-- Miner's Official Coin LAUNCH - NUGGETS (NUGS) --

[Vlad2Vlad]

He's my little brother's childhood friend.  I've known him for 25 years.  He didn't have to tell me anything I jut haven talked to him in years and my bro I was telling him how I need a programmer and he said. Dude, Seidel, he's getting his PhD he's a mad hacker, he can do anything.

Let's sum up

You neighbour is:

• working with fed agencies like NASA, FBI, etc
• so secret that he can't be named
• an original bitcoin client dev
• your little brother's childhood friend
• getting his PhD now but you know him for 25years

Stupid.

My younger bro is 9 years younger than me. The pHD guy is 32.

Yea, weird he's he's finishing his phd at 32.  Really weird.  Do you stop for a moment to think before you shit from your mouth.

And he's not a secret agent.  Everyone knows he does contract work for everyone.  His name is not a secret.

His name just wants to be kept secret from trolls and idiots like you.  You know, pretend you knew something or were educated, and you get paid mad money and you get called in to the NSA one day for a 2 week contract Job and they do a search on you to make sure you're kosher and whoops, there's all this sketchy odd talk about you on some shit site by some shitbag trolls.  Kinda ruins things for you  (withiut totsl trust you dont get jobs at places like tje CIA OR NASA, erc, does snowden ring a bell) when you're supposed to be a pHD scientist your rep has to be gold, he can't be caught dead on shit sites like this where people think its normal to core to steal the property of other people.   

You do get that, right.  You can't be so stupid that I have to spell it out for you even more than that.

I'm out of here.  The stupidity is too much. 

[Vlad2Vlad]

Does anybody here actually live in Amercica or is everyone here really so stupid and hateful that you don't know what theft by majority vote is?

Democracy?

Lol, now you're talking about elections.  And I don't live in Florida.  Ha , good one.  Ok, we've got 1 smart American here.

Are the rest of you like French or Brits?  Seriously cause the stuff you think is ok is shocking.



Good night.

[jackjack]

His name is not a secret.

Then tell us who he is
All the bitcoin client devs have published their names anyway so we already know him

I'm out of here.

Deal

[mistercoin]

I'm going to bed.  r3 should probably start moving, preferably, Mexico.

Pump and dumper of the year.  Darwin Award of the year.  Sshhasssa.

I just remembered he offered to buy this coin off me the first day.

He saw something on this coin he liked.

What?  I told him it wasn't for sale?  Why would he wanna buy this coin when it was failing?

Can't any of you see what this idiot is seeing so badly that he's willing to go to prison for it?  

Down syndrome or Assburgers? Which were you burdened with you poor child

[DeathAndTaxes]

Hey VLAD you don't have any legal authority to restrict changes made to "NUG".  "You" (and I use that loosely) released it under the MIT license.  Since I am sure you haven't read it, here is a copy

https://github.com/nuggets-project/nuggets/blob/master/COPYING

Copyright (c) 2009-2012 Bitcoin Developers
Copyright (c) 2011-2012 Litecoin Developers
Copyright (c) 2013 Nuggets Developers

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.

You gave legal permission to everyone on the planet to "modify and publish copies" of NUG.  This permission is binding and irrevocable.  You have no legal authority to restrict anyone's access to the source code, or prevent them from making changes you don't like.  In the future you may want to learn among a list of other things about open source licensing before "developing" anything.

Free software man, as in free speech not free beer.  Any costs you may have incurred have no bearing on the license and don't give you any legal standing to sue anyone for anything.  How about you ask your super hacker genius Bitcoin developer to make some calls to the FBI or NSA.  They likely can get you up to speed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_license
http://opensource.org/licenses

[PerfectAgent]

I just ask that whoever's holding the github repo to not delete it! This is too rich!

Also, Vlad, you don't own this coin like you think, just like how the Bitcoin devs don't own Bitcoin. You've shown a lack of knowledge of how open source and cryptocurrencies work, sexism, insanity, incompetence, (if your story is to be believed) horrible money management, and a short fuse. Don't you get it? The fact that you explode and go into an insane rant every time someone points out a flaw in "your" coin or your knowledge of cryptocurrency in general is the only thing keeping this thread alive. That is the only reason your thread is active when you come back. People love the free entertainment, and hey, I love all this drama!

[Balthazar]

PerfectAgent

Actually BTC developer (Satoshi) owns this code. As an author of original code, he has a permission to re-license it under proprietary license in any moment, if all 3rd-party commits will be removed or commiters will accept this decision. But he can't restrict access to already published copies.

[PerfectAgent]

Imagine Tommy Wiseau saying this. 

PerfectAgent

Actually BTC developer (Satoshi) owns this code. As an author of original code, he has a permission to re-license it under proprietary license in any moment, if all 3rd-party commits will be removed or commiters will accept this decision. But he can't restrict access to already published copies.

Interesting, so if that were to happen all the work that everybody else has done on it would be removed from this "new" Satoshi version, while people can keep modifying the old one? I'm learning!

[Balthazar]

Removal of non-satoshi's work isn't a neccessary condition. It could be included into new version, if authors will accept the new license. But I don't think that they will accept proprietary license. So, Satoshi will be enforced to replace all 3rd-party code with the new, his own code with identical functionality. Otherwise the proprietary version will be dead because of incompatibility with the main chain.

[PerfectAgent]

Woah, so if Satoshi would go in this direction, would the extant version need to be done away with (legally anyway)?

Not at all implying that he would, anyway, just wondering.

[jackjack]

Definitely better than any movie

[DeathAndTaxes]

Woah, so if Satoshi would go in this direction, would the extant version need to be done away with (legally anyway)?  Not at all implying that he would, anyway, just wondering.

No Balthazar is playing academic semantic games.

The code was released under MIT license.  Satoshi has no control over either the original copies (unmodified copies of the code he released), or derived copies (improvements to Bitcoin protocol, altcoins, etc).  None.

Just to try and confuse the point Balthazar is saying that IF Satoshi could convince every single person who has a modified copy of the source code to delete it (not just Gavin, or every developer, but every single human on the planet who has a copy), and not just every original copy but every derivative copy as well (all the improvements to Bitcoin, all the alt-coins, etc) then he could modify his copy (the only remaining copy) and release it under a different license.

Essentially an asinine scenario which was pointless to even bring up other than to confuse the fact.  It would be like saying if I found every single copy of Shakespeare's works and destroyed them.  Literally every single copy, everywhere in the world, not a single tattered copy in a bookstore, not any copy on a publishers computer, no ebooks.  Litterally every single copy destroyed except the copy I own.  I could then modify the copyright page and release his works as my own. How would anyone prove that I didn't write it.   Of course that is such a stupid asinine scenario nobody discusses that when covering what a copyright means.

If you download a copy of Bitcoin (or any open source project) you have a right to keep it, modify it, distribute it, publish it, etc.  Just like the MIT license says in plain english.

... Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software ... to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software,

Nobody can take that right away.  Nobody. Obviously like any other right you can voluntarily give up your right but it can't be taken from you.

[Balthazar]

Woah, so if Satoshi would go in this direction, would the extant version need to be done away with (legally anyway)?

All changes could be enforced only for the hipothetical future versions by Satoshi. But Satoshi can't force anyone to use his version only. So, the old-licensed fork will be started.

[Balthazar]

DeathAndTaxes

Nobody can take that right away.  Nobody. Obviously like any other right you can voluntarily give up your right but it can't be taken from you.

It seems that you haven't read message properly. You are correct with that, but it's correct for existent copies only. If you have a copy, you have all rights and can redistribute this rights as well. But future version could be published under non-MIT proprietary license if all authors will accept this. This is the reason why companies like Oracle requires all copyrights removal when accepting patches to mysql or another projects.
 

[DeathAndTaxes]

It seems that you haven't read message properly. You are correct with that, but it's correct for existent copies only. If you have a copy, you have all rights and can redistribute this rights as well. But future version could be published under non-MIT proprietary license if all authors will accept this. It's correct for any license, and there are many examples of previously opensource project which came proprietary.

I read it perfectly.  Sure future derived version of the Bitcoin software could be released under a more restrictive license (only because MIT lacks a "copyleft" provision).  That doesn't make existing copies "go away" and it doesn't require anyone to use the new version. It is a non-issue.  

[hotcoldcoin]

Let's get back on topic here, shall we?

github readme changed again:

I here present you my new innovative coin: Nuggets.

I plan to make it the most used altcoin ever. I know a hacked pre-release version has been spread on a forum. Don't use it as it may harm your system.

The final client will be soon released. I will put a link here to compiled clients.

Until then, post your suggestions in the Nuggets thread. I will not answer but I will take them into account.

I do not have Windows so that would be great if a person builds a binary each time a new version comes.

Important: 0 premine.

"innovative"   hahahaha

[jackjack]

Let's get back on topic here, shall we?

github readme changed again:

I here present you my new innovative coin: Nuggets.

I plan to make it the most used altcoin ever. I know a hacked pre-release version has been spread on a forum. Don't use it as it may harm your system.

The final client will be soon released. I will put a link here to compiled clients.

Until then, post your suggestions in the Nuggets thread. I will not answer but I will take them into account.

I do not have Windows so that would be great if a person builds a binary each time a new version comes.

Important: 0 premine.

"innovative"   hahahaha

Lol

[HuuHachu]

Let's get back on topic here, shall we?

github readme changed again:

I here present you my new innovative coin: Nuggets.

I plan to make it the most used altcoin ever. I know a hacked pre-release version has been spread on a forum. Don't use it as it may harm your system.

The final client will be soon released. I will put a link here to compiled clients.

Until then, post your suggestions in the Nuggets thread. I will not answer but I will take them into account.

I do not have Windows so that would be great if a person builds a binary each time a new version comes.

Important: 0 premine.

"innovative"   hahahaha

Well ... at least very innovative in the way it is launched ^^

[Balthazar]

only because MIT lacks a "copyleft" provision

It's correct for any license, even for AGPL. If you are not an author, then you can't release copyleft code under restrictive license. But if you are author, then copyleft don't affect you and you can release the new versions under any license whatever you like. That's why oracle has all rights to release commersial versions of mysql, for example.

With MIT situation will be different... It has no copyleft, so you are able to release it under restrictive license even if you are not Satoshi, but you can't do anything with copyright messages in application

[DeathAndTaxes]

only because MIT lacks a "copyleft" provision

It's correct for any license, even for AGPL. If you are not an author, then you can't release copyleft code under restrictive license. But if you are author, then copyleft don't affect you and you can release the new versions under any license whatever you like. That's why oracle has all rights to release commersial versions of mysql, for example.

With MIT situation will be different... It has no copyleft, so you are able to release it under restrictive license even if you are not Satoshi, but you can't do anything with copyright messages in application

No that is not correct.  copyleft REQUIRES all future derived works to be licensed under a copyleft license.

Oracle uses a concept called dual licensing under which they release new versions under the copyleft license (to meet the requirement of the copyleft license) AND simultaneously release the software under a commercial license.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_license

What is "copyleft"? Is it the same as "open source"?
"Copyleft" refers to licenses that allow derivative works but require them to use the same license as the original work. For example, if you write some software and release it under the GNU General Public License (a widely-used copyleft license), and then someone else modifies that software and distributes their modified version, the modified version must be licensed under the GNU GPL too — including any new code written specifically to go into the modified version. Both the original and the new work are Open Source; the copyleft license simply ensures that property is perpetuated to all downstream derivatives. (There is at least one copyleft license, the Affero GPL, that even requires you to offer the source code, under the AGPL, to anyone to whom you make the software's functionality available as a network service — however, most copyleft licenses activate their share-and-share-alike requirement on distribution of a copy of the software itself. You should read the license to understand its requirements for source code distribution.)

Most copyleft licenses are Open Source, but not all Open Source licenses are copyleft. When an Open Source license is not copyleft, that means software released under that license can be used as part of programs distributed under other licenses, including proprietary (non-open-source) licenses. For example, the BSD license [and MIT license] is a non-copyleft Open Source license. Such licenses are usually called either "non-copyleft" or "permissive" open source licenses

Copyleft provisions apply only to actual derivatives, that is, cases where an existing copylefted work was modified. Merely distributing a copyleft work alongside a non-copyleft work does not cause the latter to fall under the copyleft terms.

What is a "permissive" Open Source license?
A "permissive" license is simply a non-copyleft open source license — one that guarantees the freedoms to use, modify, and redistribute, but that permits proprietary derivative works. See the copyleft entry for more information.

http://opensource.org/faq#copyleft