and rewrote code so the one shipped with scrypt (properly licensed) is used.

The original rs_hash.c file came from "reaper", a SC miner software by mtrlt licensed under the GPLv3, but was heavily modified by me, only keeping the core algorithm as-is. I'm really not sure how to do that properly now. There is no rs_hash library for use with Erlang (the language ecoinpool is programmed in) so I would have to make one myself anyways...

That's why there are unit tests ;)

It's all working as before, but I'm feeling better.

It is very telling how much you have sold out to call the fundamental distinction between free software and proprietary restrictive license (far more than even a license by Microsoft) is just "license garbage".

Free software = users have rights to the code and can use it as they see fit.
Restrictive License = users have no rights and use the code only at the wishes of the Scammer In Chief.

The sheer irony is that without free software the abomination called ScamCoin wouldn't even exist, however that is the price of freedom.

I would not trust advice from viperjm regarding software development. He hasn't done any, nor has he demonstrated on these boards any understanding of it.

First time i see a generic question becoming DEFAMATION

It must be a miracle of a god...

Could you set your personal differences aside and just tell me what you think I should do in my current situation?

Do I have to throw away my modified rs_hash, get a fresh copy of it with the license.txt and build a new library from it? Or is building a library violating the license again? Is there any chance I can use the algorithm in my project?

I gave my advice earlier in the thread. But to save you a scroll...

Don't mingle anything from Realsolid with anything else. Mixing licenses in this case would be bad as the terms are incompatible.
Make sure any code from SC is in a separate binary. Don't static link it in.

I've read your advice, that's why I said "build a new library from it". I'm asking for details: if it's ok to use my own variant of rs_hash and if building any library (I have to insert some glue code for using it in Erlang) is allowed at all.

EDIT: Tell you what, I just throw it out of the master branch and if anyone needs it badly he could ask me or pull the last SC supporting version out of the GIT tree. This is too hot for me, I don't want to lose my software because of this "license garbage" or what ever the politically correct expression for this is.

Sorry for being vague, but it is really hard to give definitive answers in this realm. Even lawyers can only give advice, they cannot absolve you of an licensing difficulties. Ultimately, the only opinion that matters is that of the last judge who rules on the lawsuit. The strange and bizarre can enter into such a case, such as: if you even read the solidcoin code, etc.

It is a bit like quicksand. :(

Yeah, I lust left the desert. I'm declaring it to someone else's problem. Have fun!

I think Solidcoin is a joke...BUT please bitcoin developers, do not file DMCA Takedowns. We are supposed to be encouraging internet freedom, not the policing of the internet. Does it really matter if they claim that your code is their code? Anyone can verify the claim for themselves.

It is called theft.  If Microsoft stole the Bitcoin code, made it proprietary and then tried to commercialize it would you also say to not respond w/ legal action.

Yup, not only he turns free software into proprietary one, but he removes the credits... That's a bit too much I think...
The worst thing is, he then gives lessons about the spirit of open source (http://solidcointalk.org/topic/510-bitcoin-developers-files-several-dmca-takedowns-against-solidcoin-over-misplaced-license-file/page__p__5123#entry5123)...

I personally don't support copyright law, but if you do, keep in mind that you will have to sacrifice free speech & market competition.

But, Bitcoin, in my view, should be able to operate without help from governments. Filing a DMCA report is basically like crying to the government to help us so that we can stay in business. Why do we need government to help us for this? There are many other ways to verify who the authors of certain pieces of software are.

If Coinhunter hadn't attempted to restrict others from Solidcoin using Copyright law, I wouldn't have cared.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Yup, exactly what I think of this: he uses copyright laws against us, we do the same. We're not all gandhis.

Alright, time for some fun. :D
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20020428

Saying Bitcoin should operate without any "help" from govt is naive.

So when someone breaks into your house and beats your face in with a hammer until you give them the password to your wallet and walks away with your life savings you aren't going to call the Police?  There are many ways to get justice other than calling the Police.

If corporations decide they will engage in a massive DDOS attack against the blockchain in order to promote their corporate control version you want any law enforcement to look the other way?  There are many ways to end the attack other than law enforcement.

Stupid.  Beyond stupid. The reality is Bitcoin exists in a world of laws. Laws will certainly be used AGAINST Bitcoin regardless of what users, developers, and service providers do.  So to then tie the hands of users, developers, and service providers to not use law to PROTECT Bitcoin makes no sense.

What other legal protects should "all true Bitcoin users" restrict themselves from.  Should businesses not file trademark registrations,  should we not seek take downs of scam sites,  should an individual who comes up with a unique method to advance Bitcoin commerce not file a patent?

I was with you up till this. Patents are not protection. Patents are monopolistic abuse.

Well we will need to agree to disagree.

Patents CAN (and often ARE) abused.  So are drugs and so are guns.

A good friend of mine developed an innovative product only to have it stolen by company who showed it to and "wasn't" interested.  Long story short after a couple years of legal battles if it hadn't been for his patent he would have made nothing.  The product in question does about $50M in sales.  His royalty is about 1% of sales price.  Companies would gladly violate the law (even with a filed patent) then give up 1% of the revenue for a product that wouldn't exist without his innovation.

I do think we need significant patent reform.  ... bad.

Like the innovative ways that SolidCoin addresses the 51% issue, the pyramid scheme issue, and the deflation issue. According to you, we should patent those. Thanks for the advice.

Go ahead.  Waste about $4K or so on a scam coin.  Current time frame for a response (not necessarily a patent) is about 17 month for the USPTO.

So my advice is go ahead.  Of course we both know nobody will.  ScamCoin isn't worth a $4 investment much less a $4000 one.

The solidcoin people (person?) can easily comply with the basically free license.  What they did is wrong as they took the code and put new terms on it (which they can not do) as well as stripped out the proper credits.  Making it right is near trivial and should be done to respect everyone who put in code into the bitcoin project. 

Ironically they CAN change the terms.  MIT license has no "copyleft" (google it) provision.  You can take Bitcoin and make a closed source, pay only version if you want.  MIT license allows you to do that.  MIT license allows you to do almost anything EXCEPT:

a) remove copyright from other's work
b) remove the MIT license notification.

That's it.  That is literally all you need to do to be compliant and somehow King RealScam figured out a way to mess that up (willfully IMHO).

And again, he has figured out another way to mess it up. He thinks he can remove all copyright notices from every file, and then bury a vague reference that there may be some code fragments that may be copyright by Bitcoin Developers included somewhere in the package, but he won't tell you, you have to figure it out by comparing SolidCoin source code with Bitcoin source code.

Ok, but adding terms is a whole lot less effective if he has to keep the MIT license and copyright in there.  But you are correct, so all he has to do is put that text back in there. 

No it isn't.  Any terms he puts would apply to the modified code.  He says you can't use it for any derivative work so you can't period (well not lawfully).  Any restrictions would be just as effective. 

This is one of the "complaints" with MIT license.  It has no "copyleft" provision.  Derivitives of MIT license don't need to be "Free" (as in free speech) despite the fact the derivitive wouldn't even exist if it were not for the "freedom" in the original.

Microsoft could take Bitcoin code, modify it call it MicroCoin, release it as restricted source, require users to pay $20 for a consumer license, $80 for a merchant license, and $200 for a mining license.     They could sue users who don't pay for a license under software piracy laws.  They could write the license than any derivative work is unlawful and becomes the property of Microsoft.  When you try to release a bugfix that they keep neglecting you they could sue you for software piracy.  All of that would be legit with MIT license.

Literally the only thing that needs to be done is keep the copyright and include that piece of text.  Period.  Nothing more.
Don't read ANYTHING beyond that.  The MIT license has no other restrictions on the user.

For me the main purpose of government is to protect each individuals' physical land from intruders and also to provide a way to easily and safely communicate with others, and to get into government protected contracts. But that's just me...

So in the case of someone trying to break into my house, yes, I may call the police.

In the case of corporations trying to DDOS the blockchain - I don't mind. This will only strengthen bitcoin. But note that I would probably not be funding these corporations in the first place. Yes you may lose a lot of "buying power", but the chances of this are very low and if you're wise you would diversify your wealth into other assets. Bitcoin is a liquid asset. It should be used for short term purchases (like cash), not for holding your life savings.

The MPAA beat Solidcoin by well over four years for this dishonour. The MPAA was on the receiving end of a DMCA take down over pirated Free Libre Open Source Software back in 2007. http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2007/12/mpaas-university-toolkit-hit-with-dmca-takedown-notice-after-gpl-violation.ars (http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2007/12/mpaas-university-toolkit-hit-with-dmca-takedown-notice-after-gpl-violation.ars).

Still pretty lame and the DMCA is a draconian tool, which is constantly abused, like in this case.

No, this case is clearly proper use of the DMCA for good. Unfortunately, solidcoin.info was moved outside the DMCA jurisdiction, so I need to figure out German law to resume.

Even though I have personal issues with the current Solidcoin developers,

I still think this is lame as shit... And probably goes against everything this community stands and preaches for.

Why is it always the Christians who are always out to seek "revenge"?

I mean that with all seriousness...

No way, man. Don't you see?

I wonder how many times Luke-Jr has participated in "copyright infringement".  ::)

Again I am not defending Solidcoin (obviously) or any of it's supporters.

What I am saying is that this DMCA take down is LAME AS SHIT, and goes against literally EVERYTHING we preach in these forums...

SolidCoin ripped off the open source Bitcoin code to make it proprietary (okay, that's allowed by the MIT license but that's still ugly). I think it was already said somewhere earlier in this thread, but it's a clear case of "live by the sword die by the sword" there...

Heh that's pretty funny . You say "SolidCoin ripped off Bitcoin" then immediately follow with "Ok the license allows what SolidCoin did but it's still ripping it off! Guys! Come on...."

Many people took this stand against SOPA yet they make a hero of a guy who :-
1) robbed many people of Bitcoins and CoiledCoins
2) Has 51% attacked a chain using mtgox/eligius resources.
3) Filed fake DMCA claims to try to silence/censor something they don't like.
4) Likely culprit in other attacks on other coins

Well, with those sorts of morals I'm not sure what else to expect from some here. Flip... flop. Can't have it both ways you heroes. It doesn't even matter if you don't like SolidCoin, to step down to the filthy level of Luke-Jr is telling how desperate some have become. If anyone wonders how some awful crap gets passed by our governments look no further than the behaviour shown by a few here to get their "Revenge" on something they don't like.

There was nothing fake about your copyright infringement.  Infringement you were made aware of the day you released the source code.

You pirated software.  Period.   You might consider removing copyright and license notification trivial but it isn't.  Had you not pirated software your github wouldn't have been taken down.  Take some personal responsibility for your actions.

I don't know anyone here who made a "hero" of Luke-Jr for his 51% attack on CC.

Most people actually found it repulsive, so I don't know where exactly you are getting that from.

Bitcoin is about absolute freedom (mostly in regards to data), which is why it boggles my mind that someone who preaches freedom of all data, would go ahead and do a DMCA takedown on an infant open source e-currency...

Ban Coinhunter, ban Solidcoin, hell ban anyone who utters the name. I personally wouldn't agree with it, as I have absolutely fallen in love with this forum over the past 6 months, simply because of it's free and truly unregulated nature. It was hard to get used to such an environment when I first got here, but it has allowed me to express myself in ways I was never able to in past.

That's why I am so against this action... DMCA takedown? Really?

I really like you, and you have educated me at many points in the past.

But this DMCA takedown is beyond stupid...

Hypothetical.  Microsoft takes Bitcoin code, uses it, makes it closed source and removes the license.  It then runs it on the entire xbox network to attack Bitcoin.  You say "don't use DMCA let Bitcoin die"?

King RealScam obligation to be compliant was TRIVIAL and he willfully violated it.  Not sure if you are aware but if you don't defend copyrighted material you can lose copyright protection.  The courts can rule it has passed defacto into public domain.  It is the responsibility of copyright holders to protect their property.

Given King RealScam was willfully noncompliant what should have been done?

This.

Seriously guys, WHY, Do you think a DMCA is "stupid" Fuck sakes it's asif you hear DMCA and go "OH NO ALL MY PIRATED STUFF IS GONNA GET REMOVED!!!, I MUST STOP ALL FORMS OF DMCA!!"

I see this the best DMCA i have ever seen, With the second best, Being the removal of videogame ROMS
Look at it this way, a Ripoff Cyrptocurrency was taken down, Thats like spotting a Counterfeit Bill(Reffing a SC as a counterfiet BTC, I understand that it's "different") and saying "yo dudes check out this counterfiet money!, Do i take it to the bank and tell them about it? Or do i just go try to spend it anywhere i can?"
So Someone went to the "bank" with the "counterfiet money" and had it "taken out" of thier hands.
Bank->internet exchange .|. CFmoney->SolidCoins .|. Taken out->DMCA

There. That wasn't so hard.

Dude, just learn to understand the license. It allows "ripping off" BUT it doesn't allow removing the license text.
You use the copyright tools to lock your source, and then you complain that other guys use those same tools just to protect their credit (the properly included license note). I'm not calling Luke-Jr a hero, just on this point he's damn right. It's not as if the license required you to pay 2 billion dollars to reuse the source, you just had to include the MIT license properly, is that so hard?

This is all libelous lies.

First, it wasn't a "51% attack" in the sense most people take that to mean: I didn't steal any coins, time-travel, or anything of the sort. Second, more people did express support of my CLC shutdown than complained about it (the complainers were basically just a small handful of scammers who I had foiled, and made numerous venomous libel posts giving some people the impression there was a problem with it)

No, Bitcoin is about a decentralized currency. Anything more is subjective. "Absolute freedom" is absolute evil. Bitcoin provides a useful monetary system for the Tonal number system, which is my primary reason for involvement.

This pretty much sums you up in one sentence. Thanks for the quote...

You are no better than Coinhunter and his 13 million premine.

Disgusting...

Yeah, this topic is seriously conflicting for me...

I dislike Luke-Jr, but I also dislike CoinHunter.

I dislike the DMCA (and copyright in general), but I also dislike SolidCoin.

Really though, this is just going to give CoinHunter more ammo for martyrdom argument.

Hey now, there's some common ground between Luke-Jr and CoinHunter... they both have a persecution complex.

Firstly the source code to SolidCoin was released and it's a free project. There are no damages to be rewarded for misplacing an updated license.txt on a free open source project.

Secondly Github was taken down with NO investigation. That is the DMCA some of you idiots here are acting like a good thing. The only way to "Shut github up" would be to file a counterclaim but given their 10 day lack of reply to emails and unprofessional "just take it down without care" attitude we decided to move onto a different repository.

There is no successful DMCA against SolidCoin, the source code and binaries are being distributed. So let's just get that fact straight. This censoring troll Luke-Jr only managed to get this claim on Github in the state it is because he knows the people there and also the unprofessional way Github act.

Luke-Jr is going to be prosecuted soon enough for his fake DMCA claims as he has perjured himself.

The problem isn't so much that Coinhunter left out the MIT license. The problem is he replaced the MIT license with his own proprietary license. Coinhunters license claimed he had the right to prevent anyone he wished from using the code is in both Solidcoin and Bitcoin. That includes everyone running a bitcoin client.

If uncontested, Coinhunter could try to assert that right in court or via DMCA. That was the problem. Now it isn't.


I have copies of solidcoin code (downloaded from GitHub) that have had the MIT licenses removed. I have copies of the bitcoin code with the MIT licenses in place. The former occurred after the latter. The courts can obtain the same thing I have via subpoena.

Dude, you are by far the worst PR rep imaginable.

A wise man knows when to cut his losses (time, money, reputation, etc.).  I suggest you do the same.  Nobody wants your dumb SolidCoin.

Yeah it doesn't really matter about "what you think the truth is" . We have the DMCA claims from Luke-Jr and he has perjured himself.

You should really see the way he tries to beg people in countries where DMCA isn't relevant to "listen to him" . It's quite sad how he wants DMCA/SOPA installed around the world. People like him are the reason for the increasingly sad state of the world.

Wait a second here... wasn't CH/RS banned from this forum? Didn't we have to wade through pages of the sorrowful tale of this copyright infringing, piss-poor code stealing, mouth-breathing troglodyte whining about how unfair that was?

Listen up you sniveling little bitch...

You broke the rules. Whether or not you changed it back, or shifted your code repository to another country what you did violated the terms of the license and was theft. That repulsive little slug luke-jr. has the right to bring a DMCA action against you, he did, you lost and got spanked.

Crying horseshit little tunes about perjury, libel or slander is just about the most infantile form of online discourse imaginable. You are fucking half-wit rip-off artist living in Australia. Luke the cunt got your US based site pulled down under US law. You shifted your site to Germany, and changed the offending sections of the code after the fact. Where are going to bring a cause of action against luke? Outer Fucking Mongolia? Stop acting the fool, and just go back to playing with your ShortBusCoin, and scamming your adoring throng of four or five love slaves. Nobody here gives a damn about your trials and troubles, nobody here would care if Soviet space debris fell on your mom's house and crushed you in the basement.

DMCA is relevant in both the US and Australia which is where all the parties involved (Luke, Github, and Coinhunter) reside.
You violated the license terms. You were warned numerous times. You had the side effects explained to you by numerous people. You chose to ignore the warnings and explanations, instead favoring your own interpretation. Now you have no Github project. You might pursue this in the courts, but you have not done so in spite of having 20 days in which to file.

P.S. I can also read the DMCA takedown notice. It is posted at https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2012-01-09-bitcoin.markdown (https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2012-01-09-bitcoin.markdown). There is no perjury evident.

Could you be even more emotional? Control yourself. :)

In regards to Luke-Jr, please take a look here :-

http://solidcoin.info/faq.php



SolidCoin people realized that we would not only need to solve problems relating to technical aspects (51% attacks etc) but we need protection against people like Luke-Jr legally. So the CPF can hire a US lawyer and prosecute him with no cost to any individual user.

Something is only theft when you physically remove the original item. http://pastehtml.com/view/bllpf04jv.html I accidentally SONY's back catalogue. And fuck anyone who uses GUNS to get what they want I mean lets get down to brass tacks here....

No, the SolidCoin license is non-free. Free software means the freedom to run, study, modify, and distribute (even for a fee).

I can certainly argue there are damages for running a business built on my code without proper attribution.

No, there was investigation. I did the investigating. GitHub and Linode also verified the infringing materials were on your website.
You mean you're too scared to file a counterclaim because it would 1) give me access to your legal name and address so I can file formal legal charges against you, and 2) expose you to criminal prosecution for perjury (the counterclaim is required to state you are not infringing under penalty of perjury, and you are infringing).

No, the DMCA takedowns were successful in the case of both GitHub and Linode (your former webhost). You've just managed to run away from the law by moving to German servers outside the DMCA jurisdiction.

No, my DMCA takedown notice is 100% factual. Any attempt to go after me will be your own undoing (as in, you'll probably end up with real jail time).

You can give ISPs in Germany a DMCA notice about infringing code. They are not required to honor them, but if the investigation is trivial (as it should be in this case) they sometimes comply. You can also file a lawsuit about it in Germany and the ISP will take you seriously. You can go after the domain name solidcointalk.org since it is being used to host infringing content. You can subpoena the registrar for who owns the domain in order to make them a party to the lawsuit (thereby obtaining the entity behind Solidcoin).

They ignored it, and apparently forwarded it to RS.

Not without SOPA I think?

No Bitcoin is not free because it doesn't allow me to not include a copyright text and because I say so. So there mr smarty pants!


Haha, tell the judge this.


No we did that for the lols and because we dislike the DMCA. People wanted to file a counterclaim and take you to court already out of their own pocket... but there's better ways to do this and we are still collecting information on you and your business dealings with MtGox/Tibanne and what participation they had in this.


No it's you facing serious jail time for using the DMCA on something you do not own and have no claim over. Shouldn't have perjured yourself there bro. Thanks for generally being an unlikeable person too because we are getting plenty of support for this.

Ban for trolling? Attheveryleast?

You were unaware that Luke-jr contributed code to Bitcoin as far back as June 2011 (perhaps earlier, I didn't look much further)? Interesting.
Still haven't mentioned which part of the take-down notice was incorrect? Interesting.
You still haven't posted the MIT license in the bitcoin source files (I know its a lot of cutting and pasting). Interesting.
All you have done is acknowledged in your own license.txt that "some parts of SolidCoin are based on the MIT licensed source code by Bitcoin", which is an admission of guilt. Interesting.

Until you can implement the simplest license in the software world, I have to believe you are simply not capable of implementing a cryptocurrency (which is why you had to use Bitcoin code in the first place).

someone pay the man  ;D

Giving thought to a narcissistic attention whore with delusions of grandeur is counter productive.

What you don't seem to understand is that the MIT license doesn't even require you to share the source.  ::)  You just need to include the original license....

Ah, we're making progress already finally about that copyright text. Might want to have a read at the reason why (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyMustIInclude) the copyright text has to be included.

Holy shit. You need to work on your PR, because you're turning several previously neutral parties against you with this sort of drivel.

Several? Neutral? Exactly who is neutral about this or his crappy bitcoin ripoff?

He's obviously attention starved, quit giving it to him.

Legit source for this? IMHO: DMCA is a bad thing in most situations, but luke-jr didn't use it in a bad/abusive way.


+1

DMCA is poorly implemented. It has guilty until proven innocent issues.
The need behind the law is sound (having a way to notify websites they are hosting infringing content).

In this case, having Coinhunter plagiarize code and then try to lock that code up with a restrictive license was simply beyond the pale.

I would have preferred a much better tool than DMCA. However, DMCA is what we have to work with. We don't have that "better tool". Innocent-until-proven-guilty doesn't stop the police from arresting a suspect before trial. I see DMCA (and potential better tools) as the same thing. The only difference here is that RealSolid is avoiding the trial by running.

No, I didn't say that. You're implying that. It's also bad, when it doesn't affect me depending on it's usage (e.g. music I don't like, but other people do). In this situation it wasn't bad, because it wasn't a big company trying to make more money using DMCA as usual. It was the average guy. The open source license was easy to read and understand and was clearly violated. And if open-source did not work, there wouldn't be a project like Bitcoin or other stuff based on it.


I'm not sure about the legal situation in the US, but I think you & RealSolid don't want to go to a court to resolve this.

Honestly, I would prefer a resolution without involving the courts, but I'm not going to rule it out entirely either. When/if we manage to get RealSolid's address, we can see if the community wants to sponsor the lawyer costs to defend Bitcoin from SC.

If Luke-Jr and Coinhunter showed up to court to fight this...

They would get laughed out of the building...

For good reasons..

Errr.... courts on TV != courts IRL

case DISMISSED LOL!

In the long run that would be the end result yeah. But not simply because of the subject matter, It'd be more of a "he says she says" With CH slapping the MIT lincense on at the Last second and covering his ass

You can't just start complying after the fact. If you violate it, you've violated it.

You would have a better chance taking RS down for scamming LOL.

LET ME NOT GIVE YOU ANY IDEAS...  :D

Well, the MIT license doesn't have a termination clause, like the GPL does, so coming into compliance is pretty much all that needs to happen.

RealSolid did not comply with the conditions, so his permission is not granted. Complying with them now does not undo the fact that he did not comply.

But being in compliance now pretty much makes the previous releases moot. That's really all you can hope for with an MIT license.

No, because under Copyright Law he needs permission from the copyright holders. He did not comply with the terms, so he did not get that permission. He doesn't suddenly get that permission automatically just because he might comply now (note: he isn't still).

BTC already did that with P2Pool. I wonder how long before Coinhunter strips the license text from the p2pool and passes it off as his own work.  ::)

Not under the law.  The infringement still occurred.  Just becoming complaint doesn't undo the actions of the past.   Becoming compliant is a good thing it prevents further infringement from occurring but the bad action this exists and always will exist.

And even if in your delusion there was an offense you need to be able to say there was clear damage caused by it. And in this case what is that? Do you ever go on to the next stage of your thinking or do you just stop at "he committed an offense". "Yes judge, the free SolidCoin caused damages to me by.... by... um.... yeah.... it's the vibe of it really".

Secondly even if an infringement "occurred" in the delusion there is nothing stopping me from giving my permission for my source to a different group, and them claiming my code along with their new license of whatever MIT project they want. In this case "the solidcoin developers". "RealSolid" the fictionary character may have committed some $0 damage offense in your mind but nothing is stopping him from easily allowing his code to be used by someone else, bundling that with Bitcoin and therefore boom, new licenses all around for everyone to have fun with. Keep checking your mail lukey, btw.

I am not Luke and I never said taking a bankrupt control freak programmer living in his mother's basement to court was viable or economical.

Your little rant aside nothing I said was incorrect.  Infrignement occured, future "good acts" don't have any bearing under the law on the "bad act" which has already occured.

BTW I have stated since the beginning that the MIT license allows proprietary closed source derivative works.  Even when others said you "couldn't do that".  You are just obligated to keep copyright and MIT license.  Something you willfully didn't do even when others pointed it out because you ego couldn't handle the idea of you giving due credit where it was deserved.

You are a small small man.   Don't bother responding. I won't see it.

With a big big Napoleon Complex.

Much as I find it repugnant to side with luke on anything... the damages are clear enough in this one... even at the laughable value of ShortBusCoin a multimillion coin pre-mine is value. Therefore the offending act has already occurred, the code that was mis-used has been implemented to his benefit and has established a network of accessory nodes that are complicit in the violation.

And CH/RS/Douchebag has clearly established too many times to count who he and his many sock-puppets are. Hiding beyond the "it's an imaginary character, Iron Man raped those kids" line of bullshit won't protect him.

But then looking at what an utter fucking goofball he is, he won't fix it or do it right even if ordered to by a court of law... CH/RS/Douchebag's ego would never permit him to actually do the ethical thing when it is contrary to his noblese oblige approach to world domination.