|
bloods-n-cryptos (OP)
|
 |
January 30, 2014, 06:24:01 AM |
|
Hold up there legal eagle. You wouldn't be misrepresenting the law just to win a silly online argument would you? To make sure we are on the same page, are you arguing that because some courts have recognized Bitcoin but made no mention of other Bitcoins, that use of the name Bitcoin by anyone but the official Bitcoin is illegal and will lead to liability in court? Keep in mind that fraudulently misrepresenting oneself to be "Bitcoin SHA256" is an entirely different matter than representing oneself to be "Bitcoin Prime" or "Bitcoin Scrypt" or "Bitcoin SHA512." Are you claiming that the latter is illegal and would lead to liability in court because of the unnamed cases you allude to? If so, it's obvious you do not fully appreciate the MIT/X11 license attached to the original Bitcoin so I have included it below (with emphasis added): http://opensource.org/licenses/MITThe MIT License (MIT)
Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
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. Thus, if another cryptocoin modifies the original Bitcoin source-code and represents itself as "Bitcoin Scrypt" or "Bitcoin Prime" or "Bitcoin SHA512" they have a legal license to do so, so long as the modified Bitcoin source-code includes this MIT/X11 notice and they do not restrict others from doing the same. Do you disagree with this statement?How about the converse? Could it be argued that the current successors to Satoshi's original Bitcoin source-code do not own the source-code, but rather, have a license to use the source-code so long as they allow others, "without restriction, including without limitation" to freely use, modify and distribute it? The million dollar question then becomes: Would the successors to the original Bitcoin lose their license to use the original Bitcoin source-code if they placed restrictions or limitations on anyone else's ability to freely use, modify or distribute a modified version of Satoshi's Bitcoin source-code, as per the MIT/X11 license?Taking this to its logical extreme, because the original Bitcoin client is licensed under the MIT/X11 regime and is not purely public domain, I would argue that you, anti-scam, as a licensee of the original Bitcoin would lose said license to use the Bitcoin client by taking any actions intended to limit or restrict someone else's ability to freely use, modify or distribute a modified version of the Bitcoin source-code meeting the MIT/X11 notice requirements.  <Head explodes in 3...2...1...> Finally, to prove me legally and factually incorrect, I challenge you to cite the cases for which you base your argument. Otherwise, you are being dishonest and simply misrepresenting the law to win an online argument, truth-be-damned. I've backed up everyone one of my assertions in this thread with independently verifiable facts and conceded where I was wrong. Are you honest enough to do the same? For somebody who claims to be so well-versed in law, I don't think you understand that a software license is not the law. If I make a software license that entitles me to your first born child's kidney for use of the software then that would not be enforceable. Similarly a software license cannot permit its licensees to commit fraud. Bitcoin is not merely a piece of software, but a particular monetary asset. If you were to advertise anything using the common name of this particular monetary asset, claiming it to be this particular monetary asset or an equivalent of it, and then provide something that is not like it at all in that is not accepted as a valid substitute for the original thing, then that is fraud. "Bitcoin" scrypt would there not be legally recognized as Bitcoin in any court of law. As for my source, have a look at the pirate case. No ideas about alternate Bitcoins have come up. If the legality of "Bitcoin SHA-256" is in question as the only Bitcoin implied when people say the word "Bitcoin" then why doesn't Mr. Shavers offer to pay his victims millions of "Bitcoin" scrypt and solve the whole issue? That's because they're not Bitcoin. That's the point you seem to be missing. Intellectual property laws don't necessarily have to do with fraud. If I were selling horse meat as beef then I'd be investigated even though nobody can trademark the word beef. Saying that "Bitcoin" scrypt is Bitcoin is the same. If you feel so confident in your claim then I assume that you should be more than ready to make tons of cash by offering "Bitcoin" for sale (with no need to specify the hashing algorithm, since the idea of there being only one Bitcoin is a legal fiction) for real dollars and giving people easily mined "Bitcoin" scrypt. If you refuse such an easy money-making opportunity then we can only conclude that you recognize its fraudulence and therefore the fraudulence of your claim. anti-scam, If you refuse to back up your bald-faced assertions with actual law or cases, then I refuse to acknowledge your posts. |
Any information provided in my posts is for educational purposes only and is not to be considered legal advice, but you already knew that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SaltySpitoon
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2590
Merit: 2154
Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?
|
|
January 30, 2014, 06:55:05 AM |
|
While I did acknowledge that there should be difference between trademark/copyright law and what would apply to Bitcoin, no I had not heard of that case as I am not a lawyer nor have I ever studied the law (other than to learn the lingo to win approval of a woman's father, but thats another story). But something does not sound right about your claim. If I was to change the Bitcoin code, and then redistribute it as allowed under an open source license, that would require essentially a 51% attack to successfully change the existing Bitcoin protocol. I don't see how there could be more than one official Bitcoin at any given time. If your fork was accepted and went through, that would then be Bitcoin and the old fork would not.
Maybe I'm not thinking of this the right way, but I cant put into logic how there could be two completely identical but seperate entities. If we define Bitcoin by its genesis block or blockchain surely there is no other way there could be another Bitcoin. If someone sues you for the theft of 10 Bitcoins, you couldn't make your own Bitcoin fork and send them your own 10 Bitcoins, as the network wouldn't accept it and your legal obligation wouldn't be fulfilled.
At this point, this more appropriate belongs in Bitcoin Discussion, however I am intrigued. If there is something I'm not understanding, I'd like to learn it, but I can't comprehend how what you are saying would make any sort of physical sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bloods-n-cryptos (OP)
|
|
January 30, 2014, 07:10:53 AM
Last edit: January 30, 2014, 07:23:02 AM by bloods-n-cryptos |
|
While I did acknowledge that there should be difference between trademark/copyright law and what would apply to Bitcoin, no I had not heard of that case as I am not a lawyer nor have I ever studied the law (other than to learn the lingo to win approval of a woman's father, but thats another story). But something does not sound right about your claim. If I was to change the Bitcoin code, and then redistribute it as allowed under an open source license, that would require essentially a 51% attack to successfully change the existing Bitcoin protocol. I don't see how there could be more than one official Bitcoin at any given time. If your fork was accepted and went through, that would then be Bitcoin and the old fork would not.
Maybe I'm not thinking of this the right way, but I cant put into logic how there could be two completely identical but seperate entities. If we define Bitcoin by its genesis block or blockchain surely there is no other way there could be another Bitcoin. If someone sues you for the theft of 10 Bitcoins, you couldn't make your own Bitcoin fork and send them your own 10 Bitcoins, as the network wouldn't accept it and your legal obligation wouldn't be fulfilled.
At this point, this more appropriate belongs in Bitcoin Discussion, however I am intrigued. If there is something I'm not understanding, I'd like to learn it, but I can't comprehend how what you are saying would make any sort of physical sense.
That's fair especially considering the disruptive nature of Bitcoin technology in general. Satoshi, whether by design or not, did not attempt to trademark Bitcoin, even though he could have. Maybe clarity lies in appreciating the distinction between the Bitcoin protocol and the Bitcoin block-chain. Specifically, no matter whether any coin uses the Bitcoin protocol, there is only one original Bitcoin blockchain (original Bitcoin, main Bitcoin, legacy Bitcoin, Bitcoin SHA256, whatever). Any other blockchains using the Bitcoin protocol are different and distinct from each other regardless of what they call themselves and should have a duty to ensure no confusion between blockchains ( e.g., Bitcoin Scrypt referring to itself as simply Bitcoin would be a problem while properly distinguishing itself from the original Bitcoin would not). And I do appreciate debating someone who is at least trying to be fair, even if I disagree with some of your content. Respect. |
Any information provided in my posts is for educational purposes only and is not to be considered legal advice, but you already knew that.
|
|
|
GreenWins
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
January 30, 2014, 07:41:26 AM |
|
If removing giveaway threads from a specific subforum on a sole site is all it takes to significantly effect the value of an Alt Coin, my advice is not to invest in it.
Ouch! Now we can finally see real improvement in alt coins developments. I'm so glad the giveaway phase is finally over. |
|
|
|
anti-scam
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 476
Merit: 251
COINECT
|
|
January 30, 2014, 08:53:38 AM |
|
Hold up there legal eagle. You wouldn't be misrepresenting the law just to win a silly online argument would you? To make sure we are on the same page, are you arguing that because some courts have recognized Bitcoin but made no mention of other Bitcoins, that use of the name Bitcoin by anyone but the official Bitcoin is illegal and will lead to liability in court? Keep in mind that fraudulently misrepresenting oneself to be "Bitcoin SHA256" is an entirely different matter than representing oneself to be "Bitcoin Prime" or "Bitcoin Scrypt" or "Bitcoin SHA512." Are you claiming that the latter is illegal and would lead to liability in court because of the unnamed cases you allude to? If so, it's obvious you do not fully appreciate the MIT/X11 license attached to the original Bitcoin so I have included it below (with emphasis added): http://opensource.org/licenses/MITThe MIT License (MIT)
Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
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. Thus, if another cryptocoin modifies the original Bitcoin source-code and represents itself as "Bitcoin Scrypt" or "Bitcoin Prime" or "Bitcoin SHA512" they have a legal license to do so, so long as the modified Bitcoin source-code includes this MIT/X11 notice and they do not restrict others from doing the same. Do you disagree with this statement?How about the converse? Could it be argued that the current successors to Satoshi's original Bitcoin source-code do not own the source-code, but rather, have a license to use the source-code so long as they allow others, "without restriction, including without limitation" to freely use, modify and distribute it? The million dollar question then becomes: Would the successors to the original Bitcoin lose their license to use the original Bitcoin source-code if they placed restrictions or limitations on anyone else's ability to freely use, modify or distribute a modified version of Satoshi's Bitcoin source-code, as per the MIT/X11 license?Taking this to its logical extreme, because the original Bitcoin client is licensed under the MIT/X11 regime and is not purely public domain, I would argue that you, anti-scam, as a licensee of the original Bitcoin would lose said license to use the Bitcoin client by taking any actions intended to limit or restrict someone else's ability to freely use, modify or distribute a modified version of the Bitcoin source-code meeting the MIT/X11 notice requirements. <Head explodes in 3...2...1...> Finally, to prove me legally and factually incorrect, I challenge you to cite the cases for which you base your argument. Otherwise, you are being dishonest and simply misrepresenting the law to win an online argument, truth-be-damned. I've backed up everyone one of my assertions in this thread with independently verifiable facts and conceded where I was wrong. Are you honest enough to do the same? For somebody who claims to be so well-versed in law, I don't think you understand that a software license is not the law. If I make a software license that entitles me to your first born child's kidney for use of the software then that would not be enforceable. Similarly a software license cannot permit its licensees to commit fraud. Bitcoin is not merely a piece of software, but a particular monetary asset. If you were to advertise anything using the common name of this particular monetary asset, claiming it to be this particular monetary asset or an equivalent of it, and then provide something that is not like it at all in that is not accepted as a valid substitute for the original thing, then that is fraud. "Bitcoin" scrypt would there not be legally recognized as Bitcoin in any court of law. As for my source, have a look at the pirate case. No ideas about alternate Bitcoins have come up. If the legality of "Bitcoin SHA-256" is in question as the only Bitcoin implied when people say the word "Bitcoin" then why doesn't Mr. Shavers offer to pay his victims millions of "Bitcoin" scrypt and solve the whole issue? That's because they're not Bitcoin. That's the point you seem to be missing. Intellectual property laws don't necessarily have to do with fraud. If I were selling horse meat as beef then I'd be investigated even though nobody can trademark the word beef. Saying that "Bitcoin" scrypt is Bitcoin is the same. If you feel so confident in your claim then I assume that you should be more than ready to make tons of cash by offering "Bitcoin" for sale (with no need to specify the hashing algorithm, since the idea of there being only one Bitcoin is a legal fiction) for real dollars and giving people easily mined "Bitcoin" scrypt. If you refuse such an easy money-making opportunity then we can only conclude that you recognize its fraudulence and therefore the fraudulence of your claim. anti-scam, If you refuse to back up your bald-faced assertions with actual law or cases, then I refuse to acknowledge your posts. You haven't heard of the pirate case? |
|
|
|
|
e4xit
|
|
January 30, 2014, 11:02:13 AM |
|
Hold up there legal eagle. You wouldn't be misrepresenting the law just to win a silly online argument would you? To make sure we are on the same page, are you arguing that because some courts have recognized Bitcoin but made no mention of other Bitcoins, that use of the name Bitcoin by anyone but the official Bitcoin is illegal and will lead to liability in court? Keep in mind that fraudulently misrepresenting oneself to be "Bitcoin SHA256" is an entirely different matter than representing oneself to be "Bitcoin Prime" or "Bitcoin Scrypt" or "Bitcoin SHA512." Are you claiming that the latter is illegal and would lead to liability in court because of the unnamed cases you allude to? If so, it's obvious you do not fully appreciate the MIT/X11 license attached to the original Bitcoin so I have included it below (with emphasis added): http://opensource.org/licenses/MITThe MIT License (MIT)
Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
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. Thus, if another cryptocoin modifies the original Bitcoin source-code and represents itself as "Bitcoin Scrypt" or "Bitcoin Prime" or "Bitcoin SHA512" they have a legal license to do so, so long as the modified Bitcoin source-code includes this MIT/X11 notice and they do not restrict others from doing the same. Do you disagree with this statement?How about the converse? Could it be argued that the current successors to Satoshi's original Bitcoin source-code do not own the source-code, but rather, have a license to use the source-code so long as they allow others, "without restriction, including without limitation" to freely use, modify and distribute it? The million dollar question then becomes: Would the successors to the original Bitcoin lose their license to use the original Bitcoin source-code if they placed restrictions or limitations on anyone else's ability to freely use, modify or distribute a modified version of Satoshi's Bitcoin source-code, as per the MIT/X11 license?Taking this to its logical extreme, because the original Bitcoin client is licensed under the MIT/X11 regime and is not purely public domain, I would argue that you, anti-scam, as a licensee of the original Bitcoin would lose said license to use the Bitcoin client by taking any actions intended to limit or restrict someone else's ability to freely use, modify or distribute a modified version of the Bitcoin source-code meeting the MIT/X11 notice requirements. <Head explodes in 3...2...1...> Finally, to prove me legally and factually incorrect, I challenge you to cite the cases for which you base your argument. Otherwise, you are being dishonest and simply misrepresenting the law to win an online argument, truth-be-damned. I've backed up everyone one of my assertions in this thread with independently verifiable facts and conceded where I was wrong. Are you honest enough to do the same? For somebody who claims to be so well-versed in law, I don't think you understand that a software license is not the law. If I make a software license that entitles me to your first born child's kidney for use of the software then that would not be enforceable. Similarly a software license cannot permit its licensees to commit fraud. Bitcoin is not merely a piece of software, but a particular monetary asset. If you were to advertise anything using the common name of this particular monetary asset, claiming it to be this particular monetary asset or an equivalent of it, and then provide something that is not like it at all in that is not accepted as a valid substitute for the original thing, then that is fraud. "Bitcoin" scrypt would there not be legally recognized as Bitcoin in any court of law. As for my source, have a look at the pirate case. No ideas about alternate Bitcoins have come up. If the legality of "Bitcoin SHA-256" is in question as the only Bitcoin implied when people say the word "Bitcoin" then why doesn't Mr. Shavers offer to pay his victims millions of "Bitcoin" scrypt and solve the whole issue? That's because they're not Bitcoin. That's the point you seem to be missing. Intellectual property laws don't necessarily have to do with fraud. If I were selling horse meat as beef then I'd be investigated even though nobody can trademark the word beef. Saying that "Bitcoin" scrypt is Bitcoin is the same. If you feel so confident in your claim then I assume that you should be more than ready to make tons of cash by offering "Bitcoin" for sale (with no need to specify the hashing algorithm, since the idea of there being only one Bitcoin is a legal fiction) for real dollars and giving people easily mined "Bitcoin" scrypt. If you refuse such an easy money-making opportunity then we can only conclude that you recognize its fraudulence and therefore the fraudulence of your claim.  |
Not your keys, not your coins.
CoinJoin, always.
|
|
|
iGotSpots
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2548
Merit: 1054
CPU Web Mining 🕸️ on webmining.io
|
|
January 30, 2014, 01:51:32 PM |
|
It's ok to be mad that Bitcoin is like the least profitable coin to mine, though. We don't mind. Go ahead and take your ball and go home, babies. Nobody cares
|
|
|
|
casascius
Mike Caldwell
VIP
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1136
The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)
|
|
January 31, 2014, 03:54:05 AM |
|
If you disagree that the forum operators are going against the spirit (if not the letter) of the MIT/X11 Open Source License, I look forward to your response.
Operating a discussion forum has nothing to do with subject matter such as software licensing. The forum is not source code or intellectual property, and its administrators and moderators have the right to administer and moderate as they see fit. It's also private property and its owners and management have the right to manage it or dispose of it as they see fit, and also have the right to define the mission and vision of the forums, to update these as needs and circumstances change, and to make administrative decisions consistent with them. I am not certain why this is even a question. The MIT/X11 Open Source License has about as much relevance here as the Book of Mormon. |
Companies claiming they got hacked and lost your coins sounds like fraud so perfect it could be called fashionable. I never believe them. If I ever experience the misfortune of a real intrusion, I declare I have been honest about the way I have managed the keys in Casascius Coins. I maintain no ability to recover or reproduce the keys, not even under limitless duress or total intrusion. Remember that trusting strangers with your coins without any recourse is, as a matter of principle, not a best practice. Don't keep coins online. Use paper or hardware wallets instead.
|
|
|
|
r3wt
|
|
January 31, 2014, 12:27:07 PM |
|
If you disagree that the forum operators are going against the spirit (if not the letter) of the MIT/X11 Open Source License, I look forward to your response.
Operating a discussion forum has nothing to do with subject matter such as software licensing. The forum is not source code or intellectual property, and its administrators and moderators have the right to administer and moderate as they see fit. It's also private property and its owners and management have the right to manage it or dispose of it as they see fit, and also have the right to define the mission and vision of the forums, to update these as needs and circumstances change, and to make administrative decisions consistent with them. I am not certain why this is even a question. The MIT/X11 Open Source License has about as much relevance here as the Book of Mormon. +1. It is the right of a webmaster to censor content on his/her website as they see fit. This is one place where freedom of speech does not apply, and most people fail to understand that. |
My negative trust rating is reflective of a personal vendetta by someone on default trust.
|
|
|
|
bloods-n-cryptos (OP)
|
|
January 31, 2014, 07:33:47 PM
Last edit: January 31, 2014, 08:04:44 PM by bloods-n-cryptos |
|
If you disagree that the forum operators are going against the spirit (if not the letter) of the MIT/X11 Open Source License, I look forward to your response.
Operating a discussion forum has nothing to do with subject matter such as software licensing. The forum is not source code or intellectual property, and its administrators and moderators have the right to administer and moderate as they see fit. It's also private property and its owners and management have the right to manage it or dispose of it as they see fit, and also have the right to define the mission and vision of the forums, to update these as needs and circumstances change, and to make administrative decisions consistent with them. I am not certain why this is even a question. The MIT/X11 Open Source License has about as much relevance here as the Book of Mormon. +1. It is the right of a webmaster to censor content on his/her website as they see fit. This is one place where freedom of speech does not apply, and most people fail to understand that. Please re-read my posts and stay on topic. Nobody ever claimed the forum wasn't permitted to censor its own content. Indeed, respect of private property rights dictates that this forum can perpetuate whatever it wants, but that doesn't change the legal reality of what can be legally considered "official" in da real world mon. The point of my post was simply that the forum perpetuates a legal falsehood that there exists an official Bitcoin in the legal sense of the word and the MIT/X11 License was cited for that point. Again, I never claimed the forum was prohibited from managing the forums how they see fit (and, personally, I don't have a problem with setting the alts free by getting rid of the alt-coins section altogether). But, whether intentional or not, responses arguing against forum censorship, rather than addressing my actual points re what can legally be considered official outside of this forum, are straw-men arguments tearing down claims I never made. For example, compare the content of SaltySpoon's and theymos' responses in this thread to both of your responses to see what I mean. |
Any information provided in my posts is for educational purposes only and is not to be considered legal advice, but you already knew that.
|
|
|
rnp
Member
Offline
Activity: 65
Merit: 10
Bullish on BitCoins
|
|
January 31, 2014, 09:31:55 PM |
|
This thread is an entertaining read. At one point I think I saw something about the idea that by limiting discussion of AltCoins, the board would be violating the license by not allowing the free distribution (or something like that). I also saw that since bitcoin forked post-satoshi, the current bitcoin is no more the original bitcoin than namecoin is (with the exception of having the same ports, etc. - Namecoin in sha256, right?) I think I have those read correctly. Here's my newbie 2¢... - Wouldn't it be up to Satoshi to enforce the license for his work? Since he probably doesn't even exist, doesn't it make it an unenforceable license? - On the bitcoin name, I definitely see your point. Of course it's like complaining about the flawed Monopoly trademark. Anyone could likely make a game and call it "Monopoly", and Hasbro would likely sue, and if you have enough $$ you'd actually likely win, as Hasbro has a demonstrably flawed trademark. As long as you create the elements of the game yourself, you couldn't really get hit under copyright either. However, Just like the Public-Domain based Make Your Own-OPOLY games, even though Monopoly-Hasbro isn't "really" THE official "Monopoly" game, it still is what people think of. On the legal side, yes, you could call ALL crypto-currencies "Bitcoin", and technically be as correct as calling Coke, Pepsi and RC all "colas" (or in the south, all "Coke" for that matter). Bitcoin could be used as generically as crypto-currency. So you could start referring to "Lite Bitcoin" and "Doge Bitcoin" but that doesn't mean everyone will. As far as "Bitcoin (Scrypt)" vs "Bitcoin (SHA-256)", I do think it's weird, and even if the addresses are the same format (so you could technically use the same one for both wallets), but not illegal unless you try to sell one for the other's going rate without specifying which wallet (although if you sell SHA-256 for the Scrypt price, I don't think you'd get sued). Any of this make sense? |
|
|
|
|
casascius
Mike Caldwell
VIP
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1136
The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)
|
|
January 31, 2014, 10:54:59 PM |
|
Please re-read my posts and stay on topic. It was unclear from OP just exactly what the topic was. The legal stuff went way over my head, possibly because I'm not a lawyer, and possibly because OP contained a lot of terms like "logically impossible", "legal fiction", and "official", used in ways that depart drastically from the meanings for these that I'm accustomed to, and in ways that seem to bear no resemblance (that I recognize) to any of law that applies to me where I live (US). Even though I'm not a lawyer, I'm a fan of understanding legal topics and feel I have a rudimentary grasp on basic legal reasoning, especially on topics that pertain to my work, such as intellectual property. Where you live, this might make legal sense, but where I live, even as a non-lawyer I feel comfortable suggesting it does not. The only sentiment I felt certain I understood clearly was the contempt displayed for the administrators and the way you purport them to (mis)manage the forums so... I hope that helps explain why I replied as I did. |
Companies claiming they got hacked and lost your coins sounds like fraud so perfect it could be called fashionable. I never believe them. If I ever experience the misfortune of a real intrusion, I declare I have been honest about the way I have managed the keys in Casascius Coins. I maintain no ability to recover or reproduce the keys, not even under limitless duress or total intrusion. Remember that trusting strangers with your coins without any recourse is, as a matter of principle, not a best practice. Don't keep coins online. Use paper or hardware wallets instead.
|
|
|
kalus
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 420
Merit: 263
let's make a deal.
|
|
February 01, 2014, 12:38:46 AM
Last edit: February 01, 2014, 05:00:03 PM by kalus |
|
but that doesn't change the legal reality of what can be legally considered "official" in da real world mon.
The point of my post was simply that the forum perpetuates a legal falsehood that there exists an official Bitcoin in the legal sense of the word and the MIT/X11 License was cited for that point. "official" in da real world maybe not, but "official" in de facto sense, yes: Bitcoin SHA-256 is de facto bitcoin. e.g. USA has no de jure 'officlal' language, but that doesn't mean you can ask for your 1040 tax form in Japanese. |
DC2ngEGbd1ZUKyj8aSzrP1W5TXs5WmPuiR wow need noms
|
|
|
|
